Chapter 9 - Agreement for the Acquisition of a Friend or Gold

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

Of the three gains, the acquisition of a friend, of gold, and of territory, accruing from the march of combined powers, that which is mentioned later is better than the one previously mentioned; for friends and gold can be acquired by means of territory; of the two gains, that of a friend and of gold, each can be a means to acquire the other.

Agreement under the condition, “Let us acquire a friend,” etc., is termed even peace; when one acquires a friend and the other gold or land, it is termed uneven peace; and when one gains more than the other, it is deception.

In an even peace (i.e. agreement on equal terms), whoever acquires a friend of good character or relieves an. old friend from troubles, over-reaches the other; for help given in misfortune renders friendship very firm.

Which is better of the two: a friend of long-standing but unsubmissive nature, or a temporary friend of submissive nature, both being acquired by affording relief from their respective troubles?

My teacher says that a long-standing friend of unsubmissive nature is better, inasmuch as such a friend, though not helpful, will not create harm.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: a temporary friend of submissive nature is better; for such a friend will be a true friend so long as he is helpful; for the real characteristic of friendship lies in giving help.

Which is the better of two submissive friends: a temporary friend of large prospects, or a long-standing friend of limited prospects?

My teacher says that a temporary friend of large prospects is better, inasmuch as such a friend can, in virtue of his large prospects, render immense service in a very short time, and can stand undertaking of large outlay.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: a long-standing friend of limited prospects is better, inasmuch as a temporary friend of large prospects is likely to withdraw his friendship on account of material loss in the shape of help given, or is likely to expect similar kind of help in return; but a long-standing friend, of limited prospects can, in virtue of his long-standing nature, render immense service in the long run.

Which is better, a big friend, difficult to be roused, or a small friend, easy to be roused?

My teacher says that a big friend, though difficult to be roused, is of imposing nature, and when he rises up he can accomplish the work undertaken.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: a small friend easy to be roused is better, for such a friend will not, in virtue of his ready preparations, be behind the opportune moment of work, and can, in virtue of his weakness in power, be used in any way the conqueror may like; but not so the other of vast territorial power.

Which is better, scattered troops, or an unsubmissive standing army?

My teacher says that scattered troops can be collected in time, as they are of submissive nature.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: an unsubmissive standing army is better, as it can be made submissive by conciliation and other strategic means; but it is not so easy to collect in time scattered troops, as they are engaged in their individual avocations.

Which is better, a friend of vast population, or a friend of immense gold?

My teacher says that a friend of vast population is better, inasmuch as such a friend will be of imposing power and can, when he rises up, accomplish any work undertaken.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: a friend possessing immense gold is better; for possession of gold is ever desirable; but an army is not always required. Moreover, armies and other desired objects can be purchased for gold.

Which is better, a friend possessing gold or a friend possessing vast territory?

My teacher says that a friend possessing gold can stand any heavy expenditure made with discretion.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: for it has already been stated that both friends and gold can be acquired by means of territory. Hence a friend of vast territory is far better.

When the friend of the conqueror and his enemy happen to possess equal population, their people may yet differ in possessions of qualities such as bravery, power of endurance, amicableness, and qualification for the formation of any kind of army.

When the friends are equally rich in gold, they may yet differ in qualities such as readiness to comply with requests, magnanimous and munificent help, and accessibility at any time and always.

About this topic, the following sayings are current:

* Long-standing, submissive, easy to be roused, coming from fathers and grandfathers, powerful, and never of a contradictory nature, is a good friend; and these are said to be the six qualities of a good friend;

* that friend who maintains friendship with disinterested motives and merely for the sake of friendship, and by whom the relationship acquired of old is kept intact, is a long-standing friend;

* that friend whose munificence is enjoyable in various ways is a submissive friend, and is said to be of three forms: one who is enjoyable only by one, one who is enjoyable by two (the enemy and the conqueror), and one who is enjoyable by all, is the third;

* that friend who, whether as receiving help or as giving help, lives with an oppressive hand over his enemies, and who possesses a number of forts and a vast army of wild tribes is said to be a longstanding friend of unsubmissive nature;

* that friend who, either when attacked or when in trouble, makes friendship for the security of his own existence is a temporary and submissive friend;

* that friend who contracts friendship with a single aim in view and who is helpful, immutable, and amicable, is a friend never falling foul even in adversity;

* whoever is of an amicable nature is a true friend; whoever sides also with the enemy is a mutable friend; and whoever is indifferent to neither (the conqueror and his enemy) is a friend to both;

* that friend who is inimical to the conqueror or who is equally friendly to the conqueror’s enemy is a harmful friend, whether he is giving help or is capable of helping;

* whoever helps the enemy’s friend, protege or any vulnerable person or a relation of the enemy is a friend common to (both) the enemy (and the conqueror);

* whoever possesses extensive and fertile territory and is contented, strong, but indolent, will be indifferent (towards his ally) when the latter becomes despicable under troubles;

* whoever, owing to his own weakness, follows the ascendancy of both the conqueror and his enemy, not incurring enmity with either, is known as a common friend;

* whoever neglects a friend, who is being hurt, with or without reason, and who seeks help, with or without reason, despises his own danger.

Which is better, an immediate small gain or a distant large gain?

My teacher says that an immediate small gain is better, as it is useful to carry out immediate undertaking.

Not so, says Kauṭilya: a large gain, as continuous as a productive seed, is better; otherwise an immediate small gain.

* Thus, having taken into consideration the good aspects of permanent gain or of a share in a permanent gain, should a king, desirous of strengthening himself, march combined with others.

[Thus ends Chapter IX, “Agreement for the Acquisition of a Friend or Gold,” in the Section of “Agreement for the Acquisition of a Friend, Gold or Land, and Agreement for Undertaking a Work,” in Book VII, “The End of the Six-fold Policy” of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. End of the hundred and seventh chapter from the beginning.]