Āsana (halting)

“As to āsana, it is the policy of waiting in the expectation that the enemy would grow weak or find himself in difficulties or get involved in some war.

It also includes waiting in the hope that in the mean while one would oneself become more powerful than the enemy.”^[1]

“yadi vā manyeta—1. ‘na me śakkaḥ paraḥ karmāṇyupahantuṃ, nāhaṃ tasya karmopaghātī vā; 2. vyasanamasya, śvavarāhayoriva kalahe vā, svakarmānuṣṭhānaparo vā vardhiṣye’ ityasanena vṛddhimātiṣṭhet | (7.1.34)^[2].

“Or, if he were to think, “The enemy is not able to ruin my undertakings nor am I able to ruin his undertakings; or, (when) he is in a calamity, or (engaged) as in a conflict between a hound and a boar, I shall advance (myself), being intent on carrying out my own undertakings’, he should secure advancement by staying quiet.”^[3]

It means, the vijigīṣu king may improve his condition by cease war if he realises:

1. That his enemy is not able to destroy the fort etc. or he also is not able to destroy the enemy’s fort etc.

2. If the vijigīṣu king realizes that his enemy is in calamities,

3. The enemy is engaged in a quarrel with his enemy like dogs and hogs he will not do alliance or war vijigīṣu will be more attentive in his own work for self development.

In this condition the Vijigīṣu king will start cease war.

Naturally, this policy is often a concomitant of the policy of sandhi (saṃdhāya āsana).

“vigṛhyāsanahetu prātilomye sandhāyāsīta” | (7.4.13)^[4]

“In cases the reverse of the motives for staying quiet after making war, he should make peace and stay quiet.”^[5]

According to the Śrīmulā commentary—

“ya ete vigṛhyāsanahetava uktāḥ teṣāmātmani vaiparītyadarśane arthāt teṣāṃ śatrau otpattirśane sandhāyāsanamanutiṣṭat” |^[6]

“Here, “in vigrhyāsana the enemy’s undertakings are to be destroyed and one’s own funthered, in sandhyāyāsana only one’s own undertakings are to be furthered.”^[7]

And according to Shyamasastri—

“When the policy of keeping quiet after proclaiming war is found productive of unfavourable results, then one shall keep quiet after making peace.”

(As it is seen in the Kauṭiliya Arthaśāstra, part II, page, 220).

“But it can be combined even with vigṛaha āsana, as, for example, when one feels that one can seduce the enemy’s subjects from their loyalty to him or when one expects to drive some benefit at the enemy’s cost in the near future or when one feels that the enemy may weaken himself in the meanwhile by engaging in some adventure.’^[8]

yadā vā paśyet— svadaṇḍairmitrāṭavīdaṇḍairvā samaṃ jyāyāṃsaṃ vā karśayitumutsahe’ iti tadā kṛtavāhyābhyantarakṛtyo vigṛhyāsīta |” (7.4.5)^[9]

‘Or, when he were to see, ‘with my own troops or the allay’s troops or forest troops,I can weaken the equal or stronger king,’ then he should make war and stay quiet after taking precautions in the outer regions and in the interior,”^[10]

“yadā vā paśyet—utsāhayuktāme prakṛtayaḥ saṃhatā vivṛddhāḥ svakarmaṇyavyāhatāścariṣyanti, parasya vā karmāṇyu pahaniṣyanti’ iti, tadā vigṛhyāsīta | (7.4.6)^[11]

“Or when he were to see, ‘My constituents, full of energy, united and thriving, will carry out their works unhindered or will destroy the works of the enemy, then he should make war and stay quiet.”^[12]

“yadā vā paśyet—‘parasyāpacaritāḥkṣīṇāḥ luvdhaḥ svacakrastenāṭavīvyathitā vā prakṛtayaḥ svayamupajāpena vā māmeśyantīti, 2. sampannā me vārtā, vipannā parasya, tasya prakṛtayo durbhikṣopahatā māmeṣyanti, 3. vipannā me vārtā, sampannā parasya, taṃ me prakṛtayo na gamiṣyanti, vigṛhya cāsya dhānyapaśu hiraṇyānyāhariṣyāmi, svapaṇyopaghātīni vā parapaṇyāni nivartayiṣyāmi, 5. paravaṇik pathād vā sāravanti māmeṣyanti vigṛhīte, netaraṃ, 6. dūṣyāmitrāṭavīnigrahaṃ vā vigṛhīto na kariṣyati, 7. taireva vā vigrahaṃ prāpsyati, 8. mitraṃ me mitrabhāvyabhiprayāto vahṇalpakālaṃ tanukṣayavyayamarthaṃ prāpsyati, 9. guṇavatīmādeyāṃ vā bhūmiṃ sarvasaṃdohena vā māmanādṛtya prayātukāmaḥ kathaṃ na yāyāt’, iti paravṛddhipratighātārthaṃ pratāpārthaṃ ca vigṛhyāsīta |” (7.4.7).^[13]

Or, when he were to see,

“The enemy’s subjects, rebellious, impoverished, greedy, or harassed by (the enemy’s) own troops, robbers or foresters, will come to me of their own accord or through instigations; sources of livelihood in my state are flourishing, those of the enemy ruined, (hence) his subjects striken by famine will come to me; sources of livelihood in my state are ruined, those of the enemy flourishing; my subjects will not go over to him (only if there is war), and after making war I shall plunder his grains, cattle and cash, or, I shall keep out the enemy’s goods that are harmful to my own goods, or highly valuable goods will come to me from the enemy’s trade-route, when he is at war, (and) will not go to the other, or when at war, he will not suppress his traitors, enemies or forest tribes, or will be involved in war with these same; marching against my ally having the nature of a true ally, he will obtain abundant wealth in a short time, with small losses and expenses or excellent land which can be easily seized; or, wishing to march with all troops mobilised in disregard of me, he must not somehow be allowed to march’, then in order to hinder the advancement of the enemy and to affirm his valour, he should make war and stay quiet.”^[14]

“tameva hi pratyavṛtto grasate” ityacāryā | (7.4.8)^[15]

‘Turning back he might swallow him up’, say the teachers.”^[16]

“neti kauṭilyaḥ | karśanamātramasya kuryādavyasaninaḥ | paravṛddhyā | tu vṛddhaḥ samucchedanam | evaṃ parasya yātavyo'smai sāhāyyamavinaṣṭaḥ prayacchet | tasmāt sarvasandohaprakṛtaṃ vigṛhyāsīta | (7.4.9-12)^[17]

“‘No’, says Kauṭilya. He would only cause a weakening of the (conqueror, if he is) not in a calamity, but when augmented by the (acquisition of the) enemy’s prosperity, (he would cause) extermination (If he acts) thus, the vulnerable foe of the enemy would render help to him, being not destroyed. Therefore, he should make war on one acting with all troops mobilised, and stay quiet.”^[18]

Conclusion:

Kauṭilya says when the vijigīṣu king thinks that the enemy is not able to do harm to him, nor the vijigīṣu king to the enemy then he should stay quiet.

And according to the Manusaṃhitā two type of āsana is:

“Sitting quiet stated to be of two kinds (viz., that incumbent) on one who has gradually been weakened by fate or in consequence of former acts, and (that) in favour of a friend”.^[19]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

ibid., part-III, p. 253.

[2]:

ibid., part-I, p. 169.

[3]:

ibid., part-II, p. 324.

[4]:

ibid., part-I, p. 174.

[5]:

ibid., part-II, p. 332.

[6]:

T.G.sastri: Op.cit., part-II, p.705.

[7]:

R.P.Kangle: Op.cit., part-II, p.332 (foot note).

[8]:

ibid., part-III, p. 253.

[9]:

ibid., part-I, p. 173.

[10]:

ibid., part-II, p. 331.

[11]:

ibid., part-I, p. 173.

[12]:

ibid., part-II, p. 331.

[13]:

ibid., part-I, p. 174.

[14]:

ibid., part-II, pp. 331-332.

[15]:

ibid., part-I, p. 174.

[16]:

ibid., part-II, p. 332.

[17]:

ibid., part-I, p.174.

[18]:

ibid., part-II, p. 332.

[19]:

ibid., p. 172.