The four expedients (caturthopāya)

Vijigīṣu King should also well aware about the four expedients and their proper application.

In this respect Manu says—

“evaṃ vijayamānasya ye'sya syuḥ paripanthinaḥ |
tānānayedavaśaṃ sarvān sāmādibhirupakramaiḥ ||” 7.107 ||^[1]

“When he is thus engaged in conquest, let him subdue all the opponents he may find, by the four expedients, conciliation and the rest.”^[2]

In this respect commentator Kullūkabhaṭṭa said about this verse—

“evamukkaprakākāreṇa vijayapravṛttasya nṛpate ye vijayavirodhino bhaveyustān sarvān sāmadānabhedadaṇḍairupāyaiḥ vaśamānayet |”

So, we come to know about the name of the four expedients through the above commentary.

“yadi te tu na tiṣṭeyurupāyaiḥ prathamaistribhiḥ |
daṇḍenaiva prasahyaitān śanakairvaśamānayet ||”7.108 ||^[3]

“If they cannot be stopped by the three first expedients, then let him, overcoming them by force alone, gradually bring them to subjection”.^[4]

Commentator Kullūka said in his commentary of this verse.

“te ca vijayavirodhino yadyādyaistribhirupāyairna nivartante tadā balāddeśosampadādinā yuddhuna śanakairlaghugurudaṇḍakrameṇa daṇḍena vaśīkuryāt ||”

And commentator Raghavānananda Saya—

“tatra caturṇāṃ daṇḍādīnāṃ sāmnā sādhun vaśayati, daṇḍenogrān | dānena mitrān luvdhan vā, bhedena saṃhatān tairasādhyatve daṇḍyediti tatrāpi śanairanyathā te prāṇodyatā na vaśyeyuriti bhāvaḥ |”^[5]

“sāmādīnāmupāyānāṃ caturṇāmapi paṇḍitāḥ |
sāmadaṇḍau praśaṃsanti nityaṃ rāṣṭrābhivṛddhaye ||” 7.109 ||^[6]

Means,

“Among the four expedients, conciliation and the rest, the learned always recommend conciliation and the employment of force for the prosperity of kingdoms.”^[7]

Commentator Kullūkabhaṭṭa says about this verse—

“caturṇāmapi sāmādīnāmupāyānāṃ madhyāt sāmadaṇḍāveva rāṣṭravṛddhyarthaṃ paṇḍitāḥ praśaṃsanti, sāmni prayāsadhanavyayasenyakṣayādidīṣābhāvāt | daṇḍe tu tatsadbhāve'pi kāryasiddhyatiśayāt”

“yathoddharati nirdātā kakṣaṃ dhānyañca rakṣati |
tathā rakṣennṛpo rāṣṭaṃ hanyācca paripanthinaḥ ||” 7.110 ||^[8]

“As the weeder plucks up the weeds and preserves the corn, even so let the king protect his kingdom and destroy his opponents”.^[9]

It is said in the Arthaśāstra—

“upāyāḥ sāmopapradānabhedadaṇḍāḥ |” (2.10.47).^[10]

“The means are conciliation, gifts dissension and force.”^[11]

“tatra sāma pañcavidham—guṇasaṃkīrtanaṃ samvandhopākhyānaṃ, parasparopakārasandarśanam, āyati pradarśanam,ātmopanidhānamiti | tatrābhijanaśarīra karma—prakṛti—śruta—dravyādīnā guṇāgrahaṇaṃ praśaṃsā stutirguṇasaṃkīrtanam | jñātiyaunamaukhastrauvakula—hṛdayamitrasaṃkīrtanaṃ samvandhopākhyānam | svapakṣa parapakṣayoranyonyopakārasaṃkīrtanaṃ parasparopakāra—sandarśanam | “asminnevaṃ kṛta idamāvayorbhavatī’tyaśājananamāyati pradarśanam | yo'haṃ sa bhavān, yanmama dravyaṃ tadbhavatā svakṛtyeṣu prayojyatām ityatmopanidhānamiti |” (2.10.48-53).^[12]

English version ays:

“Among them, conciliation is five-fold praising of merits, mention of relationship, pointing out mutual benefits, showing (advantages in) the future, and placing oneself at the (other’s) disposal. Amongst these, appreciation of the merits of birth, body, occupation, nature learning, property and so on, praise adulation, this is praising of merits. The praising of (common) kinship, marriage relationsahip, Relationship through teaching, relationship through sacrificial performances (common) family, (affection of the) heart, and (common) friend, this is mention of relationship. The praising of mutual benefits according to one’s party and the party of the other, this is pointing out mutual benefits. If this were done in this way, this will happen to us (both)’ this raising of hope is showing (advantage in) the future. ‘What I am is you, what object belongs to me should be used by you in yuour works’, this is placing oneself at the (other’s) disposal”.^95.

Here,

“guṇāguṇa as merits that are there and that are not there is (Meyer) is hardly convincing praśaṃsāstutiḥ- one of the words is superfluous. praise of existing merits and mention of non–existent merits. Kula, ie., friendship between the two families without there being any kinship. hṛdya refers to friendship between the parties themselves, while mitra refers to a common friend”.^[13]

“upapradānam arthopakāraḥ |” (2.10.54).^[14]

“Conferring benefits of money is making gifts”.^[15]

“śaṅkājananaṃ nirbhatrsanaṃ ca bhedaḥ |”(2.10.55).^[16]

“Creating apprehension and reprimanding is dissension”.^[17]

“vadhaḥ parikleśo'rthaharaṇaṃ daṇḍaḥ iti |” (2.10.56).^[18]

“Killing, tormenting and seizure of property constitute force.”^[19]

Manu and Kauṇilya both mentioned about the four expedients. Kauṇilya classified conciliation into five fold and force into three fold among the four expedients. But Manu did not classified any expedients like Kauṇilya.

Kauṭilya defined the four expedients but Manu did not define these four expedients. He only mentioned these expedients.

Poet Māgha was also well aware about four expedients in the field of politis. He was also well aware about their application situations. Following verses prove his knowledge about four expedients.

“caturthopāyasādhye tu ripau sāntvamapakriyā |
svedyamāmajvaraṃ prājñaḥ kī'mbhasā parisiñcati ||” 2.54 ||^[20]

It means,

“Conciliation is certainly a misapplication in the case of an enemy who can be reduced with the forth method, i.e. punishment. What wise men will sprinkle a raw or new fever, requiring (to be cured by) perspiration with water?”^[21]

Where the application of daṇḍanīti is logical there the application of sāmanīti causes failure. The vijigīṣu kings apply the proper policy at the proper place.

The maxim ‘Diamond cuts diamond’ is appropriate almost everywhere. It is useless to try conciliation with an enemy. The only remedy for him is the stringent infliction of a poignant punishment. It would be in vain to sprinkle water upon the body of a patient who suffers from a new fever which can only be put down by profuse perspiration.

In this context commentator Mallinatha Commented in this verse—

“nanu sāmādi sukaropāyamupekṣya kiṃ pākṣisiddhinā daṇḍena? yathāha manuḥ— sāmnā bhedena dānena samastairuta vā pṛthak | vijetuṃ prayatetārīn na yuddhena kadācana iti | tasmāt sāntvameva yukkamityaśaṅkaya dvābhyāṃ nirācaṣṭe caturthopāyeti caturthopāyasādhye daṇḍasādhye ripau sāntvaṃ sām apakriyā apakāraḥ |”

Here poet Māgha used the fourth expedient (caturthopāya) instead of the word daṇḍa and sāntvam instead of the word sāma.

“sāmavādāḥ sakopasya tasya pratyuta dīpakāḥ |
prataptasyeva sahasā sarpiṣastoyavindavaḥ ||” 2.55 ||^[22]

English version says—

“Pacificatory words to him, who is angry, like drop of water thrown suddenly upon heated ghee, are on the other hand, exciting”.^[23]

Policy of repression should be applied to the enemy. If conciliatory measure is applied anger of the enemy will grow more. Enemy should be followed by policy of repression.

Here Balarāma said to Śrī kṛṣṇa that all along Śiśupāla is angry and inimical to Kṛṣṇa. So, he would be excited by the application of pleasant speech at that moment. It is said to neutralize anger of an angry person flattery would be applied.

But this is not the exact way. Because it is seen when drops of water fall upon a quantity of boiling clarified butter that becomes agitated. The enable person should be encounted by the enable. An infuriated foe should be treated severely rather than softly. Circumstances will take a better turn then.

So, it is said in the Manusaṃhitā:

“upadeśo hi mūrkhāṇāṃ prakīpāya na śāntaye | ”

So, Śiśupāla should be followed by policy of repression. Above mentioned Manu’s speech is applicable to all these situations.

In this connection commentator Mallinātha said in the commentary of this verse—

“tasmād daṇḍa eva sa manuvacanaṃ tu apraruḍha tu apraruḍhavairaviṣayam iti bhāvaḥ |”

Here Māgha used the word sāma which is used by Manu and Kauṇilya.

“tantrāvāpavidā yogairmaṇḍalānyadhitiṣṭhatā |
sunigrahā narendreṇa phaṇīndrā iva śatravaḥ ||” 2.88 ||^[24]

Enemies like mighty snakes are easily taken by the kings (also by the snake charmer) that knows his own kingdom and that of his enemies (also knows the application of texts or mantras and herbs) and controls the kingdoms of kings by sāma etc. expedients (also occupies magic circles by meditation).

Wise Uddhava said about the result of patience. If the vijigīṣu king is well known about his own state and enemy state and if he can apply properly the principles—sāma, dāna, bheda, daṇḍa which are essential to rule the state then he can easily control his own state and the enemies’ state. In this way the vijigīṣu king may enhance his reputation. A snake is generally brought under control by an exorcist.

But all exorcists can not control snake properly. Exorcist, who knows proper application of magical formula and herbs, snake is only brought under control by him.

The king is like a snake charmer. An exorcist performs with his mantrauṣadha. vijigīṣu king performs with the knowledge of his own state and enemies state and four principles of sāma etc.

An exorcist can control a snake and a vijigīṣu king is able to control his enemy.

Here Māgha used the word yogaiḥ with the use of śleṣālaṃkāra which denotes sāma, dāna, bheda and daṇḍa.

“upajāpaḥ kṛtastena tānākopavatastvayi |
āśu dīpayitālpo'pi sāgnīn edhānivānilaḥ ||” 2.99 ||^[25]

“Even a slight sowing of dissension effected by him will instantly fire them up already bearing grudge towards you as a very slight wind quickly burns up the smouldering fuel”.^[26]

Kālayavana, kukudmi and others are already against Kṛṣṇa and the slightest amount of instigation made by Śiśupāla will fire up the spirit of these hostile demons against Kṛṣṇa (who will readily pounce upon Kṛṣṇa) as the slightest breeze very easily blazes up a heap of smouldering fuel. Here poet used the word upajāpa instead of the word bheda bearing the same meaning.

Again Māgha says

“ajñātadoṣairdoṣajñairuddūṣyobhayavetanaiḥ |
bhedyā śatro'bhivyaktaśāsanaiḥ sāmavāyikāḥ ||” 2.113 ||^[27]

“The ministers of the enemy are to be alienated by those whose character is not known to the enemy, who are cognisant of the weak points of the enemy; who takes salary both from his own master and alarm from the enemy after denouncing them publicly.”^[28]

Acquiring trust of the minister of the enemy king and collecting the confidential evidence the spy should apply against to them timely and proves as unfaithful publicly. In this way he seperates between the servant and ministers of the enemy.

You (Kṛṣṇa) shall have to engage spies through out the length and breadth of your enemy’s country. They in disguise will take various offices in his state and create confidence in the highest officials. The opportune moment appearing before them they will denounce those officials publicly after producing document or evidence and thereby they will weaken the cause of the enemy.

So, it is said about four expedients in the above verses. Some where in the above verse it is said about sāma, dāna, bheda and daṇḍa. From this we come to know that Māgha was well aware about the four expedients.

So, King should apply these four expedients according to the situasion. Proper application of these four expedients is another characteristic feature of the vijigīṣu king. Here poet Māgha used the word bheda which was used by Kauṭilya also.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 681.

[2]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 125.

[3]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 681.

[4]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 126.

[5]:

loc.cit.

[6]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 681.

[7]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 126.

[8]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op.cit., p. 681.

[9]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op.cit., p. 127.

[10]:

R.P. Kangle: Op.cit., part-I, p. 50.

[11]:

ibid., part-II, p. 95.

[12]:

ibid., part-I, pp. 50-51.

[13]:

loc.cit., (foot note.)

[14]:

ibid., part-I, p. 51.

[15]:

ibid., part-II, p. 96.

[16]:

ibid., part-I, p. 51.

[17]:

ibid., part-II, p. 96.

[18]:

ibid., part-I, p. 51.

[19]:

ibid., part-II, p. 96.

[20]:

Haridas Siddhantavagisha: Op.cit., p. 72.

[21]:

Sitanath Kavyaratna & Madhab Dass Sankhyatirtha: Op.cit., p. 155.

[22]:

Haridas Siddhantavagisha: Op.cit., p. 72.

[23]:

Sitanath Kavyaratna & Madhab Dass Sankhyatirtha: Op.cit., p. 158.

[24]:

Haridas Siddhantavagisha: Op.cit., p.89.

[25]:

ibid., p. 94.

[26]:

Sitanath Kavyaratna & Madhab Dass Sankhyatirtha: Op.cit., p. 289.

[27]:

Haridas Siddhantavagisha: Op.cit., p.100.

[28]:

Sitanath Kavyaratna & Madhab Dass Sankhyatirtha: Op.cit., p. 339.