Chanakya - Discussion..!!! {Link of Next Thread Updated on Page-1} - Page 2

Originally posted by: PutijaChalhov

Thanks Abhay Some info on Chanakya more in the history thread

...Kautilya's 'Arthashastra,' the 'Science
of Polity,' to which reference has already been made. Kautilya
is another name for Chanakya, and thus we have a book written,
not only by a great scholar, but a man who played a dominating
part in the establishment, growth and preservation of the empire.
Chanakya has been called the Indian Machiavelli, and to some
extent the comparison is justified. But he was a much bigger person
in every way, greater in intellect and action. He was no mere
follower of a king, a humble adviser of an all-powerful emperor.
A picture of him emerges from an old Indian play " the Mudra-
Rakshasa " which deals with this period. Bold and scheming,
proud and revengeful, never forgetting a slight, never forgetting
his purpose, availing himself of every device to delude and defeat
the enemy, he sat with the reins of empire in his hands and looked
upon the emperor more as a loved pupil than as a master.
Simple and austere in his life, uninterested in the pomp and
pageantry of high position, when he had redeemed his pledge and
accomplished his purpose, he wanted to retire, Brahmin-like, to
a life of contemplation.

There was hardly anything Chanakya would have refrained
from doing to achieve his purpose; he was unscrupulous enough;
yet he was also wise enough to know that this very purpose might
be defeated by means unsuited to the end. Long before Clause-



vvitz, he is reported to have said that war is only a continuance
of state policy by other means. But, he adds, war must always
serve the larger ends of policy and not become an end in itself;
the statesman's objective must always be the betterment of the
state as a result of war, not the mere defeat and destruction of
the enemy. If war involves both parties in a common ruin, that
is the bankruptcy of statesmanship. War must be conducted by
armed forces; but much more important than the force of arms
is the high strategy which saps the enemy's morale and disrupts
his forces and brings about his collapse, or takes him to the verge
of collapse, before armed attack. Unscrupulous and rigid as
Chanakya was in the pursuit of his aim, he never forgot that it was
better to win over an intelligent and high-minded enemy than to
crush him. His final victory was obtained by sowing discord in
the enemy's ranks, and, in the very moment of this victory, so the
story goes, he induced Chandragupta to be generous to his rival
chief. Chanakya himself is said to have handed over the insignia
of his own high office to the minister of that rival, whose intelli-
gence and loyalty to his old chief had impressed him greatly. So
the story ends not in the bitterness of defeat and humiliation,
but in reconciliation and in laying the firm and enduring found-
ations of a state, which had not only defeated but won over its
chief enemy.

Originally posted by: MaddyO

Hi Shivani 😃 (read your name on this thread)
Ouch, I did not write clearly. 😕 I meant to write neither Ashoka nor his mother Dharma were favorites of Bindusar. After reading your post I re-read what I had written and edited my comment.

Of course you are right, Dharma loved Ashoka and I have read that (here in serial) once Ashoka learns who his father is, he vows to give his mother all her rights as Queen. I hope they show this in a nice way.


BTW - you are absolutely right Abhay has brain like Sheldon! You Big Bang Theory fan? I am huge fan 😃

Originally posted by: PutijaChalhov

Thanks Abhay Some info on Chanakya more in the history thread

...Kautilya's 'Arthashastra,' the 'Science
of Polity,' to which reference has already been made. Kautilya
is another name for Chanakya, and thus we have a book written,
not only by a great scholar, but a man who played a dominating
part in the establishment, growth and preservation of the empire.
Chanakya has been called the Indian Machiavelli, and to some
extent the comparison is justified. But he was a much bigger person
in every way, greater in intellect and action. He was no mere
follower of a king, a humble adviser of an all-powerful emperor.
A picture of him emerges from an old Indian play " the Mudra-
Rakshasa " which deals with this period. Bold and scheming,
proud and revengeful, never forgetting a slight, never forgetting
his purpose, availing himself of every device to delude and defeat
the enemy, he sat with the reins of empire in his hands and looked
upon the emperor more as a loved pupil than as a master.
Simple and austere in his life, uninterested in the pomp and
pageantry of high position, when he had redeemed his pledge and
accomplished his purpose, he wanted to retire, Brahmin-like, to
a life of contemplation.

There was hardly anything Chanakya would have refrained
from doing to achieve his purpose; he was unscrupulous enough;
yet he was also wise enough to know that this very purpose might
be defeated by means unsuited to the end. Long before Clause-



vvitz, he is reported to have said that war is only a continuance
of state policy by other means. But, he adds, war must always
serve the larger ends of policy and not become an end in itself;
the statesman's objective must always be the betterment of the
state as a result of war, not the mere defeat and destruction of
the enemy. If war involves both parties in a common ruin, that
is the bankruptcy of statesmanship. War must be conducted by
armed forces; but much more important than the force of arms
is the high strategy which saps the enemy's morale and disrupts
his forces and brings about his collapse, or takes him to the verge
of collapse, before armed attack. Unscrupulous and rigid as
Chanakya was in the pursuit of his aim, he never forgot that it was
better to win over an intelligent and high-minded enemy than to
crush him. His final victory was obtained by sowing discord in
the enemy's ranks, and, in the very moment of this victory, so the
story goes, he induced Chandragupta to be generous to his rival
chief. Chanakya himself is said to have handed over the insignia
of his own high office to the minister of that rival, whose intelli-
gence and loyalty to his old chief had impressed him greatly. So
the story ends not in the bitterness of defeat and humiliation,
but in reconciliation and in laying the firm and enduring found-
ations of a state, which had not only defeated but won over its
chief enemy.

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Abhay

Congrats on the first thread here and wishing you many more :)

Coming to Chanakya, I like the way this character has been depicted. He is both kind and cruel in the way he is nurturing Ashoka to accept his due inheritance of being the future Magadha Samrat. He is so calm and composed at all times. Whether he is observing Ashoka play-acting being the king, sitting on Chandragupta Maurya's throne or taking away a son from his mother (more on this later) or taking an arrow to prove Ashoka's innocence or gently declining the post of mahamatya.

It's a joy to watch Siddharth as Ashoka. He has immense talent and screen presence and when he is on screen, you don't feel like looking at anyone else. He shows tremendous confidence (but just short of arrogance) in the set of his face and the gleam in his eyes. He is SO SURE he will be EMPEROR one day that you cannot but help believe him. He was delightful in the way he got out of the charges against him in Tuesday's episode by presenting an impromptu performance in front of Bindusara. He is resentful of Chanakya (loved the way he said that Chanakya should be imprisoned and denied food) and yet grateful to him for saving him from the gallows.

The most beautiful thing in the show however is the bond between Ashoka and his mother. It is so pure, so touching, so real. Hats off to both Siddarth and Pallavi for making it seem so natural. Chanakya knows that Ashoka will be clay in his hands as long as his mother is under Chanakya and he exploits this mother-son relationship to the hilt to get Ashoka in his control and prepare him to be the future king.

This is the first TV show my son is addicted to and he sits in my lap and cries throughout the episode esp when he sees Ashoka being hurt or when he sees the mother-son scenes. So I guess the makers have been able to connect with the audience at the emotional level in spite of the NR. This is critical for the success of any show.

As far as learning about the real history is concerned, the history thread of this forum and you are always there. :)

Originally posted by: dhruvika1991

It will be in a right way as he will be determined to be a king or one of the courtier will be in a favor of him. i have read somewhere that bindusar wanted his older son to be the heir but some of the courtier were in a favor of Ashoka and also some where i read that he killed his brother but it is not mentioned clearly or dont have any proof

Originally posted by: PutijaChalhov

Thanks Abhay Some info on Chanakya more in the history thread

...Kautilya's 'Arthashastra,' the 'Science
of Polity,' to which reference has already been made. Kautilya
is another name for Chanakya, and thus we have a book written,
not only by a great scholar, but a man who played a dominating
part in the establishment, growth and preservation of the empire.
Chanakya has been called the Indian Machiavelli, and to some
extent the comparison is justified. But he was a much bigger person
in every way, greater in intellect and action. He was no mere
follower of a king, a humble adviser of an all-powerful emperor.
A picture of him emerges from an old Indian play " the Mudra-
Rakshasa " which deals with this period. Bold and scheming,
proud and revengeful, never forgetting a slight, never forgetting
his purpose, availing himself of every device to delude and defeat
the enemy, he sat with the reins of empire in his hands and looked
upon the emperor more as a loved pupil than as a master.
Simple and austere in his life, uninterested in the pomp and
pageantry of high position, when he had redeemed his pledge and
accomplished his purpose, he wanted to retire, Brahmin-like, to
a life of contemplation.

There was hardly anything Chanakya would have refrained
from doing to achieve his purpose; he was unscrupulous enough;
yet he was also wise enough to know that this very purpose might
be defeated by means unsuited to the end. Long before Clause-



vvitz, he is reported to have said that war is only a continuance
of state policy by other means. But, he adds, war must always
serve the larger ends of policy and not become an end in itself;
the statesman's objective must always be the betterment of the
state as a result of war, not the mere defeat and destruction of
the enemy. If war involves both parties in a common ruin, that
is the bankruptcy of statesmanship. War must be conducted by
armed forces; but much more important than the force of arms
is the high strategy which saps the enemy's morale and disrupts
his forces and brings about his collapse, or takes him to the verge
of collapse, before armed attack. Unscrupulous and rigid as
Chanakya was in the pursuit of his aim, he never forgot that it was
better to win over an intelligent and high-minded enemy than to
crush him. His final victory was obtained by sowing discord in
the enemy's ranks, and, in the very moment of this victory, so the
story goes, he induced Chandragupta to be generous to his rival
chief. Chanakya himself is said to have handed over the insignia
of his own high office to the minister of that rival, whose intelli-
gence and loyalty to his old chief had impressed him greatly. So
the story ends not in the bitterness of defeat and humiliation,
but in reconciliation and in laying the firm and enduring found-
ations of a state, which had not only defeated but won over its
chief enemy.

Originally posted by: RadhikaS0

Abhay

Congrats on the first thread here and wishing you many more :)

Coming to Chanakya, I like the way this character has been depicted. He is both kind and cruel in the way he is nurturing Ashoka to accept his due inheritance of being the future Magadha Samrat. He is so calm and composed at all times. Whether he is observing Ashoka play-acting being the king, sitting on Chandragupta Maurya's throne or taking away a son from his mother (more on this later) or taking an arrow to prove Ashoka's innocence or gently declining the post of mahamatya.

It's a joy to watch Siddharth as Ashoka. He has immense talent and screen presence and when he is on screen, you don't feel like looking at anyone else. He shows tremendous confidence (but just short of arrogance) in the set of his face and the gleam in his eyes. He is SO SURE he will be EMPEROR one day that you cannot but help believe him. He was delightful in the way he got out of the charges against him in Tuesday's episode by presenting an impromptu performance in front of Bindusara. He is resentful of Chanakya (loved the way he said that Chanakya should be imprisoned and denied food) and yet grateful to him for saving him from the gallows.

The most beautiful thing in the show however is the bond between Ashoka and his mother. It is so pure, so touching, so real. Hats off to both Siddarth and Pallavi for making it seem so natural. Chanakya knows that Ashoka will be clay in his hands as long as his mother is under Chanakya and he exploits this mother-son relationship to the hilt to get Ashoka in his control and prepare him to be the future king.

This is the first TV show my son is addicted to and he sits in my lap and cries throughout the episode esp when he sees Ashoka being hurt or when he sees the mother-son scenes. So I guess the makers have been able to connect with the audience at the emotional level in spite of the NR. This is critical for the success of any show.

As far as learning about the real history is concerned, the history thread of this forum and you are always there. :)

Originally posted by: Meself

Boy! You've got Sheldon's brain! You remember!!! No wonder history agrees with you so wonderfully! Oh my!

BisMarck? Yes...yes...yes indeed! Why hadn't I thought of this before? Both seemingly are men cut from same cloth!

@bold: this is the thing that catches unwavering attention!

Originally posted by: dhruvika1991

Read it today it was amazing to know i had known he was the master mind of the politcs and knew how to use this politics in good sense unlike todays politicans who had brought the negative light to it.. but i will be happy and eager to read your further posts on history

Originally posted by: history_geek

Thanks Shivani..Yeah..I remember the comment, and luckily, that too, so rightly... And, Search for the query in "foreign policy" comment is still on cards. ;)

So you a science-fiction fan. I read about it, but not watched "that series" , featuring Sheldon.!. His dialogues completely unarmed the opponent, almost always. ;)