War in Ancient India c5.s4: Section IV: Miscellaneous Regulations

War in Ancient India c5.s4

Language: English

Section IV: Miscellaneous Regulations

c5.s4.2

There are a number of miscellaneous rules given in the epic under the category of just fighting. Let us refer to one or two of these. That warrior was regarded as Viṣṇu in prowess and Bṛhaspati in intelligence who killed the commander of the enemy's force and rode upon the chariot of his fallen antagonist.¹²³ The epic speaks

c5.s4.3

¹²³ *Śānti*, 98. 68.

c5.s4.4

यस्तु सेनापतिं हत्वा तथानमधिरोहति ।
स विष्णुविक्रमकामी बृहस्पतिसमः प्रभुः ॥

c5.s4.5

highly again of him who could capture alive the commander of the opponent’s army, or his son, or some high-placed general.¹²⁴ Victory or defeat practically rested with these commanders and generals, who were the leaders in war. This is why so much importance is attached to capturing alive or slaying a general of the army. The Chinese traveller, Hiuen Tsang, records a tradition: ‘ Whenever a general is despatched on a warlike expedition, although he is defeated and his army destroyed, he is not himself subjected to bodily punishment, only he has to exchange his soldier’s dress for that of a woman, much to his shame and chagrin. So mostly those men put themselves to death to avoid such disgrace.’¹²⁵

c5.s4.6

¹²⁴ नायकं तत्कुमारं वा यो वा स्यात्तत्र पूजितः । जीवग्राहं प्रगृह्णाति तस्य लोका यथा मम ॥ *Ibid.*, 69.

c5.s4.7

¹²⁵ Beal: *Life of Hiuen Tsang*, IV, p. 147.

c5.s4.8

Another was to cut off supplies from the enemy, especially if they were contraband. Harbour officials had, according to the *Arthaśāstra*, the right of seizing or destroying seaborne goods in ships bound for the enemy’s country. This holds good for piratical vessels, though the property thus seized was restored to the owner.¹²⁶ In this, as in so many of his injunctions, the practical statesman Kauṭalya anticipates modern times.

c5.s4.9

¹²⁶ Mookerjee’s *Indian Shipping*, pp. 113-14; *Ar. Śās.*, Bk. II, 28.

c5.s4.10

If a digression is permissible, we may say that in the Buddhist and Jaina literature we notice the same war ethics. Buddhist literature contains no treatises on *nīti* or polity except the stray references we meet in books devoted to other topics. But there are two Jain works very important for purposes of our present study.

c5.s4.11

One is the *Nitivākyāmṛta* of Somadeva, and the other is *Laghuarhannītisāra* of Hemacandra. While the former follows Kauṭalya almost *verbatim*, the latter is an abridged version in Sanskrit of a large Prākṛt work the *Bṛhadarhannītiśāstra*, now lost to us. Confining ourselves to an examination of these treatises from the point of view of the ethics of war, we find the whole thing is a copy of the Brahmanical codes which we have been examining. An almost futile attempt has been made to find out differences between the *Nitivākyāmṛta* and the *Arthaśāstra*.¹²⁷ In conformity with the Brahmanical treatises Hemacandra prescribes that the king shall not go to war before employing all the three diplomatic means, *sāma*, *dāna* and *bheda*,¹²⁸ for, it is said, battle involves loss of many lives. But once a war is started, it must be conducted on righteous lines, so that there may be little loss of man-power. Cruel, poisoned, or treacherous weapons should not be used. Hemacandra prescribes further that the following should be immune from slaughter in war: ascetics, Brahmans, those who do not wear weapons of war, the afflicted, eunuchs, the naked, those who are asleep, those suffering from illness, refugees, those holding blades of grass in their mouths, guests, and persons engaged in sacrifices.¹²⁹ Such slaughter was equal to murder and did not, therefore, belong to righteous warfare.¹³⁰

Linked texts (3)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra — Kauṭilya, Sanskrit
Nītivākyāmṛta — Somadevasūri, Sanskrit