Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

War in Ancient India c5.s5: Section V: Dharma Vijaya, Asura Vijaya and Lobha Vijaya

War in Ancient India c5.s5

Language
English

Section V: Dharma Vijaya, Asura Vijaya and Lobha Vijaya

c5.s5.1

There was another division of war—Dharmavijaya, Asura Vijaya and Lobha Vijaya, as contemplated by Kauṭalya and Aśoka, and occasionally mentioned in the epics and the Purāṇas. While the division of the Dharmayuddha and the Kūṭayuddha was in the epic tradition, this kind of division seems to have been an innovation of Kauṭalya, and an improvement on the old systems and methods. Dharmavijaya is an equivalent of Dharmayuddha, while Lobhavijaya and Asuravijaya come under the category of Kūṭayuddha, whose methods we shall presently examine. Before the discovery of the Arthaśāstra, and even several years after its discovery, the term dharmavijaya occurring in the inscriptions of Aśoka was a puzzle to Aśoka scholars, who unfortunately took for granted that the Emperor was a Buddhist, connected the term with the Buddhist Dharma, and interpreted it just contrary to what it connotes. We are told on no authority that the term which occurs in the XIII Rock Edict means ‘conquest by morality’. It is contended that Aśoka substituted ‘conquest by morality’ for ‘conquest by arms’. This is discussed at length in my The Mauryan Polity.¹³¹ Suffice it to say here that if we accept that Aśoka became a monk and gave up arms, then according to the Hindu and even the Buddhist conception he relinquished the throne and could not have been an emperor. And with complete disarmament, with States of people professing different faiths and creeds, the vast empire could not be maintained even for a short period.

c5.s5.2

¹³¹ See also my paper Dharmavijaya in K. B. Pathak Commemoration Volume, pp. 280-286 (1934).

c5.s5.3

In interpreting this term, the whole Edict must be taken into account. In the latter part we read according to Hultzsch’s translation: “And they (foresters) are told of the power to (punish them) which Devānāmpriya (possesses) in spite of (his) repentance, in order that they may be ashamed (of their crimes) and may not be killed”.¹³² What is this power to punish and kill them except by the employment of weapons of war? What is that repentance except that he waged in Kalinga an unrighteous war involving the slaughter of innocents and that he took a vow from that day to resort to only righteous methods of war? Dharmavijaya is a term of much political significance and Aśoka born and bred in the Kauṭalīyan school of politics, (there is a story that Kauṭalya continued to be the minister of Aśoka’s father also), must have followed his political injunctions. It is wrong to take all his Edicts as religious Edicts. They are all political in character and deserve to be re-edited and interpreted from the political standpoint of Kauṭalya to do justice to a very great emperor of India, who had equal regard for all orthodox and heretic sects of his time.¹³³

c5.s5.4

¹³² Corpus, p. 69.

c5.s5.5

¹³³ pp. 254 ff.

c5.s5.6

Though scholars bestowed no independent thought on the term dharmavijaya in Aśoka’s inscriptions, and followed the translation ‘conquest by morality’, Mr. F. J. Monahan doubted whether the interpretation was correct and remarked that dūtas did not go to different countries to preach Buddhism but to carry the message of Dharma. What this meant he could not explain, though the explanation lies buried in the *Arthaśāstra*.¹³⁴ According to Kauṭalya, Dharmavijaya meant that a conquering king was satisfied with the acknowledgement of his overlordship by the inferior and defeated powers as also by others. The motive was to avoid war as far as possible, and to promote peaceful and diplomatic relations with neighbours and foreigners.¹³⁵ This was the mission on which Aśoka sent, not missionaries, but political envoys. In the Lobhavijaya the aim of the conqueror was to covet the territory and the treasure of the enemy. In the Asuravijaya, the enemy is captured and deprived of his kingdom, treasure, sons, and wives. Or he was slain and his country was reduced to ashes.¹³⁶ Dharmavijaya means a righteous method of warfare where diplomacy and conciliation were pressed into service to avoid actual fighting as far as possible. It was an attempt to maintain pacific relations. The dominating personality of the conqueror evoked regard from alien states amounting to an acknowledgment of his superiority or equality. It is a war of defence, though defence presupposes aggression.

c5.s5.7

¹³⁴ *Early History of Bengal*, p. 219.

c5.s5.8

¹³⁵ In his *Rajadharma* (Adyar, 1941) Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar has accepted this interpretation, pp. 140-43.

c5.s5.9

¹³⁶ Bk. II, 1; *Mauryan Polity*, pp. 128-29.

c5.s5.10

We shall conclude our remarks on Dharmayuddha with the following quotation from Griffith:¹³⁷

c5.s5.11

¹³⁷ *Specimens of Indian Poetry*, p. 9. Cp. Śānti, 100-27-29, Āpast. II. 5. 10.11.

c5.s5.12

Let the soldier good in battle, never guilefully conceal

c5.s5.13

(Wherewithal to smite the unwary) in his staff the treacherous steel:
Let him scorn to bark his javelin: let the valiant never anoint
With full poison pierce his arrows, never put fire upon the point,
In his car or on his war-horse, should he chance his foe to meet,
Let him smite not, if he find him lighted down upon his feet:
Let him spare one standing suppliant, with his closed hands raised on high,
Spare him if he sink exhausted, spare him if for life he crave,
Spare him crying out for mercy, ‘ take me for I am thine slave ’
Still remembering his duty, never let the soldier smite
One unarmed, defenceless, mourning for one fallen in the fight:
Never strike the sadly wounded: never let the brave attack
One by sudden terror smitten, turning in base fight his back.’

c5.s5.14

The *Kūṭayuddha*: The unrighteous war in which principles were sacrificed at the altar of expediency went by the name of kūṭayuddha. We meet with the term kūṭa in the *Atharva-Veda*,¹³⁸ translated differently as horn, trap, hammer, etc. The hymn says: ‘ Here are spread the fetters of death, which stepping into thou are not released, let this kūṭa slay of yonder army by thousands’. According to the *Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa*, kūṭayuddha was also known as Citrayuddha in which māyā was put into practice. It is said that a certain commander of Bhaṇḍa resorted to this and created a Sarpaṇī from whose limbs thousands of poisonous snakes came out in torrents and bewildered the śaktis on the other side. (IV.2). Whatever the word *kūṭa* may mean, its occurrence may be tolerable proof of its use in killing the hostile army by thousands. Neither horn nor trap will kill an army in thousands. So we venture to interpret the word in the Kauṭalīyan sense. In this, resort was had to crafty methods, intrigue, charms, and spells against the enemy, besides deadly weapons. The *Atharva Veda* is full of these. Mention is made of amulets (*maṇi*) leading to the overthrow of the rival and to his own success.¹³⁹ One or two hymns may be cited as typical.

c5.s5.15

¹³⁹ Bk. III. 3.

c5.s5.16

‘O Indra, confound the army of our enemies: with the blast of fire, of wind, make them disappear, scattering.’ (5)

c5.s5.17

‘Let Indra confound the army: let the Maruts slay with force: let Agni take away its eyes: let it go back conquered.’ (6)

c5.s5.18

‘Yonder army of our adversaries, O Maruts, that comes contending against us with force, pierce ye it with baffling darkness, that one of them may not know another.’¹⁴⁰

c5.s5.19

¹⁴⁰ Bk. III. 2.6.

c5.s5.20

The kūṭayuddha was the negation of the laws of war. It permitted the use of deadly and poisoned weapons which would slay thousands of men,¹⁴¹ to the entire satisfaction of birds and beasts of prey.¹⁴² From a hymn¹⁴³ of the *Atharva Veda* we may conclude that poisoned arrows were largely used, and the conqueror was usually afraid of them.

c5.s5.21

¹⁴¹ A. V. Bk. I, 20, 21; Bk. VIII, 8. 4-5.

c5.s5.22

¹⁴² Bk. XI, 9 and 10.

c5.s5.23

¹⁴³ Bk. IV, 6.

c5.s5.24

One aspect of this was tūṣṇīm yuddha, or silent warfare.¹⁴⁴ It was to strike the enemy secretly, as contrasted with prakāśa yuddha or open warfare. The principles underlying this method of warfare were in vogue from the time of the *Ṛg Veda*. We meet in the *Atharva Veda* a number of battle-charms with the use of plants like aśvattha,¹⁴⁵ to overcome an enemy. Similarly there are rites of sorcery against hostile warriors,¹⁴⁶ and the use of incantations.¹⁴⁷ Kauṭalya gives elaborate details of this war, drawing largely, as we have to infer, from the *Atharva Veda*. This has led some scholars to the conclusion that this irreligious war has had the approval of Kauṭalya. Writing a treatise on War Polity, Kauṭalya had to refer to every aspect of it. So he also wrote on the nature and principles of the kūṭayuddha. It is wrong to regard him as Machiavellian in his recommendations. If he countenanced the kūṭayuddha, he had no business to rule that incendiarism, as an instrument of war, was an irreligious and inhuman method of destruction.¹⁴⁸ In his view, if the enemy practised kūṭayuddha, the defender must also resort to it. That is, to advert to a previous remark, opponents should be paid in their own coin. Hence warriors were taught every mode of warfare. They should be equal to the occasion lest they should be overpowered by cunning or intrigue. To that extent, for defence purposes, the kūṭayuddha is permissible, and the defender resorted to it only if he found the opponent resorting to it. Otherwise it is forbidden.

c5.s5.25

¹⁴⁴ Bk. VII, 6.

c5.s5.26

¹⁴⁵ Bk. IV, 19.

c5.s5.27

¹⁴⁶ Bk. III, 6.

c5.s5.28

¹⁴⁷ Bk. X, 5.

c5.s5.29

¹⁴⁸ Bk. XIII, 4. It may be noted in passing that there are a number of hymns addressed to Agni in the Atharva Veda evidently to conquer the hostile army with fire. (Bk. II. 19; XI. 10. 18-19). But it was condemned as irreligious down the ages (see for instance *Pudukottai State Inscriptions*, 744).

c5.s5.30

It has been realised that the use of poison, fire, and similar means which are features of the kūṭayuddha were regarded neither just nor fair in war. For they would result in a vast amount of destruction of men, property, cattle, and of other non-combatants. Thus laying the villages and corn-fields of the enemy to waste, poisoning of tanks and wells, using weapons with poisoned tips, setting fire to the camp, striking the enemy concealed, decoying him into an unfavourable position and striking him there, attacking him when fatigued or in sleep or engaged in hunting, are the various methods of attacking the enemy. Other methods which were resorted to in kūṭayuddha were to stir up rebellion among the enemy's subjects by bribery and through secret agents, to murder him, to make surprise attacks on him at night. In short, the baser methods of diplomacy, like māyā and indrajālā, underlay the kūṭayuddha.¹⁴⁹

c5.s5.31

¹⁴⁹ Ar. Śās., Bk. XII, 2; Kāmandaka 19.54-66.

c5.s5.32

Though Śukra would recommend its use to subdue the enemy who resorted to questionable methods and who therefore waged an unjust war,¹⁵⁰ he definitely says later on that in realising his ideal in that manner, the conqueror places disgrace in front and honour at the back.¹⁵¹ In other words, such a king incurs disgrace in this world and sinks into hell. According to the Rāmāyaṇa, the Rākṣasa indulged in kūṭayuddha and it was not commendable to honourable men.¹⁵² The Agni Purāṇa allows weaker powers to resort to wily and underhand methods,¹⁵³ when they found they had no other alternative than to engage in war.

c5.s5.33

¹⁵⁰ IV, 7.1.350 and 725.

c5.s5.34

¹⁵¹ Ibid., 11. 732-33.

c5.s5.35

¹⁵² Yuddha, 50. 15.

c5.s5.36

¹⁵³ Ch. 240. 16.

c5.s5.37

Thus, though some of the Niti treatises seem to permit this unrighteous warfare, yet the didactic epics and law codes do not support it at all. As a method of war it is condemned as unjust and unfair.

c5.s5.38

Intimately connected with this subject are two further methods of warfare explained in the Kauṭalīya, the asura and the lobhavijaya, to which we have already referred. In distinguishing a threefold warfare and classifying the adharma war into two kinds—asura and lobhavijaya—Kauṭalya draws a distinction between the two. But it may be noted that this was a peculiar division of Kauṭalya’s. For the asura form of war is mentioned in the *Rāmāyaṇa*.¹⁵⁴ A feature of this was the employment of the diplomatic instrument *māyā*. Guile is chiefly used to overcome the enemy. We know that Indrajit produced a *māyā Sītā* before Rāma's army and killed her so that the army might become dejected and lose all enthusiasm. In the *Śukranīti* again the *asurayuddha* is among the traditionally accepted kinds of war.¹⁵⁵ We have seen according to the precepts of fair fighting the kingdom of the enemy should not be annexed, nor his women treated unchivalrously. Again, no bodily punishment should be inflicted on the person of the king or his commander. But the asura war, which is the most heinous of all the three, approves of all these illegal and forbidden methods in scoring a victory. Even in actual battle there was no straight fight in this form of war; but victory was sought through wily means. On this account Kauṭalya advises an inferior power to keep such a demon-like conqueror at a distance by offering him land and wealth. Otherwise he would be wiped out of existence altogether. One example of asura war in the Mauryan period was the war with Kalinga fought by Aśoka.¹⁵⁶ Its salutary effect was to inaugurate a policy of *dharmavijaya* in his foreign politics.

c5.s5.39

¹⁵⁴ VI. 100.

c5.s5.40

¹⁵⁵ IV. 7. 221.

c5.s5.41

¹⁵⁶ XIII Rock Edict. See Dikshitar's paper in *Woolner Commemoration Volume* (Lahore).

c5.s5.42

Traces of this kind of war are found in the *Śangam* works which also breathe the lofty atmosphere of *dharmayuddha*. From the *Puranānūru* (15) it is seen that the ruin of the enemy's city was effected by ploughing the roads and streets with donkeys and sow ing seeds of castor, cotton, and other cereals.¹⁵⁷ Another stanza (392) says that even the houses of gods were not spared. In the expedition against Kalingam, though it is said to have been fought on principles of fair fighting, Karuṇākara Toṇṭaimān laid waste the whole of the sea-coast kingdom of Kalinga.¹⁵⁸ A ruthless war was asurayuddha. But it was rarely indulged in, and we may conjecture that it is a relic of the ancient warfare fought by the primitive tribes who had neither a code of chivalry nor a code of ethics.

c5.s5.43

¹⁵⁷ Cp. Roman custom of sowing salt and pronouncing curses.

c5.s5.44

¹⁵⁸ See *Kalingattuparani*.

c5.s5.45

*Lobhavijaya*: The other kind of war, lobhavijaya, was not considered to be as base as the asura form. In it the ravaging of the enemy’s territory, or poisoning of his army, was not contemplated. Nor was there to be a wholesale destruction of men and territory. The conqueror was imbued with greed. He was satisfied if he got gain in land or money. A weak power should satisfy such a conqueror with wealth or with the cession of part of his territory. Covetousness is the motive underlying this type of war. It came under the category of an unrighteous war, for covetousness is no virtue but a sin, out of which spring envy, jealousy, or hatred. It would lead indirectly to the wars of aggression, which are not recommended by the Niti Śāstras. So the *Mahābhārata* says: ‘Have your eyes on righteousness, casting off covetousness. You should not abandon your duty (svadharma) from lust or from desire of cattle.’¹⁵⁹ This lobhavijaya, just like the asuravijaya, is an offensive war, the motive being exploitation. ‘Envious of the welfare of other nations, jealous of their success, hating them because of their peace and liberty, their own evil splendour, these (kings and others) open out and declare war to satisfy their covetousness, to slake that idiotic thirst in which covetousness ends—the thirst of conquest for the sake of conquest. Such a war is the worst of sins: and the men, who begin it or carry it on, are, though all the world proclaim their glory, the vilest and meanest of sinners.’¹⁶⁰ These words would equally describe the Hindu view.

c5.s5.46

¹⁵⁹ सत्वंधर्ममवेक्षस्व हित्वा लोभमसांप्रतम् । न च कामात्र च द्रोहात्स्वधर्मं हातुमर्हसि ॥ Śānti., 106. 17; This is also the teaching of *Tiruk-kural*.

c5.s5.47

¹⁶⁰ Stopford H. Brooke, *A Discourse on War*, p. 675 (*The Hibbert Journal*, 1915-16).

c5.s5.48

The phrase ‘Laws of War’ implies that if these rules were broken or not observed properly, the State had a right to punish the transgressor. One punishment was social ostracism. He became an outcaste and was debarred from enjoying the social privileges which he as a Kṣatriya had enjoyed so far.¹⁶¹ Again, it is said that the warrior who in order to save his life retreated from the field of battle leaving his comrades behind, should be done to death with sticks or stones. Or he might be rolled in a mat of dry grass and burnt to death. In a word, it is laid down that such warriors as threw to the winds the regulations of conduct and discipline laid down for them should be slain like wild animals. The punishments were no doubt severe, but they helped to keep strict discipline among the rank and file of the Kṣatriya hosts.

c5.s5.49

¹⁶¹ *Mhb.*, Śānti. 96.9-10.

Linked texts (12)