HOW ARTHASHASTRA DESTROYED MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES: THE SWAMI NONSENSE

Hello World,

This is a multi-part blog-blast-series where I will be vomiting my thoughts on how nonsensical arthshastra is. Yes, we already cut to the chase and the chase is here. We might as well proceed further.

SWAMI: THE LEADER/KING

Let’s start with what’s out there in the public domain on this one. Please have a look at the image below and read the text in it. It is a screenshot of a translation of arthashastra available online.

To put this arthashastra conspiracy in perspective, please find below another image of a similar translation I found [in a paperback book this time].

I am sure by now you would have noticed that both the images present the same translation with just a minor change of words. The ‘reckless’ is replaced with ‘lazy.’ ‘Works’ is replaced with ‘wealth.'

Reckless and lazy are very different words with very different meanings [irrespective of the context].

Wealth and works are also very different words. 

One of these translators, or even both, might have copied from a common source and replaced the words to evade plagiarism issue and related lawsuit. 

I wonder if anyone would even go to court for such nonsense. 

Now to the idea presented in the translation, I think it is absolute bullshit. It starts with saying that if the king is lazy/reckless, his subjects will also be reckless/lazy. So what???!!?? 

Who gives a rat’s ass about a king’s subjects? The king’s primary role is to keep the territory intact, secure and enable the prosperity of the country’s entire population. 

Trump is reckless and lazy. He doesn’t think before he tweets and he wouldn’t take the time to read all that is given to him. They have to break it down and use his name a lot to keep him reading. 

The USA is still the country with the best economy in this world. 

The translation moves on to say, a lazy/reckless king will fall in the hands of his enemies. 

HELL NO!!!! 

Do you know which king falls into the hands of his enemies?

The one with enemies and very badly trained military forces. 

Even when a war is coming to a close, the weaker force will surrender to save its remaining soldiers unless the situation is a do-or-die one. 

Why would arthashastra define how a king should be? Kings existed even before this thing was written. How did kings exist before a ‘how should a king be’ doctrine came into existence?  There must have been a logic that helped kingdoms survive and in some cases even flourish. 

The fact that kingdoms fell and kings perished were largely because the invading army was stronger and in most cases much larger than the losing kingdom.

The fact that this part of arthashastra deals with king and his subjects indicates it is suitable only for monarchy and not democracy. Also, since it talks about the king’s subjects eating into his wealth/works, it blindly conveys the message that the king and his subjects are the prime focus when it comes to the responsibility of the king, in this case SWAMI: THE LEADER.

In other words, it is either outdated or out of sync with anything sensible, or, in my opinion, both, by leaps, bounds and light years. [going universal here, kindly drift along]

Any king’s subjects should be capable of handling the responsibilities given to them in the best way possible. There is no way all SUBJECTS can be the same as the king. For this to happen, they have to be cloned [for physical resemblance] and brainwashed through ‘workshops on policy-making and administration methods.’ [a very popular nonsense prevalent in democracies today]

From a different perspective, if the SUBJECTS  are indeed as the KING, then it only means the SUBJECTS are the Sancho Panza's of a Quixote-of-a-King. To be fair, king a windmill for a monster is reckless and a all-time 'Yes Master' means silly subordination without reasoning. At least with Quixote, Sancho Panza remains with the objective of protecting his master from big risks and embarrassment. 

I think I insulted Quixote, Sancho Panza and Miguel de Cervantes by using them in an analogy involving Arthshastra. Please accept my apologies for that.

If you think arthashastra can be interpreted in many ways, then, it has to be fantasy and not principles of management.

Anyone can come up with 'have a blue skin over your head at all times that can weep for your benefit' as a carefully crafted doctrine for those seeking enlightenment which can then be interpreted as 'the sky we know today.' 

One can't claim 'Principles of Atmosphere' as the title for such crap!!!! It is as simple as that!!!

Stop believing this nonsense please. Just because something is ancient and in sanskrit doesn’t mean it has to be right or relevant. Arthashastra could also have been the result of very good political satire written for the comedy shows of those times. Someone placed it under the wrong section of a new library and the rest of readers just flew with it, driven by their own imagination that said this piece of writing is actually principles of something they never knew. True they did not know, but what they did not know is that arthashastra is political satire and the statements shouldn’t be taken as such.

Anyways, let’s proceed further. I am loving this already. I’ll be honest, I am being a bit sadistic but hey, when it comes to nonsense, all one can do is feel good about criticising it. It is only fair because the subjects and the king will resemble each other and there is a big group of humans out there who believe in this crap.

The arthashastra or what should ideally be the most misogynistic nonsense mankind has ever had written, preserved and for the love of salted crackers, translated into torture tips for screwed up management ideologies, is ruining this world and I am now officially sick of it. 

Meet you again in my next rant of this blog-blast-series.

Best regards,