Hindu Administrative Institutions c11.s1: Sec. i. General Principles

Hindu Administrative Institutions c11.s1

Language: English

Sec. i. General Principles

c11.s1.1

Ancient India was not a homogeneous unit but was heterogeneous in character. Even after the idea of an empire was recognized the division of the country into various independent and self-governing states, each with its own ruling chieftain was the normal political condition. With such states independent and semi-independent, every one of them was obliged to strengthen its foreign department. There was a war-minister who was probably the head of this department. That he was an officer different from the commander-in-chief is evident from the use of the technical term ‘मंत्री’ to this office. This minister must needs know the strength and resources of the enemy and the consequent strength of his own state. He must also gain knowledge of the position, progress or decline of the enemy state and his own. Having deeply pondered over these circumstances, he must advise what is proper and conducive to the welfare of his king.¹ The foreign policy of these states was not confined to the four corners of India; for there is evidence to show that there was continuous intercourse between India and the countries which lay outside, such as China, Egypt, Syria, Ceylon, etc. In the absence of definite evidence of the existence of a separate department of war in the Vedic period of Hindu India, it is reasonable to assume that the foreign department was more an innovation of the author of the *Arthaśāstra*. That this institution was in actual working in the epoch of the Mauryas is further attested by the writings of Megasthanes.

c11.s1.2

¹ परस्य वीर्यं स्वबलंच बुद्धा स्थाने क्षयं चैव तथैव वृद्धिम् । तथा स्वपक्षेऽप्यनुमृश्य बुध्या वदेत्ततं स्वामिहितं च मन्त्री ॥ (Rāma., Yuddha., xiv. 22.)

c11.s1.3

The key-note of the foreign policy was to maintain what is known in European History as the ‘balance of power’. To realize this end the conception of ‘a circle of states’ is elaborated in the *Kauṭalīya*. The circle of states was known as the *maṇḍala*. Its invention is however attributed to Uśanas or Sukrāchārya. Foreign rulers are classified by Kauṭalya under four main heads—enemy (*ari*); friend (*mitra*); neutral (*madhyama*); and negligible (*udāsīna*).¹ A circle of states according to Kauṭalya constitutes twelve kings: the invader (*vijigīṣu*), immediate enemy (*ari*); invader’s ally (*mitra*), enemy’s ally (*arimitra*); invader’s ally’s ally (*mitramitra*), enemies’ ally’s ally (*amitramitra*), rear enemy (*pārṣṇigrāha*), rear friend (*ākranda*), ally of rear enemy (*pārṣṇigrāhasāra*), ally of rear ally (*ākrandasāra*), the neutral king (*madhyama*), and the negligible king (*udāsīna*).²

c11.s1.4

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. vi, Sec. ii.

c11.s1.5

² *Ibid*. The interpretation of the terms ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Udāsīna’ given by Shama Śāstri as ‘mediatory’ and ‘neutral’ do not seem altogether correct. Law is perhaps not so much better when he explains them as ‘medium’ and ‘super’ and assigns a fitting position to them in the circle of states. (*Arthaśāstra*., Bk. vi, chap. ii; *Interstate Relations in Ancient India*, pp. 12 and 13.

c11.s1.6

Immediate neighbours were regarded as possibly hostile to each other and those succeeding the first circle of the immediate neighbours were similarly looked upon as potential allies to the king in the centre (*Vijigīṣu*). Each of these States had respectively three factors which constituted their strength, counsel (मंत्र), power (प्रभु), and confidence (उत्साह). He who possessed more of everything was considered superior to the other. Further each State possessed the five other limbs of sovereignty, —the minister, the country, the fort, the treasury, and the army. The relations between these various States were determined in six different ways known as Ṣāḍguṇyam.¹ The source of these six *guṇas* is the seven *prakṛtis* and the *maṇḍala* of twelve kings (द्वादशराजमण्डलं).

c11.s1.7

¹ षाड्गुण्यस्य प्रकृतिर्मण्डलं योनिः । सन्धिविग्रहसनयानसंश्रयद्वैधीभावाः षाड्गुण्यम् इत्याचार्याः । (Trivandrum Edition, vol. ii, p. 237). These are agreement of peace (*sandhi*), war (*vigraha*), holding a post against the enemy (*āsana*), ready to attack (*yāna*), alliance (*samāśraya*), and lastly separation (*dvaidhībhāva*).

c11.s1.8

In regard to these different courses of action it is enough to say that though the institution of war was recognized as the chief political weapon of the state in ancient India, it was looked upon only as the last resort.

c11.s1.9

We shall now examine the diplomatic theories accepted in ancient India. A glimpse into the political condition of Vedic days demonstrates the fact that, besides force, diplomacy was used to a great extent. That deceit was practised to turn back enemies is evident from the *Rig-Veda Saṃhitā*.² The institution of spies, which is so elaborately described by Kauṭalya was not unknown to the Vedic Indians.³ In the battle of the ‘ten kings’ occurring in the seventh *maṇḍala*, king Sūdas acts as the ‘master of the circle’ and this can be said to anticipate the Kauṭalīyan political world. It is Kauṭalya who urges the ruler of every state to conquer the earth by means of diplomacy.

c11.s1.10

² iv. 15. 4 and iii. 18. 1.

c11.s1.11

³ *R.V.*, iv. 4. 3.

c11.s1.12

In the *Mahābhārata* Kaṇika, the Brahman minister of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, treats the latter with a learned discourse on diplomacy. It would not be out of place to give the substance of this discourse.¹ The king should be ever active and exhibit his power like a tortoise. He must hide his weak points but at the same time get at the weak points of his enemy. An enterprise once launched should be carried to its conclusion. Even a weak enemy must not be neglected. For a single spark will be sufficient to consume the whole forest. To achieve our ends we can pretend blindness or deafness. One must not show commiseration to an enemy even if he should surrender (*śaraṇāgata*). By means of spies in various disguises one must endeavour to win the confidence of the adversary, to ultimately throw himself over him like a wolf. The destruction of the enemy should be effected by conciliation, by gifts, by creating divisions among his ranks or subjects, and lastly by open war. Again according to Kaṇika enemies could be destroyed by deceit, gifts, poison, and incantation. Even though irritated one must appear calm and put on a smiling countenance and speak soft words so long as it is necessary; but when once the moment arrives one should strike without flinching. After striking speak words of sympathy and pretend to shed tears of sorrow. If the enemy should continue the old path then he might be exterminated. By all means whatsoever one must endeavour to raise himself from a humiliating position so that he may lead a prosperous life. He who would repose after concluding a treaty with the enemy, is a mad man, for, at any time the enemy might regain strength and rise against him. In fighting an enemy, one must have an eye on the future as well as on the past, besides noting carefully the circumstances of time and place.

c11.s1.13

¹ *Mbh.*, *Ādi Parvan*, chap. cliii.

c11.s1.14

These principles of diplomacy enunciated by the Brahman minister Kaṇika are said to resemble, or rather equate with the principles formulated by Kauṭalya.¹ There is no reasoned proof in this particular. Though Kauṭalya inculcates a diplomatic code, yet his principles are not vitiated by intrigues and cruelty in disregard of all morality. Kauṭalya’s political philosophy is of a higher order, and can more fitly be compared with the theoretical principles formulated by the sage Nārada in the Mahābhārata.² The fundamental ideas common to both are that ‘conquest is not an end in itself; victory is counterbalanced by responsibilities, and acquisitions by the necessity of having to provide for safeguarding them.’

c11.s1.15

¹ Nag, *Les Theories Diplomatiques*, p. 35.

c11.s1.16

² *Sabhā Parvan*, chap. v.

c11.s1.17

The basis of diplomacy is distinguished by seven elements (*prakṛti*).³ These are the sovereign, the minister, the country, the fortress, the treasury, the army, and the ally. Of these the sovereign occupies the central position. Reference has already been made to the sphere of action, namely, the cycle of twelve states. Real action is by the six-fold policy.⁴ Peace, war, balance of power, expedition, alliance and creation of differences form the six-fold policy. Though Vātavyādi contends that war and peace are the only basis of this six-fold method, still Kauṭalya is of opinion that all the six together contribute to pursuing the six-fold policy. Kauṭalya further recommends that peace may be made with equals and superiors, while the inferior must be attacked. A treaty might be of three kinds, equitable (सम), not quite equitable (विषम), and impossible (अधि). But if an inferior is of good intentions the conquering king may help him. When peace is offered or asked for, both the contending parties should consider the motive that necessitated such a step, and decide on the basis of the circumstances. The terms of peace are acquisition of friend, gold, or territory. Kauṭalya concludes his discourse with the following reflection: ‘When local persons join hands with foreigners the former are to be won over by *sāma* and *dāna*, when foreigners incite the local chieftain, then dissension and coercion (*bheda* and *daṇḍa*) might be used. But if there is any internal danger that must first be suppressed.’¹

Linked texts (5)

Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit