Kautilya’s Mandala Theory

Shobhit Mishra

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

The presented project is analysis of the one of the most important theories given by Kautilya, which is the Mandala theory, which deals with the interstate relations and the foreign policies of that period. Kautilya always remained with a viewpoint that there could be any harmonious relationship between two neighboring states. Kautilya wanted the expansion of the empire with harsh measures. When one explores over the Kautilya’s discussion over his domestic policies, he will find that Kautilya's discussions are of war and diplomacy. His Diplomacy was just another weapon used in the prolonged warfare that was always either occurring or being planned for. But yet, his analyses are fascinating and far-reaching, such as his wish to have his king become a world conqueror (here, one needs to understand that by Kautilya’s world, he meant to conquer that land which the ancient Indians believed were the natural borders of India. In other words, the land bordered in the north by the Himalayas down to the Indian Ocean, and from the Arabian Sea to the Bay of Bengal.) 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.

INTRODUCTION:

Kautaliya's Arthshastra (322-298BC) is brilliant and comprehensive treatise on all aspects of international relations, intelligence and good governance. He always had a wish that his king should become the world conqueror, and hence this mastermind was the chief mentor and a minister who helped first emperor of India Chandragupta Maurya to extend his kingdom to whole of India and beyond up to Afghanistan. The political science propagated by him was referred as 'Rajadharma' (Righteousness of the King) and 'Nitishastra' (Science of Ethics) with ethical course of conduct as hallmark of internal and external policy of the state.

KAUTILYA ON WAR:

“Kautilya did not say to himself, "Prepare for war, but hope for peace," but instead, "Prepare for war, and plan to conquer.”

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." 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."One keeps an ally not because of good will or moral obligation, but because one is strong and can advance ones 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." As said once by Chanakya, “There is some self-interest behind every friendship.

There is no Friendship without self-interests. This is a bitter truth.” 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.

In the world of international politics, it is only "natural" that nations interact with each other through "dissension and force." A political realist typically argues that there will always be conflict in international relations and, in effect, rule by the strongest. 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." 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." 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." Whereas Kautilya did not talk of glory, he thinks of something one 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 and asramas [Hindu stages of life] in accordance with his own duty."

In his section on foreign policy, Kautilya wrote a startling sentence: "Of war, there is open war, concealed war and silent war." Open war is obvious, and concealed war is what we call guerrilla warfare but silent war is a kind of warfare with another kingdom in which the king and his ministers—and unknowingly, the people—all act publicly as if they were at peace with the opposing kingdom, but all the while secret agents and spies are assassinating important leaders in the other kingdom, creating divisions among key ministers and classes, and spreading propaganda and disinformation. According to Kautilya, "Open war is the most righteous type of war and it does include all types of concealed warfare; that which concerns secret practices and instigations through secret agents is the mark of silent war." In silent warfare, secrecy is paramount, and, from a passage quoted earlier, the king can prevail only by "maintaining secrecy when striking again and again." This entire concept of secret war was apparently original with Kautilya.

One thing that one should keep in his mind while reading kautilya’s texts on war is that when 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. Kautilya probably assumed that peaceful empires cannot last forever, and that conflict among smaller states is more common in history. Thus, India does not want peace as it follows the idealism of Kautilya.

MANDALA THEORY:

Your neighbor is your natural enemy and the neighbor’s neighbor is your friend”

This was the basic thought behind Kautilya’s Mandala Theory. And it is the very frist thought that comes to one’s mind when we read the texts of kautilya. Mandala is a Sanskrit word whisch means ‘circles’.

Mandala theory of foreign policy, is based on the geographical assumption that the immediate neighbour state is most likely to be an enemy (real or potential) and a state next to the immediate neighbour is likely to be ones friend, after a friendly state comes an unfriendly state (friend of the enemy state) and next to that a friendly state (friend of a friendly state) and so on i.e., "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." However he also recognized the existence of neutral and mediating states. To understand it easily, 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 con centric 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."

The Mandala concept is one in which there are circles of friends and foes with the central point being the King and his State. This embraces twelve kings in the vicinity and he considers the kingdoms as neighbors, the states which are the enemies neighbors are his enemies’ friends and the next circle of states are his friends. He also believes that the states which are his neighbors and are also neighbors of his enemies are neutral and should always be treated with respect. He believes that this circle is dynamic and the King should strive to be expanding his central position and reduce the power of the other kings in the vicinity. He also proposes to build alliances with states which are two degrees away from the center to create a balance of power.

The mandala, as comprising 12 types of kings/states, it is classified as follows:

1. The would-be conqueror, at the centre of the mandala. (Vijigisha)

2. The enemy whose territory borders on that of the would-be conqueror, i.e., the hostile neighbour.

3. The ally’s whose territory lies immediately beyond that of the hostile neighbour.

4. The enemy’s ally who is the neighbour of one’s won ally.

5. The ally’s ally who is territorially distant. (Vijigishu)

6. The ally of the enemy’s ally who is also territorially distant.

7. The rear of the would-be conqueror, i.e., rearward enemy

8. Rearward friend

9. Friend of the rearward enemy

10. Friend of friend is the rearward friend

11. A neutral king/state neighboring both the would-be conqueror and his/its enemy but is stronger than both.

12. The king is very indifferent towards all other kings/states but is more powerful than the would-be conqueror, his enemy and the neutral king/ state.

In a system of mandala, Kautilya advocated six-fold policy to interact with the neighbours, which included co-existence, neutrality, alliance, double policy, march and war. To achieve this he advised the king to resort to five tactics: conciliation, gift and bribery, dissention, deceit and pretence, open attack or war. As such on the question of treaty and alliance, he suggests: “A King should not hesitate to break any friendship or alliances that are later found to be disadvantageous.”

In the whole spectrum of Mandal, the Vijigishu functions as a sort of balance of power by asserting his own supremacy. It is assumed that the two adjacent states are normally hostile and consequently two states with another intervening between them would be friendly, being common enemies of the latter. The neutral is the strongest power in the neighborhood. The intermediary in intermediate in strength between the neutral and the other powers.

ENEMIES ACCORDING TO KAUTILYA:

Potential enemies were those to whom one showed a friendly face. They might be your ally or there might be no particular relationship between your country and theirs. But eventually, they would become enemies or so. Kautilya assume, After all, his politics were aimed at conquering the world, which can only be done by taking control of all other territories, most of which will fight to retain control.

Let us assume that Country 2 is an enemy too powerful to take on immediately. In such a case, it would be in the king’s best interest to be friendly toward them until they grew weaker. But Kautilya didn’t suggest the king sit passively by and wait for this to happen. Instead, it was his duty to make it happen. And, since states always act in their own self-interest, moral principles and obligations carry little or no weight in the actions between states.

“A neighboring prince possessed of the excellences of an enemy is the foe; one in calamity is vulnerable; one without support or with weak support is fit to be exterminated; in the reverse case, fit to be harassed or weakened. These are the different types of enemies.”

When Kautilya described exterminating an enemy, he meant killing only the leaders. He believed that the best policy toward enemy soldiers and citizens was to treat them well…and then recruit them. A conquered people are much more likely to look favorably on the conqueror if he acts benevolently toward them. Act despotically and you lose the support of the people.

In this, Kautilya was unique. Kautilya pointed out that “If weak in might, a king should endeavor to secure the welfare of his subjects. The countryside is the source of all undertakings. From them comes might.” For his day, this was a revolutionary statement. India was divided into four classes: kshatriyas or the warrior and ruling class, brahmins or priests; vaishyas meaning farmers or merchants; and shūdras, agricultural laborers. Kautilya appears to have had little use for brahmins, since he wrote “by prostration, an enemy may win over Brahmana troops.” But he was taken by the energy, strength, and numbers of the shūdras. He does seem to have preferred an army of kshatriyas – the Greek ambassador to Chandragupta’s court notes that nearly one-fifth of the population were of this class – but in times of emergency, he would prefer the balance of the army come from the two lower classes of society. He also believed that units should be composed of “men from the same region, caste or profession”, since an army composed of brothers and friends fighting for each other is more difficult to defeat.

It is better to attack an enemy that is disunited rather than one in which the citizens have organized themselves into “bands.” Therefore, the first obstacle to overcome is to breakdown the enemy’s trust and reliance on each other. For this task, Kautilya advocated spies and secret agents who could exploit the divisions within a country and hopefully widen such gaps. Every country, according to Kautilya, has four types of disgruntled citizens: the enraged, the frightened, the greedy, and the proud. Secret agents should be employed to fan the flames of their discontent. The king should win over the seducible by “means of conciliation and gifts and those not seducible by means of dissension and force.”

He sought to provoke wars between neighboring states and their allies, which would weaken both. At the very least, to drive a wedge between them, leaving one possibly weak enough for “extermination.” For countries that tried to remain neutral, he suggested ways of provoking a potential war between them and a neighboring state. Then, should the neutral nation seek his king’s help, it could be “placed under obligations.” Here again, Kautilya shows no moral qualms about breaking such obligations, for “that ally who might do harm or who, though capable, would not help in times of troubles, he should exterminate him, when trustingly, he comes within his reach.”

CONCLUSION:

Kautilya’s Mandala theory of foreign policies and interstate relationships though cannot be said to be completely applicable in the present context, though one cannot ignore its relevance. His concept stands as barrier against the idea of integration, both at regional and global level. But unfortunately in the present day, knowingly or unknowingly, Kautilya dominates in regional and international relations. His warfare technique even in the present day helps a lot. He has actually very accurately had given his theories.

Moreover, even to understand the ancient Indian political thought, it is very important to understand the inter-state relationships and hence kautilya’s contribution is immensely important when we look back at the Indian History and how under his guidance India reunited by the Mauryan Umpire.

REFERENCE:

Webliography

•http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=45321

•http://www.allempires.net/strategic-thinking-in-ancient-india-and-china_topic6274_post112629.html

•http://www.praansol.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Kautilya_Press-release-Sharda-Nandram.pdf

•http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/3/5/5/p253554_index.html

•http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_military_history/v067/67.1boesche.htm

•http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9962/1/MPRA_paper_9962.pdf

•http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Article/455057

•http://www.zimbio.com/World+Politics/articles/1314/Chinese+Sun+Tzu+vs+Indian+Chanakya+Kautilya

•http://www.defencejournal.com/march98/chanakya2.htm

•http://www.scribd.com/doc/23367294/Kautilya%E2%80%99s-Arthasastra-on-%C2%B4War-and-Diplomacy-in-Ancient-India

•http://bss.sfsu.edu/mbar/ECON605/Arthashastra.pdf

•http://www.quotedb.com/categories/war-and-peace

http://www.knowledgebase-script.com/demo/article-305.html

•http://www.knowledgebase-script.com/demo/article-305.html

•http://dspace.vidyanidhi.org.in:8080/dspace/bitstream/2009/2997/2/UOM-2002-1716-1.pdf

•http://www.scribd.com/doc/43005637/Kautilya

•http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history/23034-indian-foreign-policy-based-kautilyan-principles.html

Received on 16.02.2012

Revised on 16.03.2012

Accepted on 24.03.2012