Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Public Administration in Ancient India c17: Chapter XIV

Public Administration in Ancient India c17

Language
English

Chapter XIV

c17.1

As we saw in a previous chapter, the normal state of affairs in India was for the country to be divided into a large number of Kingdoms and Principalities. The maintenance of foreign relations thus formed a very important department of the public activity of every State, and, naturally, foreign policy was regarded as an extremely useful art.

c17.2

Some of the more powerful monarchs, besides maintaining friendly relations with the rulers of the other parts of India, kept up friendly intercourse with the kings of countries outside India. Seleukos Nikator, for instance, sent Megasthenes as ambassador to the Court of Chandragupta, and Deimachos and Dionysios were attached to the Court of Bindusāra Amitraghāta as ambassadors from Antiochus Soter, King of Syria, and Ptolemy Philadelphos, King of Egypt. Asoka’s edicts show that that great monarch maintained friendly relations not only with Ceylon¹ and other neighbouring countries, but also with many kings of distant countries, such as Antiochos Theos of Syria, Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt, Antigonos Gonatas of Macedon, Magas of Cyrene, and Alexander II. of Epirus. The names of ambassadors mentioned above are, as Prof. Rapson points out, “no doubt typical of a class.” It is in every way probable that constant relations were maintained between India and the west during the period of the Maurya Empire.¹ Kings of other parts of India also, besides Magadha, kept up more or less frequent communications with foreign kings. We know that so late as the seventh century A.D., Pulakesi, King of Mahārāshtra, had friendly relations with Khosrū Parwīz, King of Persia, and Harshavardhana of Thānesvar maintained diplomatic relations with China.

c17.3

¹ In the Mahāvamsa, Devānampiya Tissa is described as an "ally" of Asoka. There is no doubt that frequent communications took place between the two Kings. Vide Mahāvamsa, Ch. XI.

c17.4

¹ Rapson, Ancient India.

c17.5

In order to determine the kind of policy to be adopted in each case, foreign rulers are classified by Kautilya under four heads, namely, enemies (Ari), friends (Mitra), mediators (Madhyama), and neutrals (Udāsīna).² Inimical and friendly rulers, again, are each divided into two kinds, natural and artificial. A king and his immediate neighbour are, according to Kautilya, natural enemies to each other.³ A king who attempts to give trouble to another without reasonable cause is an artificial enemy of that other. The ruler whose territory is separated from that of another ruler by the territory of an enemy, and whose friendship has come down from father and grandfather is a natural friend.¹ A ruler whose friendship is courted for the sake of the protection of life and property is an acquired friend. The ruler whose territory is situated close to that of a king and his fro-ward enemy, and who is capable of helping both the kings or of resisting either of them, is a mediatory king. The ruler whose territory is situated between the territories of two rival kings, and who is powerful enough to help or resist either of them or a mediatory king, is a neutral.² “The third and fifth States from a Madhyama,” says Chānakya, “are likely to be friendly, and the second, fourth, and sixth States are likely to be inimical to him. If the Madhyama king be on good terms with both these classes of States, a ruler should be friendly with him; otherwise he should ally himself with the second class of States.”³

c17.6

² Arthasāstra, Bk. VI. ch. 2.

c17.7

³ Abul Fazl, describing the Hindu system of public administration, says: “The Prince whose territory adjoins to his, although he may be friendly in appearance, yet ought not to be trusted; he should always be prepared to oppose any sudden attack from that quarter. With him whose country

c17.8

¹ The best kind of friend, according to Kautilya, is he who is “constant, easy to be roused, noble, straightforward, and whose friendship has been inherited from father and grandfather.” Arthasāstra, Bk. VIII. ch. 9.

c17.9

² The distinction between a neutral and a mediatory King is not at all clear. Perhaps, the term ‘Udāsīna’ (neutral) was applied to a King who remained passive in regard to both the contending parties, while the ‘Madhyama’ King was one who exerted his influence to bring about a reconciliation.

c17.10

³ Arthasāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 18.

c17.11

lies next beyond the one last mentioned, he should enter into alliance; but no connection should be formed with those who are more remote.” Ayeen-i-Akbery (Gladwin), p. 495.

c17.12

The neighbouring kings belong to one or other of four classes, namely, rearward enemy (pārṣṇigrāha), rearward friend (ākrandā), ally of a rearward enemy (pārṣṇigrāhāsāra), and ally of a rearward friend (ākrandāsāra).¹

c17.13

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VI. ch. 2. Vide also Nītivākyāmṛta, Ch. 28, and Agni Purāṇa, CCXXXIII.

c17.14

We read a great deal about Circles of States (maṇḍala) in the literature of Ancient India. A Circle consists of three kings,—a ruler, his friend, and his friend’s friend. As each of these kings is supposed to possess six elements of sovereignty, a Circle consists of eighteen elements. Foreign rulers being of four kinds, there are thus four primary Circles of States, twelve kings, sixty elements of sovereignty, and seventy-two elements of States.² A powerful and wise king would always try to make himself the centre (nābhi) of the Circle and to make the friendly powers the spokes of the wheel (nemi).³

c17.15

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. VI. ch. 2. A State is supposed to have seven elements. See ante, Ch. VII., and Arthaśāstra.

c17.16

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 2.

c17.17

The attitude of a ruler towards foreign rulers depended upon the special circumstances of each case. He was supposed to adopt one or other of six sorts of policy, namely, peace (sandhi), war (vigraha), neutrality (āsana), preparedness for war (yāna), alliance (saṁśraya), and double dealing (dvaidhībhāva).⁴

c17.18

⁴ Ibid. Bk. VII. ch. 1. In the opinion of Vātavyādhi, foreign policy is only two-fold, namely, war and peace; but Chānakya refuses to accept this view.

c17.19

In Chānakya’s view expediency was to be the main consideration in foreign policy. “If a king,” says Chānakya, “is weaker than his neighbour, he should adopt a peaceful policy; but if he is superior in strength to his rival he should make war.¹ When neither of the two is the superior of the other, both should be neutral. When one king is endowed with an excess of quality, he should prepare for war; but if he is powerless, he should make an alliance. If the circumstance be such that it is desirable to crush a rival, but this can only be done with the assistance of some other Power, then the king should adopt a policy of double-dealing.”²

c17.20

¹ That this policy actually governed the actions of statesmen for long ages is shown by the fact that Abul Fazl, writing in the sixteenth century, speaks of the foreign policy of the Hindus in the following terms: “With those princes who are his equals in power, he takes care to maintain peace and friendship, and from those who are weaker than himself he exacts tribute. If any monarch is more powerful than himself, he continually strives to sow dissension among his troops; and if he is not able to do this, prudently purchases his friendship.” Ayeen-i-Akbery (Gladwin), p. 495.

c17.21

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 1.

c17.22

The measures that were to be adopted by kings to carry into effect their foreign policy were four, namely : (i) conciliation (sāma); (ii) making of gifts (dāna); (iii) sowing of dissensions (bheda); and (iv) punishment (daṇḍa).³

c17.23

³ Arthaśāstra. Vide also Nitivākyāmrita (Ch. 28), the Sukranīti, and Kāmandaki.

c17.24

In view of the peculiar position of affairs in India in ancient times, alliances were regarded as a great necessity by most of the Powers. The purposes, however, for which alliances were made were various. Sometimes, the object of an alliance was the joint acquisition of territory, or the colonisation of uninhabited tracts of country. More often, kings combined to crush a powerful rival. But in a large majority of cases, alliances were made for the purpose of defence against other Powers.¹

c17.25

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 1.

c17.26

Alliances were made either on equal terms (samasandhi) or on unequal terms (hīnasandhi). The first kind was an alliance properly so called, because in this the positions of the two parties were equal, and the benefit was mutual. The second was a subordinate alliance, and from it one of the parties often derived more benefit than the other. The duties of a subordinate ally, according to the Agni Purāṇa, were to appease public feeling, to collect allies and auxiliaries, to help the paramount sovereign in other ways, and to enable him to distinguish friends from disguised enemies.

c17.27

From the Harshacharita² as well as from Hiuen Tsiang’s account³ we learn that the King of Kāmarūpa entered into a sort of subordinate alliance with Harshavardhana of Kanauj. Fifteen different kinds of subordinate alliances are described in the Arthaśāstra.⁴

c17.28

² The Harshacharita gives a description of the alliance which the King of Kāmarūpa entered into with Harsha. Harsha is made to say : “Stout-armed himself, with me a devotee of the bow, for his friend, to whom save Siva need he pay homage?” Ch. VII.

c17.29

³ Beal, Buddhist Records.

c17.30

⁴ See post, Ch. XVI.

c17.31

Alliances were made by means of treaties. A treaty is defined by Chānakya as " that which binds kings in mutual faith."¹ The observance of a treaty either depended upon the plighted word (satya, śapatha) or was enforced by means of sureties (pratibhū) and hostages (pratigraha). Very often, the word of honour was held sufficient; but sometimes ascetics and men who were considered powerful enough to influence the action of the government stood sureties for the fulfilment of treaty obligations. In case of an apprehension of a breach of faith, one party often required the other to swear by fire, water, gold, etc., and to send as hostages his relatives and children. According to the older teachers, a treaty made by word of honour was regarded as impermanent (cala), while that supported by sureties or hostages was considered permanent (sthāvara). But Chānakya dissents from this view and says: " A treaty dependent upon the plighted word is permanent, not only in this world, but also in the next, while a treaty depending upon a hostage or a surety is good only for this world. Truthful kings of old made treaties only with the words ' we enter into agreement.' "² In spite of this theory, the maintenance of a treaty was often found very difficult, and when there was any deviation from the terms on the part of one of the parties, it taxed to the full the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the statesman, whether they tried to restore the treaty or to break off friendly relations.

c17.32

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 17.

c17.33

² Ibid. Bk. VII. ch. 17.

c17.34

Communications were kept up between the Courts of the different Powers through diplomatic agents. Even as early as the time of the Rig-Veda,¹ we hear of envoys, but the practice of attaching diplomatic agents to foreign Courts could not have been established until much later times. There were various kinds of such agents, and their powers and responsibilities differed a great deal. Some were Plenipotentiaries (Nisṛiṣṭārtha), some Ambassadors (Dūta), some Chargés-d’affaires (Parimitārtha), while the rest were mere conveyors of royal messages (Śāsanahara).² Plenipotentiaries had power to demand the observance of treaties, to declare war or conclude peace, and to issue ultimatums in emergent cases.³ Krishna, for example, was a plenipotentiary when he was sent by the Pāṇḍavas to the Kuru Court with full powers just before the Great War.⁴ The ambassadors kept their own governments fully informed of the activities of the Court to which they were attached. They lived on terms of friendship with the great Officers-of-State, and acquainted themselves with all the affairs of the country. In particular, they made it their business to ascertain the number, size, and positions of the forts and military stations, the strength of the army, and the strong and weak points of the State.¹ A Parimitārtha was sent to a foreign court on a particular mission and possessed limited authority. The diplomatic agents of the inferior type took note of intrigues against the ruler, and supervised the work of the spies ² engaged in collecting information.

c17.35

¹ Rig-Veda, II. 127, 9.

c17.36

² Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch 16. The Agni Purāṇa (Ch. 241), the Nitivākyāmṛita (Ch. XIII.), and the Yukti-Kalpataru mention envoys of three kinds, niḥśriṣṭārtha, mitārtha, and śāsanaharaka.

c17.37

³ Arthaśāstra, Bk. I. ch. 16. “In urgent cases the ambassadors have to act like ministers.”

c17.38

⁴ The Nitivākyāmṛita gives this illustration. Ch. XIII.

c17.39

¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 16.

c17.40

² The Agni Purāna has a very low opinion of the work of an ambassador. “An ambassador is but an open spy, and a spy is but an envoy travelling in the enemy’s country in the guise of a trader, a mendicant, or a strolling physician.” CCXLI. sl. 12.

c17.41

As the representative of a Foreign Power, an envoy enjoyed great privileges and immunities. A sort of sanctity was believed to attach to his person. The Nītivākyāmrita says: “An envoy should never be killed, even if he is a Chandāla, not to speak of a Brāhmana.”³ The envoys were always courteously treated. In Bhāsa’s Pratimā-Nātaka, King Udayana is made to stand up when he receives a message from Mahasena Pradyota. As the responsibilities of an envoy were great, some care had to be taken in selecting the proper person. The Nītivākyāmrita mentions the following qualifications as essential in an ambassador: “Loyalty to the King, freedom from vices, capacity, honesty, strength of character, eloquence, brilliance, forgiveness, ability to divine other people’s thoughts, and high birth.”¹ Great stress used to be laid on the conduct of an ambassador at a foreign Court. He was expected to behave with dignity and courtesy, and to preserve the good name of the State which he represented. When on a mission to an enemy State it was the duty of the emissary to act with courage and resolution, and at the same time show moderation and tact.²

c17.42

³ So also the Nitiprakāsikā says: “Even if an ambassador is guilty of a grievous wrong, he cannot be put to death.” VII. 64.

c17.43

¹ Nītivākyāmrita, Ch. 13. The Agni Purāna says: “The ambassador sent to represent the King at a foreign court, should be a man of a very sharp intellect, sweet-voiced, possessing eloquence of speech, and well versed in the arts of diplomacy.” Ch. CCXX.

c17.44

² Arthasāstra, Bk. I. ch. 16.

c17.45

The maintenance of a balance of power was one of the problems in Foreign Politics which engaged the attention of the diplomats in ancient days. Chānakya insists that a monarch should always take care that none of the other Powers grow either too strong or become too weak. The Agni Purāna says: “A King should always contemplate the balance of power among the twelve monarchs constituting the circle of foreign monarchs having dealings with his own government.”³

c17.46

³ Ch. CCXL. sl. 1.

Linked texts (9)