Carl Clausewitz - The Strategy of Warfare – Boxed Set

The reception of what is condemned is (due to) desire; and anger consists in oppressing the good; since both these are productive of many evils, both of them are held to be the worst evils.

Hence be who is possessed of discretion should associate with the aged, and, after controlling his passions, abandon both anger and desire which are productive of other evils and destructive of the very basis (of life).

[Thus ends Chapter III, "The Aggregate of the Troubles of Men," in Book VIII. "Concerning Vices and Calamities” of the Arthasástra of Kautilya. End of the hundred and nineteenth chapter from the beginning.]

Table of Contents

PROVIDENTIAL calamities are fire, floods, pestilence, famine, and (the epidemic disease called) maraka.

My teacher says that of fire and floods, destruction due to fire is irremediable; all kinds of troubles, except those due to fire, can be alleviated, and troubles due to floods can be passed over.

No, says Kautilya, fire destroys a village, or part of a village whereas floods carry off hundreds of villages.

My teacher says that of pestilence and famine, pestilence brings all kinds of business to a stop by causing obstruction to work on account of disease and death among men and owing to the flight of servants, whereas famine stops no work, but is productive of gold, cattle and taxes.

No, says Kautilya, pestilence devastates only a part (of the country) and can be remedied, whereas famine causes troubles to the whole (of the country) and occasions dearth of livelihood to all creatures.

This explains the consequences of maraka.

My teacher says that of the loss of chief and vulgar men, the loss of vulgar men causes obstruction to work.

No, says Kautilya, it is possible to recruit vulgar men, since they form the majority of people; for the sake of vulgar men, nobles should not be allowed to perish; one in a thousand may or may not be a noble man; he it is who is possessed of excessive courage and wisdom and is the refuge of vulgar people.

My teacher says that of the troubles arising from one's own or one’s enemy's Circle of States, those due to one's own Circle are doubly injurious and are irremediable, whereas an inimical Circle of States can be fought out or kept away by the intervention of an ally or by making peace.

No, says Kautilya, troubles due to one's own Circle can be got rid of by arresting or destroying the leaders among the subjective people; or they may be injurious to a part of the country, whereas troubles due to an enemy's Circle of States cause oppression by inflicting loss and destruction and by burning, devastation, and plunder.

My teacher says that of the quarrels among the people and among kings, quarrel among the people brings about disunion and thereby enables an enemy to invade the country, whereas quarrel among kings is productive of double pay and wages and of remission of taxes to the people.

No, says Kautilya, it is possible to end the quarrel among the people by arresting the leaders, or by removing the cause of quarrel; and people quarrelling among themselves vie with each other and thereby help the country, whereas quarrel among kings causes trouble and destruction to the people and requires double the energy for its settlement.

My teacher says that of a sportive king and a sportive country, a sportive country is always ruinous to the results of work, whereas a sportive king is beneficial to artisans, carpenters, musicians, buffoons and traders.

No, says Kautilya, a sportive country, taking to sports for relaxation from labour, causes only a trifling loss; and after enjoyment, it resumes work, whereas a sportive king causes oppression by showing indulgence to his courtiers, by seizing and begging, and by obstructing work in the manufactories.

My teacher says that of a favourite wife and a prince, the prince causes oppression by showing indulgence to his followers, by seizing and begging, and by obstructing the work in manufactories whereas the favourite wife is addicted to her amorous sports.

No, says Kautilya, it is possible to prevent through the minister and the priest, the oppression caused by the prince, but not the oppression caused by the favourite wife, since she is usually stubborn and keeps company with wicked persons.

My teacher says that of the troubles due to a corporation of people and to a leader (a chief), the corporation of people people cannot be put down since it consists of a number of men and causes oppression by theft and violence, whereas a leader causes troubles by obstruction to, and destruction of, work.

No, says Kautilya, it is very easy to get rid of (the troubles from) a corporation; since it has to rise or fall with the king; or it can be put down by arresting its leader or a part of the corporation itself, whereas a leader backed up with support causes oppression by injuring the life and property of others.

My teacher says that of the chamberlain and the collector of revenue, the chamberlain causes oppression by spoiling works and by inflicting fines, whereas the collector of revenue makes use of the ascertained revenue in the department over which he presides.

No, says Kautilya, the chamberlain takes to himself what is presented by others to be entered into the treasury whereas the collector makes his own revenue first and then the kings'; or he destroys the kings' revenue and proceeds as he pleases to seize the property of others.

My teacher says that of the superintendent of the boundary and a trader, the superintendent of the boundary destroys traffic by allowing thieves and taking taxes more than he ought to, whereas a trader renders the country prosperous by a favourable barter of commercial articles.

No, says Kautilya, the superintendent of the boundary increases commercial traffic by welcoming the arrival of merchandise, whereas traders unite in causing rise and fall in the value of articles, and live by making profits cent per cent in panas or kumbhas (measures of grain).

Which is more desirable, land occupied by a high-born person or land reserved for grazing a flock of cattle?

My teacher says that the land occupied by a high-born person is very productive; and it supplies men to the army; hence it does not deserve to be confiscated lest the owner might cause troubles, whereas the land occupied for grazing a flock of cattle is cultivable and deserves therefore to be freed, for cultivable land is preferred to pasture land.

No, says Kautilya, though immensely useful, the land occupied by a high-born person deserves to be freed, lest he might cause troubles (otherwise), whereas the land held for grazing a flock of cattle is productive of money and beasts, and does not therefore deserve to be confiscated unless cultivation of crops is impeded thereby.

My teacher says that of robbers and wild tribes, robbers are ever bent on carrying off women at night, make assaults on persons, and take away hundreds and thousands of panas, whereas wild tribes, living under a leader and moving in the neighbouring forests can be seen here and there causing destruction only to a part.

No, says Kautilya, robbers carry off the property of the careless and can be put down as they are easily recognized and caught hold of, whereas wild tribes have their own strongholds, being numerous and brave, ready to fight in broad daylight, and seizing and destroying countries like kings.

Of the forests of beasts and of elephants, beasts are numerous and productive of plenty of flesh and skins; they arrest the growth of the grass and are easily controlled, whereas elephants are of the reverse nature and are seen to be destructive of countries even when they are captured and tamed.