Making a note that Kautilya's arthashastra wasn't a pioneering work of his time and that various schools of though on the working of a socio-economic state existed concurrently. Arthashastra mentions them in 112 places and Kautilya disagrees with them in several of these mentions. There are five different schools of thought mentioned :
Brihaspati
Ushanas
Prachetas
Manu
Ambhi
It is unclear in the text just yet where these schools of thoughts disagreed. But I feel that academic discourse in South Asian history is often overlooked outside of the modern academic ivory tower and it is so important to keep in mind that a text isn't the end-all be-all, its is simply one set of narrative on a limited number of topics. Kautilya/Chanakya wasn't a pioneer, he was simply lucky enough (or perhaps tactful enough) to survive as a name through the passage of time.
