On the duties of M and the powers and nature of the state Hamati Chanakya has highlighted the state in his great book 'Arthashastram'. But first of all, in the context of European political scientists, this fact should always be remembered that no religious scholar or statesman of India ever claims that he is saying anything completely new on this subject. He always gives evidence from the basic scriptures and respectfully presents the opinions of the previous Acharyas and presents his own interpretation or any new development in it with the humility that he is nourishing the tradition and following his own religion. Therefore, it is inauthentic to study and teach any Indian Rajshastra pioneer including Chanakya in any university in India or the world, unless the discussion of the basic elements of Sanatan Dharma given in the Indian scriptures is made clear in the beginning. The recognition of the scriptures about the individual and various units of society and nation and clarifying the relationship of those units' own existence with the Supreme Being is essentially the starting point of any cognitive departure.

Chanakya's worldview

The last 17th verse of the third chapter of the first chapter of Arthashastra named Vinayadhikarika summarizes Chanakya's worldview -

Vyavasthitaryamaryadah Kritvarnashramasthitah I
Trayya Hi Rakshitah Lokah Prasidati Na Sidati II

Chanakya says that the supreme duty of the ruler is to establish Arya dignity and to maintain such a situation in the state that the practice of Swadharma through varnas and ashrams should always continue uninterrupted. The world is well protected by the knowledge of Rigveda, Yajurveda and Samaveda, hence make arrangements for it and Anveekshaki, Triya, Varta and Dandaniti are the four departments which keep the subjects and the entire state and keeps things full of happiness and never allow to remain in depression. 
In the second part of the same chapter, the Acharya has explained.

'Anvikshaki Traiyi Varta Dandnitishcheti VidyahI’

Protected by these four knowledge of negotiation and punishment, the people and the entire state always remain happy and never get depressed.

That is, the four sciences of inquiry, trinity, negotiation and punishment. Further in the same chapter, from the 8th to the 13th mantra, Chanakya explains these more clearly. He say that – 

Chatastra Aeva Vidya  Iti Kautilyah II8II
Tabhirdharmartho Yadvidyattadvidanam Vidyatvam II9II
Sankhyam Yogo Lokayatam Chetyanavikshiki  II10II
Dharmadharmau Trayyamarthanarthau Vartayam Nyapanaau Dandanityam II11II
Balabale Chaitasam Hetubhiranvikshamananvikshaki 
Lokasyopakaroti Vyasaneabhyudaye Cha Buddhimavasthapayati 
Pragyavakyakriyavaisharadyam Cha Karoti II12II
Pradeepah Sarvavidyanamupayah Sarvakarmanama I Ashrayah
Sarvadharmanam Shashvadanveekshaki Mata II13II

Thus he has clearly declared that in my opinion there are four sciences: investigation, trilogy, negotiation and punishment. Whereas according to Manu, Anvikshaki is under the Trinity and Brihaspati considers only news and punishment to be knowledge because he is a lokayatravida (varta dandanitischeti Barhaspatyah I Samvaranamatram hi trayi lokayatravida iti).
By appointing a famous atheist communist to the post of President of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, the Congress led Government of India has expanded ignorance and infinity in the field of learning. In this, hundreds of communist literate workers including D.P Chattopadhyay and Rahul Sankrityayan, Ram Vilas Sharma, Bhagwan Singh have played a wonderful role. There has been deception in the translation of every scripture. Thus, in the above statement of Mahamati Chanakya, the translation of Brihaspati being called Lokayatravid is completely false and inappropriate this has been done by saying that being a Lokayatravid means following Lokayat philosophy and Lokayat means Charvak philosophy. Whereas the fact is that only a few verses in the name of Charvaka are found in the Sarvadarshan collection and there is no mention of any philosophy named Charvaka in the entire Indian philosophical history. Here and there, some statement has come up as a reference to the lustful opinions of atheists i.e. people devoid of intelligence. At least in Indian philosophy the word 'philosophy' never has such a loose meaning. Charvaka is not a philosopher. He is an evil and evil person whose killing is the only reason.
In Mahabharata, under Shanti Parva, description of Charvaka is given in the 38th and 39th chapters of Rajdharmanushasana Parva, which is the oldest reference available. In it, Lord Vedvyas tells that Charvak was a demon who was a friend of Duryodhana and who had formed his own group. When King Yudhishthir entered the city after the victory and after reaching the royal palace, saw and worshiped the family deities there and came out where thousands of Brahmins were blessing him with Mangaldravya. Yudhishthir worshiped and honored all of them. When the recitation of the sacred thread ended and the shouts of praise spread all around, after that there was peace, the demon Charvak disguised himself as a Brahmin and moved forward with sandalwood on his head and a trident in his hand and called Yudhishthir a wicked man, a murderer of his teachers and his relatives, and a meaningless life. The one who lived started telling. He said that what I am saying is the opinion of all the Brahmins gathered here. Then all the Brahmins said loudly that no, this scoundrel is lying. He is a friend of Duryodhana and a demon. By coming here in the form of a monk, he wants your harm and the welfare of Duryodhana. Saying this the Brahmins incinerated him with their curse. After this, all the Brahmins left while praising Maharaj Yudhishthir. Then Lord Shri Krishna told that this demon had received a boon in the past that he would never be afraid of anyone except Brahmins. It will be harmful only if Brahmins are insulted. The same thing has happened today.
Thus, according to authentic history in its earliest context, Charvaka is a liar, a friend of the wicked and a demon. Apart from this, there is no ancient mention of Charvak anywhere. Vincent Arthur Smith, who came to India as the Secretary of the British Administration, wrote many pamphlets and carried out vigorous propaganda showing the Mohammedan victory over India. Although he had no eligibility to be a historian. Company and British Raj employee lies
And was famous for deceit. He was an expert in creating false stories of Mohammedan conquest of India. It was he who carried out political fraud to promote the Mughals, the vassals of the jagirs between Delhi and Agra, as the emperors of India. In the same sequence, Vincent Arthur Smith wrote in the 20th century AD (around 1915 AD) that once in a royal assembly in Akbar's court, a Jain Pandit or a Jain monk had mentioned a philosopher named Charvaka. The mention of which is no longer available. Since then, the British and their Indian disciples started the business of promoting Charvaka as an Indian philosopher. Whereas till then Charvak was discussed only as a hypocrite and a liar.
In the 8th century AD scholar Haribhadra Suri's work 'Shaddarshan Samuchaya', Charvak was described as a person who did not believe in God, who did not believe in rebirth and the consequences of karma, and who did not believe in virtue and sin. That man became the standard philosopher for the Europeans and their Indian disciples. As far as the word Lokayat is concerned, its clear meaning is the gross concepts and beliefs generally prevalent in public life. It stands as the inverse of philosophy. That is, Lokayat is opposed to philosophy and the word Lokayatra is completely opposite to this. There the entire folk life is called folk journey. Out of sheer ignorance, stupidity or wickedness, people have made a false attempt to link a classical word like Lokayatra with Lokayat. Acharya Brihaspati has been called a folk traveler in the sense that he was knowledgeable about the diverse and vast forms of folk life across the world. According to Acharya Brihaspati, in the context of Rajshastra, negotiation and punishment are the same two sciences. Chanakya says- Varta dandanitishcheti barhaspatya. Because comprehensive knowledge of public life and the policy of punishing those who disrupt the social order in the form of public visit – these two are the core of Rajshastra. Knowledge of Trayi etc. gives glory and meaning to the life of kings or rulers. Brihaspati does not consider it appropriate to mention it separately in the context of Rajshastra, this is what it means. In this way, Acharya Chanakya, while mentioning the opinions of Lord Manu, Acharya Brihaspati, Shukracharya etc., has given his opinion that all the four disciplines of Anvikshaki, Trayi, Varta and Dandaneeti are essential for Rajshastra.
Acharya Chanakya says that only after knowing these four Vidyas – Anvikshaki, Trayi, Varta and Dandaniti – the means of progress in this world and the next world are known. The knowledge of righteousness and unrighteousness is called Vidya. Sankhya, Yoga and Lokayat These three are Anvikshki. This means that Sankhya philosophy, yoga practice and knowledge of the beliefs and beliefs of the people, these three elements together form the basis of inquiry. Here the word Lokayat has no connection with the so-called Charvak etc. i.e. the nonsense of demons.
In the 11th mantra of the second chapter of the first chapter, the Acharya says: (Dharmadharmau Trayyamarthanarthau Vartayam Nayapanayau Dandanityam I)
That is, the Trinity, that is, the Vedas, give knowledge of righteousness and iniquity. Here Acharyavar is making the same statement that all Sanatan Dharmi sages including Maharishi Manu have been saying since tradition. Because that is the eternal truth. That is, 'the Vedas are the root of religion' (vedo'khilo dharmamoolam). Thus, to believe in Chanakya's political science means to believe in the Vedas and to believe in the Vedas as the root of religion. Without believing this, it is wickedness and greed to take a passage from a Sutra of Chanakya and use it for one's own purpose. Because no present Indian political party considers the Vedas as the basis of religion but it is a political document called 'Constitution of India' drafted by the Constituent Assembly drafted by the representatives appointed by the British Viceroy with necessary amendments to the India Act Therefore, it is not possible for any follower of the present political parties in India to consider Chanakya as his ideal and inspiration. It may be that a modern Indian political leader or activist invokes a formula of Chanakya to please, or 'mobilize', Chanakya's admirers and followers. But that would only be deception and diplomacy. Because any party devoted to the present Constitution is ineligible and unauthorized in the matter of Chanakya as long as it is using this Constitution only in an immediate diplomatic form to achieve Chanakya's ideals. When there is a different situation, that is, when there is faith in this Constitution, the persons, organizations and parties concerned move away from the entire stream of Chanakya and the entire Vedic stream, becoming unfamiliar, unspiritual and strangers to him.
Acharya has enumerated Trayi Vidya in the first place only to provide knowledge of Dharma and Adharma. That is, the starting point of departure in politics is proper knowledge of religion and unrighteousness. In fact, whatever is done without it is not politics, it is poll tricks or 'politics'. This is very clear. This is the reason why modern European politics considers violence only the prerogative of the state and considers killing itself as violence. Thus the decision to ultimately kill those who go against the grain is the essence of modern European politics. That is why this politics made two world wars possible. There was no question of justice and policy in both. The whole dispute was about sharing in the plunder of the colonies. Justice is the essence of Indian politics and hence its common ideals are those of the people it rules. That is, Sanatan Dharma and general religion are also the essence and basis of Indian politics.
Acharyavar further says - 'Through talks one can gain knowledge about agriculture, cow protection, commerce etc. This knowledge is not only for taxation (as is the case in modern politics), but for judgment and judgment of righteousness and unrighteousness. Modern politics decides all the bases of justice based on the desires and plans of its organization or group. The basis of justice in Indian politics has been dialogue and Lok Yatra. Lokayat i.e. beliefs and faith of the people are the basis of justice. It is only the duty of the government to see that no popular belief and faith is violating the Vedas and Sanatan Dharma.
Only through dialogue is it possible to determine the necessary policies for increasing public wealth. Acharya has said that the knowledge of meaning and harm comes only through conversation. That is, knowledge of the form of achievement (meaning) of the purpose of public life and knowledge of the tendencies and actions hindering public life is possible only when the state has the knowledge of dialogue.
Acharya has said this in the above mantra that one gets knowledge of Nay and Apanay through Dandniti. The knowledge of where the state and society should be taken, how the journey of the people remains uninterrupted and the cycle of Dharma continues, is the knowledge of Naya. Knowledge of the forces, tendencies and actions hindering this direction is knowledge of oneself.
Further, in the 12th and 13th mantra or sutra quoted above in the second chapter of the same first Adhikaran, the Acharya makes it clear that Anvikshki is very important to know the strength and weakness of all these sciences, i.e. for Mimamsa and Nyaya. That is why he has said that the people are benefited only through the knowledge of inquiry. Folk trends continue to emerge. Public intelligence remains organized and there is efficiency in wisdom, speech and action. In this way, the knowledge of Anviksha is the lamp of all the knowledge and the seeker of all the works and the shelter of all the religions.

Those who want to erase these clear statements and sutras of Acharya from the public memory, they call Charvaka a part of Anvikshaki. Clearly such people are demons and deserve to be destroyed.