War in Ancient India c4.s6.t4: (4) Pugnacity

War in Ancient India c4.s6.t4

Language: English

(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

Linked texts (5)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Mānava Dharmaśāstra — Manu & Bhṛgu, Sanskrit
Matsyapurāṇa — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Vālmīkirāmāyaṇa — Vālmīki, Sanskrit
Laukikanyāyasaṃgraha — Raghunātha Varman 1825, Sanskrit