Realpolitik of the Arthashastra
A slice of history
By A.P.N. Pankaj

INDIA during the early Mauryan period (i.e. the reign of Chandragupta and Bindusara), says R.C. Majumdar, "was a leading power in the world and maintained diplomatic relations with outside countries. The House of Selucus sent regular embassies to the Court of Pataliputra. We know, in particular ... Megasthenese who lived in the Court of Chandragupta ... There are also reasons to believe that the Maurya rulers despatched messengers to far-off countries..."

Foreign relations in the Arthashastra, however, mainly take into account the various states within India. While it is possible that the author had in mind smaller states also, it is essentially with reference to the large states that foreign relations have been discussed by him. The central point of discussion on foreign affairs is the conquest. A king has to expand his territory and conquer the other kings, his final goal being to gain hold over the whole of India. With this basic end in view, foreign affairs were conducted and all diplomatic processes geared.

Negotiations with the foreign states were to be carried on and relations established with them through the duta i.e., the ambassador or the envoy. Kautilya mentions three types of envoys: (a) nisrishtartha — the plenipotentiary or the charge d’ affairs (b) parimitartha — with limited brief and (c) shasanahara — message bearer. Kautilya recommends permanent posting of ambassadors in foreign states. In practice, however, it appears that an envoy was sent to a foreign court in keeping with the demands of an occasion, to transact the business in hand although he could stay there for fairly long durations. The envoy was expected to deliver his king’s message as given to him even if it meant danger to his life.

There was, at the same time, a common convention that the person of the envoy was inviolable.

The functions of an envoy have been delineated in the Arthashastra as: sending communications to his king; ensuring observance of terms of treaty; upholding his king’s majesty; acquiring allies and consolidating alliances; encouraging division among the enemy’s allies; smuggling secret agents and troops into foreign states; ascertaining secret information; showing valour, if necessary; trying to reduce the enemy officers from their loyalty and winning them over to his king’s side.

Once such a loyalty was secured, constant vigil was required to be maintained to ensure that no subversion took place.

According to R.P. Kangle, the envoy was expected to frequently play the role of a dignified spy and a secret agent. Although this role has invited much criticism, "probably no government", feels A.L. Basham, "at any time has been able to function without secret agents... and every ancient civilisation had its spies, though perhaps not so thoroughly organised as in the system of Arthashastra".

In the conduct of foreign affairs, the Arthashastra refers to the policy of shadgunya i.e., six instruments. Central to this policy is the concept of rajamandala (circle of the kings). According to Kautilya, there are 12 kings that constitute this circle:

Vijigishu: the king who desires conquest

ari: the enemy

mitra: the friend

arimitra: the enemy’s friend

mitramitra: the friend’s friend

arimitramitra: the friend of enemy’s friend

parshnigraha: the enemy in the rear of the vijigishu king or the heelseizer

akranda: the vijigishu’s friend or the rearward defender

parashnigrahasara: heelseizer’s ally

akrandasara: rearward friend’s friend

madhyama: the middle king with territory adjoining those of vijigishu and the ari. He is stronger than either of them.

udasina: the king lying outside. He is indifferent or neutral but more powerful than vijigishu, ari or madhyama.

As can be noted from the above description, Rajamandala refers (besides the king seeking conquest) to the number of possible relationships that may arise when a state tries to establish supremacy over a number of neighbouring states. All these are, however, elastic terms. The same king may become parshnigraha or an ari or a mitra, depending upon the situation or the circumstances. The basic feature of this concept of mandala is that a king’s neighbour is his natural enemy while the king beyond his neighbour, a natural friend. It is also based on the assumption that there would be a conglomeration of states divided into hostile camps and the leader of one group would try to establish his hegemony over the entire conglomeration. Eventually, there are three predominating sentiments among these states: aribhava (hostile feelings), mitrabhava (friendly feelings), and bhrityabhava (feelings of servitude).

Adverting to the shadgunya policy, the six instruments were:

samdhi — friendship or peace. This was achieved by making a treaty that contained specific terms and conditions.

vigraha — the policy of hostility or war

asana — the remaining quiet (another interpretation is ‘to wait for the enemy to strike the first blow’)

yana — attack or launching an expedition

samshraya — seeking shelter with another king or fort

dvaidhibhava — the double policy of samdhi with one king and vigraha with another at the same time.

The general rule, according to Kangle, is that when one is weaker than the enemy, the policy of samdhi is to be followed. If one is stronger than him then opt for vigraha. If both are equal in power, asana is the right policy, but if one is very strong, yana should be resorted to. When one is very weak, samshraya is necessary; while dvaidhibhava is recommended when with help from another source, one can fight one’s enemy. There is, however, flexibility in practical adherence to this policy and, if various considerations dictate a different approach, the general rule can be set aside.

According to Vatavyadhi, an earlier authority quoted in the Arthashastra, statecraft involved only two aspects, peace and war. Kautilya, however, strongly disagreed with such a simplistic approach. He believed in the six instruments because ‘while pacific relations are straightforward and obvious, war is complex and highly developed’. Along with the six policies, four upayas or means were also prescribed. These were practised even before the Arthashastra, in the ancient times and Kautilya favoured them. There are: sama, dama, bheda and danda i.e., subjugation by means of conciliation, gifts, dissension and force. While the first two were recommended to subjugate weak kings, the latter ones were resorted to overcome strong kings.

The objective of the entire foreign policy, as visualised in the Arthashastra, is to increase the power of the king, through offensive means if he is strong and through defensive ones if he is weak or less strong. The goal is expansion of his state. A policy of wait and watch is implicit in the text for the king. If he is not powerful enough to conquer, he may build power for himself and then launch an attack.

When, however, he has secured the submission of a king, he must treat him with honour — unless he continues to ‘harbour hostile intentions’. The text says that the regard for the feelings of the other kings in the mandala is a practical necessity, otherwise they might collaborate to frustrate the vijigishu’s ambitions.