Inter-State Relations

With Special Reference to Mahabharata and
Kautilya’s Arthasastra

DR M. R. ACHARYA

Introduction

Mahabharata and Kautiiya’s Arthasastra are the two precious gems of ancient Indian political thought. Although produced at different historical settings the Mahabharata and Kautilya’s Arthasastra have a common theme relating to the functions and duties of the king known as “Raj-Dharma.”They have a common religious ground and philosophical basis and a common concept of Dharma. Both deal with the principles of social conduct, administration of civil and criminal laws and also the policy of foreign relations, i.e., inter-state relations.

In ancient India, politics was basically conceived as “Rajaniti” (the ethics of politics or political ethics). Due to different circumstances, some deviations and departures occur from the fundamental norms of politics. Consequently, politics becomes a matter of convenience, expedience and selfish interest. Most of the earthly misdeeds are because of the deplorable fall of politics from its original pedestal of ethics. The Mahabharata and Kautilya’s Arthasastra are deeply concerned with the complex situations of political life and offer solutions to the various problems of politics.

Classification of states and six expedients of foreign policy

Mahabharata refers to the existence of a number of states in ancient India. Although international law and relationship as understood in the modern times, cannot be said to have prevailed in ancient India, they are to be found, however, in a rudimentary form in Mahabharata. The latter classifies the different states under four heads, viz., (1) friendly states or allies (Mitra or Suhrd), (ii) inimical states (Ari or Satru). (iii) neutral states (Udasina) and (iv) intermediary states (Madhyastha or Madhyagata). This classification is based on the following kinds of relationship with the foreign states (i) Hostility (Vigraha or Yuddha), (ii) neutrality (Udasinata), (iii) friendship (Mitra) and (iv) mediation (Madhyasthata). As in the case of Kautilya’s Arthasartra, Mahabharata also describes and prescribes the Sadgunas, the six expedients of foreign policy. (Sandhi, Vigraha, Yana, Asana, Samsraya and Dvaidhibhava) which may be discussed as follows:

Sandhi (treaty and alliance)

This is intended to avert confrontation and establish friendly relation between two or more states. Mahabharata says that a king should make peace with another when the latter is more powerful than him. When the king is in distress, he should also do the same thing to protect his life. When a person is afflicted by a stronger one, he should make peace even with enemy. In the Salyaparva, Kripacharya advised Duryodhana to make a treaty with the Pandavas because at that time the power of Pandavas was increasing and that of the Kauravas was decrtasing. The Mahabharata says that self-preservation is the highest law and abnormal times have ethics of their own, Apaddharma and end justifies means. He, who, keeping in view his interests, makes a treaty with an enemy and opposes a friend, attains good results. But, after having entered into a treaty with a superior, he should exercise eternal care and vigilance to protect his interest without being cheated by the superior.

According to the Mahabharata, treaty is of three kinds, viz., Hina (bad), Madhyama (middling) and Uttama (good) made respectively through fear (Bhaya), respect (Satkara) and gifts of wealth (Vitta).

Vigraha (war)

In the ancient Indian works, the word “Vigraha” has two meanings, viz., (l) the threat of war and (2) the actual waging of war. Mahabharata says that war should be declared and waged against an inferior ruler when he is facing difficulties, but never against one, who has self-respect and whose soldiers are happy and satisfied. One, who does not follow this advice, attains neither kingdom nor happiness.

Yatra or Yana: (March for war, i.e., invading the territory of a weaker king)

Nilakantha opines that Yatra consists in actual pursuit of direction of marching for war. Sukra defines it as the invasion with a view to attaining victory and defeating the enemy. According to Manu, Yana is two-fold (i) marching alone against the foe and (ii) attacking the foreign state with the aid of the allied powers. The Mahabharatha, however, does not throw any further light on it.

Asana: (Maintaining a post against an enemy or skilful withdrawal in face of danger)

According to the Mahabharata, Asana stands for the posture of war, but no actual war, after showing one’s readiness for marching against the enemy. It is half-way to war by exhibiting some military movements. Thus, a king makes attempts to defeat his enemy. Viswanatha says (in his work, Internationl Law in Ancient India),that Asana suggests that a king should assume the attitude of neutrality, known as “Udasinata” in the ancient Indian literature. As stated by him, there are four main classes of neutrals in Mahabharata. They are influenced by different motives and the neutrality is due to different causes: (i) Neutrals whose position is bound to be affected by the results of the war (ii) Neutrals whose fortunes are practically unaffected by the course of the struggle. (iii) Neutrals who may be affected by the war and who can, if they choose, change the course of the war by maintaining economic forces. (iv) Neutrals, who are powerless to enter into the war, though their fortunes may be affected by the war.

Samsraya or Samasraya: (seeking protection of a superior king)

Samsraya can be defined as the act of seeking protection of a powerful monarch by a weak monarch to gain more strength. According to Nilakantha, it means to seek protection of another king or to take shelter in forts. N. N. Law says that when a sovereign is attacked by two powerful sovereigns, he should have recourse to Samsraya with the nearer one or to have Kapala Samsraya with both, telling each of them that unless he is shown mercy he will be ruined by the other. Manu describes two types of Samsraya thus: “Two-fold is said to be the nature of alliance with a more powerful ally, according as it is made by (a sovereign) highly pressed by his enemy at the time, or only as a pretext to intimidate his future and intending invaders.” The states which followed this policy can be compared with modern protectorates. Although these states enjoy freedom, they have to acknowledge the authority of the state which has given them protection.

Dvaidhihhava or the dual course of action

The term Dvaidhibhava has two meanings, (i) double standards or duplicity, apparently maintaining friendly relations with the enemy and (ii) dividing the enemy’s superior army and harassing him by attacking the smaller units of the army in isolation. Manu uses the word in the latter sense. It means waging war against one and making peace with another. Nilakantha looks at it as “Ubhayatra sandhikaranam” which can be interpreted as making treaties with both the parties, fighting with each other.

The Four-fold foreign policy

The foreign policy is of four types: Sama (conciliation or negotiation), Dana (cession, persuasion, or making gifts), Bheda (creating differences) and Danda (war). According to Sukra, when two kings became friends and make mutual promises not to do harm to each other and help one another in the time of distress, that policy is known as “Sama.” When a king tells another king that everything belongs to him and gives away some villages to him or pay taxes (as tribute) to him or pleases him by any other means, the policy is known as “Dana.” When a king weakens the army or allies of another king, takes shelter with a powerful king and exposes a weak king, the policy is known as “Bheda.” When a king uses troubles to his enemy through the robbers, sweeps away his treasury and granary, watches his weaknesses, threatens him with strong force and fights bravely against him, such policy is known as “Danda”.

As the Kautilya’s Arthasastra, the Mahabharata also gives the pride to diplomacy for maintaining the balance of power in the interest of promotion of good and harmonious inter-state relations. It also prefers “battle of wits” to the “battle of arms,” War be regarded only as the last resort when all the Upayas have failed. The epic commends the victory achieved with the help of other Upayas and condemns that achieved in a battle. Bhishma says that such a view was held by Brihaspati also. Manu, Yajnavalkya, Kamandaka and Sukra significantly agree with Mahabharata in allowing war as the last resort and thus, display a high moral spirit and sense of responsibility. War was not only preached but also practised as the last resort in Mahabharata.

As regards the application of these four-fold policies, Kripacharya in the Virataparva says, as clarified by the commentator Nilakantha, that one should follow the policies of Sama and Bheda towards equals. The policy Dana should be adopted against a powerful and a superior king. The policy of Danda should be used against a weaker and an inferior king. The latter should be killed in a war or made to pay taxes as tribute. In another context also, Mahabharata says that when the enemy’s army is strong, the policy of Sama should be used. If it does not serve the purpose. The policy of Dana should be followed. Combining the policy of Dana with that of Bheda would be worthy of praise Bheda, being the greatest enemy of an army, Dana be resorted to be creating dissension (Bheda) in the army of his enemy. The Mahabharata cites several examples where those policies are applied in practice. Kautilya holds the view that the weak king should be seduced by means of conciliation and gift, while the strong one should be subdued by sowing the seeds of dissension.

The Conception of Mandala and its Importance

In ancient India, the concept of inter-state relationship was conceived in the form of a Mandala, the circle of states, which aimed at the maintenance of balance of power and consisted of twelve types of states (headed by twelve kings). According to the conception of Mandala, a king was to regard one’s own kingdomm as the centre of twelve concentric circles, the outer circle re-representing the kingdom situated away from one’s own. A king’s relation with all the kingdoms on the circumference of one circle was expected to be similar. He was to manipulate his relation with other states in such a way that foes and friends were so pitted around him that at no time he was rendered helpless. In the event of any invasion of his country, there were always rulersa who had vested interests to oppose the invasion. So, the ancient Indian thinkers describe and unanimously prescribe the Mandala. The Asramavasaparva of the Mahabharata throws light on the conception of Mandala. It consists of four sub-circles, each of which consists of four sub-circles, each of which is constituted by three states as follows:

1) The state at the centre of the Mandala, the friend and the friend’s friend (3 states); (2) The enemy, his friend and his friend’s friend (3 states); (3) Natural state, its friend and its friend’s friend (3 states); and (4) Intermediary state, its friend and its  friend’s friend (3 states).

According to the epic, a Mandala consists of seventy-two elements as follows: Each of the twelve constituent states of a Mandala has seven constituents (Saptangas) of a state, viz., Swami (sovereign) Amatya (ministers), Janapada (land and population), Durga or Pura (fortress or a fortified capital), Kosa (treasury), Danda or Bala (army) and Mitra (allies). Swami being merged in the State and Mitra “in the allies among the twelve kings”, only five constituents of a state exist. These five constituents, when multiplied .by the twelve constituents of a Mandala, make a total of Sixty. The twelve members of a Mandala if added to sixty, the total elements of a Mandala comes to seventy-two. The Arthasastra of Kautilya, the Manusmritiand the Kamandaka Nitisara furnish a similar explanation of the sevehty-two constituents of a Mandala. Kautilya classified the twelve states under four heads (i) Allies or friendly states (ii) Opponents or enemy states (iii) Ordinary or middle states (iv) Indifferent states.

Diplomatic Agents

In Mahabharata as in Kautilya’s Arthasastra the important part played by the diplomatic agents in the field of diplomacy and foreign affairs has been realised. These agents are classified under two heads, i.e., (a) Ambassadors (Duta) (b) and Spies (Cara).

(a) Ambassadors

Unlike the modern practice of stationing representatives, as permanent agents in foreign states, in ancient India they were officers, appointed for and sent on a special mission. The functions of an ambassador were to deliver the message correctly as entrusted to him, to make or break alliances or treaties, to declare war or make peace, to study the geographical position, and strong points, military strength and financial condition of a foreign state and to gather the greatest possible information. He was thus primarily concerned with the vital issues of a foreign, policy of a state. As the ambassadors had to perform very important as well as delicate and dangerous duties, the Mahabharata and Kautilya’s Arthasastra more or less prescribe the same higher qualifi­cations for them such as a noble family ground, modesty, tactfulness, eloquency of speech, capacity to convey the message exactly as entrusted to him and a sharp and excellent memory. The Mahabharata is conspicuously silent about the different kinds of ambassadors, while Kautilya classified them under three heads, viz., (1) Nihsrstartha, i.e., a plenipotentiary. He was an ambassador endowed with the full powers of the management of an affair and also authorised to act on his own personal judgment and discretion put subject to the interest of the state. Krishna may be cited as an example of this type who acted with full discretion as the ambassador of the Pandavas and tried to make negotiations with the Kauravas before the Kurukshetra war. (2) Parimitartha or Mitartha, i.e., an envoy whose rights were limited. His duties also seem to have been lesser since Kautilya and Kamandaka prescribe lesser qualifications for him (3) Sasanabara or Sasana-vahaka, i.e., an ambassador who was simply a “royal messenger”. He was assigned only one particular task. Drupada’s Purohit to the Kauravas and Sanjaya sent by Dhritarashtra to the Pandavas can be cited as examples of this type in the Mahabharata. This three-fold classification of ambassadors by Kautilya holds good even in the modern times. It is based on the country to which the ambassador is assigned his duties and the types of functions which he has to discharge. Further, the Mahabharata emphasises the sacredness and inviolability of ambassadors. It lays down salutary regulations in connection with the behaviour to be meted out to them. An envoy should be respected and treated courteously even if he conveys an unpleasant message because he is merely the mouthpiece of the king who deputes him. He should never be killed. The murderer of an ambassador goes to hell along with his ministers. The golden rule of immunity and privileges of the ambassadors was generally observed except once in the case of Krishna and that too not because Krishna was an envoy, but because he was the bone of the Pandavas whom the Kauravas regarded as their greatest enemies.

(b) Spies

In India, the system of espionage is as old as Rigveda. The Mahabharata says that it was a permanent and prominent feature of a state and was one of the eight limbs of the army. As spies were the “eyes of the kings” they were to be appointed by the ruler to collect information about the internal affairs and administration of his kingdom as well as foreign states. Hence, they were scattered throughout his own kingdom and also foreign states. Manu, Kautilya, Sukra and Somadeva Suri also hold the same view. Secrecy was the characteristic feature which distinguished them from the envoys. If found out and detected, the spies could be ill-treated and even killed by the foreign state. Spies should therefore be so clever as not to be detected or identified by others. The Mahabharata gives a list of persons who could be entrusted with this risky job, such as Brahmanas, hypocrites, siddhas, persons capable of doing impersonation, posing as blind and deaf depending on the situation and be as cunning as possible. The most important condition was to examine them thoroughly before their appointment and to appoint them so secretly that they could not recognise one another to avoid any conspiracy among the spies themselves. Bhishma himself employed such persons as spies. There are several instances to prove the existence of an efficient and active intelligence department or the system of espionage in the Mahabharata.

The Mahabharata is silent about the means to be employed by the spies to create trouble in other states. Kautilya, on the other hand, permits any and every means for the spies, moral or immoral. He says that they should create dissensions in the foreign states, indulge the army chiefs in love-affairs with young ladies and after wards cause animosity among them. They should give poison to them by saying that it would make his beloved devoted to him. They should disguise themselves as palmists and arouse the ambition of becoming a king in the chief and high officers of the state and make them unloyal to the king. In war-time, they should, distribute wine or liquor, mixed with poison among the important military officers.

Code of Conduct for Foreign Affairs

Mahabharata pays more attention to the behaviour towards the enemy states and has nothing particular to say about the behaviour towards the friendly states. Broadly speaking, the epic allows and even encourages the king to resort to all means, fair or foul, righteous or unrighteous, to conquer the enemy. A one side morality is not enough for success in this world. The king must be worldly-wise and learn from various sources, including the experience of others. He should win over a hero by folded hands, a coward by terrorism, a covetous man with gifts and wage war with an equal. Be far-sighted like a vulture, motionless like a crane, vigilant like a dog, valiant like a lion, fearful like a crow and penetrate the territories of an enemy like a snake. One, desirious of prosperity, should murder even his son, friend, brother, father or preceptor, if they play the role of an enemy because there is no higher duty than to support one’s own life.

There is no consistency in the Mahabharata regarding the behaviour to be meted out to an enemy when he is exhausted or is asking for shelter. At some places, it advocates compassion and forgiveness and even advises a king to treat the enemy as if he were his own son. But at other places, there is an inherent contradiction when it instructs the king to kill the enemy, not to show any mercy to him and never to set him free. A similar inconsistency also prevails in the Mahabharata regarding the treatment towards the enemy in general. It says that an enemy should not be deceived by unfair means and he should not be wounded mortally because his very life might be in danger. On the other hand, it advises the King to utter sweet words while attacking and afterwards to show mercy towards him and to shed (crocodile) tears to express sorrow. On the whole, the balance of evidence in the Mahabharata goes to show that while the internal affairs of a state are visualised in a high moral spirit, in inter-state relations, morality is thrown to the winds. Dharma cannot and should not become an impediment in fulfilling the highest ideal for the Kshatriyas, i. e., the conquest of the whole earth and establishment of a glorious empire, according to Mahabharata. As Beni Prasad says, “Reason of state became the one guiding overmastering principle and justified the extreme of fraud and treachery.” Here we are also reminded of Diderot, who said that there are “Circumstances under which it is right for a prince to be a scoundrel” and of Machiavelli who said that a king should use fair or foul means to accomplish his ambitious designs. According to him, the end justifies the means. On the basis of those passages of the Santiparva which make a king’s foreign policy free from ethical standards, N. N. Ghosh says, “It will indeed be no exaggeration to say that from the Santiparva alone it may be possible to compile a textbook for rulers, twice as substantial as Machiavelli’s Prince and many times more full of cynical wisdom.”

Kautilya’s Arthasastra also likewise advocates the methods of fraud, treachery and secret diplomacy to supress the enemies of the state. It encourages the king to have an attitude of naked self-interest in inter-state relations where the state should legitimately use intrigue, opportunism, treachery and violence. To realise the dream of a world-wide kingdom, anything and everything is justifiable including secret arms, fire, sword, poison, medicine, espionage, charms and temptations. There is, therefore, an oft-repeated observation that there is a great similarity between Machiavelli’s Prince and Kautiiya’s Arthasastra. Bana, the famous author of Kadambari, brands Kautilya’s statecraft as completely Machiavellian, i.e.. full of deceit, treachery, fraud, deception and murder. The objective of Kautilya’s foreign policy is an all-out effort of a king to obtain power and success or denial of the same to an enemy. Opportunism and expendiency are his watchwords. Necessity knows no law and morality.

Conclusion

Thus, a study of the policy of inter-state relations in Mahabharata and Kautitya’s Arthasastra proves that there is no basic difference in them, in philosophy, methods and strategies. These seem to have been inspired by one another and they also seem to have outshined even the first modern western philosopher, Machiavelli. The classical works of Mahabharata and Kautiiya’s Arthasastra echo the spirit of Dharma in normal times and Apaddharma in abnormal times which has ethics of its own. Whatever means, fair or foul, are adopted in the abnormal times, they are only temporary expedients and passing phases and they cannot be characterised totally as Machiavellian traits because neither the Mahabharata nor Kautilya’s Arthasastra is prepared to subordinate ethics to politics for all the time to come.