________________
JULY, 1920]
INTER-STATE RELATIONS IN ANCIENT INDIA
129
BY NAREN
INTER-STATE RELATIONS IN ANCIENT INDIA. BY NARENDRA NATH LAW, MA., B.L., P,R 8. ; CALCUTTA.
Prefatory Remarks. The subject of ancient inter-state relations is evidently very wide, including not merely those inter-state relations that were regulated by inter-state laws corresponding to the international laws of later times, but also those that fell outside the said laws. Light is here attempted to be thrown on the two fields of regulated and unregulated relations in order that a comparative estimate may be made of each in contrast with the other. The recondite nature of the task requires among others a thorough study of the latter half of the Kaufiliya Arthasastra which happens to be the toughest portion of the whole work. Its English translation has, I must admit with gratitude to its learned translator, helped me a good deal in overcoming many difficulties within a shorter time than I could have done without its aid; but at the same time I have to mention, without the least intention of detracting from the credit of the very useful pioneering performance of the said translator, that there have been very many occasions for me in the course of my research to differ from the translation. A critical perusal of the said latter half of the Kau tiliya was undertaken with the object that generalizations made from one of its parts should not run the risk of being contradicted by another. The subject matter of this portion of the Kaufiliya is hardly met with in any other Sanskrit text that I know of with the same elaboration of details, and hence, references to other Sanskrit works in my treatment of the subject are few and far between. It must not however be supposed that I have ignored the evidence available from other quarters, whether law-codes, epics, puranas, dramas, codes of polity or documents of any other description. On the other hand, I have always kept my mind on a keen look out for all kinds of evidence on my subject and would welcome them whenever anything fresh comes or is brought within my reach.
The task of refutation of certain opinions rendered ourrent by previous writers who had occasion to touch the subject of "statal circle," and such other topics pertaining to the present subject, rendered my task doubly difficult. These opinions have become deep-rooted not only by the length of time they have been obtaining currency but also on account of the eminence of one or two of the writers who have lent them their support. In the facility with which the finished products of research are perused, we are apt to lose sight of the great difficulties besetting the stemming of current opinions or the elicitation of facts and generalizations from a confusing mass of evidence, and hence I make no apology for pointing out the following:
(1) The various states forming the mandala (statal circle) have not hitherto been regarded as a collocation, general in character and applicable to the case of any state whatsoever, surrounded by the rest with mutual feelings of friendliness or enmity issuing from the principle of spacial adjacency.
(2) The madhyama state has been hitherto rendered as "intermediary," signifying the misconception about its real character.
(3) The state called udásina has also been wrongly rendered as "neutral" as the result of a mistaken notion about its position and function in the statal circle.
(4) A ydtavya is not the same as ars, which again is not identical with batru. Though the differences among them are not clear in the Kamandakiya, they do exist and appear
