Kautilya described the behaviour of those who could be won over when needed. There were four types of behaviour that he felt made a man seducible – anger, fear, greed, and pride. Why these four? Many of Kautilya's teachings and policies were influenced by the Vedas, which tell us that a human being is made up of mind, body, and intellect (brain). Of these, the body acts either at the command of the mind or at the insistence of the intellect. Intellect is defined as the capacity to control the mind and this comes from study and reflection. The mind is a collection of our feelings, emotions, thoughts, etc. While intellect rationalises, the mind dictates the emotion. Further, the mind is insatiable, it wanders (perhaps even faster than the speed of light), and it gets attached. All these things make one dependent on the world.
A person feels stress when his mind rules over his intellect. This is the state of unfulfilled desires. Whereas when intellect rules over the mind, the desires become aims and ambitions. Unfulfilled desires could lead one to anger (the mind experiences this as an obstruction to what one desires); greed (when the craving or the desire becomes very strong); this leads to arrogance, which with the passage of time becomes envy. Envy leads to fear (losing what one has). The fourth state that the Vedas talk about is Moha (delusion); but Kautilya lays stress on pride in a man that relates to arrogance as the fourth seducible element.
How do we identify these people?
The group of enraged: Anger is exhibited when one's desires are obstructed. This group includes:
– those who felt cheated or denied after being promised certain rewards (increment in pay, status, etc).
– One of two or more persons, who being equally competent, feels humiliated because the other is assigned a job.
– One who feels slighted because his superior favoured another.
– One who is unable to deliver results on account of being given a difficult assignment.
– One who feels distress on being transferred to a far-flung area, or an area of his dislike (Kautaliya considered both those willing to be transferred but considered the remuneration improper, and those unwilling to be transferred).
– One who is on an assignment not of his choice.
– One who cannot achieve his objective in the organisation even after trying hard and giving his best, perhaps because of a fault in the culture of that organisation.
– One who is hindered from doing his duty, either due to paucity of time, or because of not being given requisite authority to do the task.
– One who feels underpaid.
– One deserving, but deprived of an office he aspired to.
– One held back by his peers or superiors in an organisation for their own interests.
– One who is reprimanded and/or punished, (whether such reprimand/punishment is justified or not) after serving the organisation loyally.
– One who feels the other got credit for the work done by him.
The group of those who are frightened: This fear is one of losing something. The group includes:
– One who has thwarted, or pulled down someone
– One who had committed a serious wrong – a deliberate act detrimental to the organisation.
– One who has become known for a wrongful act perhaps in his personal capacity.
– One frightened by the punishment meted out to another for a like offence.
– One who has seized someone else's work or credit.
– One who has been subdued by authority.
– One who has suddenly amassed a lot of wealth at the expense of the organisation
– One disliked by his superiors.
– One who has entertained hostility towards his superiors, or the organisation itself.
The group of those who are greedy (These people are in a state of overwhelming desires). This group includes:
– One who is impoverished (for money/respect/opportunities).
– One who has faced a calamity.
– One who has indulged in vices either in personal or professional capacity.
– One who has indulged in rash transactions. Rashness of transactions may have involved a financial loss or expectation of a great gain.
– A person who believed in personal gain by withholding information.
The group of those who are proud: This relates to arrogance that follows greed.
This group includes:
– One who was filled with self-conceit (self-importance, pride, vanity, snobbery, arrogance).
– One who desires achievement of honour.
– One resentful of the honour bestowed on a colleague.
– One placed in a lower position than he had envisaged for himself.
– One fiery in temper.
– One given to violence (physical, verbal or non-verbal).
– One dissatisfied with his emoluments
After identifying these four groups, Kautilya prescribed how to approach them.
To lure the enraged
Reinforcing perceptions such people hold about their organisation by telling them how their organisation and managers lacked the knowledge, commonsense and also the experience to see what they were worth; Also to explain to them the 'detrimental effects' that such behaviour of their organisation and managers could have on the organisation; By inviting them then to join another organisation to realise their potential.
To lure the frightened
Reinforcing their sense of insecurity by warning them of a possible 'harm' that they risk getting from their organisation due to its own (incorrect) apprehension of being harmed by them, showing them a safer haven where they could grow.
To lure the greedy
Reinforcing their desire by amplifying the fact that their organisation rewarded those who were devoid of spirit, intelligence, and eloquence, but not those endowed with their qualities. Presenting an alternative organisation which has a culture of acknowledging and rewarding persons of distinction and asking them to join.
To lure the proud
Proud people need to get their ego massaged. The approach used should be to impress upon them that their organisation is fit for and is of benefit to only people with lower qualities and, little or no intelligence, conviction or abilities, not for people of their standing. Inviting them to join an organisation that 'knows' how to honour persons of distinction.
Though the kingdom was a feudal monarchy, it had a well-structured administrative machinery, containing various departments and the heads of these departments were charged with well-specified responsibilities; they were expected to run the team actively, efficiently prudently and profitably. The highest authority was the King himself who was advised by a group of councilors, ministers and other high officials, who were carefully selected by the King himself after a careful scrutiny of their character, background, and leadership qualities.
Kautilya believed in the adage "Yatha Raja Thatha Prajah," (as the King is, so will be the people"). Therefore, he laid down the condition that 'an ideal King is one who has the highest qualities of leadership, intellect, energy and personal attributes'. Nepotism had no place in Kautilya's scheme for holding high offices. For the King (or in modern times, the Prime Minister), these important qualities were emphasised.
We have to view these qualities in the context of the political-social milieu of Kautilya's times. Qualities that were then desirable were birth in a noble family, good fortune, intellect and cultivating associations with elders, being righteous, truthful, resolute, enthusiastic and disciplined, not breaking a promise, showing gratitude to those who help, being holy, and not being dilatory.
This included the desire to learn, listening to others, grasping, retaining and understanding thoroughly and respecting knowledge, rejecting false views and adhering to the true ones. An energetic King is one who was determined, valorous, quick and skilful.
An ideal King had to be eloquent, bold, and endowed with a sharp intellect, a strong memory and keen mind. He should be amenable for guidance. He had to be well-trained in all martial arts and have the ability to lead a disciplined and trained army. He had to have the ability to govern in normal times and the capacity to face crises. He had to conduct himself in accordance with the advice of elders. The King himself scrutinised persons whom he appointed to high posts as councilors, ministers, commander-in-chief of the army and heads of various departments in his kingdom.
The King appointed councilors and ministers after carefully scrutinising their birth, abilities, character and suitability for taking up the high posts. The King had to personally supervise the work of those ministers near him. With those further away, written communication was used. According to Kautilya, the King had to thoroughly test the integrity of those whom he had appointed. Kautilya also cautioned the dangers inherent in King's service. "Service under a King has been compared to living in a fire (but is, in fact, work). A fire may burn a part of one's body and, at its worst, all of it, but a King (goes from one extreme to another). He may either confer prosperity or may have the whole family, including wives and children, killed. Therefore, a wise man makes self-protection his first and constant concern."
Specific qualifications were laid down in Arthashastra for the appointment of the heads of the departments. 34 heads of departments were listed by Kautilya. Only those who had the specified qualifications were appointed to these high posts. Except in the case of Raj Purohita, the scribe (Brahmin) and army (Kshatriyas), there was no caste reservation for the high-level posts. Thus, upward mobility in the hierarchy was based on merit, suitability and fulfilling other qualifications laid down for these posts.