DDK HistoryF.p65 - CSIR

7.4] TECHNIQUE OF DISRUPTING TRIBES 213
deal of the work itself rests solidly upon previous administrative
practice, and a theory of statecraft which can only be pre-Mauryan.
The separation of the Atharva-veda from the other three in Arth. 1.3
would be earlier than the standard brahmin grouping of all four vedas
together. Arth. 5.5 cites, among former writers upon the subject, one
Dirgha Carayana on signs that manifest the king’s displeasure, “ as
straws (the wind) “ ; this worthy reminds one of Dlrgha-karfiyana,
minister of Kosalan Pasenadi, who avenged his uncle, the Mallian
Bandhula. The injunction (Arth. 2.1) against admitting missionary ascetics
to crown villages could’ not be post Asokan.
Book 11 of Arth. consists of a single chapter on the technique of
breaking up tribes (samgha).
“ Ksatriya guilds (sreni) in Kamboja, Surastra and the like subsist upon
husbandry and arms. The Licchavika, Vrajika, JN^allaka, Madraka. Kukura. Kuru,
Pancala and the like subsist by the title rajan (oligarch). Agents provocateurs should gain
access to all these tribes, discover the possible sources of jealousy, hatred, contention
among ‘hem, should disseminate the seeds of progressive disser:-.io : ) ... Let those of
higher rank (within the tribe) be discouraged from eating at a common table with, and
marriage with those of lower .standing. Tribesmen of lower rank should, on the 01 her
hand, be instigated to (insist upon) commensality and intermarriage with the higher. The
lesser should be provoked to claim equality of status in family, prowess, and change of
place (? ( tribal office or assignment of. tribal land, both of which could be rotated).
Public decisions and tribal custom should be brought to dissolution by insistence upon
the contrary. Litigation should -be turned into a fight hy the (king’s paid) bravi who, at
night, injure property, beasts, or men (of one party, to throw the blame upon the other.
thereby fomenting the quarrel). On all occasions of (such intra-tribal) conflict, the king
should support the weaker party with (his own) funds and army, should instigate them
to annihilate their opponents ; or he (the king) might deport the splinter proups: Otherwise,
he might settle the whole lot upon the land in one region, in detached farming units of
five to ten families each. Jf they all remained together in one place, they might be
capable of taking up arms. (Therefore) let (the king) set a fine against their reunion...
.Thus might he proceed against the tribes (to become) the sole absolute ruler (over
them, as over the rest of the land) ; so, on the other hand, might the tribes protect
themselves against being thus overcome by the (external) absolute monarch.” (Arth.