Vigraha (war)

“The policy of vigraha means a state of hostility. It has an offensive as well as a defensive purpose. For example, when one feels that any attack by the enemy can be successfully repelled, one should resort to the policy of vigraha, not to that of saṃdhi. Similarly, when one feels that from a secure position one can ruin the enemy’s undertakings or that one can seize the enemy’s territory because he is enagaged in a war on another front, vigraha is the policy indicated.^[1]

Kauṭilya says:

“yadi vā paśyet 1 ‘āyudhīyaprāyaḥ śreṇīprāyo vā me janapadaḥ śailavananadīdurgaikadvārārakṣo vā śakṣyati parābhiyogaṃ pratihantumiti; 2. viṣayānte durgamaviṣahyamapāśrito vā śakṣyāmi parakarmāṇyupahantumiti; 3. vyasanapīḍopahatotsāho vā paraḥ saṃprāptakarmopaghātakāla iti; 4. vigṛhītasyānyato vā śakṣyāmi janapadamapavāhayitum’ iti vigrahe sthito vṛddhimātiṣṭet |” (7.1.33)^[2]

“Or if he were to see, ‘My country, consisting mostly of martial people or fighting bands, or secure in the protection of a single entrance through a mountain-fort, a forest fort or a river fort, will be able to repulse the enemy’s attack; or, taking shelter in an impregnable fort on the border of my territory, I shall be able to ruin the enemy’s undertakings, or, the enemy, with his energy sapped by the troubles caused by a calamaity, has reached a time when his undertakings face ruin; or, when he is fighting elsewhere, I shall be able to carry off his country’, he should secure advancement by resorting to war.^[3]

In some conditions if the vijigīṣu king realizes that fighting with the enemy king he will be able to achieve properity of his kingdom then he will fight with his enemy king.

If he observes the following matters then he may stick to the war for the bettement of himself.

1. If there are many warriorts to fight or many formers and landlord or if the country is well preserved by hill-forts forests-forts, river forts and has only one gate to enter and go out then vijigīṣu will think that his country is able to hurt back enemy’s attack and may fight agsinst the enemies

2. If the vijigīṣu king realises that staying in the invulnerable fort in the border of his state he will be able to obstruct the activities of his enemy, he may fight against his enemies.

3. If the vijigīṣu king will realises that he will be able to remove the subjects of his enemy when he (enemy King) is enjaged in war with another king then in these conditions the vijigīṣu king will fight with his enemy kings.

“If both saṃdhi and vigraha are expected to lead to the same result, namely, one’s own advancement in power, the policy of saṃdhi should be preferred, for in vigraha there are losses expenses and other troubles”.^[4]

sandhivigrahayostulyāyāṃ vṛddhau sandhimupeyāt | vigrahe hi kṣayavyaya pravāsa pratyavāyā bhavanti | (7.2.1-2)^[5]

“If there is equal advancement in peace or war, he should resort to peace. For, in war there are losses expenses, marches away from home and hindrances.”^[6]

Conclusion:

In the Arthaśāstra vigraha is–

If vijigīṣu king feels that from a secure position he can ruin the enemy’s undertakings, doing vigraha he is benefited from all sides then he should fight with his enemy.

According to the Manusaṃhitā:

“war is declared to be of two kinds, viz., that whih is undertaken in season or out of season, by oneself and for one’s own purposes and that waged to avenge an injury done to a friend”.^[7]

In this respect the opinion of Kauṭilya is almost the same. Basing the opinion of the Manusaṃhitā Kauṭilya described about vigraha vividly. We get the conception of ṣāḍguṇya elaborately in the seventh adhikaraṇa of the Arthaśāstra.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

loc.cit.

[2]:

ibid., part-I, p. 169.

[3]:

ibid., part-II, pp. 323-324.

[4]:

ibid., part-III, p. 253.

[5]:

ibid., part-I, p. 170.

[6]:

ibid., part-II, p. 325.

[7]:

ibid., p. 170.