कारुशिल्पिकुशीलवचिकित्सकवाग्जीवनपाषण्डच्छद्मभिर्वा नष्टरूपस्तद्व्यञ्जनसखश्छिद्रेषु प्रविश्य राज्ञः शस्त्ररसाभ्यां प्रहृत्य ब्रूयात् अहमसौ कुमारः सहभोग्यमिदं राज्यमेको नार्हति भोक्तुम् ये कामयन्ते मां भर्तुं तानहं द्विगुणेन भक्तवेतनेनोपस्थास्यामि इति । इत्यपरुद्धवृत्तम् ॥ कZ_०१.१८.१२ ॥
kāruśilpikuśīlavacikitsakavāgjīvanapāṣaṇḍacchadmabhirvā naṣṭarūpastadvyañjanasakhaśchidreṣu praviśya rājñaḥ śastrarasābhyāṃ prahṛtya brūyāt ahamasau kumāraḥ sahabhogyamidaṃ rājyameko nārhati bhoktum ye kāmayante māṃ bhartuṃ tānahaṃ dviguṇena bhaktavetanenopasthāsyāmi iti | ityaparuddhavṛttam
Or, assuming disguise as an artisan, craftsman, actor, physician, professional orator/livelihood-speaker, or sectarian mendicant, and with a confederate who matches the disguise, he should enter through vulnerabilities, strike the king by weapon or poison, and proclaim: ‘I am that prince; this kingdom is to be jointly enjoyed—one man alone is not fit to enjoy it. Those who wish to support me, I will maintain with double rations and wages.’ This is the procedure when the prince is under restraint/held captive.
It frames the coup as distributive and inclusive, encouraging elite and guard defections by promising access and rewards rather than exclusive rule.
They are socially plausible roles with routine palace access and low suspicion, enabling entry, reconnaissance, and proximity to the target.
It is a rapid loyalty-purchase mechanism to flip security personnel and administrators at the decisive moment.