I personally find many of the arguments and discussions against the idea that the Arthashastra was a later development to be superficial. For example, here are the main arguments listed on Wikipedia:
>Small local state: the Arthashastra is intended for a small state surrounded by other small states, and not for an extensive empire.
How do they come to this conclusion? Couldn't it also mean the opposite? Chanakya post-Nanda takeover, could have borrowed earlier works meant for small states housed in the libraries of the Nanda Empire.
The extensive trade routes, forts and the sheer no. of villages taken into account for governance (Example: "There shall be set up a sthānīya (a fortress of that name) in the centre of eight hundred villages, a droṇamukha in the centre of four hundred villages, khārvātika in the centre of two hundred villages and a saṅgrahaṇa in the midst of a collection of ten villages.") might say otherwise.
>Gems and aloe from Ceylon: Hemachandra Raychaudhuri noted in 1919 that gems and aloe from Ceylon are described as pārasamudraka, "from Simhala"; were the text from Mauryan times, it would have used Tamraparni for Ceylon, not Parasamudra.
As far as we know, no “original” autograph manuscript written by Kautilya has ever been found. Like almost all texts from antiquity, the original 4th-century BCE document is lost to time. What we have are later transcription copies made centuries afterward.
So by this logic, wasn’t the very point of the Arthashastra to serve as an encyclopedic technical manual on how to run an empire? If so, why would a later scribe copying the text retain the term “Tamraparni” instead of updating it to “Simhala,” which might have been more appropriate for their own time? After all, the Arthashastra is not a religious text like the Ramayana, where preserving original names and geographical regions is often considered essential.
>Chinese silk: S. Lévi noted in 1936 that Arthashastra 2.11.114 mentions Chinese silk, Cinapatta, "originating in China (Cinabhumi). The Indian name for China is derived from the Ch'in (Qin)-dynasty, which was established in 221 BCE, post-dating the time of Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya. This means that the Arthashastra cannot be attributed to Chanakya.
Earlier texts mention kauseya and tarpya, which many philologists identify as types of silk. If silk-like fabrics were already known in the Vedic period...
Silk was already used as a surface for writing, especially during the Warring States period (475–221 BCE). The first evidence of long-distance silk trade is the discovery of silk in the hair of an Egyptian mummy from the 21st Dynasty, c. 1070 BC. So is it really that unrealistic to assume that it would have reached India, either through direct or indirect means?
>Coral: S. Lévi also noted, in 1934, that Arthashastra 2.11.42 refers to coral imported from Alexandria. This trade flourished in the early centuries of the Common Era. There are no references in Panini and Patanjali, but plenty in sources from the early Common Era. Therefore, "the mention of Alexandrian coral in the Arthashastra is irreconcilable with the attribution of it to Canakya."
Didn't Alexander found over 70 cities named "Alexandria."?
Scholars like V.R. Ramachandra Dikshitar argue that Alasanda could refer to an Alexandria in the Paropamisadae (modern Afghanistan/Pakistan region) or a known trading post in the Persian Gulf.
So, does evidence of abscence mean abscence of evidence?
>Wine and Hunas: Arthashastra 2.25.24-25 refers to wine, with an etymology derived from the Hunas, which is impossible for a work from the 4th century BCE.
Again, the same argument: some scholars argue that “Harahuraka” is a corruption of “Harahuna,” referring to a specific branch of the Huns.
But could it also refer to the Harahuvati River in Afghanistan? The river was known to the ancient Persians as “Haraxvaiti” in Avestan and “Harahuvati” in Old Persian, which are cognate with the Rigvedic Sarasvati River (as described in its “family books”). Scholars such as Mary Boyce and Asko Parpola have identified Arachosia as a Hellenization of the name, meaning the land of the Haraxvaiti.
We know that Arachosia was ceded to Chandragupta Maurya, and that Arachosia was a well-known center for producing wine.
>Greek loan-words: the term surungā, "underground passage, tunnel," is a loanword from Hellenistic Greek surinx, which is not used as such before the 2nd century BCE. Likewise, paristoma (2.11.98), "a kind of blanket or carpet," is a loanword from Hellenistic Greek peristròma, not attested before the third century BCE.
Again, this could simply be a matter of changes in terminology by later scribes to make it easier for people to understand, by replacing older terms.
The Greeks and the Indians have been sharing borders ever since Alexander the Great invaded; the absence of this word in Greek literature doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist.
>Written documents: while the Arthashastra often refers to written documents, and treats the composition of written documents in a specific chapter, yet writing may not have existed in India when the Mauryan empire was founded.
The very fact that the Edicts of Ashoka appear so suddenly and over such a vast geography, with such a standardized script (Brahmi), is a dead giveaway that it is logically impossible for them to have been a “new” invention. Brahmi script must have undergone a long period of development on perishable materials before Ashoka decided to “immortalize” it in stone.
>Alchemy and metal-working: there are references to alchemy in the Arthashastra, which is probably a western influence. Also, the level of metal-working described in the Arthashastra does not correspond with the time of Chanakya.
Didn’t recent excavations at Zawar (Rajasthan) show that India was the first to master the distillation of zinc (a very difficult process because zinc turns to gas before it melts)?
Only more archaeological finds will tell for this one.
>Civil law: Burrow notes that "The chapter on civil law (vyavahãra) represents a state of development on the same level as that in the Yàjnavalkya-smrti , a work commonly assigned to the fourth century AD."
Seriously, what are these arguments? The Mauryan Empire was the first of its kind; of course the Arthashastra had to be sophisticated and secular to be effective in administering a large population.
In fact, many of the Edicts of Ashoka are in Aramaic and Persian, which are not seen elsewhere. This is what large empires had to do, embrace plurality.
>Sanskrit in royal edicts: Trautmann notes that Book II chapter 10 of the Arthashastra itself refers to the use of Sanskrit in royal edicts, which began in 150 CE, setting an earliest date for the text.
This again plays into the absence of evidence vs. evidence of absence debate. Wasn’t Chanakya’s Sanskrit much more similar to the Upanishads and Brahmanas that came before him, rather than the Junagadh Rock Inscription of Rudradaman I that he is referring to?
>Defensive fortications: according to Megasthenes Pataliputra was "surrounded by a wooden wall pierced by 64 gates and 570 towers." Olivelle notes that "AŚ (2.3.8–9) forbids the use of wood in defensive fortications of cities because of the obvious danger posed by fire. Yet, while Schlingloff shows that the description of fortifications in the Arthashastra is pretty accurate when compared with archaeological remains,[57] the fortications excavated at Pāṭaliputra, the capital of the Maurya empire, are made of wood," something which would have been impossible if it was the prime minister of Chandragupta had authored the Arthashastra. "The data on the construction of forts in the AŚ (2.3), therefore, must come from a period later than the Maurya."
Doesn't this prove the opposite? Chanakya argues against wood precisely because he was living in a city made of it. Verse 2.3.9 says: "On the rampart, he should not use wood, for fire lurks in it." This reads as a corrective instruction from an administrator who has seen the vulnerability of wooden fortifications and is mandating a shift to stone and brick for future constructions.
The arthashastra is meant to a manual for an Ideal state and might not reflect the social realities of his time.
>Roman dīnāra: Trautmann notes that one of the earliest texts referring to the Arthashastra, the Pancatantra, uses the word dīnāra a Roman coin not used in India before the Common Era.
No correlation, correct me if I'm wrong please.
>Punched-marked coins: chapter 12 mentions punched-marked coins, which disappeared at the end of the second century, setting the latest possible date for that text.
This is the strongest argument for the idea that the Arthashastra is contemporary, rather than the opposite.
What do you guys think?