Or the prince may be removed concealed under things, clothes, commodities, vessels, beds, seats and other articles by cooks, confectioners, servants employed to serve the king while bathing, servants employed for carrying conveyances, for spreading the bed, toilet- making, dressing, and procuring water; or taking something in pitch dark, he may get out, disguised as a servant.
Or he may (pretend to) be in communion with god Varuna in a reservoir (which is seen) through a tunnel or to which he is taken at night; spies under the guise of traders dealing in cooked rice and fruits may (poison those things and) distribute among the sentinels.
Or having served the sentinels with cooked rice and beverage mixed with the juice of madana plant on occasions of making offerings to gods or of performing an ancestral ceremony or some sacrificial rite, the prince may get out; or by bribing the sentinels; or spies disguised as a ndgaraka (officer in charge of the city), a court-bard, or a physician may set fire to a building filled with valuable articles; or sentinels or spies disguised as merchants may set fire to the store of commercial articles; or in view of avoiding the fear of pursuit, the prince may, after putting some human body in the house occupied by him, set fire to it and escape by breaking open some house-joints, or a window, or through a tunnel; or having disguised himself as a carrier of glass-beads, pots, and other commodities, he may set out at night; or having entered the residence of ascetics with shaven heads or with twisted hair, he may set out at night, disguised as any one of them; or having disguised himself as one suffering from a peculiar disease or as a forest-man, he may get out; or spies may carry him away as a Kautilya's Arthashastra corpse; or disguised as a widowed wife, be may follow a corpse that is being carried away. Spies disguised as forest-people, should mislead the pursuers of the prince by pointing out another direction, and the prince himself may take a different direction.
Or he may escape, hiding himself in the midst of carts of cart-drivers; if he is closely followed, he may lead the pursuers to an ambuscade (sattra); in the absence of an ambuscade he may leave here and there gold or morsels of poisoned food on both sides of a road and take a different road.
If he is captured, he should try to win over the pursuers by conciliation and other means, or serve them with poisoned food; and having caused another body to be put in a sacrifice performed to please god Varuna or in a fire that has broken out (the prince's father), may accuse the enemy of the murder of his son and attack the enemy.
* Or taking out a concealed sword, and falling upon the sentinels, he may quickly run away together with the spies concealed before.
[Thus ends Chapter XVII, "Making Peace and Breaking It," in Book VII, "The End of the Six-fold Policy" of the Arthasdstra of Kautilya. End of the hundred and fifteenth chapter from the beginning.]
CHAPTER XVIII. THE CONDUCT OF A MADHYAMA KING, A NEUTRAL KING, AND OF A CIRCLE OF STATES.
Kautilya's Arthashastra THE third and the fifth states from a madhyama king are states friendly to him; while the second, the fourth, and the sixth are unfriendly. If the madhyama king shows favour to both of these states, the conqueror should be friendly with him; if he does not favour them, the conqueror should be friendly with those states.
If the madhyama king is desirous of securing the friendship of the conqueor's would-be friend, then having set his own and his friend's friends against the madhyama, and having separated the madhyama from the latter's friends, the conqueror should preserve his own friend; or the conqueror may incite the Circle of States against the madhyama by telling them; "this madhyama king has grown haughty, and is aiming at our destruction: let us therefore combine and interrupt his march."
If the Circle of States is favourable to his cause, then he may aggrandise himself by putting down the madhyama; if not favourable, then having helped his friend with men and money, he should, by means of conciliation and gifts, win over either the leader or a neighbouring king among the kings who hate the madhyama, or who have been living with mutual support, or who will follow the one that is won over (by the conqueror), or who do not rise owing to mutual suspicion; thus by winning over a second (king), he should double his own power; by securing a third, he should treble his own power; thus gaining in strength, he should put down the madhyama king.
When place and time are found unsuitable for success in the above attempt, he should, by peace, seek the friendship of one of the enemies of the madhyama king, or cause some traitors to combine against the madhyama; if the madhyama king is desirous of reducing the conqueror's friend, the conqueror should prevent it, and tell the friend: "I shall protect you as long as you are weak," and should accordingly protect him when he is poor in resources; if Kautilya's Arthashastra the madhyama king desires to rout out a friend of the conqueror, the latter should protect him in his difficulties; or having removed him from the fear of the madhyama king, the conqueror should provide him with new lands and keep him under his (the conqueror's) protection, lest he might go elsewhere.
If, among the conqueror's friends who are either reducible or assailable enemies of the madhyama king, some undertake to help the madhyama, then the conqueror should make peace with a third king; and if among the madhyama king's friends who are either reducible or assailable enemies of the conqueror, some are capable of offence and defence and become friendly to the conqueror, then he should make peace with them; thus the conqueror cannot only attain his own ends, but also please the madhyama king.
If the madhyama king is desirous of securing a would-be friend of the conqueror as a friend, then the conqueror may make peace with another king, or prevent the friend from going to the madhyama, telling him: "It is unworthy of you to forsake a friend who is desirous of your friendship," or the conqueror may keep quiet, if the conqueror thinks that the Circle of States would be enraged against the friend for deserting his own party. If the madhyama king is desirous of securing the conqueror's enemy as his friend, then the conqueror should indirectly (i.e., without being known to the madhyama) help the enemy with wealth and army.
If the madhyama king desires to win the neutral king, the conqueror should sow the seeds of dissension between them. Whoever of the madhyama and the neutral kings is esteemed by the Circle of States, his protection should the conqueror seek.
The conduct of the madhyama king explains that of the neutral king. If the neutral king is desirous of combining with the madhyama king, then the conqueror should so attempt as to Kautilya's Arthashastra frustrate the desire of the neutral king to overreach an enemy or to help a friend or to secure the services of the army of another neutral king. Having thus strengthened himself, the conqueror should reduce his enemies and help his friends, though their position is inimical towards him.
Those who may be inimical to the conqueror are a king who is of wicked character and who is therefore always harmful, a rear-enemy in combination with a frontal enemy, a reducible enemy under troubles, and one who is watching the troubles of the conqueror to invade him.
Those who may be friendly with the conqueror are one who marches with him with the same end in view, one who marches with him with a different end in view, one who wants to combine with the conqueror to march (against a common enemy), one who marches under an agreement for peace, one who marches with a set purpose of, his own, one who rises along with others, one who is ready to purchase or to sell either the army or the treasury, and one who adopts the double policy (i.e., making peace with one and waging war with another).
Those neighbouring kings who can be servants to the conqueror are a neighbouring king under the apprehension of an attack from a powerful king, one who is situated between the conqueror and his enemy, the rear-enemy of a powerful king, one who has voluntarily surrendered one-self to the conqueror, one who has surrendered oneself under fear, and one who has been subdued. The same is the case with those kings who are next to the territory of the immediate enemies of the conqueror.
* Of these kings, the conqueror should, as far as possible, help that friend who has the same end in view as the conqueror in his conflict with the enemy, and thus hold the enemy at bay.
* When, after having put down the enemy, and after having grown Kautilya's Arthashastra in power, a friend becomes unsubmissive, the conqueror should cause the friend to incur the displeasure of a neighbour and of the king who is next to the neighbour.
* Or the conqueror may employ a scion of the friend's family or an imprisoned prince to seize his lands; or the conqueror may so act that his friend, desirous of further help, may continue to be obedient.
* The conqueror should never help his friend when the latter is more and more deteriorating; a politician should so keep his friend that the latter neither deteriorates nor grows in power.
* When,with the desire of getting wealth, a wandering friend (i.e., a nomadic king) makes an agreement with the conqueror, the latter should so remove the cause of the friend's flight that he never flies again.
* When a friend is as accessible to the conqueror as to the latter's enemy, the conqueror should first separate that obstinate friend from the enemy, and then destroy him, and afterwards the enemy also.
* When a friend remains neutral, the conqueror should cause him to incur the displeasure of his immediate enemies; and when he is worried in his wars with them, the conqueror should oblige him with help.
* When, owing to his own weakness, a friend seeks protection both from the conqueror and the latter's enemy, the conqueror should help him with the army, so that he never turns his attention elsewhere.
* Or having, removed him from his own lands, the conqueror may keep him in another tract of land, having made some previous arrangements to punish or favour the friend.
* Or the conqueror may harm him when he has grown powerful, or destroy him when he does nut help the conqueror in danger and when he lies on the conqueror's lap in good faith.
* When an enemy furiously rises against his own enemy (i.e., the conqueror's friend) under troubles, the former should be put down Kautilya's Arthashastra by the latter himself with troubles concealed.
* When a friend keeps quiet after rising against an enemy under troubles, that friend will be subdued by the enemy himself after getting rid of his troubles.
* Whoever is acquainted with the science of polity should clearly observe the conditions of progress, deterioration, stagnation, reduction, and destruction, as well as the use of all kinds of strategic means.
* Whoever thus knows the interdependence of the six kinds of policy plays at his pleasure with kings, bound round, as it were, in chains skillfully devised by himself.
[Thus ends Chapter XVIII, "The Conduct of a Madhyama King, a Neutral King and of a Circle of States," in Book VII, "The End of the Six-fold Policy" of the Arthasdstra of Kautilya. End of the hundred and sixteenth chapter from the beginning. With this ends the seventh Book "The End of the Six-fold Policy" of the Arthasdstra of Kautilya.]
From: Kautilya. Arthashastra. Translated by R. Shamashastry. Bangalore: Government Press, 1915, 327-389.
Kautilya's Arthasastra: Book VIII, "Concerning Vices and Calamities" CHAPTER I. THE AGGREGATE OF THE CALAMITIES OF THE ELEMENTS OF SOVEREIGNTY.
WHEN calamities happen together, the form of consideration Kautilya's Arthashastra should be whether it is easier to take an offensive or defensive attitude. National calamities, coming from Providence or from man happen from one's misfortune or bad policy. The word vyasana (vices or calamities), means the reverse or absence of virtue, the preponderance of vices, and occasional troubles. That which deprives (vyasyati) a person of his happiness is termed vyasana (vices or calamities).
My teacher says that of the calamities, viz., the king in distress, the minister in distress, the people in distress, distress due to bad fortifications, financial distress, the army in distress, and an ally in distress,— that which is first mentioned is more serious than the one, coming later in the order of enumeration.
No, says Bharadvaja, of the distress of the king and of his minister, ministerial distress is more serious; deliberations in council, the attainment of results as anticipated while deliberating in council, the accomplishment of works, the business of revenue-collection and its expenditure, recruiting the army, the driving out of the enemy and of wild tribes, the protection of the kingdom, taking remedial measures against calamities, the protection of the heir-apparent, and the installation of princes constitute the duties of ministers. In the absence of ministers; the above works are ill-done; and like a bird, deprived of its feathers, the king loses his active capacity. In such calamities, the intrigues of the enemy find a ready scope. In ministerial distress, the king's life itself comes into danger, for a minister is the mainstay of the security of the king's life.
No, says Kautilya, it is verily the king who attends to the business of appointing ministers, priests, and other servants, including the superintendents of several departments, the application of remedies against the troubles of his people, and of his kingdom, and the adoption of progressive measures; when his Kautilya's Arthashastra ministers fall into troubles, he employs others; he is ever ready to bestow rewards on the worthy and inflict punishments on the wicked; when the king is well off, by his welfare and prosperity, he pleases the people; of what kind the king's character is, of the same kind will be the character of his people; for their progress or downfall, the people depend upon the king; the king is, as it were, the aggregate of the people.
Visalaksha says that of the troubles of the minister and of the people; the troubles of the people are more serious; finance, army, raw products, free labour, carriage of things, and collection (of necessaries) are all secured from the people. There will be no such things in the absence of people, next to the king and his minister.
No, says Kautilya, all activities proceed from the minister, activities such as the successful accomplishment of the works of the people, security of person and property from internal and external enemies, remedial measures against calamities, colonization and improvement of wild tracts of land, recruiting the army, collection of revenue, and bestowal of favour.
The school of Parasara say that of the distress of the people and distress due to bad fortifications, the latter is a more serious evil; for it is in fortified towns that the treasury and the army are secured; they (fortified towns) are a secure place for the people; they are a stronger power than the citizens or country people; and they are a powerful defensive instrument in times of danger for the king. As to the people, they are common both to the king and his enemy.
No, says Kautilya, for forts, finance, and the army depend upon the people; likewise buildings, trade, agriculture, cattle -rearing, bravery, stability, power, and abundance (of things). In countries inhabited by people, there are mountains and islands Kautilya's Arthashastra (as natural forts); in the absence of an expansive country, forts are resorted to. When a country consists purely of cultivators, troubles due to the absence of fortifications (are apparent); while in a country which consists purely of warlike people, troubles that may appear are due to the absence of (an expansive and cultivated) territory.
Pisuna says that of the troubles due to the absence of forts and to want of finance, troubles due to want of finance are more serious; the repair of fortifications and their maintenance depend upon finance; by means of wealth, intrigue to capture an enemy's fort may be carried on; by means of wealth, the people, friends, and enemies can be kept under control; by means of it, outsiders can be encouraged and the establishment of the army and its operations conducted. It is possible to remove the treasure in times of danger, but not the fort.
No, says Kautilya, for it is in the fort that the treasury and the army are safely kept, and it is from the fort that secret war (intrigue), control over one's partisans, the upkeep of the army, the reception of allies and the driving out of enemies and of wild tribes are successfully practised. In the absence of forts, the treasury is to the enemy, for it seems that for those who own forts, there is no destruction.
Kaunapadanta says that of distress due to want of finance or to an inefficient army, that which is due to the want of an efficient army is more serious; for control over one's own friends and enemies, the winning over the army of an enemy, and the business of administration are all dependent upon the army. In the absence of the army, it is certain that the treasury will be lost, whereas lack of finance can be made up by procuring raw products and lands or by seizing an enemy's territory.
The army may go to the enemy, or murder the king himself, Kautilya's Arthashastra and bring about all kinds of troubles. But finance is the chief means of observing virtuous acts and of enjoying desires. Owing to a change in place, time, and policy, either finance or the army may be a superior power; for the army is (sometimes) the means of securing the wealth acquired; but wealth is (always) the means of securing both the treasury and the army. Since all activities are dependent upon finance, financial troubles are more serious.
Vatavyadhi says that of the distress of the army and of an ally, the distress of an ally is more serious— an ally, though he is not fed and is far off, is still serviceable; he drives off not only the rear-enemy and the friends of the rear-enemy, but also the frontal enemy and wild tribes; he also helps his friend with money, army, and lands on occasions of troubles.
No, says Kautilya, the ally of him who has a powerful army keeps the alliance; and even the enemy assumes a friendly attitude; when there is a work that can be equally accomplished either by the army or by an ally, then preference to the army or to the ally should depend on the advantages of securing the appropriate place and time for war and the expected profit. In times of sudden expedition and on occasions of troubles from an enemy, a wild tribe, or local rebels, no friend can be trusted. When calamities happen together, or when an enemy has grown strong, a friend keeps up his friendship as long as money is forthcoming. Thus the determination of the comparative seriousness of the calamities of the various elements of sovereignty.
* When a part of one of the elements of sovereignty is under troubles, the extent, affection, and strength of the serviceable part can be the means of accomplishing a work.
* When any two elements of sovereignty are equally under troubles, they should be distinguished in respect of their progressive or declining tendency, provided that the good Kautilya's Arthashastra condition of the rest of the elements needs no description. * When the calamities of a single element tend to destroy the rest of the elements, those calamities, whether they be of the fundamental or any other element, are verily serious.
[Thus ends Chapter I, "The Aggregate of the Calamities of the Elements of Sovereignty," in Book VIII, "Concerning Vices and Calamities" of the Arthasdstra of Kautilya. End of the hundred and seventeenth chapter from the beginning.]
CHAPTER II. CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE TROUBLES OF THE KING AND OF HIS KINGDOM.
THE king and his kingdom are the primary elements of the state.
The troubles of the king may be either internal or external. Internal troubles are more serious than external troubles which are like the danger arising from a lurking snake. Troubles due to a minister are more serious than other kinds of internal troubles. Hence, the king should keep under his own control the powers of finance and the army.
Of divided rule and foreign rule, divided rule or rule of a country by two kings, perishes owing to mutual hatred, partiality and rivalry. Foreign rule which comes into existence by seizing the country from its king still alive, thinks that the country is not its own, impoverishes it, and carries off its wealth, or treats it as a commercial article; and when the country ceases to love it, it retires abandoning the country.
Which is better, a blind king, or a king erring against the science?
Kautilya's Arthashastra My teacher says that a blind king, i.e., a king who is not possessed of an eye in sciences, is indiscriminate in doing works, very obstinate, and is led by others; such a king destroys the kingdom by his own maladministration. But an erring king can be easily brought round when and where his mind goes astray from the procedure laid down in sciences.
No, says Kautilya, a blind king can be made by his supporters to adhere to whatever line of policy he ought to. But an erring king who is bent upon doing what is against the science, brings about destruction to himself and his kingdom by maladministration.
Which is better, a diseased or a new king?
My teacher says that a diseased king loses his kingdom owing to the intrigue of his ministers, or loses his life on account of the kingdom; but a new king pleases the people by such popular deeds as the observance of his own duties and the act of bestowing favours, remissions (of taxes), gifts, and presents upon others.
No, says Kautilya, a diseased king continues to observe his duties as usual. But a new king begins to act as he pleases under the impression that the country, acquired by his own might, belongs to himself; when pressed by combined kings (for plunder), he tolerates their oppression of the country. Or having no firm control over the elements of the state, he is easily removed. There is this difference among diseased kings: a king who is morally diseased, and a king who is suffering from physical disease; there is also this difference among new kings: a high-born king and a base-born king.
Which is better, a weak but high-born king, or a strong but low-born king?
Kautilya's Arthashastra My teacher says that a people, even if interested in having a weak king, hardly allow room for the intrigues of a weak but high-born person to be their king; but that if they desire power, they will easily yield themselves to the intrigues of a strong but base-born person to be their king.
No, says Kautilya, a people will naturally obey a high-born king though he is weak, for the tendency of a prosperous people is to follow a high-born king. Also they render the intrigues of a strong but base-born person, unavailing, as the saying is, that possession of virtues makes for friendship.
The destruction of crops is worse than the destruction of handfuls (of grains), since it is the labour that is destroyed thereby; absence of rain is worse than too much rain.
* The comparative seriousness or insignificance of any two kinds of troubles affecting the elements of sovereignty, in the order of enumeration of the several kinds of distress, is the cause of adopting offensive or defensive operations.
[Thus ends Chapter II, "Considerations about the Troubles of the King and of his Kingdom," in Book VIII, "Concerning Vices and Calamities," of the Arthasdstra of Kautilya. End of the hundred and eighteenth chapter from the beginning.]
CHAPTER III. THE AGGREGATE OF THE TROUBLE OF MEN.
IGNORANCE and absence of discipline are the causes of a man's troubles. An untrained man does not perceive the injuries arising from vices. We are going to treat of them (vices):— Kautilya's Arthashastra Vice's due to anger form a triad; and those due to desire are fourfold. Of these two, anger is worse, for anger proceeds against all. In a majority of cases, kings given to anger are said to have fallen a prey to popular fury. But kings addicted to pleasures have perished in consequence of serious diseases brought about by deterioration and improverishment.
No, says Bharadvaja, anger is the characteristic of a righteous man. It is the foundation of bravery; it puts an end to despicable (persons); and it keeps the people under fear. Anger is always a necessary quality for the prevention of sin. But desire (accompanies) the enjoyment of results, reconciliation, generosity, and the act of endearing oneself to all. Possession of desire is always necessary for him who is inclined to enjoy the fruits of what he has accomplished.
No, says Kautilya, anger brings about enmity with, and troubles from, an enemy, and is always associated with pain. Addiction to pleasure (kdma) occasions contempt and loss of wealth, and throws the addicted person into the company of thieves, gamblers, hunters, singers, players on musical instruments, and other undesirable persons. Of these, enmity is more serious than contempt, for a despised person is caught hold of by his own people and by his enemies, whereas a hated person is destroyed. Troubles from an enemy are more serious than loss of wealth, for loss of wealth causes financial troubles, whereas troubles from an enemy are injurious to life. Suffering on account of vices is more serious than keeping company with undesirable persons, for the company of undesirable persons can be got rid of in a moment, whereas suffering from vices causes injury for a long time. Hence, anger is a more serious evil.
Which is worse: abuse of language, or of money, or oppressive punishment?
Kautilya's Arthashastra Visalaksha says that of abuse of language and of money, abuse of language is worse; for when harshly spoken to, a brave man retaliates; and bad language, like a nail piercing the heart, excites anger and gives pain to the senses.
No, says Kautilya, gift of money palliates the fury occasioned by abusive language, whereas abuse of money causes the loss of livelihood itself. Abuse of money means gifts, exaction, loss or abandonment of money.
The School of Parasara say that of abuse of money and oppressive punishment, abuse of money is worse; for good deeds and enjoyments depend upon wealth; the world itself is bound by wealth. Hence, its abuse is a more serious evil.
No, says Kautilya, in preference to a large amount of wealth, no man desires the loss of his own life. Owing to oppressive punishment, one is liable to the same punishment at the hands of one's enemies.
Such is the nature of the triad of evils due to anger.
The fourfold vices due to desire are hunting, gambling, women and drinking.
Pisuna says that of hunting and gambling, hunting is a worse vice; for falling into the hand of robbers, enemies and elephants, getting into wild fire, fear, inability to distinguish between the cardinal points, hunger, thirst and loss of life are evils consequent upon hunting, whereas in gambling, the expert gambler wins a victory like Jayatsena and Duryodhana.
No, says Kautilya, of the two parties, one has to suffer from defeat, as is well known from the history of Nala and Yudhishthira; Kautilya's Arthashastra the same wealth that is won like a piece of flesh in gambling, causes enmity. Lack of recognition of wealth properly acquired, acquisition of ill-gotten wealth, loss of wealth without enjoyment, staying away from answering the calls of nature, and contracting diseases from not taking timely meals, are the evils of gambling, whereas in hunting, exercise, the disappearance of phlegm, bile, fat, and sweat, the acquisition of skill in aiming at stationary and moving bodies, the ascertainment of the appearance of beasts when provoked, and occasional march (are its good characteristics).
Kaunapadanta says that of addiction to gambling and to women, gambling is a more serious evil; for gamblers always play, even at night by lamp light, and even when the mother (of one of the players) is dead; the gambler exhibits anger when spoken to in times of trouble; whereas in the case of addiction to women, it is possible to hold conversation about virtue and wealth, at the time of bathing, dressing and eating. Also it is possible to make, by means of secret punishment, a woman to be so good as to secure the welfare of the king, or to get rid of her, or drive her out, under the plea of disease.
No, says Kautilya, it is possible to divert the attention from gambling, but not so from women. (The evils of the latter are) failure to see (what ought to be seen), violation of duty, the evil of postponing works that are to be immediately done, incapacity to deal with politics, and contracting the evil of drinking.
Vatavyadhi says that of addiction to women and to drinking, addiction to women is a more serious evil: there are various kinds of childishness among women, as explained in the chapter on 'The Harem,' whereas in drinking, the enjoyment of sound and other objects of the senses, pleasing other people, honouring the followers, and relaxation from the fatigue of work (are the advantages).
Kautilya's Arthashastra No, says Kautilya, in the case of addiction to women, the consequences are the birth of children, self-protection, change of wives in the harem, and absence of such consequences in the case of unworthy outside women. Both the above consequences follow from drinking. The auspicious effects of drinking are loss of money, lunacy in a sensate man, corpselike appearance while living, nakedness, the loss of the knowledge of the Vedas, loss of life, wealth, and friends, disassociation with the good, suffering from pain, and indulgence in playing on musical instruments and in singing at the expense of wealth.