History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.496
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.496
- Language
- English
v4.c62.496.1
The *yogakṣema* (welfare) of a State springs from peace (*śama*) and exertion (*vyāyāma*). The latter achieves the completion of works undertaken, while *śama* brings about the undisturbed enjoyment of the fruits of undertakings. The (proper) employment of the six *guṇas* (*sandhi* &c.) is the source of *śama* and *vyāyāma*. What results (*udaya*) from these six *guṇas* is either deterioration, stagnation or progress. *Udaya* depends upon human and divine causes which together govern the world. The human ones are *naya* and *apanaya*. Human causes are seen (anticipated) and can be operated (by men). Naya (good policy) is that out of the human causes from which results *yogakṣema* (welfare); *apanaya* (impolitic way) is that which produces loss (or an unfavourable state). In VI. 1 (last verse) Kauṭilya says that a king who understands *naya* and is endowed with the *ātmaguṇas* and all the elements of the State will conquer the whole world, though originally he may have a small kingdom. The maṇḍala theory is set out in relation to a king who is called *vijigīṣu* (the ambitious ruler or conqueror). Kām. VIII 6 defines²⁸⁸ vijigīṣu as a king who aspires to extend his territories, who is possessed of all the seven elements of sovereignty, who has great energy and who makes great efforts. In verses 7-11 he mentions at length his qualities. All our works place before kings this ideal of conquest, domination or self-aggrandizement at the expense of one's weak neighbours.
v4.c62.496.2
A vijigīṣu is a king who is endowed with good qualities (called ātmasampat on p. 45 above) and with the several elements of the State and who is the fountain of policy (naya), i.e. who has a definite good policy to pursue. An *ari* (actual or potential enemy) is a king or kings who are the immediate neighbours on the circumference of the kingdom of the vijigīṣu. From this it follows that *ari* may comprehend one king, two kings or more who are the immediate neighbours of the vijigīṣu. But it should be remembered as insisted upon by the Nītivākyāmṛta²⁸⁹ (p. 321 that there is no inflexible rule that the immediate neighbour is an enemy and that the king whose dominion is beyond the immediate neighbour will be a friend. Contiguity or distance is not necessarily the cause of friendship or enmity, but rather it is the purpose (or object) that makes friends or enemies. All that is meant is that the immediate neighbour is most likely to be an *ari* (a real or potential enemy). A mitra (friend of the vijigīṣu) is he who is separated (from the vijigīṣu) by the intervention of the kingdom of the *ari*. A *śatru* is a neighbouring ruler possessed of the characteristics of an enemy²⁹⁰ (detailed in Kauṭ. VI. 1). The *yātavya* (to be attacked or invaded by the vijigīṣu) is an *ari* who is involved in difficulties.
v4.c62.496.3
From this it is clear that in the terminology of Kauṭilya *ari* is a generic expression including actual and potential enemies who will generally be on the borders of the kingdom of the vijigīṣu. A *śatru* is an *ari* who invites attack or destruction or harassment or reduction. That enemy who is plunged in vices or calamities may be attacked and is then called *yātavya*²⁹¹; one who has no support or has only a weak support is to be extirpated; an enemy who is the opposite of this last (i.e. who has a support or strong support) is to be either harassed or to be reduced. Support (āśraya) means a strong fort or a good friend (Kām. VIII. 60). So that a *śatru* is of four sorts (yātavya, ucchedya, pīḍanīya, karśanīya). Harassment is caused to him who is without *mantra* and a strong army, while one who is strong in mantra and army is to be rendered weak in these respects. Both a *śatru* or a *mitra* are of three kinds, *sahaja*, *kṛtrima* and *prākṛta*. A sahaja (natural) friend is one who is related through one's parents (such as maternal or paternal aunt's son); one who is resorted to for wealth or safety is kṛtrima (acquired) i. e. one who has obliged the vijigīṣu or has been under his obligations; and the king who is next to the neighbour (i. e. who is separated from the vijigīṣu by the intervention of the neighbour king) is prākṛta (i. e. because he is a prakṛti, an element in the maṇḍala theory).
v4.c62.496.4
A *sahaja* enemy is one who is born of the same family (such as a step-brother), a *kṛtrima* is one who is antagonistic or incites antagonists (i. e. one who has caused harm to or who has been harmed by the vijigīṣu), while the immediate neighbour is a *prākṛta* enemy. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 345 very concisely but lucidly explains all these and the four kinds of śatru. The Viṣṇudharmottara (II. 145. 15-16) and the Agnipurāṇa (233. 21-22) say that in their opinion the prākṛta is really kṛtrima. Kām. VIII. 56 also speaks of only two, *sahaja* and *kṛtrima*. Although it is possible that the vijigīṣu's realm is surrounded by many kings, the one who is taken for discussion is the enemy and is to be regarded as in front (*purastāt*) of the vijigīṣu. Therefore in front of the vijigīṣu come in order the ari (immediate neighbour), then the mitra (whose domain is next after that of the ari), then the arimitra (the friend of the enemy who will be immediately after the mitra of the vijigīṣu and so will be the enemy of the mitra), then comes the *mitramitra* (friend of the friend of the vijigīṣu) and then arimitramitra (ally of the enemy's friend). When the *ari* is said to be in front of the vijigīṣu, the ruler of the territory in the opposite direction is said to be in the rear of the vijigīṣu (*paścāt*) and is called *pārṣṇigrāha*²⁹² (lit. one who may seize or attack the heels).
v4.c62.496.5
He is really an enemy but this special term is applied to him and he causes trouble in the realm of the vijigīṣu when the latter has started on an invasion or is about to start on one. The king who is the ruler of the country beyond the pārṣṇigrāha is called *ākranda* (lit. one for whose help a cry is or may be raised by the vijigīṣu). He would ordinarily be a friend being separated from the vijigīṣu by the realm of the pārṣṇigrāha. The friend of the pārṣṇigrāha (who would be immediately next after the ākranda) is called pārṣṇigrāhāsāra and the friend of the ākranda who would be beyond the pārṣṇigrāhāsāra is called ākrandāsāra. A *madhyama*²⁹³ king is one whose realm is close to (is on the border of) that of the vijigīṣu and that of the *ari* (the immediate enemy in front) and who is capable of helping (or favouring) both of them whether both are combined in alliance or not and who is capable of resisting either of them individually when the two are not in combination. An *udāsīna* king is generally defined as one whose territory is beyond or outside of the sphere of the realms of the vijigīṣu, his enemy in front and the madhyama, who is very strong on account of his elements of sovereignty, is capable of helping the above three kings whether they be in combination or not and who is capable of resisting any of the three when they are not in combination. Kullūka on Manu. VII. 153 differs from this explanation i. e.
v4.c62.496.6
the udāsīna is a powerful king whose realm may be situated in front or in the rear or even at a distance from that of the vijigīṣu, but he is indifferent for some reason or other to the activities of the vijigīṣu. The Mit. on Yāj. I. 345 observes that the udāsīna also is of three kinds and the prākṛta udāsīna is the overlord of the State that is separated from the central state (vijigīṣu) by two intervening States; the madhyama (or *madhyastha* acc. to Nītivākyāmṛta p. 318) is the immediate neighbour of both the vijigīṣu and his enemy, but wants to remain neutral in the conflict of the two for some reason. It will have been noticed that the vijigīṣu, the enemy, the madhyama and the udāsīna are independent catagories, while four out of the remaining eight others viz. mitra, mitramitra, ākranda, ākrandāsāra can be grouped under vijigīṣu, while the other four viz. arimitra, arimitramitra, pārṣṇigrāha and pārṣṇigrāhāsāra may be grouped under ari. It is therefore that Manu (VII. 155-156) speaks of the four prakṛtis (vijigīṣu, śatru, madhyama and udāsīna) as the *mūla* (basis) of the maṇḍala theory and Kām. VIII. 20 informs us that Maya declared that a maṇḍala was constituted by these four. Kām. VIII. 86 gives it as his own opinion that maṇḍala is constituted by *mitra*, *udāsīna* and *ripu* (enemy) only²⁹⁴. Kauṭilya says that the maṇḍala is constituted as explained above by twelve *prakṛtis*. Uśanas was of the same opinion (Kām. VIII. 22) and Kām. (VIII.
v4.c62.496.7
41) states that there were numerous views about the number of the elements of the maṇḍala, but a maṇḍala of twelve kings is quite clear and well-known among all people²⁹⁵. Kām. (VIII. 20-41) explains how by various combinations of the elements of the maṇḍala with some elements of sovereignty (viz. ministers, rāṣṭra, durga, kośa, bala) different writers held that the maṇḍala comprised 18, 26, 54, 72, 108 and other numbers of prakṛtis. The Sarasvatīvilāsa (pp. 37-41) shows how from different standpoints Uśanas himself argued that the maṇḍala was constituted by one prakṛti, two, three, 10, 21, 108 and that other writers speak also of 4, 5, 6, 14, 18, 30, 36, 44, 60, 72 prakṛtis. All these figures are due to the inveterate habit of scholastic minds to run an idea to the earth and to indulge in divisions and sub-divisions. Even Manu (VII. 157) states that combining each of the twelve members of maṇḍala with the five elements of sovereignty from amātya onwards we get 60 which with the twelve²⁹⁶ come to 72. It is to this that the Daśakumāracarita (VIII. p. 144) refers when speaking of the tree of *naya* that it has 72 prakṛtis as its leaves (dvisaptatiprakṛtipatraḥ ... nayavanaspatīḥ). The central idea of the maṇḍala was to keep a balance of power among a circle of States, some being friendly among themselves owing to their position and surroundings, while others would form an antagonistic group. Kauṭ. (VI.
v4.c62.496.8
2) also refers to this number 72, out of which twelve are constituted by kings (*rājaprakṛtis*) and 60 (five sovereignty elements of each of the twelve) are styled (*dravyaprakṛtis*). The Śāntiparva (59. 70-71) also refers to a maṇḍala of 12 kings and to the number 72. Vide N. N. Law's 'Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity' pp. 195-208 for elucidation of the theory of maṇḍala. The theory of maṇḍala has this element of truth in it that on a calculation of probabilities the kings who are the immediate neighbours of a ruler are likely to be his enemies (at least potential) and the kings that are beyond the immediate neighbours may make common cause with the central State taken for discourse in order to crush between them a hostile intermediate State. It suggests that diplomacy may take the lines indicated by position and probabilities. The diagram below will ²⁹⁷ illustrate the idea. Manu (VII. 177 and 180) declares that (state) policy consists briefly in this that a king must so arrange all things or means that the ally, the udāsīna and the śatru cannot harm him or become superior to him. Medhātithi (on Manu VII. 177) remarks that even an ally may become an enemy if his interest so requires (*svārthagativiśācca mitramapyarirbhavati*).