rfare, and "ruthless" suggestions for law enforcement. The Arthasastra contained rules for "almost every conceivable political eventuality" (Keay 80). The Law of Fishes, a prominent theory in the Arthasastra, explains that the big fish (empires) eat the little fish (kingdoms) (Johnson 25). Ultimately, the Arthasastra concludes that there are no permanent relationships between the states, that there are just alliances that last only as long as they are useful (Johnson 25). The Arthasastra outlines various ways of dealing with neighboring states, and among these are the Danda, which is a method of aggression, power, and punishment (Johnson 28). Another suggested method is Bheda, which includes the use of treachery or treason to defeat neighboring lands (Johnson 28). The Arthasastra provided guidelines for conquering the world, and made conquering of territories a "sacred duty" for a king (Keay 92). Further, any act that helps a ruler maintain authority is a "right action" (Johnson 25), and the justification for any action was found in the "material progress of an empire" (Johnson 25). Clearly, in this setting where kingdoms are being devoured by one another, morals are not the primary issue, but the issue is the ability to control or retain power.
             According to the Greek ambassador to the Mauryan court, Megasthenes, Chandragupta ruled and retained power primarily through force, in accordance with the Arthasastra (Watson 49). Chandragupta maintained an enormous army, and using military force, organized an "elaborately authoritarian state" (Watson 47). Chandragupta financed a professional army, developed and organized complex road systems for the army, and employed spies, agents, and assassins (Watson 48). By the end of his reign, Chandragupta ruled the Indus and Ganges plains and the far northwest, "a formidable empire by any standards" (Thapar 71). But, ...