Anupam- The Dreamer

Philosophy of साम, दाम, दंड, भेद (saam, daam, danda, bheda)- a critical review

A little while ago, I heard a politician making a remark that “saam, daam, danda, bheda, etc. whatever is to be used for winning elections, we will use that”. Sometime back, one of my acquaintances was telling me that in politics “saam, daam, danda, bheda” have to be used and even acceptable if one wants to win the elections. If you are a student of history, you would very well know that साम, दाम, दंड, भेद (saam, daam, danda, bheda) was first expounded by the great philosopher, strategist and administrator Chanakya in his treatise on statecraft “Arthashastra”, who lived in the times of the king Chandragupta Maurya around 300 B.C. What does this philosophy really entail, and is that philosophy being practiced in today’s times, and where does Chanakya fit in the current socio-politico-economic scenario, is the issue that we will dwell upon at the moment.

Saam– means persuasion, conciliation and diplomacy to achieve one’s goals

Daam– means the price (monetary, in kind, or illegal wealth, or corruption) one has to pay to achieve a goal

Danda– means the use of force, power and threats in any form, viz. military, muscle power, monetary, punishment etc. to achieve a goal

Bheda– means creating differences between people and exploiting their weaknesses and using them to one’s own advantage

Although, these principles of administration and political strategy were propounded about 2300 years ago, yet these are still taught and even practiced in various quarters of life even today by different strata of people, across different geographies, across different professions and in myriad ways. In current times, it can be summed up nicely in one word broadly i.e. “Realpolitik”. Realpolitik is essentially a philosophy for conduct of politics or principles in a practical manner rather than taking into account the moral or ethical considerations.

The United States of America, is widely believed to be one of the greatest proponents of Realpolitik in the recent past. For example, it promotes democracy across the world and considers itself as a great champion of the same, yet at the same time it overturns the democratically elected regimes and even support the authoritarian regimes wherever it suits its strategic interests. Similarly, the tariff regulations imposed recently is again a good example of the realpolitik, where the long-term relations and moral considerations are overtaken by the short-term and immediate benefits. Even in global affairs, there are umpteen examples of the philosophy of realpolitik or “saam, daam, danda, bheda” employed by every country, in some measure and in some degree, wherever it suits its interests. And all that is justified by some proponents in the “national interest” even if it harms global interests, like the incumbent US President advocates for using more fossil fuels even if that is against the global good.

Even the political parties and many leaders use these principles to acquire power, by hook or by crook, which is quite visible during the election season. There are businessmen who have used the principles of “saam, daam, danda, bheda” in their business practices and have made illegal gains over many years. There have been administrators who have taken a leaf out of the teachings of Chanakya and used them in their public dealings. There have been sportspersons who have used immoral means to achieve victory (like Lance Armstrong, the multiple time Tour de France winner, who later admitted to doping to win the races). Then there are celebrities who have used immoral means and their influence for getting undue advantage over others. Then there are professionals like lawyers, accountants, doctors, subject-experts who would have cheated you in some way to make more money. So, you see, in some way, these principles have become a part and parcel of the society. So, as per this school of thought, it would not be wrong to conclude that Chanakya fits very well even after 2300 years in today’s society, if we consider the practical aspects of the current state of affairs.

However, there has been a strong criticism of this philosophy of Chanakya, since the time it was expounded. There have been series of thinkers who have believes that the principles of “saam, daam, danda, bheda” are against the moral and ethical principles of humanity. And if everyone starts practicing this ideology, then there will be मत्स्यन्याय (Matsyanyaya) all around, that figuratively means that big fish will eat the small fish and essentially means that “only might is right”. And if that happens, then we would not be living in a humane world rather it would be a world of animals, where there is just one rule that “might is right”. There would be no meaning of human values of empathy, compassion, love, respect, helpfulness, charity etc. Only the rich and powerful will rule without following any moral and ethical principles, and exploit the poor and powerless. Thus, this school of thought advocates giving up of these principles of Chanakya in the practical scenario of the human society if we want to preserve any shred of human-ness within ourseleves. Therefore, for them, Chanakya has become outdated and outlived, as far as his principles of “saam, daam, danda, bheda” are concerned.

Now, the defence of the criticism comes from the Chanakya himself, as he advocated the use of principles of “saam, daam, danda, bheda” for achieving good governance in the administration of a political territory. He believed that the “goal or the end” should be good, however the “means” used to achieve them can be anything- good or bad. For example, he would justify the act of Robinhood, by saying that if a thief steals from a rich and corrupt person and distributes that wealth among poor and needy, Robinhood should be considered as a good man.

However, there have been legendary thinkers like Gandhiji who have always advocated for both “means” and “end” to be good. For them, the methods used to achieve one’s goals are as important as the goals itself, which is essential to build a just, fair and equitable society. So, he would never justify the act of Robinhood.

All said and done, whichever side we are on, but one thing is very clear. Even if we believe that Chanakya and his principles cannot be the mainstay of human society, but his ghost is always present in the society in some form or the other. His principles are always being followed in some way or the other, by some person or the other. If Chanakya is the practicality, Gandhiji is the idealism. And where you stand on the continuum of these extremities, is the kind of life you will make for yourself, your family, your society and the world.

Until next time….