HomeChanakya NitiCh. 6Shloka 2
Previous Verse
Next Verse

Shloka 2

Self-Discipline — Chanakya Niti

पक्षिणः काकश्चण्डालः पशूनां चैव कुक्कुरः ।

मुनीनां पापश्चण्डालः सर्वचाण्डालनिन्दकः ॥

pakṣiṇaḥ kākaś caṇḍālaḥ paśūnāṃ caiva kukkuraḥ |

munīnāṃ pāpaś caṇḍālaḥ sarvacaṇḍālanindakaḥ ||

Among birds, the crow is called a caṇḍāla; among animals, the dog likewise. Among sages, the sinful one is a caṇḍāla—and he is the one who reviles all caṇḍālas.

पक्षिणःof birds
पक्षिणः:
TypeNoun
Rootपक्षिन्
Formपुंलिङ्ग, षष्ठी, बहुवचन
काकःcrow
काकः:
TypeNoun
Rootकाक
Formपुंलिङ्ग, प्रथमा, एकवचन
चण्डालःoutcaste, lowest person
चण्डालः:
TypeNoun
Rootचण्डाल
Formपुंलिङ्ग, प्रथमा, एकवचन
पशूनाम्of animals
पशूनाम्:
TypeNoun
Rootपशु
Formपुंलिङ्ग, षष्ठी, बहुवचन
and
:
TypeIndeclinable
Root
Formअव्यय
एवindeed, just
एव:
TypeIndeclinable
Rootएव
Formअव्यय
कुक्कुरःdog
कुक्कुरः:
TypeNoun
Rootकुक्कुर
Formपुंलिङ्ग, प्रथमा, एकवचन
मुनीनाम्of sages
मुनीनाम्:
TypeNoun
Rootमुनि
Formपुंलिङ्ग, षष्ठी, बहुवचन
पापःsinful, wicked
पापः:
TypeAdjective
Rootपाप
Formपुंलिङ्ग, प्रथमा, एकवचन
चण्डालःoutcaste
चण्डालः:
TypeNoun
Rootचण्डाल
Formपुंलिङ्ग, प्रथमा, एकवचन
सर्वचाण्डालनिन्दकःreviler of all outcastes (i.e., worst reviler)
सर्वचाण्डालनिन्दकः:
TypeNoun
Rootनिन्दक
Formपुंलिङ्ग, प्रथमा, एकवचन; (सर्व-चाण्डाल)-निन्दकः
Chanakya (Kautilya)
अनुष्टुप्
Ancient EthicsSanskrit LiteratureHistory of Political ThoughtClassical Social Taxonomies
Birds (pakṣiṇaḥ)Crow (kāka)Animals (paśūnām)Dog (kukkura)Sages (muni)Caṇḍāla (social category/pejorative)

FAQs

In pre-modern Sanskrit gnomic and nīti literature, social categories such as “caṇḍāla” could function both as references to marginal social groups and as generalized terms of stigma. This verse reflects a period idiom in which animals and human types are ranked through moralized or purity-based metaphors, a common feature of didactic anthologies circulating in courtly and scholastic milieus.

Within this verse, “caṇḍāla” operates primarily as a metaphor for the lowest or most disfavored member within a set (birds, animals, ascetics). The usage is comparative and rhetorical rather than ethnographic, aligning the term with notions of impurity and social exclusion as conceptual tools in moral classification.

The construction uses genitive plurals (“pakṣiṇaḥ,” “paśūnām,” “munīnām”) to mark domains and then assigns a stigmatized label as the ‘lowest exemplar’ within each domain. The closing compound “sarvacaṇḍālanindakaḥ” adds an ironic turn: it characterizes the ‘sinful’ ascetic not only as stigmatized but also as one who stigmatizes others, a rhetorical move that intensifies moral condemnation through social-language inversion.