Beyond Sedition and Sleeper Cells: The Use of Unsatisfied Subjects in Enemy Lands (II)

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....

Book 1, Chapter 13: 

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.

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.

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.

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.

In case of greedy citizens (more on fear and greed as motivators in this chapter is mentioned in this blogpost), spies must lure them with flattery and promises of gain. And here comes another animal analogy: the spies must explain that just as Shukari, 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 complex matrix of 'status' in ancient India rather than the simplistic term 'caste' as I have discussed before).  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Beyond Sedition and Sleeper Cells: The Use of Unsatisfied Subjects in Enemy Lands (I)

Book 1, Chapter 13

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Ancient Intelligence Apparatus: On Spycraft and Foreign Affairs

Book 1, Chapter 11

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.

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.

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 general and specifically here and here) , with some key differences.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 "melechchha" who may also be recruited for foreign espionage.

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: melechchha 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 jati, varna and/or gotra would be considered unclean. However, at the same time, the potential for change is also embedded within the concept: so a melechchha may become "clean" and thus part of society. Records of intermarriage with the Greeks - considered by Indic traditions as melechchha - are examples of this social fluidity.

The final verses of the chapter are rather prosaic as the texts explicitly lists the potential categories and places of deployment for spies:

1. Spies can be introduced within fort walls as traders and businessmen,

2. Used at the outskirts of towns and beyond fort walls in guise of ascetics and religious
teachers

3. Forests ought to be monitored by spies in guise of forest dwellers, although here again
Chanakya shows his basic inclusivity by pointing out that forest-dwellers should also be
inducted into the intelligence apparatus as serving personnel (Btw, this reminds me of how
the initial Kargil alert was apparently sounded by shepherds along the high ranges).

4. Border spies must be posted and closely monitored for their ability to resist lures of fame,
money, honours or women (Chanakya was very aware of "honey traps" as part of tradecraft, as
is obvious by his use of women for espionage)

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.

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.

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.

In the meantime, thanks for reading.

More on the State Intelligence Apparatus: Field Operatives and Women Spies!

Book 1, Chapter 11

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.

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 purusharthas, by absence or presence or subversion of these ideals.

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.

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 artha aspect of the purusharthas as it covers a wide range of material aspects, including wealth, fame, status etc.

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.

The second category of spies is more specifically linked to artha 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.

The third category seems linked more closely to kama within the categorisation of the purusharthas, 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.

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.

The fourth category is the most interesting as it is mostly linked to dharma although also bears elements of artha and kama 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Structure and Role of the Intelligence Apparatus in Statecraft: Part 1

Chapter 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Chanakya differentiates these two kinds of espionage by describing the first as "sanstha" and the second as "sanchaar." 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.

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.

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 Kim here).

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.

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.

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 "sanchaari" (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.

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.

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.