Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

War in Ancient India c5: Chapter II: The Laws of War

War in Ancient India c5

Language
English

Contents

Chapter II: The Laws of War

Section I: The Warrior's Code

c5.s1.2

War was inevitable in primitive communities as there was neither a social organization nor a pronounced political status. In the earlier stages of civilisation war was regarded as a normal feature of life. But with the growth of civilisation, war came to be looked upon as a serious business, which should not be entered into recklessly and ruthlessly but should be governed by ethical and moral codes. From the earliest times the warrior was a robber and a pillager, as we see in the *Silappadikāram*. But when society became organised and a warrior caste came into being, it was felt that the members of this caste should be governed by certain humane laws, the observance of which, it was believed, would take them to heaven, while their non-observance would lead them into hell. In the Vedic age we have no evidence to indicate the existence of an accepted code of fighting. Political society was just then emerging from the tribal community. But in the post-Vedic epoch, and especially before the epics were reduced to writing, lawless war had been supplanted, and a code had begun to govern the waging of wars. The ancient law-givers, the reputed authors of the *Dharmasūtras* and the *Dharmaśāstras*, codified the then existing customs and usages for the betterment of mankind. Thus the law books and the epics contain special sections on royal duties and the duties of common warriors. The seers and the legists thought that the high road to peace lay in the consummation of a social order guided by a code of humane laws, moral and ethical in character.

c5.s1.3

It would be interesting to study the rules which restrained the warrior's whims and ennobled his character and conduct. In this study we have to distinguish between general rules and special rules, *sādhāraṇa dharma* and *svadharma*. With regard to general rules, it is incumbent on the Brahman to perform six duties: learning, instructing, sacrificing, causing sacrifices to be performed, making gifts, and receiving gifts.¹ Of these, three were common to the Kṣatriyas also: learning, sacrificing and making gifts. The Kṣatriyas were exempt from the other duties enjoined on the Brahmans, viz., instructing, causing sacrifices to be performed, and receiving gifts.² These three were considered the special duties of the Brahman community and intended to benefit society at large. By imparting instruction and by performing sacrifices, which services entitled him to receive gifts, the Brahman ministered to the education and religion of the people. The Kṣatriya was not expected to do these offices, which would considerably hamper his special *dharma* and create a breach in the established social order.

c5.s1.4

¹ *Manu*, X, 75.

c5.s1.5

² *Ibid.*, 77.

c5.s1.6

The functions common to both the communities—learning, sacrificing, and bestowing gifts—were intended for their moral and spiritual elevation in society. Manu lays down that in addition to these three functions, the Kṣatriyas should attend to the defence of the country (prajānām rakṣaṇam), and be moderate in the enjoyment of worldly pleasures like dancing, music, and women.³ It was realized that the Kṣatriya’s excessive indulgence in ephemeral pleasures would be detrimental to his very responsible work of defending the country from external attacks and internal risings.⁴

c5.s1.7

³ Ibid., I, 89. 4 See the commentary of Nacciṉārkkiṉiyār on the Sūtram 75 Purattiyal of the Tolkāppiyam. 5 Manu, II, 37-38. 6 Mhb., Droṇa Parva, 193. 66; 194. 43. 7 Rāmāyaṇa, I. 23. 2; III. 42. 23.

c5.s1.8

The first and foremost among the general duties was study, adhyayanam. The period of study for a Kṣatriya commenced at the age of six and continued up to the end of his twenty-second year,⁵ when the warrior usually took to arms. This was so only in theory. In practice sixteen was considered the normal age to get the Kṣatriya knighthood and to entitle him to enter the field of battle.⁶ When the sage Viśvāmitra wanted to take the boy Rāma to fight the Rākṣasas in the forests, Daśaratha pleaded that he was not yet sixteen,⁷ with the implication that sixteen was normally the age at which boyhood ordinarily terminated. In the Mahābhārata again we are told that Prince Abhimanyu, son of Arjuna, became a full-fledged knight at the age of sixteen.⁸ He had been married and had already been in the battle-field. These facts show the difference that existed between theory and practice.

c5.s1.9

What was the curriculum of studies planned for the Kṣatriya, and how far was the plan executed? If we are to believe the tradition recorded in the *Raghuvamśa*, the education of the prince commenced in his third year, when he learnt from his teacher the alphabet (*lipi*) and numbers (*samkhyāna*).⁹ The *Arthaśāstra* of Kauṭalya prescribes a programme of studies¹⁰ which includes *trayī* or the three Vedas, *ānvīkṣiki* or logic, *vārta* or economics, and *daṇḍanīti* or the science of politics. It may be inferred that the higher studies were commenced at the age of eleven, if we are to believe the *Mānava-dharmaśāstra*.¹¹ It may be noted that experts in the various subjects of study were appointed teachers. It is of capital importance to note that *adhyakṣas* or heads of administrative departments and *vaktras* and *prayoktras*, expounders and administrators of law, were engaged to teach the warriors the secular sciences of economics and politics. The idea was to make the educational training as practical as it could be.

c5.s1.10

⁹ *Raghuvamśa*, III. 28. 10 *Ar. Śās.* Bk. I. 5.

c5.s1.11

The other studies consisted of the various branches of military science, usually called *Dhanur Veda*. This particularly related to the use and handling of different arms and armaments. While the forenoon was devoted to learning the theory and practice of arms, the afternoon was devoted to the hearing of *Itihāsa*. The education of a Kṣatriya was not considered complete if he had not either himself studied the *Itihāsas* or heard them read to him. It was deemed that this study of the *Itihāsas*, or historical accounts of the exploits and adventures of his great ancestors, was quite essential to a young Kṣatriya, so that he might follow their example, their policy, and administration in order to achieve success for himself.¹² As the time of studentship was limited and the programme of studies was heavy and ambitious, a class of bards called Sūtas were engaged to narrate to him such stories at a certain fixed time daily. The evening and the early portion of the night were devoted to learning new and difficult lessons. The Kṣatriyas were taught in the homes of their teachers, generally away from the bustle of the town and consequently unused to a life of luxury.¹³ Education was so devised that it nurtured in them the virtue of discipline (*vidyāvinīta*).¹⁴ So much importance was attached to discipline and to obedience to teachers. Whatever the teachers wished to have in the form of *gurudakṣiṇā*, the pupils were ready to give at any cost and under any circumstance. The Arthaśāstra¹⁵ insists on a period of apprenticeship for the pupil which consists of learning the practical side of his duties as a subordinate to an administrative superior. At the termination of the practical training the Kṣatriya was drafted to service and deemed worthy of occupying an independent position.

c5.s1.12

¹² Cf. Sivājī’s education by Dādājī Koṇḍadev in Sir Jadunath Sarkar’s *Sivājī*.

c5.s1.13

¹³ Compare this with what prevailed in ancient and mediaeval times in the West. The castles of princes and nobles were the schools where the knight received his education from about the age of seven or eight. Instruction was provided as to how to guide a war horse, how to use the bow and the arrow, and how to manage a lance; all this by making him ride against a wooden figure. In this period he was called a squire till he was twenty. He was next ‘to win his spurs’, as it was called, and be admitted into the order of knighthood. (Eileen Power and G. C. Coulton).

c5.s1.14

¹⁴ *Ar. Śās.* Bk. I, 17-18; Cf. *Śukra.* II, 41-50; *Agni*, P., 225, 1-3. See also Dikshitar, *Hindu Administrative Institutions*, pp. 107-109.

c5.s1.15

¹⁵ Bk. 1, 18.

c5.s1.16

Great care was taken to promote the welfare of the individual even from birth by means of a number of sacraments, or *saṃskāras*. The naming of a child, to whatever caste it belonged, was considered a day of festivity and rejoicing. Only auspicious names, mostly names of their chosen gods and goddesses, were given to children. We are told in the *Maṇimekalai* how the whole city was present on the occasion of the naming ceremony of Maṇimekalai, the daughter of Mādhavi by Kōvalan. The cognomen of the name for a Kṣatriya was to be Varma, as that of the Brahman was Śarma.¹⁶ The investiture was to be celebrated at the age of eleven to entitle a Kṣatriya to style himself a *dvija* or twice-born.¹⁷

c5.s1.17

¹⁶ *Manu*, II, 32.

c5.s1.18

¹⁷ *Manu*, II, 36; *Gautama*, I. 13; *Āpastamba*, I. 11.18.

c5.s1.19

Next came the outfit of the Kṣatriyas. The sacred thread was made of hemp. The Kṣatriya wore a girdle made either of *muñja* grass with iron pieces¹⁸ tied to it or of a bow-string.¹⁹ The girdle of a Brahman was of *muñja* grass, and to distinguish it from that of a Kṣatriya, pieces of iron were added to the *muñja* grass. This seems to have been an alternative to the girdle of a bow-string, as the ancient Kṣatriya was generally a bowman. He held a staff reaching the forehead. The warrior should not carry any kind of staff, though Āśvalāyana would permit it.²⁰ The staff was made of banyan or acacia wood.²¹ Every caste had its own kind of staff. But the rule was that the higher the caste the longer the staff. The height was determined by the social position of the caste.

c5.s1.20

¹⁸ *Āpastamba*, I, 1.2-35.

c5.s1.21

¹⁹ *Vasiṣṭha*, XI. 59.

c5.s1.22

²⁰ Gṛhya Sūtra, 1.20.1.

c5.s1.23

²¹ Gautama, I, 23; Vasiṣṭha, XI, 53, 56.

c5.s1.24

We may next turn our attention to the dress of the Kṣatriya. The dress marked out one community from another. The under-wear of a Kṣatriya invariably consisted of a deer skin, and that of a Vaiśya of a goat skin. Except in war-time the Kṣatriya spent his time in hunting, and as a hunter he wore the deer skin. The same may be said of the Vaiśya who was an agriculturist. Flax was the material used in the making of his upper garment. The dress of the Kṣatriya consisted of an upper garment and an under garment. A cloak was also worn, and when it was worn it was dyed with madder.²² He was enjoined by the law-givers to follow special modes of dressing, building houses,²³ wearing jewels, and saluting. It is interesting to note that his salutation was made by ‘extending the arm out at a level with the chest ’. ²⁴

c5.s1.25

²² See Hopkins, op. cit., 105-06.

c5.s1.26

²³ Āś. Gṛ. Sūt., II, 8.7; Agni Purāṇa, ch. 258.

c5.s1.27

²⁴ Āp. I, 2.5-16.

c5.s1.28

Marriage formed an important part of the social life of the warrior. From a free state of marriage, as is connoted by the legend in the Mahābhārata of Śvetaketu, introducing regulations for marriage, counterpart of which in Tamil literature is the term makatt-pārkāñji in the Tolkāppiyam, we pass on to a settled social organization. The existing practices and usages were codified. Otherwise it is difficult to explain the eight forms of marriage as being prevalent. These are brāhma, daiva, ārṣa, prājāpatya, āsura, gāndharva, rākṣasa, and paiśāca.25 Of these the paiśāca was condemned as the lowest form of marriage. To a warrior four forms of marriage are recommended—āsura, gāndharva, rākṣasa, and paiśāca.26 The Mahābhārata allows the Kṣatriyas the first six forms of marriage—brāhma, daiva, ārṣa, prājāpatya, āsura, and gāndharva.27 Later on, the epic prescribes the rākṣasa form also to the kings, thus making a distinction between Kṣatriya kings and ordinary warriors. The epic is not in favour of the paiśāca and āsura forms of marriage for any member of any caste. Apparently these practices were becoming obsolete at that time. The Kṣatriya kings were permitted to have the gāndharva form of marriage primarily

c5.s1.29

25 चतुर्णापि वर्णानां प्रेत्य चेह हिताहितान्।
अष्टाविमान्समासेन स्त्रीविवाहान्निबोधत॥
ब्राह्मो दैवस्तथैवार्षः प्राजापत्यस्तथासुरः।
गान्धर्वो राक्षसश्चैव पैशाचश्चाष्टमोऽधमः॥
Manu, III. 20-21.

c5.s1.30

26 षडानुपूर्व्या विप्रस्य क्षत्रस्य चतुरोऽवरान्।
विट्शूद्रयोस्तु तानेव विद्याध्र्यान्न राक्षसान्॥
Ibid., 23.

c5.s1.31

27 प्रशस्ताश्चतुरः पूर्वान्ब्राह्मणस्योपधारय।
षडानुपूर्व्या क्षत्रस्य विद्धि धर्माननिन्दिते॥
राज्ञां तु राक्षसोटप्युक्तो विट्शूद्रेष्वासुरः स्मृतः।
पैशाचमासुरश्चैव न कर्तव्यौ कदाचन॥
गान्धर्वराक्षसौ क्षत्रे धर्म्यौ तौ मा विशङ्किथाः।
गान्धर्वेण विवाहेन भार्या भवितुमर्हसि॥
Ādi Parva 94.16-20.

c5.s1.32

and the rākṣasa form only secondarily. On this plea Duṣyanta persuaded Śakuntalā to marry him. Convinced that it was allowed by the scriptures, Śakuntalā agreed on condition that the son that should be born of her should become heir apparent. The gāndharva form was generally the voluntary union of a Kṣatriya with a woman of his own caste, with or without the consent of their parents. But, according to a verse in the Anuśāsana Parva, the gāndharva form is defined thus: ‘The father of the girl conferred his daughter on a certain person whom she liked and who in his turn reciprocated her love, whether he liked it or not.’ 28 The āsura form is to get a girl by paying a heavy price to her kinsmen, while the forcible removal of a girl by overpowering or slaying her kinsmen is said to be the rākṣasa form.

c5.s1.33

One thing must be mentioned. The warriors’s code prescribes that the Kṣatriya could take two wives. But in practice we find that the royal harem contained a number of women. Even here we have to distinguish between the ordinary Kṣatriya and the king. Apparently the sanction to take two wives was intended for Kṣatriyas in general. It may be noted in passing that the king occupied a status superior to the ordinary warrior and enjoyed certain privileges. Of the two wives one was necessarily of his own caste. If he chose, he could take a wife from the next caste, the Vaiśya. In that case, the Kṣatriya wife was considered socially

c5.s1.34

28 आत्माभिप्रेतमुत्सृज्य कन्याभिप्रेत एव यः । अभिप्रेता च या यस्य तस्मै देया युधिष्ठिर ॥ गान्धर्वमिति तं धर्मं प्राहुर्वेदविदो जनाः ॥ superior to the other.²⁹ To whatever caste she belonged, it was the injunction of the scriptures that ‘the husband should regard his wife as an acquisition due to his own pristine karma or to what has been ordained by God.’³⁰ This injunction falsifies the statement often made now-a-days that in ancient India women always held an inferior position in the social scale. The ancient Indian easily realized that his wife was his partner in weal or woe, and honoured her as the very queen of his home. Does not Manu say: “Where women are not honoured, there cannot be a proper home”? ³¹

c5.s1.35

²⁹ *Ibid.*, 11 and 12.

c5.s1.36

³⁰ Dutt’s translation, *ibid.*, 29.

c5.s1.37

³¹ III. 55-60.

c5.s1.38

Marriages, then, among the warrior caste, as among the other castes, were occasions of great rejoicing, accompanied by festive processions, music and dancing. Marriages in royal families were generally occasions of public rejoicing. At the *svayamvara* marriage, all the chiefs of the land were invited and in the specially decorated hall they were seated in order. As the bride passed in front of the princes assembled, with a white garland of flowers, her lady-in-waiting would state briefly to her the name of each prince and his achievements. The prince whom she garlanded became her husband-elect. The marriage was at once celebrated in which all the rejected suitors were invited to participate; the princes did not think it in any way improper to mingle in the general festivities.³² Classical instances of a *svayamvara* are furnished by the marriage of Nala and Damayanti, and that of Rāma and Sītā. A study of the epics and the Purāṇas shows that polygamy was the rule, and polyandry an exception, if not altogether unknown. We have only one instance of the polyandry system, and that in the case of the five Pāṇḍava brothers having one wife Draupadī, daughter of king Drupadā. But what is held virtuous and praiseworthy is the *ekapatnīvrata*, or the law of having only one consort. Dāśarathi Rāma is a typical instance of the *ekapatnīvrata*.³³ His fidelity to and love for Sītā, the incarnation of chastity, is undoubted; but when he heard that public opinion was not in favour of his taking back his devoted wife, he sent her away to the forest and separated from her.

c5.s1.39

³² On *svayamvara* see N. K. Sidhanta: *Heroic Age in India*. pp. 151-152 (Kegan Paul, London 1929).

c5.s1.40

³³ *Rāmāyaṇa*, III, 2. 19.

c5.s1.41

The next point for consideration is the question of succession, and the operation of the law of primogeniture. It is a general rule that kings were chosen from among the Kṣatriya caste. In other words, a non-Kṣatriya was not qualified to be a king. And this is probably due to the fact that the Kṣatriya caste was considered superior to others in virtue of its martial prowess. For on this alone depended the maintenance of law and order without which there would be neither welfare for the people nor progress in the State, the *yogakṣema* and *lokayātra* of Indian political literature. We are told of the incalculable evils resulting from the rule of kings chosen from other than the warrior caste. The *Vāyu Purāṇa*³⁴ sets forth the dark period when slave kings ruled before Candragupta Maurya, and history again records the equally dark period under the Brahman regime, like the age of the Śungas, the Kaṇvas, and the Āndhras. Ancient India again disapproved of rule by a woman or a child or by men of no character like gamblers.³⁵ It is said that such a kingdom sinks like a stone boat in a river. So insistence is made on a righteous Kṣatriya being elected king.

c5.s1.42

³⁴ II. 37. 321 ff.

c5.s1.43

³⁵ Mhb., Udyoga Parva, 38. 43. 36 Mhb., Ādi Parva, 79. 18-43. 37 Rāmāyaṇa, Ayodhyā, chh. 68-69.

c5.s1.44

Generally the eldest son succeeded to the throne. His election or elevation depended on two things—recommendation by the reigning king as a well-behaved and loyal prince, and ratification by the people. Yayāti offered his throne to his youngest son, because he alone fulfilled his wishes, while others did not pay heed to them.36 If the Crown Prince was a minor, the Dowager Queen or a respectable elderly relative governed in his name. A similar rule was applicable during an interregnum. For instance, in the Rāmāyaṇa the Purohita Vasiṣṭha took up the reins of administration on Daśaratha’s death until Bharata arrived from his uncle’s kingdom.37 An unworthy prince was often punished and sometimes banished out of the kingdom. Asamanja is an instance in point. It may be that in certain cases the king had no issue to continue his line, and in such cases recourse was had to the practice of what is termed niyoga.

c5.s1.45

The son was begotten on one’s wife by appointment. The practice was for the reigning king to appoint a person, preferably a sage, to have sexual intercourse with his wife and bring forth a son to succeed him. In such cases the sage imposed certain conditions, and in practice the queen often discountenanced such a union. But still she yielded lest the line should be completely extinguished. Legend says that Bali, the Vairocana, had no children, and appointed the sage Dīrghatamas, by whom his queen gave birth to five sons—Anga, Vanga, Kaliṅga, Pauṇḍra and Simha. The story goes that at first she refused and sent in her place her slave girl to whom was born Kakṣīvān.³⁸ In the Mahābhārata again Dhṛtarāṣṭra being blind was debarred from sitting on the throne. So his brother Pāṇḍu succeeded him and Pāṇḍu became in course of time sickly, and therefore recourse was had to *niyoga* to beget sons on Pāṇḍu's queen. Though the practice of *niyoga* had neither the willing approval of the lawgivers nor of the parties to it, all the same it was resorted to. And Manu assigns a low status to a *niyoga* son, nicknamed a *kṣetraja*.³⁹

c5.s1.46

³⁸ *Br. Purāṇa*, III. ch. 74.

c5.s1.47

³⁹ IX. 65.

c5.s1.48

Details as regards the coronation, and the daily duties of the king, his mode of life, the harem, etc., need not detain us here. But our survey would not be complete if we do not say a word about the method of the disposal of kings and soldiers slain in battle. After the battle was over, and when news reached that their kinsmen had fallen dead fighting heroically in the field, the relatives including women went forth to the battlefield to bewail their loss. If it was a royal death, the royal household went to the scene of action accompanied by the merchants, artisans, agriculturists, and the common folk to pay their last respects to the departed hero. Songs of praise were sung recounting his heroic exploits.⁴⁰ Then followed the cremation.

c5.s1.49

⁴⁰ *Mhb.*, Strīparva, chh. 9-10; chh. 16-24.

c5.s1.50

As hundreds of soldiers were dead on the field, it was the custom to heap up the dead bodies on pyres, according to rank, and to get them cremated.⁴¹ It was then also a custom for the chaste wives of these fallen heroes to mount the funeral pyres of their husbands and get burned along with them.⁴² Only such wives were regarded as *satis*. But this was not always the case. In the *Rāmāyaṇa* we see that widows survived their husbands and led wretched and miserable lives⁴³ and from this Lassen concludes that there was no widow-burning in the *Rāmāyaṇa*.⁴⁴ The legal code allows both practices, thus respecting the customs and usages of different peoples.

c5.s1.51

⁴¹ *Ibid.*, 26.24-44.

c5.s1.52

⁴² *Mhb.*, Śānti, ch. 147.

c5.s1.53

⁴³ The queens of Daśaratha and Tārā the queen of Vālī are instances in point.

c5.s1.54

⁴⁴ *Ind. Alt.* I. 592.

c5.s1.55

Though the warrior’s code enjoins that all the Kṣatriyas should die on the field of battle,⁴⁵ still in practice many died a peaceful death. After a long and glorious rule the king often nominated his successor, invariably his eldest son, and retired with his family to the forest to lead a life of penance and prayer and attain Nirvāṇa, or Heavenly Bliss. It is a moot question whether the Kṣatriya could legally renounce the world and take to the fourth āśrama, the ascetic order or sannyāsa.⁴⁶ There is a definite ordinance of the ancient law books prohibiting the warrior caste from taking to asceticism. Only the Brahman may resort to asceticism, because the Kṣatriya may neither beg nor receive a gift. The very nature of a sannyāsin is to beg; hence he is called a bhikṣu. Action and not renunciation is the watch-word of the Kṣatriya.⁴⁷ It was realised that if this were allowed, the Kṣatriyas would become philosophers rather than warriors and this would result in the deterioration of man-power in the land. Therefore, a warrior was not generally allowed to don the robes of an ascetic. But Mahāvīra and Gautama protested against these injunctions and inaugurated an order of monks or sannyāsins. When these dissenting sects gathered in strength and numbers, the decline of Kṣatriya valour set in. Once they were initiated into a life of peace and prayer, they preferred it to the horrors of war. This was a disservice that dissenting sects did to the cause of ancient India.

c5.s1.56

⁴⁵ See in this connexion *Puranānūru*, 15.

c5.s1.57

⁴⁶ There is an interesting dialogue in the *Mahābhārata* between Janaka and his indignant queen on this subject, when he renounced the world.

c5.s1.58

⁴⁷ Āhurāśramiṇaḥ sarve na bhaikṣam kṣatriyaścaret—(Mhb., Udyoga Parva 72.3).

c5.s1.59

The Kṣatriya could take to the third stage of life, the vānaprasta āśrama, which was the life of a hermit. But still the rule was definite, that peaceful death at home was a sin.⁴⁸ It was a disgrace for a hero to die in the field with wounds received on his back. The heroic mother of the Tamil land was in the habit of running to the field of action with a vow to cut off her breasts that gave milk to him if her son had died of a wound in the back. If, on the other hand, he had fallen dead with a wound at the chest, the mother felt relieved, even though she should have lost her only son.⁴⁹ When kings received wounds on their backs they sought a voluntary death. We hear that the Cēra king, Ātan II, when wounded thus by Karikāl Cōḻa, sought a voluntary death.⁵⁰ The idea of death at the theatre of war was such a ruling passion with the Tamils that if a warrior met with a natural death it was the custom to make the dying man lie on a bed of kuśa grass and have him cut with a sword, the purohita chanting special mantras. In short, war was deemed to be a yajña or sacrifice, and this idea of the dramatist Bhāsa is found in Kauṭalya.⁵¹

c5.s1.60

⁴⁸ Mhb., Śānti, 97.21-30. The following statement may be specially noted: न गृहे मरणं तात क्षत्रियाणां प्रशस्यते ॥

c5.s1.61

⁴⁹ Sen Tamil, Vol. v. For it is un-Aryan to mourn for the heroic dead. The rule forbids the lamentation for those slain in battle except in a formal way. Mhb., XI. 2.19.20.

c5.s1.62

⁵⁰ Puram, 65 and 66. It may be said most of these rules are borrowed from or inspired by the Brahmanical tradition.

c5.s1.63

⁵¹ Bhāsa's Pratijñāyaugundharāyaṇa—Act IV; Ar. Śās. Bk. X, 3. See also Dikshitar—Bhāsa and Kauṭalya in P. V. Kane Commemoration Volume (1941).

c5.s1.64

The warrior's code enjoined that, once challenged, the Kṣatriya must respond.⁵² If he did not, he was not doing his duty. It is said that having heard that he had been challenged to fight, a Kṣatriya laid down his crown and braided up his hair, an outward sign of hasty preparation for the fight.⁵³ He thus extricated himself from disgrace and from the sin arising out of the non-observance of duty. For the king must always be in a state of preparedness for war. It made no difference whether one expected to win or to be killed in the battle. For it was the eternal law proclaimed by the Creator.⁵⁴

c5.s1.65

⁵² For a similar idea see Strachey's Introduction to the Globe edition of Malory's Mort d' Arthur, on Chivalry and the introduction to the Globe edition of Froissart.

c5.s1.66

⁵³ Mhb., Sabhā Parva, 24.8.

c5.s1.67

⁵⁴ *Mhb.*, Udyoga Parva, 72.4.

c5.s1.68

Whether an elder, a kinsman, a preceptor, or a Brahman, he must be attacked if he would attack him.⁵⁵ This was the point raised by Arjuna and answered by Kṛṣṇa as the veritable law of warfare, though it militated against the sādhāraṇa dharma inculcated by the law codes. The idea was that once a Brahman or a kinsman assumed the role of a warrior and a foe, there was no sin in killing him.⁵⁶

c5.s1.69

⁵⁵ Cp. Av. Bk. 1.19.3 where Rudra is invoked to destroy the enemy: ‘Whether one of our own or whether a stranger, fellow or outsider, who so assails us,—let Rudra with a volley pierce those my enemies.’

c5.s1.70

⁵⁶ *Mhb.*, Udyoga Parva, 178.51.

c5.s1.71

Viewing the life of a warrior as a whole, it seems that in the pre-Epic period he shared a part of the spoils of war with the king and received no fixed wages. But in the epic period a warrior in service received fixed emoluments. In war he fought, and in peace he spent his days in amusement. He was not drafted to civil work.⁵⁷ In case a warrior died, the State provided for his family.⁵⁸

c5.s1.72

⁵⁷ *Ibid.*, Sabhā Parva, 5.52-3.

c5.s1.73

⁵⁸ *Ibid.*, Śānti, 86.24-5.

c5.s1.74

जयो वधो वा संग्रामे धात्राऽऽदिष्टः सनातनः ।
स्वधर्मः क्षत्रियस्यैष कार्पण्यं न प्रशस्यते ॥

c5.s1.75

उद्यतेष्वथ दृष्ट्वा ब्राह्मणं क्षत्रबन्धुवत् ।
यो हन्यात्समरे क्रुद्धं युध्यन्तमुपलायिनम् ।
ब्रह्महत्या न तस्य स्यादिति धर्मेषु निश्चयः ॥

Section II: The Ethics of War

c5.s2.2

"To fight to the death for these great possessions (defence of family's honour and of country's welfare), to feel that it is honour to die for them and dishonour to retreat from them, to give up everything material for them, to war for them to the last man, is just, true and righteous war, and there is not a thought or a passion connected with it which does not exalt and ennoble, not only the persons and the nation which wage it but the whole body also of humanity to whom the great tradition of this defence is handed down, and whom the memory of it inspires, teaches and ennobles".⁵⁹

c5.s2.3

⁵⁹ See Stopford A. Brooke: *A Discourse on War*, (*The Hibbert Journal*, 1915-16, p. 674).

c5.s2.4

The Hindu science of warfare values both *nīti* and *śaurya*, *i.e.* ethical principles and valour. The term *nītiśāstra*, which was the title given to books on ancient Indian polity, shows that though the subjects treated in them were secular, still they had their basis in religion. In fact religion governed the actual life of every person from birth to death. It was therefore realised that the waging of war without regard to moral standards degraded the institution into mere animal ferocity.⁶⁰ Hence there came into being the ethical code and the code of the lawgivers, the authors of the Dharmasūtras and the Dharmaśāstras. A monarch desirous of *dharma-vijaya* should conform to the code of ethics enjoined upon warriors.

c5.s2.5

⁶⁰ *Raghuvamśa*, 17. 47 and 68; See Mallinātha's Commentary.

c5.s2.6

Hindu military science recognizes two kinds of warfare—the dharmayuddha and the kūṭayuddha. There is another classification into prakāśayuddha and mantrayuddha. Dharmayuddha is war carried on the principles of *dharma*, meaning here the Kṣatradharma or the law of Kings and Warriors. In other words, it was a just and righteous war which had the approval of society. It was also termed prakāśayuddha, or open battle. There was to be no secrecy about it. The preliminaries of the battle were settled by the belligerents before the war actually began. There was no application of stratagem or artifice in the operations of this war. It was then a straight fight and a regulated fight. On the other hand, the kūṭayuddha was unrighteous war. It was a crafty fight carried on in secret. It was sometimes effected by the use of mantras and of charms and spells. Sometimes it went by the name of mantra-yuddha, permissible only for purposes of defence, and that too only as a last resort. More of this later on.

c5.s2.7

Going back to the hoary past, to the period of the *Ṛg Veda Samhitā*, there is no reason to suppose that the Samhitā or post-Śahmitā literature of the Veda contemplated any clear distinction between dharmayuddha and kūṭayuddha. No doubt wars were fought, and there is evidence of the use, sometimes, of fraud in such battles.⁶¹ There was nothing like a definite formulation of the rules of conduct. It was only in the post-Vedic epoch that a code came into being, thanks to the foresight of our ancient sages. Here and there we meet with a stray regulation especially in the literature which goes by the name of the Brāhmaṇas. For example, the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa says: ‘Kin or no kin, crush the foes: conquer the attacking, conquer by attacking’.⁶² Surely there was some unwritten code or convention followed by the members of society, though the written code was still a thing of the future.

c5.s2.8

⁶¹ *Ṛg Veda*, I, 117. 16; VII, 18.11.

c5.s2.9

But a critical study of the Vedic literature as a whole leaves on one the impression that the Asuras were advanced in the art of war, that they lived in well-fortified castles, and that they sometimes resorted to unscrupulous and unclean methods to overcome the enemy. They were past masters in the use of spells and charms, *mantra* and *tantra*. If we read the accounts of the different devāsura wars narrated in the Vedic works and amplified in the later Purāṇic literature, we may surmise, not without reason, that the origin of the kūṭayuddha, later on accepted by the Hindu law-givers as one of the permitted kinds of warfare, lay in the ancient and primitive institutions of the Asuras, which the Devas began slowly to copy and follow. However this may be, we meet with these two kinds of war in the early Dharmasūtras and in the epics. Already a code had been drawn up without much violation of the politics and conventions current at that time. And punishment was inflicted on the warrior who did not act up to the regulations laid down. The code of course synchronized with the formation of a separate military caste. Though it was enjoined on the military leaders and warriors to conform to the laws of war, still they were taught the different modes of fighting, including those of the kūṭayuddha,⁶³ and were expected to be well versed in all of them. The idea was to pay one in his own coin. If the enemy resorted to unrighteous and intriguing methods of war, the attacked could also resort to similar methods and strike the enemy down.

c5.s2.10

⁶³ This is called adharma vijaya by the epic. The vijaya earned by adharma leads to hell. Śānti: 96. 1-2.

c5.s2.11

The principles regulating the two kinds of warfare are elaborately described in the Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstras, the epics, and the Arthaśāstra treatises of Kauṭalya, Kāmandaka, and Śukra.

c5.s2.12

Let us now turn our attention to the laws governing righteous warfare. When a conqueror felt that he was in a position to invade the foreigner’s country, he sent an ambassador with the message: ‘Fight or submit.’⁶⁴ More than 5000 years ago India recognized that the person of the ambassador was inviolable. This was a great service that ancient Hinduism rendered to the cause of international law. It was the religious force that invested the person of the herald or ambassador with an inviolable sanctity in the ancient world; we find this principle operative at the dawn of Greek society.⁶⁵ Plato asserts that an injury done to the ambassador amounted to sacrilege against Zeus and Hermes. The same principle dominated the religious law of early Rome. Herodotus narrates the divine punishment that fell on Sparta in the fifth century B.C. for slaying the

c5.s2.13

⁶⁴ For details see the section on Ambassadors.

c5.s2.14

⁶⁵ Plato, *Laws*, 941.

c5.s2.15

अधर्मविजयं लब्ध्वा को नु मन्येत भूमिपः ।
अधर्मयुक्तो विजयो ह्यध्रुवोस्वर्ग्य एव च ।।

c5.s2.16

Persian herald.⁶⁶ ‘Thus it was that religion was able to win recognition for one of the most enduring ideas of international ethics.’⁶⁷ The *Mahābhārata* rules that the king who killed an envoy would sink into hell with all his ministers.⁶⁸

c5.s2.17

⁶⁶ 7. 134.

c5.s2.18

⁶⁷ See L. R. Farnell: *The Higher Aspects of Greek Religion* (London, 1926), pp. 100-101.

c5.s2.19

⁶⁸ *Śānti*, 85. 26.

c5.s2.20

Notwithstanding the love of glory and the spirit of heroism which actuated the warrior, recourse was had to war only if the instruments of diplomacy failed to effect the desired end. Generally the policies of *sāma* and *dāna* were used against inferior powers, and that of *bheda* and *daṇḍa* towards superiors and equals.⁶⁹ But this was by no means a rigid rule.⁷⁰ These different expedients were severally and jointly employed so as to bring about a compromise and avoid or at least postpone the outbreak of war. Genuine attempts were made to avoid armed contests and to keep peaceful relations. As we have seen already, aggression was the exception and defence was the rule. If diplomacy failed to bring about compromise, and if war was provoked, surely there was retaliation. Vigorous preparations were made to vanquish the enemy by attacking the vulnerable points in his line. It was considered no sin to strike the enemy at his weak points.⁷¹ We have the unimpeachable authority of the celebrated Buddhist writer of the early second century A.D., Āryadeva, to this effect. In the *Catuh-* śatika, reconstructed and edited by the late lamented Haraprasad Śāstri, the following stanza occurs:

c5.s2.21

⁶⁹ *Manu*, 7.198; *Śānti*, 94 (whole); *Śukra*, IV. 1. 25-37; *Ar. Śās.* VII. 16.

c5.s2.22

⁷⁰ See chapter on *Diplomacy and Diplomatic Agents*.

c5.s2.23

⁷¹ *Kāmandaka*, 20.57.

c5.s2.24

छिद्रप्रहारिणः पापं यदि राज्ञो न विद्यते ।
अन्येषामपि चौराणां तत् प्रागेव न विद्यते ॥

c5.s2.25

Ch. IV. 91. (See Memoirs of A.S.B., Vol. III, No. 8).

c5.s2.26

What does this indicate? Taking advantage of the weak spots in the enemy's army and directing attack on them had the approval even of the Buddhist's ethical code.

c5.s2.27

War meant victory or defeat. The warrior would either come out victorious or be slain in the contest. No one would prefer the latter. To earn a victory was the ruling passion. It was believed that that could not be effected by mere physical strength or assertion of might. But if the human endeavour was backed by divine power (daiva balam), then it was thought that success would attend on him. Hence throughout the week preceding the march the king should spend his time, in prayers to God. On the first day he should worship Hari, Śambhu and Vināyaka; on the second the Lokapālas; on the third the other deities; on the fourth the planets; on the fifth the Aśvins, the presiding deities of the rivers, mountains, trees and other objects; and on the last two days Narasimha and also war animals and weapons.⁷²

c5.s2.28

⁷² Agni Purāṇa, Ch. 236; Cf. Śivatattvaratnākara, 5.14; 8.24. This continued to be in vogue to the end of the Vijayanagar period.

c5.s2.29

This compares favourably with the Tamil practice. When Śenguṭṭuvan resolved to march against the northern kings, the astrologer announced the auspicious time, when the king caused the sword and the umbrella to be taken outside the city ramparts as prasthāna. Then he went to the shrine of Śiva and took the prasādam on his head after due prayers. That which came from the Viṣṇu temple he wore on his shoulders. After entertaining the whole army to a sumptuous dinner and with words of encouragement to the soldiers, the king commenced his march towards the Ganges.⁷³

c5.s2.30

⁷³ Śiśu. Canto. XXVI. 74 See p. 56 above; Mhb. Śānti. 100, 32-41; Cp. Banerji's Public Administration in Ancient India; also Ar. Śās. X. 3. 75 Ch. 141. 29-51. 76 Śānti, 98. 39 to the end.

c5.s2.31

At the completion of the week preceding the outbreak of war, the king, the minister, and the Purohita addressed words of encouragement to the warriors drawn in several arrays. This practice is known also to Bhāsa who mentions it in his Pratijñāyaugandharāyaṇa.74 The war is here compared to a yajña or Vedic sacrifice, and he who fights to the end enjoys the same benefits as would accrue from the performance of a Vedic yajña. In the Udyoga Parva of the Mahābhārata, mention is made of a śastra yajña or the sacrifice of arms where Kṛṣṇa officiated as Adhvaryu, Yudhiṣṭhira as Brahmā, the blood of warriors and their powers as the clarified butter, the pupils of Droṇa and Kṛpa as the Sadasyas, the son of Dhṛtarāṣṭra as the Yajamāna, and the avabhṛta bath of the sacrifice was the lamentation over the killing of Duryodhana by the mighty Bhīmasena.75 This affords strong proof of the fact that the concept of sacrifice was carried to excess. War itself was personified as yajña. It was then deemed that both war and Vedic sacrifice resulted in the same effect, viz., the attainment of heaven.76 It was Virasvarga to the warriors slain in war. Killing in war and being killed in war were not acts of unrighteousness. Death otherwise was not commendable.⁷⁷

c5.s2.32

⁷⁷ Ibid., 97. 25, 28 and 32.

c5.s2.33

The warrior's code ruled that on the day before the battle the king should sleep in his chariot with his weapons by his side. Astrologers and soothsayers observed the various omens and predicted the good or bad results foretold by them.⁷⁸ The king was asked to begin his march at an auspicious hour, after satisfying himself with regard to the strength of the forces and the attendant circumstances. If the omens brought with them good signs, the kings were to give certain peace offerings (śānti), for, according to the belief of the time, these propitious rites were likened to an armour shielding the warrior from a volley of arrows.⁷⁹

c5.s2.34

⁷⁸ Ar. Śās. X, 113.

c5.s2.35

⁷⁹ Matsya Purāṇa, Ch. 288.

c5.s2.36

Varāhamihira's Yogayātrā⁸⁰ asks a king on the eve of a march to war to recite the apratiratha hymn that occurs in the Atharvaveda, for success in war.⁸¹ The hymn runs as follows:

c5.s2.37

⁸⁰ 8.6.

c5.s2.38

⁸¹ Bk. XIX. 13.

c5.s2.39

(1) Indra's two arms (are stout), virile (vṛṣan) these two wondrous successful bulls; them will I first yoke when the conjecture (yoga) arrives—they by which was conquered the heaven (svar) that is the Asuras.

c5.s2.40

(2) Swift, sharp, terrible like a bull, greatly smiting, disturber of men, roaring, unwinking, sole hero, Indra conquered a hundred armies together.

c5.s2.41

(3) With the roaring, unwinking, conquering, invincible, immovable, bold one—with Indra thus conquer, thus over-power the fighters, O men, with the arrow-armed bull (vṛṣan).

c5.s2.42

(4) He with the arrow-armed, he with the quiver-hung (is) controller; he, Indra with his train, brings together the fighters—(he) conquering those brought together, soma-drinker, defiant with his arms, of formidable bow, shooting with fitted (arrows).

c5.s2.43

(5) To be known by his strength, stout, foremost hero, powerful, vigorous (vajin) overpowering, formidable, excelling heroes, excelling warriors, conquering with power-mount, O Indra, the victorious kine-winning chariot.

c5.s2.44

(6) Be ye excited after this formidable hero; take hold, O companions, after Indra, the troop-conqueror, kine-conqueror, thunderbolt-armed, conquering in the race, slaughtering with force.

c5.s2.45

(7) Plunging with power into the cow-stalls, Indra, pitiless, formidable, of hundred-fold fury, immovable, over-powering fighters, invincible—let him favour our armies in the fights.

c5.s2.46

(8) O Bṛhaspati, fly about with thy chariot, demon slaying, forcing away our enemies; breaking up our foes, slaughtering our enemies, be thou the helper of ourselves.

c5.s2.47

(9) Indra (be) their leader: let Bṛhaspati the sacrificial gift, the sacrifice, soma, go in front; in the midst of the smashing conquering armies of the gods let the Maruts go.

c5.s2.48

(10) Of Indra the bull (vṛṣan) of King Varuṇa, of the Ādityas, of the Maruts, the spirit (sārdhas) (is) formidable; the noise of the great minded, creation-stirring, conquering gods hath arisen.

c5.s2.49

(11) Indra (is) ours when the banners meet (in conflict); let the arrows that are ours conquer; let our heroes be superior; us, O Gods, aid ye, at the invocations.

c5.s2.50

After this it was the custom of the Purohita to arm the king with a breastplate in the course of which he recited the hymns found in the *Atharvaveda* (Bk. XIX, 20) invoking protection to him by the various gods.

c5.s2.51

The following are some of the rules which were observed on the battlefield. In this there is no difference between the epic code and the law-code.⁸²

c5.s2.52

⁸² Śānti, 95. 7-13—Dutt's trn.

c5.s2.53

1. A warrior in armour must not fight with a Kṣatriya who is not clad in a coat of mail.

c5.s2.54

नासन्नद्धो नाকবচো যোद्धব্যः क्षलियो रणे । Śānti, 95.7.

c5.s2.55

2. One should fight only one enemy, and cease fighting when the opponent became disabled.

c5.s2.56

एक एकेन माव्यश्व विसृजेति क्षिपामि च । *Ibid.*

c5.s2.57

3. If the enemy is clad in mail, his opponent should put on armour.

c5.s2.58

स चेत्सन्नद्ध आगच्छेत्सन्नद्धव्यं ततो भवेत् ।
स चेत्सैन्य आगच्छेत्ससैन्यस्तमथाहयेत् ॥
Ch. IV.91. Śānti, 96.3

c5.s2.59

स चेन्निकृत्या युध्येत निकृत्या प्रतियोधयेत् ।
अथ चेद्धर्मतो युध्येद्धर्मेणैव निवारयेत् ॥ *Ibid.*, 8-9.

c5.s2.60

4. A cavalry soldier should not attack a chariot-warrior. But a chariot warrior could attack a chariot-warrior. Similarly a horse-warrior could resist another horse-warrior. The general rule is that warriors should fight only with their equals.

c5.s2.61

नाश्वेन रथिनं यायादुदियाद्रथिनं रथी । व्यसने न प्रहर्तव्यं न भीताय जिताय च ॥ *Ibid.*, 10.

c5.s2.62

5. Poisoned or barbed arrows should not be used.⁸³ नेषुर्सितो न कर्णी स्यादसतामेतदायधम् । यथार्थमेव योद्धव्यं न क्रुध्येत जिघांसत ॥ नास्त्येकस्य गजो युद्ध गजश्चैकस्य विद्यते । न पदातिर्गजं युध्येन्न गजेन पदातिनम् ॥ हस्तिना योधयेन्नागं कदाचिच्छिक्षितो हयः । दिव्यास्त्राबलसंपन्नः कामं युध्येत सर्वदा ॥ नागे भूमौ समे चैव रथेनाधेन वा पुनः ॥ *Ibid.*, 11-13.

c5.s2.63

⁸³ *Cp. Baudhāyana Dharma Sūtra*, I. 10, 10. न कर्णिभिः न दिग्धैः प्रहरेत् ।

c5.s2.64

6. A weak or wounded man should not be killed, nor one who has no son.

c5.s2.65

7. He whose weapon is broken, or whose bow-string is cut, or who has lost his car should not be hit.

c5.s2.66

8. A warrior who requests to be rescued saying ‘I am thine’ or joins his hand in supplication, or throws off his weapon, must not be killed. But he can be captured as a prisoner of war.⁸⁴

c5.s2.67

⁸⁴ *Śānti*. 96.3.

c5.s2.68

विशीर्णकवचं चैव तवास्मीति च वादिनम् कृत्वाञ्जलिं न्यस्तशस्त्रं गृहीत्वा न विहिंसयेत्

c5.s2.69

9. A king should fight only with a king and not with warriors of inferior status.

c5.s2.70

राज्ञा राजैव योद्धव्यः तथा धर्मो विधीयते । नान्यो राजानमभ्यस्येदराजन्यः कथंचन ॥ *Śānti*, 96.7.

c5.s2.71

10. If a Brahman enters the field to bring about peace between the contesting parties, both should stop fighting. And no injury should be inflicted on such a Brahman.

c5.s2.72

अनीकयोः संहतयोर्योदयाद्ब्राह्मणोऽन्तरा । शान्तिमिच्छन्नुभयतो न योद्धव्यं तदा भवेत् ॥ *Ibid.*, 8.

c5.s2.73

11. He is a wretch who retreats stricken with fear from the field of battle.⁸⁵

c5.s2.74

⁸⁵ *Ch.* 97. 19-20.

c5.s2.75

12. One should never lament over a hero killed in battle, for he becomes the lord of thousands of nymphs.⁸⁶

c5.s2.76

⁸⁶ *Ibid.*, 98. 70-72.

c5.s2.77

आहवे तु हतं शूरं न शोचेत कथंचन । अशोच्यो हि हतः शूरः स्वर्गलोके महीयते ॥ वराप्सरःसहस्राणि शूरमायोधने हतम् । त्वरमाणानि धावन्ति मम भर्ता भवेदिति ॥ *Ibid.*, 98.70-72.

c5.s2.78

13. Aged men, women, children, the retreating, or one who holds a straw in his lips as a sign of unconditional surrender,⁸⁷ should not be killed.

c5.s2.79

⁸⁷ *Ibid.*, 74.

c5.s2.80

वृद्धबालौ न हन्तव्यौ न च स्त्री नैव पृष्ठतः । तृणपूर्णमुखश्चैव तवास्मीति च यो वदेत् ॥ *Ibid.*, 74. *Baudhā*, 1.10.18.

c5.s2.81

14. The panic-stricken and scattered foe should not be pursued hotly.⁸⁸

c5.s2.82

⁸⁸ *Ibid.*, 99. 13-14.

c5.s2.83

न हि प्रहर्तुमिच्छन्ति शूराः प्रद्रवतो भयात् । तस्मात्पलायमानानां कुर्यान्नात्यनुसारणम् ॥ *Ibid.*, 99.14.

c5.s2.84

15. No one should kill the sleepy or the thirsty, or the fatigued, or one whose armour had slipped, a peaceful citizen walking along the road, one engaged in eating or drinking, the mad and the insane, one who went out of the camp to buy provisions, a camp-follower, menials and the guards at the gates.⁸⁹

c5.s2.85

⁸⁹ *Ibid.*, 100. 27-9; *Manu*, VII. 92. 90 *Agni Purāṇa*, 242, 38. 91 प्रसुप्तस्तृषिताश्र्वान्तान्प्रकीर्णानाभिघातयेत् । मोक्षे प्रयाणे चलने पानभोजनकालयोः ॥ न दोषो हिंसायामाहवेऽन्यलाधसारथ्यायुधकृताञ्जलि- प्रकीर्णकेशपराङ्मुखोपविष्टस्थलवृक्षारूढदूतगोब्राह्मणवादिभ्यः *Gautama*, X. 92 *Manu*, VII. 90-93; *Gautama*, X. 18-20; *Yāj.*, I, 327-28; *Āpastamba*, II, 5.10; *Śivatattvaratnākara*, 5.14.16; *Śukra*. 4-7-355-65; *Śārangadhara* 1935 f; *Bārhaspatya*. III. 51.

c5.s2.86

16. In case of an insufficient supply of numbers in a particular division or divisions of the army, substitutes may be used. An elephant may be opposed by five horses, or fifteen men and four horses; one horseman may be opposed by three footmen and three horsemen by one elephant rider.⁹⁰

c5.s2.87

17. It is forbidden to kill a Brahman by caste or by profession, or one who declares himself a Brahman, or a cow, or an outcaste.⁹¹

c5.s2.88

18. He should not be killed who gets up on an eminence or a tree, who is an eunuch or a war-musician.⁹² The *Śilappadikāram* refers to warriors escaping from the field of battle in disguise as ascetics, Brahmans, musicians, and, last but not least, hermaphrodites. Most of them were allowed to run away, though some were captured and sent to far-off lands. When these captives were presented before the Pāṇḍya and Coḷa monarchs the latter spoke disparagingly of Śeṅguṭṭuvan as having trangressed the limits of fair fighting (CH. XXVI).

c5.s2.89

19. It is further prohibited to fight those who do not offer to fight, who hide themselves in fear or who go to the field as spectators.⁹³ The great war at Kurukṣetra affords ample proof that spectators were admitted into the battle-field during the scene of action, and they were not injured or otherwise harmed.

c5.s2.90

⁹³ Rāmāyaṇa, Yuddha, 80.39;

c5.s2.91

20. Another feature of the dharmayuddha was to leave the fruit and flower gardens, temples, and other places of public worship unmolested.⁹⁴ Clausewitz characterises such a direction of war as the necessary consequence of the spirit of progress.⁹⁵ We have the testimony of a foreign ambassador to this country in the fourth century B.C. Megasthenes says: ‘ Whereas among other nations it is usual in the contests of war to ravage the soil and then reduce it to an uncultivated waste, among the Indians, on the contrary, by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable, the tillers of the soil, even when battle is raging in their neighbourhood, are undisturbed by any sense of danger from the combatants and either side in waging the conflict make carnage of each other but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain unmolested.

c5.s2.92

⁹⁴ Agni Purāṇa 236. 22. See also the testimony of Megasthenes.

c5.s2.93

⁹⁵ Op. Cit. Vol. III, pp. 98-9.

c5.s2.94

नैकस्य हेतो रक्षांसि पृथिव्यां हन्तुमर्हसि ॥
अयुध्यमानं प्रच्छन्नं प्राञ्जलिं शरणागतम् ।
पलायन्तं प्रमत्तं वा न त्वं हन्तुमिहार्हसि ॥

c5.s2.95

Besides they neither ravage an enemy's land with fire nor cut down its trees.' Nor would an enemy coming upon a husbandman at work on land do him harm, for men of this class, being regarded as public benefactors, are protected from all injury.⁹⁶

c5.s2.96

⁹⁶ *Ar. Śās.*, XIII. 4; McCrindle, Frg. I.

c5.s2.97

We must specially emphasize this social aspect of war. In modern war the normal course of individual and commercial life is greatly disturbed. Trade is hampered and prices rise enormously. In a word, non-combatants are as much affected as combatants. This stands in contrast with the theory and practice of war in ancient India. The normal life of the people was never disturbed and arts and crafts continued to flourish irrespective of war or peace.

c5.s2.98

21. Prisoners of war were generally to be accorded generous treatment. In the epoch of the Brāhmaṇas the fettered prisoner was sent out of the kingdom and was permitted to remain on the outskirts. Sometimes the captive agreed to become a slave of the captor for a period of one year after which he became a free man.⁹⁷ If maidens were among the prisoners of war, they were courteously treated and were induced to marry persons of the conqueror's choice. If they declined the offer, they were sent back to their homes under proper escort.⁹⁸ Hospitality, the sacredness of the refugee, the law not to forget a kindness or a hurt, and not to refuse to fight when challenged, are some features of fair fighting according to the epic code.⁹⁹ According to the Mudrā-rākṣasa, Kautalya-Cāṇakya set free prisoners captured in war by Candragupta. Kanaka and Vijaya, the northern kings who were taken captives in the Ganges expedition, were liberated by Śeṅguṭṭuvan after some time and sent back to their capitals.100

c5.s2.99

⁹⁷ *Śat. Br.*, I. 24. 16-17 (SBE, XXII); *Śānti*, 96.4-5. बलेन विजितो यश्च न तं युध्येत भूमिपः । संवत्सरं विप्रणयेत्तस्माच्चातः पुनर्भवैत् ॥

c5.s2.100

⁹⁸ *Śānti*. 96. 5. We are told in the later Vijayanagar period that Kṛṣṇadeva returned the wife of the defeated Gajapati ruler. (Sewell, *A Forgotten Empire*, p. 320).

c5.s2.101

⁹⁹ See *Indian Historical Quarterly*, Vol. I, p. 270. 100 *Śila.*, Canto XXX. 101 *Ar. Śās.*, VII, ch. 16; *Manu*, VII, 202 ff. 102 *Ibid.*, XIII. ch. 5. 103 *Śānti.*, 96.12-13.

c5.s2.102

Usually the defeated king was reinstated on the throne. But if the enemy king had met with his death in battle, his son or nearest relative was installed on the throne on terms of subordinate alliance.101 The subjects of the vanquished monarch were allowed to retain their own laws and customs,102 for it was well realised that any violation of these would result in a mass rebellion which it would be impossible to quell. The chief leaders of the people were, it is said, to be conciliated with soothing words and alluring presents.103 It was the policy of the ancient Hindus that once in the field of action, the enemy could be subjected to rigor. But after the cessation of hostilities, the victor should behave in such a way as to secure the advancement of all, including the subjects of the enemy’s kingdom.104

First 175 of 279 passages. Read on

Linked texts (36)