When calamities coincide, the primary consideration is determining whether an offensive or defensive attitude is easier to maintain. National disasters stem from Providence or human error. The term vyasana denotes the absence of virtue and the preponderance of vices that deprive a person of happiness. Bháradvája argues that ministerial distress is more serious than the king’s distress because the king loses his active capacity without ministers, allowing enemy intrigues to flourish. Kautilya counters that the king must prioritize appointing ministers and addressing people’s troubles, as the people’s character mirrors the king’s. Visáláksha claims people’s troubles are more serious than ministerial ones, but Kautilya rejects this, noting that finance, army, and labor depend on the people. The school of Parásara argues bad fortifications are worse than people’s distress, yet Kautilya asserts forts secure the treasury and army, serving as a stronger power than citizens. Internal troubles are more serious than external ones, and troubles due to a minister are more serious than other internal troubles. Consequently, the king must keep the powers of finance and the army under his own control. Divided rule perishes due to mutual hatred, partiality, and rivalry. Foreign rule, which arises by seizing the country from its living king, impoverishes the land, carries off its wealth, and treats it as a commercial article.