Chapter 1 - The Six-fold Policy

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

Summary: The Six-fold Policy, and Determination of Deterioration, Stagnation and Progress.

The Circle of States is the source of the six-fold policy.

My teacher says that peace (sandhi), war (vigraha), observance of neutrality (āsana), marching (yāna), alliance (saṃśraya), and making peace with one and waging war with another are the six forms of state policy.

But Vātavyādhi holds that there are only two forms of policy, peace and war, inasmuch as the six forms result from these two primary forms of policy.

While Kauṭilya holds that, as their respective conditions differ, the forms of policy are six.

Of these, agreement with pledges is peace; offensive operation is war; indifference is neutrality; making preparations is marching; seeking the protection of another is alliance; and making peace with one and waging war with another, is termed a double policy (dvaidhībhāva). These are the six forms.

Whoever is inferior to another shall make peace with him; whoever is superior in power shall wage war; whoever thinks, “No enemy can hurt me, nor am I strong enough to destroy my enemy,” shall observe neutrality; whoever is possessed of necessary means shall march against his enemy; whoever is devoid of necessary strength to defend himself shall seek the protection of another; whoever thinks that help is necessary to work out an end shall make peace with one and wage war with another. Such is the aspect of the six forms of policy.

Of these, a wise king shall observe that form of policy which, in his opinion, enables him to build, forts, to construct buildings and commercial roads, to open new plantations and villages, to exploit mines and timber and elephant forests and at the same time to harass similar works of his enemy.

Whoever thinks himself to be growing in power more rapidly both in quality and quantity (than his enemy), and the reverse of his enemy, may neglect his enemy’s progress for the time.

If any two kings, hostile to each other, find the time of achieving the results of their respective works to be equal, they shall make peace with each other.

No king shall keep that form of policy, which causes him the loss of profit from his own works, but which entails no such loss on the enemy; for it is deterioration.

Whoever thinks that in the course of time his loss will be less than his acquisition as contrasted with that of his enemy, may neglect his temporary deterioration.

If any two kings, hostile to each other, and deteriorating, except to acquire equal amount of wealth in equal time, they shall make peace with each other.

That position in which neither progress nor retrogression is seen is stagnation.

Whoever thinks his stagnancy to be of a shorter duration and his prosperity in the long run to be greater than his enemy’s, may neglect his temporary stagnation.

My teacher says that if any two kings, who are hostile to each other, and are in a stationary condition, except to acquire equal amount of wealth and power in equal time, they shall make peace with each other.

“Of course,” says Kauṭilya, “there is no other alternative.”

Or if a king thinks:

“That keeping the agreement of peace, I can undertake productive works of considerable importance and destroy at the same time those of my enemy; or apart from enjoying the results of my own works, I shall also enjoy those of my enemy in virtue of the agreement of peace; or I can destroy the works of my enemy by employing spies and other secret means; or by holding out such inducements as a happy dwelling, rewards, remission of taxes, little work and large profits and wages, I can empty my enemy’s country of its population, with which he has been able to carry his own works; or being allied with a king of considerable power, my enemy will have his own work destroyed; or I can prolong my enemy’s hostility with another king whose threats have driven my enemy to seek my protection; or being allied with me, my enemy can harass the country of another king who hates me; or oppressed by another king, the subjects of my enemy will immigrate into my country, and I can, therefore, achieve the results of my own works very easily; or being in a precarious condition due to the destruction of his works, my enemy will not be so powerful as to attack me; or by exploiting my own resources in alliance with any two (friendly) kings, I can augment my resources; or if a Circle of States is formed by my enemy as one of its members, I can divide them and combine with the others; or by threats or favour, I can catch hold of my enemy, and when he desires to be a member of my own Circle of States, I can make him incur the displeasure of the other members and fall a victim to their own fury”—if a king thinks thus, then he may increase his resources by keeping peace.

Or if a king thinks:

“That as my country is full of born soldiers and of corporations of fighting men, and as it possesses such natural defensive positions as mountains, forests, rivers, and forts with only one entrance, it can easily repel the attack of my enemy; or having taken my stand in my impregnable fortress at the border of my country, I can harass the works of my enemy; or owing to internal troubles and loss of energy, my enemy will early suffer from the destruction works; or when my enemy is attacked by another

king, I can induce his subjects to immigrate into my country,” then he may augment his own resources by keeping open hostility with such an enemy.

Or if a king thinks:

“That neither is my enemy strong enough to destroy my works, nor am I his; or if he comes to fight with me like a dog with a boar, I can increase his afflictions without incurring any loss in my own works,” then he may observe neutrality and augment his own resources.

Or if a king thinks:

“That by marching my troops it is possible to destroy the works of my enemy; and as for myself, I have made proper arrangements to safeguard my own works,” then he may increase his resources by marching.

Or if a king thinks:

“That I am strong enough neither to harass my enemy’s works nor to defend my own against my enemy’s attack,” then he shall seek protection from a king of superior power, and endeavour to pass from the stage of deterioration to that of stagnancy and from the latter to that of progress.

Or if a king thinks:

“That by making peace with one, I can work out my own resources, and by waging war with another, I can destroy the works of my enemy,” then he may adopt that double policy and improve his resources.

* Thus, a king in the circle of sovereign states shall, by adopting the six-fold policy, endeavour to pass from the state of deterioration to that of stagnation, and from the latter to that of progress.

[Thus ends Chapter I, “The Six-fold Policy and Determination of Deterioration, Stagnation and Progress,” in Book VII, “The End of the Six-fold Policy” of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. End of the ninety-ninth chapter from the beginning.]