At NaMo’s swearing-in, Chanakya’s Raja-Mandala on display

For students of statecraft and history, the invitations to SAARC leaders for the swearing in ceremony of PM-designate provide a fascinating example of Acharya Chanakya’s Raja-Mandala doctrine at work.  In Kautilya’s Artha-Shastra, in Book VI, “The Source of Sovereign States”, Acharya is quoted as saying;

“The king who is situated anywhere immediately on the circumference of the conqueror’s territory is termed the enemy….The king who is likewise situated close to the enemy, but separated from the conqueror only by the enemy, is termed the friend (of the conqueror).”

This of course, is part of the Mandala theory of relationship between nation-states. What should be the relationship with the neighbouring states? What are the options available to a ruler? In Book VII: The End of the Six-Fold policy” he states:

The “Circle of States” is the source of the six-fold policy….peace (sandhi), war (vigraha) observance of neutrality (ásana), marching (yána), alliance (samsraya), and making peace with one and waging war with another are the six forms of state-policy. …Of these, agreement with pledges is peace; offensive operation is war; indifference is neutrality; making preparations is marching; seeking the protection of another is alliance; and making peace with one and waging war with another, is termed a double policy (dvaidhíbháva). These are the six forms.

…..That position in which neither progress nor retrogression is seen is stagnation. …a king in the circle of sovereign state shall, by adopting the six-fold policy, endeavour to pass from the state of deterioration to that of stagnation and from the latter to that of progress.”

What of a neighbouring “enemy” of considerable power?

“A neighbouring foe of considerable power is styled an enemy; and when he…has taken himself to evil ways, he becomes assailable; and when he has little or no help, he becomes destructible; otherwise (i.e., when he is provided with some help), he deserves to be harassed or reduced..”

Interestingly, stagnation – that position in which neither progress nor retrogression is seen – may be a conscious choice for a limited purpose, in the short-term.

Thus, “Whoever thinks his stagnancy to be of a shorter duration and his prosperity in the long run to be greater than his enemy’s may neglect his temporary stagnation.” We will see why this is important in the present context.

When is peace desirable?

“…if a king thinks:–

That keeping the agreement of peace, I can undertake productive works of considerable importance….or apart from enjoying the results of my own works……or I can destroy the works of my enemy by employing spies and other secret means……if a king thinks thus, then he may increase his resources by keeping peace.”

What can one distill from this?

First, that invitation to neighbouring states (including Pakistan) is just an aspect of foreign policy, a tool of state-craft. Two, an invitation to a ceremony should not necessarily mean reconciliation. Nor shout it be construed as an overly eager act of friendship. Three, all options must always remain on the table & no single action (including peace talks) should preclude any other; there is no mutual exclusivity in the pursuit of national interest.

But most importantly, increased prosperity – even it if it is achieved at the cost of a temporary truce with an irreconcilable enemy – is in the national interest.

And therefore “Whoever (among the rulers) thinks his stagnancy to be of a shorter duration and his prosperity in the long run to be greater than his enemy’s may neglect his temporary stagnation…” Let’s look beyond this “temporary stagnation”. Let’s focus on a stronger, prosperous India!

जय हिंद, जय भारत!

Related Posts:  The “Raja-Mandala” approach to containing Pakistan