The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5.13

c2.s5.13

In fact, it makes no difference whether one expects to kill or to be killed in the contest, he must fight; and in either case he gets his reward; for ‘crooked is war always; who strikes, and is not struck again? But it is the same if one be slain or not, for he that dies in battle wins victory from death;’‡ for ‘death in battle is the womb of heaven’ (ii. 22. 18). Even the punning etymology of the word warrior is called upon to defend this view. Not to kill the foe is a sin; the warrior is called ‘he that saves from destruction;§ therefore he lives by destruction.’ All a warrior’s superiority lies in force, as does the priest’s in texts, the farmer’s in wealth, and the slave’s in his age alone (v. 168. 17). The same idea is often repeated.‖ ‘Boldness alone is the hero’s own law.’¶ ‘There is,’ it is said again, ‘absolutely no rule but conflict for one of the warrior caste’ (iii. 35. 35). ‘To escape is a disgrace; to die in battle is best; to ask for mercy is a sin; sweet is it to die in battle; the path to heaven lies in fighting.’** Wherever we find the topic touched, it is handled in the same way.†† One should fight strongly and unselfishly (*niraḥaṃkāra*), for fighting is the eternal law; and one may slay an elder and a better who comes to attack him,* for one should ‘show no mercy to the foe.’ Such determination in warfare naturally gave rise to proverbial expressions embodying the comparison with others less bloody by nature.† It was even regarded not alone as a disgrace, but as a sin, for a warrior not to die (as we should say) ‘in his boots.’ ‘To die of disease in a house is a sin’ is more than once emphatically said (vi. 17. 11; xii. 97. 14–23). As a consequence of the necessity of battle, all caste-rules were laid aside. The knight might kill anyone that attacked him. Not even the priests were sacred.‡ The psychical reason added to this rule might have applied to other cases, had the priests seen fit; for ‘the soul is not killed; it seeks a new home;’ and, after all, ‘it is not the slayer that slays, but fate.’§ So it is said distinctly ‘if one sees a priest among those raising arms against him, a priest acting just like a warrior, and kills him when he is thus fighting, that is not ‘priest-murder’ at all: that is the decision in the works on duty.’‖ This is a clear indication that the rules on duty found it necessary to provide for a very possible contingency by exculpating the slayer of a priest in advance.