Comment: “Material well-being alone is supreme. For, spiritual good and sensual pleasures depends upon material well-being.” (Kautilya) (1993, 20 Marks)
The sentence comes from Book 1, chapter 7 of the Arthashastra of Kautilya (Chanakya/Vishnugupta), in the section on the self-discipline of a “royal sage”. The wording is R. P. Kangle‘s. It is Kautilya’s own ruling, set against the view he has just reported that the three ends of life be pursued equally.
Where the Statement Sits
- Classical thought counted three worldly ends, the trivarga of dharma (righteous duty), artha (material well-being) and kama (pleasure), with moksha beyond them.
- Kautilya keeps this scheme; the same chapter warns that excess in any one end injures the other two.
- His move is to fix an order of provision: artha is the root (arthamulau hi dharmakamau). Charity, sacrifice and enjoyment presuppose a secure livelihood.
- Artha is broader than money. The last book defines it as the source of men’s livelihood, the earth inhabited by men. For a state, it means territory with a productive population.
What the Claim Does
- It creates a science of politics. If the state’s first business is a measurable worldly good, success can be judged by results, and politics stops being a branch of ritual or ethics.
- It ranks the treasury. Book 2 opens its account of embezzlement with the principle that all undertakings depend upon finance. Kosha, the treasury, sustains the army, forts and famine relief within the saptanga state.
- It makes the king a manager of the economy. The prince studies varta (agriculture, cattle-rearing, trade) beside dandaniti. The state settles villages, builds irrigation and remits taxes after calamity.
- It serves a moral purpose. The end of all this is yogakshema, the security and prosperity of the subjects. Material welfare is the precondition of a dharmic life, not its replacement.
Critiques
- Dharmashastra. The Manusmriti tells a man to give up wealth and desire that conflict with sacred law. From that side, putting artha first reverses the right hierarchy of ends.
- Buddhist and Gandhian ethics. M. K. Gandhi held that economics which harms moral well-being is sinful. Material provision without restraint breeds acquisitiveness, not virtue.
- The instrumental slide. The pursuit of artha licenses spies, entrapment and the manipulation of religion. The dependence thesis is benign, but the means it permits are not.
- A materialist misreading. Parallels with Karl Marx‘s base and superstructure are loose; Kautilya’s artha has no theory of class.
- Means and ends. Amartya Sen‘s capability approach treats income as a means whose value lies in the freedoms it enables. That supports the dependence claim but rejects any “supremacy” of wealth as such.
The Idea Today
In India the Kautilya Economic Conclave, organised by the Institute of Economic Growth with the Finance Ministry, held its fourth edition in October 2025, opened by Nirmala Sitharaman. Welfare is now measured in material deprivations as well as income. NITI Aayog’s January 2024 paper estimated that 24.82 crore people left multidimensional poverty between 2013–14 and 2022–23, as the headcount fell from 29.17% to 11.28%. Article 38 directs the State to secure a social order for the welfare of the people, and Article 47 makes nutrition a duty. This is artha in Kautilya’s sense.
Conclusion
Read in context, the statement asserts priority, not superiority. Artha comes first because dharma and kama rest on it, not because they matter less. That insight gave India an autonomous science of politics and an early theory of the welfare state. Its weakness is the moral licence that “necessity” gives to the ruler. Material well-being is the foundation of the good life, but it cannot also be its measure.