Chanakya neethi sanskrit to engish download pdf

Telugu Dr. Pullele Sriramachandrudu. About Chanakya Niti. In ancient India B. Samakaraya wrote in his commentary on Kamandaka's Nitisara, "Vishnugupta is the name given at the naming ceremony and Chanakya and Kautilya are connected with the birth-place and Gotra respectively.

The Gotra tribal name of Chanakya was Kutla and hence Chanakya, as a descendant of that Gotra, must be called as Kautalya. The ancient manuscripts of the Arthasastra consist of the name Kautalya. Bhandarkar opined, "for the promotion of truth and history, the name Kautilya should be discarded and Kautalya must be adopted. However, the name Chanakya is connected with the birth-place of Vishnugupta and has been popularly used by writers and readers. The ancient economist wrote two books as far as we know , the treatise called the "Arthasastra" or the Science of Economics, and the "Chanakya Niti Shastra," which laid a strong foundation years ago for the founding of one of history's greatest empires, the Mauryan Empire.

Chanakya's protege was no less than emperor Chandragupta Maurya, who rose from a lowly background to carve out the largest empire India had known up to that time, and ruled it from to BC.

His grandson was no less than Ashoka, whose monuments and symbols still stand in India and adorn the Indian flag. The Chanakya Niti is still read today by aspiring corporate strategists trying to understand the qualities of a good leader. Chandragupta was a great warrior and adventurous king and he obtained effective guidance from Chanakya for conquering weak and mismanaged states as well as for consolidating gains and accelerating tempo of development in the empire in order to meet requirements of the government and promote welfare amongst subjects.

Strabo on the other hand mentions wooden buildings all round, which is not a fact. Rhys Davids speaks of fortifications in India built of stone walls in the 6th century B. Kautilya refers unmistakably to walls of stone. Therefore Strabo could not be credited with full knowledge of facts about India. There were certainly wooden portions in the buildings. This is true even of houses built today.

Law has shown that houses of wood were indeed common in the fourth century B. An attempt has been made by Stein to compare the description of Pataliputra with that found in the Chanakya Niti. It may be that Kautilya describes the fortress, its construction and plan from actual conditions, and not as mere theory.

On that account it does not stand to reason that Kautilya has purely drawn his materials for the construction of a fortress from Pataliputra. It may be that Pataliputra served him as the basis for constructing his theory of a fortress. But we cannot expect Kautilya who writes a general treatise on statecraft to follow the details and measurements of Pataliputra. Though the Arthashastra was for the time being intended for Chandragupta, it was a textbook on Polity for all time, and for all kings, and for all places.

Therefore Kautilya could not have prescribed only one standard the model of the fortress at Pataliputra. On the other hand he mentions different kinds of fortresses such as nadidurga, vanadurga with respective measurements in details.

Some may have four gates and some twelve gates. Some may have one trench around and others three trenches. It all depends on the environs and eminence where such fortress is erected. For the construction of a fortress is purely dependent on topographical and geographical circumstances.

By sheer accident, some measurements or details of Megasthenes may coincide with the Chanakya Niti description, as for example, Pataliputra in the form of a square, the wall of Arrian to the parikrama of the Chanakya Niti, etc. On this account we cannot proceed to compare the two because Kautilya is certainly not describing the fort at Pataliputra but is describing how and in what manner a fort could be erected at such and such a place. Connected with this is the theory that as Kautilya does not mention Pataliputra he could not have been the Minister of Chandragupta.

It is very probable that there was no occasion for Kautilya to mention his Capital city by this name. His purpose was to write a scientific treatise on administration which his King Chandragupta and his successors as well might use with profit and advantage to themselves.

In such a treatise there would certainly be no occasion for mentioning the city of Pataliputra, and the mere omission of this fact cannot be seriously advanced as an argument for or against establishing the authenticity of the work. Houses and property Megasthenes says that the houses and property of Indians were left generally unguarded. This observation is the outcome of the idealistic tendency of Megasthenes to establish the honesty of Indians.

This does not mean that there was no theft of any kind or robbers of any sort. Human nature being what it is, it is impossible to think of a state of affairs at any time and in any clime, where robbery was totally absent and where transparent honesty prevailed.

What Megasthenes evidently means is that the administration of the land was under such powerful hands that none dared to commit crime of any sort. Nothing more can be deduced from this statement. On Elephants Dr. Stein has examined at length the passages of the Chanakya Niti on elephants with the relevant statements of the Indika under different headings: a places where they are caught, b their height, c age, d hunting, e stalls, f size, g feeding, h training, f diseases and their remedy.

It is gratifying to note that under almost all these items he finds more points of resemblance between the Greek account and the Arthashastra. The minor differences under this section are with regard to age. According to Kautilya elephants which are 40 years old are the largest, those of 30 medium size, and those of 5 and 20 of the lowest class. But the Greek accounts refer to elephants aged and years.

Common sense tells us that this portion of the account must be an exaggeration, perhaps to glorify the importance of those animals for the state in respect of war, traffic, etc. It is unfortunate that such incorrect statements have found a place in their documents. In regard to particulars about hunting, it is only a question of details which do not legitimately belong to the province of a work on polity.

The fragments available do not furnish details in respect of the training, feeding, and housing of horses. In this connection it may be pointed out that the statement of Megasthenes that the elephants and horses were the monopoly of the king and that no private person had the right to enjoy them has been contradicted by other Greek writers.

Strabo and Arrian definitely state that these animals were as much private property as that of the state. The Kautallya on the other hand nowhere commits itself to a statement that these animals were the sole property of the king. A perusal of the several connected chapters shows that these animals were used also as private property though preference was certainly given to the king who required their frequent use especially for purposes of war.

Chanayka was the prime minister in the reign of King Chandragupta maurya or we can also say that kautilya guided Chandragupta to take the throne from Dhananand. Actually, the revenge begins when Dhananad makes fun of chanakya advice then chanakya decides to take revenge and prepare chandragupt to banish his empire and then Mauryan empire rises. Arthashastra was written for the purpose of guiding the younger chandragupta on how to rule techniques.

Friends, if you need any E-Book PDF related to any topic or subjects and need any assistance and inquiry related to exams you can comment below.