#3 The Arthaśāstra of Cāṇakya

"Artha is the sustenance or livelihood of men, and Arthaśāstra is the science of the means to Artha"

सुखस्य मुलं धर्मः   -Dharma is the root of happiness.

       Education is the best friend. An educated person is respected everywhere. Education beats the beauty and the youth.

Arthaśāstra is an treatise on statecraft. "Artha" itself refers to material wealth (one of the 4 Purusharths in Sanatan Philosophy-Dharm, Arth, Kama, Moksha) so the book is "Science of Wealth" but the book covers almost everything needed for efficient functioning of a state. Statecraft itself was a subject of much interest in ancient Indian political thought- it was a subject in universities and this particular Arthaśāstra was a part of course material for elite education in India for centuries (for ease of teaching, every book (there are 15 in total- these are right now just chapters and we do not know if they were entire books orignally) ends with a small memorable shloka summarising the contents of it ). I say "particular" because this was not only Arthaśāstra, there are many others mentioned in Mahabharata for example, even the author of this one acknowledges that he is actually compiling and editing previous works on the subject by great gurus as one easy to read document. But sadly, this is the only one that has survived. The book was very influential until the early medieval ages and then as invaders penetrated deeper, conflict/survival overshadowed all other priorities, its reach declined. It was virtually lost and unheard for centuries when suddenly at a time when the European historians were writing "Indians learnt state craft after contact with Greeks", it resurfaced with a farmer in Kerala in early twentieth century and R Shamashastry translated it. This document single handedly changed everyone's view on how evolved the subject was- everything from punishments for verbal assaults to foreign policy was systemically covered! When Arthashastra was discovered by Rudrapatnam Shamashastry, he could not have anticipated the revolution in Indian self-image his discovery would bring about. The text became a focal point with which to contest every cliché that had been used to define India:

• A society that allegedly never had a rational state suddenly acquired one
• A society defined by a dreamy moralism suddenly acquired a narrative of steely realism
• A society without a history of political thought acquired a master text in political theory
• A society without sophisticated economic thinking acquired insight into the foundations of wealth
• A society without a strategic culture acquired a veritable theory of international relations
• A nation with ostensibly no political identity acquired a prehistory of political unity.

The authorship and timeline of this is highly contested. In fact the entire timeline of ancient Indian history right now is highly dubious, British translators discounted traditional record keeping (puranic geneologies/itihaas) as mythology (the truth is somewhere in between). To match Indian timeline with the western one and to mark a point somewhere, Alexander's campaign is the only option. His forces travelled with many philosphers and historians whose records mention a great Indian king "Sandrocottus", and he was matched up with "Chandragupta" because, well, it felt like that. Many now say that it must have have been "Samudragupta". And from that "felt like that", our timeline starts. Sigh. Even the Mahabharata mention the Greeks as "Yavanas". The Rakhigarhi excavations in Haryana show a flourishing civilization at 8500 years ago! So yeah our history is much older, continuous and grander than "Indus Valley had an amazing sewage system at 1500 BC". But this and the Aryan Invasion theory is not the subject of this writeup. Lets keep that for sometime else. 

Most likely compiled in 2nd CE by Kautilya, edited by Vishnugupta and later legends identified them with Cāṇakya. Some historians say they might have been one person, and almost all ancient legends say so. The absence of any mention of gold coins implies that this book must have been finalised most likely after the Kusahns left and under the Guptas. Anyone would have tried to associate the book with Cāṇakya. Most probably, no certainly, they were different. But that Cāṇakya wrote Arthaśāstra is still the popular "truth" and I also am biased towards this. Its just so much cooler. Lets go with it.

 Legend single handedly propped up what went on to be the largest empire in subcontinental history. And also trained the last true "Chakravrti Samrat". The capital, Patliputra, was the largest city in the world, twice the size of Imperial Rome, with a whooping one million population. What Aristotle was to Alexander, Cāṇakya was to Chandragupta, only that the later was not a born prince and neither did his empire crumble just after his death, rather it only increased its glory as long as it followed the Kautilyan model of governance. He became glorified in plays like "Mudrarakshasa मुद्राराक्षस".

The 15 books(chapters) of the Treatise are as follows-

1. On the Subject of Training, 21 chapters
2. On the Activities of Superintendents,
   36 chapters
3. On Justices, 20 chapters
4. Eradication of Thorns, 13 chapters
5. On Secret Conduct, 6 chapters
6. Basis of the Circle, 2 chapters
7. On the Sixfold Strategy, 18 chapters
8. On the Subject of Calamities, 5 chapters
9. Activity of a King preparing to March into Battle,
   7 chapters
10. On War, 6 chapters
11. Conduct toward Confederacies, 1 chapter
12. On the Weaker King, 5 chapters
13. Means of Capturing a Fort, 5 chapters
14. On Esoteric Practices, 4 chapters
15. Organization of a Scientific Treatise, 1 chapter

So lets discuss some themes.

(1) Ashokan vs Kautilyan Model of governance

First, lets get clear of some misconceptions, Ashoka was NOT that great. There's lot of politically motivated myths, like he became a Buddhist after the battle of Kalinga -there is NO substantive edvidence to prove that, on the other hands, edicts say he became Buddhist 4 years BEFORE he invaded Kalinga. There's a reason why he was called "Chandashoka" or the Cruel Ashoka. Do look up "Ashoka's Hell" too-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka%27s_Hell.

 Also troubling are the false allegations of Buddhist texts on the supposed persecution of them- the Mauryas were truly Dharmics- while Chandragupta becama Jain in his last days, Bindusara was an Ajivik (an atheist school of thought)-both tolerated every group BUT when Ashoka became a Buddhist, the "Great Pacifist" killed 18,000 Ajivikas & Jains because a Nirgrantha Jain of Pundravardhana (Bengal) named Jnatiputra drew a picture of Buddha prostrating at the feet of Mahavira- this partiality maybe a sideeffect of taking sides during the Wars of Succession. He offered no apology neither did he release the captives, rather the edicts warned the tribals to not side with the Kalingans, not very peaceful to say the least. (the Kalingans fought bravely-till the last man- but they were up against the Mauryan monstrosity, they didnt even have a king as they were a democracy, and they are mentioned even in the ancient Mahabharata-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_(Mahabharata)) 

 ""The Ashokavadana clearly tells us how an enraged Ashoka had 18,000 Ajivikas in Bengal put to death in a single episode. This is the first known instance of large-scale religious persecution in Indian history and sadly, would not be the last.In addition to the evidence of his continued cruelty, we also have proof that he was not a successful administrator. In his later years, an increasingly unwell Ashoka watched his empire disintegrate from rebellion, internal family squabbles and fiscal stress. While he was still alive, the empire had probably lost some of the north-western territories that had been acquired from Seleucus. Within a few years of Ashoka’s death in 232BC, the Satvahanas had taken over most of the territories in southern India and Kalinga had seceded.""- Sanyal

Ashoka created an all pervading weak state, Kautilya advocated for small but powerful government. He was very vary of bureaucrats and corruption. """Just as it is impossible to tell if a fish is drinking water while it is swimming around, it is impossible to tell if a government official is eating money from the state coffers. The basic truth of government is that the government official is corrupt."""

He wanted the state to "regulate not interfere", that is to make sure there is no "Matsya Nyaya" (big fish eat the small). Much like what the Modi 2.0 says: "minimal government, maximum governance".  

On the other hand, Ashoka tried acting as a "father" to his people: "" He then goes on to announce all kinds of restrictions on what people can eat or do on certain days. “On the three Chaturmasis, the three days of Tisa and the 14th and 15th of Uposatha, fish are protected and not to be sold. On the eighth of every fortnight, on the 14th and 15th, on Tisa, Punarvasu, the three Chaturmasis and other auspicious days, bulls are not to be castrated.…” A special cadre of officials called Dhamma Mahamantras — religious police — were given the task of enforcing these laws."""

As expected, the glorious Mauryan Empire saw much fiscal stress and rebellions by the end of Ashoka's reign, not much later, it completely disintegrated.

Kautilya teaches us a lot about how to govern, Ashoka depicts how NOT TO.

Nehruvians followed the Ashokan model, you can even see how the Indian state emblem, the national flag and bureaucracy are inspired by his philosophy/iconography. Both systems (Ashoka's empire, Nehru's economy) collapsed under a generation. The current government is trying to undone- simplify things, regulate and not ban stuff, ensuring that justice is the highest priority, internal stability is paramount for defending against external agressions etc. But lets keep the current politics and Nehruvian deep pink state for later.

       Just as it is impossible to know when a swimming fish is drinking water, so it is impossible to find out when a government servant is stealing money

Kautilya

(2) Machiavelli and Cāṇakya

Machiavelli and Cāṇakya both were vicious and willing to go to any ends to achieve their goals. Both were brutal realists and threw idealism out of the window. The underlying basis of the Arthashastra’s prescriptions is the notion that reasons of state justify various actions and policies regardless of ethical norms, a view shared by Machiavelli’s The Prince. But to keep both on the same pedestal is stupid, German sociologist Max Weber once called the Arthaśāstra “truly radical ‘Machiavellianism’ . . . compared to it, Machiavelli’s The Prince is harmless.” While Machiavelli was just an advisor to a royal family outsmarted by his rivals, Cāṇakya is an immortal legend in the Indian consciousness, a king maker of epic proportions. Both have different world views on state economy and but Cāṇakya clings to Dharma even while he suggests cold calculating tactics: he asks the king to spread rumours about temples to generate more revenue and at the same time lays down his duties as not only in terms of rakshana (to defend) or palana (take care of), but yogakshema. This includes not only security and material well-being, but also assistance in adherence to the purusharthas (dharma,artha,kama and finally moksha). 

Both are great masters, yet one should not forget the stature and achievements of Cāṇakya,  the legendary empire he created, his oath against Nanda, his much more balanced views on economy, his Dharmic rules like "do not engage another just king" and above all that he predated the Italian by 1800 years (atleast).

(3) Foreign Policy

Cāṇakya combined realpolitik and Machiavellianism with the Art of War two thousand years before the 2 former terms were even coined. He considered war not as an extension of diplomacy but regarded all diplomacy as subtle warfare. Advocated constant subversion and covert campaigns against the enemy. A textbook case of IR Realist. The MEA website has an excellent but old lecture on history of Indian diplomacy-

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

""""At this point, it is necessary to mention a few historical examples to illustrate the ancient history of Indian diplomacy. The following two instances are cited:

(i) Ancient Indian scriptures are replete with numerous diplomatic instances. For instance, in Ramayana, Lord Rama sent Hanumana and Angada as his envoys to King Ravana to persuade him to avoid war and destruction. Although King Ravana contemptuously rejected these entreaties and wanted to kill the envoys, he was prevented from doing so as the envoys were inviolable under the established diplomatic practice. In Mahabharata, Lord Krishna himself played the role of a mediator of last resort to avoid hostilities between the Pandavas and the Kaurvas. The war of Mahabharata was preceded by feverish diplomacy as both sides sent envoys around to form military alliances. The war itself was a Dharmayuddha (or War of Righteousness) with well-established rules with chivalry and diplomatic contact being maintained among the two warring sides. The concepts of immunity and amnesty were well established and were respected.

(the Aitareya Brahman mentions Indra having referred to the Marut as his Sachiva (the post of the minister who looked to the relations of the state with foreign nations). In the Taittiriya and Atharva Vedas, in the sense of an emissary or a messenger, the word Prahit is used.  In the Bharatiya policy, doot is the emissary of a state in a foreign court and this usage can be traced as a root to the present day conventions and practices with regard to an ambassador.)

(ii) Manu-Smriti, is considered to be the first Indian legal code complied by Maha-Rishi Manu around 1500 BCE. Commenting on different roles of authorities in a State, Manu stated, "Let the king appoint an Ambassador; the army depends on its Commander; control of subjects (depends) on the army; the Government of the kingdom on the King; peace and war on the Ambassador".

(iii) An interesting and recurring concept in Indian history was the Chakravarti Samrat (Universal Emperor) whose suzerainty or zone of protection, after wars, if necessary, was acknowledged by surrounding kings. It is quite akin to the modern-day concept of Super-Power, with their pacts, doctrines and areas of influence.

Chankya’s Arthshashtra, world’s first comprehensive treatise on diplomatic practice, occupies centre stage in any narrative of Indian diplomacy. Chankya - also known as Kautilya - was Prime Minister and mentor of Emperor Chandragupta, the founder of Gupta dynasty which ruled Patliputra in fourth century before Christ. With Chankya as his mentor, Chandragupta successfully overthrew the Nanda dynasty and expelled the Greek footprint in India’s north-west. Although Chankya’s Arthshashtra or ‘The Science of Material Gain’, written around 300 BCE (before Christ) is mainly concerned with statecraft, nearly a fifth of it is devoted to the conduct of foreign policy and diplomacy. Astonishingly, much of its discourse is still relevant today, nearly twenty four centuries later. Following citations would underline the sagacity and foresighted nature of Chankya’s recommendations and observations:

(i) The concept of "Raj Mandala” or ruling universe is central to Chankya’s Foreign Policy construction of a State desirous of consolidation or expansion. Raj Mandala is a matrix comprising of a maximum of 12 type of states and Arthashashtra prescribes best ways of dealing with each of them.

(ii) The protection and promotion of political, military and economic interests of a State rested on six constituent elements, viz. the king, the ministers, the fortress, the countryside, the treasury and the army.

(iii) For the purpose of settlement of disputes, four methods were advocated, namely, 'Sama' (conciliation) , 'Dana' (appeasement), 'Bheda' (dividing), and 'Danda' (use of force) to be employed as the last resort.

(iv) According to Arthashastra, the State should follow a six-fold policy with other States: (1) Sandhi (treaty of peace); (2) Vigrah (war); (3) Asana (neutrality) (4) Yana (marching) - presumably a threat; (5) Samsrya (alliance) and (6) Dwidibhava (making peace with one and end war with another).

(v) Among more cynical advices Kautilya offered to the king are about his stress on diplomatic manoeuvres and espionage activity. Similarly, he recommended that the king to make treaties knowing that he may not keep them in the long term, his ‘doctrine of silent war’ or a war of assassination against an unsuspecting king, his approval of secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them, his view of women as weapons of war, his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, the spread of disinformation.

(vi) On other hand, Arthshastra emphasised that foreign relations be determined by rationale calculation of self-interest rather than by ethical considerations. Chankya preferred peace over war and urged humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects. Arthashashtra’s conception of foreign policy is brilliant, cohesive, comprehensive and logically sound. It is entirely theoretical without any moral subjectivity.

(vii) Among examples of Arthashashtra’s practical foreign policy prescriptions to a king are the following specific advices:

(a) "When the advantages derivable from peace and war are of equal character, one should prefer peace; for disadvantages such as loss of power and wealth, sojourning and sin are ever attending upon war."

(b) "One shall make an alliance with a king who is stronger than one's neighbouring enemy; in the absence of such a king, one should ingratiate oneself with one's neighbouring enemy, either by supplying money or army or by ceding a part of one's territory and keeping oneself aloof; for there can be no greater evil to kings than alliance with a king of considerable power, unless one is actually attacked by one's enemy."

(c) "A king, who is situated between two powerful kings, shall seek protection from the stronger of the two or one of them on whom he can rely; or he may make peace with both of them on equal terms."

Apart from theoretical treatment of various foreign policy options, Arthashashtra also provides elaborate advice on conduct of the diplomatic practice to implement it. The following salient points emerge:

(i) According to Chankya, a high degree of intellectual equipment was necessary for an Ambassador. In selecting people for diplomatic missions, one must choose persons who are "loyal, honest, skilled, possessing good memory, fearless and eloquent". An envoy must also be sweet voiced, persuasive, industrious, well-versed in sciences and possessed of faculty of reading others' thoughts and feelings from their behaviour and appearance etc.

(ii) Arthashashtra discussed classification of Ambassadors, his qualifications, status, immunity, duties, salary etc. in great details. A successful Adviser (Minister) was deemed suitable for the post of Ambassador, a practice followed by many nations even now for important Missions. The envoys had the following four classifications:

(a) Duta (Ambassador Extraordinary):

(b) Nisrishtartha (Minister Plenipotentiary);

(c) Parimitarhah (Charge d'Affaires); and

(d) Sasanarhah (Diplomatic Messenger / Special Envoy).

(iii) Kautilya describes the "duties of an envoy” as "sending information to his king, ensuring maintenance of the terms of a treaty, upholding his king’s honour, acquiring allies, instigating dissension among the friends of his enemy, conveying secret agents and troops [into enemy territory], suborning the kinsmen of the enemy to his own king’s side, acquiring clandestinely gems and other valuable material for his own king, ascertaining secret information and showing valour in liberating hostages held by the enemy.” He further stipulates that no envoys should ever be harmed, and, even if they deliver an "unpleasant” message, they should not be detained.

(iv) Detailed rules regulated diplomatic immunities and privileges, the inauguration and termination of diplomatic missions, and the selection and duties of envoys. Thus, whether the diplomatic mission is ad hoc or permanent, the mission had to follow well accepted principles in inter-state relations. Adoption of appropriate 'diplomatic language' was considered important in dealings between rulers and kings. Guda lekha (code language) was adopted for diplomatic correspondence.

(vi) Other related structure prescribed were "Commercial Counsel” who was charged with managing commercial relations and transactions. Arthashashtra described two kinds of Spies: those charged with the collection of intelligence and those entrusted with subversion and other forms of covert action.

In ultimate analysis Arthashashtra’s discourse on foreign policy and diplomatic practice can only be described as a profound timeless classic book of realism, ahead of its peers written two millennia later. Its objective treatment of possible foreign policy options facing a king and cold calculative diplomatic actions required has often been criticised for being an amoral, cynical policy prescription in which ‘the ends justified the means’. However, protagonists of Chankya’s recommendations point out that pursuance of these policies led to establishment of India’s first empire by Maurya dynasty which at its peak straddled well beyond South Asia’s natural boundaries. In urging the king to rely on science and not the precepts of religion, Kautilya separated, for the first time in India, political thought from religious dictum. It also ushered in stable polity and two generations later led to Ashoka’s pacifist policies after conversion to Buddhism in the wake of carnage of war with Kalinga.

Ancient Envoys: During era of Chandragupta Maurya, Megasthenes was Greek ambassador to India and authored his account of the country in his book Indika. During the reign of Indian King Bindusara, Delmachos was sent as an Ambassador by King Antiochos of Syria and Dinyosius as an Ambassador by King Ptolmy of Egypt (298 BC - 273 BC). During the Buddhist period and later, many rulers entrusted delicate and strategic missions to diplomatic agents for the security of the State and for the maintenance of friendly relations. Emperor Ashoka (273 BC - 232 BC) established diplomatic and evangelical relations with the Kings of Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Syria, Egypt, Macedon, Cyrene and other countries. During the 7th century AD, there were diplomatic relations between the Indian King Pulkesin II and Shah of Persia, Khosru Parwez. There is evidence of diplomatic relations between King Harasha Vardhana of India and the Imperial Court of China.

Similarly, during the medieval period of Indian history diplomatic relations were maintained among States in the Indian sub-continent, as well as with States beyond it. The Afghan and Turks rulers based in Delhi and other places, maintained diplomatic relations with States in Central Asia, Persia, Arab world, Asia Minor, Greece, Levant and even with States in Tibet and China. The Kingdoms of South of India on the West Coast, maintained diplomatic relations with States along Arabian Sea Littoral and Indian Ocean littoral in Africa. The ones on the East-Coast and South, maintained relations with Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaya; some of these countries were conquered and colonised by the Kings of South India. During medieval times, Chola and other south Indian dynasties’ overseas empires in South East Asia had an economic underpinning.

The Moghuls maintained diplomatic relations with most of the states mentioned earlier and in the later stages received envoys from European states like Portugal, France , Britain, Holland, etc. In times of Akbar the Great, India was world’s largest economy and a coveted partner for economic diplomacy for various European trading nations - many of whom sought trading facilities and patronage. By liberally dispensing these permissions, unsuspecting Indian rulers sowed seeds of their own nemesis. Sir Thomas Roe was envoy of British queen Elisabeth I to the court of Emperor Jahangir. Even until 1820 - before Industrial Revolution gained salience, India’s economy was bigger than Great Britain’s, her colonial masters. During the period of decline of political influence of Moghul Emperors and rise of other Indian States, there was intense diplomatic jockeying for influence by the British, Portuguese, French and other European powers. The Indian kings, like Hydar Ali, Tipu Sultan and others maintained diplomatic relations with countries in the Arab world, Ottoman Sultans and European powers (esp. Napoleonic France) in order to obtain support in political and defence technology and training. Even during 1857 first war of independence against East India Company, there were episodic contacts with foreign powers such as Nepal, Afghanistan and Russia. Subsequently, during freedom struggle, Indian National Congress maintained links with similarly inclined political parties abroad. Indians abroad often launched diplomatic campaigns against colonial rule in India and sought diplomatic and material assistance from foreign powers such as Japan ( e.g. Azad Hind Fauz during Second World War), Nazi Germany, Russia, France and the US.

After independence in 1947 and proclamation of a republic in 1950, Indian diplomacy resumed function of a sovereign state. The structures such as the Ministry of External Affairs and the Indian Foreign Service were established and a large number of diplomatic missions abroad were set up. Separately, India’s foreign policy took shape together with its diplomatic content and style. India chose a non-aligned foreign policy which was seen to be an extension of our freedom struggle as we did not want to surrogate our foreign policy to a particular power block. Mahatma Gandhi’s adage, India should be like a house with open windows to all winds, but we should refuse to be blown by any of them has remained the hallmark of our foreign policy since independence. We took principled stand on decolonisation, anti-apartheid and various military aggressions. At the same time, our diplomacy took into account our national interests in terms of our conflicts with Pakistan in 1948, 1965, 1971 and 1999 as well as with China in 1962. Our socio-economic priorities were also factored into our diplomacy. We remained influential member of the non-aligned world, G-77, etc. As Indian economy gained strength and market got liberalised after 1991, India gained importance as important economic partner and is counted among most prominent countries in the world. Our nuclear tests in May 1998 created a new paradigm in our international profile which was reconciled through an exceptional treatment granted to India by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group a decade later. India, nevertheless, has continued to call for universal nuclear disarmament and considers the global Nuclear Proliferation regime as discriminatory. We have also taken a strongly pro-development view on issues such as climate change, food security and trade facilitation. While we have found support for reforms in the UN system to make it reflect the changes in global political architecture since Second World War, our quest for a permanent seat at the Security Council has proved elusive so far. Moreover, our ongoing challenges as terrorism, climate change, South Asian regional security need to be tackled satisfactorily. Additionally, Indian diplomacy is required to contribute towards our socio-economic development, through such inputs as access to foreign capital and technology, raw materials, markets for our exports of goods and services, promotion of inbound tourism, etc. Hence, Indian diplomacy has its work cut out for foreseeable future."""

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indian polity and foreign strategy owes a great deal to him- the Rajmandal theory (circle of kings)*, the upayas =the 4 devices- Sam-Daam-Dand-Bhed, 6 constituent elements of a state, the Shadgunya- 6 fold foreign policy, the types of warfare Dharmayuddha (righteous war) and Kootayuddha (concealed war), the types of victory- Dharma Vijay (righteous conquest) and Asura Vijay (demonic conquest), and Lobha Vijay (acquisitive conquest) and other terminology.

*=The Rajamandala theory consists of four principal types of states viz. Vijigishu (desirous for or would be world conqueror), Ari (enemy, whose territory if contiguous to Vijigishu), Madhyama (Middle king with territory adjoining those of Vijigishu and Ari and stronger than both) and Udasina (kingdom lying outside or neutral and more powerful than that of Vijigishu, Ari, and Madhyama). Each of them has an ally and ally’s ally thus making 12 kings and 60 types of combinations called material constituents (for example, enemy’s enemy, mitra’s enemy, enemy’s mitra, mitra’s mitra and so on). This together combines into the total 72 elements of Raja Mandala.

This scheme is based on assumption that two neighbouring states which share their borders are hostile to each other; and the enemy of hostile neighbour is a natural ally. The Vijigishu is located at the centre of this circle.

That was a short introduction to Arthaśāstra.

Actually I downloaded an English translation, made some headway, but apparently this is not the type of book you can cover in a few sittings. You have to pick up a random chapter then read it.

Whether you read Arthaśāstra or not you gotta read his maxims, there's a pdf of "VK SUBRAMANIAM" --really good. (Fun fact- most likely Cāṇakya wasnt the original author of this one either)

Ok be back tomorrow with another post.

Thanks anime ost playlist for helping.

K bye

[fun fact: the Arthashastra describes a balanced meal for a man as follows— 500 gms of rice, 125 gms of dal, 56 gms of oil and five gms of salt. This is the same as the essentials in the recommended balanced diet that the Indian Council for Medical Research laid down in 1987!]