Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Hindu Administrative Institutions c11.s3: Sec. iii. Ethics of War

Hindu Administrative Institutions c11.s3

Language
English

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.

Linked texts (19)