[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [Public Administration in Ancient India](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916) › c19 # Public Administration in Ancient India c19: Chapter XVI: Conquest and Defence Public Administration in Ancient India c19 - **Language:** English ### Chapter XVI: Conquest and Defence ### [c19.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.2) WHEN the Āryas, after their settlement in the Punjab, began to spread themselves in different directions, every step of their advance was opposed by the non-Āryan tribes. The Rig-Veda is replete with allusions to these conflicts between Āryas and Dasyus. Hymn VIII, Mandala I. of the Rig-Veda, for instance, runs thus: ### [c19.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.3) “Indra, bring wealth that gives delight, the victor’s ever-conquering wealth, Most excellent to our aid; By means of which we may repel our foes in battle hand to hand, By thee assisted with the car. Aided by thee, the thunder-armed, may we lift up the bolt, And conquer all our foes in fight. And thee, O Indra, for ally with missile-darting heroes, may We conquer our embattled foes.” ¹ ### [c19.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.4) ¹ Rig Veda (Griffith’s trans.). ### [c19.5](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.5) Again, in Hymn 11, Mandala II., we read: ### [c19.6](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.6) “Hero, assume the might wherewith thou clavest Vṛitra piecemeal, the Dānava Aurnavābha, ### [c19.7](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.7) Thou hast disclosed the light to light the Ārya; on thy left, O Indra, sank the Dasyu, May we gain wealth, subduing with thy succour and with the Ārya, all our foes, the Dasyus.” ¹ ### [c19.8](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.8) ¹ Rig Veda (Griffith’s trans.). In the Mahābhārata we come across the following passage: “War was invented by Indra for the destruction of Dasyus, and bows, weapons, and armour were created for the same purpose. Therefore, merit is acquired by the destruction of Dasyus.” Udyoga Parva, Sec. 29, sls. 30-31. ### [c19.9](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.9) In the heroic age of Indian history of which accounts are preserved in the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, the fame of a great warrior was much coveted by powerful monarchs, and their ambition was to be acknowledged paramount sovereign by the neighbouring rulers. Jarāsandha, King of Magadha, is described in the Mahābhārata as having, with the assistance of Sisupāla, King of Chedi, who acted as his generalissimo, subjugated almost all the Kings of Middle India. He was a wicked man, and so when he was preparing to declare himself Emperor, the Pāndavas were persuaded by the other Kings to declare war against him in which Jarāsandha was killed.² Then King Yudhishthira’s brothers set out, each at the head of a large army, on a Digvijaya, or conquest of the four quarters. They succeeded in defeating all the brave monarchs of Northern India, and compelled them to acknowledge Yudhishthira as their paramount sovereign and to pay tribute to him. But the acquisition of territory was not that great King’s object. As the poet Bāna Bhatta puts it: ### [c19.10](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.10) ² Mahābhārata, Sabhā Parva, Sec. XV. ### [c19.11](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.11) “Not too ambitious, surely, of conquest were the ancients, seeing that in a small part of the earth there were numerous monarchs, such as Bhagadatta, Dantavakra, Krātha, Karṇa, Kaurava, Śiśupāla, Śālva, Jārasandha, and Sindhurāja. King Yudhiṣṭhira was easily content, since he endured quite near at hand the Kingdom of the Kimpurushas, when the conquests of Dhananjaya had made the earth to shake.” ¹ ### [c19.12](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.12) ¹ Harshacharita, Ch. VII. The translation given here is that of Cowell and Thomas. ### [c19.13](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.13) Although righteous warfare was supported and even extolled in olden times, the ancient teachers did not regard war in general as a profitable business. They seem to have clearly realised the fact that war inflicts heavy losses on both parties, and that even the victorious party does not derive much advantage from it. So the Mahābhārata advises Kings not to engage in wars until all peaceful means of settling disputes have failed.² In spite of such advice, however, aggressive wars became gradually more and more frequent. Thus we find Manu offering the King a different sort of advice: “When,” says Manu, “he is thus engaged in conquest, let him subdue all the opponents whom he may find by the (four) expedients, conciliation and the rest. If they cannot be stopped by the first three expedients, then let him, overcoming them by force alone, gradually bring them to subjection.”¹ ### [c19.14](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.14) ² “Sāntvena tu pradānena bhedena ca narādhipa Yam artham śaknuyāt prāptum tena tuṣyeta paṇḍitaḥ.” Śānti Parva, Sec. 69, sl. 24. ### [c19.15](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.15) ¹ Manu, VII. 107-108. He adds: “Among the four expedients conciliation and the rest, the learned always recommend conciliation and (the employment of) force for the prosperity of Kingdoms.” VII. 109. ### [c19.16](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.16) Chānakya was the great champion of a universal monarchy in India, and as such he regarded the acquisition of territory by means of conquest as a very desirable object. “A conqueror, well versed in the science of Politics,” says Chānakya, “who acquires territory from enemies gains superiority”; and in his opinion any ruler who opposes such an attempt was to be crushed, whatever might be the cost of the undertaking.² ### [c19.17](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.17) ² Vide Arthasāstra, Bk. VII. chs. 10 and 12. ### [c19.18](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.18) Chānakya’s disciple, Chandragupta, was the first great conqueror of historical times who subdued all the countries of Northern India. His son and grandson were also renowned for their conquering arms. Asoka, however, repented of his sins after the conquest of Kalinga, and turned his eyes to conquests of a different kind. In the fourth century A.D. we hear of the achievements of Samudragupta, who has been called by a well-known historian “the Indian Napoleon.” The Allahābād inscription speaks of him as one “who was skilful in engaging in a hundred battles of different kinds; whose only Ally was the prowess of the strength of his own arm;—who was noted for his prowess;—whose most charming body was covered with all the beauty of the marks of a hundred confused wounds, caused by the blows of battle-axes, arrows, spears, pikes, barbed darts, swords, lances, javelins and whose great good fortune was mixed with so as to be increased by the favour shown in capturing and then liberating Mahendra of Kosala Vyāghrarāja of Mahākāntāra,—and all other Kings of the South,—whose imperious commands were fully gratified by giving all taxes and obeying orders and coming to perform obeisance by the frontier Kings . . . whose tranquil fame, pervading the whole world, was generated by establishing (again) many royal families fallen and deprived of sovereignty . . . who had no antagonist of equal power in the world.” ¹ ### [c19.19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.19) ¹ Vide Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum, Vol. III. Vide also the Erān stone Inscription of Samudragupta and the Mathurā and Sānchī Inscriptions of Chandragupta II. ### [c19.20](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.20) King Yasodharman describes himself in his inscriptions as one who conquered countries not enjoyed by the Guptas, “before whose chieftains bow down Kings from the neighbourhood of Lauhitya (Brahmaputra) to Mahendra, and from Himālaya to the Western Ocean.” ² Harshavardhana was also a great conqueror who, according to the Chinese traveller Hiuen Tsiang, went from East to West subduing all the Kings of Northern India, and whose victorious armies reposed only after thirty years of incessant fighting.³ ### [c19.21](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.21) ² Mandasor Pillar Inscription of Yasodharman, Corp. Ins. Ind. Vol. III. ### [c19.22](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.22) ³ Buddhist Records, Bk. V. ### [c19.23](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.23) It ought to be noted that the Kings of India, as a rule, confined their military activities within the borders of India, and Indian history does not record many invasions of foreign countries. In the opinion of Megasthenes, it was a sense of justice which “prevented any Indian King from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India.” The conquests of Ceylon, Siam, Cambodia, Java, and Sumatra seem to have been exceptions to this rule; but, really, they were in part military achievements and in part colonising enterprises. ### [c19.24](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.24) In Chānakya’s military philosophy warfare was of three kinds, namely, open (prakāśa), treacherous (kūṭa), and silent (tūṣṇīm). “Open warfare consists of threatening, assault, creating confusion in the enemy’s ranks, and divert attack. Treacherous warfare consists in keeping up good relations by gifts, etc., and attacking at the same time. Silent warfare is the attempt to win over the officers of the enemy.” ¹ Enthusiasm, superiority in strength, and skilful diplomacy were regarded as the three great requisites for success in war, and of these, the second was held better than the first and the third the best of all. “The arrow shot by an archer,” says Chānakya, “may or may not kill one person; but the skilful diplomacy of a wise man kills even those who are not yet born.” ² Chānakya advises a would-be conqueror to ascertain, before marching to battle, the comparative strength and weakness of his own army and that of his enemy, and to carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages likely to result from the undertaking, the possibility of the recruitment of new soldiers, the expenditure both in men and money, the dangers of the undertaking, and the probable consequences. The conqueror is also advised to commence his march during a favourable season of the year,¹ and to leave one-third or one-fourth of the army in the capital for protection against rearward enemies and wild tribes.² If the enemy offered battle, he was to be vanquished on the battle-field, but should he take shelter in a fort, he was to be besieged. The five means of capturing an enemy's fort, in the opinion of Kautilya, were: intrigue (upajāpa), employment of spies (upasarpa), winning over the people (vamana), siege (paryupāsana), and carrying by assault (avamarda).³ ### [c19.25](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.25) ¹ Arthasāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 6. ### [c19.26](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.26) ² Ibid. Bk. X. ch. 6. ### [c19.27](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.27) ¹ According to Vishnu, Agrahāyana and Chaitra were the proper months for marching against an enemy. Ch. 3. Vide also Manu, VII. 182-185, and Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 100, sl. 11. According to Kautilya, a march in the month of Mārga-sīrsha (November-December) was the best, but marches might be commenced during other months, such as Chaitra and Jyaishtha. "A conqueror may march against an enemy at any time when the latter is in trouble." Bk. IX. ch. 1. ### [c19.28](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.28) ² Arthasāstra, Bk. IX. ch. 1. ### [c19.29](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.29) ³ Vide Arthasāstra, Bk. XIII. ch. 4. The proper times for commencing and for storming a siege were fully discussed in this chapter. ### [c19.30](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.30) Before the commencement of a battle it seems to have been the practice for the King or the Commander-in-Chief to address words of encouragement to the soldiers. The Mahābhārata gives a specimen of such a speech, from which we extract the following lines: ### [c19.31](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.31) “ Let us swear to conquer and never to desert one another. Let those who are overcome with fear stay behind. Let those also stay behind who would cause their chiefs to be slain by themselves neglecting to act heroically in battle. Let only such men come who would never turn back from battle, or cause their comrades to be slain. . . . The consequences of fleeing away from battle are loss of wealth, infamy and reproach. . . . Those that flee from battle are wretches among men. They only swell the number of human beings on earth, but, for true manhood, they are neither here nor hereafter. Victorious foes proceed cheerfully in pursuit of retreating combatants, while their praises are sung by bards. When enemies coming to battle tarnish the fame of a person, the misery which he feels is more poignant than the pangs of death. Know that victory is the root of religious merit and of every kind of happiness. . . . Resolved upon acquiring heaven, we should fight, regardless of life or death ; and with this determination to conquer or die, attain a blessed end in heaven.” 1 ### [c19.32](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.32) Chānakya also advises that before the commencement of a battle, the Prime Minister and the Royal Priest should encourage the soldiers with words like the following: ### [c19.33](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.33) “ It is declared in the Vedas that the goal which is reached by sacrificers after the performance of sacrifices is the very goal which brave men are destined to attain.”¹ In regard to this there are two verses: ### [c19.34](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.34) ¹ Mahābhārata, Sānti Parva, Sec. 100. sls. 32-41. ### [c19.35](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.35) ¹ The same is to be found in Parāsara-Smriti. “Two classes of persons ascend to heaven after passing through the region of the sun. They are ascetics who devote themselves to meditation and warriors who die on the field of battle.” ### [c19.36](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.36) “Beyond those places which Brāhmanas, seeking heaven, attain by performing a number of sacrifices or by practising penances, are the places which brave men, giving up their lives in righteous battles, reach immediately.” ### [c19.37](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.37) “Let not a new vessel filled with water, consecrated, and covered with darbha grass, be the acquisition of that man who does not fight in return for the subsistence received by him from his master, and who is destined to go to hell.”² ### [c19.38](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.38) ² Arthasāstra, Bk. X. ch. 3. ### [c19.39](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.39) This last verse is also to be found in Bhāsa’s Pratimā-Nātaka, where it is used in encouraging the soldiers on the battle-field.³ As a matter of fact, the people of Ancient India were very brave, and an appeal to their sense of honour was never made in vain. Courage was highly extolled and cowardice was strongly condemned in society. The historians of Alexander’s invasion bear ample testimony to this fact. The biographers of Hiuen Tsiang, alluding to the customs of the Mahārāshtra country, say: “He (the King) is fond of military affairs, and boasts of his arms. In this country, the troops and cavalry are well equipped and the rules of warfare thoroughly understood and observed. Whenever a general is despatched on a warlike expedition, although he is defeated and his army destroyed, he is not himself subjected to bodily punishment, only he has to exchange his soldier's dress for that of a woman, much to his shame and chagrin. So, many times, those men put themselves to death to avoid such disgrace." ¹ ### [c19.40](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.40) ³ Pratijnā-Yaugandharāyana, Act IV. ### [c19.41](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.41) ¹ Life of Hiuen Tsiang, Bk. IV. ### [c19.42](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.42) The laws of war were humane and honourable. The Mahābhārata says: "A King should never desire to subjugate countries by unrighteous means, even if such subjugation would make him the sovereign of the world." ² And again: "A Kshatriya who destroys righteousness and transgresses all wholesome barriers, does not deserve to be reckoned a Kshatriya, and should be driven from society." ³ The Mahābhārata further lays down the following rules: ### [c19.43](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.43) ² Sānti Parva, Sec. 96, sl. 2. ### [c19.44](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.44) ³ Sānti Parva, Sec. 96, sl. 10. ### [c19.45](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.45) "A warrior whose armour has fallen off, or who begs for quarter, saying 'I am thine,' or who has laid aside his weapon, may simply be seized, but may not be slain. Nor should those be killed who are asleep, or thirsty, or fatigued, or whose accoutrements have fallen away, nor any person who has set his heart on final emancipation, or is fleeing, or is walking along a road, or is engaged in eating or drinking, or is mad, or has been wounded mortally, or is exceedingly weak with wounds, or is staying trustfully, or has a task in hand unfinished, or is skilled in a special art, or is in grief, or goes out of the camp for forage and fodder, nor those who are camp followers or who wait at the gates of the King and the ministers, or who do menial services.” 1 ### [c19.46](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.46) The ancient law-givers also lay down similar rules.² Manu says: “ When he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed, nor with (such as are) barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blazing with fire. Let him not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands (in supplication), nor one who (flees) with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor one who says, ‘I am thine,’ nor one who is asleep, nor one who has lost his coat-of-mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the flight, nor one who is fighting with another foe; nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one afflicted (with sorrow), nor one who has been grievously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight; (but in all these cases let him) remember the duty (of honourable warriors). . . Thus has been declared the blameless primeval law for warriors, from this law a Kshatriya must not depart, when he strikes his foes in battle.”¹ ### [c19.47](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.47) ¹ Śānti Parva, Sec. 96, sls. 27-29. ### [c19.48](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.48) ² According to Gautama, the following persons should not be killed in war : those who have lost their horses, charioteers, or arms; those who join their hands (in supplication); those who flee with flying hair; those that sit down with averted faces; those who have climbed (in flight) on eminences or trees; those who act as messengers, and those who declare themselves cows and Brāhmanas. X. 18. ### [c19.49](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.49) ¹ Manu, VII. 90-98. The translation is that given by G. Bühler. ### [c19.50](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.50) Such laws were, as a rule, observed in practice; but we find on occasions of exceptional difficulty even righteous men like Yudhishthira, Bhīma, and Arjuna thought it prudent to depart from the rules of righteous warfare. ### [c19.51](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.51) One thing is worthy of notice in this connection, namely, the abstention on the part of the fighters from inflicting harm on non-combatants. The invading soldiers never destroyed the crops, nor devastated the enemy’s country. So far as practicable, battle-fields were selected in remote and uninhabited parts of the enemy’s territory.² To this fact Megasthenes bears eloquent testimony. Says he: “Whereas among other nations it is usual, in the contests of war, to ravage the soil, and then to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides, they neither ravage an enemy’s land with fire nor cut down its trees.” 1 ### [c19.52](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.52) ² Arthasāstra, Bk. XIII. ch. 4. But Kautilya adds: “If, however, the people be hostile, the conqueror may destroy their crops, stores, granaries, and trade.” ### [c19.53](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.53) After the conquest of a territory the defeated monarch was usually allowed to continue as ruler, subject to the suzerain authority of the conqueror; but if he refused to submit or was killed in battle, another prince of the royal family was placed on the throne. The conqueror, as a rule, adopted a policy of conciliation towards the people of the conquered country.² Vishnu gives the following advice to a conqueror: “having conquered the country of his foe, let him not abolish (or disregard) the laws of that country.... A King having conquered the capital of his foe, should invest there a prince of the royal race of that country with the royal dignity. Let him not extirpate the royal race, unless the royal race be of ignoble descent.” ### [c19.54](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.54) ² “When he has gained victory, let him duly worship the gods and honour righteous Brāhmanas, let him grant exemptions, and let him cause promises of safety to be proclaimed. But having fully ascertained the wishes of all the (conquered), let him place there a relative of the (vanquished ruler on the throne), and let him impose his conditions.” VII. 201-202. ### [c19.55](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.55) Chānakya goes into much greater detail in regard to this matter. “A conquered country,” says he, “should be given complete security so that the people may sleep without fear. If the people rise in rebellion, they should be pacified by rewards and remissions of taxes.” And further: “He (the King) should cover up the faults of the enemy by his own virtues, and exceed the enemy’s virtues by himself showing double the amount. He should please the people by properly observing his own duties, by remitting taxes, and by bestowing on them rewards and honours. He should undertake measures which contribute to the general welfare and prosperity. . . . He should adopt the manners, customs, dress and language of the conquered people; and show respect to their national, religious, and social ceremonies, and festivals. . . . He should hold the sages of the country in high esteem, and honour the learned men, the renowned orators, the religious leaders, and the heroes by gifts of land and wealth, and by remissions of taxes. He should release all prisoners,¹ and help the needy, the friendless, and the afflicted. . . . After prohibiting customs which may appear as unrighteous or as injurious to the state revenue or to an efficient system of administration, he should establish righteous laws and customs.” ### [c19.56](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.56) ¹ Megasthenes, Fragment I. ### [c19.57](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.57) ¹ The custom prevailed in India of liberating all prisoners on happy occasions, like the birth of a son to the King, or the coronation of a new King, or the inauguration of the Crown Prince, or the conquest of a new territory. In the Mudrā-Rākshasa we read of the liberation of all prisoners by order of Kautilya after Chandragupta’s consolidation of his conquests. In the Mrichchakatikā also we find a reference to this custom. ### [c19.58](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.58) The policy pursued by the weaker Kings when they were attacked by their more powerful neighbours varied with the circumstances of each case. Sometimes they sought the protection of another strong ruler; at other times, they took refuge in forts. Not unoften they had to surrender themselves to the invaders.¹ Kautilya divides invaders into three kinds, viz. virtuous conquerors, demon-like invaders, and greedy invaders, and lays down the following lines of policy to be pursued in different cases: “A virtuous conqueror is satisfied with mere submission; so a weak King should submit to him. A greedy invader, fearing his own enemies, is satisfied with what he can safely get in land or money; therefore, a weak King should satisfy such an invader with the gift of wealth. A demon-like invader not only covets the territory and wealth of the weak King, but also tries to destroy him; such an invader should be kept at a distance by the offer of land and wealth.”² ### [c19.59](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.59) ¹ The ancient teachers were divided in their opinion in regard to the justice and expediency of the policy of surrender. Bharadvāja says, he who surrenders himself to the strong, bows down before Indra. But in Visālāksha’s opinion a weak should fight with all his resources, because bravery overcomes all difficulties, and because this (fighting) is the natural duty of a Kshatriya, no matter whether he gains a victory or sustains a defeat in battle. Vide Arthaśāstra, Bk. XII. ch. 1. ### [c19.60](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.60) ² Arthaśāstra, Bk. XII. ch. 1. ### [c19.61](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.61) When a weak King found himself obliged to sue for peace, he entered into an agreement with the conqueror. Such an agreement might be one or other of twelve different forms. These different forms of agreement are thus described by Kautilya: ### [c19.62](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.62) “An Agreement made on the condition that the King should (personally) attend with the whole or a part of his army is called an ātmāmisha (one’s own flesh) agreement. ### [c19.63](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.63) “When the condition is that the Commander-in-Chief and the Crown Prince should attend, it is called purushāntara-sandhi (peace by offering the services of another person); such an agreement is conducive to self-preservation, for it does not require the personal attendance of the King. ### [c19.64](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.64) “When the condition is that either the King himself or somebody else at the head of the army should be present at a particular place, the agreement is termed adrishtapurusha (peace with no specified person as hostage). This conduces to the safety of the King as well as of the chiefs. ### [c19.65](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.65) “These are the varieties of the dandopanata agreement (i.e. one made by offering the army). When by the offer of money, the other elements of sovereignty are left free, that peace is called parikraya (purchase). When peace is concluded by offering such a sum of money as has to be carried on shoulders, it is called an upagraha (tribute). When mutual trustfulness leads to a union of hearts, it is called suvarna-sandhi (golden peace). The reverse of such an agreement is kapāla (beggar’s bowl) which is concluded on payment of a large sum of money. ### [c19.66](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.66) “These are the different varieties of Koshopanata agreement. ### [c19.67](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.67) “When by ceding a part of the territory the rest of the Kingdom is saved, it is called ādishta (ceded). ### [c19.68](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.68) “When that part of the territory (not being the central part) is ceded which is devoid of all resources, it is called uchchhinna-sandhi (agreement involving ruin). ### [c19.69](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.69) “When on condition of payment of the produce, the lands are set free, the agreement is called apakraya (payment of rent). The agreement which is concluded by the promise of paying more than the produce of land is called paribhūṣaṇa (abundant supply). These are the varieties of deśopanata (agreement made on condition of ceding territory).”¹ ### [c19.70](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.70) ¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. VII. ch. 3. ### [c19.71](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.71) While the rulers of different parts of India fought with one another for supremacy, the country remained constantly exposed to the danger of foreign invasions. The history of these invasions shows us in a clear light the weak points of the political system of Ancient India. The most important of the early invasions—if it was not the earliest—was that of Alexander the Great in 327 B.C. He remained in the country not more than twenty months all told, and although every step of his advance was stubbornly resisted, he succeeded in reducing the greater part of the Punjab and the whole of Sindh. Such an achievement appears to us all the more surprising when we remember that the people were of a martial temperament and were well inured to arms. The people, indeed, who then inhabited the Indus valley were, according to Greek writers, “of so great a stature that they were amongst the tallest men in Asia, being five cubits in height, or nearly so,” and “in the art of war they were far superior to the other nations by which Asia was at that time inhabited.” But neither their martial spirit nor their efficient military organisation was of any avail for the preservation of their national independence, for the political condition of the country was eminently favourable to Alexander’s designs. The Punjab was then divided into a number of separate States, and instead of presenting a united front to the invader, these States, in most instances, fought him singly, with the result that they were overcome with comparative ease. Whenever some sort of concerted opposition was offered to Alexander’s advance, as was done by the Malloi and the Kshudrakas,¹ he found it extremely difficult to overpower the resistance. As Mr. McCrindle rightly remarks, “if Alexander had found India united in arms to withstand his aggression, the star of his good fortune would have culminated with his passage of the Indus.”² ### [c19.72](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.72) ¹ These two races were composed of widely different elements, and they were seldom at peace with each other; but their mutual hostility was suspended in view of the common danger which threatened their independence. ### [c19.73](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.73) ² McCrindle, Ancient India, p. 4. ### [c19.74](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.74) But the States were prevented by their mutual jealousies and feuds from acting in concert against the common enemy, and each of them fell a prey to the attack of the Macedonian invader.³ ### [c19.75](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.75) ³ Some of the rulers even assisted the Conqueror. Thus, for instance, he was hospitably received by Āmbhi, King of Taxilā, who was at enmity with Poros, and Sasiguptas, a deserter, became one of Alexander’s generals. ### [c19.76](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.76) Although the force of circumstances compelled the Indians to submit for a time to Alexander, they did not brook for long the burden and reproach of foreign thraldom. Even before the Conqueror's departure from India, the standard of revolt had been raised in many parts of the country, and within a few years of his death, the whole of the Punjab threw off the foreign yoke. In this work of liberation, the Brāhmanas played an important part,¹ and it was the Brāhmana politician, Chānakya, who not only perceived the necessity for the establishment of a centralised administration in India, but actually helped Chandragupta to bring the whole of Northern India under his imperial sway. The beneficial result of this political change became manifest when only a few years later, Chandragupta was able to inflict a severe defeat on Seleukos, and compelled the Conqueror to sue for peace by offering to cede all the Greek provinces on the frontier of India, including Gedrosia and Arachosia. ### [c19.77](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.77) ¹ "The philosophers gave him no less trouble than the mercenaries, because they reviled the princes who declared for him and encouraged the free states to revolt from his authority. On this account he hanged many of them." A story is also told by Plutarch which is interesting. When one of the philosophers was asked for what reason he had induced Sambhu (Sabbas) to revolt, he answered, "Because I wish him to live with honour or die with honour." Plutarch, p. 314. ### [c19.78](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.78) But the imperial system of the Mauryas did not last very long, and other invaders appeared on the scene. The Sakas established themselves in Sindh, and gradually made themselves masters of that province and of Gujrat. In the beginning of the second century A.D. the Parthians succeeded the Sakas as rulers in Sindh, and gradually extended their sway as far as Mathurā. The Yue-chi and the Kushāns followed, and founded powerful Kingdoms near the north-western frontier and in Kashmir. All these invaders settled down in the country, adopted the religion and customs and manners of the Āryans, and became for all practical purposes the natives of the country. Very different from these invasions was that of the Huing-nu or Huns, who devastated the country wherever they went. They broke up the Gupta empire, and although they were several times defeated, they succeeded in finding settlements in North-western Punjab. ### [c19.79](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.79) In the seventh century there were several expeditions led by the Arabs to the west coast of India, but no real attempt to conquer the country was made until Mahammad Kāsim marched with an army along the Persian coast through Mekrān into Sindh. This invasion, however, proved a failure. Two centuries later came the invasions of Sabuktagin and of his son Sultān Māhmūd, and finally, in the closing years of the twelfth century, Muhammad Ghorī defeated Prithvirāj and Jayachandra, and firmly established Mahomedan Rule in Northern India. ### [c19.80](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.80) The political condition of India which made possible the foundation of the Mahomedan Empire is thus described by Stanley Lane-Poole : “ The country was split up into numerous Kingdoms, many of which were at feud with one another. There were the Brāhmana Kings of Gandhāra on the Indus, the Tomaras of Delhi and Kanauj, the Buddhist Pālas of Magadha, the survivors of the Guptas in Mālwā, the Kālachuris on the Nerbudda, the Chandillas of Mahoba, and many more, who united might have stemmed any invasion, but whose jealousies wrought their ruin.” How true is the remark: “Internal division has proved the undoing of India again and again, and has sapped the power of mere numbers which alone could enable the men of warm plains to stand against the hardy mountain tribes!”¹ ### [c19.81](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19.81) ¹ Stanley Lane-Poole, Mediaeval India. ## Linked texts (16) - [Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.artha.kautilya.7.10) — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit - [Mānava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.manu.7.107) — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit - [Ṛgvedasaṃhitā](https://indike.org/pramana/in.veda.samhita.rg.1.8) — Sanskrit - [Vaiṣṇava Dharmaśāstra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.visnu) — Viṣṇu, Sanskrit - [Mṛcchakaṭika](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.prakarana.mrcchakatika) — Śūdraka, Sanskrit - [Mudrārākṣasa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.rajacarita.mudraraksasa) — Viśākhadatta, Sanskrit - [Gautamadharmasūtra](https://indike.org/pramana/in.vedanga.kalpa.dharma.gautama) — Gautama (dharmasūtrakāra), Sanskrit - [Parāśarasmṛti](https://indike.org/pramana/in.niti.dharma.parasara) — Parāśara, Sanskrit - [Ἰνδική](https://indike.org/pramana/inf.gr.roman.arrian.indica) — Λούκιος Φλάουιος Ἀρριανός, Ancient Greek - [Harṣacarita](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.historical.harsacarita) — Bāṇabhaṭṭa, Sanskrit - [Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.plays.bhasa.pratijnayaugandharayana) — Bhāsa, Sanskrit - [Mahābhārata](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.mahabharata.vyasa) — Vyāsa, Sanskrit - [Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.corpora.cii) - [Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/in.lit.ramayana.valmiki) — Vālmīki, Sanskrit - [Mandasor pillar inscription of Yasodharman](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.central.aulikara.mandasor-pillar-inscription-of-yasodharman) — Sanskrit - [Eraṇ stone inscription of Samudragupta](https://indike.org/pramana/inp.epigraphy.north.gupta.eran-stone-inscription-of-samudragupta-2) — Sanskrit --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.banerjea-1916.c19) · Pramāṇa