A History of Hindu Political Theories from the Earliest Times to the End of the First Quarter of the Seventeenth Century A.D. c9.58

c9.58

The end to which the application of all his extensive rules of foreign policy is directed by the author is not, it appears, territorial aggrandisement. In one place Kauṭilya cautions the king against coveting the territory, wealth, sons and wives of one who is slain, and he urges that the king should restore to their own position the relatives of the slain prince, and instal on the throne the son of one who has died while helping him. Thus, Kauṭilya argues, would the dependent princes obey even the sons and grandsons of the conqueror. On the other hand, if the conqueror were to slay or bind the dependent prince and covet his territory, property sons and wives, his circle of states (maṇḍala) would become agitated and would rise against him, and even his own ministers would either take refuge with the circle of states or themselves threaten their master's life and throne.∗ While Kauṭilya thus deprecates territorial annexations in the most express terms, it appears from the general tenour of his thought that his ideal is, next to security, the achievement of political influence over the neighbouring kings comprised in the circle of states.†