'Neutrality' in Ancient India

‘Neutrality’ in Ancient India

BY K. R. R. SASTRY, M.A., B.L.

(Advocate, Madras)

Prof. Lawrence opines that the nations of classical antiquity had no "names to signify what we mean by neutrality." (Lawrence, International Law, VII Ed., P. 583). Likewise Prof. Oppenheim notes, "since in antiquity there was no notion of an international law, it is not to be expected that neutrality as a legal institution should have existed among the nations of old." (Oppenheim. IV Ed. Vol. II P. 452). Though the doctrine of neutrality might not have been developed to such details as after the 18th century, there is abundant evidence that at least in Vedic and Mauryan times the conception was well known in ancient India.

There is mention of ‘Udasina’ (meaning neutral)–in Rig Veda X, 97,12; and Atharva Veda IV, 9, 4. Again, Kautilya distinguishes three kinds of international relations: (1) ‘Vigraha’ (war), (2) ‘Sandhi’ (peace) and ‘Asava’ (neutrality). (Artha Sastra, Book VII, Ch. I). Dr. Shama Sastry translates ‘Asava’ as ‘neutrality.’ (Artha Sastra, Translation III Ed. P. 293.)

Further, Kautilya classifies foreign rulers under four heads: - (1) ‘Ari’ (enemy) (2) ‘Mitra’ (friend) (3) ‘Madhyama’ (mediatory)–according to Dr. Shama Sastry’s translation,– and (4) ‘Udasina’ (neutral). Why my friend Mr. V. R. R. Dikshithar finds the terms ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Udasina’ not correctly translated by Dr. Shama Sastry is not made clear in his learned volume on The Hindu Administrative Institutions. (P. 271). On the other hand his own translation of ‘Udasina’ as ‘negligible.’ is more colloquial than scientific.

Further the circle of States (‘mandala’) according to Kautilya constitutes twelve kings: - ‘Vijigishu’ (the invader), ‘Ari’ (immediate enemy) ‘Mitra’ (invader’s ally) ‘Arimitra’ (enemy’s ally), ‘Mitrari-mitra’ (invader’s ally’s ally), ‘Amitra-mitra’ (enemy’s ally’s ally), ‘Parsvigraha’ (near enemy), ‘Akrahda’ (rear friend), ‘Parsvigrahasara’ (ally of near enemy), ‘Akrandasara’ (ally of near ally) ‘Madhyama’ (mediatory), and ‘Udasina’ (neutral).

As Prof. Bandhyopadhyaya puts it, the ancient Hindus preferred "to base the rules relating to interstatal relationship on Dharma or Religion as the sheet anchor of common humanity." (Bandhyopadhyaya, International Law in Ancient India, P. 8).

To like effect, Prof. S. V. Viswanatha (in his International Law in Ancient-India, P. 9) opines that "international law in India was accepted by all Indian States, for it was based on Dharma which regulated also the conduct of the individual in society." Kautilya instructs the wise king to make himself the ‘Nabhi’ (centre of gravity) of the ‘Mandala’ and have the surrounding States serve as the ‘Nemi’ (spokes of the wheel).

Again in the conception of ‘Mandala’ (circle of States) at least six kinds of intermediary relationships are in evidence. The distinctions between ‘Madhyama’ (mediator) and ‘Udasina’ (neutral) bear abundant testimony to the clear conception among the ancient Hindus of the attitude of neutrality. Sankara’s commentary of ‘Udasina’ and ‘Madhyastha’ makes the following illuminating distinction: - (Bhagavadgita VI, 9). ‘Udasina’ is one who does not lean towards either side; ‘Madhyastha’ is one who wishes for the welfare of either of the contending parties.

References to the term ‘Udasina’ in the ancient literature of the Hindus coupled with the place given to the ‘Udasina’ country by Kautilya in the circle of States, afford clear and unambiguous evidence of the attiiude of neutrality as known to the ancient Hindus. The three divisions of war, peace, and neutrality might not appear "clearly in all the periods of ancient Indian History"; but any surmise that there was no name to indicate the conception among the ancients has to be rejected. Stress is laid on the Roman ‘medii,’ ‘amici’ and ‘pacati’ by English and American writers; prominent mention is made of Grotius’s ‘medii’ and Bynkershock’S "awkward phrase" of ‘non-hostes,’but the subtle and illuminating commentary of Sankara of ‘Udasina’ as one "who does not lean towards either side" is nowhere found in recognized text-books of International Law.