Do not copy-paste anything from google. kindly write in your own language.

In the answer, Must Give 5/6 bullets points. Each bullet point should have a paragraph within (40 to 50 words)

The answer should be based on the paragraph below. I will upvote after getting the answer :) thanks

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give Answer by reading the paragraphs below:Question:

broadly_talk_about_how_the_author_defined_the_concept_of_dharmashastra_and_arthashastra.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Give Answer by reading the paragraphs below:

KAUTILYAS ARTHASHASTRA: APPROACH AND METHOD

The question of right and expediency is central to Kautilya. It is misleading to compare him to Machiavelli, as is so often done. The intellectual context wascompletely different; the term Machiavellian is a category mistake. For all his focus on material welfare, the use of spies, and so on, Kautilya never ignores (far less contradicts) dharma. Both foreign policy and warfare are subject to moral normsfor example, to be in accordance with dharma, the place and time of battle must be specified beforehand (KA 10.3.36). Non-combatants and those who surrender should not be harmed (KA 13.4.52). Kautilyas work, the only surviving example of the arthashastra genre, was probably written c. 150 BCE, but was revised and added to up to the third century CE. It deals with the education and self-discipline of the king (Book 1). Books 26 deal with domestic policy, including agriculture, forestry, industry, trade, and transport; taxation and consumer protection; legal procedures, property, contract, labour law, prisons; and lastly the secret service. Book 2 is about the departments of government and the selection and regulation of civil servants; book 5 about secret activities. Books 714 (about one-third of the whole) deal with diplomacy and war, with a great deal on military tactics, ending (once again) with spies and covert operations. Most of the ideas and attitudes expressed in this work derived from the Maurya dynasty (c. 320c. 185 BCE), but it drew extensively on earlier works. Kautilya set out to provide a model of the royal-imperial state in India, especially that of Ashoka (r. 268233: see below, p. 82).44 This is a work without parallel in the ancient world. It covered the whole range of practical politics, foreign as well as domestic, in great detail. Kautilyas approach to politics was pragmatic and down-to-earth. He considered a wide range of possible situations and alternative courses of action. How one should actwhether in treating seeds or negotiating with an allydepends upon the specific situation. He is inventive in his search for practical solutions.45 He explores the ramifications of alternative policies with the same thoroughness which Aristotle applied to constitutions (below, pp. 15760). Precise punishments are spelled out for various misdemeanours: for example, failure to maintain an irrigation facility incurs double the loss caused by the failure (KA 3.9.37). Kautilya asserted the primacy of the political over all the other modes of knowledge or approaches to life. Philosophy, religion, and economics are all rooted in political science (arthashastra) (KA 1.2.1; 1.5.1); for they all depend for their functioning on the use of coercive power. The means of ensuring the pursuit of philosophy, the three Vedas and economics is the Rod (wielded by the king) (KA 1.4.3). It is coercive government which enables subjects to attain the three goals of life: spiritual good, material well-being, sensual pleasure (KA 1.4.11). The Rod underpins the social order, the caste system, and morality: the people of the four varnas and in the four stages of life, protected by the king with the Rod [and] deeply attached to occupations prescribed by their special duties, keep to their respective paths (KA 1.4.16). Finally, it is punishment alone that guards this world and the other (KA 3.1.42). So far, so Hobbesian.

Kautilya insisted that material well-being is more important than spiritual well-being or sensual pleasure, since both of these depend on material wellbeing (KA 1.7.67). His arthashastra is thus the polar opposite of the Bhagavad Gita in its estimation of spiritual values in action. This may have had something to do with why it was forgotten. His view of society is, one might say, materialist, but in an Aristotelian (or Marxist) sense: although the spiritual depends upon the material, it can also function independently. And he is not as Hobbesian, nor as Machiavellian, as he at first appears. For he rejects the view of the ancient teachers of arthashatra, that coercive power should be used severely or indiscriminately. Rather, the (king who is) severe with the Rod, becomes a source of terror to beings. The (king who is) mild with the Rod is despised. The (king who is) just with the Rod is honoured (KA 1.4.510). It is administration (of the Rod), (when) rooted in self-discipline (that) brings security and well-being to living beings (KA 1.5.1). He opts, in other words, for a middle way informed by justice. His arthashastrawas written for a state functioning according to dharma (Derrett and Duncan 1975: 130). While there is much in Kautilya that sounds a bit Machiavellian, he envisaged no fundamental separation between power and morality or religion.46 This was possible because the relationship between religious ethics (dharma) and political power (artha) was conceived differently in ancient India from the way it was conceived in modern Europe. The religious norms of Kautilyas society were of such a kind that one did not have to contravene them in order to deal effectively with ruthless opponents. Thus, a royal servant shall give his advice always in accordance with dharma and artha (KA 5.4.11). Kautilyas advice on the treatment of newly conquered territories, for example, combined quasi-Machiavellian recommendations about winning hearts and minds with an underlying concern for reform in accordance with dharma. One might compare Kautilyas teaching with the almost exactly contemporary combination of Legalism and Confucianism in China (see below, p. 115), which was another attempt to combine ethics with political pragmatism.