The State in Ancient India: A Study in the Structure and Practical Working of Political Institutions in North India in Ancient Times c14.65

c14.65

The general political conditions in Kauṭalya are the same as in Manu, Viṣṇu and Yājñavalkya and are not out of harmony with what little we know of the country between the fall of the Mauryan empire and the rise of the Gupta Empire. Causes of war among the small states into which the country was divided were always present. The clearing of forests on the frontiers of two or more states seem to have led to complications. The schemes of colonisation which might follow were another fruitful source of misunderstandings. Irrigation from the long rivers which ran through more than one state presented its own difficulties. Frontiers themselves were a problem. Then there were all the petty insults, real or imaginary, to the honour and dignity of sovereigns. Mere aggression, the quest for empire, which public opinion, political philosophy and tradition had sanctified, made confusion worse confounded. It was noticed that a given state—call it A—tended to embroil itself with its neighbours, say, the states of the circle X. These, in their turn, would be at daggers drawn with their adjacent neighbours, say of the circle Y. It seems to follow that these last would be allies of the state A. But as some states of the circles X and Y themselves adjoined one another, and were therefore likely foes, the general rule of political alliance and hostility was disturbed. On a balance of considerations it appeared that some would be foes, some allies, others neutral, and yet others completely indifferent to A. If you imagine a third circle Z, a more delicate balance will have to be struck. On the whole, a single group of alliances and enmities and neutralities would consist of twelve kings which might be classified as follows:—