War in Ancient India c5.s5.24

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.