The Dynamics of Peace and War in Kāmandakīya Nītisāra

Anushka Verma

Abstract: Nītisāra by Kāmandakī is based on Kautilya’s Arthaśāstra. Both the texts share vast similarities but where Nītisāra focuses on courage and the military qualities of the king, Arthaśāstra is dependent on deliverance of kingly duties. This paper explores the strategic and philosophical interplay between peace (śama) and war (yuddha) as articulated in Nītisāra. Rather than viewing peace and war as morally opposite, Kāmandakī treats them as interdependent instruments of statecraft within the ṣāḍguṇya (a six-fold policy), where diplomacy and military action function as complementary means to ensure political stability and national security. Kāmandakī presents a vision of governance in which the king must remain ever alert, choosing between peace and war based on calculations of strength, timing and the welfare of the people.

This article will contain six sections. The introductory section will contain the overview of ancient Indian political philosophy and the objective of analysing Nītisāra in modern political discourse. The second section will elaborate Ṣāḍguṇya, the sixfold policy which highlights how peace and war are situated within a dynamic diplomatic cycle. The third section will deal with the major questions in ethics and the strategy of peace. For instance, When is peace preferable? How should peace treaties be crafted? Whether it be temporary or permanent, sincere or strategic? Is peace a moral ideal or a tactical move? etc. The next section will contain the questions in the context of war and ethics. For instance, under what conditions is war justified? What forms of war are recognized: open, covert, ambush, psychological? What ethical limits are placed on warfare? etc. The fifth section will deal with the relationship between peace and war in Nītisāra, how they are not opposites but complementary strategies. It will discuss their inter dependency. Lastly, it will discuss the contemporary relevance of such principles and how they can be helpful for India’s diplomatic and strategic challenges. It would analyse how Indian policymakers and thinkers can engage more deeply with indigenous political philosophies for contemporary application.

Keywords Kāmandakīya · Nītisāra · Ṣāḍguṇya · Peace and War · Ancient Indian Statecraft

 

Introduction

Classical Indian political philosophy represents a fine blend of ethics and pragmatism. Unlike mostly philosophical texts which are mainly abstract or idealistic, the classical socio-political texts of Indian philosophy are more practical and contribute to good governance. Such texts include Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra, the Śānti Parva of the Mahābhārata and Kāmandakī’s Nītisāra. These texts deal with the fundamental question of governance like power,  justice and order etc. It recognises the complexities of human nature and the unpredictability of the political domain. There is a need to be both ethical and strategically canny for a ruler.

Possibly written between the 4th and 8th century CE, Nītisāra by Kāmandakī is a classical Indian socio-political text based on Arthaśāstra. Kāmandakī is believed to be associated with the court of a Licchavi king of Nepal or Pāla dynasty of Bengal. Though his text is based on Arthaśāstra, its uniqueness lies in its dialectical writing style making it more accessible to the readers. Further it is more pragmatic, while Kautilya focused on the duties of kingship based on rājadharma, Kāmandakī is more concerned with the concepts of vīrya, bala and the ruler’s ability to act decisively in both diplomatic and military affairs. He has focused not merely on administrative duties or ethics but on the actual mechanisms of exercising and sustaining power in a dynamic political domain.

As the title suggests, the article deals with the concepts of peace and war as discussed in Nītisāra. Peace is referred to as śama or sandhi and war as yuddha or vigraha. The most common approach to the two concepts is that both war and peace are contradictory in nature. But Kāmandakī treats them not as antithetical or mutually exclusive categories but as interdependent instruments within a ruler’s strategic ordinance. Instead of analysing them from a moral absolutist perspective, Kāmandakī presents them as contextual and contingent decisions that a ruler keeps evaluating continuously. Peace may be preferable in one context, war in another. What matters is the careful assessment of kāla, deśa, bala and artha. They refer to timing, circumstance, relative strength and political and economic interests respectively.

This idea proposed by Kāmandakī fits well with the Indian tradition of flexible moral as well as political thinking, where strategies change based on the situation instead of following rigid beliefs. In this context he talks about the concept of ṣāḍguṇya. It is the sixfold policy containing peace, war, neutrality, preparation for war, alliance and dual strategy in it. It acts as an example for how to govern in a changing situation. From this point of view, diplomacy and military action aren’t separate but are both options that can be used at the same time as part of one broader strategy.

This article aims to explore Kāmandakī’s views on the dynamics of peace and war, situating them within the broader context of Indian political philosophy while also considering their relevance to contemporary issues. In an age where nations face challenges ranging from cross-border conflicts to soft power diplomacy, the need to engage with indigenous models of political strategies becomes necessary. The article explores and explains the rich and informative ideas found in the Nītisāra. In doing so, it shows how these ancient philosophical teachings can still guide us in today’s world, especially when it comes to making smart and ethical decisions in times of peace and war.

The goal is to understand how rulers and leaders in ancient India managed peace without becoming weak, and how they prepared for war without losing their sense of morality. Nītisāra proposes that peace and strength must go hand in hand: a nation should be ready to defend itself, but always try to solve problems through diplomacy first. And if war becomes necessary, it should be fought with careful planning and within ethical limits. It should not be driven by anger, greed or revenge.

 

Ṣāḍguṇya

Sāḍguṇya or say the sixfold foreign policy, is one of the most important part of ancient Indian political thought. It is explained in detail in both Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra and Kāmandakī’s Nītisāra. For Kauṭilya Vijigīṣu is a ruler who wants to expand his power. The vijigīṣu treats these six strategies as the tools which he uses based on his strength and the situation around him. He believed that a wise ruler should not follow one fixed method, but should choose the right policy at the right time. It should be dynamic.

Kāmandakī goes on further to make these strategies more flexible. For him, diplomacy is not a step-by-step process. Instead, it’s like a circle of different strategies, which a ruler must keep changing and adjusting. This change and adjustment is based on three things:

• Kāla: time
• Deśa: place or region
• Bala: strength or resources

In Nītisāra Chapter 9, Verse 3, Kāmandakī defines the six strategies as follows:

1. Sandhi: It stands for peace. It is making treaties or alliances with other powers to avoid war or strengthen one’s position.
2. Vigraha: The second one stands for war, choosing to go to war or getting ready for a military conflict when necessary.
3. Āsana: It means neutrality by staying out of a conflict and simply observing the situation without taking any sides.
4. Yāna: This is marching or preparing the army, often to show strength or prepare for action, even if war is not certain.
5. Saṁśraya: It suggests taking protection under a stronger ally, or forming a defensive alliance when one’s position is weak.
6. Dvaidhibhāva: It refers to dual policy. Using two strategies at once, for instance, keeping peace with one king while fighting another.

These strategies are not mere abstract ideals but are very much significant from the pragmatic perspective. The line mentioned below shows a deep awareness of such thought and a commitment to changing governance. Kāmandakī writes:

A wise king should adopt peace or war, neutrality or dual policy, according to time and place, and not merely based on preference (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 9, Verse 5).

Kāmandakī goes on further and builds on Kauṭilya’s ideas by saying that a king should not stick to just one type of foreign policy, like making peace, going to war, forming alliances, etc. Rather, he should always stay alert and ready to change his approach based on the situation. For example, if peace is no longer working, he should be ready to go to war or if war is not helping, he should try to make a treaty. The key idea is flexibility, the king must adapt his strategy as per the circumstances. Such an approach is significant for a king to such extent that Kāmandakī writes,

Even a weak king, by proper understanding of the ṣāḍguṇya and by taking suitable measures, can protect his kingdom and frustrate the plans of stronger enemies (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 8).

What we observe today is where realist theories which often glorify aggression, rage or domination, Kāmandakī, find strategic restraint as a sign of being a strengthened nation. This idea is very much clear when he talks about āsana, that is neutrality, it is not passive withdrawal but an active decision to delay commitment until a more favorable alignment of forces is achieved.

While mentioning about ṣāḍguṇya, the most important thing to be remembered about it is that ṣāḍguṇya is not the same as caturopāya. While ṣāḍguṇya refers to the sixfold policies mentioned above, caturopāya are the four classical means of pursuing political ends which are sāmā, dāna, bheda and daṇḍa which refer to conciliation, concessions, division and punishment respectively. These four are the methods of diplomacy, whereas ṣāḍguṇya constitutes the strategic orientations a ruler may adopt. Yet, both the things work together at the same time.

For Kāmandakī the notion of dvaidhibhāva, that is of dual policy, is often the most suitable stance in an unstable political environment. He writes:

One should make peace with one enemy and fight with another; such a king remains unshaken even amidst great dangers (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 12).

The statement suggests that the king uses many different diplomatic strategies at the same time, not just one. He deals with some countries one-on-one, which is called bilateral diplomacy and also works with groups of countries together which is called multilateral diplomacy. And these moves are carefully planned so that the king does not end up isolated and can gain more power and advantage in dealing with the others.

 

Peace and Ethics

The first thought that comes to our mind when we think about peace is some platonic or utopian state, which sounds good in theory but is not that practically possible. We find that in Nītisāra, śama is not glorified as a moral absolute and also not dismissed as a sign of weakness. It is a strategy, a calculated move which is practical and directed towards political stability. Kāmandakī emphasises that a ruler must evaluate peace in light of artha, kāla and bala, rather than any ideological preference for nonviolence. In this context he writes,

One should make peace with the enemy when one is weak, and prepare for war when one is strong (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 15).

This means the king should always be practical and realistic about the situation. If the enemy is stronger or in a better position, then it’s smarter to choose peace, not because peace is always the right or good thing to do, but because it’s the safest and most sensible choice at that time. And another most important situation for promoting peace is when there is a possibility that war would cause too much damage. For instance, huge demographic loss, economic loss or disturbance in the kingdom in some cases. In such cases, avoiding war helps protect the nation. Kāmandakī states,

A war that causes harm to one’s own subjects should not be undertaken, even if the enemy is weak (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 21).

Now this is yogakṣema, the welfare of the people of the state. Peace, therefore, is to be pursued not merely out of weakness or fear, but also when it aligns with the king’s duty to protect and preserve the well-being of his subjects. This also highlights the rājadharma of the king. In some cases temporary or deceptive peace is also suggested when it paves the way for a long term interest. This is where he brings in the concept of kūṭanīti, that is deceptive diplomacy. In this context  Kāmandakī writes,

When straightforward means fail, one should employ diplomacy that may involve deceit (kūṭanīti) for the protection of the kingdom (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 9, Verse 17).

Sometimes a king may need to use tricks or clever strategies to deal with enemies, that’s just part of smart politics. But Kāmandakī warns not to use these tricks on everyone. If the king lies or cheats even friends or neutral parties, people will stop trusting him. Over time, this will damage his reputation and make it harder to build strong relationships. As he advises:

Deception should not be used against friends, for loss of trust leads to loss of support (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 24).

Thus, what we find is that in Kāmandakī’s writings peace is both morally and strategically significant. It is moral when it secures the public good, prevents unnecessary suffering or preserves long-term stability. It is strategic when it allows time for recovery, builds advantageous alliances, or weakens the enemy’s position. And the most important thing to be noted is that peace is not to be seen as permanent unless sustained by continued balance of power and vigilance.

The wise ruler makes peace, not out of complacency, but out of foresight, preparing secretly for conflict while appearing conciliatory (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 26).

So this is how Kāmandakī sees peace, it is not the end in itself, rather it is meant to achieve sovereignty, protect the people and survive in a dynamic world.

 

War and Ethics

Referred to as yuddha, war in the Nītisāra, as similar to peace blends both strategy and ethics.  This blend comes from dharma and rājadharma. In the western philosophy, according to the Machiavellian approach, war is not based entirely on power. It also includes the justification, method and moral limits of war. Similarly, Nītisāra also discusses conditions, types and ethical limitations of war. Let us try to analyse one by one.

Conditions for War

As per Nītisāra, war is not just an arbitrary tool of aggression, it is permitted only under specific and justified circumstances. These circumstances include:

1. Saṃdhiviccheda: It refers to the threat to sovereignty. War becomes necessary when the enemy violates treaties or threatens the territorial integrity and political independence of the state.
2. Durga-vighāta: It refers to the internal betrayal or rebellion. Kāmandakī permits warlike actions against internal revolts or conspiracies that threaten the stability of the realm. The reason is that it further leads in threatening the king’s legitimate rule and social order.
3. Nīti: The last one is for assuring military superiority. Kāmandakī emphasises that war should only be undertaken when the king possesses enough strength to ensure a smooth victory. It avoids unnecessary prolongation and destruction. This is a matter of nīti also as much as of ethics.

Types of War

In the Nītisāra, chapter thirteen from verses 22-25, Kāmandakī has talked about different types of war depending on the different strategic situations:

1. Prakāśayuddha: It is open or frontal war. It is traditional and has direct military confrontation often governed by clear rules.
2. Tūṣṇīmyuddha: It the silent or covert war, carried out without open declaration. It involves secret movements, spying and tactical positioning etc.
3. Kuṭayuddha: It is deceitful or psychological war. It involves misleading the enemy through misinformation, bribery or psychological manipulation. Though Kāmandakī is allowing such methods he still warns that they must be used within limits.

Other than these, he has also mentioned some strategies and modes of fighting which include surprise attacks, guerrilla war, pitched battles and military stratagems like ambushes, spies etc. The above classification highlights the complexities of war, how each war is unique and cannot be fought in the same manner. Such distinction of wars by Kāmandakī highly resonates with Kauṭilya’s view of the same in the Arthaśāstra.

Ethical Limitations in War

Despite permitting various forms of wars, Kāmandakī, in the chapter 14 of Nītisāra, emphasises various ethical guidelines along with the wars. He mentions that in war violence in inevitable but the focus must be to harm the targeted enemy and avoid unnecessary suffering of innocent civilians, also called anārya-vṛtta-varjanam.

Even in kuṭayuddha, which is mainly deceitful or psychological, there must be boundaries. Excessive violence, destruction of temples, harming women, children or the elderly are condemned. Basically, the king must avoid acts that would be counted as adharmic. Moreover, the end of war should not be for personal gain rather for the restoration of peace and justice. The war must serve the greater good of the realm and the citizens.  But in such a scenario the main problem comes from how do we find a balance between strategy and ethics. This will be discussed in the next section.

 

Peace and War as Complementary

Kāmandakī recognises the role of strategy and morality in both war and peace, he does not shy away from acknowledging that both war and politics include deception and force. But along with it, ethical limitations are necessary, these are not the sign of weakness rather help in a long term governance. The king must be wise enough to use force when needed but noble enough to avoid cruelty.

One further notable aspect found in Nītisāra is the recognition that peace and war are not moral opposites, but complementary for good governance. Beyond the strict binary, he suggests that both the acts depend on the  context, timing and the welfare of the state. Kāmandakī writes:

Just as fire and water are both necessary for survival, so too are war and peace necessary for preserving the kingdom (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 5).

Kāmandakī has used the analogy of fire and water to represent the relation of peace and war, suggesting though being different in nature both are necessary and coexist together. How to make sense of them depends on the ruler’s ability to utilise them. This utility depends on the interpretation of the changing geopolitical situations. Over emphasising any one of them would lead to the decline of the state.

He who wages war unnecessarily brings ruin upon himself; he who avoids war even when threatened invites defeat (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 11).

For Kāmandakī, the king who is able to balance both śāstra and śakti becomes the strongest king. Most Indian philosophical thoughts have emphasised on the cyclical nature of worldly events, showing their impermanence. Applying the same method in the context of peace and war, none of them can be permanent. Hence, instead of focusing on one, a king should rather work on adaptability and discernment, that will come by balancing śāstra and śakti. A ruler needs to be diplomatic, she should know when to negotiate peace with dignity and when to wield arms with justified force. Not only that but she should also know how to prepare for war even during the times of peace and seek peace even within war.

In times of peace, he should plan for war; in times of war, he should look for opportunities to make peace. Such a ruler remains ever-victorious. (Nītisāra, 1982, Ch. 10, Verse 20).

Contemporary Relevance of  Nītisāra’s Teachings on Peace and War

In the current scenario, India is facing many serious challenges, like border disputes, competition with other powerful countries, cyber attacks and changes in global alliances. To handle these issues well, India needs a strategy that is both morally right and smart in practice. In this situation, Kāmandakī’s Nītisāra offers valuable guidance. It presents traditional Indian thoughts that balances national interest with ethical governance.

One of Kāmandakī’s most important ideas is the focus on mantraśakti, the power of diplomacy, discussion and wise advice rather than relying only on daṇḍaśakti, or military force. He believed that good planning and thinking should come before any war. He also stressed that the quality of advisors, careful consultation and clear judgment are essential for good governance. Similarly, in the current scenario, India should strengthen our institutions, promote smart diplomacy and focus on soft power tools like regional leadership, culture and economic cooperation.

Kāmandakī’s teaching on the ṣāḍguṇya fits well with the complexity of today’s international politics. For example, India’s approach to balancing relations with the U.S., Russia and China shows how flexible and thoughtful foreign policy needs to be, rather than sticking to one rigid idea.

Kāmandakī also said that a king must first make the country strong internally before trying to expand outward. This is like today’s focus on Atmanirbhar Bharat and making the borders secure. He believed that the purpose of politics is to protect the yogakṣema, the safety and well-being of the people. So, foreign and defense policy should aim at national strength and the happiness of citizens, not just at gaining power.

Studying Kāmandakī today can help India move away from colonial models of strategy and instead build its own approach, one that is grounded in Indian culture and values. His ideas show us how to aim for peace, but not at the cost of national security or independence. This kind of ethical realism makes Nītisāra different from modern thinkers who either ignore ethics or who believe in peace without power. Kāmandakī’s work reflects an Indian way of combining śakti, nīti, and dharma in politics.

References

Kāmandakī. (1982). Nītisāra (G. P. Bhatt, Trans. & Ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kangle, R. P. (1965). The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, Part II: The Contents. Bombay: University of Bombay.

Muni, S. D., & Mohan, C. R. (2015). India’s Foreign Policy: The Modi Era. Foundation for National Security Research.

Bajpai, K. (2021). India’s Grand Strategy: History, Theory, Cases. Routledge.

Gautam, Pradeep. “The Nitisara by Kamandaka: Continuity and Change from Kautilya’s Arthashastra.” IDSA Monograph Series.