On India’s strategic frontiers
In ancient Indian political philosophy, the establishment of the state is seen as an instrument to impose dharma, or the moral code, through dandaniti or the rule of law. It not only recognises plurality by enjoining the king to respect and conserve the culture and traditions of the country he annexes but also circumscribes annexation itself, limiting it to the Indian subcontinent.
Arthashastra has a twofold aim. First, it seeks to show how the ruler must protect his territory. Secondly it shows how territory should be acquired.
It may be remarked in passing that the rulership of ‘the earth’ contemplated in the shastra does not necessarily imply the conquest of the whole world. The field open for the operations of the would-be-conqueror (vijigisu) appears restricted to the region between the Himalayas and the sea. Territories beyond the borders of India are not included in ‘the territory of the Sovereign Ruler’. [Arthashastra 9.1.17-18]
One of the reasons for this may be that the conqueror, according to the shastra, is expected to establish a social order based on the varna and the ashrama system in the conquered territories and the establishment of such a social order outside the limits of India was perhaps considered impracticable or even undesirable. It may also be that such a conquest beyond the borders of India was regarded as unjust.
Arrian, the Greek historian, has remarked, “On the other hand, a sense of justice, they say, prevented any Indian king from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India” [R P Kangle, The Kautiliya Arthashastra, Part III, pp2-3]
Related Posts: The reading the Arthashastra series archive
Arrian, the Greek historian, has remarked, “On the other hand, a sense of justice, they say, prevented any Indian king from attempting conquest beyond the limits of India”
Well this is a bit rubbish really; Indian geography meant that one would need to have control over most of the sun-continent before thinking of expansion outside it. The only exception would be if there was a major naval power and Indian strategic thought and empires tended to neglect sea-power. It is instructive that the few Empires that didn’t, like the mideveal Cholas, did invade and conquer foreign territory like Malaya, Java and other parts of moder Indonesia. Historically, a neglect of sea-power has been the achilles heel of Asian land empires both Chinese and Indian (with a few exceptions).
The Arthashastra is a classic text but to my mind like Machiavelli’s Prince it suffers from some key limitations. It is best applied to a states-system where there are a number of broadly equally powerful middle-size states struggling for supremacy as in Italy and northern India of the time and hence emphasis is given on centralisation of power and how to acquire and hold on to it under conditions of extreme external competition and iternal interference in other states affairs. It doesn’t really apply to othr types of state-systems and in particular has little to say about hegemonic or bi-polar systems. Secondly, too much emphasis is given on intrigue, espionage and political manipulation and not enough on broad strategy and military tactic. In fact Kautilya tends to prefer bribing, manipulating, or tricking opponents into doing what one wants – perhaps the modern equivalent of state power. But there is less thought on application of military strategy, battle tactics and how to integrate a modern military system into a civilan state. I think this is because of the Brahminnic bias in Kauytilian thought, which doesn’t seriously analyse the use of force. Other ancient texts are more forthcoming on this score such as Thucydides History of the Peleponnesian War, Sun Tzu’s Art of War, the Book of Baron Shang and Xenophon’s March ofthe Ten Thousand.
Of course the most sophisticated of these treatises is Machiavelli’s other works on the Republic; whic is extremely instructive on the relative strengths and weakness of authoriatarian regimes like Kingdoms and aristocratic states when engaged with conflict compared to republican regimes and democratic city-states. I feel this has a lot of relevance and parallels for us today and we can learn much from it – including how to build and maintain a strong military from a political standpoint.
@Conrad Barwa:
Good points. The only place where I disagree is that I consider Kautilya’s use of “soft power”, including manipulation and espionage, as his strengths, not weaknesses. By no means I’m a military strategist, but if you consider that his ideas are more than 2 millennia old and the prevalence of such tactics in modern states, I think you would appreciate what a visionary Kautilya actually was.
@Conrad,
What a lot of rubbish on your part! There is more reason to believe that invasions didn’t happen because of ideological reasons than due to strategic geography.
The Chola expeditions were not invasions. They were punitive raids. In remember reading on this blog that they were instigated by a merchant guild.
Indochina and Indonesia were under Indian influence due to ‘soft power’ of the Hindu and Buddhist religions. Not because of Indian conquest.
Not even your digression about classic texts obfuscates the fragility of your argument.
The Chola expeditions were not invasions. They were punitive raids. In remember reading on this blog that they were instigated by a merchant guild.
Learn your history boy before you open your mouth. The Chola conquest of Malaya is well recorded and their amphibiour invasion was one of the largest on in the pre-colonial period.
Merchant guild my ass – next thing you wil be saying that the East India Company was just a corporation that acquired its possessions in a “fit of absent-mindedness” as the old British imperialist historians used to say. That self-justificatory crap didn’t wash then when talking about the Brits and it doesn’t wash now.
The ignorance of some people and the unwillingess to grasp the fact on here is stunning at times.
Not even your digression about classic texts obfuscates the fragility of your argument.
I wouldn’t worry about my comments on the “classic texts”. It is unlikely that you have read any of them, so it will be of little concern.
@Bhavananda,
I might be overly harsh on Kautilya; but the other authors I cite like Sun Tzu and Thucydides were rough contemporaries of his and managed to pen much more advanced theories of warfare and military management. Of course, I suppose their aims were different in that Kautilya was primarily concerned with how a ruler could acquire and hold power and only really looked at one form of government – an authoritarian monarchy. Writers who examined other forms as well such as republics and city-state democracies had different and I would argue more rounded understandings of politics.
The emphasis on soft power in Kautilya is I feel a reflection of his view of human nature; which is unashamedly cynical and calculating. There is nothing wrong with this as human being often are like this; however they have other facets too which must be considered that allows them to rise above such concerns – particularly in times of warfare. An inability to effectively integrate such considerations into their thought has been a key weakness of Realist thinkers from Kautilya onwards imo.
No doubt the man was an innovative thinker though and you could say a genius for his times.
@Conrad,
Whoa! So you can dismiss something as rubbish without producing a shred of evidence, but you get hot under the collar when it’s done to you.
The post I refer to is this one http://is.gd/pG58 — and see what you missed during your history lesson. If you want to disagree please pursue it with John Keay.
If you can’t manage humility, at least manage to include some proof in your comments. I can’t accept your word for it.
@Conrad,
Err, Sun Tzu must have suffered from Brahminical bias too, for he said that the best strategy is one where you win the battle without having to fight.
For to win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.
All war is deception
It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to spy on you and bribe them to serve you. Give them orders and take care of them. Thus double agents are recruited and used.
Posted by Udayan on behalf of the biased Chinese brahmin.
Good reply Sun Tzu (Udayan).
The only thing I wanted to add is by how much people underestimate Chanakya. Soft power not only wins you a war, it is more efficient with resources, leads to less bloodshed/collateral with civilians, makes friends out of your enemies so that you can dominate them more effectively, prevents your adversaries from turning into blood-thirsty enemies, and so on. I’m not expert on Sun Tzu (or Thucydides), but I’ve read them modestly and all I wanted to convey is that whatever his peers have only contemplated, Chanakya has efficiently practiced it. If only India could incorporate that into its foreign policy, we could’ve had friends in Burma, Bangladesh and Nepal, not to mention far off countries. Even more unfortunate is that China is effectively pursuing such a policy (see recent reports of Chinese Ghostnet hackers all over the world) vis-a-vis India.
@ All
Would it be correct to say that Chanakya’s emphasis was on the survival of the ‘Ruler’ whereas the others quoted emphasised the survival of the ‘State’. Perhaps a characteristic of the soceities they came from.
Present experience is not vastly different.
@BeeCee: Aren’t the two related, especially before the advent of democracy? It was important to have a ruler first, because a good ruler can maintain a state in good condition, whereas a good state will not necessarily throw up a good leader or be able to defend it without a good leader. To that extent, it was pertinent that there is a good leader *first* since ruler to state is a one way correspondence. Am I right?
The post I refer to is this one http://is.gd/pG58 — and see what you missed during your history lesson. If you want to disagree please pursue it with John Keay.
Ok, first of all John Keay’s book while a good basic introduction is not a professional historians’ work since it relies almost entirely on secondary material and that too of a very generalised non-specialist kind. There are some errors in his book and it has been criticised by professional historians in parts but that is a different discussion.
since you are so keen to scream about his apparent wisdom on this matter, I have actually taken the book from my local library and reproduce what he says ad verbatim for your enlightenment below:
“One theory has it that the Cholas were endeavoring to break Srivijaya’s control of the straits. This is disputedmay well have played their part. In the wake of the Chola’s conquests in India and Sri Lanka, there has spread and prospered an organisation usually known in inscriptions as the “Five Hundred Swamis of Ayyavole”. More a robust trading league than a simple guild, the ‘Ayyavole five hundrwd,’, or ‘Aihole Five Hundred’ (from which place it originated), seems to have specialised in the organisation and protection of long-distance transport and exchange. It managed fortified trading depots and its own troops. There is no reason to presume that like the Hanseatic league it pursued its own policies. Yet, as a substantial contributor to the welfare and defence of the realm, it was clearly influential. It would therefore be interesting to know more of the part it played in Rajendra’s south-east Asian exploit, particularly since later in the century the Ayyavole swamis are found to have an outpost at Barus on the west coast of Sumatra.
Religion may have also figured. Rajendra is known to have provided for a Buddhist vihara to be built by the ruler of Kadaram at Tanjore’s port of Negapatnam. Presumably it was for the convenience of Kadaram Buddhists visiting India. But it seems reasonable to suppose that subsequent relations with the Buddhists of Kadaram may well have been soured by Rajendra’s “blood-scuking” of Sri Lanka’s monasteries and his worsting of the Buddhist Palas in Bengal. With both of these kingdoms the Srivajayan world was in close contact. Retaliotaroy measures against Chola traders at the Srivijayan ports could well have followed, and so provoked Ranjednra’s raid.
Yet if one returns to the Tanjore inscription, there is mention of neither pious nor commerical gains, only of military matters, of formidable defences and of desirable booty secured. The ‘jewelled gates’ of Srivijaya and the ‘heaped treasures’ of Kadaram were what mattered. Plunder once again proves to be the constant factor behind Chola expansion.”
This can be found on pp. 222-223 of the 2000 HarperCollins edition of KEay’s book. Emphasis added is of course mine.
So what Keay is saying is that there is actually no evidence to support this merchant guild theory except supposition from the fact that they pretty much existed. All the hard evidence actually suggests other motivations were at work.
Err, Sun Tzu must have suffered from Brahminical bias too, for he said that the best strategy is one where you win the battle without having to fight.
SunTzu was neither the first nor the last to say this. It is a basic axiom of warfare that if you can acheive your aims without fighting then you should do so; however Sun Tzu’s book was a book on warfare as he frequently knew that such attempts while good if they succedded did not suceed all the time particularly against strong and motivated enemies. Which is why if you bothered to read his book closely; the VAST bulk of it is taken up by describing how to organise your armies, what terrain to fight on, how to move over distances, how to maintain morale etc.etc. the minutiae of logistics and command. Also the deception he refers to is not merely political intrigue but deception on the battlefield with such things as surprise attacks, night marches, feints, and ambushes.
It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to spy on you and bribe them to serve you. Give them orders and take care of them. Thus double agents are recruited and used.
Posted by Udayan on behalf of the biased Chinese brahmin.
Oh dear; considering the amount of times India was invaded and how on the battlefield despite superior numbers and resources it was defeated by enemies that either outfought it (Alexander) or practised the art of “Kautilya” better through intrigue as happened with Rana Sanga and Siraj-ud-Dala; I can only say either the ‘brahmmincal’ theory is not very successful or its has been woefully applied.
@ beecee that is a good point; which I sort of allude to when I discuss Machiavelli, Thucydides and Xenophon – these examine all types of govt. Machiavelli’s Prince is very similar to Chanakya in that the survival of the Ruler is paramount and great emphasis is placed on policing against internal threats as well as external ones. Sun Tzu is somewhat different in that he doesnt’ talk much about internal politics of the states but he refers to a similar state system where there are a number of equal sized kingdoms at war for supremacy. With the emergence of different kinds of state systems and states different kinds of thinking are needed – which is why examination of aristrocratic, republican and democratic states that Machaivellie and the Greeks do is so useful; they highlight the weaknesses and strengths of different states. Small city-states were able to defeat large mega-Empires like Persia – how? The PErsian court tried its usual tricks of intimidation, offers of wealth, bribing greedy leaders and sponsoring dissent but they were unable to win – Why? If we just listen to the blathering of ‘brahminical’ theory we will never ask the right questions and find the answers and hence keep on making the same mistakes we have done for the last 3000 years.
@ Bhavananda
The ruler and the state are definitely related, but the distinction needs to be made. There are far too many cases of states going down due to misplaced loyalties to leader/ party(in democracies) by state functionaries, at the expense of the state.
‘All war is deception’ may be acceptable in a certain context, but to think of it as a civilisational virtue could take us down a slippery road.
@Conrad
Colin Wilson in “A criminal history of mankind” ( A great read if you haven’t read it) also says that Indian culture was the only one which was spread without the sword or the tax-collector. Whether it was a virtue as indicated by Arrian or sheer civilisational lethargy is a matter of opinion.
Colin Wilson in “A criminal history of mankind” ( A great read if you haven’t read it) also says that Indian culture was the only one which was spread without the sword or the tax-collector
Not too sure what is referred to by “Indian” culture here. Most of the time was spent in fighting each other on the sub-continent; I tend to favour geographic reasons for this. As I said large land Empires in Asia weren’t every expansioanry outside their ‘natural’ borders. One might as well say the Chinese didn’t spread their culture by the sword either.
If you look at the history of India, conflicts to gain supremacy over the Sub-continent were quite bloody, from the Kalinga campaign and Samudragupta’ bloodthirsty annexations of his weaker neighbours onwards. Which they should have been, otherwise they wouldn’t have suceeded.
As a note, John Keay, whom everyone on this thread seems to fond of referring at least four times compares the destruction and violence inflcited by Rajendra I’s campaigns to that of Mahmud of Ghazni. I beleive that speaks volumes as to how these wars were conducted, even though the comparison is a bit off imo.
I have’nt read Wilson’s book unfortunately, so I can’t comment on what he says directly.
@ Gentlemen/Ladies,
I have read all four Chankya, Sun Tsu, Machiavelli and Xenophon. In my opinion Machiavelli and Xenophon are no where close to Chankya and Sun Tsu. Machiavelli is like a College Student and Xenophon is a high school kid when you compare them to Chankya and Sun Tsu. Please research on internet and you will see why. I am not going to put the reasons here.
Comparing Chanakya and Sun Tsu, I do not remember reading anything from Sun Tsu regarding taxation, State Administration etc. All Sun Tsu talked about is war. Anyone tell me here which army in this world can fight a war without food. Considering that Chanakya’s view of State and war is much broader which hands down makes him the Better strategist. If were a emperor I rather have Chanakya as my adviser then Sun Tsu because Empire needs a Shrewd strategist to keep the country at peace and healthy. Sun Tsu might spend all his energy avoiding a war which is an unthinkable idea given the kshatriya code of life which say never ever surrender (Check out kesariya Bana, granted it did not happen during Chanakya time but code was there). So bottom line Sun Tsu would have failed in India, outside India he is great tactician to be on your side. While Chanakya is good for all scenario.
Before you guys comment on Chanakya’s ability and again compare him with other jo blos go and read his Niti shastra and Arthshashtra in Sanskrit and word to word translation in Hindi/English (if you don’t know sanskrit). I emphasize on word for word translation nothing more nothing less. This will tell you how great philosopher, politician and strategist he was. In my personal opinion Chanakya is Professor, Sun Tsu is PhD student, Machiavelli is a College Student and Xenophon is a high school kid.
Most of the people are hanging on the words instead of looking into the deeper meaning( jab tum he na samje mere geeton ki bhasha, duniya sau sau arth lagaye kya hota hai). Chanakya is ever green, he is a politician who stops at nothing until Justice is served. Chanakya’s writings shows how much he cared about the people, justice, society and a Just King.