The Economic Times Online
Printed from economictimes.indiatimes.com > Corporate Dossier
Chanakyaniti: play the game
S MANIKUTTY & SAMPAT SINGH
[ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2004 12:24:20 AM]
The name of Chanakya has become synonymous with a machiavellian, cunning, ruthless style of leadership.
The above epithets are, to a large extent, justified. But Visakhadatta’s play Mudra Rakshasa reveals another side of him and shows him as a much more complex character, with important messages for leadership.
In his remarkable TV serial Chanakya, Chandra Prakash Dwivedi has captured Chanakya’s character in a remarkably convincing way.
Like Tughlaq, Chanakya is very clever, playing games all the time. But, unlike Tughlaq, he succeeds — every time. When we see the play Tughlaq, we feel somewhat revolted at the Mad King. When we see Mudra Rakshasa, we come out with a feeling of admiration for Chanakya.
Mudra Rakshasa is a story of an intricate plot developed and played to perfection by Chanakya. To give a historical perspective, Chanakya, a teacher in Taxila University, had seen the Greeks invading and conquering North Western India.
He, like Joan of Arc, wanted to raise an army to drive out the Greeks, and got the support of many kings in north India, but he knew that the support of the largest and most powerful kingdom of that time, Magadha, was needed to ensure success.
He therefore approached Nanda, the corrupt, decadent and arrogant King of Magadha. It was on this mission that he was given the famous insult of being thrown out of the court by the tuft of his hair, which he vowed not to tie again till he deposed of Nanda.
Chanakya, with the aid of his remarkable protégé, Chandragupta, eventually raised an army and defeated Nanda. He went on to found a vast and glorious empire which unified most of India and gave it the rules of state governance.
The play starts soon after this conquest and the installation of Chandragupta as the king and Chanakya as the prime minister.
The plot devised by Chanakya was, surprisingly, to bring to the court Rakshasa, the able and loyal prime minister in the Nanda regime, so that he could be made the prime minister to Chandragupta.
Chanakya recognised the excellent qualities and abilities of Rakshasa, and among which was the latter’s sense of loyalty.
Hence Chanakya wanted Rakshasa not only to come over as the prime minister but also do so willingly. To achieve this, he weaved a complex plot involving the signet ring of Rakshasa. Hence the title of the play, Mudra Rakshasa, or the signet ring of Rakshasa.
The plot is ruthless and involves extensive use of spies, double dealers and dirty tricks. Chanakya condemns to death a close friend of Rakshasa (actually this is a ruse), who had given shelter to Rakshasa’s family when he was in exile.
The condition for the release of his friend was that Rakshasa must accept the prime ministership of the kingdom publicly. Rakshasa agrees, and Chanakya retires from public life, going back to teaching.
Authenticity Revisited
Chanakya is by no means a straightforward person. His schemes for eliminating his
rivals in fact bear a remarkable resemblance to those of Tughlaq. He is totally ruthless and unemotional: he doesn’t think twice before bringing Rakshasa’s friend for execution on a trumped up charge.
He doesn’t hesitate in killing many kings who weren’t loyal to Chandragupta. He has no hesitation in forging letters and using Rakshasa’s seal for his own ends.
Yet there are some vital differences in the two characters that set them apart. Chanakya may be a crook, but he is a straight crook, unlike Tughlaq who always wears a mask, a crooked crook.
When a game of poker is played, deception is the essence. So is the case with statesmanship. But followers must know when the poker game is on, and where they stand. Chanakya lets this be known to them in no uncertain terms.
It’s because of this that all his spies — who work as double agents for Rakshasa also — trust him, and he trusts them.
Even in poker, there are rules for deception. Chanakya is adept at playing the game within these rules, though many of the rules are made by himself. But once he makes them, he plays by those rules. This leads, if not to his credibility, definitely to his authenticity.
Means and Ends Revisited
Chanakya’s means certainly weren’t pure. Gandhi was uncompromising on the need for the purity of both ends and means.
Chanakya’s means, however, don’t seem despicable because he had a trump card like Gandhi — and that was purity of purpose which made all the difference.
We are willing to forgive him for his actions because what he was seeking to do was to have a strong state under an able minister.
We also note that he wanted nothing for himself in the end — in fact, his greatness lay in the recognition that after the initial period of installation of the new king was over, what was needed was a new type of minister who could be an able administrator like Rakshasa rather than a tempestuous leader like himself. Thus all his actions were aimed at making sure that he would be able to abjure his power.
It may be difficult to answer categorically the question of whether wrong means can be justified for achieving noble ends. Even Lord Krishna couldn’t stick to the narrow and straight path.
As they say, sometimes, the shortest distance between two points in life may not be a straight line. But how much crookedness is acceptable calls for a sense of perspective;
a sense of balance. Leadership has much to do with acquiring this balance.
cdeditor@indiatimes.com
©Bennett, Coleman and Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.
