The Social and Military Position of the Ruling Caste in Ancient India, as Represented by the Sanskrit Epic c2.s5.402

c2.s5.402

[^ *]: gajaçikṣā with nītiçāstra, i. 109. 19; compare viii. 38. 16, hastiçikṣakāir vinītāḥ. The art consisted as much as anything in keeping one's position. Compare vii. 87. 19, where the ‘harnessed and cruel’ elephants (varminah, rāudrakarmiṇaḥ) are described as ‘ridden well’ (suvirūdhā hastyārohāiḥ). In attacking one crawls under and smites in vii. 26. 23 (añjalikāvedha). [^ †]: Compare xvi. 7. 62, dhanuṣkoṭyā tadā dasyūn avadhīt. [^ ‡]: Compare the arrangement of the elephants in the day's opening array, described in the battle-orders above. In mid-battle such a compound line is also spoken of as the ‘line of elephants,’ attacked by one knight (nāgānikam, vi. 115. 29); but ordinarily only disordered single beasts are found. The descriptions are much alike; the riders' reaching down, seizing by the hair (keçapakṣe), and beheading the foe, is spoken of in vi. 57. 14; where also, 11 ff., we find the cavalry attacked by prāsa and the elephants by nārācā, (iron) arrows, and, 16, the ‘hero knowing well the battle’ crawling out on the tusk, kariviṣāṇastha. The viro raṇavicāradaḥ and gajaçikṣāstravedī, here so called, shows more respect for this kind of fighting than our disgust can appreciate. The training is required not only of the elephant leader or keeper (mahāmātra), but of the riders, who are ‘experts’ in this sort of fighting (viii. 22. 3), and, as this verse shows, in part foreigners (mekalāḥ koçalā madrā dācārṇā niṣadhās tathā, gajayuddheṣu kuçalāḥ kaliṅgāiḥ saha). Compare vii. 112. 28; xii. 101. 4, prācyā mātaṅgayuddheṣu kuçalāḥ kūṭayodhinah. The verse viii. 78. 55-6 shows the ordinary position of these riders to be on the shoulders of the elephant, as distinct from those upon the back of the horse, or the ‘lap’ of the war-car (kṛtvā çūnyān rathopasthān vājipṛṣṭhān . . nirmanuṣyān gajaskandhān). For the fight of elephant against elephant we have the proverbial comparison pratyudyayāu rathenā’çu gajam pratigajo yathā, viii. 86. 21, and an example in vii. 26. 36; for the way in which the beasts trampled and tusked their adversaries while themselves attacked, one of many examples : mahāgajān pārçvataḥ pṛṣṭhataç cāi ’va nijaghnur hayasādinaḥ, vidrāvya ca bahūn açvān nāgā viṣāṇāiç cā ’pare, jaghnur mamṛduç cā ’pare, sāçvārohāñc ca turaṃgān viṣāṇāir vivyadhū ruṣā, apare cikṣipur vegāt pragṛhya . . . viii. 28. 20 ff. Like accounts in vii. 153. 5; vi. 46. 27. For weapons used, see more particularly below. Arjuna’s comparison of his dhanuṣkoṭi to the çūlāgra with which an elephant is killed is found iii. 39. 48. It may be a sword. The tusk itself is called pole-tooth, īṣādanta, from its size, v. 86. 7 (lāṅgala); the same verse containing the oft-noted rut-mark of this beast (compare i. 221. 53), with the implication, further, of eight attendants for one elephant being the proper thing: nityaprabhinnān mātaṅgān īṣādantān prahāriṇaḥ, aṣṭānucaram ekāikam aṣṭāu dāsyāmi . . . The capture of elephants is noticed in R. vi. 62. 35, arthāir arthā nibadhyante gajāir iva mahāgajāḥ: not, therefore, by females, as Strabo asserts. Vāyu P. i. 16. 19 alludes to the training of wild elephants by a hook.