Chapter 17 - Making Peace and Breaking It

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

The words śama (quiet), sandhi (agreement of peace), and samādhi (reconcilement), are synonymous. That which is conducive to mutual faith among kings is termed śama, sandhi, or samādhi.

My teacher says that peace, dependent upon honesty or oath, is mutable, while peace with a security or a hostage is immutable.

No, says Kauṭilya, peace, dependent upon honesty or oath, is immutable both in this and the next world. It is for this world only that a security or a hostage is required for strengthening the agreement.

Honest kings of old made their agreement of peace with this declaration: “We have joined in peace.” In case of any apprehension of breach of honesty, they made their agreement by swearing by fire, water, plough, the brick of a fort wall, the shoulder of an elephant, the hips of a horse, the front of a chariot, a weapon, seeds, scents, juice (rasa), wrought gold (suvarṇa), or bullion gold (hiraṇya), and by declaring that these things will destroy and desert him who violates the oath.

In order to avoid the contingency of violation of oath, peace made with the security of such persons as ascetics engaged in penance, or nobles, is peace with a security. In such a peace, whoever takes as security a person capable of controlling the enemy gains more advantages, while he who acts to the contrary is deceived.

In peace made with children as hostages, and in the case of giving a princess or a prince as a hostage, whoever gives a princess gains advantages; for a princess, when taken as a hostage, causes troubles to the receiver, while a prince is of reverse nature.

With regard to two sons, whoever hands over a high-born, brave and wise son, trained in military art, or an only son, is deceived, while he who acts otherwise gains advantages. It is better to give a base-born son as a hostage than a high-born one, inasmuch as the former has neither heirship nor the right to beget heirs; it is better to give a stupid son than a wise one, inasmuch as the former is destitute of the power of deliberation; better to give a timid son than a brave one, inasmuch as the former is destitute of martial spirit; better a son who is not trained in military art than one who is trained, inasmuch as the former is devoid of the capacity for striking an enemy; and better one of many sons than an only son since many sons are not wanted.

With regard to a high-born and wise son, people will continue to be loyal to a high-born son though he is not wise; a wise son, though base-born, is characterised with capacity to consider state matters; but so far as capacity to consider state matters is concerned, a high-born prince associating himself with the aged, has more advantages than a wise but base-born prince.

With regard to a wise and a brave prince, a wise prince, though timid, is characterised with capacity for intellectual works; and a brave prince, though not wise, possesses warlike spirit. So far as warlike spirit is concerned, a wise prince over-reaches a brave one just as a hunter does an elephant.

With regard to a brave and a trained prince, a brave prince, though untrained, is characterised with capacity for war; and a trained prince, though timid, is capable of hitting objects aright. Notwithstanding the capacity for hitting objects aright, a brave prince excels a trained prince in determination and firm adherence to his policy.

With regard to a king having many sons and another an only son, the former, giving one of his sons as a hostage and being contented with the rest, is able to break the peace; but not the latter.

When peace is made by handing over the whole lot of sons, advantage is to be sought in capacity to beget additional sons; capacity to beget additional sons being common, he who can beget able sons will have more advantages than another king (who is not so fortunate); capacity to beget able sons being common, he by whom the birth of a son is early expected will have more advantages than another (who is not so fortunate).

In the case of an only son who is also brave, he who has lost capacity to beget any more sons should surrender himself as a hostage, but not the only son.

Whoever is rising in power may break the agreement of peace. Carpenters, artisans, and other spies, attending upon the prince (kept as a hostage) and doing work under the enemy, may take away the prince at night through an underground tunnel dug for the purpose. Dancers, actors, singers, players on musical instruments, buffoons, court-bards, swimmers, and saubhikas (?), previously set about the enemy, may continue under his service and may indirectly serve the prince. They should have the privilege of entering into, staying in and going out of, the palace at any time without rule. The prince may therefore get out at night disguised as any one of the above spies.

This explains the work of prostitutes and other women spies under the garb of wives; the prince may get out, carrying their pipes, utensils, or vessels.

Or the prince may be removed concealed under things, clothes, commodities, vessels, beds, seats and other articles, by cooks, confectioners, servants employed to serve the king while bathing, servants employed for carrying conveyances, for spreading the bed, toilet-making, dressing, and procuring water; or taking something in pitch dark, he may get out, disguised as a servant.

Or he may (pretend to) be in communion with god Varuṇa in a reservoir (which is seen) through a tunnel, or to which he is taken at night; spies under the guise of traders dealing in cooked rice and fruits may (poison those things and) distribute among the sentinels.

Or having served the sentinels with cooked rice and beverage mixed with the juice of madana plant on occasions of making offerings to gods or of performing an ancestral ceremony or some sacrificial rite, the prince may get out; or by bribing the sentinels; or spies disguised as a nāgaraka (officer in charge of the city), a court-bard, or a physician may set fire to a building filled with valuable articles; or sentinels, or spies disguised as merchants, may set fire to the store of commercial articles; or in view of avoiding the fear of pursuit, the prince may, after putting some human body in the house occupied by him, set fire to it and escape by breaking open some house-joints, or a window, or through a tunnel; or having disguised himself as a carrier of glass beads, pots, and other commodities he may set out at night; or having entered the residence of ascetics with shaven heads or with twisted hair, he may set out at night, disguised as any one of them; or having disguised himself as one suffering from a peculiar disease or as a forest man, he may get out; or spies may carry him away as a corpse; or, disguised as a widowed wife, he may follow a corpse that is being carried away. Spies, disguised as forest people, should mislead the pursuers of the prince by pointing out another direction, and the prince himself may take a different direction.

Or he may escape, hiding himself in the midst of carts or cart drivers; if he is closely followed, he may lead the pursuers to an ambuscade (sattra); in the absence of an ambuscade he may leave here and there gold or morsels of poisoned food on both sides of a road and take a different road.

If he is captured, he should try to win over the pursuers by conciliation and other means, or serve them with poisoned food; and having caused another body to be put in a sacrifice performed to please god Varuṇa or in a fire that has broken out (the prince’s father) may accuse the enemy of the murder of his son and attack the enemy.

* Or taking out a concealed sword, and falling upon the sentinels, he may quickly run away, together with the spies concealed before.

[Thus ends Chapter XVII, “Making Peace and Breaking It,” in Book VII, “The End of the Six-fold Policy” of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya. End of the hundred and fifteenth chapter from the beginning.]