The Political Institutions and Theories of the Hindus: A Study in Comparative Politics c15.23

c15.23

The Persian synopsis of the Sanskrit texts has something to say on international relations. According to Hindu statecraft, if any monarch is more powerful than oneself, one should continually strive to sow dissension among the rival's troops, and in case of failure should prudently purchase his friendship. "The prince whose territory adjoins to his", Abul Fazl tells us further, obviously reproducing the Kautilyan doctrine of *mandala*,¹ "although he may be friendly in appearance, yet ought not to be trusted; one should be always prepared to oppose any sudden attack from that quarter. With him whose country lies next beyond the last-mentioned he should enter into alliance". In these remarks there is nothing essentially Hindu, oriental or mediaeval, nor anything distinctively Machiavellian or Bernhardian. It is substantially on this elementary psychology of international relations that the *ententes*, conventions, and interchange of diplomatic visits in the modern world are based. "Human, all too human" are these precepts of the *Artha-śâstra* popularized for the "sons of Adam" through the *Manu-Samhitâ*,² and they did not need the special pleading of a Nietzsche's *Will to Power*³ to make them current coin for the present generation of statesmen.