by

Vishnuguptha

“The most dangerous leadership myth is that leaders are born-that there is a genetic factor to leadership. That’s nonsense; in fact, the opposite is true. Leaders are made rather than born.” ~ Warren Bennis

In a most intimate sense, the author of Arthashastra (Science of political economy), believed to have been written in the 4th Century BC, has painted a masterpiece of political craft on a canvas whose brush marks and intricate lines go beyond the mundane, probes deep into that region of intelligence which is possessed by the rarest of the rare and depicts a superlative effort of intellectuality and sublime brainpower devoid of emotion and pettiness.

Many historians, especially some exclusive Indologists have tried to decipher the true meanings behind the time-tested theories of politics and economics enunciated in Arthashastra and come up with varying deductions and conclusions; they remain theories in essence, not facts proven beyond a shadow of doubt or second-guessing. Many oriental and western scholars, however, agree that the central theme and the larger scope of the author of Arthashastra remain unsurpassed by any modern economist or political scientist.

The fact that the author, whether one calls him Chanakya or Kautilya, is dubbed by western thinkers as the Machiavelli of the ancient world, is a gross disservice to the man who wrote the first piece of political economics in human history. In fact a better interpretation would be that Machiavelli is the modern day Chanakya/Kautilya. The occidental-bias is clearly shown in the very ‘pronouned’-use of the name.

Arthashastra deals in detail with the qualities and disciplines required for a true king – a wise and virtuous one. “In the happiness of his subjects lies the king’s happiness, in their welfare his welfare. He shall not consider as good only that which pleases him but treat as beneficial to him whatever pleases his subjects”, Chanakya/Kautilya tells us.

In accordance with Chanakya’s writings, a true ruler/king ought to be one who has the following qualities and characteristics:

· Has self-control, having conquered the inimical temptations of the senses;
· Cultivates the intellect by association with elders;
· Keeps his eyes open through spies;
· Is ever active in promoting the security and welfare of the people;
· Ensures the observance (by the people) of their dharma by authority & example;
· Improves his own discipline by (continuing his) learning in all branches of knowledge and
· Endears himself to his people by enriching them and doing good to them

Such a disciplined ruler/king should:

· Keep away from another’s wife;
· Not covet another’s property;
· Practice ahimsa (non-violence towards all living things);
· Avoid day dreaming, capriciousness, falsehood and extravagance; and
· Avoid association with harmful persons and indulging in (harmful) activities.

(Source: Wikipedia)\

Now we come to the crux of the argument of this column: Do we have among us any leader, political or religious, who could be compared to the king that Chanakya had in mind or even be mentioned in the same flow of the language of Chanakya? One might argue that it is utterly utopian, fantasizing even briefly that the advent of such righteous rulers in the midst of the modern-day chaos is remotely possible. But how can one argue against the beautiful dreams of a village girl or boy or for that matter, even a grownup professional who has spent a lot of midnight oil in studying and trying to emulate the characters and leaders of bygone ages? How could one foreclose all arguments and urgings for a utopian dream? None can.

I have no intention of embarrassing any current or past leader by holding a ‘Chanakyan’ yardstick against any of those mundane pretenders who have had the privilege to lead this nation- the privilege was theirs, the leaders’ and the shame is ours. Nevertheless, it is the right of each and every citizen of this country to demand a reasonable measure of moral, ethical and decent conduct from their leaders. The people elect them, unlike in a monarchy or a dictatorship and the people are said to be sovereign and all-powerful but if they themselves choose to be complacent and mute about what they aspire, then they deserve the current rotten set of leaders.

I am sure that the reader would feel compelled to compare and contrast; measure the current crop of political, religious and social leaders against the universally legitimate criteria Chanakya has spelt out in his socio-political masterpiece. My sincere advice to the reader, however, is not to expect anything spectacular from any leader. While maintaining my position that all humans are bound to make mistake after mistake, acts such as willful negligence, deliberate cheating and calculated betrayals, committed by them should not go unnoticed or unpunished, not in a sense of extracting vengeance or for that matter, in the context of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’-frame, but as a tool and a mechanism to be used and reused in the course of social correction by the collective society rather than by the individual.

Individual misdemeanors and crimes are punished under the existing systems of law. But if collective crimes are committed, especially by a majority against an individual or a minority and if such commissions of crime go unanswered and there is constitutional cover for such circumventions of rights, then there is something seriously lacking in the system. This is precisely where Chanakya’s principles come to apply.

The people have a right to expect that each and every one of our leaders, political or otherwise, would conform to at least fifty percent (50%) of Chanakya’s assertions. Now that is not asking too much. Political strategies and tactics can be crafted and adopted by skilled technocrats; policies and programs could be written and implemented by a clever bureaucracy yet the vision and the central message have to emanate from the leader. That message must be borne of purity of purpose and devoid of any latent double-meanings. The sincerity and intention of the leader should never be a subject of doubt or question.

The core of Chanakya’s criteria for a successful ruler/king deals with these imponderables. The intangibles that are associated with leadership are of immense human value; they add value to the dynamic process of leadership which grows with the length of years and breadth of experience. But in the epicenter of that whole ambit, the proverbial eye of the needle is sincerity and intention, unquestioned and unquestionable.

Now the reader will value my assertion as to why I did not want do any comparisons and contrasts with the present or past leaders of our country. It is with an extremely burdensome and heavy heart that I write. It is damn too embarrassing and awkward to be judgmental on the character and sincerity of our leaders and pen those very thoughts and judgment, for most certainly, they would be looked at as verdicts delivered without a trial.

But the facts are undeniable. Sri Lanka today is suffering from the void of good leaders. Chanakya has not given us a readymade answer to all state-related problems; nor is his Arthashastra the final answer to all ills of society. The Chief of Staff of Chandragupta, the ancient Indian Emperor who presided over the Maurya Empire in the 4th Century BC, has indeed gifted mankind with a scripture for ages. The words and chapters and pages that have been written by him would last another millennium or two or may be forever, till the end of times, yet the mundane rulers, other than a handful in all human history, would not learn anything. That is why the Gandhis and the Mandelas are not born every other year or decade.