This chapter discusses the various ways in which the relationship between kingship, violence and non-violence was conceptualised in ancient India during the period c. 500 BCE to 500 CE, both in general terms as well as in special relation to punishment and war. Examining a variety of textual, epigraphic and visual sources, it identifies a strong and enduring tension in ancient Indian political thought between the ethical principle of non-violence and the pragmatic need for the king to use force while discharging his duties. While non-violence was considered a laudable virtue, there was an acknowledgement, even in Buddhist and Jaina thought, that it was incompatible with political power. At the same time, a distinction was made between necessary force and force that was unnecessary, disproportionate, random or excessive. The former was accepted, the latter condemned. Moral and pragmatic arguments for the measured use of force were accompanied by a constant emphasis on self-control as a desirable royal virtue. By the middle of the first millennium a ‘classical’ model of kingship had emerged, wherein the king’s violence was legitimised and aestheticised. Nevertheless, a window for critiquing the potential and actual violence of the king remained.

This chapter begins the text-critical study at the heart of the book. It analyzes the relationship between two different and redundant types of text-segments in the extant text, chapters (ādhyāyas) and topics (prakaraṇas). The chapters are shown to have been added at a later time. So, too, the verses that conclude each of these chapters in the extant text are shown to have been added along with the chapter segments. This chapter goes on to argue that all, or nearly all, of the verses in the text are later additions. Other additions made at the end of certain chapters are identified.

An exploration of a formal feature in the Arthaśāstra called "citation" (apadeśa), in which various authorities on statecraft are cited. These citations are usually presented in the form of dialogic exchanges, and the triumphant position as attributed to Kauṭilya, the individual to whom the text is ascribed in two (late) verses. This chapter shows that, like the chapters and verses, the citations are also a later addition dating to the same redaction of the text. Finally, this chapter argues that "Kauṭilya" must be the name not of the original composer of the text, but of the redactor who brought it to its present form.

Introduces the dominant paradigm that the sovereign power of kings was limited by the sacred law of dharma in ancient India. Explores the difficulties in analyzing this relationship due to the systematic overdetermination of religion in the reconstruction of India's past. Introduces and analyzes the political theology of varṇāśramadharma, "The Sacred Law of the Social Classes and Modes of Life," in which dharma's supremacy over the king's political power is encoded. Shows that the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya is uniquely positioned to examine religion and politics and investigate the salience of varṇāśramadharma to politics in the period. Introduces higher textual criticism and explains the method of the study, which is to establish what material was original to the text and what was added later and to use that distinction to demonstrate the original independence of the statecraft tradition from varṇāśramadharma.

An overview of the historiography of the Arthaśāstra, beginning with a presentation of the text's formal and informal features. This chapter then goes on to explore the traditional history of the text, which assigns it to a figure called Cāṇakya who probably lived in the late fourth/early third century BCE. A critique of this account is offered based on a preliminary examination of the text's features. Rules out the possibility that the extant text could have been produced at one time by a single author.

The stages of development identified in the text-critical chapters of this study are then put into chronological relationship with other texts of the period. This chapter presents an argument that the Arthaśāstra, which was probably originally called the Daṇḍanīti, was composed around the first century BCE and redacted by Kauṭilya around the third century CE. This allows us to trace the development of certain political concepts in the text, which is undertaken in the final three chapters.