Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

War in Ancient India c4.s6: Psychological Factors

War in Ancient India c4.s6

Language
English

Contents

Psychological Factors

c4.s6.1

Wars are attributed to certain psychological causes. Students of psychology and especially social psychology know that society is regarded as a vast group mind and that an individual is a part thereof, drawing his thoughts and purposes from it and contributing new thoughts and new purposes to it. Society is generally studied from three points of view⁶: firstly, it is limited by eternal and physical forces, as is seen from the social groupings and activities of primitive peoples; secondly, society is bound down by the forces and laws of organic life, as is seen in the tendencies of ancient peoples, not quite primitive, to form larger groups instead of the unorganized and isolated family groups; and, thirdly, society is subject to the laws of the mind, a stage in which ‘the conditions of mind shall be the chief determinants of progress’. It is only with this last phase that we are concerned here. The compelling factors which guide and control the life and activity of society are instinct and habit. The characteristic of all instinct is feeling and we detect no thought-processes in it. But in habit we detect thought-processes. Both instinct and habit have their own value, not to speak of the dangers peculiar to each. With the broadening of the factor of intelligence, the value of instinct goes on diminishing and the value of habit goes on increasing. But it is to be observed that too much habit sometimes retards the

c4.s6.2

⁶ For a fuller treatment of the subject see E. J. Urwick: *A Philosophy of Social Progress* (Methuen, London, 1912).

c4.s6.3

in particular. The theory is ingenious, but it is not convincing. See also D. R. Bhandarkar’s *Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture* (Madras University, 1940), Lecture IV.

c4.s6.4

faculty of thinking and consequently leads to mental stagnation.

c4.s6.5

From this theoretical consideration we pass on to examine how instinct and habit fixed the ship of ancient Hindu society and its members, in the direction of constant wars either within or without the group. In other words, we shall examine the psychological factors that led to ancient Hindu wars. These may be stated: (1) the mental atmosphere of the community being a caste society, (2) psychological barrenness of peace, (3) heroism and adventure, (4) human pugilism and pugnacity, (5) defence complex, (6) angry behaviour and spirit of jealousy and (7) the mastery motive.

c4.s6.6

Delisle Burns tells us that the mental atmosphere of a modern community is unfavourable to war. (This is unfortunately not true). Examining the mentality of the ancient Kṣatriya community, *i.e.*, their mental atmosphere, we can have no hesitation in saying that it was favourable to war and heroic feats.

(1) A Caste Society

c4.s6.t1.1

The ancient Hindu society was a caste society. By this we mean a system of social organisation, the framework of which is without any parallel in the social institutions of the world. The whole community was divided into four distinct groups (*varṇas*) governed by different customs and rules which are still in force in India. Separate occupations were assigned to each of these groups, to be followed hereditarily, though cases of lapses were not infrequent. But occupation did not form the basis of caste, though in theory it marked one group from another. Nor was race the basis of caste, as Risley would have it.⁷ It was the natural outcome of social conditions which have been shaping themselves from primitive times. This is clear from the relation in which caste stands to the ancient family institution. It is the direct outcome of a system derived from a more or less spontaneous partition, where neither class-hierarchy nor theocracy played a significant role. Senart rightly says: ‘The system under which India has lived is not purely an economic organisation of trades nor a chaos of strange and hostile tribes and races, nor again a simple class-hierarchy, but a mingling of all these, united by the common inspiration which dominates the functioning of all the groups, and by the community of characteristic ideas and prejudices which govern their order of precedence.’⁸

c4.s6.t1.2

⁷ Ethnographical Glossary, p. xxxiv.

c4.s6.t1.3

⁸ Caste in India, p. 215.

c4.s6.t1.4

The Varṇa system of the ancient Hindus implied the fourfold division of society into Brahmans, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras. The Brahmans formed the group of philosophers and teachers, the Kṣatriyas the group of rulers and warriors, the Vaiśyas the group of agriculturists and traders, and the Śūdras the group of men engaged in different menial services. The idea gained ground that to follow one’s own dharma and to sacrifice one’s own life, if need be, in the prosecution of that dharma, was the highest duty expected of every citizen, to whatever caste he belonged. We may remember how Kṛṣṇa laid emphasis on this point to the vacillating Arjuna who was out to fight his own kith and kin. This is the plain teaching of the Bhagavad Gītā. This insistence on svadharma is a sound economic concept.

c4.s6.t1.5

It lays the axe on the principles of individual freedom, the struggle for existence, and the survival of the fittest. The individual is made to realise his responsibility and duty to himself, his family, country, state, and ultimately to God.⁹ In short, he is a member of a free corporate State. He stands or falls with society and State. He is part of it and not separate from it. It is a peculiar concept by which the individual did his duty and yet enjoyed freedom. Every caste realised its dependence on the other castes, and this tended to avoid caste wars. Hereditary callings and the absence of competition helped an orderly movement, unlike the perpetual restlessness of modern society due to lack of equilibrium. It is the strong bold bond, the corporate organisation, and recognised jurisdiction that stood to guarantee its perpetuity.¹⁰

c4.s6.t1.6

⁹ Dikshitar: *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, pp. 40-41; *The Individual in Hindu Polity*—Aryan Path, Vol. X. No. 4 (April, 1939); *Society and State in Ancient India*—Aryan Path, Vol. XI. No. 2 (February, 1940).

c4.s6.t1.7

¹⁰ Senart, op. cit., p. 60.

c4.s6.t1.8

It is a fact that the ancient Hindu society was divided into a number of water-tight compartments. It had all the evils of rigidity with little or no chance for elasticity. A man, by virtue of his being born in a certain community, continued to be a member of that community all his life. It became a hereditary social system where a Kṣatriya could not become a Brahman, or vice versa. This was considered as virtually trespassing the duties and rights of another community. Any such trespass was punished by the State. So ancient Hindu society, as it was constituted, became necessarily a caste society, but with democratic social standards and conventions. In that state of society, in which a whole caste was set apart for the purpose of war, it was inevitable that that caste should be actuated by a warlike mentality, and that peace was despised. The assumption of that caste was that war was good for all time, and that war brought in its train not only glory to the individual knight but also glory and honour to the king and country. This aspect of the psychological impulse will be examined presently. But what deserves to be noted here is that with a settled community whose function was to defend the country by offensive or defensive methods, the mental atmosphere quickened the impulse to develop war-preparedness. This attitude of the mind was not entirely the result of a spirit of adventure but wholly the result of the realisation of the fact that by war the warrior and the hero were doing a piece of service which tended towards the common good and which was consequently acceptable to the common will. This was an important concept which was realised in abundant measure by every member of the Hindu warrior caste.

(2) Psychological Barrenness of Peace

c4.s6.t2.1

It has already been explained that in a society where a separate caste was set up with the sole object of defending the kingdom from internal and external troubles, the tendencies to war were normal. Being born warriors and barred by rules from taking to other professions, the Kṣatriyas were impatient of peace. In fact it is the psychological barrenness of peace that led to many wars in India’s ancient history. Our warriors in that period resembled the gallant knights of mediaeval Europe who took part in the Crusades to win back Jerusalem for Christ, both a cause and an effect of chivalry. Peace to the Kṣatriyas was a kind of inactivity, of slow movement and of retrogression instead of progress. It was not in their nature to be inactive. To them peace begot war. They believed honestly that peace was a negation of all noble service and noble energy. It depressed their hearts and minds. It depressed their spirit of enthusiasm and initiative. On the other hand, their sincere belief was that to make war was a service that was noble and moral and promoted the welfare of their community and country. Moved by such ideas and ideals, in accordance with the spirit of the age in which they lived, they took heroically to fighting. But by this period war had become the duty of the State, and without the sanction of the State authority these warriors could not engage in wars of great magnitude. However nothing prevented them individually from showing their prowess by engaging in a number of adventurous campaigns. These campaigns had different motives behind them. Chief among them were the capture of women, the lifting of cattle, the seizure of wealth or other loot. These remind us of the wonderful race of heroes, the Normans, and the heroes of chivalry, the Black Prince, Sir John Chandos and Sir Walter of Manny as they still live in the pages of Froissart.¹¹

c4.s6.t2.2

¹¹ See Strachey's intrn. to *Le Morte DArthur* (Macmillan, 1907), p. xli and *The Chronicles of Froissart* (Macmillan, 1913).

(3) Heroism and Adventure

c4.s6.t3.1

War is a school of strenuous life and heroism.¹² War and adventure assuredly keep all who are engaged in them from treating themselves too tenderly. The knights of ancient India were known as Śūras and sometimes Vīras, both the terms connoting that they were valorous. The Śūras and Vīras held a much higher rank than the ordinary run of warriors. In the *Atharva Veda Samhita*, Indra is addressed as a Śūra, and is said to possess heroism hundredfold. He pulled down the strongholds of Dasyus and scattered their army by slaying a hundred, a thousand, a ten thousand, and a hundred thousand millions.¹³ In fact the burden of the song in many a hymn of this Veda is heroism in exploits.¹⁴ Still above these were Rathis¹⁵ and Mahārathis.¹⁶ The terms themselves are evidence of the fact that such Knights were expert charioteers, who earned such titles by their valorous deeds displayed in previous engagements. Among those that won the laurel of a Rathi were Yayāti and Kārtavīrya Arjuna, both famous rājarṣis. The Mahārathas were there in numbers and all the five sons of King Ayuṣa who

c4.s6.t3.2

¹² W. James: *The Variety of Religious Experience* (Longmans,

c4.s6.t3.3

¹³ Bk. VIII, 8. 1-7. (H. O. Series).

c4.s6.t3.4

¹⁴ *Ibid.*, Bk. XIX, 13. 5-11.

c4.s6.t3.5

¹⁵ आत्मानंच सारथिं अश्वानं स्वसैन्यं रक्षितुं समः प्रहर्तापरसैन्यानां युद्धशास्त्रविशारदः युद्धशास्त्रेषु निपुणं स रथित्वेन संमतः

c4.s6.t3.6

¹⁶ एकोदश सहस्राणि योधयेत्यश्च धन्विनां पूर्वोक्त लक्षणैर्युक्तः पार्थिवस्याऽपि रक्षकः महारथीति कथितो युद्धशास्त्रविशारदैः ॥

c4.s6.t3.7

1908), p. 367; Cp. N. K. Sidhanta—*The Heroic Age of India* (London, 1929).

c4.s6.t3.8

escaped the fatal axe of Paraśurāma enjoyed the enviable status of Mahāratha. Thus by high-flown exploits did the ancient heroes win honourable titles, of whose deeds the epics and the Purāṇas are full.¹⁷ Some of the champions again go by the name of Atiratha¹⁸ and Apratiratha. In the later mediaeval works, like *Hariharacaturanga*, towards the close of Book vii, it is said that in a battle where a thousand śūras were slain the Kabandha engaged itself in a tāṇḍava or devil dance. But the author of the *Hariharacaturanga* would go further and state that in a war where one śūra killed a thousand śūras like him, the Kabandha danced in glee. This devil dance in a war is not a later idea introduced into the military literature of the Hindus. That it was a very ancient concept is seen from the description of the battle on the Ganges between Senguṭṭuvan and northern kings in the *Śilappadikāram* where Śūra Senguṭṭuvan slew hundreds of śūras of Northern India; the Kabandha (Tamil—Kavandam) felt overjoyed at this, and to the accompaniment of music by the daughter of the Devil, danced what is called the Peykkuravai.¹⁹

c4.s6.t3.9

¹⁷ See, for instance, the *Br. Purāṇa*, III. 68.20: 69. 21.

c4.s6.t3.10

¹⁸ अमिशान्योधयेतश्च पूर्वोक्तगुणसंयुतः विज्ञेयो अतिरथीनाम्ना शस्त्रास्त्रनिपुणसदा ॥

c4.s6.t3.11

¹⁹ Canto xxvi, 11, 206-210. See the description also in *Kaliṅgattuparaṇi* 503-586 edited by Kannaiya Naidu (1941).

c4.s6.t3.12

Cattle-Lifting

c4.s6.t3.13

In times of peace, besides the time spent in hunting, the Kṣatriyas took to a life of adventure to exercise their martial ardour. ‘At a time such as that represented by the first story of the Epic, the warrior was always a robber and a pillager. This life was Knight's support, and cattle-lifting provided needed gain.²⁰ All early raids were chiefly for cattle. There are a large number of hymns in the *Atharva Veda* praying for the protection of cows and cattle. In the thirteenth hymn of Book xix there are references to cow stalls and kine-winning chariots.²¹ From this reference and that in Book vi, 67.3 we may conclude that cattle-lifting was practised on an extensive scale in the Vedic Age. In fact this was the primitive habit of savage tribes. We see from the *Silappadikāram* that the Eiynar's profession was lifting cattle, looting and highway robbery. To these primitive men cattle constituted wealth, and a cattle raid meant the loss of one's property. In the *Purapporul Veṇbāmālai* are given details which mark out the different stages of a military enterprise of the nature of cattle-lifting. The soldiers who undertook this enterprise decked themselves with *vetchi* garland. The owners of the herds who came out to rescue their cattle wore the *karandai*, a kind of basil, as their badge.²² That this primitive form of cattle-lifting survived even when people became civilised is seen in the *Mahābhārata*²³ where under instructions from Duryodhana the king of the Trigarthas entered the city of Virāṭa and drove away the kine. Uttara and Bṛhannalā (Arjuna in disguise) recovered the cattle after a straight fight. In some cases, cattle-lifting was a prelude to military campaigns. Another fact that may be remembered in this connexion is the large number of gifts in the shape of cattle given to the king by foreign allies.

c4.s6.t3.14

²⁰ E. W. Hopkins, *J.A.O.S.*, XIII, p. 76.

c4.s6.t3.15

²¹ 5 and 7. See also Bk. II, 26; Bk. IV, 21; Bk. VI, 59.

c4.s6.t3.16

²² See *Vetcippadalam*; also Dikshitar: *Studies in Tamil Literature and History*, Sec. vi.

c4.s6.t3.17

²³ Mhb. Virāṭ Parva, Chh. xxxii ff.

c4.s6.t3.18

Capturing Girls

c4.s6.t3.19

Another occasion for the display of heroism and the spirit of adventure by the early Kṣatriya knights was afforded by the capture of maidens belonging to the neighbouring kings and countries. Shall we attribute this tendency to the psychological instinct of sexual passion? It is well-known that this primitive practice of running away with girls was once universal and not peculiar to ancient India alone. Indian conditions will be clear if we are sufficiently acquainted with the modes of marriage prevalent among the warrior caste. The most advertised form of royal marriage was svayamvara, which gave the maid the right of choosing her own husband, from among the princes assembled for the purpose.²⁴ Surely we can trace in this form of marriage survivals of the earlier and much simpler form which consisted of knights meeting girls openly or secretly and carrying them away with or without the knowledge of their relatives. In some cases the relatives of the girls acquiesced either because they themselves liked the match or felt too weak to offer a challenge to the captor. The latter was more probable. But a majority of such cases, as can be gathered from the fulness of descriptive details in the Epics and the Purāṇas, involved an outbreak of hostilities.

c4.s6.t3.20

²⁴ For evidence in Buddhist Literature, see B. C. Law: *A History of Pali Literature*, I, pp. 278-79; II, p. 459.

c4.s6.t3.21

It may not be out of place to cite an instance here. Bhīṣma, the royal sage, once met three girls in the course of his visit to Kāśi and carried them away. He threw out a challenge to the party that came to recover them. He fought with all the contestants and established his right of possession.²⁵

c4.s6.t3.22

²⁵ Mhb. Ādiparva, 102, 3 ff.

c4.s6.t3.23

Such instances, which could be multiplied, were the outcome of the virile temper of the Kṣatriya warriors in general. It was accepted as a primitive form of marriage by the law-givers. The law of the country named it the Gāndharva form of marriage, and brought it under the rājasa system which constituted three out of the eight forms of marriage in ancient India. Does this mean rape and was it countenanced by ancient society? We certainly cannot call this method of adventure a rape, for there was the obligation on the part of the adventurer to treat the seized maiden as his wife for all legal and social purposes. He could not and did not drive away or divorce her after the satisfaction of his lust. In short, the captured maiden became the wedded wife of the knight. Thus behind the rājasa form is to be traced a thin veil of the sātvika element.

c4.s6.t3.24

Instances of forcible abduction are not wanting. One signal instance is that of Rāvaṇa, the Rākṣasa king of Ceylon, carrying away by force and against her will, Sītā, the consort of Rāma, prince of Ayodhyā. This resulted in the great Rāma-Rāvaṇa yuddha in Laṅkā, which ended in the death of Rāvaṇa with all his hosts, and in the triumph of Rāma. We know again of the adultery committed by Vāli, king of Kiṣkindhā, with the wife of his brother Sugrīva, after driving him away by force out of the kingdom. For this Vāli lost his life, for he was killed by Rāma on an earnest appeal from Sugrīva.²⁶ These cases involved a deadly combat where invariably the aggrieved party came out crowned with victory. Be it remembered that these captors belonged to the primitive tribes, who had emerged by the time of the Rāmāyaṇa into a semi-civilised state. We are led to infer that such practices were un-Aryan. It may be noted, as pointed out by Hopkins in the cases of Gāndharva marriages, that caste weds caste.²⁷ The adventures of these gallant people were directed to the confines of the Kṣatriya caste. The girls of other castes, higher or lower, were not interfered with.²⁸ But Hopkins is positively wrong when he states that ‘ even with high caste girls the king is fond of connecting himself without formality ’.²⁹ The burden of proof lies on him who makes such a bold statement. The practice is to marry ‘ down ’ and not ‘ up ’. Whatever this may be, it is important to note that the instinct of sex impelled by passion and emotion led to the capture of girls and also to rape³⁰ which often led to wars in the ancient world, sometimes of great magnitude.

c4.s6.t3.25

²⁶ It may be noted that Sugrīva's marriage with Vāli's widow is no rape.

c4.s6.t3.26

²⁷ The Nair *sambandam* in Malabar has been likened to Gāndharva marriage.

c4.s6.t3.27

²⁸ Hopkins, *op. cit.*, p. 168.

c4.s6.t3.28

²⁹ *Ibid.*

c4.s6.t3.29

³⁰ Cp. The rape of the Sabine women.

(4) Pugnacity

c4.s6.t4.1

Added to this was the instinct of pugilism and pugnacity. The Kṣatriya warriors were taught and trained in such a way as to develop the spirit of pugnacity. The Epic has it that the sword should hold what the sword has won:

c4.s6.t4.2

यदो जसा न लभते क्षत्रियो न तदश्नुते V. 74. 23.

c4.s6.t4.3

What he does not win by strength is not his own. Elsewhere the Epic rules thus:³¹ The highest duty and pleasure for a warrior is to die fighting in war. Why is this? It is because one’s death in a contest makes him live in heaven.³² Odd as it may seem, the ancient Hindu, to whatever caste he might belong, developed a peculiar mental attitude from his childhood that by doing his ordained duty he got his freedom from the bondage of saṃsāra (i.e. cycle of births and deaths), and enjoyed heavenly bliss as a guest of the gods. Influenced by such moral ideals, no wonder the ancient warriors of the land depended on their boldness³³ and strength.³⁴ To escape from the field of battle without fighting firmly and also to ask for quarter³⁵ were regarded heinous offences against both God and State. For is it not stated that to win victory or die in the field of battle is the eternal law promulgated by the Creator himself?³⁶ These sentiments which were largely supported by the then moral code made the Kurus’ chief proclaim at the top of his voice: ‘I elect glory even at the cost of life’.³⁷

c4.s6.t4.4

³¹ Mhb., V, 160, 71. 32 Ibid., II, 22, 18. 33 Ibid., I, 202, 18. 34 Ibid., II, 69, 15. 35 Ibid., IV, 38, 29; V, 3, 20 ff.

c4.s6.t4.5

³⁷ Mhb., III, 300, 31.

c4.s6.t4.6

In the light of such regulations and principles governing the ancient Indian warrior caste, need it be said that the Kṣatriyas, who were often prompted by the instinct of pugnacity, entered blindly upon wars which affected considerably all belligerents? Instead of trying ‘to discount and to control these outbursts of collective pugnacity’, ancient Hindu society encouraged them ‘under a system of civilised legality’. A warrior’s code was based on law and custom, which not only countenanced but also sanctioned such a system as moral and legal. It has been accepted that its operation leads to the development of the higher social life. Speaking of India and China, a well-known psychologist remarks that ‘the bulk of the people are deficient in pugnacious instinct.’³⁸ The remark shows that the learned author has no correct vision of the Hindu social structure. In a society which consisted of four castes, three castes were devoted to peaceful professions, and naturally the bulk of the people could not have been pugnacious. But it needs repetition that with the military group pugilism and pugnacity were rampant. If Hindu society had not subjected itself for long ages to a healthy diversity of functions and assimilation, there would not have been that progressive integration which has marked it for centuries. It would have crumbled to pieces and we should have long ceased to exist as a vital race. But it is this healthy social organisation that has preserved the Hindu nation in spite of frequent foreign invasions and ceaseless internal turmoil. We are told that efforts are being made in the West to replace pugnacity by the emulative impulse. This is only an experiment; and how far this tendency of emulation would supplant the pugnacious element, it is for the future historian to say.

c4.s6.t4.7

³⁸ W. McDougall: *An Introduction to Social Psychology*, pp. 281-82 (15th Edn.—Methuen, London).

c4.s6.t4.8

Matsya Nyaya

c4.s6.t4.9

The next question is how the instinct of pugnacity came to stay in the world and what was its contribution towards making it an important factor in the evolution of human nature? This question is answered by the psychologist thus: ‘The selection of the fit and the extermination of the less fit (among both individuals and societies) result from their conflicts with one another’.³⁹ This is a very significant statement; for it is, in other words, the theory of mātsya nyāya. Literally rendered, the term mātsya nyāya means the ‘Rule of the Fish’. What is the rule of the fish except the unwritten law of the bigger fish devouring the smaller ones? Elsewhere I have applied this term to the arājaka state. We have an elaborate description of such a state of anarchy, as we should call it, both in the Mahābhārata40 and in the Rāmāyaṇa.41 The substance of these accounts in the epics shows that in an anarchical state the country is subject to plunder and devastation. Life becomes unsafe. There is no security of person or property. The strong rob the weak and the innocent of their wealth. Rape or violation of women is common. Like fish in a pool of water or a herd of cows with no cow-herd, people injure and kill one another. There is no reverence for parents, teachers, or the aged. Agriculture and industry suffer. There are no regular marriages, and the intermixture of castes is free. Religious authorities are openly defied. No one sleeps without fear.⁴²

c4.s6.t4.10

³⁹ W. Mcdougall: An Introduction to Social Psychology, p. 295. 40 Śānti Parva, Chh. LXVI and LXVII. 41 Ayodhyā, Ch. LXVII.

c4.s6.t4.11

⁴² *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, pp. 19-27.

c4.s6.t4.12

This state of anarchy presupposes a state of nature where one notices a chronic warfare between strong and weak individuals in a group and between strong and weak groups. Often the weak are defeated and subjugated by the strong. This epic idea is stressed with much emphasis in the Dharmaśāstras like that of Manu,⁴³ the Purāṇas like the Matsya,⁴⁴ and in later works like the Yuktikalpataru,⁴⁵ and Raghunātha’s Laukika Nyāya Saṅgraha.⁴⁶ What does all this show except that before the introduction of popular monarchy investing the holder of that office with powers of daṇḍa, in the light of the established law of the realm, the communities were subject to no law and suddenly developed a combative instinct excited by crude sentiment? Hence the necessity of putting down individual idiosyncrasies and building up a society which would develop a spirit of altruism and extend the virtues of family life to groups and nations. The foundation of monarchy and a new social order based on functions brought to an end the concept of *mātsya nyāya*. Occasionally its effects were felt. It is said that in the ninth century A.D. the people elected as king, Gopāla, the father of the more famous Dharmapāla, of the Pāla dynasty, in order to free themselves from the prevailing state of *mātsya nyāya*.* This shows that there is considerable truth in the statement: No State, no Society. Unless a strong executive authority places restraints on common impulses like jealousy, fear, passion, these are brought into play in the everyday life of the citizen. So in their social order the ancients merged the individual into the group by making him one of the group and in the group, so that he was to subordinate his opinion to the group-opinion. By means of group organisation and devolution of powers, the State in ancient India solved many social, economic, and even political problems that confront the modern politician and statesman in the civilised world.⁴⁷

c4.s6.t4.13

⁴³ Manu, VII, 20 and Kullūkabhaṭṭa’s gloss thereon.

c4.s6.t4.14

⁴⁴ *Matsya Purāṇa*, Ch. 225, v. 9.

c4.s6.t4.15

⁴⁵ *Yuktikalpataru*, 105.

c4.s6.t4.16

⁴⁶ *Laukika-Nyāya-Saṅgraha*, Pandit Series, 1901, p. 122.

(5) Defence Complex

c4.s6.t5.1

We may now pass on to another psychological source of war. To-day we believe honestly and sincerely that defence and means of defence are quite essential for every nation to maintain its code of honour and to sustain the special national interests. Whatever theorists may say on the ethics of defence, it has come to stay as a force in politics, whether we will it or no. We therefore cannot ignore it but have to reckon with it as a necessary institution whether it is unmoral or non-moral. To-day capitalism and imperialism, infringement of trade rights, etc., have often been sufficient grounds for the outbreak of war. Again, the defence of a small state against the aggression of a big neighbouring power has been a cause of wars among the great Powers in modern times.

c4.s6.t5.2

∗ Jayaswal: *Imperial History of India*, p. 42. 47 Dikshitar: ‘*State and Society in Ancient India*’—*Aryan Path*, Vol. XI. No. 2.

c4.s6.t5.3

The economic factor as a cause of war did not loom large in the Indian horizon. In ancient India the State was itself a producing and manufacturing concern. All the key industries were undertaken by the State. There was little or no private enterprise, and the jealous eye of the State watched even this carefully. This system prevented the formation of a capitalist class which has become a potent force in modern politics. Nor were there war-traders in ancient India.¹⁸ The duty of these traders lies in the supply of arms and armaments to the soldiers. Their business thrives only as long as war goes on. So they leave no stone unturned to infuse into the nation the war spirit. In ancient India there was, to our knowledge, no private firm which manufactured weapons of war. Their manufacture and supply were a State monopoly. There was the arsenal which was a department attached to the War Office. There may have been in ancient India an economic motive on the part of the State to build up a sound economic democracy, as in the case of Daṇḍaka, an ancestor of Rāma, king of Ayodhyā, who realised the economic value of the forests to his empire, which was in itself a plain country, and who therefore led an expedition to South India as far as Kiṣkindhā and brought the whole forest territory of the Dakhan under his control. It is difficult to look for economic causes which could have led to wars in ancient India. Society and State were so constituted that no economic distress of an acute kind stared the ancient Indian in the face. Though we can trace overseas trade at the time of the Ṛg Veda, where a certain merchant Bhujja is mentioned as shipwrecked in the course of his commercial adventures, nowhere is there any evidence to show that international trade relations led to the outbreak of war.

c4.s6.t5.4

¹⁸ G. H. Perris: *The War Traders* (Chancery Lane Press, 1914).

c4.s6.t5.5

Defence and Aggression

c4.s6.t5.6

The ancient Hindus were a sensitive people, and their heroes were instructed that they were defending the noble cause of God, Crown and Country. Viewed in this light, war departments were ‘defence’ departments, and military expenditure was included in the cost of defence. In this, as in many cases, ancient India was ahead of modern ideas. All defence reduced to a theory becomes aggression. For what is defence to one nation is aggression to the other, and vice versa. The impulse of menace and a spirit of jealousy were the chief factors which actuated ancient Indian kingdoms and empires, and hence we find every writer on Arthaśāstra and Nītisāra insisting upon a heavy military expenditure for defence.

c4.s6.t5.7

Fear Impulse

c4.s6.t5.8

Every empire, not to speak of every small independent State, was obsessed by the fear impulse, as the psychologist calls it.⁴⁹ A sense of insecurity of life was often lurking in the State mind, and this led to the organisation of an elaborate machinery of defence. Many hymns in the *Atharva Veda* reflect this state of mind, which are designated under the group *abhaya gaṇa* of *Kauśika Sūtra* (16-8). A few of them may be reproduced here.*

c4.s6.t5.9

⁴⁹ R. S. Woodworth: *Psychology* (1930), p. 256.

c4.s6.t5.10

‘What we fear, O Indra, make thou fearlessness for us of it; O bounteous One, help that for us by thy aids; smite away haters, away scorners.

c4.s6.t5.11

‘Do thou knowing, lead us towards broad space, light that is heavenly, fearlessness, well-being; may we dwell under the formidable arms of thee the stout one, O Indra (those two) great refuges.

c4.s6.t5.12

‘May the atmosphere make for us fearlessness: fearlessness both heaven and earth here: fearlessness from behind, fearlessness from in front: from above, from below, be there fearlessness for us.

c4.s6.t5.13

‘Fearlessness from friend, fearlessness from enemy, fearlessness from one known, fearlessness from one away, fearlessness for us by night, fearlessness by day; be all places my friend’ (Bk. xix, 15). See also *Ibid.*, 16.

c4.s6.t5.14

‘Let Agni with the Vasus protect me on the east; in him I step, in him I take refuge: to that stronghold I go forward: let him defend me, let him guard me: to him I commit myself: Hail!’ (Bk. xix, 17.1. etc.).

c4.s6.t5.15

Added to this may be cited another hymn of the *Atharva Veda* (Bk. vi, 40):

c4.s6.t5.16

‘Let fearlessness, O heaven and earth, be here for us: Let Soma, Savitar, make us fearlessness: be the wide atmosphere fearlessness for us: and by the oblation of seven seers be there fearlessness for us.’

c4.s6.t5.17

∗ W. D. Whitney’s trn.

c4.s6.t5.18

‘For this village let the four directions—let Savitar make for us sustenance, well-being, welfare: let Indra make for us freedom from foes, fearlessness: let the fury of kings fall on elsewhere.’

c4.s6.t5.19

‘Freedom from enemies for us below, freedom from enemies for us above: O Indra, make us freedom from enemies for us behind, freedom from enemies in front.’

c4.s6.t5.20

On account of this fear the ancient Kṣatriya prayed to Indra and other Vedic deities for success over enemies, and these are called battle-hymns.⁵⁰ One verse runs as follows:

c4.s6.t5.21

⁵⁰ Sāmgrāmikāṇi—Bk. I, 19; Bk. II, 19; Bk. VI, 65; Bk. VII, 62 and 92; Bk. VIII, 8.

c4.s6.t5.22

‘Let their weapons fall down: let them not be able to fit the arrow: then, of them fearing much let arrows strike in the vitals.’⁵¹

c4.s6.t5.23

⁵¹ A. V. Bk. VIII. 8. 20.

c4.s6.t5.24

Again, ‘Let not the piercers find us, nor let the penetrators find (us): far from us make the volleys fly, dispersing, O Indra’.

c4.s6.t5.25

Among the deities invoked for this purpose were Arbudi and Nyarbudi as allies of Indra, as also Tri-sandhi.⁵² One form of prayer consisted of oblations like the thousand-slaying homa.⁵³

c4.s6.t5.26

⁵² Ibid., Bk. XI, 11, 4 and 23.

c4.s6.t5.27

⁵³ Ibid., Bk. VIII, 17; Cp. Bk. XI, 9 and 10.

c4.s6.t5.28

This fear was reciprocal. A subject nation, for example, entertains fears of being swallowed by the imperial power some day or other. On the other hand, the imperial power would closely watch the movements of this subject kingdom, lest it should slowly mobilise its forces in secret and raise the standard of revolt having always an eye to the proper time and place. For instance, Kalinga, a subject country under Candragupta and his son, rebelled when Aśoka came to the throne. Aśoka had to invade this kingdom and reconquer it at the expense of many lives including the innocents. Thus the subject kingdom which was actuated by the motive of getting rid of the yoke of imperial power, was keen on its defence. Instances of this type may be multiplied.

(6) Angry Behaviour

c4.s6.t6.1

If the fear impulse is of the defence-complex, angry behaviour is of the aggression-complex.⁵⁴ Śenguṭṭuvan wanted to lead an expedition to the North and show off to the kings there his prowess. But no activity is aroused by the motive alone. Given the right stimulus and the motive, there comes automatically the response.⁵⁵ While the king was sitting in the audience hall filled with resentment at the insult offered to him by northern kings in their joint social meeting, there came the suggestion to found a temple to the chaste Kannaki by carving the deity on a stone taken either from the Podiyil or the Himalayas. When it was agreed to consecrate the temple in honour of Pattini Devī, Śenguṭṭuvan said that he would get the slab of stone from the Himalayas after duly bathing it in the Ganges and reducing to subjection the northern kings if they should resist him. Soon he made elaborate preparations for the expedition and set out for the north. He extended his arms successfully, defeated a confederacy of northern kings, and after imprisoning the chief monarchs, Kanaka and Vijaya, he made them bear on their heads the slab of stone to his distant capital at Vañji in Tamil India.⁵⁶

c4.s6.t6.2

⁵⁴ See in this connexion hymns 42 and 43 of Bk. VI, A. V. to remove wrath and to assuage wrath.

c4.s6.t6.3

⁵⁵ Woodworth: op. cit., ch. vi.

c4.s6.t6.4

⁵⁶ Dikshitar: *Śilappadikāram*, Intrn. pp. 3-8.

c4.s6.t6.5

An examination of this war fought by Śeṅguṭṭuvan on the banks of the Ganges shows that it was not a defensive one, but was due to the aggressive impulse on the part of the monarch. ‘If you would avoid war, study human beings, study in particular the impulses of aggression; and study them first where they are more readily open to inspection in yourself.’⁵⁷ Whatever views theorists may hold on the defence-complex, it is not possible to deny that aggression may be caused even by a slight provocation. We cannot get over the fact that impulses of aggression have led to several wars in ancient India. For the effective discharge of such aggressive impulses, sadistic and masochistic, war-mongering provided, as it even now does, an admirable channel, though the belligerents on either side knew full well that in injuring others they injured themselves. In several cases when we speak of defence as one of the causes of war, we speak, possibly consciously, in terms of aggression. If we turn to the pages of the Purāṇas we find that the Haihaya king was responsible for the death of Jamadagni, father of Paraśurāma. The natural thing for Paraśurāma would have been to avenge his father’s murder. Instead of stopping with this, in a fit of exasperation he resolved to ruin root and branch the Kṣatriya race for twenty-one generations. It was a mad venture, we may say, based on an aggressive spirit. Animated by such destructive impulses, Paraśurāma went on persecuting one Kṣatriya prince after another. There would not have been a Kṣatriya community after him, had not some princes hidden themselves in caves and forests out of his sight and come out after the bloody conqueror had ceased fighting.

c4.s6.t6.6

⁵⁷ Edward Glover: *War, Sadism and Pacifism* (Allen & Unwin).

c4.s6.t6.7

The Spirit of Jealousy

c4.s6.t6.8

In the examination of this jealousy motive we find an unbridled indulgence of almost all evil passions. The *Atharva Veda* (Bk. V, 8. 3) says: ‘Let not the gods go to his call; come ye only unto my call’. Jealousy, if nothing else, was the real cause of the great Mahābhārata war fought at the historic Kurukṣetra, the belligerents being the Pāṇḍavas and Kauravas who were after all agnates. When king Pāṇḍu was unable to wield the reins of administration, Dhṛtarāṣṭra was elected to the throne. The five sons of Pāṇḍu and the hundred sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra were trained by common teachers, and the Pāṇḍavas gained the knowledge of science and the use of weapons much more quickly and much more easily than the Kauravas. At this the Kauravas became jealous of their cousins, and from that time they, under the guidance of their eldest brother Duryodhana, laid plans to get rid of the growing power and influence of the Pāṇḍavas. Kṛṣṇa, the king of Dvāraka and a skilled diplomat, saw the justice of the Pāṇḍava cause and threw his whole weight on their side. This further increased the jealousy of Duryodhana, who sought secret means to do away with the five brothers. Finding that all his plans had failed, Duryodhana angered his cousins to such a pitch that nothing short of war, it was thought, would result. Huge forces were brought into the field especially by Duryodhana, and war was waged for eighteen days. We need not enter into the details here. The result was that all the Kauravas and their soldiers were ruthlessly killed, and the Pāṇḍavas won a decisive victory. The Bharatakaṇḍa lay at the feet of Yudhiṣṭhira, the royal sage, and his four brothers. The Pāṇḍavas became the virtual rulers of all India and their alliance was sought by many a prince including those of the Tamil kingdoms of the South, with whom the Pāṇḍavas had relations of a social and political nature. If we are to believe the second stanza in the anthology of the Tamil classic Puranānūru, it is one Udiyan Ceral that fed the combatants of the Mahābhārata war.

(7) The Mastery Motive

c4.s6.t7.1

Jealousy brought in its train imperialistic notions of overlordship (ādhipatya) and love of glory. This mental attitude is reflected in several hymns of the *Atharva Veda*. One hymn says:∗

c4.s6.t7.2

∗ W. D. Whitney’s trn.

c4.s6.t7.3

‘Unto our glorious Indra, rich in glory, would we, rendering homage, with glories pay worship; do thou bestow on us royalty quickened by Indra: in thy bestowal here may we be glorious.’
‘Glorious was Indra, glorious was Agni, glorious was Soma born: Glorious, of all existence am I most glorious’. (Bk. vi, 39).
‘Glorious let the bounteous Indra make me: Glorious both earth and heaven here: Glorious let god Savitar make me.’

c4.s6.t7.4

‘As Indra is possessed of glory in heaven and earth, as the waters are possessed of glory in the herbs, so among all the gods may we, among all, be glorious.’ ‘Glorious was Indra, glorious was Agni, glorious was Soma born: Glorious, of all existence am I most glorious.’ (Bk. vi, 58). ‘O ye Aśvins, lords of beauty! Anoint me with the honey of bees, that I may speak brilliant words with the people.’ ‘In me (be) splendour, also glory, also the fatness that belongs to the offering; let Prajāpati fix that in me, as the heaven in the sky.’ (Ibid., 69).

c4.s6.t7.5

The prospect of glory is itself an incentive to deeds of heroism. To quote the *Atharva Veda* again, there is a hymn addressed to Indra thus:

c4.s6.t7.6

‘O Indra, come to my call: this will I do: that hear thou: let these overrunners of Indra’s bring to pass my design: by them may we be equal to heroism.’ (Bk. v, 8.2).

c4.s6.t7.7

The terms empire and imperial sway, as I have explained elsewhere,⁵⁸ do not connote the meaning by which we understand these terms to-day. The Roman Empire meant the gradual extension of Roman citizenship and Roman law and the spread of the Latin tongue. The British Commonwealth means the establishment of British methods of law and order, the use of the English language for purposes of administration, and the development of British democratic institutions. Imperial sway in ancient India meant the active rule of an individual monarch who by his ability and prowess brought to subjection the neighbouring chieftains and other rulers, and proclaimed himself the sole ruler of the earth. This goes by the name of *digvijaya*. It is not necessary that he should conquer all States by the sword. A small State might feel the weight of a conquering king and render obeisance of its own accord. Whether this willing subordination is sincere or feigned, open or veiled, the fact is that it is there. The acknowledgment of overlordship of a certain monarch or the willing acquiescence of lesser powers to a greater power invests the greater power with the halo of imperialism.

c4.s6.t7.8

⁵⁸ *The Mauryan Polity*, pp. 71 ff.

c4.s6.t7.9

The position of subdued or vassal States was that they retained their old methods of administration, their laws and customs, their language and their religion. The visible manifestation of their subordinate capacity lay in periodical payment of tribute and presents, assistance in war, and the absence of separate foreign relations.⁵⁹ Under weaklings the empire broke down and under the powerful it was built up. Need it be said that in any case defence was absolutely essential either to the Imperial power or to the vassal State? According to the *Sangam* classics, each of the respective rulers of the chief Tamil kingdoms, the Cēra, Cōḻa and Pāṇḍya, carried his sword as far north as the Himalayas, and implanted on its lofty heights his respective crest the bow, the tiger, and the fish.

c4.s6.t7.10

⁵⁹ Cp. N. N. Law: *Inter-state Relations in Ancient India*: pp. 62-63 (Calcutta Oriental Series, 1920).

c4.s6.t7.11

In these adventures which were undergone for their glorification, the Tamil kings did not lag behind their northern brethren. The very epithet *Imayavaramban* shows that the limits of the empire under that Emperor extended to the Himalayas in the north. This title was also earned by Ceran Senguṭṭuvan by his meritorious exploits in the north. Names like the Coḷa Pass in the Himalayan slopes, which in very early times connected Nepal and Bhutan with ancient Tibet, give a certain clue to the fact that once our Tamil kings went so far north as the Himalayas and left their indelible marks in those regions.⁶⁰ If in the epic age a Rāma and an Arjuna could come to the extremity of our peninsula, and in the historical period a Candragupta or a Samudragupta could undertake an expedition to this part of our country, nothing could prevent a king of prowess and vast resources like the Cēra king Senguṭṭuvan from carrying his arms to the north. The route lay through the Dakhan plateau, the Kalinga, Malva, and the Ganges. Perhaps it was the ancient Dakṣiṇapatha route known to history from the epoch of the Ṛg Veda Samhitā. These expeditions were prompted by what the psychologists would call the mastery or self-assertive motive. This is clearly illustrated by a hymn of the Atharva Veda. (Bk. iv, 22. 1).

c4.s6.t7.12

⁶⁰ See M. Raghava Iyengar’s article in *Kalaimagal*. Vol. I. pp. 56-63.

c4.s6.t7.13

‘Increase, O Indra, this Kṣatriya for me: make thou this man sole chief of the clans: unman all his enemies: make them subject to him in the contests for pre-eminence.’

c4.s6.t7.14

‘Of lion aspect, do thou devour all the clans: of tiger aspect, do thou beat down the foes: sole chief, having Indra as companion, having conquered, seize thou on the enjoyments of them that play the foe’. (Ibid., 7).

c4.s6.t7.15

Again, the king who became conqueror of all India was entitled to the distinction of being called a Samrāṭ. In the Purāṇic period the great Kārtavīrya Arjuna of the Haihaya clan spread his arms throughout the ancient Indian continent and earned the title of Samrāṭ. The same principle of glory and distinction underlay the performance of the sacrifices, Aśvamedha and Rājasūya, which were intended only for the members of the Kṣatriya community. Sometimes these yajñas were made by a prince in the evening of his life, after he had attained a ripe age when he could no more bear arms effectively and was about to retire to a life of peace and prayer, leaving the responsibilities of the kingdom to his successor, invariably the eldest son. Dāśarathi Rāma and the Pāṇḍava Yudhiṣṭhira engaged in such sacrifices after the historic battles in which they took leading and glorious parts. Coming nearer home, we find Śenguṭṭuvan performing a Vedic sacrifice after his return from the north where he defeated all the northern monarchs.

c4.s6.t7.16

A prominent feature of the Aśvamedha consisted of letting a sacrificial horse roam about the country as it pleased, and it was open to other chieftains either to allow it to go its way, or keep the animal in their territorial limits, which was a signal for claiming superiority and hence preparedness to fight out. Often the horse went unrestrained. But there were cases where jealous kings resented and the resentment led to fighting. Everyone knows the fate which overtook the sixty thousand sons of Sagara in the course of their search for the sacrificial horse. We are told again that the young sons of Rāma—Lava and Kuśa—had the sacrificial animal of Rāma bound, and this led to a great fight. In these cases the army was not certainly maintained for defences but to satisfy the vainglorious temperament of certain monarchs.

c4.s6.t7.17

Their vanity did not end here. It was often nurtured by avidity to attain *Indratvam*. These ancient Kṣatriya monarchs believed very seriously—though this may seem irrational or superstitious—that by performing a hundred Aśvamedha sacrifices, they got the higher status of Indra. The performer became the king of the gods and lord of heaven.

c4.s6.t7.18

In this connection we may quote one or two hymns of the *Atharva Veda* which fairly represent this idea or ideal:

c4.s6.t7.19

‘Now do I adorn this man as superior to his fellow, for attainment of Indra; do thou increase his authority, his great fortune, as the rain the grass’.
‘For him, O Agni and Soma, maintain ye dominion, for him wealth: in the sphere of royalty make ye him superior to his fellow’.
‘Whoever, both related and unrelated, assails us, every such one mayest thou make subject to me, the sacrificer, the soma-presser.’ (Bk. vi, 54).

c4.s6.t7.20

It was an age of crude mythology. To go to heaven and become the lord of heaven was the ruling passion of every monarch. If one Aśvamedha yajña meant an enormous amount of money, time, and energy, it may well be imagined what a hundred Aśvamedhas would cost. No wonder there were perpetual wars, now with one king, now with another. Such religious beliefs and traditions made wars inevitable. The Aśvamedha was certainly an instrument to provoke the feelings of fellow-monarchs, equal, superior, and inferior. The smaller powers acquiesced generally, but the greater powers, to use a modern term, challenged and provoked war. A study of these wars, from a psychological point of view, shows that what is defence to one State is aggression to the other, and vice versa. This sort of imperialism on the part of the ancient Hindu monarchs to become Samrāṭs and their kingdoms to be developed into Sāmrājyas, was of the nature of federal units centring round a dominating emperor⁶¹. The attainment of Ekarājatvam or the sole kingship of all the then known earth, was often attended by the sacrifice of Aśvamedha,⁶² a ceremony performed by an emperor already consecrated to rulership. This bears testimony to ‘the existence of the territorial ideal of a one-State India’ (Cakravarti-kṣetram of Kauṭalya). These kings were called Sārvabhaumas⁶³ and Ekarāṭs.

c4.s6.t7.21

⁶¹ See Jayaswal: *Hindu Polity*. I. p. 137.

c4.s6.t7.22

⁶² *Śat. Br.* XIII, 7.1.

c4.s6.t7.23

⁶³ See Pāṇini, V, 1, 41-2.

c4.s6.t7.24

A hymn of the Atharva Veda is pertinent:

c4.s6.t7.25

‘Chief of Indra, chief of heaven, chief of earth is this man, chief of all existence: do thou be sole chief.’
‘The ocean is the master of the streams: Agni is controller of the earth; the moon is master of the asterisms: do thou be sole chief.
‘Universal ruler art thou of Asuras, summit of human beings: part-sharer of the gods art thou: do thou be sole chief.’63a

c4.s6.t7.26

63a वृषेन्द्रस्य वृषा दिवो वृषा पृथिव्या अयम् । वृषा विश्वस्य भूतस्य त्वमेकवृषो भव ।।

c4.s6.t7.27

Vedic kings aimed at it, and epic rulers realised it. The idea of *ekarāṭ* continued down to Buddhist times and even later. The Jātakas, which are said to belong to the fifth or sixth century B.C., make pointed reference to an all-India empire.⁶⁴ Two centuries later Kauṭalya records the international relations between an Ekarāja and the Sangha, and recommends the cementing of the alliance with subsidy and peace, and in the case of refractory Sanghas, with war.⁶⁵ This concept of an all-India empire stretching from Cape Comorin to the Himalayas, according to Kauṭalya⁶⁶ receives further support from another important political term: ekacchatra, or one-umbrella sovereignty. To add to these notions of imperial rule we have the theory of Kaṇika Bharadvāja, a political thinker who figures in the Mahābhārata and whose view is apparently rejected by Kauṭalya, namely the usurpation of degenerate dynasties. These pieces of evidence go to prove, beyond doubt, that imperialism as understood and realised in ancient India was one of the causes of chronic warfare.

c4.s6.t7.28

⁶⁴ Sakala Jambūdvīpa eka rājyam. 4.

c4.s6.t7.29

⁶⁵ Ar. Śās. Bk. XI, 1.

c4.s6.t7.30

⁶⁶ Ar. Śās. Bk. IX, 1.

c4.s6.t7.31

Thus a number of psychological factors prompted the ancient Kṣatriya to approach the problem of war, and made war inevitable. As already pointed out, there was one fundamental and vital difference between the

First 128 of 139 passages. Read on

Linked texts (17)