A Comparison of Kamandaka’s Nitisara and Kautilya’s Arthashastra

After a brief overview of the Nitisara, the following issues will be discussed: (i) the historical period during which Kamandaka compiled the Nitisara, including questions about the identity of Kamandaka; (ii) some important milestones in the likely period when the text was written/composed; and (iii) the continuities and changes in the vocabulary and concepts from the time of Kautilya’s Arthashas. [...] In the words of the official Indian history of 1959, the Kushans were rightly called ‘naturalized’ Indians and: the Guptas, who ruled the greater part of India from about 320 to 647 ad, were of Indian stock…The literature of the period shows that [the] Himalayas were a part of India…Kalidas in the Raghuvamsa says that Raghu conquered areas to the north of the Himalayas, from Hemakunta (Kailas) to. [...] In summary, the post-Mauryan period saw the Sungas (185–74 bc), the Yavanas (2nd century bc to first century), the Shakas (first century bc) and the Kushans (first–second century).50 The period of these invasions, and the resulting fragmentation in the five centuries after the end of the Mauryas and until the emergence of the Guptas, has been called ‘a dark period’. [...] The absence of the concepts of victors/victories is crucial evidence of the dilution of the high ideas that were generated in the times of the flowering of artha literature. [...] The vijigisu in the text is expected to ‘conquer the world’, which implies the conquest of the whole of the Indian subcontinent, designated as chakravartikshetra (9.1.17–18): ‘northwards between the Himāvat and the sea, one thousand yojanas in extent across.’ The book also covers the campaigning season and terrain analysis.