The Rashtrakutas and their Times c19.s1.t4.1

c19.s1.t4.1

The rules of righteous fighting laid down by some of the earlier writers had become dead letter during our period. The war had ceased to be a concern merely of the fighters. Whole villages were often destroyed⁴⁶ and the loot of property could not be avoided. Express reference to the depredations of war is made in a Yādava Grant of the 11th contury.⁴⁷ One of the articles of treaty concluded between Nayapāla and Karṇa, at the instance of the Budhist monk Atīśa, was to restore or compensate for the property seized by either side with the exception of the articles of food.⁴⁸ When Chacha captured the fort of Sikka, he killed 5000 soldiers and made the inhabitants slaves and prisoners of war.⁴⁹ This procedure was in direct contradiction of the rule in Manusmriti, VII, 92. Kiraṇapura and Chakrakottya were burn. when they were captured by the hostile forces,⁵⁰ and Mānyakheṭa was plundered when it capitulated to the Parmāra ruler S'rī Harsha.⁵¹ Numerous examples of a similar nature are recorded by Kalhana.⁵² It is, therefore, clear that the rules of humane and equitable warfare laid down by earlier writers were more often violated than observed during our period throughout the length and breadth of India. It is interesting to note that the practice of the age is in conformity with the theories to be seen in contemporary works. Kāmandaka boldly declares that one need not refrain from the destruction of the enemy even by unfair and immoral means,⁵³ and even the Jain ascetic writer Somadeva, is compelled to countenance crooked (kūṭayuddha) and treacherous (tūṣṇīm yuddha)⁵⁴ warfare.