ROLE OF THE SECRET SERVICE IN ANCIENT INDIA
Author(s): Bimal Kanti Majumdar
Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 1956, Vol. 19 (1956), pp. 119-122
Published by: Indian History Congress
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44140809
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress
This content downloaded from
14.139.241.53 on Tue, 02 Feb 2021 08:46:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANCIENT INDIA (SECTION i) 119
several stone records incised after the reign of Gängeya. Se
Nos. 49, 51, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, and 71 in C. I. I., Vol
Some of these were official records of the Kalachuris themselves.
38 C. I. I., Vol. Iv. p. 386.
39 Ibid., Vid ., Vol. IV, Intro., p. Ixix and n. 5.
40 See the genealogy of the Kalachuris of Saravūpāra in C.I.
Vol. IV, Intro., p. cxcii.
41 Ep. Ind ., Vol. XXX, p. 51.
42 C. /. /., Vol. IV, pp. 47 f. and pp. 51 f.
43 Ibid., Vol. IV, Intro., p. Ixix.
44 Ep . Ind., Vol. XIX, p. 84.
ROLE OF THE SECRET SERVICE IN ANCIENT INDIA
By
Dr. Bimal Kanti Majumdar .
All modern states have their organisations of secret service,
Ancient India is no exception. Even in the tribal state of the Ve
Age we note the existence of secret service or the spy system for
purpose of collecting information necessary for the safety and
being of the state. Thus, what is called Civil espionage or the sys
of employing secret agents to gather information in time of pea
supposed to be as old as the Vedas.1 We hear of spies (Spaśa) b
appointed by the Vedic King to watch over the conduct of
people. The Epic, Purjņic, Arthaśastra and Dharmasāstra lit
tures of our country refer again and again to spies (caras) and e
voys (dūtas). The earliest traces of military espoinage have becom
transparent in the period represented by the Râmãyana and
Mahābhārata, both of them being war-epics. Rāma enquires
Bharata if he was fully informed of the eighteen tirthas (state f
tionaris) of foreign countries through spies.2 The Mahābhār
has discussed in full the employment, qualification, stationing a
marching of spies. The Arthaśastra of Kautilya is a mine of valu
information in this respect. The Dharma-śastras touch upon
subject with care and some detail.4
This content downloaded from
14.139.241.53 on Tue, 02 Feb 2021 08:46:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 Indian history congress
Kautilya, a writer of Arthaśastra, devotes
enumeration, definition and organisation of
of his work deals with the Diplomatic service
of envoys (diplomatic agents), to send messag
or neighbouring states.
The envoys are clarified as under : -
(a) Ambassadors vested with full discreti
(b) Envoys with limited powers and
(c) Those who carried a definite message
A clear and regular diplomatic intercour
states is envisaged in Kautilya's statement on
The statai circle (Mandala) was specially
inter-state relations and adopt to the trad
vis., Sandhi, Vigraha, Yâna, etc.
The functions of spies (caras) in Ancient
Their recruitment was made from all classes
tions, including Brāhmaņas. Their sphere
The Gara of Kautilya corresponds, to some ex
of classical writers, viz., that of Megasthene
ghtest doubt that the spy system is an old i
śastra of Kautilya is elaborate in its treatmen
its use. It has, therefore, given rise to some
nature of the espionage system as practised in
out the whole range of India's ancient history
is accepted as the standard) includes in a c
spies, as the auxiliary limbs of the fightin
spies of various categories, viz., (1) those wh
about the enemy's strength or the disposition of
were well-versed in Kütayuddha (battle of
who incited enemy forces to revolt, spread f
set fire to the enemy's camp and murdered th
ever there was an opportunity. This had l
clude that ťin the work of espoinage all meth
spying, lying, bribing, poisoning, women's w
knife,'
This content downloaded from
14.139.241.53 on Tue, 02 Feb 2021 08:46:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ANCIENT INDIA (SECTION i) 121
As the Arthaśastra gives details about spies both mobile and
stationary and their various activities, both open and secret, the
espionage as prevalent in the age to which Kau^ilya belongs (the
period varies from 4th century B.C. to 2nd century A.D. according
to scholars), has come in for a good deal of criticism and some
observations have been made about it. Dr. V. A. Smith7 seems to
believe that 'intrigue, spies, winning over the enemy's people, siege
and assault' had much to do with the creaion of the Maurya empire
and the theory of politics ex-pounded in the Arthaśastra is substan-
tially identical with that of 'The Prince'. In plain words, it was
Machiavellian. The learned historian further quotes Bāņa to prove
how detestable the Kautilîyan principle was to the poet of the
seventh century A. D. who has described the Science of Kautilya
as 'merciless in its precepts and rich in cruelty'.
A few points for consideration in connection with this ancient
political institution may thus be put forward, the over-all picture of
Kautilîyan espionage was not perhaps applicable with equal exactness to all the periods of Ancient India. The system was not meant
exclusively for the extension and maintenance of the authority of the
state. The means did not always justify the end. In simple language,
it was not Machiavellian in spriti. "The function of the secret
service," writes Dr. A.L. Bashatn,8" was not confined to the suppression of criticism and sedition, and it was looked on not as a mere
machiavellian instrument for maintaining power, but an integral
part of the state machinary." Another European scholar9 seems to
share the same view. He does not consider it to be 'a product of the
Machiavellism of Kautilya,- - it is an application of Dharma to
national defence.
The general treatment accorded to envoys in certain periods of
ancient Indian chronicle was dictated by good sense and moderation.
The Mahābhārata11. for example, interdicts the killing of an envoy.
All ancient writers on political science and art of government were
not dark politicians, ready to recommend security and consolidation
of royal power by unscrupulous and violent means. Inspite of some
occasional deviations from strict morality in the domain of statecraft
ąs in the Arthaśastra and the Great Epic, the espionage systejn in
This content downloaded from
14.139.241.53 on Tue, 02 Feb 2021 08:46:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 INDIAN HISTORY CONGRESS
Ancient India formed only the necessary part of
organisation and was not at least as loathsome a
ancient Sparta, the Third Section of the Czar's pri
and the German gestapo of recent ftiemory.
1. R. V. I. 24. 13 A. V. VI. 4. 3.
2. Ayodhyâ Kāņda, 100. 36
3. Šāntiparva, 85 26-28, C-o Agni Purana 241. 1-14.
4. Manu. Chap. 7. 63.
5. Bk I, Chap. XI and XII.
6. Kau^ilya's Arthaśastra, Bk. XII - , Chapters 2, 3 and 4,
7. Dr. P. C. Chakravarty : The Art of War in Ancient India.
8. Oxford History of India, p. 84
9. The Wonder that was India, p. 122.
10. Louis Renou: The Civilisation in India, p. 104.
11. Šāntiparva 98. 26, 27.
THEORY OF TWO KOSALAS IN NORTHERN INDIA
By
Shri Vishuddhanond Pathak
Certain scholars believe that in ancient times there were two
Kośalas in north India itself. According to thęm, the two portions
were respectively called Uttar and Dakshiņa Kośalas and Sarayû was
the dividing line between the two. Their opinion that Srāvastī and
Kušavatī were the respective capitals of the two portions, however,
falls through once the details are worked out. There is no doubt
about the fact of Srāvastī's being the capital of Kosala (Uttara).
But Kušavatī, if it has to be placed north of the Vindhyas cannot
be identified with modern Kasiya now in the new Deoriya district
of Uttar Pradesh. It is the Kusinara of the Mahāparinibbāņa Sūtta
and Kusavati of the Mahasudassana Sūtta of the Digha Nikãya
Kusavati i.e. Kasaya is far north of the Sarayû. (Ghaghra) river and so
it cannot be said to have been the capital of any portion of Kosalą
$outh of Sarayû.
This content downloaded from
14.139.241.53 on Tue, 02 Feb 2021 08:46:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms