tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31568019846143490082024-03-13T05:02:03.218-07:00Blogging The ArthashastraA project that follows my most recent re-reading of Chanakya's Arthashastra, which was written 300 years before Christ and forms the foundation of Indian political philosophy.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-38522398600931796412013-04-26T12:54:00.003-07:002013-04-26T12:54:40.872-07:00Beyond Sedition and Sleeper Cells: The Use of Unsatisfied Subjects in Enemy Lands (II)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
First of all, apologies for not posting for a whole year on this blog. I haven't given up on the project. I have been working on a new novel since 2009 and finally last year it acquired the necessary momentum to reach the end. The manuscript has now gone to my agent and I hope to post news about its publication soon. You will be happy to know that my readings of Chanakya inform the new novel too. But now, onwards....<br />
<br />
<b>Book 1, Chapter 13: </b><br />
<b><br /></b>
The final third of this very long chapter outlines the ways of using subjects of enemy lands for one's own strategic and tactical gains. In light of this month's Boston bombings, Chanakya's first suggestion is shockingly modern. He suggests using spies and operatives who are either religious leaders or disguised as such or part of such institutions that most closely match the beliefs and habits of these discontent citizens. The major difference for Chanakya, in this chapter, is that he is interested more in subverting prominent citizens who can cause significant strategic damage rather than tactical foot-soldiers who are discussed elsewhere.<br />
<br />
He refers back to the three categories of those who can be lured into treason and sedition as those who are angry with the state, those who are terrified due to their own misdemeanours against the state and those who are greedy. Again, this is a reminder from the last blogpost on this chapter of the fear/greed structure Chanakya sets up early in his text.<br />
<br />
He explains that those who are angry at their own government and king must be convinced that their state is not only brutal but also ready to trample their rights. To do this, secret operatives must convince them that the king is like a maddened elephant, ready to trample all those who come in his path. Moreover, the angry subjects should be convinced the king is surrounded by dishonest and immoral advisers (there are shades of US far right hysteria about President Obama here, first with health care reform, now with gun control attempts). Spies should convince these angry subjects that given the state's propensity to act immorally, the citizenry must organise and prepare for their own protection and strike against the state first.<br />
<br />
Officials and prominent citizens who are afraid of the king and state because of some misdemeanour or crime of their own, and terrified of the state's punishment must be approached by spies and convinced in a different manner. They must be convinced that an angry ruler is like an angry snake who will bite any who come in its path. (Aside: this chapter is far more replete with these animal analogies than any before). Instead they must be convinced to withdraw their support from the state and king and instead establish links with another ruler and state who may be of assistance.<br />
<br />
In case of greedy citizens (more on fear and greed as motivators in this <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/beyond-sedition-and-sleeper-cells-use.html">chapter is mentioned in this blogpost</a>), spies must lure them with flattery and promises of gain. And here comes another animal analogy: the spies must explain that just as <i>Shukari</i>, the mythic cow of the Chandalas (those who dispose of corpses, seen as unclean and of lower status) only provides milk for them and not for the Brahmins, the king only values and rewards those with lower status and ability. (NB: useful reminder of the <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/kings-education-importance-of-vedic.html">complex matrix of 'status' in ancient India rather than the simplistic term 'caste' as I have discussed before</a>). Instead the greedy must be lured by promises of rewards from other kings and states who are promised to be more discerning of these citizens' qualities.<br />
<br />
Once the spies have lured these three categories of discontented citizens of an enemy state, using the above motivations, the king should honour them and treat them with affection. The king may even lure them to his own kingdom and appoint them to high posts similar to the ones they held before. However, the king must not let down his guard with these citizens and instead assign watchers and spies to monitor them constantly.<br />
<br />
Chanakya ends the chapter with a rather neatly rounded concluding verse. He points out that the citizens of an enemy state who can be 'broken' by greed, fear or anger should be brought over with inducements of reward or fear of punishment to one's own side. He also reminds that those citizens of the enemy state who are upstanding and loyal to their own king and state and cannot be broken, must be destroyed by false smears and charges although ensuring that these can not be traced back to the king or his spies. He cautions again that the second category require a great deal of patience, again proving himself the proponent of the long game over immediate victories. His final injunction in this chapter is again extremely modern as he recommends that regardless of all the activities of the espionage services, a dedicated propaganda effort must be maintained to constantly critique, malign and smear the enemy state and its policies.<br />
<br />
This chapter like the rest of the section on espionage and propaganda is not only deeply pragmatic - as is characteristic of Chanakya's writings; he appears to be the world's first realist in many ways but is also ruthlessly focused on realpolitik. There is little space for ethical and moral considerations in Chanakya's view of statecraft, an aspect that has often discomfited his readers and contributed to his reputation for ruthlessness. In some ways, Chanakya's views on foreign policy seem more appropriate for a rising or strong empire, perhaps reflecting his own location as part of the Mauryan empire-builders. I am looking forward to seeing his discussions regarding states and kings who may be on the other side of the coin, as in weaker or poorer.<br />
<br />
The next chapter focuses on specifics of managing the king's ministerial cabinet. It is equal parts policy, realpolitik and some brilliant suggestions that would surely come in handy for modern rulers. I hope to upload my reading of it soon. Until then, thank you for reading.<br />
<br /></div>
Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-48317474230798420642012-04-09T05:15:00.001-07:002012-04-09T06:23:39.391-07:00Beyond Sedition and Sleeper Cells: The Use of Unsatisfied Subjects in Enemy Lands (I)<b>Book 1, Chapter 13</b><br />
<br />
This chapter continues from the one before. After considering the ways of shaping public opinion at home, Chanakya turns to the foreign affairs, and the ways of influencing citizens of an enemy state. The chapter seems to involve a mix of soft and hard power, with clear political aims and even more precise targeting of efforts. As this is a long chapter, I will blog it in sections, beginning with the categories of citizens of an enemy state that Chanakya identifies as targets for potential treason. <br />
<br />
This chapter begins with a long list of all sorts of people who can be turned against their own state and thus employed for purposes of foreign policy. Again, this is a very modern chapter, and begins with a long delineation of various categories of people who may be motivated by fear, greed, pride or a mix of the three. Many of the categories below will likely resonate with those following current international events and the narratives constructed around them, as well as those who are fond of realist school of political theory. Moreover, the practice of many of Chanakya's ideas is not unfamiliar to contemporary diplomatic and intelligence services. What makes the chapter intriguing is indeed its antiquity and strong realism focus. <br />
<br />
Chanakya begins with a list of those who may be persuaded or influence to treason (or rather as he puts it and far more delicately, to one's own ends). These include those: who have been defrauded by the state/king of promised moneys; artists and entrepreneurs offended by a perceived slight or preference for a competitor; those close to the ruler but insulted by being denied access to him; any people who have been oppressed or mistreated by the king; those who have paid the state for favours but been refused; and those insulted by the state or its elite. Chanakya continues the list, being even more specific and adds: those dismissed from high office; those whose wives have been abducted (shades of the Iliad here); those imprisoned or punished without cause; those who have been abduced themselves by the state; those forced to carry out unpleasant or unethical tasks by the state, and those whose families have been forced into exile. <br />
<br />
This list contains a few extremely modern characteristics. First, Chanakya also includes any individual who has been especially honoured or rewarded by the state/ruler, apparently as these may be greedy for further inducements. Secondly, Chanakya makes a clear case for religious freedoms and equality, pointing out that those who have been denied religious freedoms and rights are useful targets for enemy states. Here he gets even more specific, pointing also to those from minority religious groupings who may have faced discrimination based on stereotyping or misinformation. For those who believe that India's secularism is a new and postcolonial development, this clear articulation of the dangers of a state mistreating its religious minorities (or treating them as less than equal) should make for a salutory lesson from our antiquity! <br />
<br />
The next set of lists that Chanakya provides indicate the inducements each category of individual must be offered, relying primarily on fear and greed as motivation, albeit for not only material rewards. <br />
<br />
He explains that the following categories of individuals are most suited for being motivated by aspects of fear: those known for violence motivated by greed; those known for criminal activities including theft, prostitution and robbery; those afraid of being accessories to a crime; those who resort to land theft; and those of violent or unlawful natures but afraid of the consequences a life of crime may bring. Interestingly enough, Chanakya includes the following "white collar" criminals in this same category including: those who have close links with official departments; those who misuse their power to accumulate wealth (many of India's contemporary elite would count here); and those who suck up to the king's coterie in order to gain some reward. The final two categories included here are those that have been declared traitors by the state as well as traitors. Note the fine distinction here and specificity: Chanakya is aware that falsely labelling someone a traitor may serve to push them into real treason. <br />
<br />
The second set of individuals are motivated by greed including: those who have lost all wealth and status; cowards or those upset by danger; and those with addictions, including to substances or habits such as gambling. Always modern in his thinking, Chanakya also includes those with spendthrift financial habits. <br />
<br />
Chanakya also points to a related aspect, pointing to those who cannot tolerate any slight to their self-image. It is worth noting that Chanakya includes this within the categories motivated by greed and not fear, once again, demonstrating a surprisingly modern view of humans. He lists the following as motivated by their need to maintain their self-image: those who believe themselves successful leaders and policy makers; those who believe themselves to be exceedingly popular; those who are hungry for praise and adulation (celebrity culture anyone!); those who cannot bear a competitor being rewarded or recognised; those who are snubbed by their superiors but show excess generosity to their inferiors; those with volatile temperaments who take no advice and are easily agitated; those who can order the implementation of violent crimes; and finally those with unusually large appetites for life's luxuries. <br />
<br />
As one can see, the list above is quite comprehensive but also fits recognisable modern categories, aligning well with those who are often targeted by intelligence and diplomatic services of foreign and/or enemy nations. The most interesting aspect of this chapter, of course, as stated earlier is the articulation of fear, greed and pride as primary motivations (for those who remember their Hobbes, these are articulated as primary motivators by him as well). More importantly, the three factors are also part of the classical Athenian political thesis, and by no means unusual for the Chanakya's time and place. The crucial difference however is Chanakya realpolitik focus as opposed to political theory: he is only interested in this thesis as ground for preparing strategy and implementing specific tactics. <br />
<br />
The second part of the chapter provides a comprehensive plan of action for targetting each of the above listed categories with specific tactics. While I will deal with that section in greater detail in the next post, it is worth noting that the primary agency for implementing these tactics is the intelligence services Chanakya valued so highly. Again a lesson that many states that ignore or devalue their intelligence services may want to reconsider!Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-83641327937561443322012-01-20T05:04:00.000-08:002012-01-20T06:45:09.259-08:00Managing and Shaping Public Opinion<b>Book 1, Chapter 12</b><br />
<br />
After that long hiatus, back to this massive tome. No more excuses as the regular readers will already know that far too often my job, hectic life and other writing assignments get in the way of this blog. Still, I do offer my apologies for the delay. <br />
<br />
This chapter begins to exemplify Chanakya's reputation as a wily and ruthless political operator. He focusses on ways of gathering information on public discontent and dissent, prescribes ways of dealing with this, and ends with a crucial bit of warning for the ruler. <br />
<br />
He begins by explaining that having appointed an intelligence network to gather information on key officials, priests, advisors, a ruler should start a network of informers who can gather information on the public.<br />
<br />
The initial verses are quite specific, advising that the ruler assign two groups of spies to public areas. He includes religious sites and events, public meetings, political and religious events, entertainment areas as well as any place of significant public gathering and interaction. He recommends that the two groups of spies (more aptly agent provocateurs) mingle with the crowds and take opposing sides in opining about the ruler. One group of these agent provocateurs praises the king's policies and performance while the other critiques the ruler for harsh punishments - and wait for this terrifically modern gem - tax collection. <br />
<br />
Both sides ought to judge the responses of the crowd, noting their support or opposition to both views. Having established the views of the populace, the pro-ruler faction should attempt to convince the opposition of the ruler's justice. This wonderful moment of PR and spin in the ancient world is also intriguingly rich in details. Chanakya suggests that the pro-ruler side explain that the earlier times were marked by anarchy and rule of force, and the state/king were created by the gods to ensure peace, stability and the rule of law. <br />
<br />
For the same reason, and to facilitate the smooth functioning of the state, the ancient sages decreed that the state must receive one-sixth of agricultural produce and one-tenth of commercial profits and a small portion of gold from its citizens. Indeed as he points out that even the ascetics must contribute to the state, paying one-sixth of whatever they have collected in the forest or through alms to the state (this final point may be a useful reminder to all the various religion ashrams, churches and madrasas in India!). Even the saints, Chanakya points out, agree that the ruler who protects them is eligible for collecting taxes. <br />
<br />
Similarly, the pro-ruler faction of agent provocateurs must explain to the populace that harsh laws and punishments are not arbitrary or unjust, but rather a way of ensuring safety of the citizens' life, honour and property, as well as to discourage criminals. <br />
<br />
Here Chanakya takes a tangent into providing a reminder of a king's divine status, pointing out that a ruler (with an implicit assumption that he/she is a just one) is Indra's representative on earth and therefore critiquing him is akin to criticising the gods. Curiously, Chanakya does not provide an older theological or philosophical reference for this idea which makes me wonder if this isn't his own idea of spin. <br />
<br />
Moving on, he continues that while keeping the populace supportive of the ruler is part of the spies' duty, they must also assess and identify any discontent or dissent. <br />
<br />
He explains that there are citizens who aid the king with property, gold and monies, but also with their attempts to calm dissent. These citizens try to prevent revolt and nullify opposition to the king through not only their material resources but also by their active ability to persuade others. The king must keep an eye on such loyal citizens and reward them frequently with honours, money and other means. The king must also attempt to win back any citizen(s) who may be discontent with the king, using a host of means including persuasion and rewards.<br />
<br />
There will of course be a category of discontent citizens who cannot be won back by the king, despite his/her best efforts. Here Chanakya demonstrates his ruthless streak, advising that the ruler create confusion in their ranks, turning one against the other until any revolt is neutralised. The ruler may also accuse these dissenters of tax evasion or treason, thus spoiling their reputations as respected citizens. Finally, once the public opinion has turned against these citizens, the ruler ought to have them killed in ways that can be written off as accidents or suicides. Another way to deal with determined dissenters is to force them into exile as well as turn their friends, associates and relatives against them. <br />
<br />
Chanakya points out that it is common that prominent citizens who are afraid or angry with the ruler join the enemy, either internal or external. Such citizens are also quick to join conspiracies or plots against the state. One way of dealing with such citizens is for the king to appoint them to the court or palace posts, thus keeping them (and often their loved ones) in his/her control. Another possibility is that should they not agree to be part of the royal service, these prominent citizens may be held prisoners. Similarly, they may also be sent to far off mines or projects where they are not only at risk but also will lose contact with any and all collaborators. <br />
<br />
Chanakya repeats the need for a ruler to use both reward and punishment to motivate citizens (fear and greed principle at work in ancient times). He points out that rewards not only work as sweeteners for those who receive them but also are an inspiration to others. Again, he recommends the use of the four pillars of governance, <i>saam-daam-dand-bhed<a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-knowledge-what-king-must-learn.html"></a></i> principles for keeping the populace in his favour. <br />
<br />
The chapter ends with a warning to the ruler. Chanakya warns the ruler to remain alert towards the opinions of the populace, recommmending swift measure to neutralise any dissent. He points out that just as a rope woven of many fragments can be strong enough to restrain a maddened elephant, many weak and poor citizens joined together can be strong enough to bring down the ruler. <br />
<br />
This coded warning is intriguing in part as it suggests that Chanakya was well aware of the principles of "rule by consent" even in this period and aware that a popular rebellion could overturn the most entrenched royal rule. Once again, a most modern thinker indeed! <br />
<br />
The next chapter continues with the idea of managing dissent, in particular focussing on managing and neutralising those who are strongly opposed. Hope to continue posting on that soon.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-68181740506901918572011-06-23T10:59:00.000-07:002011-06-23T11:05:13.064-07:00Ancient Intelligence Apparatus: On Spycraft and Foreign Affairs<b>Book 1, Chapter 11</b><br />
<br />
This is the final post on this chapter and apologies that it has taken so long. Other writing, work and life intervened, as they often do. <br />
<br />
The final verses of this chapter deal specifically with the use of the state intelligence apparatus as an essential instrument of foreign policy. Once again, there are indications that either the verses have been modified either in their order of appearance or their context, or both over the intervening centuries. However the usual level of coherence which identifies Chanakya's political theories remains at the core. <br />
<br />
Chanakya appears to suggest that foreign spies would also follow the categories set for and maintained by domestic intelligence apparatus (explained earlier in three parts: in <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2011/01/structure-and-role-of-intelligence.html">general </a>and specifically <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2011/01/more-on-ancient-intelligence-apparatus.html">here</a> and <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-on-state-intelligence-apparatus.html">here</a>) , with some key differences. <br />
<br />
He recommends a sort of deep embedded sleeper cell system where spies are sent off to settle and become citizens of the target state. At the same time, he also ruthlessly recommends that such a spy's family and dear loved one be maintained at home and their care be in charge of the state. This very modern use of inducement (state cares for family) with threat (state retains control of the safety of the same) is typically Chanakya. Although harder to practice in the modern day scenario by most democratic states, this is still used widely by authoritarian nation-states.<br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, Chanakya also points out that some of these spies can - and even ought to - receive wages from both their own state and the one where they are deployed. This suggests both an early idea of "double agent" although the text also suggests that this - in some cases at least - be a necessary corollary of the spy finding employment in a sensitive area, office or industry of the target nation. The need to maintain long term "hostages" to ensure loyalty and productivity thus becomes even more crucial on a tactical level. <br />
<br />
More interesting from a contemporary viewpoint is Chanakya's injunction that foreign intelligence apparatus be extended to both friendly, unfriendly and even indifferent foreign kingdoms and states. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, ever the strategician, Chanakya also points out that the state must also maintain a close watch on the foreign spies other nations will have deployed at home. This cloak-and-dagger chapter becomes very modern as he points to not only a counter-intelligence organisation geared to monitoring foreign spies on domestic soil but also indicates how these foreign spies may be utilised as aspects of state policy. <br />
<br />
Interestingly, he points to the utilisation of these foreign spies fors not only feeding information and disinformation, but also for testing the loyalty and efficacy of one's own spies based abroad. <br />
<br />
In addition to spying on the king, Chanakya is clear that the spies deployed abroad must also gather information on and penetrate into the inner circles of the government and social elite of foreign nations. <br />
<br />
As in the earlier sections of the two chapters, he points to the use of craftsmen, tradesmen, the physically challenged, women and others as personnel for this foreign spy network. But most intriguing - and very practical - in this verse is Chanakya's inclusion of the "<i>melechchha</i>" who may also be recruited for foreign espionage.<br />
<br />
NOTE: This is interesting given Chanakya's historical location, having lived through the Greek invasion of 326 B.C. but also because it suggests a pragmatic cultural stance towards the social outsiders. A key point ought to be noted: <i>melechchha</i> is often translated as "non-caste" or "untouchable" but a more apt translation would be "unclean." Classical Indic traditions do not differentiate between sacred/profane or us/them but rather between clean and unclean. Any person not of the society by <i>jati, varna</i> and/or <i>gotra</i> would be considered unclean. However, at the same time, the potential for change is also embedded within the concept: so a <i>melechchha</i> may become "clean" and thus part of society. Records of intermarriage with the Greeks - considered by Indic traditions as <i>melechchha</i> - are examples of this social fluidity. <br />
<br />
The final verses of the chapter are rather prosaic as the texts explicitly lists the potential categories and places of deployment for spies:<br />
<br />
1. Spies can be introduced within fort walls as traders and businessmen, <br />
<br />
2. Used at the outskirts of towns and beyond fort walls in guise of ascetics and religious<br />
teachers <br />
<br />
3. Forests ought to be monitored by spies in guise of forest dwellers, although here again<br />
Chanakya shows his basic inclusivity by pointing out that forest-dwellers should also be <br />
inducted into the intelligence apparatus as serving personnel (Btw, this reminds me of how<br />
the initial Kargil alert was apparently sounded by shepherds along the high ranges). <br />
<br />
4. Border spies must be posted and closely monitored for their ability to resist lures of fame,<br />
money, honours or women (Chanakya was very aware of "honey traps" as part of tradecraft, as<br />
is obvious by his use of <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2011/04/more-on-state-intelligence-apparatus.html">women for espionage</a>) <br />
<br />
A final note must be made before ending: Chanakya also suggests monitoring cultivating relatives of the king and/or other targets, suggesting that these may serve as a weak point, either through their ability to betray the target, being trapped by a clever plot or arrested and held hostage by an enemy state. <br />
<br />
This weak point is also to be monitored amongst the spies, with only those capable of withstanding these promoted and maintained to highest levels of confidentiality. <br />
<br />
Having dealt extensively with the setting up and organisation of the state intelligence apparatus, Chanakya next moves onto the way these may be used. The next chapter considers both the use of spies for internal and external monitoring and information gathering, as well as for influencing public opinions and moods. I shall try to tackle that as soon as possible. <br />
<br />
In the meantime, thanks for reading.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-42541352380921754772011-04-08T08:52:00.000-07:002011-04-08T08:52:56.852-07:00More on the State Intelligence Apparatus: Field Operatives and Women Spies!<b>Book 1, Chapter 11</b><br />
<br />
This is the third and penultimate post of Chanakya's comprehensive discussion of the classical state intelligence structure. Having detailed the role of long-term established spies, Chanakya moves on to the field operatives or itinerant ones. <br />
<br />
These are divided into four categories and are distinguished from the earlier five by their ability to move and short-term deployment. The four categories reference the original four <i>purusharthas</i>, by absence or presence or subversion of these ideals.<br />
<br />
The first category includes a host of professions which are marked by their ability to move around as well as extensive contact with people. Professions suggested by Chanakya include: astrologers, medical practitioners, travelling veterinary and animal specialists, hypnotists (could they be equivalents of counselors or psychologists?), those able to identify birds by their sounds as well as have knowledge of their care (an early indication of the importance of birds in daily life and social status or perhaps something more magical?), magicians, entertainers, prostitutes, as well as artists (specifically dancers and musicians). Here, Chanakya also lists priests - as opposed to ascetics - with knowledge of rites and rituals.<br />
<br />
This category seems to be motivated by a whole range of impulses, unlike the other three which have very clearly specified motivations. However I consider this category to be linked to the <i>artha</i> aspect of the <i>purusharthas</i> as it covers a wide range of material aspects, including wealth, fame, status etc. <br />
<br />
Chanakya suggests that this first group of spies be categorised based on their abilities, knowledge, reputation, social status as well as talents. Based on this categorisation, these spies are then assigned to monitor cabinet members, army generals, aristocrats as well as other key officials and administrators. <br />
<br />
The second category of spies is more specifically linked to <i>artha</i> as these are people eager to gather wealth without care for physical dangers. Specifically, Chanakya states these are people who would face down elephants, tigers and venomous snakes in order to gain material success. These spies ought to be placed in employments close to the target, including palanquin-bearers, grooms for chariots and horses, umbrella carriers, fan-bearers and any other professions requiring close physical proximity to the target of espionage.<br />
<br />
The third category seems linked more closely to <i>kama</i> within the categorisation of the <i>purusharthas</i>, and is notable for the reversal of what may be considered aesthetic desires as well as a simultaneous facilitation of the same. Chanakya states that this category employs those with cruel, lazy, selfish and uncaring individuals, who may also be capable of subtle murder (he specifically mentions poisoning). Not surprisingly, this category includes cooks and chefs, masseurs, barbers, beauticians, and others providing domestic and personal services. <br />
<br />
Here Chanakya inserts another sub-category, again highlighting his pragmatic inclusivity but also a rather coldly calculating view of statecraft. He suggests that in addition to these spies, the intelligence apparatus also include mentally and physically challenged beggars and poor, street singers, gypsies and other outcasts who may evoke pity from the elite. He recommends that these people be placed in the vicinity of the palace and if necessary gain occasional admittance to them. Furthermore, Chanakya also recommends these pity-raising disguises for other professional spies as a way of accessing information. <br />
<br />
The fourth category is the most interesting as it is mostly linked to <i>dharma</i> although also bears elements of <i>artha </i>and <i>kama </i>and entirely composed of women. Chanakya recommends widows and impoverished single women who may be able to disguise themselves as beggars or itinerant nuns. He recommends that these women be drawn from educated backgrounds, not for reasons of class but for their abilities of easy social interaction that can help them access homes and wives of the elite. He further suggests that these women be able to pass themselves off in various disguises and thus access the different layers of society. <br />
<br />
He recommends that the women spy gain access to queens, female members of the family as well as domestic servants, and cultivate their friendships in order to gather information. She should also make use of the other three categories who ought to report to her. <br />
<br />
Most interesting aspect of this fourth category is Chanakya's express injunction that the other three categories must rely on the woman spy to communicate their information. Indeed he insists that this fourth category be the sole link between the headquarters or local centre of the established spies and the itinerant ones. This injunction comes at the end of a clear heirarchy of reporting that Chanakya sets up, with various lower level spies communicating their information solely to the rung above but no further. <br />
<br />
He also explains various tactics spies could utilise to communicate between those within and without the palace walls, including feigning illness and passing off other spies as family members. Amusingly enough, he suggests the use of songs, poems and prayers in order to encode information. In a desperate, urgent situation, Chanakya suggests that a spy within a fort or palace may feign contagious illness or poison guards or even carry out arson in order to create the opportunity to communicate with his/her handler. <br />
<br />
A final point must be mentioned: Chanakya insists that the spies not know each other for a particularly reasonable tactical purpose. Lack of knowledge of each other ensures that information reaching the handler is not doctored or agreed upon. Should the information from the three categories of spies reaching the woman-handler differ, Chanakya suggests investigating the matter further. Here he does not stop at investigating the information but also the trustworthiness of the source. He recommends that an untrustworthy spy be eliminated quietly from the ranks. <br />
<br />
The final verses of this chapter deal with the use of espionage for gathering foreign intelligence. The next post - hopefully in the next few days - shall deal with that aspect.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-55270042612938420812011-01-27T03:52:00.000-08:002011-01-27T03:52:56.056-08:00More On An Ancient Intelligence Apparatus<b>Book 1, Chapter 10</b><br />
<br />
Before launching into this chapter, I would like to thank all those who read and comment on this blog, as well as those who email their thoughts and reactions to me. <br />
<br />
Also, a clarification: this blog is not a translation; nor is it in any way meant to be an “authoritative” study or analysis of Chanakya’s text. I am using various translations and versions to do one simple thing: record my personal responses to this seminal political text. In the process, I hope that more people are made aware of the incredible worth and value of this book. <br />
<br />
Far too often, in contemporary India, we treat our classical texts either with a Macauley-ist disdain or with unwarranted reverence. The unfortunate result of both these responses is that many of us no longer have access to these incredible documents of our ancient culture. This blog attempts to do something very personal: demystify and thus decolonise ancient political thought through an individual reading and thus bring it to more modern readers. <br />
<br />
And so, onwards: <br />
<br />
The first of two chapters on establishing an intelligence system explains the five kinds of spies who occupy relatively stationary, long term posts and are primarily used for gathering internal intelligence. <br />
<br />
The fascinating point that Chanakya emphasises repeatedly is that the contact of government officials with spies must be limited as much as possible. Only the ruler or a very small number of trusted advisors should have contact with the spies, and must do so in complete secrecy. This is especially important as Chanakya suggests the use of spies for purposes of not only gathering information but also as an aspect of statecraft which may be deployed to entrap opposition, convince populace of specific aims and ideas, as well as use them as <i>agent provocateurs</i> to create controlled disturbances which may be of benefit to the state. <br />
<br />
What is also intriguing in this chapter is Chanakya’s very modern use of the varieties of potential spies. The five explicit categories include students and/or intellectuals, unsuccessful businessmen, farmers, ascetics (or at least spies disguised as these), and women. <br />
<br />
The first of these categories, according to Chanakya, include students. These, in addition to their intellectual capacities, should be bold even brash, argumentative and capable of eliciting information from others. These may include students or those involved in research, teaching, intellectual activity at a university or institute of higher learning. <br />
<br />
Chanakya suggests that such students be recruited directly by the chief of intelligence services and only report to the chief and the ruler. Moreover, these spies ought to be regularly rewarded in cash and in honours. This seems very modern of Chanakya and throws open an entire possibility of ancient scholars not only working at universities but also benefitting from intelligence sharing, a practice quite prevalent in many western nations. Indian intelligence establishment could benefit from a revival of this ancient practice! <br />
<br />
Interestingly, these students are intended to report on discontent and conspiracies developing amongst the youth. It seems that regardless of Europe’s <i>soixante huitards</i>, political analysts have long viewed students with suspicion, most likely with probably cause. <br />
<br />
I must confess that suddenly the ancient Nalanda university gains a political science dimension that I had not considered before. Of course, given Chanakya’s own apparent link with the university at Takshashila, this comes as no surprise. <br />
<br />
The second category of the five extends the intelligence apparatus to ascetics, especially those renowned for their intelligence and knowledge. Most curious, however, is Chanakya’s role for these. He recommends that such an ascetic be aided by the state in setting up a network of other ascetics who report on matters across the land. In return, these informants are paid in cash and material comforts. Indeed, the chief ascetic of the operation ought to have access not only to funds but also know-how in areas of animal husbandry, farming and small business, especially through the use of earlier mentioned student spies. <br />
<br />
This is fascinating not only for the use of ascetics and religious figures for purposes of the state, but also for its absolutely pragmatic view that these may serve as apt conduits of information. <br />
<br />
A secondary aspect that is quite impressive is the cohesion of network that emerges – despite the textual disruptions – in the organisation. University students provide the know-how in their fields to ascetics, just as other farmers, traders and craftsmen benefit from the information. What emerges in this description is a seamless understanding of how various aspects of the society may be linked and interconnected for purposes of gathering information. <br />
<br />
The third category – and a logical one for an ancient agrarian society – includes spies who are drawn from ranks of impoverished farmers or disguise themselves as such. These farmer-spies are again paid by the state and expected to report on the loyalties and discontents of the farming communities. In addition, the farmer-spy is expected to create a network of informants drawn not only from amongst the farmers (and thus, presumedly, landowners) but also amongst the farm labourers. <br />
<br />
The fourth category links up to the farmers, as it draws on the traders and business communities. Here, Chanakya again suggests recruiting an impoverished or unsuccessful trader and/or businessman. These spies are not only expected to recruit a network of business informants but also use their travels for business to gather intelligence on other entrepreneurs, market conditions and discontents. <br />
<br />
The final category links back to the role of ascetics and are concerned with religious leaders who live in ashrams. However, here the instructions are far more specific: these religious leaders are expected to establish a peaceful and attractive ashram near major urban centres. <br />
<br />
Initially, they should at least provide the impression of austerity. This practice of visible austerity is meant not for any spiritual purpose but rather to impress the local populace and diminish the respect they have for any other local ashram or teacher. <br />
<br />
Interestingly enough, the ashram should make use of other spies to not only discover secrets of the populace but also the weakness of other religious institutions and leaders. These secrets can then be utilised for fortune-telling, counselling and persuasion (sounds like blackmail, but if it works…). The guru ought to also conspire with the state in order to predict accidents and calamities which can then be ‘proven’ by action on part of the state. From some of the commentaries on the text, these predicted acts seem to include acts of arson, poisoning and mysterious deaths which are obviously assassinations carried out by the state. <br />
<br />
Within the text itself, the examples of ‘fortune-telling’ include predicting government honours and rewards for specific citizens which have been agreed upon earlier with the state. This may appear devious but logical if convoluted pragmatism embodied by the text. <br />
<br />
Indeed the pragmatism of the text extends to the final verses of this chapter which explain the suggested course of action based on the internal intelligence provided by this spy network. <br />
<br />
Chanakya suggests that should intelligence reveal that a citizen or organisation has been upset unintentionally by the ruler or the state, there must be an honest attempt made to address these complaints and bring the discontent elements back into the fold. The state may use rewards, economic reparations, or honours to allay a justifiable grievance. <br />
<br />
However, in case of those who are discontent without justifiable reason, or cannot be persuaded otherwise, the state must use the intelligence apparatus to dispatch them. For this brutal if expedient remedy, the text suggests using accidents, apparently criminal assault or a confrontation between two opposing groups which may serve as cover for the assassination. (More on the art of assassination later as Chanakya goes into vast detail further on). <br />
<br />
Before ending the chapter, Chanakya points out that a ruler ought to learn from the spies about those who are trustworthy and reward them appropriately. In contrast, the disloyal ought to be removed with as little fuss as possible as the ruler should not waste resources on them, and instead should focus on matter of the state and welfare of the people. <br />
<br />
The next chapter deals with the second category of itinerant spies, with four specific classifications. Hope to get to that soon.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-66231401670783930722011-01-03T10:16:00.000-08:002011-01-03T10:16:11.679-08:00Structure and Role of the Intelligence Apparatus in Statecraft: Part 1Chapter 10 and 11 of Book 1 comprise some of my favourites. However, they are very detailed and so require a short over view, especially as they cover so much ground that a straight reading and translation of the verses is not sufficient for understanding. <br />
<br />
Both chapters cover the kinds of spies, their recruitment, roles, rewards, as well as structures of a king's espionage apparatus. Unfortunately either through time or due to loss of text, the sequence of discussion is particularly non-linear and therefore slightly confusing. But this may also be attributed to Chanakya's knowledge of certain activities and philosophies that he takes for granted and thus does not necessarily explain. <br />
<br />
Chanakya begins by classifying nine different kinds of spies, each with a particular role and status. However, he also explains the structure of a state's intelligence apparatus, which he divides into two specific categories. <br />
<br />
The first category is made up for five different kinds of spies that Chanakya describes as a king's five eyes. Interestingly enough, these first five are primarily deployed for internal intelligence and are meant to monitor the cabinet, influential persons of the realm as well as the general tendencies and levels of discontent in the populace. These first five are also distinguished by their primarily stationary deployment; that is, they are deployed for collecting intelligence in long-term, sometimes sleeper, capacities and are meant to report back to the king from their posts. <br />
<br />
The second category, made up of four kinds of spies, are those who are deployed for short terms and in transitory capacity. These four kinds travel, move around, and may even be deployed in realms beyond their own. <br />
<br />
Chanakya differentiates these two kinds of espionage by describing the first as "<i>sanstha</i>" and the second as "<i>sanchaar</i>." This may be considered an early form of dividing intelligence operators into headquarters vs field operatives, although Chanakya is quite clear that even the stationary, long term spies must have only limited knowledge of other parts of the intelligence apparatus. This, in many ways, is a function more of size than modernity, as maintaining a small core of intelligence analysts who could make sense of the information sent back is only possible when a small amount of data is generated. <br />
<br />
However, Chanakya is quite modern on another aspect: he is quite emphatic about limiting the ways in which information is transmitted, as well as, on the paramount importance of maintaining minimum contact between different levels of espionage hierarchy. In practical terms, this means that the stationary spies communicate with only the layer above them and do not know of the various other members of the apparatus. Similarly, the high status spies - business leaders, aristocrats or intellectual - only communicate with the head of intelligence or directly with the king. <br />
<br />
Moreover, Chanakya suggests that all kinds of people, including students, teachers, ascetics, entertainers, jugglers, beggars, traders, farmers, and so on can be recruited to serve as spies with different roles, inducements and rewards. Here it must be noted that Chanakya also makes a clear case for not only recruiting members of all classes and "castes" but also insists that spies be able to take on the necessary markers of other classes and "castes" as required (a prescient take on Rudyard Kipling's fantastic <i><a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kim-Wordsworth-Classics-Rudyard-Kipling/dp/1853260991/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1294078378&sr=8-2">Kim</a></i> here). <br />
<br />
He is also surprisingly inclusive regarding the use of mentally and physically disabled people for gathering intelligence, acknowledging in a deeply practical manner, that many of these are least likely to be suspected. This also echoes Chanakya's organisation of the king's internal circles of protection which also include the physically and mentally challenged. In this second case, Chanakya is even more brutal in his reasoning, pointing out that gratitude may make such defenders more fierce in their loyalty to the king and thus better equipped than the able-bodied warriors. <br />
<br />
One final point in this overview of the intelligence structure explained by Chanakya must be made as it again contradicts the simplistic notions that women were necessarily isolated or indeed marginalised in classical Indian society. Not only does Chanakya list women in the listing of nine kinds of spies, he also gives them an interesting and key mandate. <br />
<br />
According to Chanakya, women spies must be the only conduit of information between the stationary and roaming branches of espionage, thus forming the sole crucial link between the two branches of intelligence gathering. Furthermore, in case of the "<i>sanchaari</i>" (roaming) spies, he insists that women spies have the responsibility of transmitting and/or transferring the gathered information to the king. In fact, Chanakya spends a fair amount of time explaining all the tactics by which the female spy can be contacted and given information by the other members of the espionage team. <br />
<br />
This final point regarding the use of female spies flies in the face of modern (and primarily Western inspired) structures of intelligence agencies which use women for honey traps but have rarely given them executive power (the former MI5 chief is one exception). However, it echoes the view that informs the Russian security policy of "shoot the women first" in counter-insurgency operations. Chanakya makes the point elsewhere in the text which is shared at least in part by the modern Russian state that women warriors (and obviously spies) are more loyal and committed to the cause.<br />
<br />
While I will take up the specifics of Chanakya's view on the intelligence apparatus in the next couple of posts, I believe that the most salient point raised by these chapters, is the inclusivity shown by the text which contradicts some of the post-imperialist ideas of ancient Indian history, developed over the past 200 years.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-44434288977808853442010-12-16T13:49:00.000-08:002010-12-16T14:04:54.627-08:00Vetting the Cabinet: Ancient Techniques for a Modern Necessity<b>Book 1, Chapter 9 continued...</b><br />
<br />
Quick recap of the four techniques that Chanakya provides for vetting members of a king's cabinet: <br />
<br />
1. Test on grounds of virtue or righteousness or the test of <i>dharma</i>,<br />
2. Test on grounds of greed or the test of <i>artha</i>,<br />
3. Test based on physical lust or pleasure, or the test of <i>kama</i>,<br />
4. Test based on fear, or the test by <i>bhaya</i>. <br />
<br />
Once again, Chanakya reverts to his four <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-knowledge-what-king-must-learn.html">key pillars of governance</a>: wisdom, wealth, punishment and secrecy. It is also useful to link back these four tests to the four <i>purusharthas</i> discussed <a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2010_03_14_archive.html">earlier</a> in this blog, with the final test - of fear - linking to the most intrinsic yet subtle motivations for human life (<i>moksha</i>). This fourth - link between <i>bhaya </i>and <i>moksha</i> - is the most interesting philosophical leaps in Chanakya's work moving from political philosophy to issues of cultural ideals; I hope to develop further in the reading.<br />
<br />
In the second part of this current chapter, Chanakya explains the appointments that ought to follow successes in each of these tests. Once again, this suggests that a king may vet cabinet members for their strengths and weakness on all or any of these grounds. More interesting is the assumption that failure on one of the tests does not necessarily bar a person from occupying a government post, but rather is used as a guide to the most appropriate government portfolios. <br />
<br />
According to Chanakya, here are the appointments based on successes of each of the four varieties of tests: <br />
<br />
1. Those who successfully pass the test of <i>dharma</i> ought to be appointed to positions dealing with law enforcement, including the judiciary. In fact, these candidates are best suited, according to the philosopher, for duties that require ethical rigour but also potentially very difficult decisions of violent punishments.<br />
<br />
2. Those who successfully pass the test of <i>artha</i> are to be appointed to fiscal positions, in charge of treasury, tax collection, revenue generation and other functions in the state's management of finances. <br />
<br />
3. Those who successfully pass the test of <i>kama</i> are to be appointed to oversee functioning of businesses and enterprises linked to luxury, including pleasure houses, courtesans, gambling, liquor production, and management of controlled substances in the state. In addition, these candidates are also best suited to manage the king's own living and working quarters. <br />
<br />
An aside: I find this the most fascinating aspect of Chanakya's treatise: he views unsavoury activities as not to be banned but to be regulated by the state and thus made to contribute to the treasury. I find the innate practicality of this stance far more to my tastes than the Abrahamic texts informed and morality based laws that most states (especially western democracies and modern India) attempt to implement.<br />
<br />
4. Those who pass the test of <i>bhaya</i> must be appointed to defence, protection and security areas of the goverment. <br />
<br />
Chanakya recommends that those who pass all four tests should be granted ministerial or senior positions within the king's cabinet. <br />
<br />
However, in a display of ruthless realpolitik, he points out that those who fail these tests are not necessarily to be discarded. Instead, he recommends that those fail the four tests ought to be appointed to manage far flung enterprises including forestry and mining, both areas that are labour intensive as well as removed from the court and capital. In context of Chanakya's later discussion of political assasssinations, this also suggests that the king may decided to get rid of such disloyal advisors in a politically expedient way without giving rise to criticism or controversy. <br />
<br />
Once again, Chanakya refers to earlier theorists and points out that the king must also take into account the abilities and talents of those who have passed the tests and appoint them accordingly to appropriate posts. So simply passing a temperament test ought not to be the sole criterion for appointment! <br />
<br />
Moreover, Chanakya also calls on earlier theorists (once again indicating that much of earlier political thought is now lost to us) to emphasise a key point: at no point in the tests should the king allow himself or the consort to be used in any way. This distance ensures that no ill-feeling is attached to the king and an impression of equality is maintained in the court. <br />
<br />
He provides a further warning to the king in carrying out the four tests, advising that these be done with a maximum level of discretion. Using the metaphor of poison dissolved in water, he points out that sometimes, the mere accusation of misbehaviour or disloyalty may prompt a person to behave in that manner. <br />
<br />
To ensure that such a person can be contained and brought back into the fold, the king must retain a distance from those conducting the test. While the secret service of the state may be used, it is necessary that the royal house remain above the practical machinations of governance, if not in practice then in image. <br />
<br />
This chapter begins to address one of the key points of Chanakya's statecraft teachings: that of the use of secret service and spies. As mentioned earlier, secrecy is one of the four key pillars for his statecraft policy. However, unlike many later (and Western) political thinkers, Chanakya is quite clear about the ways in which spies may be used for internal and external policy making and implementation. <br />
<br />
The next chapter begins to enter into details of formation of secret service and appointment of spies.<br />
<br />
Till very soon...Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-48995254009370741162010-11-08T14:40:00.000-08:002010-11-08T14:45:14.919-08:00Vetting the King's Cabinet: Ancient Techniques for a Modern NecessityFirst of all, apologies for the long silence since my last post. Unfortunately bureaucratic matters have taken up a lot of the past couple of months. However, onwards...<br />
<br />
<b>Book 1, Chapter 9: </b><br />
<br />
Quite contrary to the modern practise of vetting cabinet appointments and advisors <i>before</i> their appointment, this chapter suggests secret ways of testing the loyalty of key appointments <i>after </i>they have taken up their posts. However, unlike the current practice, the vetting is meant to not check up on potential, background or indeed character traits but rather ensure loyalty and appropriate behaviour once the advisors have taken up their positions. For this, Chanakya suggests three key ways of testing loyalties and behaviour of cabinet members. Moreover, he provides specific instructions for each of these. <br />
<br />
Before describing each of the tests, it is necessary to note that the motivations and ideas for these are guided once again by the crucial principle of the "<a href="http://bloggingthearthashastra.blogspot.com/2010/03/guidance-for-kings-behaviour-getting-to.html">purusharthas</a>." <br />
<br />
The first of these is under a very curious definition of "the virtuous solution" or the "test of virtue" or "<i>Dharma</i>" Chanakya suggests that the king reach a secret agreement with the royal priest and find a false pretext for dismissing him/her from the post, thus freeing the priest to appear as the injured party and carry out a secret task. <br />
<br />
In turn, the priest then approaches any suspicious advisor, or indeed all advisors in turn, to declare the king as lacking in virtue and incapable of governance. The priest also suggests that the king ought to be replaced by a better person, determined by all the advisors. The priest must also misinform the advisors that he has spoken to the rest of the cabinet who are in agreement with such a seditous plan. <br />
<br />
Here it is crucial to note that kingship was not necessarily determined solely by lineage in classical India. A system of limited democracy seems to have prevailed amongst the elite members of the court. In other parts of the region, a rudimentary form of democracy allowed the people to choose and/or dethrone the ruler. This early system survived at least in some of the Rajputana till the medieval era, with documents from the Sisodia court at Chittorgarh suggesting that the nobles played a crucial part in the ascension of a king.<br />
<br />
Chanakya continues with his "test of virtue" by explaining that once a traitor is identified, mostly by his/her gullibility and agreement to the plan proposed by the royal priest, the king should soon after ensnare that advisor in some scandal and relieve him of his post. <br />
<br />
Here it is crucial to note that, in the whole process, the advisor is never confronted openly, nor is there any suggestion of a public trial. Instead, the advisor is simply dispatched, gently and on other pretexts. This route does allow the king a lot of discretion in not only removing an advisor from the cabinet but also re-instating them to an equal or higher post should the circumstances change. <br />
<br />
The second test is the "test of greed" (or <i>Artha</i>). For this test, the king uses his military chief for a similar purpose, first dismissing him and then allowing him to incite other cabinet members to rebellion. The difference here is the motivation: unlike the priest who uses persuasion and accusations of a lack of virtue against the king, the military chief is granted state funds to lure any treacherous advisors. The military chief uses the spy services to contact the cabinet members, offering them lucre in exchange for their support. The traitors are again dismissed from their posts on false charges. <br />
<br />
The third test is the "test of lust" (or <i>Kama</i>). For this test, the king makes use of a female ascestic who is closely linked with the royal family and the court. Indeed, in context of Chanakya's civil code which suggests an ease of divorces, prevalence of remarriages, as well as no particular disfavour attached to widowhood, this may suggest a possible area where middle-aged or older single women - widowed or divorced - were politically active. <br />
<br />
The ascetic establishes contact with the advisors, and sets up a honey trap. She lures the advisor with sexual intimacy, but then offers potential for money, progress, status as rewards for the advisor revolting against the king. <br />
<br />
The fourth technique is a "test of fear." For this, the king uses one advisor who organises a boat trip, hunting trip or some other entertainment. The king not only prohibits the entertainment but also insults the organiser publicly. After this, the kings' spies approach the disappointed and annoyed advisors in guise of young students who wish for an uprising against an unjust king. <br />
<br />
In this final option, the use of students or "brahmacharis" or those who have not yet come of age is of particular interest. I have found no other explanation in other texts, but the verse itself suggests that this last technique may work best for the younger advisors who are likely to be angered or disappointed easily. <br />
<br />
In the remaining verses, Chanakya specifies the kinds of tasks that should be granted to the advisors who pass each test. The phrasing of these verses suggests that the advisors may be re-instated in specific positions should they fail one test but succeed in another. One risk, to me at least, of this technique is that the king may spend his first months or year in office with constant cabinet reshuffles. But, perhaps, this is a less risky option than having poor or disloyal advisors occupying the wrong office. <br />
<br />
I hope to post the second half of the chapter later in the week. Till then, keep well.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-15803577507036066042010-08-24T00:56:00.000-07:002010-08-24T00:56:52.589-07:00Key principles of Other Cabinet Appointments<b>Book 1, Chapter 8 (cont’d):</b><br />
<br />
After exhaustively listing all the necessary qualities and qualifications for the prime minister, Chanakya uses the rest of this chapter for discussing other cabinet appointments as well as the selection of the royal priest. <br />
<br />
Oddly enough, after the exhaustive list provided in the first verse regarding the prime minister’s post, the rest of the chapter seems rather perfunctory. It appears that Chanakya assumes that the king will apply the basics as pointed out earlier to the rest of his/her cabinet. <br />
<br />
However, he does emphasise that the king must investigate the background, attitudes, loyalties and abilities of those he plans on appointing to cabinet posts. This verse seems to posit the necessity of “background checks” for all cabinet ministers, as the candidate’s aptness for the post must be confirmed by speaking with neighbours, colleagues, friends, and others in his private and professional circles.<br />
<br />
More importantly, this background check is not only intended for politically expedient motives of confirming loyalties or ideological views. Instead, the check should be to confirm the candidate’s knowledge and abilities as well as his/her ways of thinking and acting. Indeed, here Chanakya suggests that debating competitions, professional tests and social gatherings ought to be used to test a candidate’s self-confidence, problem-solving style and aptitude, as well as their personal characteristics of patience, determination and leadership qualities. <br />
<br />
A final point: Chanakya suggests that the king meet the candidate personally to determine their ability to not only be “sweet-spoken” but also to check for the capacity for vengefulness. I suppose after the gruelling tests the candidate would have been subjected to by this point, testing for vengefulness is a good idea! <br />
<br />
I am beginning to wonder whether Chanakya had developed an HR competencies form and interview process? If so, it would possibly be the earliest and most comprehensive one in existence. <br />
<br />
There is a quick digressive verse at this point in the chapter where Chanakya points out that the king has three bases for decision-making: first hand data gathered by personally witnessing an act; second hand information brought to the ruler by others; and finally, the experience gained by successfully completing a task which then provides experiential basis for any future tasks of a similar nature. <br />
<br />
This difference is necessary for a ruler to keep in mind as no one human being is capable of carrying out all the tasks necessary for successfully running a kingdom. The king must successfully delegate administrative responsibilities or suffer two major adverse consequences: become overburdened by duties, and lose confidence of the cabinet who begin to believe that they are untrustworthy. For these reasons, stead, a king must know how to appoint the best cabinet possible to carry out the necessary duties. <br />
<br />
Not surprisingly, as a final point, Chanakya points out a rather selfish advantage of appointing a good cabinet: the unpopular decisions are seen as being taken by the minister rather than the king, thus sparing him from popular anger. <br />
<br />
Hmmmm... I am beginning to see that the Con-Lib coalition is making full use of this idea. In fact, I would highly recommend that Nick Clegg read Chanakya, if only to learn how to survive the Cameron-realpolitik.<br />
<br />
The final verse in this chapter addresses the issue of appointing the royal priest. Here the interesting point is not only that the list of qualities required contains the usual knowledge of the four Vedas and astrology, as well as meditative abilities, but that the royal priest must also be fully knowledgeable in political sciences (Chanakya uses the term “dand-niti” or the term for political theory and practice here). <br />
<br />
Of course, in addition to the personal qualities, the royal priest must also be “high born” suggesting that family lineage of the priest may provide political advantage to the king. Perhaps, here Chanakya is aware of his own times when Chandragupta Maurya lacked the family connections that may have provided political leverage in his newly acquired empire? Furthermore, Chanakya suggests that the king must maintain filial relationship with the royal priest, treating him like a teacher (guru) or father. Again, echoes of the personal? <br />
<br />
A strange aside in this verse: that the king should trust the royal priest with his personal safety. This definitely suggests that for Chanakya, the royal priest not only has a religious and spiritual function but also a political and possibly even a military one. In conjunction with the earlier statement about choosing a high born candidate, this may suggest that Chanakya was fully aware of the “warrior-priest” phenomenon and even quite supportive of this, albeit not in a royal role. <br />
<br />
His stand seems to go against the grain as much of the Indian political tradition warns against “priest-kings” or those who combine the Brahmin-Kshatriya traits. However, this verse seems to suggest that although the combination would be dangerous (and possibly totalitarian) in case of the king, it can be followed through in case of the royal priest by appointing a candidate with Kshatriya-Brahmin values. <br />
<br />
The final verse explains the advantages of appointing the appropriate royal priest. A good royal priest not only protects the king but also ensures that the deities are kept content with the appropriate rituals. Finally, a successful royal priest ensures that the poor in the realm are kept loyal and happy by ensuring that wealth is redistributed amongst them. <br />
<br />
This ends the theoretical aspect of cabinet appointments. The next chapter appears to be taken from a classical human resources manual as it explains the processes of testing the cabinet candidates. <br />
<br />
Hope to be able to post on that chapter very soon so watch this space!Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-35175774270428376692010-07-20T14:44:00.000-07:002011-01-03T14:37:45.150-08:00Appointment of the Prime Minister: Real Politik ContinuesBook 1, Chapter 8<br />
<br />
Apologies once again but deadlines intervened. But lets forge ahead nevertheless.<br />
<br />
Chapter 8 provides a sort of job description and personnel profile for three key appointments: the prime minister, key members of cabinet and the royal priest.<br />
<br />
Chanakya spends most time detailing the qualities that a king should seek in his prime minister or the official who will be the head of the executive branch. The very long list of qualifications for this post range from professional abilities, natural talents as well as personal type. The list that I reproduce below is fascinating not only in its far ranging criteria but also for the priorities it places on various aspects:<br />
<br />
1. This official must not only be from the state but also deeply connected to it.<br />
2. Free of any major addictions and bad habits. Chanakya especially considers alcoholism and drug use and promiscuity, beyond the rather wide range of permitted sexual behaviour in those times, a practical risk. It is worth noting that Chanakya's definition of sexual misbehaviour concerns risky sexual behaviour that extends to partners of other influential citizens. Adultery in the western Biblical sense was not nearly an issue in his times.<br />
3. Must be a good rider/controller of chariot, horse, elephant and other vehicles of war<br />
4. Must be well educated in cultural arts, including poetry, music and dance.<br />
5. Must be well versed in political theory and practice, including of course, Arthashastra (although to be fair, Chanakya is talking of the entire corpus of political education rather than plugging his own book).<br />
6. Intelligent, with not only 7, a good memory, but also 8, the ability to read and understand people.<br />
<br />
Have to confess that I am not surprised that Chanakya privileges patriotism about all other qualities for this key post. What I am intrigued by - as you will notice - is that he privileges loyalty to the nation/state/kingdom/land over any personal loyalty to the king. Indeed, loyalty to the king is much lower on the list. This is especially apt as Chanakya himself held the post of the prime minister and is obviously writing from personal experience here. He appears to be quite aware of the distinction between a king's interests and that of the realm, and believes that the prime minister should act in accordance with the latter. Once again this is an early indication of a more republican and less monarchist/absolutist tendency in classical Indian political thought.<br />
<br />
Interesting also that warrior abilities and cultural finesse take precedence in Chanakya's list over political knowledge. It is almost as if the initial criteria for the job ensures that it is open to all able citizens (nagaraka) of a state. Still, the emphasis on culture is telling, especially for our times when any sense of cultural education has been devalued as non-utilitarian (or useful for commercial enterprise).<br />
<br />
Chanakya also spends a fair time in specifying the necessary verbal talents and abilities, explaining that the prime minister must be able to :<br />
9. Speak appropriately, in regard to occasion and company,<br />
10. Crush others in debate,<br />
11. Refute (or as Sarah Palin prefers "refudiate") any untruth or propaganda in a convincing manner,<br />
12. Spin, or create a favourable meaning from something unpleasant that is said.<br />
<br />
Am fascinated although not surprised that the verbal/debating skills are so heavily emphasized, even though Chanakya is writing not of a professional politician in a democratic sense but a political appointee. However the need for getting the state's message out across a wide cross-section of constituencies is obviously immune to vicissitudes of history.<br />
<br />
In addition, on a personal front, the prime minister should be 13, passionate and driven (good point!); 14, influential and convincing; 15, capable of facing adversity and opposition; 16, well behaved - not in the sense of meek but rather free of coarse or uncouth behaviour; 17, worthy of friendship; 18, capable of sticking to a decision and opinion; 19, loyal (interesting that loyalty to the king comes fairly far down this list!); 20, calm and even-tempered. <br />
<br />
The final seven qualities may seem to repeat the earlier ones but obviously Chanakya believed they needed reiteration or more precision. These are more character traits rather abilities and include:<br />
<br />
21, capable and strong; 22, healthy in mind and body, with no chronic weakness or ailment; 23, steadfast, and calm in moments of crisis; 24, modest and without arrogance; 25, stable in moods, and thus not likely to waver; and 26, pleasant looking (I guess leaders had to be presentable even in ancient times!).<br />
<br />
And finally, 27, the prime minister should not be vengeful or indeed have any long standing enmities. Strangely prescient this bit, in light of Peter Mandelson's memoirs of the Blair-Brown years in government. Perhaps, Chanakya should be made compulsory reading for all aspiring politicians!<br />
<br />
Chanakya ends this section with a wonderful recommendation: a king should attempt to find a person with these 27 qualities for the prime minister's post, as one possessing all the listed qualities is the superlative one for the job. However, in the spirit of practicality, he ends with pointing out that a person with a quarter of the listed qualities is a mediocre prime minister. Implicit in this suggestion is that in the absence of a great prime minister, a mediocre one may be necessary, although in case of the latter, the king should be aware of the fact and thus keep a close watch. <br />
<br />
The next two sections of this chapter are on qualities of the cabinet minister and the royal priest. I hope to include those as soon as possible. I do have to confess to having a slight bout of RSI, which means typing is a (literal) pain.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-86800501054992136872010-05-06T03:57:00.000-07:002010-05-06T04:03:38.065-07:00Guidance for Appointing Key Advisors: Now the Realpolitik Begins<b>Book 1, Chapter 7</b><br />
<br />
It seems ironically appropriate to be writing of Chanakya's view on appointing key advisors and ministers on the day that UK heads to a change in government. But idle musings aside, lets plow ahead.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the chapter, Chanakya returns to summarising views of others on this rather key political and administrative matter. Actually this is one of the most interesting chapters as it summarises a lot of contemporary political debate regarding realpolitik, loyalty and the rational bases for a king's decisionmaking processes. A lot of the discussion seems extraordinarily modern.<br />
<br />
The first source, of Acharya Bhardwaj, is obviously the orthodox one. Bhardawaj believes the the king's key advisors should be drawn from his classmates, as the king knows them well enough to judge their ability and trustworthiness. In addition, they will be loyal given their prior friendship with the king. <br />
<br />
Hmmm...seems like oligarchies have long been the preferred mode of governance by the political orthodoxies!<br />
<br />
However, this view is contradicted by Acharya Parashar who believes that having seen the king in compromising, nonserious, playful and possibly even humiliating situations, lifelong friends make inappopriate advisors and ministers. These advisors will always be able to insult the king, while the king will not be able to maintain the requisite professional distance from them. <br />
<br />
According to Parashar, a king should appoint those who support his secret and/or private projects. These people are driven by a fear of their secret interests and activities being revealed and will thus remain loyal to the king. In addition, the fear will ensure they will never insult or denigrate the king or royal interests. <br />
<br />
This appears to be an early articulation of the fear/greed motivations that so much political science, economics and international relations uses in contemporary times! <br />
<br />
However, both the views are contested by Acharya Vishalaksha who insists that this fear of secrets being revealed applies to both parties. Just as the advisors are afraid of the king knowing their secrets, the king too will be burdened by his secret activities being known to his advisors. A king whose secrets are known to others may end up as a puppet in the hands of his advisors. Indeed Vishalaksha points out that the moment a king shares his secret plans or activities with an advisor, he loses control of the person. <br />
<br />
Parashar counters and expands this discussion by suggesting that the king should appoint those who have proven their loyalty and affection by putting their own lives on the line for the safety and wellbeing of the king.<br />
<br />
This view is countered by Acharya Pishun who dismisses these loyalists as "royal devotees" and points out that loyalty has little to do with ability. Instead he suggests that key advisors and ministers should be chosen based on their prior record and proven ability. He emphasises that ability, dedication and capacity for work are not only necessary for key posts, but critical for the efficient running of a realm. In his view key appointments should be driven by ability, according to Pishun, thus creating an early case for a strict meritocracy. <br />
<br />
Similarly, Acharya Kaudpadanta also does not believe loyalty is enough for advisors. However, he takes a more conservative approach, suggesting that hereditary traditions are a good way of choosing key advisors. Kaudpadanta believes in a plutocracy, suggesting that the hereditary elite are intimately familiar with the workings of a government and court and thus best suited for key positions. He further suggests that these hereditary elite are not swayed by rewards or by being unpopular with the king, but are guided by a sort of genetic <i>noblesse oblige</i>. <br />
<br />
Funnily enough, he suggests that this form of behaviour is more natural, pointing to cows that prefer their old homes rather than new ones. <br />
<br />
But it doesn't end there: Kaudpadanta is refuted by Acharya Vatvyadhi who points out that such a hereditary plutocracy creates trouble for a king, as it believes itself entitled to certain privileges. Vatvyadhi lists money, power, even sex, as possible areas of entitled privileges that a hereditary elite may claim for itself, despite the intentions of the king or the welfare of the realm. <br />
<br />
He also appears to think that removing such an elite from the politically powerful posts can be a problem for a king, which makes their elevation to such posts a very<br />
risky proposition. Moreover, he points to the fact that such a hereditary elite would have shared moments of upbringing with the king, making them privy to his weakness and early humiliations (echoing the risks articulated by Parashar earlier). <br />
<br />
Indeed Vatvyadhi recommends selecting the best prepared people from a pool of new, educated and well prepared experts. He suggests that a lack of intimacy and prior history ensures a better discipline amongst advisors as they continue to respect and fear the king. <br />
<br />
This view is countered by Acharya Bahudantiputra (often also named Indra). He points out that ability and preparation are not enough for a king's advisor. Inexperienced ministers and officials may panic in a moment of crisis, just when the king requires their support. Instead he suggests that instead of "expertise", a king should appoint wise, loyal, patient and steady persons to key positions, who can support him in moments of crisis. He insists that key officials are more appropriately chosen based on their characters rather than their expertise. <br />
<br />
At this point, the chapter shifts to Chanakya's voice. He considers the above views as appropriate in their particular contexts but begins to formulate his own theories on such key appointments. <br />
<br />
Not surprisingly, he takes an extremely pragmatic view of the situation, pointing out that all the views are useful but a king must decide - based on the situation and the times - the criteria that is most useful to him. Thus, loyalty, steadiness, expertise, lack of experience, experience are all potentially useful, but a king must decide what is needed. <br />
<br />
Chanakya does warn that key advisors may be drawn from a large group - those who are close to the king, or new to him, experienced or inexperienced - however, key ministerial (official) posts must be limited and appointed with far greater care. <br />
<br />
Indeed, Chanakya gives greater importance to officials with executive powers rather than to advisors, ensuring that the administrative roles are performed by people that the king has chosen with far greater care. <br />
<br />
The next chapter takes on the issue of these appointments in greater (and practical) detail. Indeed, Chanakya seems to draw up a rather comprehensive job description and core skills/abilities list, which may serve even today as a guide. This will take some time to digest but I hope to get through that in the next few days, so keep an eye out for an update.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-50508258299385574092010-03-14T04:38:00.000-07:002011-01-03T14:28:44.849-08:00Guidance for a King's Behaviour: Getting to the Nitty Gritty Now<b>Book 1, Chapter 6</b>: <br />
<br />
Having covered a fair amount of ground on all a king must learn, Chanakya moves on to more practical matters. This chapter is quite succint, with only 6 verses although they are packed tight with advice and strictures. <br />
<br />
He begins with referencing control over one's senses as outlined in the chapter before and recommends that a king avoid the losses resulting from succumbing to lust, greed etc, and attempt to live in a disciplined manner. <br />
<br />
But after that general advice, the verse gets quite specific as to what a king must do (once again the key point is action and not thought or words). Chanakya reiterates out that the king should keep company of knowledgeable and wise people, selected on their basis of knowledge, age and experience. <br />
<br />
With help of these sage advisors, the king must focus on the following: develop his/her own intellect and abilities, as well as use spies/intelligence networks to learn more about one's own realm as well as about neighbouring and enemy states. <br />
<br />
Ah, here comes the best bit: a king must simultaneously work towards economic improvement and through this wealth creation, help social development, education and progress of the subjects. At the same time as helping the populace gain social stability and economic prosperity, the king should use the economic development to encourage education and intellectual activity as well as establish strict laws to ensure law and order. The king must reward prominent citizens for their contributions (intellectual and material) at regular intervals. <br />
<br />
How very modern! Now comes the use of spin as a political tool: Intellectuals, sages, and prominent thinkers should be rewarded with status and cash as part of improving and maintaining the king's reputation! As always with Chanakya, he appeals most to self-interest rather than instincts of charity. <br />
<br />
A final stricture in this verse is that a king must do all these tasks consistently in order to assure the populace that he/she is not only aware and interested in their welfare but also absolutely dedicated to that goal. Oh, our politicians could so learn from old guru Chanakya!<br />
<br />
The next set of strictures are for all that a king must avoid. These include sex with women who are married to others (sounds logical!), taking others property or rights (again logical as this would create resentment), and finally, murder and/or wanton destruction of life. These seem to be actions that destabilise a king's reputation as well as control. <br />
<br />
However the following strictures are also terrifically on the mark and very modern: a king must keep a regular sleep routine, not sleep too much, not be caught dozing during public acts (boredom was a problem even in ancient times); nor should a king behave in lewd manner, joke with officials, or tell untruths. Moreover, the king should not wear inappropriate clothing or behave in inappropriate way. This again is not for any great moral reason, but rather because these lead to the populace losing faith in a king's abilities and dedication to their interest, and hence to a loss of power and influence.<br />
<br />
Almost as if afraid that the above list may put off any aspiring rulers, Chanakya softens his stance in the next verse explaining that a king is not prohibited from enjoyment. Material (and thus physical) pleasures are very much available to a king. <br />
<br />
However, for purposes of maintaining power, a king must balance out the three key <i>purusharthas: dharma, artha and kama</i>. This is fascinating as he leaves out <i>moksha</i> as the fourth human goal in its entirety. This may be partly due to the material focus of his treatise, but also because he seems to implicitly assume that a balanced pursuit of the three others shall automatically lead to the fourth. This seems to an incredibly pragmatic approach and one that fits with the purposes of the text. <br />
<br />
In the verse, Chanakya also warns against the privileging one of three over the others. Having dealt with the dangers of the excesses of <i>artha</i> and <i>kama </i>in the chapter before, he clarifies that <i>dharma</i> also is bad in excess. Although a king must be righteous, an excess of religiosity (or indeed virtue) is unacceptable and dangerous in a king (someone give a copy of this text to the US Republicans as well as the Taliban!). In fact any imbalance between the practice of these three <i>purusharthas</i> leads to political and social unrest and a loss of power (that carrot-and-stick again). <br />
<br />
Here Chanakya inserts an aside, insisting that of the three: <i>dharma, kama</i> and <i>artha</i>, it is <i>artha</i> (or economic prosperity) that is most important. With money, one may act with virtue and according to religious requirements; one may also fulfill one's material and physical desires. Lack of wealth however means that neither <i>kama</i> nor <i>dharma</i> can be achieved. I am guessing that all those new age junkies who think of India as the great spiritual retreat obviously never got around to reading Chanakya!<br />
<br />
A final set of injunctions: a king must grant the key ministers, advisors and teachers the right to stop him/her from behaving inappropriately. And he tops this with a brilliant example: Should a king lose control when drinking, these key advisors must step in to prevent such weakness being known widely, as well as warn the king against its dangers. There appears to be the implicit suggestion that the advisors should also act as checks to ensure the king's behaviour does not endanger him. Its a bit like having a royal designated driver! Here Chanakya is specific enough to point out that these advisors should check or critique the king in private, not public (very effective, logical and modern). <br />
<br />
Should the advisors not have the right to intervene when a king behaves inappropriately, there will be no external check on a ruler, and this can only result in loss of status, power and eventually the realm. <br />
<br />
Finally, Chanakya reminds the king (also a reminder to the reader that the text is meant for aspiring leaders), that a king cannot succeed alone. Indeed a king's success is in large part due to good advisors and ministers, who are able to guide as well as check a king's excesses. <br />
<br />
He ends by pointing out that a king with good advisor should be considered fortunate. Moreover, a king should be able to reward an advisor who helps maintain his/her reputation and intervenes to check his/her excesses.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-75599379067545872582010-03-06T05:27:00.000-08:002010-03-06T05:50:56.335-08:00Victory over the Senses as a Form of Self-Discipline<b>Book 1, Chapter 5</b>:<br />
<br />
First, apologies for the delay in posting this but the last few weeks have been completely manic at work. However, now, onwards: <br />
<br />
This chapter seems to clearly locate Chanakya within the Indic traditions where self-discipline is crucial to material and spiritual success. Other texts, including the <i>Bhagvad Gita</i> stress the issue of self-discipline, but primarily for spiritual reasons. Chanakya links the idea directly to a king's success and failure. So self-discipline is not just about <i>nirvana</i> but rather necessary for gaining and maintaining political and economic power. (Western new age gurus who peddle watered down Indic Mc-philosophies, take heed!)<br />
<br />
Chanakya points to the five senses (sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) and how one must win over these to become <i>jitendra</i> - one who has won over the senses - in order to bring under control the following six flaws: lust, anger, greed, pride, enthusiasm, and joy (I translate <i>mad</i> as enthusiasm as in <i>mad-mast</i> but will be happy to find a more precise term in English. All suggestions welcome). <br />
<br />
I am especially intrigued as to how different these temptations (in some ways equivalent to the Christian cardinal sins) from their Biblical cousins. While they do address issues of excess, the focus is quite different. <br />
<br />
Chanakya explains that once a human being can give up these six temptations, he/she can be considered wise. He suggests following the duties laid down by the <i>shastras</i> as a way of giving up these six temptations. He warns that without this requisite self-discipline, a king may win over land but will soon lose all. I LOVE Chanakya's carrot-and-stick approach to political conduct. <br />
<br />
Ah, some history now! Chanakya then goes on to provide examples from history none of whom I am familiar with, which makes me wonder just how much our Indian historians don't do their jobs! <br />
<br />
Chanakya starts with examples of kings who gave in to lust (interesting prioritisation here). So first there is King Dandakya of Bhojvansh who lusts after a Brahmin's daughter and abducts her. Not surprisingly, he is cursed by the father and as a result loses his kingdom and his lineage is destroyed. A similar fate befalls the Vaidehi king Karaal. <br />
<br />
This is very interesting as Chanakya's focus on real-politik overturns the Shastric prescriptions for the kinds of marriage allowed to a <i>kshatriya</i> which a king would most likely be and which includes kidnapping (yes, thats why Prithviraj was still acting within his <i>dharma</i> when he abducted Sanjukta). Perhaps the issue here is the consent and willingness of the bride? As there is little historical information on the two cases, I am left a bit bemused.<br />
<br />
Next set of examples are for kings who surrenders to anger. He mentions King Janmajyeya who angered the Brahmins and King Taaljhandh who quarrelled with the Bhriguvanshis. So obviously pissing off the Brahmins is a bad idea for a king? That appears to be the point of the examples so far. <br />
<br />
Oh wait: things improve. Ila's son Pururva gives in to greed and loots from all four <i>varnas</i> and is cursed (never mind, again by the Brahmins). Meanwhile, King Ajbindu of Sauvir manages to anger his subjects thanks to his greed. His fate is rather coyly described as "untimely death due to the people's anger." Does that mean the people killed him off? How I wish I could find a historian who could explain these very interesting references!!!<br />
<br />
But we now move to pride and the examples here are better known: Ravana and Duryodhan. Oh more obscure examples here: King Dumbhodrav (I LIKE that name! King Dumbo it was!), and King Haihayaraj Arjun (another topper of a name) who was killed by Parshuram, both for their pride as it led them to act in rash and silly ways. <br />
<br />
Interesting switch here: it is not a god that punishes as in the Bible. Instead the six flaws lead people to abandon reason and make mistakes. This makes for a very clear divide in Indic ethics and morality from the Western one: its not what you think, its what you do that counts. <br />
<br />
Pride also leads to the downfall of the <i>asura</i> king Vatapi as well as the Yadavas who conspired against and deceived the guru-priest Dvaipayan out of pride. <br />
<br />
Two major themes seem to emerge from here: Indian history and texts always warn against "priest-kings" as those are considered dangerous and destabilizing to the social structures. In this chapter that point is definitely emphasised with the Brahmins emerging as a definite counter-balance and check for a king's (and thus <i>kshatriya</i>) behaviour. <br />
<br />
The second point is even more curious: Chanakya points out that transgressions by a king who cannot control the six emotional flaws leads to the end of his kingdom (temporal), premature death, as well as the end of his lineage (a big one in Indic traditions). Yet NOT transgressing provides rewards that are entirely temporal: a peaceful and prosperous reign until the end of the king's life. Here the stick definitely carries more weight than carrots. Or perhaps this is yet another indication of how strong a materialist focus many of Indic philosophical traditions have? <br />
<br />
The chapter ends with pointing out the good kings, including: Jaamdaganya (son of Jaamdagni), Parshuram, Ambreesh, and Naabhaag (son of Nabhag).<br />
<br />
I am left slightly discontent with this chapter not for philosophical reason but because many of these names refer to kings I know little about. I can understand that these are from pre-Mauryan times but it does seem that we could do better at compiling information about them today.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-8262238008689268482010-02-03T02:55:00.000-08:002010-02-03T03:00:11.560-08:00The Advantage of Good Company: Whoa, getting modern now<b>Book 1, Chapter 4</b>: <br />
<br />
Just when I thought things were changing, Chanakya goes back to hammering home the issues of a king's education. Actually perhaps now its more accurate to say that we're back to a king's over all development. <br />
<br />
This time he outlines the advantages of networking/socialising with influential people, as well as those with greater experience. And not surprisingly, makes a rather persuasive case for hanging out with those of greater experience, strength, intelligence and power. Hmmm...how would this translate to social media?<br />
<br />
After summarizing what has gone on in the previous chapters, Chanakya points out that only education and experience grant ability to a person (not making a case here for the king, but all citizens it appears). First mention then of meritocracy! Cool!<br />
<br />
Interestingly he separates ability (although perhaps character would be a better term) into two aspects: one that is only for show and thus for profit, and the other which is part of oneself and developed over time through education and experience. He obviously thinks the second one is better.<br />
<br />
This second form can be developed by those who (this gets interesting):<br />
<br />
1. Are capable of hearing harsh, even unpleasant truths,<br />
2. Wish to learn knowledge acquired by hard work and experience (I assume of others),<br />
3. Want to acquire knowledge thus learned and make it their own,<br />
4. Want to debate viewpoints they may hold, even with those who do not agree,<br />
5. Take on truth they learn as knowledge,<br />
6. Want to acquire knowledge after examining, debating, and testing its truth. <br />
<br />
WHOA! I like this early articulation of the liberal mind!<br />
<br />
But unfortunately the next <i>sloka</i> completely goes against this wonderful liberal thinking as it points out that a student has no right to pick his/her area of study. Instead it is the teachers who, after testing for aptitude, shall decide the field of study. <br />
<br />
This weird contradiction reminds me of how often ancient texts appear to have contradictory elements. How much of it is due to the practice of including commentary or new text within an old one (historically proven, this fact)? This would suggest that not all of this particular text is also untampered. I will be keeping tabs on the anomalies, but this one is a real stand out so far. <br />
<br />
The next part of the book gets specific on when education must begin: after the ceremony of shaving the child's head (<i>mundan</i>), the child should be taught the alphabet and numbers. The four areas of education (as pointed out earlier) are taught upon the "second birth/thread" ceremony. I think this makes it post-puberty. These advanced learnings include knowledge acquired at universities, from political and economic experts, and other necessary advanced knowledge. <br />
<br />
Finally, Chanakya suggests a sort of internship where a student may learn about key practical aspects - truce, treaties, agreements - on a daily basis by observing important people in the various fields. How very modern! <br />
<br />
Okay another whammy: apparently there is a time span specified for this advanced learning: a student must learn for 16 years, after the thread ceremony. <br />
<br />
Looking at other texts (such as Manu), the thread ceremony is around ten or twelves years of age. This suggests that a person must study till an average of 24 or 25 years of age. This throws up a very interesting fact: if a person may not be married while a student (ie <i>brahmacharya ashram</i>), there appears to be a definite injunction against child marriages in India. <br />
<br />
Indeed, in this case, even the current age of marriage for men and women in India according the Hindu Family law contravenes the age provided by Chanakya.<br />
<br />
Oh wait: there is a even a <i>varna</i>-based chronology for the thread ceremony: Brahmans at the age of 8, Kshatriyas at 10 and Vaishyas at 12. This would mean that a banker/trader can only marry at the age of 27, which makes perfect logical sense in modern terms: university, masters, at least three years of initial work experience before marriage! <br />
<br />
Okay now back to the king's schedule. I assume these final verses are about the "internship" and continued education that Chanakya recommends. <br />
<br />
He suggests that a king must practice and learn military-linked matters: using weapons, control of elephants and horses in the morning. <br />
<br />
After lunch and post-rest, a king must take up study of political and religious theory, biographies, histories, as well as stories from the past, present and faraway lands. I like the fact that stories get a mention: obviously ancient Indians were better than contemporary social scientist in realising the value of literature as a source of information. <br />
<br />
Finally, a king must keep aside the night and the time after his duties to learn new subjects and facts. Here, Chanakya is very specific, pointing out that a king must make a real effort to learn new things, asking it to be explained by experts until its absolutely clear. <br />
<br />
Concluding the chapter, Chanakya emphasises the importance of continued learning by explaining that new knowledge keeps the brain flexible and quick, develops intellect, provides confidence and stregth.<br />
<br />
But beyond the advantages to the self, such continued learning ensures that a king is capable of responding to the realm's needs, can forward-plan the welfare of the people, serve as a model for the people, as well as encourage the populace to do the same. <br />
<br />
Boy! The Americans need to read this section! See why Obama is better than Sarah Palin? Dumbing down of the political elite is a bad idea for the entire realm, or so Chanakya would say.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-30923291328027318112010-01-20T11:11:00.000-08:002010-01-20T11:11:31.670-08:00Importance of Wealth and Strength: Now We're Getting to the Meat<b>Book 1, Chapter 3:</b> <br />
<br />
After the discussion on the importance of self-knowledge and Vedic knowledge and rules, Chanakya moves on to the real meat of his theory: importance of economic knowledge and an understanding of "statecraft."<br />
<br />
This is where things get interesting as Chanakya reveals himself the ultimate pragmatist. <br />
<br />
According to Chanakya, economic knowledge extends to agricultre, animal husbandry, metalcraft, mining and trade (nice summary of ancient economic activity there!) This knowledge employs these economic activities to create wealth, and to create and enhance status by virtue of possessions, servants, etc through that wealth. For a king, this knowledge is the means of improving treasure, and through that treasure, improving military might. That military might is the only practical way a king may control his/her subjects and ensure supremacy over the enemy! <br />
<br />
WHOA! This is the Chanakya I have grown up with: practical beyond belief. Strange how he emphasises the necessity of wealth creation as necessary foundation for a kingdom's supremacy, maintenance and expansion. <br />
<br />
However, the next verse gets a bit complicated. Chanakya points out that self-knowledge, Vedic knowledge and economic know-how are really reliant on a thorough understanding of statecraft. It is the fear of force/punishment (Chanakya uses the term "<i>dand-niti</i>") that ensure that friends and foes behave appropriately and the populace follows the correct path! I love this strangely authoritarian streak he seems to hold at his theoretical core! <br />
<br />
However - WAIT! He then quotes earlier scholars who believed that statecraft or <i>dand-niti</i> alone would ensure that the populace abided by the law and that the enemies are kept under control. In fact, apparently earlier scholars give primacy to this policy of force. <br />
<br />
Chanakya however is quite liberal for his times, pointing out that a king who is too strict and eager to mete out punishment is eventually hated by the subjects. On the other hand, a king who is too lax incites contempt from the populace. This is why the king must use force with a great deal of care. <br />
<br />
He further warns that a king must not use punishment while influenced by lust or greed, anger or a desire for vengeance. In such cases, even the weak, the ascetics and those renouncing citizen privileges are angered, and the hatred and anger of the citizenry (those of the <i>grahastya ashram</i>) swells beyond control. A discontent populace is dangerous for a king's power. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, a lax ruler creates a society without law and order, where only the strong prevail, and the weak are left unsafe and vulnerable. These are moments of anarchy and bode ill for a king's rule. <br />
<br />
But a king who practises the policy of force carefully and wisely ensures that even the weak of the realm feel protected, invulnerable and content. <br />
<br />
As such, Chanakya explains that when a king practises a policy of force applied wisely is when the realm can be safe and stable. In such cases, force is applied through knowlege and with impartiality. This practise ensures that the populace stays within the boundaries of the law, encourages people to follow the laws, and thus ensures security and stability within the realm. <br />
<br />
Hmmmm....slightly authoritarian but I can see an early articulation of the allure of a benign dictatorship.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-59828853500394240362010-01-08T07:42:00.000-08:002011-01-03T14:08:32.060-08:00A King's Education Completed: Final Injunctions for a Successful KingOkay folks, sorry I've been remiss in posting stuff here, but the call of the holiday season was a little too insistent. In any case, as a dutiful member of the second stage of life, I was following Chanakya's injunctions of feeding and taking care of friends, family and other members of the community. <br />
<b><br />
Book 1, Chapter 2, concluded</b>: <br />
<br />
The final verses of this chapter lay out a general set of rules for all four <i>ashrams </i>and <i>varnas</i>. These are interesting as they almost entirely contradict the exigencies of being a ruler: <br />
<br />
1. One must not harm another being either in thought, word or action. This seems to go against the need for martial action or indeed punishment that a ruler must necessarily exercise. I think this one makes more sense when considered in the context of the Bhagwad Gita's view of warrior <i>dharma </i>where violence is acceptable when carried out without anger, fear, hatred or greed. Again this seems to suggest that its not the act itself but the motivation for it that matters most within the Hindu tradition. <br />
<br />
2. To remain truthful and reject any form of deceit. Ummm, not sure how this impacts the very complex discussion on espionage and deception that Chanakya takes up later. But at this stage, I am assuming this links to the point above where this is about a person's internal integrity and truth rather than what they do externally. Thus a ruler may lie as long as he/she is aware of the need for deceipt and is practising it in line with their duty as a ruler. Wonder if I am getting this one right? <br />
<br />
3. Retain integrity although my Hindi translation uses the term <i>pavitra</i> which is not quite the same as pure or sacred. In fact no classic Indian language appears to contain the word for sacred, thus rejecting the Western/Semitic distinction between the sacred and the profane. Classical Indian texts only distinguish between clean and unclean, thus suggesting that all of life can be rendered from one to the other through pollution or cleansing. Thus nothing in the universe occupies a stable sacredness. Cool! I like this idea. <br />
<br />
4. To eschew envy and not hold grudges. This one seems again to go back to the idea of acting without fear or greed, or actively solely for the purpose of fulfilling one's <i>dharma</i> rather than for greater gain. <br />
<br />
5. And of course, tolerance and compassion! I can foresee an entire post on the issue of warrior's compassion and its philosophy. <br />
<br />
Chanakya further points out that following one's <i>dharma</i> leads to happiness and moksha (liberation from the cycle of rebirth), while straying from it leads to social disharmony and damages one's karmic progression. <br />
<br />
And now comes the whammy! Chanakya explains that a king's duties include not only following his/her individual path of duty but also creating the necessary political and social structures to ensure that the realms subjects also follow their <i>dharma</i>. <br />
<br />
Part of this may be achieved by honouring those who are virtuous (ie follow the rules for <i>varna</i> and <i>ashram</i> laid out earlier) and punishing those who stray from those. Only when these laws are maintained may a king be counted as successful. <br />
<br />
Ah! I suddenly am beginning to see why "saam, daam, dand, bhed" (mind, money, force and secret) are going to be employed by this rather well-educated king! <br />
<br />
Well, that concludes this chapter. Chapter 3 appears quite short although again fairly dense. I am beginning to realise that Chanakya is just setting the philosophical stage for the realpolitik thats to follow.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-8545151306091329212009-12-05T04:12:00.000-08:002009-12-05T04:24:07.104-08:00A King's Education Continued: Duties for the Four Stages of LifeSorry for the delay in posting this but its been a rough, hectic week. But onwards...<br />
<br />
<b>Book 1, Chapter 2 continued: <br />
</b><br />
After pointing to the duties of the four <i>varnas</i>, Chanakya continues to outline the duties of the four <i>ashrams</i>, or stages of life. I find it curious that he begins this list with the <i>grahastha ashram</i>, or the second stage. But I suppose it is not that odd given that his primary preoccupation is with the stage of life that contributes to political and economic activity. <br />
<br />
NB: Hindu tradition divides human life into four stages: <i>Brahmachara</i> or study and growth and development; <i>Grahastha</i> or "householder" stage or when a person marries, raises a family and grows professionally; <i>Vanaprastha</i> stage that is for preparing to renounce material pleasures and preparations for the final stage; <i>Sanyasa</i> or renunciation when a person gives up all material attachment to follow spiritual growth. <br />
<br />
1. Chanakya begins by listing the duties for the second or "householder" stage of life. These involve earning a living by taking up a profession indicated by the tradition set up by one's ancestors. Is this the first sign of rigidity perhaps? <br />
<br />
But I don't read this as a stricture from Chanakya but rather a suggestion. It would make sense to follow in the path of the elders, especially in a primarily agrarian society. <br />
<br />
He also explicitly points out that a man must marry a woman according to his social circumstance and station (how terrifically modern and practical!). However he does point out here that this marriage may be with someone of a different "people" or "tribe." <br />
<br />
Echoing obviously the discomfort with female menstruation found in many cultures, Chanakya further indicates that sexual relations within marriage must be carried out only after the menstrual cycle and only after ritual cleansing. Funny, just how many ancient cultures found this aspect of human biology discomfitting!<br />
<br />
The final duty for the householder is more interesting from a social angle: only after gods, ancestors, guests and servants have been duly fed and taken care of can the house-holder eat his own food. I like the emphasis on taking care of others first, especially those who are economically and socially inferior or dependent. Definitely this is an incipient/early articulation of social responsibility as a necessary aspect of citizenship!<br />
<br />
2. For the student or a young person in preparation, Chanakya lists another set of duties. Not only does he recommend independent study (I like this!), chastity (teenage pregnancies were frowned upon even back then, I guess), ritual ablutions and learning the rites, but also points to the necessity of begging for one's sustenance. <br />
<br />
This is a an ancient tradition where the students would be required to leave the <i>gurukul</i> or school to organise the food for themselves, their teachers and the school itself, irrespective of a student's social status and political power. <br />
<br />
The practice seems intended to instill a sense of equality within the student group and to teach humility to the scions of powerful dynasties. It seems like a more effective way of teaching humility and responsibility than accepting support from parents. I wonder if there is a way to adapt this idea to modern education? Would make for an interesting experiment.<br />
<br />
Chanakya's final injunction here is that a student must develop self-discipline by following the example of the teacher, the sons of the teacher (indication again of inherited professions), and in their absence, of a reputable adult. <br />
<br />
AHA!!!! I just realised the reason for the strange order in listing the four stages!<br />
<br />
3. The third stage requires a person to revert to many of the habits of a student - living with frugality and eliminating sexual pleasure and desires, and focussing on independent study (I assume here Chanakya means study of religious texts and meditation). <br />
<br />
And now he gets very specific on the elements of material frugality: one must sleep on the floor, and dress in deer hide (as opposed to more comfortable fabrics like silk, cotton or wool). This is also the stage where a person must offer service to gods, ancestors and guests. Moreover, the diet in this stage must shift to steadily to only eating what is found in the forest or <i>vana</i> (Ah! Hence the name!)<br />
<br />
Wow! This is a real tough one as reverting to a frugal, modest life after one has followed a life of pleasure is always much harder. The emphasis here seems to be on re-learning humility and modesty as well as finding ways of eliminating physical desires. <br />
<br />
4. Finally, the fourth stage of life is renunciation. The first duty here is to bring an end to the dominion of the five senses: I guess this is why the earlier stage is so focussed on controlling material pleasure. <br />
<br />
Chanakya points out that this requires not beginning any new projects and cutting oneself off from social groups and affiliations (including family). In this stage, a person must rely on charity for sustenance (and I assume whatever the forest will provide) and should not work for a living. <br />
<br />
Moreover a person should not stay in a single place, even in a forest, but rather roam from one place to the other, refusing to form any attachment to any place of living. This final one seems like a real tough stricture: having cut off family and friends, this seems to require even giving up the last vestiges of attachment to the physical world. <br />
<br />
Chanakya seems to think that by such renunciation, together with bathing in clear waters, self-study and meditation, a human being cleanses one's inside and out.<br />
<br />
I wonder if this is in meant to be an elaborate preparation for facing death? Especially as in the Hindu tradition, death is meant to be a passage to another life? It would make sense in this case to give up all baggage from a current life in order to begin afresh. <br />
<br />
Living as I do - in the West - I am always fascinated by people who tell me they follow Buddhism or other "eastern" philosophies/lifestyles because they find the Biblical traditions harsh. Yet to me this "eastern" articulation of life seems like a much harsher view of human life, especially as it has no possibility of any intervention from any deity or power beyond the self to offer comfort or support. Far from being comforting or safe, this is definitely one long school of hard knocks! On the other hand, I like the fact that the ultimate responsibility and ultimate power is left to the individual. <br />
<br />
Interesting paradox again: seems that Hinduism requires identity to be simultaneously social and family driven while also being ultimately - and remorselessly - individualistic. <br />
<br />
In the final verses of this chapter, Chanakya starts to tie up the two ideas of social structure and stages of life. This one has made me think a lot. Next post will be about the summing up verses but also about my thoughts on this chapter which really has posed more questions than provided answers.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-88547847960536450762009-11-25T03:15:00.000-08:002011-01-03T13:58:32.069-08:00A Kings Education: Importance of Vedic KnowledgeNote to earlier post: Having considered the book once again I believe I should be talking in terms of Book 1, Chapter 1 instead of chapters and sections. So this post onwards, the posts shall discuss books, chapters, verses.<br />
<br />
<b>Book 1, Chapter 2: The range of <i>Vedic</i> knowledge required by a king. <br />
</b><br />
This chapter is more complex, taking on issues of the four <i>varnas</i> (NB: no, I won't use the term "caste" which actually says very little about the organisation of Hindu society and reflects far more about the European one which coined the term initially and then exported it willy-nilly to India). It also takes on the issues of duties during the four <i>ashrams</i> or stages of life. It also advises specific behaviour for a king regarding these two points. <br />
<br />
The chapter begins with a verse that lists the most important knowledge for a king: <br />
<br />
1. These include the three <i>Vedas</i>: <i>Rg, Yajur and Sama</i>;<br />
<br />
2. Chanakya also adds <i>Atharva Veda</i> to the list here. I assume its because the <i>Atharva Veda</i> already existed at this point and provides crucial commentary required for understanding the other three. Interestingly, he adds this fourth in conjunction with "<i>itihaas</i>" or history. <br />
<br />
3. He includes history in this verse as necessary for a king. Some modern commentaries seem to suggest that Chanakya was referring solely to the <i>Mahabharata</i> as "history" but it seems more logical to assume that he was also referring to knowledge of lineages, battles, past events. <br />
<br />
Interestingly he explains in the next verse that an cultured man comprises of the following six areas : education (sometimes translated as phonetics), ritual and ceremonial requirements, grammar (or language as a whole), etymological interpretation (or making meaning), ability to create and understand verse, and astronomy. These six form a humans body parts, including eye, mouth, heart, feet, heart and here I am stumped: something called "<i>nasika</i>." Any ideas on this one? <br />
<br />
<b>Update:</b> As Rishabh points below: the missing sense and word is nose. Doh!<br />
<br />
Then Chanakya moves on to explaining that the <i>Vedas</i> explain the necessary duties for the four varnas: <i>Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya</i> and <i>Shudra</i>. According to his list, these include the following: <br />
<br />
<i>Brahmans </i>must study the <i>Vedas </i>and ancient texts, must teach curious students and advise patrons, must carry out necessary rituals, and preside as priests at rituals carried out by the patrons. <br />
<br />
Moreover, they must give in charity what they can and receive patronage from those with material wealth. They are the only ones with the capacity to receive charity as well as the requirement to give charity. <br />
<br />
Curiously enough, there is no indication from Chanakya that the students or patrons are limited by <i>varnas</i>. <br />
<br />
<i><br />
Kshatriyas</i> must also study the <i>Vedas</i>, get rituals and ceremonies done by the <i>Brahmins</i>, give in charity, make a living out of their martial ability and protect the people.<br />
<br />
Again, curious that Chanakya points to charity as a key duty for a <i>Kshatriya</i>. I am reminded of the Jain belief that only a <i>Kshatriya</i> is capable of being the <i>Mahavira</i> as such a great spirit is marked by a limitless ability to give of oneself.<br />
<br />
The <i>Vaishyas</i> are required to study the <i>Vedas</i>, support rituals and ceremonies (I assume by giving money), give charity, carry out agriculture, animal husbandry and trade. <br />
<br />
And finally the <i>Shudras</i> are required to serve the "twice born" (<i>Brahman, Kshatriya and Vaishya</i>): this seems to be where most European translators stopped reading and declare the <i>Shudras</i> as the downtrodden, proleteriat and so forth. <br />
<br />
But Chanakya continues his list by pointing out that the <i>Shudras</i> are also responsible for agriculture, animal husbandry and trade. Moreover, they are also artists and artisans, performers and actors, as well as poets. <br />
<br />
Indeed, despite the infamous <i>Manusmriti</i>'s often vile and limiting strictures on society, that text does point out that all humans are born as <i>Shudras</i>, and it is only after education and ritual "second-birth" that a human may be counted as <i>Brahman, Kshatriya or Vaishya</i>. <br />
<br />
In contrast, Chanakya's view seems more liberal and appears to imply that <i>Shudras</i> - having acquired knowledge and education - are as capable of being "twice born" as all others. This means that acquiring the right training could allow anyone to become a priest or a warrior or a trader. This appears to be more logical given Chanakya's <i>real-politik</i> stance on the running of a state.<br />
<br />
This also appears to resonate also with the idea of Bharata's <i>Natyashastra </i>(treatise on drama) as the fifth <i>Veda</i> which is accessible to all humans. Thus technically even the artists and poets who studied only Bharata's text could be considered to be studying the <i>Vedas</i>, blurring the social lines in ways that contradict Manu's far more rigid stance.<br />
<br />
Considering the various text, I wonder if rather than edicts, these were more in nature of debates on the classification and organisation of society, with Chanakya taking a proto-realist stance while Manu's appears to be a proto-Neocon one. <br />
<br />
It also appears that these <i>varna</i> classifications were far more fluid than we have been brought up to believe in Chanakya's era. Does this mean that social conditions determine how strict or liberal the social categorization would be in Indian history? <br />
<br />
Also, it throws open an interesting case in point for modernity (and me personally) in India: As a <i>Kshatriya</i>-born woman, who chooses to work as a writer, do I count as a <i>Shudra</i>? Especially since I don't remember ever undergoing a "<i>yagyopaveet</i>" (second-birth) ceremony!<br />
<br />
Does this also mean that a <i>Shudra</i> who found a guru, studied the <i>Vedas</i>, became a warrior and acquired the practise of sacrifice and charity could be a <i>Kshatriya</i>. The story of <i>Eklavya</i> really resonates here with me: wouldn't he be the perfect warrior and thus the perfect <i>Kshatriya</i> in the <i>Mahabharata</i>? <br />
<br />
This reading is throwing up a lot of questions! And all feedback would be welcome.<br />
<br />
The next post will take on the next set of verses in this chapter as they are really making me questions a lot of what I know and think about ancient India.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-72288758608552203722009-11-20T03:25:00.000-08:002009-11-20T05:19:27.383-08:00Self knowledge: What a King Must Learn:Chapter 1; Section 1:<br />
<br />
Chanakya begins this chapter by pointing out that a king must develop four kinds of knowledge:<br />
<br />
1. <i>Anvikshaki </i>or self-knowledge,<br />
2. Knowledge contained in the three <i>Vedas</i> (<i>Rg, Sama and Yajur</i>) for the understanding of philosophy, culture and rituals.<br />
Interestingly enough, at this stage, apparently the <i>Atharva Veda</i> was not considered a "<i>Veda</i>." Any history student who can shed some light on this? <br />
3. Knowledge of economic issues, especially farming and animal husbandry (key factors in agrarian times).<br />
4. Knowledge of statecraft - curiously termed as "<i>dand niti</i>" (or politics of punishment/power).<br />
<br />
However, Chanakya notes that other scholars have disagreed and takes their views into account, pointing out that earlier texts (possibly Manu - although this may be debatable in terms of the historical timeline. Or is there an earlier Manu?) consider only the last three: Vedic, Economic and Statecraft as necessary for a king.<br />
<br />
In contrast, the <i>Devaguru Brihaspati</i> believes that "understanding" or reason is necessary but only knowledge of economic organisation and statecraft are necessarary for a king. Indeed he considers that since Vedic knowledge is used by cunning individuals for their own political and material goals, the knowledge of the Vedas serves little purpose.<br />
<br />
Interesting to realise that obviously even in those times, there was an awareness of the use of "spin" in political action, and the use of religion for purposes of power. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the <i>Daityaguru Shukracharya</i> holds that only statecraft has to learned by a king. All other forms of knowledge arise from an understanding of statecraft and are motivated by it. May this be considered as an early articulation of power for the sake of power?<br />
<br />
Chanakya returns to his point that the four forms of knowledge are necessary, despite earlier scholarly claims. He holds that good and evil, right and wrong, truth and <a href="http://sunnysinghonline.blogspot.com/2009/11/deception-some-thoughts.html">deception</a>, profit and loss can only be determined by knowledge. However he places <i>anvikshaki</i>, self knowledge, as the most important, explaining that this self-knowlege comes from study, discipline and scepticism (my paraphrasing and translation here of a rather complex <i>sloka)</i>.<br />
<br />
Scepticism or a "lack of faith" is not necessarily linked to divinity, but seems to approximate the Greek definition of the term. Instead it appears to be the ability to be guided by logic, consideration of good/evil, profit/loss, right/wrong on a completely intellectual level and not relying on divinity or indeed social norms and religious texts for guidance. (I could be completely off base here but this is what I get out of it). I can understand how the combination of the three can lead to self-knowledge. <br />
<br />
It appears that Chanakya's text links in at this point to other cultural concepts: of the four <i>purusharthas</i>, but also of the idea of the remorseless action taken without consideration of fear or greed which the <i>Bhagwad Gita</i> declares is the appropriate behaviour for a warrior.<br />
<br />
Indeed I am reminded of the <i>Dhammapada </i>at this stage which explains a worthy follower of Buddha is created only by entering the deepest forest, finding a cave with a dead body in it; the follower must then spend time with the cadaver, laughing, fearing, desecrating it; the follower must learn to love and hate and abhor the cadaver; hold it in disgust and horror. And all at the same time. Once the follower reaches the stage of being unmoved by the corpse, then he/she is ready follow the path set by Buddha.<br />
<br />
The <i>Dhammapada</i> echoes some of the earlier Hindu thought on reaching balance and peace necessary for unflinching action that is untainted by fear, greed, love or hate.<br />
<br />
It appears to me that Chanakya's idea of <i>anvikshaki</i> is quite similar to this, except applied specifically to the training of a king. He declares that only with this self-knowledge can a king determine the issues of state. More importantly, it is only this self-knowledge that can allow a decisionmaker to remain calm in times of loss and upheaval, to remain balanced despite happiness or sorrow, and thus ensure the best decisions for the state.<br />
<br />
Indeed, for this reason, Chanakya declares that <i>anvikshaki </i>is the lone stable and consistent factor in statecraft.Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-73152472028959116342009-11-18T01:39:00.000-08:002009-11-18T01:44:10.008-08:00The Beginning: Respecting the Cunning WithinChanakya divides his <i>Arthashastra</i> into 15 chapters and 160 sections. Their division and placement within the text suggests a didactic function.<br />
<br />
He begins with a chapter on <i>A King's Responsiblitities </i>that contains sections on a king's education, briefly covers the motivations of enemies and appropriate modes of conducts, moves on to the appointment of various kinds of officials, and then to a ruler's behaviour. While I will deal with all the 20 sections in this first chapter separately because each section throws up fascinating insights into the society of the time and on views of politics, some immediately eyecatching insights (just based on the contents list):<br />
<br />
1. The chapter considers not only a king's behaviour as a ruler but also advises on how a ruler may protect against other members of the royal family who may be conspiring for power;<br />
2. Outlines appropriate behaviour for a prince who has been taken prisoner;<br />
3. Provides detailed guidelines on the various levels of a king's security detail, including his personal bodyguards. Curiously echoing the Russian anti-terrorism maxim of "kill the women first," Chanakya believes that women should form the inner circles of bodyguard for a king because of their greater dedication and loyalty. <br />
<br />
For this section, I was most intrigued by the opening verse for this book. As with all classical Indian literature, theatre, performance, Chanakya begins with saluting his gurus, and invoking their blessing. However, unlike most other scholars, Chanakya invokes and salutes, "<i>Daityaguru</i>" (guru of the demons) <i>Shukracharya </i>as well as "<i>Devguru</i>" (guru of the gods) Brihaspati<i>.</i> Indeed, Shukracharya takes precedence over Brihaspati in Chankya's invocation, as more important of the two.<br />
<br />
In some commentaries, scholars suggest that Shukracharya was a more successful advisor/political ideologue as his advice of cunning conduct in politics and war allowed the cosmically weaker and thus disadvantaged <i>Daityas </i>to constantly upset the <i>Devas</i>. In comparison, the <i>Devas</i> had to plead the great Trinity of Shiva, Vishnu or Brahma for help everytime they were beset by the <i>Daityas</i> (curious echo of the modern political idea of intervention by a regional or global power in the struggles for supremacy of smaller states here!). Chanakya implicitly suggests that for all his wisdom and goodness, Brihaspati's political advice was less than effective.<br />
<br />
By privileging Shukracharya's advice as the model for politics, Chanakya signals right at the outset that his treatise will make no allowances for ethics, morality or religious norms. Instead, it has a sole imperative: power, its acquisition, expansion, and retention, all of which requires the ruler to develop and practise the cunning within. And boy does he set out to create a manifesto for this aim with relish.<br />
<br />
While considering this initial invocation, I was reminded of Keat's opinion that despite all professions to the contrary, Milton was of the "devil's party" as <i>Paradise Lost </i>is a far greater work of literature than <i>Paradise Regained</i>. Chanakya too may be considered very much of the <i>Daitya</i>'s party as he finds very little of interest in the conduct of the "gods" and the virtuous.<br />
<br />
More tomorrow!Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3156801984614349008.post-19916452253148676992009-11-16T02:32:00.000-08:002009-11-16T02:32:35.065-08:00Why Blog the Arthashastra? And Why Now?I have long been fascinated by the <i>Arthashastra</i>, partly because so few people seem to be familiar with it, so few political theorists refer to it, and because for some reason it does not attract nearly as much attention from the Western world as other classical Indian texts such as the <i>Kamasutra</i>, the <i>Vedas</i> or the <i>Manusmriti</i>. And yet it is an extraordinary treatise not only on civil and criminal law, but also on the organisation of a state and appropriate behaviour of a ruler.<br />
<br />
As a child, I learned about the text because my grandmother would quote the four basic principles of attaining a material goal (and the tools at the disposal of a ruler): "<i>sama, dama, dand, bhed</i>" she would pronounce with relish. Indeed, the greatest weapons in hands of a leaders are: <i>sama </i>- wisdom, intelligence and understanding; <i>dama</i> - material wealth although one may also suggest that this implies the power to bribe; <i>dand </i>- force, brutality, and violence brought to bear in order to achieve one's ends; and finally, <i>bhed</i> - secrets, information, all that the modern world qualifies as "intelligence." <br />
<br />
When I finally read the text as a grown-up, and after studying Macchiavelli's <i>The Prince </i>at university, I was amazed by its incredible modernity. Chanakya is secular (as in not interested in religious mores), extraordinarily inclusive (roles for women, the economically disenfranchised and the physically or mentally disabled within structures of power), surprisingly liberal in his ideas of a civil society, and amazingly dispassionate about ethics as only imperative of power are considered. Indeed in its amoral, dispassionate study of power, Chanakya far supersedes Macchiavelli. <br />
<br />
Of course the <i>Arthashastra</i> is not entirely Chanakya's brainchild. He refers to earlier texts on politics, governance and law, and debates the advantages and disadvantages of these earlier (and now lost to us) treatises. He also compiles rules, regulations and laws of the land, often merely as a proto-constitutional guideline, and at times with explanations and debates.<br />
<br />
This blog will (hopefully) not only follow my readings from the text but also my reactions, opinions, and thoughts about its validity and application to the modern era. Like Chanakya, I will try to remain amoral and dispassionate (although this may not be possible), considering the text only within the political domain. I hope that blogging my reading will help my understanding of Chanakya's principles and the foundations of Indian political theory.<br />
<br />
On a personal note, I am beginning a new novel and require some writing discipline. As some of you may already know, when I write, I stop reading fiction and eventually even stop reading in English. Somehow my mind separates my writing (in English) with the rest of myself (by reverting to Hindi). This process also means that I am beginning a re-reading of the Arthashastra, partly because its fascinating but also because I find it relaxing, which of course aids creativity. Moreover, I hope that by blogging regularly about a specific topic, I will be able to focus on the novel with some level of discipline and rigour. <br />
<br />
<br />
I would love to engage in a discussion with others who follow or study political thought. So please do leave a comment if you find this blog. This hopefully will be a communal enterprise.<br />
<br />
And so it begins....Sunny Singhhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02687722552329432572noreply@blogger.com2