Masterminds and Manipulations: Analyzing 'Mudrarakshasa' through the Lens of Chanakya and Rakshasa

Mudrarakshasa by Visakhadatta is a political thriller written in the 6th century, set in the time of Chandragupta Maurya

caption...

Mudrarakshasa, written by Vishakadatta (Translated by R S Pandit) in the 6th century CE, is a political thriller set in an exciting period in Indian history. It is the time of Chanakya, Chandragupta Maurya, and the Nandas. By this time, in Kusumapura (Patna), the last of the Nanda kings had renounced the world, and his kingdom was taken over by Chandragupta and Chanakya. Malayaketu, a small vassal king, left Chandragupta's court after his father was poisoned. Though he fled, Malayaketu has a trump card in Rakshasa, the honest and intelligent minister. The goal of Chanakya at the beginning of the play is to bring Rakshasa to his camp so that Chandragupta would have an able minister by his side. Discover the hidden gems of political wisdom and strategic brilliance as we journey through the corridors of power in ancient India, guided by the astute mind of Chanakya and the ambitions of Chandragupta Maurya.

The title Mudrarakshasa refers to Rakshasa's signet ring. It was stolen by Chanakya's spy. Using that mudra, Chanakya forges a letter that sets the wheel of intrigue into motion. After a few back-and-forth moves, Chanakya brilliantly seeds suspicion into the minds of Rakshasa and Malayaketu. The spies of Chanakya spin tales, and at some point, Malayaketu is suspicious of Rakshasa's loyalty. Malayaketu thinks that if Chanakya is gone, then Rakshasa might switch loyalty. Also, though it was Chanakya who killed Malayaketu's father, the blame was put on Rakshasa. While all this is happening, Rakshasa sees his world falling apart, with his friends disappearing in Chanakya's web for one mistake he made. He left his family at a friend's house. But that step and losing his ring would lead to his fall.

The scenes alternate between Chanakya's house and Rakshasa's house, with one making a cunning move and the other trying to foresee and counter it. It is like a game of _shatranj,_ but with lives at stake. It creates great drama and suspense. Through dialogue, Vishakadatta exposes the characters' ideals and the lengths they would go to defend their allegiances. Chanakya is focused on the brilliant and brave Rakshasa --- he admires him. However, he is in the enemy camp --- and wants to get him to the Maurya side. He would do anything to achieve that goal, like forging letters, imprisoning innocent people and threatening to kill them, exiling people, using poison girls and spies. He knows Rakshasa's weakness for his friends and exploits it to make him helpless and surrender.

Rakshasa is not a simpleton, either. He tries his best to murder Chandragupta. On the day Chandragupta was to enter as the victor to the palace, Rakshasa placed a shooter and a mahout to assassinate him, but the assassins were killed instead of Chandragupta. Then Rakshasa tried poisoning Chandragupta. Instead, Chanakya made the poisoner drink it. Then, a group was created to hide in Chandragupta's room. Chanakya spotted ants coming from the floor with food and detected the hidden enemies.

The play shows how spies form an essential tool in Chanakya's and Rakshasa's arsenal ("They know a thousand languages, they have a thousand eyes, they travel in thousand disguises"). There is a Brahmin, Indusharman, dressed as a Buddhist monk, who gets friendly with the ministers of Rakshasa. Then there is Nipunaka, who walks around carrying a cloth with Yama's designs. His task is to keep an eye on the general population. Jain monk Jivasiddhi, too, is a spy, and so is Viradhagupta, dressed as a snake charmer.

Rakshasa, though defeated, ends on a high note. He becomes the minister of Chandragupta, passing a tough test. Despite all odds, he is respected for his ethical stand and for keeping his moral fiber intact. Chanakya, too, ends on a high note. He used deception to trap Rakshasa, not to benefit him but Chandragupta. He retires. The play brings out the contrast between these two ministers. Chanakya is ruthless, but Rakshasa is softer and relenting. Chanakya can plot a deceptive scheme, but Rakshasa is more of a soldier.

An interesting aspect of this play—and I have to confess that I have not read many—is that there is no romance at all. In fact, there are no main women characters (there are minor ones like guards and the wife of one character). Apparently, Sanskrit dramas have a vidushaka character, which is missing in this one. It is a cut-and-dry political drama with intrigue and intellectual arguments on duty and loyalty.

PS: Do you know how Chanakya died? Interestingly, it comes from a Jain source, the only source.