Kautilya's Arthasastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India
Kautilya's Arthasastra on War and Diplomacy in Ancient India
KAUTILYA's Arthasastra was one of the greatest political books of the ancient world. Max Weber recognized this. "Truly radical 'Machiavellianism,' in the popular sense of that word," Weber said in his famous lecture "Politics as a Vocation," "is classically expressed in Indian literature in the Arthasastra of Kautilya (written long before the birth of Christ, ostensibly in the time of Chandragupta [Maurya]): compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless." 1
Although Kautilya proposed an elaborate welfare state in domestic politics, something that has been called a socialized monarchy, 2 he proved willing to defend the general good of this monarchy with harsh measures. A number of authors have explored these domestic policies, but very few scholars have focused on Kautilya's discussions of war and diplomacy. And yet, his analyses are fascinating and far-reaching, such as his wish to have his king become a world conqueror, his evaluation of which kingdoms are natural allies and which are inevitable enemies, his willingness to make treaties that he knew he would break, his doctrine of silent war or a war of assassination and contrived revolt against an unsuspecting king, his approval of secret agents who killed enemy leaders and sowed discord among them, his view of women as weapons of war, his use of religion and superstition to bolster his troops and demoralize enemy soldiers, his employment of the spread of disinformation, and his humane treatment of conquered soldiers and subjects.
Historical Background
Kautilya was the key adviser to—and the genius of the strategy undertaken by—the Indian king Chandragupta Maurya (c. 317-293 B.C.E.), who defeated the Nanda kings (several related kings trying unsuccessfully to rule India together), stopped the advance of Alexander the Great's successors, and first united most of the Indian subcontinent in empire. Kautilya—sometimes called chancellor or prime minister to Chandragupta, something like a Bismarck 3 —composed his Arthasastra, or "science of politics," to show a wise king how to defeat his enemies and rule on behalf of the general good. He was not modest in his claims as to how much he helped Chandragupta, noting "This science has been composed by him [Kautilya], who . . . quickly regenerated the science and the weapon and [conquered] the earth that was under control of the Nanda kings." 4
Just after Alexander's death in 323 B.C.E., Chandragupta and Kautilya began their conquest of India by stopping the Greek invaders. In this effort they assassinated two Greek governors, Nicanor and Philip, a strategy to keep in mind when I later examine Kautilya's approval of assassination. "The assassinations of the Greek governors," wrote Radha Kumud Mookerji, "are not to be looked upon as mere accidents." 5 By taking much of western India (the Punjab and the Sindh) from the Greeks and concluding a treaty with Seleucus (Alexander the Great's Greek heir to western India), Chandragupta and Kautilya succeeded in bringing together almost all of the Indian subcontinent. As a result, Chandragupta was, and is now, considered the first unifier of India and the first genuine emperor or king of India. 6
The Mauryan Empire established by Chandragupta and continued by his son Bindusara (c. 293-268 B.C.E.)—whom Kautilya also advised—and by his grandson Ashoka (c. 268-232 B.C.E.) was, and still is, astonishing. With a population of about fifty million people, the Mauryan Empire was larger than the Mughal Empire two thousand years later and even larger than the British Empire in India, extending in fact all the way to the border of Persia and from Afghanistan to Bengal. 7 (The map on the previous page shows the extent of the Mauryan Empire under Ashoka.) Pliny—borrowing from Megasthenes, the ambassador of Seleucus to Chandragupta—wrote that Chandragupta's army totaled about six hundred thousand infantry, thirty thousand calvary, eight thousand chariots, and nine thousand elephants. 8 Chandragupta's capital was Pataliputra (near modern Patna in northeast India, just below Nepal), which he apparently seized from the Nandas sometime between 324 and 322 B.C.E. Pataliputra was probably the largest city in the world at that time, a city eight miles long and a mile and one-half wide, with 570 towers and sixty-four gates, all surrounded by a moat six hundred feet wide and forty-five feet deep. Also protecting the city were wooden walls—stone was very scarce—with slits to be used by archers. 9 Pataliputra "was about twice as large as Rome under Emperor Marcus Aurelius." 10
Chandragupta Maurya consolidated an empire and passed it down intact to his son Bindusara, about whom we know little, and to his grandson Ashoka. Some argue that the extreme measures that we will see Kautilya advocate, and some of which Chandragupta surely must have employed, were necessary to bring order and the rule of law out of chaos, 11 making possible the emergence of Ashoka, who was widely regarded as one of the finest kings in world history. M. V. Krishna Rao contends, "As a result of the progressive secularisation of society due to the innovations contemplated by [the Arthasastra] and the administration Chandragupta, the country was prepared for the reception of the great moral transformation ushered in by A's-oka and his administration." 12 K. A. Nilakanta Sastri has written, in a fairly typical statement, "The reign of A's-oka forms the brightest page in the history of India." 13
After witnessing the suffering that occurred during his invasion of the kingdom of Kalinga, Ashoka turned toward Buddhism and nonviolence. He declared that in the future he would conquer only by morality or by dhamma—which is a Prakrit word, often replaced by the more familiar Sanskrit word dharma—a word meaning right conduct, duty, religion, law, social justice, and responsibility. 14 Dhamma, or dharma, was Ashoka's all-encompassing principle. In his First Pillar Edict, he announced, "For this is my principle: to protect through Dhamma, to administer affairs according to Dhamma, to please the people with Dhamma, to guard the empire with Dhamma." 15
What specific reforms did Ashoka make in his wish to conquer the world by morality or dharma? These included tolerance and respect for others, even those with different religions and backgrounds, or, as the Twelfth Rock Edict states, "other sects ought to be duly honoured in every case"; 16 love of the family; compassion, which includes respect for others, kindness even toward slaves and prisoners, "reverence toward elders, and gentleness to animals"; 17 honesty; liberality toward relatives, friends, and neighbors; moderation and self-control, or as the Seventh Rock Edict says, "but even one who practises great liberality but does not possess self-control, purity of mind, gratitude, and firm devotion, is very mean"; 18 a system of social welfare, including medical centers for human beings and animals, the construction of roads for good communication, along with the digging of wells and the planting of trees for shade, and so on, all policies that he thought best carried out by the centralized administration of government; 19 an unusual concern for the poor in rural areas, a concern that led him to tour the countryside frequently; 20 and ahimsa or nonviolence, which prohibited both the slaughter and sacrifice of animals. 21 According to V. R. R. Dikshitar, in the Sixth Rock Edict Ashoka said he was promoting dharma for "the common good of the world," and in the Tenth Rock Edict, Ashoka stated plainly that he put forth the doctrine of dharma for "happiness in the next world." 22
Many Indian historians are proud to embrace Kautilya's Arthasastra as a practical book of rugged political realism—instead of the impotent idealism of, say, Plato—that actually shaped history. D. D. Kosambi notes, "The Greeks make excellent reading; the Indian treatise [Arthasastra] worked infinitely better in practice for its own time and place." 23 Ram Sharan Sharma maintains, "Kautilya furnishes us as full and complete [a] definition of the state as was possible in ancient times. The Greek thinkers hardly discuss the constituent elements of the state." 24
Kautilya's Arthasastra is thus a book of political realism, a book analyzing how the political world does work and not very often stating how it ought to work, a book that frequently discloses to a king what calculating and sometimes brutal measures he must carry out to preserve the state and the common good. One important question lurks in discussions of Kautilya. Were the harsh actions he often recommended necessary for the common good of India? Did Chandragupta and Bindusara have to act in a violent and sometimes brutal fashion to defend India, bring order, and establish unity? 25 With the old order crumbling, with the Nanda kings having proved cruel and inept, with enemies on India's borders, and with the threat of anarchy within, were not Kautilya's harsh measures necessary and have not his critics failed "to note the nature of the times in which he lived"? 26 In defense of Chandragupta and Kautilya, Bhargava says, "all kinds of means might have been considered necessary to restore peace with honor." 27 Put more bluntly, did India need the harsh measures of Kautilya the realist in order to enjoy the luxury of Ashoka the idealist?
Kautilya and His "Science of Politics"
R. P. Kangle translates the word arthasastra as "science of politics," 28 a treatise to help a king in "the acquisition and protection of the earth." 29 Others translate arthasastra in slightly different ways: A. L. Basham says it is a "treatise on polity," 30 Kosambi emphasizes the economic importance of the word in calling it a "science of material gain," 31 and G. P. Singh labels it a "science of polity." 32 I happen to prefer to translate arthasastra as a "science of political economy," but however one translates the word, Kautilya claimed to be putting forth what Heinrich Zimmer rightly calls "timeless laws of politics, economy, diplomacy, and war." 33
Because he was offering his readers a science with which they could master the world, Kautilya believed that having a passive stance toward the world—for example, trusting in fate or relying on superstition—was outlandish. "One trusting in fate," noted Kautilya, "being devoid of human endeavor, perishes." 34 His philosophy called for action, not resignation: "The object slips away from the foolish person, who continuously consults the stars; . . . what will the stars do?" 35 In urging the king to rely on science and not the precepts of religion, Kautilya separated political thought from religious speculation. 36
Like Thomas Hobbes, Kautilya believed the goal of science was power. His statements "Power is (possession of) strength" and "strength changes the mind" 37 show that Kautilya sought the power to control not only outward behavior, but also the thoughts of one's subjects and enemies. Probably his science could not promise all of that, but the power offered by this science was extensive: "An arrow, discharged by an archer, may kill one person or may not kill (even one); but intellect operated by a wise man would kill even children in the womb." 38 Having as his first and primary goal to "destroy the enemies and protect his own people," 39 the king could certainly accomplish this with Kautilya's science; in fact, "he, who is well-versed in the science of politics,. . . plays, as he pleases, with kings tied by the chain of his intellect." 40 Beyond protecting the kingdom, the king who uses Kautilya's science can bring to himself and his subjects the three goods of life—"material gain, spiritual good and pleasures." 41 Wealth is the key to raising successful armies and having a peaceful and just kingdom, and Kautilya's political science brings wealth: "The source of the livelihood of men is wealth, in other words, the earth inhabited by men. The science which is the means of the attainment and protection of that earth is the Science of Politics." 42 Put another way, Kautilya's book is the greatest weapon a king can have, and political science is more important than—or at least brings about—wealth, armies, and conquests.
In the world of international politics, it is only "natural" that nations interact with each other through "dissension and force." 43 A political realist typically argues that there will always be conflict in international relations and, in effect, rule by the strongest. Kautilya was writing about 300 B.C.E., a century after Thucydides composed his History ofthe Peloponnesian War and several decades after the Sophists Callicles and Thrasymachus said to Plato that rule by the stronger was "natural." Kautilya, in the boldest of his promises, claimed that one who knows his science of politics can conquer the world, that "one possessed of personal qualities, though ruling over a small territory . . . conversant with (the science of) politics, does conquer the entire earth, never loses." 44 There is no modesty here. Kautilya's science brings an abundance of wealth and details correct strategies in politics and war. With this science anyone can succeed: "And winning over and purchasing men of energy, those possessed of might, even women, children, lame and blind persons, have conquered the world." 45 Kautilya did not see this conquest as something unjust. A king who carries out his duties, rules according to law, metes out only just punishment, applies the law equally "to his son and his enemy," and protects his subjects not only goes "to heaven" but "would conquer the earth up to its four ends." 46 Whereas Kautilya did not talk of glory, I do believe he was thinking of something we might call "greatness," but this would come only with social justice and the morally correct ordering of the world. The king, "after conquering the world, . . . should enjoy it divided into varnas [classes, sometimes castes] and asramas [Hindu stages of life] in accordance with his own duty." 47
Kautilya apparently meant by the phrase "conquering the world" something like conquering up to what Indians regarded as the natural borders of India, from the Himalayas all the way south to the Indian Ocean, and from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal, although Kautilya said, "the region of the sovereign ruler extends northwards between the Himavat and the sea, one thousand yojanas [about nine thousand miles!] in extent across." 48 As Kangle puts it, in the Indian tradition, the world conqueror, or cakrava-rtin, was not one who conquered "regions beyond the borders of India." 49 In short, India did not include the land of "barbarians" or mlecchas, those outside of Indian culture. 50 Cakra means wheel; it is possible that the Indian concept of the world conqueror involved someone who ruled as far as his chariots could roll, without obstacles or opposition. 51 At any rate, surely Dikshitar is correct in saying that this ideal of a world conqueror in ancient India led to an "imperialism" that was "one of the causes of chronic warfare," 52 although the Mauryan dynasty did bring comparative peace for more than a century. As Narasingha Prosad Sil notes, "For Kautilya a world conquest is the true foundation for world peace." 53
Diplomacy and Foreign Policy as Extensions of Warfare
As a political realist, Kautilya assumed that every nation acts to maximize power and self-interest, and therefore moral principles or obligations have little or no force in actions among nations. While it is good to have an ally, the alliance will last only as long as it is in that ally's as well as one's own self-interest, because "an ally looks to the securing of his own interests in the event of simultaneity of calamities and in the event of the growth of the enemy's power." 54 Whether one goes to war or remains at peace depends entirely upon the self-interest of, or advantage to, one's kingdom: "War and peace are considered solely from the point of view of profit." 55 One keeps an ally not because of good will or moral obligation, but because one is strong and can advance one's own self-interest as well as the self-interest of the ally, for "when one has an army, one's ally remains friendly, or (even) the enemy becomes friendly." 56 Because nations always act in their political, economic, and military self-interest, even times of peace have the potential to turn abruptly into times of war, allies into enemies, and even enemies into allies. Burton Stein notes correctly that Kautilya was describing a foreign policy not of a great empire like that of the Mauryas, but of small warring states in incessant conflict, such as India experienced before the Mauryan empire. 57 Kautilya probably assumed that peaceful empires cannot last forever, and that conflict among smaller states is more common in history.
For Kautilya, this principle of foreign policy—that nations act in their political, economic, and military self-interest—was a timeless truth of his science of politics, or arthasastra. He did not believe that nations never act in an altruistic manner—indeed, Kautilya advocated humanitarian acts that also coincided with one's self-interest—but he did believe that one must assume, if entrusted with political or military power, that one's neighbors will eventually act in their own interests. Put another way, one would be betraying one's own people if one did not assume a worst-case scenario. A nation forced to rely on the kindness of neighboring states is weak and, unless it can change rapidly, doomed to destruction. This same assumption can be seen in the work of Thucydides, who discussed foreign policy a century before Kautilya, and in the thoughts of the Chinese Legalist Han Fei Tzu, who wrote about fifty years after Kautilya's Arthasastra.
Kautilya is most famous for outlining the so-called Mandala theory of foreign policy, in which immediate neighbors are considered as enemies, but any state on the other side of a neighboring state is regarded as an ally, or, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Imagine a series of states to one's west, and then number them starting with oneself. States numbered 1, 3, 5, 7, and so on will likely be friends, whereas states 2, 4, 6, 8, and so on will probably be enemies. (The same thing can be done with concentric circles, which would look more like a mandala, but it is difficult to envision these circles as states.) Kautilya put this basic principle in a number of different ways, but most simply as, "One with immediately proximate territory is the natural enemy." 58 Elsewhere he stated this Mandala theory of foreign policy in more detail: "With respect to the middle king [he himself], the third and the fifth constituents are friendly elements. The second, the fourth, and the sixth are unfriendly elements." 59
.....
Contd
