2/2018 57 AL-BIRUNi’S NOTES ON INDIAN FOUR-HANDED – SOME REMARKS

BY MARIA SCHETELICH

Since Hiram Cox and Duncan Forbes put forth the theory that catūrāji, the In- dian four-handed dice-chess, should be regarded as “the seed from which our chess was to spring”1 that game has not ceased to be a kind of bone of conten- tion with chess historians. This is mainly due to the fact that some of its features did not fit in with the almost generally accepted classification of chess as a war game. Unfortunately, when the tradi- tional Indian four-handed dice chess was discovered for Europe by William Jones in 1790, it had already been on the verge of becoming obsolete. Written sources, allowing to reconstruct it are few, and eye-witnesses are already almost com- pletely absent.2 When Harold Murray wrote his in 1913, it was no longer played in the way described by Al Birunī, Śūlapāni, Raghunandana or by the Caturaṅgataraṅginī. Instead a simpler variant without dice became current.

The main points that prevented chess historians from accepting the older catūrāji as a possible ancestor of mod- ern two-handed chess were two: the way a player was allowed to treat his partner Four handed chess after Al Birunī (Sanskrit: mitra, friend, ally) because it seemed to go against the logic and moral of (the European notion of) warfare,3 the ….. The pieces have certain Four handed chess after Al Birunī most rigid verdict on this point coming values, according to which Murray also mentions a third point of from Paul Thieme in 2001,4 and secondly, the player gets his share of criticism: the number of the highest stake the use of dice. the stakes; for the pieces for the winner: are taken and pass into the Al Birunī (ca. 1030 A.D.) wrote: hands of the player. The val- “Al Beruni was unable to ue of the is 5, that of the explain the reason for this “They play chess, four per- Elephant 4, of the Horse 3, of number and regarded it as sons at a time, with a pair the 2 and of the a mere convention of the of dice. Their arrangement 1. He who takes a king gets game. But it is the exact val- of the figures on the chess- 5, for two Kings he gets 10, ue of the other three armies board is the following: for three Kings 15, if the win- when calculated in accord- As this kind of chess is not ner is no longer in possession ance with his figures, and known to us, I shall explain of his own king. But if he has this represents the highest what I know of it. The four still his own King, and takes score possible, and it may persons playing together all three kings, he gets 54 – a have been retained in that sit so as to form a square number which represents a way.” round the chessboard, and progression based on gen- throw the dice in rotation. eral consent and not on the …. The name of King applies algebraic principle “. here to the Firzan (minister). 58 AL-BIRUNI´S NOTES ON INDIAN FOUR-HANDED CHESS

Although it does not seem so at first van der Linde largely relied for their on rule (lat. regnum, Sanskrit rājya) and sight, all three points mentioned above knowledge of the Indian chess var- not on state and its administration (lat. are not contradictory or illogical at all. It iants, could not yet have known the imperium, Sanskrit rāṣṭra), and quite only needs a change of perspective on Arthaśāstra because the text was lost naturally so, because in ancient and the game in several points, namely: for centuries and rediscovered only medieval times, the kings in India (as 1. four-handed dice chess should not in 1906, five years after Weber died. well as those in Europe) had to cope be regarded as a simpler (or, worse, But he could nevertheless have already with a vast and relatively sparsely pop- “crippled”) form of two-handed seen the close connection between ulated territory and a growing number chess, but as a variant of the game in four-handed chess and Indian political of petty monarchies, oligarchies and its own right, theory because the Nītisāra of Kaman- chiefdoms eager for expansion and 2. it should be kept in mind that the daka - the most authoritative Sanskrit more or less constantly contesting each terminology of the rules for both text on politics from about the 6th other´s aspiration to sovereignty.8 It two- and four-handed chess is that cent. onwards – was well known to is well known from inscriptions that, of classical Indian political science him, and Kamandaka took all his basic apart from periods of centralization in (Arthaśāstra, Rājanītiśāstra), concepts from the Arthaśāstra. It was times of empires (and even then), the 3. the notion of war should not be Heinrich Lüders who first suggested territories of Indian kingdoms were restricted to fighting on the battle- that there might be a link between oscillating continously. That is why at- ground, i.e. to the military aspect, but the four-handed catūrāji game and the taining (lābha), preserving (pālana) and should also include contest for su- concepts of Indian political theory. extending (vardhana) his own political premacy by employing strategies of He was followed in 1936 by Manmo- power were of prior concern to every direct and indirect confrontation. han Ghosh, the editor of Śūlapaṇi´s king and determined his political activ- Caturangadīpikā6 and later by Helmut ities. Thus, to understand the true nature Rosenfeld, G. Wichmann and Joa- of Indian four-handed chess, it might chim Petzold. . Ghosh was perfectly This was the general situation to which be helpful to take a closer look on the right in calling the arrangement of the Indian political science in its initial teachings of classical Indian political four parties on the board “a sort of phase had to respond. It might not be science. From the very beginning, this very primitive type of maṇḍala (sphere by chance that tradition ascribes the science made it a matter of principle of diplomacy) ”, symbolizing “ a war first theoretical treatise on politics, the that diplomatic action and weakening carried on between two kings (vijigīṣu Arthaśāstra (further: KA), to Kauṭilya. an enemy by indirect action as well and his ari) with their two allies (mi- Although it cannot be proved that Kau- as by economic and political pressure tra and ari-mitra).“7 A closer look into ṭilya was a real historical person, tradi- from inside and outside should always the political morals of the old Indian tion has it that he was the counsellor be preferred to open armed conflicts. texts on policy and diplomacy clearly (mantrin) of king Candragupta Maurya. The dominant strategies in catūrāji - suggests that the four-handed chess He is said to have been the spiritus rec- namely obstructing the pieces of the catūrāji exactly mirrors their teachings. tor behind the activities of this king to rival king instead of capturing them Thus, Murray´s critical remarks re- gradually subdue all political powers in at any cost and the obligation to re- garding the peculiar nature of the mi- Northern India in the aftermath of the gain one´s ally-king if he was captured tra, the dice and the number 54, men- unlucky “Indian adventure” of Alex- by one of the rival-kings - perfect- tioned by Al-Birunī, can be explained ander the Great and to found the first ly matches this tendency. Moreover, best by consulting the oldest text of empire on Indian soil around 320 B.C. the peculiar treatment of the ally in this genre, the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, the course of playing exactly reflects on his design of “non-violent” polit- The Arthaśāstra is highly interesting not the political moral taught in the man- ical trade in times of peace and war, only because of the vast scope of sub- uals for the guidance of kings and is elaborately dealt with in Book 6-13. jects it deals with in a systematic way, particularly close to the teachings of but also from the methodological point Kauṭilya (ca. 3rd-1st cent. B.C., see be- The mitra of view. Kauṭilya combines empirical low), who with his Arthaśāstra laid the From its very beginning in the late 4th knowledge with rational analysis and foundation to Indian political theory century B.C., classical Indian political reasoning and shows the preference and political science.5 In fact, the set- science has cultivated a rather peculiar for classifying things and the obsession up of four-handed dice chess repeats notion of war, of political behaviour with numbers that was so typical for a basic political concept that was first and of the ideal king. Like in early Indian scientific thinking from its very developed in the Arthaśāstra and stayed medieval Europe and due to similar inception.9 in continuous use up to modern times. politico-geographical conditions, the Albrecht Weber, on whom Murray and ideology of kingship was focussed AL-BIRUNI´S NOTES ON INDIAN FOUR-HANDED CHESS 59

Kauṭilya develops a theory of kingship caused by nature and men, by thiefs, rob- It has to be stressed here that the terms and governance which, due to its ana- bers, corruption, raids, attacks, invasions sandhi and vigraha, although very often lytical potential, its radical pragmatism by enemies etc. Permanence of welfare translated by “peace” and “war”, are and the nature of its political strate- and security is, of course, achieved best not real equivalents of these Europe- gies has often been called Macchia- by controlling everything and everybody. an terms. Their slightly different Indian vellian. He creates structural models Kauṭilya therefore not only advises a ruler connotation is illustrated best by citing and topologies with the help of which to instal a net of secret agents through- Caraka, the author of the earliest trea- strategies of political action can be out his own country and those of his tise on medicine (1st-2nd cent. A.D) worked out and put into practice.10 neighbours (or his potential rivals), but to who shares the terminology for logical In India, the KA has recently been attain overlordship over as many neigh- reasoning with Kauṭilya (with Caraka “re-discovered” for management train- bouring kings as possible. The ideal king, most probably borrowing from Kauṭi- ing and has come to be regarded as a according to him, is a world-emperor, lya). Both are generally held to be the kind of bible for good governance and an idea which is known from the oldest earliest logicians in Indian philosophy. modern business strategies. ritual manual for the consecration of a Caraka uses the terms sandhi und vigra- king, the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (ca. 800 B.C.). ha to characterize two kinds of debates Successful rule, according to Kauṭilya, Kauṭilya gives it a special political conno- (sambhāṣāvidhi).14 The „friendly debate“ depends on an economically prospering tation, his ideal king is called cāturanta, (samdhāyasambhāṣā) is in fact a discus- core-territory (mūla, lit. root) and on mili- Lord over the four ends of the world, sion where both participants put forth tary power, but first and foremost on the and, consequently, each king has to be a their arguments on a subject, i.e. they personality of the king, his energy, his would-be-conqueror (vijigīṣu) striving to cooperate in order to find the prop- intellect and his diplomatic skill to form attain overlordship among neighbouring er solution. In an „inimical debate“ alliances in order to economically and po- kings. (vigṛhyasaṃbhāṣa) the participants are litically destabilize the kingdoms of po- rather rivals, each of them fighting his tential enemies by direct and indirect ac- Instrumental to attaining the status of opponent, trying to disarm him by ar- tion. The theoretical concepts developed an overlord or “world-emperor” are the guments and thus defeating him. Here for this purpose are three, the first being second and the third concept mentioned each one of the debating persons is pri- the concept of saptāṅgarājya or seven above , the“Circle of Kings” (rājamaṇḍa- marily concerned with winning the de- constituent elements of rule (KA 6.1.1). la) and the “Wheel of Neighbours” bate, i.e. with his personal success. The Of these, six elements are factors which (sāmantacakra). The Circle of Kings elucidation of the subject is of second- normally define a state: forms the sphere of political agency of ary importance. The relation of a king 1. king (svāmi, lit. lord), a king outside of his own country and is to his mitra in the KA resembles the 2. minister (amātya), conceived as a topological model instru- relation of the participants in a “friend- 3. fortified city durga( )11 mental to calculating the strategic value ly” debate. They are rather partners in 4. land and people (janapada), and the advantages and disadvantages of a joint enterprise, yet by no means real 5. treasure (kośa) and all kinds of economic, political and mili- friends. By cooperating with the king, 6. army (daṇḍa). tary measures and activities. These meas- the ally contributes to solve a problem ures and activities can be implemented common to both. The difference be- Element number seven, the ally (mi- by setting the “Wheel of Neighbours” tween the connotation of “friend” and tra), at first sight does not seem to fit in into motion, the king functioning as “enemy” in Caraka and Kautilya lies in with the other constituents, because it leader (netṛ) or operator of the wheel, its the objective of their respective under- is an external factor, for it denotes the hub.12 The constituent elements of the taking. In case of Kauṭilya it is political, ruler of a similarly organized political rājamaṇḍala model are the neighbouring not merely epistemological - diagnos- organism. This ruler, according to the kings together with their six elements of tical: it serves to attain overlordship at Arthaśāstra, equally possesses the ele- rule, all of them potential rivals in the the cost of every member of the Cir- ments minister, fortified city, land and constant struggle for sovereignty. They cle of Kings, be it an enemy or an ally. people, treasure, army and an ally of his have to be evaluated according to their The ally in this special kind of “friend- own. Yet he is indispensable as a con- economic and political strength and then ship” is degraded to a mere instrument stituent of the saptāṅgarājya because, classified as potential allies mitra( ) or po- of the leader-king. His profit from the due to the Indian notion of kingship, tential enemies (ari), the criteria being joint undertaking (if there is any prof- is it is the highest duty of a king to es- whether the natural interests, the posi- it for him at all) will always be a mere tablish order and to protect his subjects tion of a kingdom and the resp. king´s temporary one. In the long run, the by procuring abhaya (security, i.e. free- actual strength would make cooperation friendship per definitionem has to be sac- dom from fear from within and out- (sandhi) or confrontation (vigraha) desir- rificed by the leader king on the altar of side), i.e.by saving them from calamities able, possible, necessary or inevitable.13 leadership in his own “Circle of Kings”.