Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c11: Chapter VI. The Military Organization

Hindu Administrative Institutions c11

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VI. The Military Organization

Sec. i. General Principles

c11.s1.1

Ancient India was not a homogeneous unit but was heterogeneous in character. Even after the idea of an empire was recognized the division of the country into various independent and self-governing states, each with its own ruling chieftain was the normal political condition. With such states independent and semi-independent, every one of them was obliged to strengthen its foreign department. There was a war-minister who was probably the head of this department. That he was an officer different from the commander-in-chief is evident from the use of the technical term ‘मंत्री’ to this office. This minister must needs know the strength and resources of the enemy and the consequent strength of his own state. He must also gain knowledge of the position, progress or decline of the enemy state and his own. Having deeply pondered over these circumstances, he must advise what is proper and conducive to the welfare of his king.¹ The foreign policy of these states was not confined to the four corners of India; for there is evidence to show that there was continuous intercourse between India and the countries which lay outside, such as China, Egypt, Syria, Ceylon, etc. In the absence of definite evidence of the existence of a separate department of war in the Vedic period of Hindu India, it is reasonable to assume that the foreign department was more an innovation of the author of the *Arthaśāstra*. That this institution was in actual working in the epoch of the Mauryas is further attested by the writings of Megasthanes.

c11.s1.2

¹ परस्य वीर्यं स्वबलंच बुद्धा स्थाने क्षयं चैव तथैव वृद्धिम् । तथा स्वपक्षेऽप्यनुमृश्य बुध्या वदेत्ततं स्वामिहितं च मन्त्री ॥ (Rāma., Yuddha., xiv. 22.)

c11.s1.3

The key-note of the foreign policy was to maintain what is known in European History as the ‘balance of power’. To realize this end the conception of ‘a circle of states’ is elaborated in the *Kauṭalīya*. The circle of states was known as the *maṇḍala*. Its invention is however attributed to Uśanas or Sukrāchārya. Foreign rulers are classified by Kauṭalya under four main heads—enemy (*ari*); friend (*mitra*); neutral (*madhyama*); and negligible (*udāsīna*).¹ A circle of states according to Kauṭalya constitutes twelve kings: the invader (*vijigīṣu*), immediate enemy (*ari*); invader’s ally (*mitra*), enemy’s ally (*arimitra*); invader’s ally’s ally (*mitramitra*), enemies’ ally’s ally (*amitramitra*), rear enemy (*pārṣṇigrāha*), rear friend (*ākranda*), ally of rear enemy (*pārṣṇigrāhasāra*), ally of rear ally (*ākrandasāra*), the neutral king (*madhyama*), and the negligible king (*udāsīna*).²

c11.s1.4

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. vi, Sec. ii.

c11.s1.5

² *Ibid*. The interpretation of the terms ‘Madhyama’ and ‘Udāsīna’ given by Shama Śāstri as ‘mediatory’ and ‘neutral’ do not seem altogether correct. Law is perhaps not so much better when he explains them as ‘medium’ and ‘super’ and assigns a fitting position to them in the circle of states. (*Arthaśāstra*., Bk. vi, chap. ii; *Interstate Relations in Ancient India*, pp. 12 and 13.

c11.s1.6

Immediate neighbours were regarded as possibly hostile to each other and those succeeding the first circle of the immediate neighbours were similarly looked upon as potential allies to the king in the centre (*Vijigīṣu*). Each of these States had respectively three factors which constituted their strength, counsel (मंत्र), power (प्रभु), and confidence (उत्साह). He who possessed more of everything was considered superior to the other. Further each State possessed the five other limbs of sovereignty, —the minister, the country, the fort, the treasury, and the army. The relations between these various States were determined in six different ways known as Ṣāḍguṇyam.¹ The source of these six *guṇas* is the seven *prakṛtis* and the *maṇḍala* of twelve kings (द्वादशराजमण्डलं).

c11.s1.7

¹ षाड्गुण्यस्य प्रकृतिर्मण्डलं योनिः । सन्धिविग्रहसनयानसंश्रयद्वैधीभावाः षाड्गुण्यम् इत्याचार्याः । (Trivandrum Edition, vol. ii, p. 237). These are agreement of peace (*sandhi*), war (*vigraha*), holding a post against the enemy (*āsana*), ready to attack (*yāna*), alliance (*samāśraya*), and lastly separation (*dvaidhībhāva*).

c11.s1.8

In regard to these different courses of action it is enough to say that though the institution of war was recognized as the chief political weapon of the state in ancient India, it was looked upon only as the last resort.

c11.s1.9

We shall now examine the diplomatic theories accepted in ancient India. A glimpse into the political condition of Vedic days demonstrates the fact that, besides force, diplomacy was used to a great extent. That deceit was practised to turn back enemies is evident from the *Rig-Veda Saṃhitā*.² The institution of spies, which is so elaborately described by Kauṭalya was not unknown to the Vedic Indians.³ In the battle of the ‘ten kings’ occurring in the seventh *maṇḍala*, king Sūdas acts as the ‘master of the circle’ and this can be said to anticipate the Kauṭalīyan political world. It is Kauṭalya who urges the ruler of every state to conquer the earth by means of diplomacy.

c11.s1.10

² iv. 15. 4 and iii. 18. 1.

c11.s1.11

³ *R.V.*, iv. 4. 3.

c11.s1.12

In the *Mahābhārata* Kaṇika, the Brahman minister of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, treats the latter with a learned discourse on diplomacy. It would not be out of place to give the substance of this discourse.¹ The king should be ever active and exhibit his power like a tortoise. He must hide his weak points but at the same time get at the weak points of his enemy. An enterprise once launched should be carried to its conclusion. Even a weak enemy must not be neglected. For a single spark will be sufficient to consume the whole forest. To achieve our ends we can pretend blindness or deafness. One must not show commiseration to an enemy even if he should surrender (*śaraṇāgata*). By means of spies in various disguises one must endeavour to win the confidence of the adversary, to ultimately throw himself over him like a wolf. The destruction of the enemy should be effected by conciliation, by gifts, by creating divisions among his ranks or subjects, and lastly by open war. Again according to Kaṇika enemies could be destroyed by deceit, gifts, poison, and incantation. Even though irritated one must appear calm and put on a smiling countenance and speak soft words so long as it is necessary; but when once the moment arrives one should strike without flinching. After striking speak words of sympathy and pretend to shed tears of sorrow. If the enemy should continue the old path then he might be exterminated. By all means whatsoever one must endeavour to raise himself from a humiliating position so that he may lead a prosperous life. He who would repose after concluding a treaty with the enemy, is a mad man, for, at any time the enemy might regain strength and rise against him. In fighting an enemy, one must have an eye on the future as well as on the past, besides noting carefully the circumstances of time and place.

c11.s1.13

¹ *Mbh.*, *Ādi Parvan*, chap. cliii.

c11.s1.14

These principles of diplomacy enunciated by the Brahman minister Kaṇika are said to resemble, or rather equate with the principles formulated by Kauṭalya.¹ There is no reasoned proof in this particular. Though Kauṭalya inculcates a diplomatic code, yet his principles are not vitiated by intrigues and cruelty in disregard of all morality. Kauṭalya’s political philosophy is of a higher order, and can more fitly be compared with the theoretical principles formulated by the sage Nārada in the Mahābhārata.² The fundamental ideas common to both are that ‘conquest is not an end in itself; victory is counterbalanced by responsibilities, and acquisitions by the necessity of having to provide for safeguarding them.’

c11.s1.15

¹ Nag, *Les Theories Diplomatiques*, p. 35.

c11.s1.16

² *Sabhā Parvan*, chap. v.

c11.s1.17

The basis of diplomacy is distinguished by seven elements (*prakṛti*).³ These are the sovereign, the minister, the country, the fortress, the treasury, the army, and the ally. Of these the sovereign occupies the central position. Reference has already been made to the sphere of action, namely, the cycle of twelve states. Real action is by the six-fold policy.⁴ Peace, war, balance of power, expedition, alliance and creation of differences form the six-fold policy. Though Vātavyādi contends that war and peace are the only basis of this six-fold method, still Kauṭalya is of opinion that all the six together contribute to pursuing the six-fold policy. Kauṭalya further recommends that peace may be made with equals and superiors, while the inferior must be attacked. A treaty might be of three kinds, equitable (सम), not quite equitable (विषम), and impossible (अधि). But if an inferior is of good intentions the conquering king may help him. When peace is offered or asked for, both the contending parties should consider the motive that necessitated such a step, and decide on the basis of the circumstances. The terms of peace are acquisition of friend, gold, or territory. Kauṭalya concludes his discourse with the following reflection: ‘When local persons join hands with foreigners the former are to be won over by *sāma* and *dāna*, when foreigners incite the local chieftain, then dissension and coercion (*bheda* and *daṇḍa*) might be used. But if there is any internal danger that must first be suppressed.’¹

c11.s1.18

³ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. vi, chap. ii.

c11.s1.19

⁴ Cf. Manu, vii. 156 ff.

c11.s1.20

¹ Cp. Manu, vii. 106 ff.

Sec. ii. Defences of the Kingdom

c11.s2.1

The political condition of ancient India was such that it necessitated strong defences for a kingdom. The defences of a kingdom ordinarily constituted impregnable fortresses and a highly trained army. The fortifications were of a varied character. Water, mountain, desert and forests served as defences.² Generally the capital of every kingdom was fortified strongly. With the construction and other features of fortification we are not at present concerned.¹ Of these water and mountain fortifications served best as defences for centres thick with population, whilst the other kinds, the desert and forest fortifications were intended to ward off dangers arising from unknown wilds and woods.² The category of fortifications including deserts and forests (காவற்காடு) was largely prevalent also in South India in ancient times. There is evidence to show that there were a number of harrying wars among the different states which were a source of trouble and disturbance to the civil population. As the paramount keepers of peace kings in South India felt the necessity for fortifications and it is not surprising that even villages were fortified. Some of them had impregnable fortresses surrounded by deep moats, unscalable walls and tall towers. There is then evidence to show that siege warfare played a significant part not only in North India but also in South India. At least the conception of the ancient world was that fortresses alone are the best sources of defence and that king who had a fort to shelter himself was considered a strong and efficient monarch. The usefulness of siege warfare continued to the end of the middle ages and the beginnings of modern times. Only when the use of gunpowder became popularized, it was felt that sieges were of no avail. Sieges could not be undertaken if there was no efficient army. The ancient Indian army consisted of the four-fold division: cavalry, infantry, chariots, and elephants. There was a special arsenal department (आयुधागार) which supplied the wants of both the defenders of the fortress and the other members of the army. The arsenal department had a store of machines, all kept in order. There were also minor weapons of warfare which were supplied to soldiers. Some of these weapons were *śakti* (spear), *śūla* (trident), *tomara* (iron club), *bhin-divāla* (javelin), *gada* (mace), *śatagni* (cannon), besides swords, bows, and arrows of innumerable varieties in addition to armour of iron and skins.¹

c11.s2.2

² अन्तर्द्विपं स्थलं वा निम्नाव रुद्धभौदकं, प्रास्तरं गुहां वा पार्वतं, निरुदकस्तम्बमिरिणं वा धान्वनं, खजनोदकं स्तम्बग्रहणं वा वनदुर्गं । (Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. iii.)

c11.s2.3

¹ Manu, vii. 69 ff. ; Viṣṇu, iii. 3 ; Śukra, iv. 6. 3-12 ; cf. Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Secs. iii and iv.

c11.s2.4

² तेषां नदोपर्वतदुर्गं जनपदारक्षस्थानं, धान्वनवनदुर्गं अटवीस्थानं । (Arthaśāstra, Bk. ii, Sec. iii.)

c11.s2.5

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ii, Sec. xviii.

Sec. iii. Ethics of War

c11.s3.1

Let us now turn our attention to the ends of war which actuated the ancient Hindus to undertake wars in general. Earth hunger was not always the motive. The motives were not political exclusively but in a way moral and religious. Although righteous warfare (*dharma-yuddha*) has been regarded as the chief function of the Kṣatriya caste, still war is not recommended in all cases. The ancients realized the terrible loss both in men and money for both the contending parties in war, and hence endeavoured to avoid war in general.² But once war was declared the warrior was to fight to the end, either win or die on the field of battle. That war was entered into only as a last recourse is abundantly clear.³ If all

c11.s3.2

² See especially the edicts of Aśoka after the Kalinga war.

c11.s3.3

अनित्यो विजयो यस्माददृश्यते युध्यमानयोः ।
पराजयश्च संग्रामे तस्माद्युद्धं विवर्जयेत् ॥ (Manu, vii. 199.)

c11.s3.4

साम्ना दानेन भेदेन समस्तै अथवा पृथक् ।
विजेतुं प्रयत्नतारेन्न युद्धेन कदाचन ॥
(Manu, vii. 198; cf. *Śānti Parvan*, ch. lxix. 24.)

c11.s3.5

the four diplomatic means (*sāma, dāna, bheda* and *daṇḍa*) had failed then recourse could be had to open war.

c11.s3.6

With such high aims in view it is quite possible to find a good ethical standard prevalent in ancient Indian warfare.

c11.s3.7

Manu says whether the enemy was equal, superior or inferior, any Kṣatriya called to arms, must not turn back, for it is to violate the *dharma* of the Kṣatriyas. Such of the kings who fight one another without turning their backs attain *vīrasvarga* or heaven.¹ According to Devala,² to be killed in battle is to reap the full fruits of an *aśvamedha* sacrifice.

c11.s3.8

¹ Manu, vii. 87-89.

c11.s3.9

² प्रजाथं क्षत्रियो युद्धयेत्स्वान् प्राणान् सम्परित्यजेत् । अश्वमेधफलं कृत्स्नं निसर्गेणाधिगच्छति ॥ (*Vīra.*, p. 45.) शस्त्रेण निहतः सङ्ख्ये द्विषद्बिरपराङ्मुखः । शक्रलोकमाप्नोति खवोर्याद्विजितं शुभम् ॥ (*Ibid.*, p. 406.) यः आहवेषु वध्यन्ते भूम्यर्थमपराङ्मुखाः । अकुटैरायुधैर्यन्ति ते स्वर्गं योगिनोयथा ॥ (*Yāj.*, ch. i. 324.)

c11.s3.10

The fact of falling in the field by fighting is said to be an unparalleled *dharma* of the Kṣatriyas. They sacrifice themselves selflessly at the altar of protection for the state and community.

c11.s3.11

Vyāsa says that it is the right royal road leading to heaven. No amount of sacrifice, penance, or learning would be of avail in attaining heaven as this straight path of being killed in a righteous war. From *Āpastamba*'s ‘युध्यमानो हत’ down to the later law-giver and the later *Arthaśāstra* writer there is unanimous recommendation of the principle of fighting to the end and never turning back.

c11.s3.12

To kill in war or to be killed in war was not deemed unrighteous. On the eve of the battle at Kurukṣetra when Arjuna sees in the battlefield, his near and dear ones not excluding even the *ācāryas* on the other side, he becomes despondent and resolves not to fight. It is for Lord Kṛṣṇa to initiate him into the subtleties of the Kṣatriya *dharma* and rouse him to action.¹ But it was no indiscriminate fighting into which the ancients launched themselves. For the *Mahābhārata* rules that only equals could fight with each other, either beast or man. Elephants were to fight with elephants, horses with horses and so on.² This means there was to be fighting between equals. For example one could not be attacked by odds. And again a Kṣatriya could not call to arms any soldier who is not prepared to fight, or who has no armour on. Therefore a warrior in war-suit who proclaims his readiness to accept an engagement could be fought. A keen sense of duty animated the ancient Kṣatriyas of both north and south India. The death of a Kṣatriya at home is not

c11.s3.13

¹ *Bhagavat Gīta*, chap. i.

c11.s3.14

² नासन्नद्धो नाकवचो योद्धव्यः क्षत्रियो रणे ।

c11.s3.15

एक एकेन भाव्यश्च विसृजेति क्षिपामि च ॥
सचेत्सन्नद्ध आगच्छेत्सन्नद्धव्यं ततोभवेत् ।
सचेत्सैन्य आगच्छेत्ससैन्यस्तमथाङ्गयेत ॥
सचेत् निकृत्या युध्येत निकृत्या प्रतियोधयेत ॥
अयचेत्थर्मतो युध्येतधर्मेणैव निवारयेत ॥
नाश्वेन रथिनं यायादु दियाद्रथिनं रथी ।
व्यसने न प्रहर्तव्यं नभोताय जिताय च ॥
न पदातिर्गजं युध्येन्न गजेन पदातिनम् ॥
(*Śanti Parvan*, ch. xcv 7. ff.)

c11.s3.16

appreciated. On the other hand it is condemned as a sin committed by the Kṣatriya.¹ A true Kṣatriya must exert himself in the field, evoking respect and applause from his friends and allies, and wounded by sharp weapons of war, must find an honourable death.² The same is true of South Indian history. If it should happen that a warrior died at home due to old age or other natural causes, custom was to make the dying man lie over a bed of *kuśa* grass and have him cut with a sword, the *purohita* chanting *mantras*. This was deemed equal to being slain on the theatre of war.³

c11.s3.17

¹ नगृहे मरणं तात क्षत्रियाणां प्रशस्यते । शौण्डीराणामशौण्डर्यमधर्मं कृपणं च तत् ॥ (Śānti Parvan, ch. xcvii. 25.)

c11.s3.18

² रणे षु कदनं कृत्वा सुहृद्भिः प्रतिपूजितः । तोक्ष्णैः शस्त्रैर्भिक्षिप्तः क्षत्रियो मृतुमर्हति ॥ (Ibid., 28.)

c11.s3.19

³ Cf. Nachchinārkinyar on Tolka. Akath. Sūtram 44. Also Puram 93, akam 61.

c11.s3.20

The law-giver Yama condemns the soldier who runs away from the field in fear. The compiler of *Viramitrodaya* quotes the text of Yama, and comments on the phrase, पृष्ठं रणे रक्षदित्यनेन पलायननिषेधः । p. 406, quite appropriately. Tamil literature contains soul-stirring stanzas where heroic mothers hail the death of their sons, and heroic wives of their husbands, in the battlefield, with great joy. One heroic woman gives vent to such feelings that if she would hear that her dear son had returned in fright from the field, she would cut off her breasts that gave milk to him and tended him when young.

c11.s3.21

तरुப்பையிற் கிடத்தி வாலிற்போழ்ந்து
செருப்புகன் மன்னர் செவ்வுழிச் செல்கென
ழுத்து விளிவிலிக் குடிப்பிறந்தோர்க்கு
காப்புடை பெயராது காணுத்தக் வுடைத்தே

c11.s3.22

(Maṇimēkhalai, 23, ll. 13 ff.)

c11.s3.23

There are several stanzas in the *Purapporul Venbamalai* which illustrate the deep heroism latent even among the women of South India. One of them, runs as follows :¹

c11.s3.24

¹ கன்னிஞொனந்தை கணவன் களப்பட்டான் முன்னின்ற மொப்ப வித்தாரென்பர்-பின்னின்ற கைபோய்க் கணையுதைப்பக் காவலமே லோடி பெய் போற்கிடத்தானென்றே (ch. viii. 22.)

c11.s3.25

‘My father stands like a stone in the field where he fell: my husband fell dead in the thick of the fight: my elder brothers bore the brunt of the enemy’s attack and gave up life: my son standing firm behind the broken ranks of his own army, shot his arrows from his bow vigorously and assailed the enemy king falling dead like a boar transfixed.’

c11.s3.26

There is thus evidence to demonstrate that heroism was the ruling passion of ancient Indians.

c11.s3.27

Though the importance and necessity of war have been recognized, still there are healthy regulations which go to show the high sense of ethical standards prevalent in ancient India. First it is forbidden to use invisible arms and poisonous or fire-emitting weapons. If these are used it is unrighteous warfare.² Again one must not kill in war his adversary with weapons concealed, nor with barbed, poisoned and blazing arrows. A chariot warrior must not kill one on the ground. Also a eunuch, one who prays for life, one who submits, one in sleep, with no armour or arms, a naked man, a visitor, one engaged with another, one whose weapon is broken, one who weeps, or who is seriously wounded, one afraid of life, or one who flies from the field are forbidden from being attacked in war.³

c11.s3.28

² नकूटैरायधैर्हन्याद्युध्यमानो रणे रिपून् । नकर्णभिर्नापि दिग्धैर्नाग्निज्वलिततेजनैः ॥ (Manu, vii. 90 ff.)

c11.s3.29

³ Manu, vii. 91-4.

c11.s3.30

Baudhāyana lays down that Kṣatriyas ought not to fight the following nine: the timid, the intoxicated, the insane, the negligent, the unprepared, women, children, the aged and the Brahmans.¹

c11.s3.31

¹ भीतमत्तन्मत्त प्रमत्तविसन्नाहस्त्रोबालवृद्धब्राह्मणैर्न युद्धयेतान्यत्राऽऽततायिनः ॥ (i. 10. 18.)

c11.s3.32

To these Gautama adds ambassadors and cows² and Devala one who eats grass.³

c11.s3.33

² न दोषो हिंसायामाहवेऽन्यत्राश्वसारथनायुधकृताञ्जलि प्रकीर्णकोश-पराङ्मुखोपविष्टस्थलवृक्षारूढदूतगोब्राह्मणवारिभ्यः (Gautama, x.)

c11.s3.34

³ तृणखादोपरप्रेप्सुरलसः शरणं गतः । षण्ढः पराजितो लिङ्गी स्थविरः पतितः शिशुः ॥ (Quoted in *R.N.R.*)

c11.s3.35

Thus a war never affected the progressive and civilized elements of the state. The non-warring elements were never interfered with. Or rather there was no slaughter of the innocents. Further the arts and crafts went on as usual, unaffected in the least. According to the principles of righteous warfare even the cultivated fields, fruit and flower gardens were not touched. Wars were then fought at *any* cost but not with *any* method.

c11.s3.36

Again in the treatment of the vanquished we do not find anything unscrupulous or indiscriminating perpetrated in the name of justice. According to Manu spoils of war like chariots, horses, elephants, umbrellas, treasure, grain, cattle, women and all other wealth belong of right to the conqueror. After the whole spoils have been gathered it is the pleasant duty of the monarch to distribute them among his loyal warriors:⁴

c11.s3.37

⁴ रथाश्वं हस्तिनं छत्रं धनं धान्यं पशून्स्त्रियः । सर्वद्रव्याणि कुप्यं च यो यञ्जयति तस्य तत् ॥

c11.s3.38

This distribution was to be even and proper in regard to the rank and status of the warriors in general.¹

c11.s3.39

¹ यथार्हं सभाजयेत् राजा । (Gautama, chap. x.)

c11.s3.40

Besides the victorious monarch was to offer worship to the various deities, make presents to *dharmic* Brahmanas and proclaim guarantee of protection (अभय) to all.²

c11.s3.41

² नातः परतरी धर्मो नृपाणां यद्रणार्जितम् । विप्रेभ्यो दीयते द्रव्यं प्रजाभ्यश्चाभयं सदा ॥ (Yāj., i. 323 ; cf. Manu, vii. 201.)

c11.s3.42

Then the defeated monarch if alive, or one of his near legal heirs would be installed on the throne entering into a compact with the conqueror. He should promise to act according to *dharma* and should be honoured by wealth and servants. The womenfolk were chivalrously treated as mothers and sisters. The corn fields, fruit and flower gardens were left unmolested.³ This is further corroborated by the evidence of Megasthanes. ‘Whereas among other nations it is usual in the contests of war, to ravage the soil and thus to reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and

c11.s3.43

³ दुष्टस्यापि नरेन्द्रस्य तद्राष्ट्रं न विनाशयेत् । न प्रजानुमतौ यस्मादन्यायषु प्रवर्तते ॥ (Vīra., p. 411.) सर्वेषांतु विदित्वैषां समासेन चिकीर्षितम् । स्थापयेत्तत्र तद्वंशं कुर्याच्चसमयक्रियाम् ॥ प्रमाणानिच कुर्वीत तषां धर्म्यान्यथोदितान् । रत्नैश्च पूजयेदेनं प्रधानपुरुषैः सह ॥ (Manu, vii. 202-3.)

c11.s3.44

राजश्च दद्युरुद्धारमित्येषा वैदिको श्रुतिः । राज्ञाच सर्वयोध्येभ्यो दातव्यमपृथग्जितम् ॥ (Manu, vii. 96-7.)

c11.s3.45

inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants on either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other, but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolested. Besides they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire, nor cut down its trees.'¹

c11.s3.46

¹ McCrindle, Frag. i.

c11.s3.47

In conformity to the above the law-giver Viṣṇu rules that the Rājakula or the family of the reigning king should not be extinguished on any account.² But the practical law-giver Kātyāyana seems to raise an interesting point in the course of a discussion on this subject. ‘Suppose the king of the land is an undesirable and an unrighteous monarch. How could he be continued.’ For the sake of a misbehaved monarch Kātyāyana says one must not destroy the kingdom. For the evil actions of the king could not have the acquiescence of the people at large. So in the opinion of this law-giver we can get rid of the king and not of the kingdom. On the other hand the conqueror must show regard to the established customs, usages, and the family laws of that country.

c11.s3.48

² ‘राजा परपुरप्राप्तौ तत्कुलोनमभिषेचयेत् न राजकुलमुच्छिन्द्यात्.’ (Viṣṇu, iii. 30-31; cf. Arthaśāstra., vii. 16 and xiii. 4.)

c11.s3.49

Tamil literature presents quite a contrast to the above recommendations. The treatment meted out to the conquered was far from humane. Often the defeated king was captured and put to death. Quite against the ruling of Kātyāyana the capital city was given to the flames or razed to the ground, and plundered of all wealth and treasure. The Puranānūru shows how at the conclusion of the war the victorious soldiers quenched the thirst of their vengeance by ploughing the roads and streets with asses and donkeys and sowing seeds of castor, cotton and other cereals. It is said even the houses of gods were not spared.¹

c11.s3.50

¹ கடுகேர் குமித்த டுள்ளலங்கண் வெள்ளாய்க்கழுதைப் புல்லினம் பூட்டிப் பாழ்செய்தனையர் கனத்தலை நல்லெயில் புள்ளின மிமிழும் புகழ்ச்சால் விளைவயல் . . . . . (Puram 15.) *Again* வெள்ளாய்க் கழுதைப் புல்லினம் பூட்டி வெள்ள வாருகொள்ளும் வித்தும் வைகலுழ வாழிப் பெரிதெனச் சென்றிபா கின்றன னாகன்றே. etc. (Puram 392 ; cp. Purapporul, chap. vi. 26.)

c11.s3.51

In a word they converted the city into a jungle. But it is refreshing to note from another classical work *Silappadhikāram* there was also the practice of reinstating vanquished monarchs on their submission as tributary chieftains. King Senguṭṭuvan routed Kanakan and Vijayan of North India and took them prisoners. But they offered submission and were set free and restored to their places as subordinate chiefs.²

c11.s3.52

² ஆர்பரசை யருஞ்சிறை நீக்கிப் பேரிசை வஞ்சி முதுர்புறத்தத் தாழ்நீர் வேலித் தண்மலர்ப்பூம்பொழில் வேளாவிக்கோ மாளிகைகாட்டி என்பெருவேள்வி முடித்ததற்பின்னுட் டம் பெரு செடுகார்ச் சார்வதுஞ் சொல்லியம். (Silappadhikāram, 28, ll. 195, 202.) Vide Annals of the Bhāndarkar Institute, vol. vii, pt. 4, pp. 394-6.

c11.s3.53

Lastly the army was followed by an ambulance corps, well furnished with expert surgeons and physicians to heal both man and beast when they fell ill or got wounded in the field. It is said in the *Mahābhārata* that this philanthropic work extended generously enough to the wounded soldiers even of the enemy ranks.³

c11.s3.54

³ चिकित्स्य: स्यात्स्वविषये प्राप्योवास्वगृहे भवेत् । निर्व्रणश्च समोक्तव्य एष धर्म: सनातन: ॥

c11.s3.55

Nakkīrar in the Tamil classic *Neduṇal-vāḍai*¹ one of the ten collections which go by the name of *Pattupāṭṭu*, describes in felicitous terms how Neḍum Seḷiyan II conducted himself towards the wounded soldiers in his camp. Late in the night, and in spite of inclement weather accompanied by rain and chill air the king used to leave his camp with an escort and make kind and sympathetic inquiries after each soldier suffering from a wound or pain. Usually a general would go in advance and point out to the king the heroic men wounded on the previous day's fight.

c11.s3.56

¹ சீடி ரட டக்கை நிலமிசைப் புரளக் களிறு களம்படுத் பெருஞ்செய் யாடவ ரொலிதவான் விழுப்புண் காணிய புறம்போந்து வடர்தனைத் தண்வலி பெரிதொறு நுடங்கித் தெற்கே பிறைஞ்சிறப தலைப றற்பல் பாண்டில் விளக்கிப் பருக்சட றழல வேம்புதலை யாந்த கோன்கா மெழிக்கமொடு முன்னோன் முறைமுறை காட்டப்பின்ன மணிபுறத்திட்ட மாத்தாட் பிடியொடு பருகமல் கனைபாப் பாய்பரிக்கலிமா விருஞ்சேற்றத் தெருவினெரிதுளி விதிர்ப்பப் புடைவீ ழந்துதி விடவிற் றீஇ லாடோட் கோந்த வன்கட் கான சுவன்மிசை பமைந்த கைபன் முகமலர்ந்து நூல்கால் பாந்த மாலை வெண்குடை தல்லென்றசை இத்தாநூலி மறைப்ப கள்ளென் பாமதும் பள்ளி கொள்ளான் சிலரொடு திரிதரும் வேந்தன் பலரொடு முனிய பாசறைத் தொழிலே. (ll. 172–188.)

c11.s3.57

There is thus every reason to believe that the ancient Hindus set high moral standards even in practical warfare.

Sec. iv. Information in War

c11.s4.1

Clauswitz whose work on ‘the art of war’ still holds the field as a classic defines ‘information’ in war as the knowledge of the enemy and his country. This is generally sought by letting loose informants and sending ambassadors to the enemy's kingdom. The institution of informants is as old as the composition of the *Ṛg-Veda Saṃhitā*. No other author than Kauṭalya gives a fuller treatment of this institution. The king-in-council shall appoint these secret officers after completely satisfying himself as to their character and ability.¹ According to Yājñavalkya these secret commissioners like the ambassadors must report to the king-in-council.² The *Kauṭalīya* says that the informants should be set in motion against inimical, friendly and neutral kings as well as the various departments of the state.³ The informants in the enemies' kingdom are to move with the people at large and intrigue against the king by inciting the people against him by playing on their weaknesses.⁴ The work of these informants consists mainly in informing their king of the attempts and movements of the enemy kings. They may also sow seeds of dissension among the enemies' army officers, ministers or royal princes.⁵ How much could be effected by sowing the seeds of dissension is seen from a careful perusal of section 1 of Book xiii of the *Kauṭalīya*. Again these informants encourage the army on the eve of the battle by speaking of their own successful operations and the failure of the enemy.⁶ This is because the soldiers knew full well that the information furnished by these officers should be correct as it was first-hand.

c11.s4.2

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. i, Sec. 11.

c11.s4.3

² > प्रेषयेच्च ततश्चारान्स्वेष्वन्येषु च सादरान् ।

c11.s4.4

³ Bk. i. 12.

c11.s4.5

⁴ Bk. i. 14.

c11.s4.6

⁵ Bk. ix. 6; cf. *Mahābhārata*, *Āśrmva*, v. 36 and vi. 13.

c11.s4.7

⁶ Bk. x, chap. iii.

c11.s4.8

ऋत्विक्पुरोहिताचार्यैः आशोभिर्भिनन्दितः ।
(Yāj., i. 332.)

c11.s4.9

The *Rajanīti Ratnākara* (p. 50) says that the king must first see the *cāras* or secret commissioners, and then the *dūtas* or the ambassadors for information regarding the strength or otherwise of the enemy.¹ The qualifications and duties of the ambassadors are many and varied. Manu gives the following qualifications of an ambassador: ‘versed in all sciences, skilled in reading the signs, gestures, and movements of other persons, pure, clever, hereditary, loyal, honest, of a strong memory, ready to adjust according to time and place, of strong physique, devoid of fear, and clever in debate.’² An ambassador is generally appointed from among the councillors. It is common that an able and successful councillor is sent on this mission. After making previous arrangements as to conveyance and subsistence he should start on his mission with the following reflection: ‘The enemy shall be told thus. This shall be the reply to him, and thus he shall be imposed upon.’³

c11.s4.10

¹ पश्येत् चारान्ततोदूतान्प्रेषयेत्त्विसङ्गतः । (Yāj., i. 328.)

c11.s4.11

² Matsya Purāṇa and Garuda Purāṇa, pp. 180-2 quoted in Viramitro-daya; Manu, vii. 63-4.

c11.s4.12

³ “शासनमेवं वाच्यः, परस्स वक्ष्यत्येवं तस्येदं प्रतिवाक्यमेवमतिसन्धा-तव्यम्” इत्यधीयानो गच्छेत् । (Arthaśāstra, Bk. i, Sec. 16.)

c11.s4.13

The ambassador was expected to make himself a friend of the enemy's officers on the wild tracts, on the boundaries of cities and of country parts. He should gather information in regard to the strength of the enemy's military stations, fourfold forces, fortresses, treasury and other weak and strong points in his kingdom. With previous permission he should enter the palace and speak out without any reservation whatsoever. In giving out his mission he should note how it was being received by the king from the gestures and the mode of his reply.

c11.s4.14

Having settled his mission, successful or not, he might return without, in any manner, giving out information regarding his own state. He should endeavour to elicit information in full regarding the enemy without getting himself into trouble and then return.¹ The responsibilities of a *dūta* are very great. He alone brings in peace, or breaks off the peace, and makes a cleavage among the subjects of the country.² As the commencement of hostilities or their end depends on this all-important functionary, the sacredness of his person is accepted on all hands. Chandeśvara quotes from the *Śukranīti* to the effect that a *dūta* though a *mleccha* ought not to be slain. Even at the cost of his life he was expected to speak nothing but the truth. Whether he would speak in favour or not, he should be ever honoured and not disrespected.³

c11.s4.15

¹ *Ibid.*; Manu, vii. 67.

c11.s4.16

² दूतएवहि संधत्ते भिनत्येव च संहतान् । दूतस्तुकुरुते कर्म भिद्यन्ते येनमानवाः ॥ (Manu, vii. 66.)

c11.s4.17

³ दूतो म्लेच्छोऽप्यवध्यः स्याद्राजा दूतमुखो यतः । उद्यतेष्वपि शस्त्रेषु दूतो वदति नान्यथा ॥ (*R.N.R.*, p. 46.) Also in the *Kauṭalīya* : शासनं च यथोक्तं ब्रूयात् प्राणाबाधेऽपि दृष्टे . . . . . उद्यतेष्वपि शस्त्रेषु यथोक्तं वक्त्तारः तेषामन्तावसायिनोऽप्यवध्याः ।

c11.s4.18

When Hanumān was ordered to be killed by Rāvaṇa, king of Ceylon, it was Vibhīṣaṇa who saved the situation by pointing out to his brother the rulings of the *Śastra* in regard to the treatment of the ambassadors.¹

c11.s4.19

¹ दूता न वध्या: समयेषु राजन् सर्वेषु सर्वत वदन्ति सन्तः ॥ असंशयं शत्रुरयं प्रवृद्ध: कृतं ह्यनेनाप्रिय मप्रमेयं । न दूतवध्यां प्रवदन्ति संतो दूतस्य दृष्टा बहवो हि दण्डा: ॥ वैरूप्यमङ्गेषु कशाभिघातो मौण्ड्यं तथा लक्षणसन्निपातः । एतान्हि दूते प्रवदन्ति दण्डान् वधस्तु दूतस्य न नःश्रुतोऽपि ॥ (Sundara Kāṇḍa, lii. 13–15.)

c11.s4.20

There is an interesting inscription of the great Chola king Rāja Rāja (A.D. 985) who conquered *malaināḍu* and killed eighteen princes in retaliation for insult offered to his ambassador.² From this the inference is irresistible that the development of international law in ancient India was *de jure* if not *de facto*.

c11.s4.21

² *Ind. Ant.*, vol. xxii, p. 142; cf. *Rāmāyaṇa*, vii, 67. 17 ff.

Sec. v. The Fourfold Army

c11.s5.1

It has been already said that the ancient Indians divided themselves into four classes which formed the basis of their social organization. The very object of this division is claimed to be a division of labour, each caste or group functioning in its particular sphere so that society could progress on healthy and harmonious lines of development.³ The chief duties of the Kṣatriya are protection and punishment.⁴ Protection was to be effected by means of weapons of warfare, fourfold army, gifts, and other *dharmic* methods. It may be asked whether the use of arms was then the monopoly of the warrior class (Kṣatriya). Though to a large extent the army consisted of the members of the Kṣatriya community still other castes were not excluded from it. In the Vedic period the infantry men were largely from the Vaiśya class (patti) but under the Kṣatriya lead.¹ Again the interesting discussion by Kauṭalya on the relative merits and demerits of the army recruited from different castes shows that before the time of the composition of the *Arthaśāstra*, armies were recruited from all the four castes. In the opinion of Kauṭalya the army composed of the Brahmans is to be discarded as it could be won over easily.² This shows the conception of a highly evolved physiological organism. Here the retinal cell could not receive impressions of smell or the olfactory cell those of taste or touch. In other words the organ of sight cannot hear, and the organ of hearing cannot see or taste. Judged in this light the Brahman could not but be an inefficient soldier and the Kṣatriya a bad trader. That an organ is particularly fit for one function is a merit of the highest sociological value. In that way functions and structures of Indian social polity have become specialized, and this is not a demerit. A trained Kṣatriya host is the best. Even that force consisting of Vaiśyas and Sūdras could not be useful except when they are numerically strong and so valuable in outwitting the enemy.¹ On the efficiency of an army Kauṭalya remarks: ‘Hereditary, strong, disciplined, with a contented family, enduring even in tedious marches, invincible, possessing powers of endurance, highly trained in various modes of warfare, skilled in handling different kinds of weapons, ever ready to share the trouble or otherwise of the king, loyal, and composed purely of Kṣatriyas is the best army.’²

c11.s5.2

³ *Supra*, p. 40.

c11.s5.3

⁴ In commenting on the second line of stanza 20 of *Puṟattiṇaiyiyal* of *Tolkāppiyam*, "ஜைவகை மரபின் அரசப்பக்கமும்" Naccinārkiniyar says, "படைக்கலங்களாலும் சாற்படையாலும் கொடைத்தொழிலாலும் பிறவாற்றானும் அறத்தின் வழாமற் காத்தல் அவர்க்குரிய காப்பாம்,"

c11.s5.4

¹ *V.I.*, ii, p. 334.

c11.s5.5

² ‘ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियवैश्यशूद्रसैन्यानां तेजः प्राधान्यात् पूर्वं पूर्वं श्रेयस्सनाहयितुम्’ इत्याचार्याः नेतिकौटिल्यः - प्रणिपातेन ब्राह्मणबलं परोऽभिहारयेत् । प्रहरणविद्याविनोतं तु क्षत्रियबलं श्रेयः ; बहुलसारं वा वैश्यशूद्रबलमिति । (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. ix, Sec. 2.)

c11.s5.6

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. ix, Sec. 2.

c11.s5.7

² पितृपैतामहो नित्यो वश्यस्तुष्टभृतपुत्रदारः प्रवासेष्वविसंवादितः सर्वत्राप्रतिहतो दुःखसहो बहुयुद्धसर्वयुद्धप्रहरणविद्याविशारदः सहवृद्धिक्षयिकताद्वैध्यः क्षत्रप्रायः इति दण्डसम्पत् । (Ibid., Bk. vi, Sec. 1.)

c11.s5.8

In this connection we can examine whether the ancient Indian states had a standing army or an army recruited and disbanded at will. The evidence available shows that both methods were in practice. A detailed study of the constitution of the Indian army in early times shows that there were as many as six kinds of troops, the ṣaḍaṅgabala of Hindu political literature.³

c11.s5.9

³ मौलभृतक श्रेणिमित्राऽमित्राऽटवीबलम् । (Ibid.) Cf. Kāmandaka, xviii. v. 2 ff.; S.T.R., v. 6. 62.

c11.s5.10

These are hereditary (maula), mercenary (bhṛtaka), belonging to guilds (śreṇi), those of an ally (mitra), those of an enemy (amitra), and those of forest-tribes (aṭavi). The first maula refers in all probability to the standing army, for it is said to be dependent on the king for maintenance and also liable to be constantly drilled. In other words it was in the continuous employ of the state. The other troops were recruited whenever necessary and dismissed as soon as the threatened crisis was over. This is further confirmed by the account of Megasthanes who remarks, ‘This class of fighting men when not engaged in active service pass their time in idleness and drinking. They are maintained at the king's expense and hence are always ready when occasion calls to take the field, for they carry nothing of their own with them but their own bodies.¹ To quote Arrian again: ‘They have only military duties to perform. Others make their arms, others supply them with horses, and they have others to attend them in their camp, who take care of their horses, clean their arms, drive their elephants, prepare their chariots and act as their charioteers. As long as they are required to fight the fight, and when peace returns they abandon themselves to enjoyment, the pay which they receive from the state being so liberal that they can with ease maintain themselves and others besides.’ It is thus manifest that the institution of a standing army dates its existence from the beginnings of the Maurya history, if not earlier.

c11.s5.11

¹ McCrindle, *Ancient India*, Frag. 36.

c11.s5.12

The four-fold division of the army is a classical division accepted by all the extant texts on Hindu polity. It consisted of the cavalry, the infantry, the elephants and the chariots. The Buddhist *Jatakas* refer to this four-fold force.² The *Vessantara Jataka* furnishes details of the constitution of king Sañjaya's army.³

c11.s5.13

² *Caturanginiya Senayā*, vol. ii, Nos. 66, 70, 71, etc., vol. iii, Nos. 157, 161; vol. iv, Nos. 80, 307, etc.

c11.s5.14

³ Cowell Trans., vol. vi, 298.

c11.s5.15

My horses, chariots, elephants, and soldiers go prepare,
And let the people come around, the chaplains all be there,
The sixty-thousand warrior lords around and adorned so fair,
Drest up in blue, or brown, or white, with blood-red crests be there,

c11.s5.16

Like as the spirit-haunted hills where trees a-plenty grow,
Are bright and sweet with plants divine, so here the breeze blow
Bring fourteen-thousand elephants, with trappings all of gold,
With drivers holding lance and hook : as many horses be told.
Such horses all of noble breed and very swift to go,
Each ridden by a henchman bold, and holding sword and bow.
Let fourteen thousand chariots be yoked and well arranged,
Their wheels well-wrought of iron bands, and all with gold inlaid,
Let them prepare the banners there; the shields and coats of mail,
And bows withal, those men-of-war that strike and do not fail.'

c11.s5.17

We get here a glimpse of the constituents of the army, the accoutrements of soldiers and of war-elephants and war-horses besides the weapons used in actual warfare. The *purohita* of the *Arthaśāstra* literature is present there. The function of the latter is as given in the *Kauṭalīya* to exhort the troops to fight with unabated strength and valour to the end.¹

c11.s5.18

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. x, ch. iii.

c11.s5.19

Besides the four-fold division of the army the fragments of Megasthanes throw welcome light on the existence of a separate department for navy and another for transport and commissariat. Megasthanes remarks: 'There is a third governing body which directs military affairs. This also consists of six divisions, with five members to each. One division is appointed to co-operate with the admiral of the fleet, another with the superintendent of the bullock-trains which are used for transporting engines of war, food for the soldiers, provender for the cattle, and other military requisites. They supply servants who beat the drum and others who carry gongs; grooms also for the horses, and mechanics and their assistants. To the sound of the gong they send foragers to bring in grass and by a system of rewards and punishments ensure the work being done with despatch and safety. The third division has charge of the foot-soldiers, the fourth of the horses, the fifth of the war-chariots and the sixth of the elephants. There are royal stables for the horses and elephants and also a royal magazine for the arms, because the soldiers have to return their arms to the magazine, and his horse and elephant to the stables. They use the elephants without bridles. The chariots are drawn on the march by oxen, and the horses are led along by a halter that their legs may not be galled and inflamed nor their spirits damped by drawing chariots. In addition to the charioteer there are two fighting men who sit in the chariot beside him. The war-elephant carries four men—three who shoot arrows, and the driver.' ¹

c11.s5.20

¹ Frag. 34.

c11.s5.21

From this it would appear that the Mauryan Government possessed an efficient fleet and had an elaborate naval department. Kauṭalya seems to have taken this for granted when he mentions a special nāvādhyakṣa. There are some scholars who are of opinion that the Kauṭalyan recommendations do not warrant the existence of a navy for purpose of war. Among the various vessels are mentioned those which are bound for the enemy's country (*amitraviṣayātigāḥ*). Surely vessels of merchandise would not be sent to an enemy's country, and Kauṭalya must have meant only warships from the use of this significant term. It may be that the superintendent of ships had the control both of naval enterprises and merchant ventures. Naval fight is again found in the *Manava-Dharma-Śāstra*.¹ Further the term *naukādhyakṣa* of the Pāla inscriptions shows how tradition is unanimous from the Mauryas to the Pālas. Naval fights are frequently referred to in the numerous Chola inscriptions of South India. Tamil literature contains innumerable references to the naval engagements actually entered into by the ancient Tamil kings.²

c11.s5.22

¹ स्यन्दनाश्वैः समे युध्येदन्पे नौद्विपस्तथा । वृक्षगुल्मावृते चापैरसिचर्मयुधैः स्थले ॥ (Manu, vii. 192.)

c11.s5.23

² Author's article on 'The Art of War' in the *Annals of Bhāndarkar Institute*, vol. vii, pt. iv, p. 393; see also S.V. Venkatesvara's article on 'Sea Power in South Indian History' in the *Journal of the Mythic Society*, vol. i.

c11.s5.24

The unit of the army however was a *patti* which constituted one chariot, one elephant, three horses, and five footmen. Three *pattis* formed a *śenāmukha*, three *śenāmukhas* one *gulma*, three *gulmas* a *gaṇa*, three *gaṇas* one *vāhini*, three *vāhinis* one *pṛtana* three *pṛtanas* a *chamu*, three *chamus* formed one *anīkini*, and ten *anīkinis* formed one *akṣauhiṇi*. Thus an *akṣauhiṇi*³ consisted of 21,870 chariots, 21,870 elephants, 65,610 horsemen, 109,350 foot-soldiers. We are told that in the battle of Kurukṣetra as much as eleven *akṣauhiṇis* on the Kaurava side and seven *akṣauhiṇis* on the Pāṇḍava side fought with one another. That the units of the army corps

c11.s5.25

³ *Vide* the *Jātakas*, vol. vi, Nos. 201, 303, for a definition of the term *akṣauhiṇi*.

c11.s5.26

स्यन्दनाश्वैः समे युध्येदन्पे नौद्विपस्तथा ।
वृक्षगुल्मावृते चापैरसिचर्मयुधैः स्थले ॥ (Manu, vii. 192.)

c11.s5.27

were in no way a fixed number is evident from the *Mahābhārata*. We have here a calculation of numbers altogether different from the above.¹ In regard to this it is enough to say that the terms were used in the same sense though there were considerable alterations in the basis of classification of numbers of different arms composing a unit.

c11.s5.28

¹ *Vide Udyoga Parvan*, clv.

Sec. vi. The March of the Army

c11.s6.1

A conquering king must bide his time in commencing expeditions against his enemy country. Whenever the enemy is in trouble, providential, epidemic-stricken, or when his army and treasury are on the decline, or again when he has been deserted by his friends, the conqueror (*vijigīṣu*) might begin his attack. The general season recommended for march is autumn or spring.² Kauṭalya remarks that the season alone is not sufficient; the really more important thing is the resources. When an invading monarch feels that in point of resources he is strong while the enemy is not in prosperous circumstances he could begin his march.³ This is in other words to act according to the *deśa* (country), *kāla* (time) and *śakti* (resources). A practical statesman must have an eye to all these three in launching out an expedition. Then Kauṭalya compares the relative effects of marching against the enemy on particular months and seasons of the year.⁴ The *Viṣṇudharmottara* prescribes prayer to gods seven days previous to the actual march. This is also seen in the *Agni Purāṇa* where details of worship for different deities are given. It is said that the results of the expedition would be foreshadowed in the dreams which the king was generally believed to dream on the eve of his march. There is then a clear definition of what the signs of good and bad dreams are.¹ On the sixth day it is ordained that the monarch should take a victory-bath (जयस्नानं). The detail of this ceremonial is given from the *Lingapurāṇa*. The belief was that by that function the conquering king was sure to return with flying colours, after completely vanquishing the enemy.²

c11.s6.2

² *S.T.R.*, v. 11. 55ff.

c11.s6.3

³ बलविशिष्टः कृतोपजापः प्रतिविहितकर्तृस्वभूम्यां प्रकाशयुद्धमुपेयात् ॥ (*Arthaśāstra*, Bk. x, Sec. 3; cf. *Mbh.*, *Śānti Parvan*, c. 10-12.)

c11.s6.4

⁴ *Ibid.*

c11.s6.5

¹ *Matsyapurāṇa* and the *Rāmāyaṇa* quoted in *Vīramitrodaya*, pp. 331-40.

c11.s6.6

² अपमृत्युजयार्थं तु सर्वशत्रुजयाय च । (Vide *Vīramitrodaya*, pp. 351-95.)

c11.s6.7

Again the usefulness of the different constituents of the army depends upon the nature of the land through which the army has to march and on which it has to fight. Generally three routes are taken by the army on the march: water, land and forests (जलस्थलवनरूपं मार्गं.) So different kinds of grounds are given for the respective forces. That ground which is devoid of thorns and contains small stones, trees and pits is the best for cavalry force. That which has big stones, trees and anthills is for the infantry; that which is even, hard, free from pits and other obstructions, dry, free from plants and bushes, sand, etc., is the one favourable for chariots, and that which is uneven, with hill and dale, and contains trees and plants, and of muddy soil is fit for the elephants corps.³ The following are the uses to which the different limbs of the army corps were put¹ :—

c11.s6.8

³ अकर्दमाममुदकाममर्यादामलोष्ठकाम् । अश्वभूमिं प्रशंसन्ति ये युद्धकुशलजनाः ॥

c11.s6.9

¹ Arthaśāstra, Bk. x, Sec. 4.

c11.s6.10

‘Concentration on occupied positions in camps and forests; holding the ropes (of beasts and other things) while crossing the rivers, or when the wind is blowing hard; destruction or protection of the commissariat and of troops arriving afresh; supervision of the discipline of the army, lengthening the line of the army; protecting the sides of the army; first attack; dispersion (of the enemies' army); trampling it down; defence; seizing; letting it out; causing the army to take a different direction; carrying the treasury and the princes; falling against the rear of the enemy; chasing the timid; pursuit; and concentration—these constitute the work of the horse.

c11.s6.11

‘Marching in front; preparing roads, camping ground and path for bringing water; protecting the sides; firm, standing, fording and entering into water, while crossing pools of water, and ascending from them; forced entrance into impregnable places; setting fire, or quenching the

c11.s6.12

समानिरुदकाकाशरथभूमिः प्रशस्यते ।
नोचद्रुमा महाकक्षा सोदकाहस्तियोधिनां ॥
बहुदुर्गा महाकक्षा वेणुवेत्रतिरस्कृता ।
पदातीनां क्षमाभूमिः पर्वतोपवनानि च ॥
पदातिबहुलासेना दृष्टाभवति भारत ।
रथाश्वबहुलासेना सुदिनेषु प्रशस्यते ॥
पदातिनागबहुलासेना सुदिनेषु प्रशस्यते ।
गुणानैतान्प्रसंख्याय देशकालौ प्रयोजयेत् ॥

c11.s6.13

(Śānti Parvan, c. 21-5; Arthaśāstra, Bk. x, Sec. 4.)

c11.s6.14

fire; the subjugation of one of the four constituents of the army; collecting the dispersed army; breaking a compact army; protection against dangers; trampling down the enemy's army; frightening and driving it; magnificence; seizing; abandoning; destruction of walls, gates and towers and carrying the treasury—these constitute the work of the elephants.

c11.s6.15

'Protection of the army; repelling the attack made by all the four constituents of the enemy's army; seizing and abandoning (positions) during the time of the battle; gathering a dispersed army; breaking the compact array of the enemy's army, frightening it; magnificence; and fearful noise; these constitute the work of the chariots.

c11.s6.16

'Always carrying weapons to all places; and fighting—these constitute the work of the infantry.'¹

c11.s6.17

¹ *Arthaśāstra*, Bk. x, Sec. 4, Trans.

c11.s6.18

When the army was on the march, the different divisions of the four-fold forces were stationed on both sides, and in the centre rode the king, women, treasury and possibly other non-military officials such as guides, transport officers, *purohita* and others. At the head of the whole force marched the leader of the vanguard of troops surrounded by men of his own choice, perhaps the very flower of the army. The flanks of the army were again not left unprotected. Here were stationed the cavalry as well as the chariot followed by the elephant corps. Evidently the arrangement was strategic in character.² The *Rāmāyaṇa* affords a practical illustration of how the army of Rāma passed towards Laṅkā, the enemy-country. The same work wherein are recorded the heroic deeds of epic heroes contains the nature of the enemy's halt on the eve of the building of the famous bridge through which Rāma led his forces to Laṅka. This is not the place to give details of either that march or the camping of Rāma's host.

First 149 of 217 passages. Read on

Linked texts (28)