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 ones 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 enemys 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 Kautilyas 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 enemys
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
ones own kingdomm as the centre of twelve concentric circles, the outer circle re-representing the
kingdom situated away from ones own. A kings 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 friends friend (3 states); (2) The
enemy, his friend and his friends friend (3 states); (3) Natural state, its friend and its friends friend
(3 states); and (4) Intermediary state, its friend and its friends 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 Manusmriti and 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 Kautilyas 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 Kautilyas Arthasastra more or less prescribe the same higher qualifications for
them such as a noble family background, 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.
Drupadas 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 backbone 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 ones 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 kings 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
Machiavellis Prince and many times more full of cynical wisdom.



Kautilyas 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 Machiavellis Prince
and Kautiiyas Arthasastra. Bana, the famous author of Kadambari, brands Kautilyas statecraft as
completely Machiavellian, i.e.. full of deceit, treachery, fraud, deception and murder. The objective
of Kautilyas 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 Kautityas 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 Kautiiyas 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 Kautilyas Arthasastra is prepared to subordinate ethics to
politics for all the time to come.