Chapter 6 - The March of Combined Powers

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

Summary: The March of Combined Powers; Agreement of Peace with or without Definite Terms; and Peace with Renegades.

The conqueror should thus over-reach the second element (the enemy close to his territory): He should engage his neighbouring enemy to undertake a simultaneous march with him and tell the enemy: “Thou march in that direction, and I shall march in this direction; and the share in the spoils is equal.”

If the booty is to be equally divided, it is an agreement of peace; if otherwise, it is overpowering the enemy.

An agreement of peace may be made with promise to carry out a definite work (paripaṇita) or with no such promise (aparipaṇita).

When the agreement is to the effect that, “Thou march to that place, and I shall march to this place,” it is termed an agreement of peace to carry out a work in a definite locality.

When it is agreed upon that, “Thou be engaged so long, I shall be engaged thus long,” it is an agreement to attain an object in a fixed time.

When it is agreed upon that, “Thou try to accomplish that work, and I shall try to finish this work,” it is an agreement to achieve a definite end.

When the conqueror thinks that, “My enemy (now an ally) has to march through an unknown country, which is intersected with mountains, forests, rivers, forts and deserts, which is devoid of foodstuffs, people, pastural grounds, fodder, firewood and water, and which is far away, different from other countries, and not affording suitable grounds for the exercise of his army; and I have to traverse a country of quite the reverse description,” then he should make an agreement to carry out a work in a definite locality.

When the conqueror thinks that, “My enemy has to work with foodstuffs falling short and with no comfort during the rainy, hot or cold season, giving rise to various kinds of diseases and obstructing the free exercise of his army during a shorter or longer period of time than necessary for the accomplishment of the work in hand; and I have to work during a time of quite the reverse nature,” then he should make time a factor of the agreement.

When the conqueror thinks that, “My enemy has to accomplish a work which, not lasting but trifling in its nature, enrages his subjects, which requires much expenditure of time and money, and which is productive of evil consequences, unrighteous, repugnant to the Madhyama and neutral kings, and destructive of all friendship whereas, I have to do the reverse,” then he should make an agreement to carry out a definite work.

Likewise with space and time, with time and work, with space: and work, and with space, time, and work, made as terms of an agreement, it resolves itself into seven forms.

Long before making such an agreement, the conqueror has to fix his own work and then attempt to over-reach his enemy.

When, in order to destroy an enemy who has fallen into troubles and who is hasty, indolent, and not foresighted, an agreement of peace with no terms of time, space, or work is made with an enemy merely for mutual peace, and when, under cover of such an agreement, the enemy is caught hold of at his weak points and is struck, it is termed peace with no definite terms (aparipaṇita). With regard to this there is a saying as follows:

* “Having kept a neighbouring enemy engaged with another neighbouring enemy, a wise king should proceed against a third king, and having conquered that enemy. of equal power, take possession of his territory.”

Peace with no specific end (akṛtacikīrṣā), peace with binding terms (kṛtaśleṣaṇa), the breaking of peace (kṛtavidūṣaṇa), and restoration of peace broken (apaśīrṇakriyā are other forms of peace.

Open battle, treacherous battle, and silent battle (i.e. killing an enemy by employing spies when there is no talk of battle at all) are the three forms of battle.

When, by making use of conciliation and other forms of stratagem and the like, a new agreement of peace is made and the rights of equal, inferior and superior powers concerned in the agreement are defined according to their respective positions, it is termed an agreement of peace with no specific end (other than self-preservation).

When, by the employment of friends (at the Courts of each other), the agreement of peace made is kept secure and the terms are invariably observed and strictly maintained so that no dissension may creep among the parties, it is termed peace with binding terms.

When, having proved through the agency of traitors and spies the treachery of a king, who has made an agreement of peace, the agreement is broken, it is termed the breaking of peace.

When reconciliation is made with a servant, or a friend, or any other renegade, it is termed the restoration of broken peace.

There are four persons who run away from, and return to, their master: one who had reason to run away and to return; one who had no reason either to run away or to return; one who had reason to run away, but none to return; and one who had no reason to run away, but had reason to come back.

He who runs away owing to his master’s fault and returns in consideration of (his master’s) good nature, or he who runs away attracted by the good nature of his master’s enemy and returns finding fault with the enemy, is to be reconciled as he had reason to run away and to return.

Whoever runs away owing to his own fault and returns without minding the good nature either of his old or new master, is a fickle-minded person having no explanation to account for his conduct, and he should have no terms of reconciliation.

Whoever runs away owing to his master’s fault and returns owing to his own defects, is a renegade who had reason to run away, but none to return: and his case is to be well considered (before he is taken back).

Whoever returns deputed by the enemy; or of his own accord, with the intention of hurting his old master, as is natural to persons of such bad character; or coming to know that his old master is attempting to put down the enemy, his new master, and apprehensive of danger to himself; or looking on the attempt of his new master to destroy his old master as cruelty—these should be examined; and if he is found to be actuated with good motives, he is to be taken back respectfully; otherwise, he should be kept at a distance.

Whoever runs away owing to his own fault and returns owing to his new master’s wickedness is a renegade who had no reason to run away, but had reason to come back; such a person is to be examined.

When a king thinks that, “This renegade supplies me with full information about my enemy’s weakness, and, therefore, he deserves to remain here; his own people with me are in friendship with my friends and at enmity with my enemies, and are easily excited at the sight of greedy and cruel persons or of a band of enemies,” he may treat such a renegade as deserved.

My teacher says that whoever has failed to achieve profit from his works, lost his strength, or made his learning a commercial article, or is very greedy, inquisitive to see different countries, dead to the feelings of friendship, or has strong enemies, deserves to be abandoned.

But Kauṭilya says that it is timidity, unprofessional business, and lack of forbearance (to do so). Whoever is injurious to the king’s interests should be abandoned, while he who is injurious to the interests of the enemy should be reconciled; and whoever is injurious to the interests of both the king and his enemy should be carefully examined.

When it is necessary to make peace with a king with whom no peace ought to be made, defensive measures should be taken against that point where he can shew his power.

* In restoring broken peace, a renegade or a person inclined towards the enemy should be kept at such a distance that, till the close of his life, he may be useful to the state.

* Or, he may be set against the enemy or may be employed as a captain of an army to guard wild tracts against enemies, or thrown somewhere on the boundary.

* Or he may be employed to carry on a secret trade in new or old commodities in foreign countries, and may accordingly be accused of conspiracy with the enemy.

* Or, in the interests of future peace, a renegade who must be put to death may at once be destroyed.

* That kind of wicked character which has from the beginning grown upon a man owing to his association with enemies is, as ever, fraught with danger as constant living in company with a snake;

* and is ever threatening with destruction just as a pigeon living on the seeds of plakṣa (holy fig-tree) is to the śālmali (silk-cotton) tree.

* When battle is fought in daylight and in some locality, it is termed an open battle; threatening in one direction, assault in another, destruction of an enemy captured while he was careless or in troubles;

* and bribing a portion of the army and destroying another portion, are forms of treacherous fight; an attempt to win over the chief officers of the enemy by intrigue, is the characteristic of silent battle.

[Thus, ends Chapter VI, “The March of Combined Powers; Agreement of Peace with or without Definite Terms; and Peace with Renegades,” in Book VII, “The End of the Six-fold Policy” of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. End of the hundred and fourth chapter from the beginning.]