The ‘deontic orientation’ thesis—that is, the claim that ancient Indian legal theory is orientated or focussed towards duty to the exclusion of other jural operators—features prominently in the discourse of ancient Indian law. In contrast, contemporary legal systems tend to employ a variety of other jural operators also, including right, liberty, power, and so forth. Theorists like Wesley Hohfeld even assert that these operators are elemental, and hence not reducible to other operators. This disparity may be addressed from various evaluational (...) and conceptual standpoints. I address instead a more basic question: is the disparity real? Does a scrutiny of legal treatises factually validate the deontic orientation thesis? I contend that the thesis is factually not sustainable, and that legal treatises of ancient India do display a sophisticated conception of non-deontic operators. To this end I undertake a scrutiny of Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, to determine the treatise’s use of non-deontic operators, and whether it treats them as entities in their own standing as opposed to derivatives or outcomes of the deontic. (shrink)