Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Mauryan Polity c9.s2: Sec. ii. Foreign Policy

The Mauryan Polity c9.s2

Language
English

Contents

Sec. ii. Foreign Policy

c9.s2.1

Kautalya divides the foreign rulers under four classes—*ari* (the enemy), *mitra* (ally), *madhyama* (intermediary), and *udāsīna* (neutral).² The inter-state relations are determined by the respective situations which each state possesses in the circle of states. While the second, the fourth and the sixth states are inimical, the third and the fifth states are allies.³ Kautalya distinguishes three kinds of international relations: *vigraha* (war), *sandhi* (peace), and *āsana* (neutrality).⁴ According to Vātavyādhi there are only two divisions, war and peace. But this division is questioned rightly by the *Kauṭalīya*. According to this there is a six-fold policy of action.⁵ The remaining three attitudes are *samśraya* (policy of alliance), *yāna* (preparation of march), and *dvaidhībhāva*.

c9.s2.2

² *Ibid.*, Bk. II, ch. 2.

c9.s2.3

³ *Ibid.*

c9.s2.4

⁴ *Ibid.*, Bk. VII, ch. 1.

c9.s2.5

⁵ *Ibid.*

c9.s2.6

These three are minor divisions which are, properly speaking, absorbed in the three major divisions of war, peace and neutrality. The last aspect of international law discussed in the *Kauṭalīya* is a prominent feature of the *Kauṭalīyan* policy in relation to the other states or nations. The relation of the *Kauṭalīyan* states was that each state acknowledged the sovereignty of the central power. The *Arthaśāstra* recommends territorial expansion by the policy of conquest.¹

c9.s2.7

¹ Bk. X, ch. 5 and 6.

Diplomatic Agents

c9.s2.t1.1

These new acquisitions were treated as protectorates or vassals, in modern political parlance. The border-peoples to which repeated reference is made in the Edicts of Aśoka² come under the category of these protectorates. The principle underlying the foreign policy was the maintenance of the balance of power.³ This was effected by the diplomatic agents of the Empire. Kauṭalya makes mention of different classes of such agents.⁴ Some of them correspond to our ambassadors. The *cāras* are those employed in secret service. There is the *ubhayavedana* who was perhaps the permanent ambassador in a foreign court. It is difficult to interpret the term as it comes under the common title of Gūḍhapuruṣas. These latter were the secret informants in war in addition to their office in the rank and file of the Mauryan bureaucracy.⁵ They gathered news about the strength or otherwise of the enemy-state, and reported the same to the head-quarters. In accomplishing their ends they assumed different guises—, of a trader, an ascetic, a physician, an agriculturist, lest they should be unable to get at the required information, and lest they should be detected, and the real state of affairs be kept from them. These perhaps are meant by Megasthenes’ ‘supervisors’.

c9.s2.t1.2

² R.E. II and XIII.

c9.s2.t1.3

³ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. VI, ch. 2.

c9.s2.t1.4

⁴ Bk. I, ch. 11, 12 and 14.

c9.s2.t1.5

⁵ Ibid.

c9.s2.t1.6

The inscriptions of Aśoka furnish us with a specialised kind of reporters designated *prativedaka* who were engaged in a similar work of furnishing to the capital, information collected about the enemy’s country.¹ As these officers were entrusted with responsible duties Kauṭalya recommends the appointment of only tried men to these posts. The state was to render all possible help to them when they were in service. It is said that the king gave audience to them only at nights. This was perhaps to avoid the common people and interested men, lest the secrecy should be divulged. Whenever they put down some information in writing, they did it in a special form of writing *gūḍhalekhya* translated as ‘cipher writing.’ The idea was that even if it were miscarried the ordinary citizen could not make out its contents. Though the state had implicit confidence in its employees, still it did not hastily resort to action on a single report. Unless the report was confirmed by two sources, other than the one received, no action was taken.²

c9.s2.t1.7

¹ R.E. VI, *Corpus*, p. 58.

c9.s2.t1.8

² *trayānām ekavākye sampratyayaḥ* *Ar. Śās.*, p. 21; cp. *Rāma*: Ayod., ch. 100; p. 36.

Dūtas or Ambassadors

c9.s2.t2.1

The other class of diplomatic agents who were entrusted with still more responsible work to discharge were the *dūtas*. The term can be translated as ambassadors or envoys. The *dūta* is an open spy. While the *cāra* collected secret information, the *dūta* delivered the message in person without fear or favour sometimes at the risk of his own person. The qualifications for this office were by no means simple. A *dūta* must be one who belonged to a well-known high-class family versed in the science of land, of a towering personality, humorous, eloquent, bold, faithful, and capable of meeting trying situations. Tactfulness and a resolute mind were his other characteristics.¹ The envoy went to the foreign court only with previous instruction. There were letters of credence, *śāsana*, containing the message of his king. There is a significant statement in the *Kauṭalīya* which says that letters of credence are important to the kings. On these depend cessation and outbreak of hostilities.² The *dūta* was the king's representative and hence his person was sacred.³ However unpleasant the mission he was engaged in and the message he delivered, he was not to be slain. When once the message had been delivered the *dūta* could leave the station with or without the sanction of the king of the country.⁴ In addition to these ambassadors, there were consular officers as is evident from the records of Megasthenes. Referring to the second Municipal Board mentioned by the Greek writer, V. A. Smith remarks that this Board performed duties which in modern Europe are entrusted to the consuls representing foreign powers.⁵ The term *dūta* also occurs in the inscription of Aśoka. The mission entrusted to them seems to be the spreading of peace and goodwill between the respective states and the empire.

c9.s2.t2.2

¹ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. I, ch. 16. ² *śāsanapradhāna hi rājānaḥ*; tanmūlatvāt sandhivigrahayoḥ—*Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, ch. 10. ³ *dūtamukhāvai rājānaḥ*.—*Ibid.* ⁴ *Ibid.* ⁵ *Ind. Ant.*, 1905, p. 200.

Foreign Embassies

c9.s2.t3.1

The Mauryan Empire grew in extent under Candragupta and got further expanded under Bindusāra and Aśoka. Candragupta succeeded to the throne immediately after Alexander's invasion and the latter incident involved him in international relations. After having consolidated his empire Candragupta turned his attention to the countries which were under the Macedonian rule. Seleucus Nikator who was in charge of the Greek kingdoms in the Indian frontier relinquished his rights to that portion of the country belonging to the Indian Empire, the satrapies of the Paropanisadai, Aria, Arachosia, and Gedrosia, and he was presented in return with 500 elephants. Seleucus felt the strength of the arms of Candragupta and arranged for peace through negotiations. This peace was effected with success by Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador of Seleucus in 303 B.C.¹

c9.s2.t3.2

¹ Smith, *Early History of India*, pp. 125-26.

c9.s2.t3.3

The friendly relations between India and the Hellenistic kingdoms begun by Candragupta continued during the reigns of his successors. Dionysius came to Bindusāra as the envoy of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt, and Daimachus as the envoy of Antiochus I Soter of Syria. It is not yet settled whether Dionysius delivered his letters of credence to Bindusāra or his son Aśoka, for the rule of Ptolemy Philadelphus extended from 285 to 246 B.C.² It is evident that both these envoys followed the example of Megasthenes and left records of their observations with regard to the country. Very few of the notes of Daimachus are preserved while those of Dionysus are lost. About the latter Pliny mentions in his *Natural History*, VI, 17 and 58.¹

c9.s2.t3.4

² *Ibid.*, pp. 155-156; *C.H.I.*, p. 433.

c9.s2.t3.5

¹ *Ibid.*

c9.s2.t3.6

It seems that Aśoka had unbroken friendly relations not only with the states within the country but also without. The Hellenistic kingdoms to which Aśoka sent his envoys were Syria under Antiochus Theos, Egypt under Ptolemy Philadelphus, Cyrene under Magas, Macedonia under Antigonus Gonatus, and Epirus under Alexander.² We do not hear of any foreign embassy in India during the reign of Aśoka, nor return embassies from India to foreign courts during the reigns of Candragupta and Bindusāra. It is however reasonable to assume that mutual and unbroken intercourse went on continuously under the first three Mauryan monarchs, if not later.

c9.s2.t3.7

² R.E. XIII, *Corpus*, pp. 46-48; *C.H.I.*, I, p. 502.

Alliances and Treaties

c9.s2.t4.1

Mention has already been made that the ambassadors played a prominent part in effecting political combinations and peace negotiations. Let us now examine the nature and kinds of alliances contracted between the different states. The alliances were both offensive and defensive in character. The motive and time for such alliances are examined in *extenso* in the *Kauṭalīya*. These alliances were sometimes voluntary (*pratibhūḥ*) and sometimes effected by purchase (*pratigraha*). The former contained elements of permanence (*sthira*) and the latter elements of impermanence (*cala*).³

c9.s2.t4.2

³ *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. VII, ch. 17.

c9.s2.t4.3

Alliances are again definite (*paripaṇita*) and indefinite (*aparipaṇita*).⁴ The former are to be effected according to the place (*deśa*), time (*kāla*), and purpose in view (*artha*). Five kinds of agreements are mentioned. These are to win an ally (*mitra-sandhi*),¹ to acquire wealth (*hiraṇya-sandhi*),² to acquire territory (*bhūmi-sandhi*),³ to achieve some specific purpose (*karma-sandhi*),⁴ and lastly the agreement contracted with no determined aim (*anavasita-sandhi*).⁵ Kauṭalya next explains under what conditions these alliances are to be effected. First, when the king feels his inability to march against the enemy, he must ally himself with equals, inferiors, or superiors.⁶ Secondly, alliance is generally made with one who is more powerful than the enemy.⁷ Thirdly, if a powerful ally is not available the king should try to win the goodwill of his neighbours.⁸ Fourthly, a king between two strong powers must ally himself with the stronger of the two, or with both, or with a neutral.⁹

c9.s2.t4.4

⁴ *Ibid.*, ch. 6.

c9.s2.t4.5

¹ *Ibid.*, ch. 9.

c9.s2.t4.6

² *Ibid.*, ch. 10.

c9.s2.t4.7

³ *Ibid.*, ch. 12.

c9.s2.t4.8

⁴ *Ibid.*, ch. 11.

c9.s2.t4.9

⁵ *samahīnajyāyobhissāmavāyikaiḥ sambhūya yāyāt*—*Ar. Śās.* Bk. VII, ch. 4.

c9.s2.t4.10

⁶ *yatbalaḥ sāmantaḥ tadviśiṣṭabalamāśrayeta*—*Ibid.*, ch. 2.

c9.s2.t4.11

⁷ *tādviśiṣṭabalābhāve tamevāśritaḥ*—*Ibid.*

c9.s2.t4.12

⁸ *balīyasorvā antardhisyāt; ubhau vā kapālasamśrayastiṣṭet*—*Ibid.*

c9.s2.t4.13

⁹ *saktihīnasamśrayeta* *Ibid.*, ch. 1.

c9.s2.t4.14

Lastly, coalition is recommended for the king devoid of strength.¹⁰ Coming to practical politics, according to Justin, Candragupta defeated the Nandas with the help of a lion and an elephant identified with the King of Simhāpura in Rājputana, and the Gajapati King of Kaliṅga.¹¹

c9.s2.t4.15

¹⁰ *McCrindle, Invasion of Alexander the Great*, pp. 327-28. See S. V. Visvanātha, *International Law in Ancient India*, p. 95 and S. V. Veṅkateśvara in *Ind. Ant.*, 1916, p. 30.

c9.s2.t4.16

Three kinds of treaties are mentioned *sama* or equal, *viṣama* or unequal, and *hīna*, inferior.¹ Other forms of peace were not unknown. The following three *ātmāmiṣa*, *puruṣāntara* and *adṛṣṭapuruṣa* entailed supply of army and the giving of a woman of high rank as a hostage. Peace on payment of money was of four kinds: *parikraya*, *upagraha*, *suvarṇasandhi* and *kapāla*. Other treaties were concluded on payment of raw materials and by ceding territory.²

c9.s2.t4.17

¹ Bk. VII, ch. 3.

c9.s2.t4.18

² Ibid.

Linked texts (5)