This is my first post in a series based on the Arthasastra, an ancient Indian treatise on statecraft, economic policy and military strategy. Attributed to Chanakya (c. 350–283 BC), a scholar at the Takshashila University, the work is described thoroughly Machiavellian despite predating Machiavelli by over 1700 years. Chanakya, a thorough pragmatist, has the safety, security and expansion of the state as his primary and perhaps, only concern. He does not back away or balk at using any measures, moral or immoral, legal or illegal to achieve this end. “Is there not one question that Kautilya found immoral, too terrible to ask in a book? No, not one. And this is what brings a frightful chill. But this is also why Kautilya was the first great, unrelenting political realist.” – Boesche.
I decided to start this series inspired by Chapter XIV – “Winning Over Factions For Or Against An Enemy's Cause In An Enemy's State” of Book I – “Concerning Discipline of the Arthasastra”. Although writing sequentially might be the logical modus operandi, I’ve decided to start with this chapter and then move onto the first one.
The chapter, in a nutshell, deals with the means to protect or persecute parties that support one’s cause in a foreign/enemy state. Chanakya deems it mandatory to be in possession and control of a network of spies inside an enemy state to further one’s own cause.
It is not practically possible or viable to have one’s own spies infiltrating enemy ranks on a large scale as any modern day spook would tell you. No amount of naturalisation can make one sound or appear native to an enemy state. As an alternative, Chanakya advises having a network of spies, so covert that even those that are part of the circle do not know about it! He wants to fulfil the interests of the state through agents who fervently believe they are working to further their own interests.
Chanakya lists the category of people who could be turned into an agent by an enemy state. Those that are provoked by the host state or the state employees, through harassment, denial of reward for labour, shorn of ranks, suffered long periods of imprisonment, those whose women have been insulted or violently assaulted, denied inheritance or have had their property confiscated, can easily be turned against the state or their employers through timely manipulation in the hands of spies of an enemy state.
Loyal citizens who have suffered unjustly, a rebel, a government official who has amassed unnaturally large amounts of wealth and fears retribution, and he who has earned the king’s contempt are considered to be alarmed citizens. Chanakya recommends that their alarm be inflated to paranoia and then turning such paranoid citizens into enemies of the state.
Men that are impoverished, men that covet wealth and would exploit all means to attain it are termed ambitious and the spies should offer them appropriate rewards in terms of power and position to appease their ambitions and win them over to the cause. At the same time, haughty men who have had their material appetites whetted but crave to quench their inflated egos, should be won over by exalting the discriminatory qualities of the enemy king in recognising their virtues.
Throughout the work, Chanakya makes discrimination between the tasks that spies with shaved hair (men) and those with braided hair (women) can do. Chanakya probably presents the first documented use of the femme fatale as an instrument of spy craft. Chanakya’s acumen for statesmanship is scorchingly visible in his ability to not only identify disinterested parties, but also classify them into groups such as the provoked, the alarmed, the ambitious and the haughty. He advises group-specific measures to win them over to one’s cause. There is clear recognition that a one size fits all approach will not work in statecraft.
To the provoked, he portrays their king as a mad elephant that would trample them to death and the only means of protection from it would be to set another elephant (the rival king) upon it. The alarmed citizens can be made paranoid by projecting a vision of their king as a hidden and equally paranoid snake that would spit its venom upon anything it perceives as a threat. While pandering to the ambitious and the haughty, Chanakya plays the “caste card”, very much reminiscent of a modern day Indian politician facing elections. The ambitious are to be won over by comparing their king to a cow that is reared by dog-keepers and hence meeting only their needs and ignoring those of the Brahmanas. The haughty are to be told that their king is as lowly as a well of water that caters to the Chandalas. This is done with the intention of soothing their hurt egos and promising them a better alternative. Chanakya stresses on the need to supplement the derogation of the host king with heaping praises on the foreign king to win them over to the cause of the state. However, the best is yet to come.
While deluding the citizens of the enemy state with promises of rewards, titles and a better rule, Chanakya lands his masterstroke towards the end of the chapter. He advises the spies to make a solemn deal (panakarmana) with the disaffected reiterating there that it is being done to enable the spies help them achieve their ends. But we as ardent readers are fully aware of Chanakya’s knack of tongue in cheek expressions and know that the ultimate objective is to benefit the state and not the parties who are being deluded into agreement. The Panakarmana is a kind of insurance to use the jargon of a whistleblower, for it is clearly implied that if the disaffected were to shift allegiances back to their host, their infidelity, however temporary will be brought to public attention. Chanakya uses this to ensure the continued support of the disaffected irrespective of whether their expectations and desires are met or not. A Machiavellian through and through!
As I said earlier, this post is my first and is out of sequence. I will be starting with the first chapter of Book I – “The Life of a King and End of Sciences” in the next blogpost. Thanks for your support. Cheers.
