War in Ancient India c11.t1.72

c11.t1.72

*Upekṣā*: It has been well realised that the application of *daṇḍa* cannot be resorted to by all monarchs. How could an inferior power meet a stronger power in open warfare? Even the use of treachery or duplicity on his part would not give him success. In that case what should be the policy to be adopted by the weaker State? The *Matsya Purāṇa* envisages a similar situation and recommends the diplomatic policy of *upekṣā*. In the midst of superior powers a lesser power should pursue *upekṣā* or indifference. Already in the Kauṭalīya, this *upekṣā* is mentioned, not as a separate policy but as an aspect of the Udāsīna attitude. In other words, Kauṭalya asks a neutral power to cultivate the virtue of indifference towards his neighbours, whether they be his allies or foes. The ethics of international law, as the ancient Hindus conceived it, respected this neutral power, and no belligerent was prepared to take notice of this ruler of indifferent attitude.⁹⁰ From the Kauṭalyan sense of *upekṣā*, it is a distinct advance in the science of diplomacy to regard *upekṣā* as one of the expedients, which was the privilege of the weaker power to adopt. Either this power should ever remain in that neutral or indifferent attitude, or it should pursue that until the time when it would feel strong enough to meet the adversary in the open field. There seems to be the further implication that even in case the more powerful State should give trouble unprovoked, it was for the small power to endure it for the time being, and not to retaliate. In such cases patience has its own reward.⁹¹ In another section Kāmandaka speaks of a threefold *upekṣā* and cites the classical examples of the Virāṭa king leaving alone the wicked Kicaka, and Bhīmasēna leaving uninjured Hiḍimba’s brother.⁹²