Chapter 3 - Consideration of Annoyance in the Rear

[Sanskrit text for this chapter is available]

Summary: Consideration of Annoyance in the Rear; and Remedies Against Internal and External Troubles.

Of the two things, slight annoyance in the rear and considerable profit in the front, slight annoyance in the rear is more serious; for traitors, enemies, and wild tribes augment on all sides the slight annoyance which one may have in the rear. The members of one’s own state may be provoked about the acquisition of considerable profit in the front.

When one under the protection of another has come to such a condition (i.e. slight annoyance in the rear and considerable profit in the front), then one should endeavour so as to cause to the rear enemy the loss and impoverishment of his servants and friends. Hence considering that profit is one in a thousand or that annoyance in the rear is one in a hundred, one should undertake no march. The saying is that calamities are as small as the point of a needle in the beginning. In case of annoyance in the rear one should make use of conciliation and other forms of strategem, and in order to fetch the profit in the front, one should also employ the commander of the army or the heir-apparent to lead the army.

Or the king himself may go in person to receive the profit in the front, if he is able to ward off the annoyance in the rear. If he is apprehensive of internal troubles, he may take with him the suspected leaders. If he is apprehensive of external troubles, he should march, after keeping inside his capital as hostages the sons and wives of suspected enemies, and after having split into a number of divisions the troops of the officer in charge of waste lands (śūnyapāla) and having placed those divisions under the command of several chiefs, or he may abandon his march, for it has been already stated that internal troubles are more serious than external troubles.

The provocation of any one of the ministers, the priest, the commander-in-chief, and the heir-apparent is what is termed internal trouble. The king should get rid of such an internal enemy, either by giving up his own fault or by pointing out of the danger arising from an external enemy. When the priest is guilty of the gravest treason, relief should be found either by confining him or by banishing him; when the heir-apparent is so, confinement or death (nigraha) provided that there is another son of good character. From these, the case of the minister and the commander-in-chief is explained.

When a son, or a brother, or any other person of the royal family attempts to seize the kingdom, he should be won over by holding out hopes; when this is not possible, he should be conciliated by allowing him to enjoy what he has already seized, or by making an agreement with him, or by means of intrigue through an enemy, or by securing to him land from an enemy, or any other person of inimical character. Or he may be sent out on a mission with an inimical force to receive the only punishment he deserves; or a conspiracy may be made with a frontier king or wild tribes whose displeasure he has incurred; or the same policy that is employed in securing an imprisoned prince^[1] or in seizing an enemy’s villages^[2] may be resorted to.

The provocation of ministers other than the prime minister is what is called the internal ministerial trouble.^[3] Even in this case, necessary strategic means should be employed.

The provocation of the, chief of a district (rāṣṭramukhya), the officer in charge of the boundary, the chief of wild tribes, and a conquered king is what is termed external troubles. This should be overcome by setting one against the other. Whoever among these has strongly fortified himself should be caught hold of through the agency of a frontier king, or the chief of wild tribes, or a scion of his family, or an imprisoned prince; or he may be captured through the agency of a friend, so that he may not combine with an enemy; or a spy may prevent him from combining with an enemy by saying: “This enemy makes a cat’s-paw of you and causes you to fall upon your own lord; when his aim is realised, he makes you to lead an army against enemies or wild tribes, or to sojourn in a troublesome place; or he causes you to reside at a frontier station far from the company of your sons and wife. When you have lost all your strength, he sells you to your own lord; or having made peace with you, he will please your own lord. Hence it is advisable for you to go to the best friend of your lord.” When he agrees to the proposal, he is to be honoured; but when he refuses to listen, he is to be told: “I am specially sent to separate you from the enemy.” The spy should, however, appoint some persons to murder him; or he may be killed by some concealed persons; or some persons pretending to be brave soldiers may be made to accompany him and may be told by a spy (to murder him). Thus the end of troubles. One should cause such troubles to one’s enemy and ward off those of one’s own.

In the case of a person who is capable of causing or alleviating troubles, intrigue should be made use of; and in the case of a person who is of a reliable character, able to undertake works, and to favour his ally in his success, and to afford protection against calamities, counter-intrigue (pratijāpa) should be made use of (to keep his friendship secure). It should also be considered whether the person is of good disposition or of obstinate temper (śatha).

The intrigue carried on by a foreigner of obstinate temper with local persons is of the following form: “If after killing his own master, he comes to me, then I will secure.these two objects, the destruction of my enemy and the acquisition of the enemy’s lands; or else my enemy kills him, with the consequence that the partisans of the relations killed, and other persons who are equally guilty, and are therefore apprehensive of similar punishment to themselves, will perturb my enemy’s peace when my enemy has no friends to count; or when my enemy fails to suspect any other person who is equally guilty, I shall be able to cause the death of this or that officer under my enemy’s own command.”

The intrigue carried on by a local person of obstinate temper with a foreigner is of the following form: “I shall either plunder the treasury of this king or destroy his army; I shall murder my master by employing this man; if my master consents, I shall cause him to march against an external enemy or a wild tribe; let his Circle of States be brought to confusion, let him incur enmity with them; then it is easy to keep him under my power, and conciliate him; or I myself shall seize the kingdom; or having bound him in chains, I shall obtain both my master’s land and outside land; or having caused the enemy (of my master) to march out, I shall cause the enemy to be murdered in good faith; or I shall seize the enemy’s capital when it is empty (of soldiers).”

When a person of good disposition makes a conspiracy for the purpose of acquiring what is to be enjoyed by both, then an agreement should be made with him. But when a person of obstinate temper so conspires, he should be allowed to have his own way and then deceived. Thus the form of policy to be adopted should be considered.

* Enemies from enemies, subjects from subjects, subjects from enemies, and enemies from subjects should ever be guarded; and both from his subjects and enemies a learned man should ever guard his own person.

[Thus ends Chapter III, “Consideration of Annoyance in the Rear, and Remedies Against Internal and External Troubles,” in Book IX, “The Work of an Invader” of the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, End of the hundred and twenty-fourth chapter from the beginning.]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Sec Chapter XVIII, Book I.

[2]:

Chapter I, Book XIV.

[3]:

The text is a little faulty here.