Customs of Warfare in Ancient India

8/3/2019 Customs of Warfare in Ancient India

1/18

CU STO MS O F W A R F A R E I N A N C IE N TI N D I A .

I t may seem a far cry from discussions on questions of moderninternational law to the customs of warfare in ancient India.Yet a study of these has a threefold value. As members of theBritish Empire , Indian civilisation has much to teach us. I n thishunying age we are too apt to think that the problems of to-day arenew, whereas most of them presented themselves 2,000 or 3,000years ago, and in some respects u e are not much nearer a solution.Yet, whilst we sometimes recognise Greek, Roman OF Hebrewcontributions to the laws of war, for most of us Indian customsare of necessity a sealed book. Thirdly, at the moment, becauseGermany broke the laws of wa r , and other countries perforcedeparted from the conventions, there is a feeling of pessimism onthe subject, and many believe that it is hopeless to make ruleswhich will only be broken : tha t " in war there can be no law."

As far as this paper is concerned, I have two main difficulties.Firs t, the understanding of the subject necessitates some acquaint-ance with the groundwork of Indian history and polity, and indeedof the Hindu social system. Secondly, there is an enormous messof material available, for a period between the twelfth centuryB.C. and-t he twelfth century A . D . ; and though it has been neces-sary to consult hundreds of volumes, to give details of theee ismanifestly impossible. Suffice it to say that the period begins withthe Aryan invasion of India, and ends with the Mohammedan con-quest. It includes mighty dynasties, one of which, the Mauryan,proved a match for Seleukos, a successor of Alexander the Great.Six hundred years later a Gupta Dynasty in Northern Indiabrought Indian civilisation to perhaps it s zenith. Ordinarily,however, and in the absence of a Power pre-eminently strong,


2/18

the Indian States, if we can use the term, were constantly in aposition of warfare with one another, and had many opportunitiesof putting their rules of war to the tec3t. It will be obvious thatwith so many different dynasties ruling at different times and invarious parts of India., it would be idle to expect common usagesany more than in Europe. Yet to this day, af ter thousands ofyears, the epic tradition, enshrined in the Mahiibhiirata and inthe Riimiiyana, the chief sacred books of the Hindus, still Lingersin the Indian Army; and in Palestine and on the ngris theIndian soldier believed tha t he was fight-ing for the same Dharmafor which his ancestors, as he thought, fought on the field ofKurukshetra, near Delhi, over three thousand years ago.

I shall now simply summarise the evidence, endeavouring toillustrate the variety of the problems which the ancient Hindusconsidered, rather t'han attempt, with the short time at our dis-posal, to work them out in detail.

Commencemen t of War .From t he earliest times there was a custom of giving noticebefore engaging in battle. By the despatch of envoys, whosefunction, it might be, was to set forth clearly t.he issues at stake,and to offer peace if t he righteous demands of their masters wereaccepted, i t was hoped to secure what in these days we should call" a good Press." " As thou askest for peace, no one will regardthee as sinful." I n the event of rejection, a day might be fixedfor battle, with special reference not merely to climatic conditions,but to an auspicious day. Whilst the prudence of the priests sawthe wisdom of formalities, to the warrior the giving of notice wasin accordance with his ideas of chivalry. I n addition to noticebefore battle, formal declarations of war were not uncommon.These did not necessarily involve actual military operations. Ltmight be better to secure the impoverishment of the foe, to layan embargo on his merchandise, and starve him into submission.Conversely, t.here might be an agreement of peace, and a t thesame time a relentless underground campaign against the enemy,in which spies and secret agents took a prominent part. Therewas from very early times a third school of thought which heldthat the essence of successful warfare is swiftness, the surprising


3/18

of the enemy a t the moment selected by the attacker. I n somecases the blackest treachery was practised, but this was contraryto the Dharma of pious kings. Huien Tsang, th e Chinese Pilgrimof the seventh century A .D . , tells us that the Marfithiis, if goingto seek revenge, first give the enemy warning. If we judgepeoples as well as individuals by their highest qualities, we shouldnot neglect the desire for fair-play evinced by the oft-recurringindication of " notice " before engaging in battle. And we can doso without claiming for a moment that this was the practice ofconquering kings, much less of weaker kings, whose only chanceof success must often have been in stratagem.

Temperamenta Bel l i .In the rules made for the conduct of war in India, we have

two important principles recognised and emphasised. The firstis that poisonous weapons should not be used, inasmuch as theyinvolve treachery. The second prohibits the use of such weaponsas cause unnecessary suffering. " When he fights with his foes inbattle, let him not strike with weapons concealed in w d , norwith such as are barbed, poisoned, or the poinh of which areblazing with fire." Again, " Neither poisoned nor barbed arrowsshould be used. These are the weapons of th e wicked." Theprohibition does not mean, of course, that such means were notemployed. On the whole i t is clear that poisoned weapons wereused in war both in the epic age, in Mauryan times, and forsome time after; bu t the praotice died out, and I can find noevidence of their use in the Gupta age or subsequently. So withthe view t ha t certain weapons were fit only for barbarous tribes.The discovery that they were not fitting for honourable warriorswas a great one. " They who without turning their bat& ontheir enemies are killed in battle . . . go t o heaven i f they donot use treacherous weapons. "

We now come to the rules laid down for honourable warriors :-( a ) The principle underlying these is perhaps best summed upin the Rfimfiyana: " It is odious for Kshattriyas to make awaywith those who cannot defend themselves.'c Whilst in the lawbooks, and, indeed, in the epics generally, the rules are couchedin general terms, it is to be noted that in their origin they appear


4/18

t o ha ve be e n c a s t e r u l e s a nd a s suc h de pe nde n t la rge ly onm ut u a l obse rva nc e . T h us a Ksh a t t r iya m u s t no t pu t on m a i lto f igh t a Ksha t t r i ya w i t hou t m a i l . And a ga i n , " If a warriorf igh t s dece i t fu l ly , he should be fought by dece i t fu l means . "W hi ls t there a re occasional recogni tions of peoples outs ide t h eH in du sy s te m , a s a ru le we a r e read ing of a world whol ly H in du ,a n d t h e r u le s a r e f o r t he H i n du wa rr io r.

( b ) T h e ordered cond uc t of n ba t t l e . " -4 car warr ior shouldf ight a car warr ior . One on horse should f ight one on horse .E l e p ha n t r i der s m u s t f igh t w i th e l e pha n t r i de rs , a s one on f oo tf i gh t s a foot soldier." Prima facie , t h e s e w ou ld a p p e a r n o t s am uc h rules of war a s rules of s ingle com ba t , sui table ra th er toa m i l i t a r y t ou r na m e n t t ha n to ac tua l war fa re . They reca l l tou s t h e c om b a t s i n " I v a n h w " a nd t he j ous ts of t h e k n ig h ts . I tm us t be a dm i t t e d t ha t a s r u l e s o f a c t ua l wa r f a r e t he y f i nd nop l a ce i n t he H i nd u m i l it a ry sy s t e m . T he i r va l ue , howe ve r, w illbe m or e a p pa r e n t whe n c ons ide re d wi th o t he rs of a s i m i l a r na t u r e .T h u s ,

( c ) R u l e s a g a i n s t f ig h ti ng t h o s e t a k e n at a d i sadvan tagein t h e a c t u a l c o n a b a t . " W he n t he a n t a gon i s t ha s f a l l e n i n t od i s t re ss h e should n o t he s t ru ck . " " Br a ve wa r ri or s do no t shoo ta t o n e w h o s e a r ro w s a re e x h a u s te d . " I t is t o b e f ea r ed . ho w -e ve r , t h a t t h e b r e a c hes of t h e r u l e r ec o rde d a r e m or e num e r oust ha n t he obse r va nc e s .

( d ) Xe ces s i t y for no t i ce cznd proh ib i ti ons n p ' n a t striking onet h a t i s u n p r e p a r e d . This rule should be s tudied in connect ionw i t h w h a t w e have a l ready sa id a s to th e t radi t ion of givingnot ice before engaging in ba t t l e .

( e ) Pr oh ib it io n s i m i b r t o " D o n ot s t r ik e Oelou; t h e be l t. " T h es l ay i ng of t h e Ku r u c hie f D u r y d h a n a by s t r ik i ng h i m be ne a t ht h e na ve l is t he m o s t f a m o us v io la tion of th is ru le , the spi r i t ofwhich wil l be appreciated by e ve r y m ode r n spo r t sm a n . Dur yod -h a n a s ay s " f yoxi van qu ish m e by dece i t fu l means , your in famywill l a s t fo r eve r . " It may be noted tha t whi ls t pr ies& just i f iedth e unfa i rness , t h e w ar rio rs looking on w ere d isp leased , an d th eoffending king feared his wife 's reproaches.

(f) R u b qaa'nst f ig h ti ng o n e e n ga g e d i n b a t t l e w i t h a n o t h e r .O ne case where th i s ru le w as v io la ted ha s a bear ing on am o d e m p ro ble m . I n t h e e p ic b a tt le , B. at tgcke S., w h o i s


5/18

unarmed. A j u n goes a t once to the rescue of S. and attacksB., cutting off his arm. He is quite frank on the subject." You were about to slay my friend, though he was unarmed.I had to protect my friend, and you had no right to attack himwhen he was unarmed. The connection between an epic bat tleand a modem fight a t sea is somewhat remote, bu t in the caseof the Bara long , I think, a precisely similar instance wasreported. A German submarine was attacking a helpless mer-chant ship. A British warship inte~enedand attacked thesubmarine. I n the Indian epic thi s would have been fullyjustified.(g) Rules aga ins t a t tack ing a re t rea t ing enemy. " No oneshould strike another that is retreating, or one who flees withdishevelled hair. I n all these cases le t him remember th e du tyof honourable warriors." We find these rules enjoined fromthree different motives : first,, chivalrous; secondly, religious; andthirdly, from the standpoint of prudence. " H e is a wiseperson who does not disregard even a weak foe." That theseed sown by these doctrines did not utterly perish is shown bythe Chinese Huien Tsang many hundreds of years later. " Whenone turns to flee, another pursues him, but they, the MarBthis,do not kill a man when he is down."

( h ) Rule against s laying one who has asked for quarter. " H eis no son of the Vrishni race who slayeth t he foe fallen a t hisfeet." This rule, often rendered of no effect in the confusion ofbattle, should be considered along with

(9 T h e g e ne r d rule of sparing refugees and su ppl iants . " Evena wicked enemy, if he seeks shelter, should not be slain." Thie,indeed, was fundamental, but in these days, though it embodiesone of t he earliest traditions of our race, i t has often been for -gotten.

( j ) Di f f eren t ia t ion be tween combatan t and non-combatan t por -t i o m of t he army recogn i sed . Thus " car-drivers, men engagedin the transport of weapons . . . should never be slain. No oneshould slay him who goes out to procure forage or fodder, campfollowers or thoee that do menial service." The regular usage,however, seems undoubtedly to have been to kill the chariotdriver.

( k ) Dis t inc l t i on be tween non-combatan t s i n genera l and t h e


6/18

fighting forces recognised. The observance of this principle isspecially noted by the Greek Megasthenes and Arrian. ActualIndian evidence is .rather to the contrary.

( 1 ) Prohib i t ion against s laying a nimals emp loy ed i n hat t le .This also was often unheeded. I n the Mahabharata we findarrangements made for giving rest to animals." Bn the marchchariots are drawn by oxen. Horses are led by the halter, thattheir legs be not galled or inflamed, or their spirits damped bydrawing chariots " (Megasthenes).

(m) Pro hibiti ons atgainst slaying th os e suffering from a n yna tura l , phys ica l , or me n ta l incapac i ty , w he the r due to permanan tM accidenta l causes . Such rules are interesting as showing thefertility of mind of those who devised them, and how they seemedto take account of all possible cases. I n batt le they could not beobserved.

(n)Rules against kil l ing ' anyone with special qualif ications." No one should kill him t hat ie skilled in a special ar t (such asmining)." This rule needs study in connection with the Hindutheory of function. The principle has been recognised in therecent wRr, when many were exempted from war service becauseof some special qualifioations, and many, alas I possessed of theseand not exempted were particularly mourned for.

( 0 ) W ho le c lasses ex emp ted from s laugh ter . " He is no sonof the Vrishni race who slayeth a woman, a boy or an old man."It was an ancient rule of chivalry not to slay a woman, and onlyjustifiable in the interesta of society.

( p ) Prohibit ions against s laying certain classes w it h specials a n c t i t y a t t a ~ h e d - - f o r example, Brahmans, Kine, envoys.(q) Places of special s a m c t i t ~ o be avoided . " Forsaking ceme

teries and temples dedicated to the gods, and sacred trees, andgrounds covered with ant-hills, that host occupied every otherplace." We can well imagine that warriors who wished to incurno ill-will from the Brahmans bore these rules cmefully in mind.But we read again and again of the destruction of temples, andreprobation of the practice.

( r ) Care of th e wou nd ed . " Let him not strike one who hasbeen grievously wounded." This rule has already been severaltimes referred to under general principles, but it seems to callfor special mention. Thus it is written, "A wounded opponent


7/18

shall either be sent to his own home, or, if brought to the victor'squarters, have his wounds attended to, and when cured he shallbe set at liberty. This is eternal duty." In the MahBbhBrata weare told how Yuddhisthira's army contained surgmns andphysicians, all versed in their own sciences and furnished withevery ingredient. The fact tha t there were many breaches ofthis should not prevent us from recognising the magnanimity ofthe epic rule. Secondly, there is evidence as to the advancedarrangements for care of the wounded, prepared beforehand,carried out during the battle, and also the recognition of dutiesto the wounded after the battle. Thirdly, the care directed to-wards the enemy's wounded after the battle.

( 8 ) " Night e l au gh ta horrib le and infamous." Whether thisaversion to night a t h k s is due to a warrior's horror of treachery,or to legislation by priests as to what ought to be the practice inwar, we do not know. At any rate, it embodies a wholesomeinstinct against treacherous attack, and a clear distinction betweenwhat wae a regular act of war and what was murder. From thepoint of view of military strategy, both in theory and practice,night attacks were often urged, and often carried out, but theidea of slaying the enemy as they slept is viewed with horror.

( t ) H o no u r t o a fallen foe. " With death our enmity hasterminated."

( u ) Pensions for wi do ws of s lain so W er s . It wss the duty of aconquering king to see that the wives of slain soldiers should beprovided for, and it would appear from the MahBbhBrata that thisheld true even of the wives of enemies. We may note here thataccording to Vrihaspati a soldier on the bat'tlefield was protectedfrom legal imprisonment.

( v ) P u n i s h m e n t o f de e e r tm . On the other hand, heavy wasthe punishment for deserters. They should be slain or stoned, oreven burned to death. The consequences of flying from battleare loss of wealth, death, infamy, and reproach. Worse still, ifslain in flight, the unhappy warrior had to bear the weight of hismaster 's sins in the next world. Bu t there were higher methodsthan simply punishment or appeals t o fear. Special rewards weregiven to those who rallied the retreating troops. Commanderswere exhorted to address the chief warriors thus: " Let us swearto conquer, and never to desert one another." Another incentive


8/18

i s : " What will the wives say of me? " A most striking sceneis where a prince in later days assembles his warriors and urgesthose that love their lives to retire. The proud answer is: " Weare Rajputs, and a11 ready to die in battle. "

( w ) No t t o turn one' s back in ba t t l e . n i s brings us to themost remarkable rule of all, where death was held to be the happyend of the Kshattriya warrior. " The warrior who fought fairly,Heaven awaited, if he was slain : if victorious, Earth." It wouldbe possible to show, as in our own times, tha t such a spirit was notalways manifested. But here again the grand tradition has comedown to this day. I t was typified by the burning words of thePrincess Vidula to her laggard son as she urged him to go out tobattle. " It is better to flare up even for a moment than smokefor ever and ever ! B e true to thy name. B e my son."

I have now set out some of the chief rules, bu t though these aresimple, the principles on which they rest cannot be properlyunderstood, as I have said, wit-hout a study of Hindu polity andan acquaintance with the Hindu social system, with specidreference to the theory of Dharma. Of the rules given some aregenuine evidenoe of ancient chivalry; others plainly owe theirexistence to priestly influence. From the earliest times therewas another school of thought which argued that the enemy hasto be killed in war, whether this is conducted according to th erules of morality or otherwise. By these every argument for fairplay was frankly ridiculed. To high moralists the standard ofwhat was right changed according to time, place and circum-stances, and " Dha rm a" varied with th e age. In actual prac-tice many of the rules were quite impracticable, and suggest, aswe have said, the tournament rather than the battlefield. Tothis day there are many rules both in military tournaments andmanaeuvres which would be generally forgotten in war. To watchyoung Japanese practise ju-jiteu is an unforgettable experience.The strict adherence to etiquette and to all the rules of the gameis a striking feature. They have their influence when the studentbecomes the soldier, and help him in his calling. But war isdifferent from the gymnasium. So may it well have been with theearly Hindus. They had their training for war, and some ofthese were rules observed in practice and in jousts. They wereof course forgotken in the heat of battle, as the narrators con-


9/18

stantly confess. But they had their weight in forming a traditionof chivalry lasting down through t5he centuries.It might be asked, admitt ing th at th e observance of some ofthese rules was quite impracticable, that some were drawn upby priests-the lawyers of th e time --who had never seen abattlefield, that in the hea t of battle even such as were possibleof observance were ignored, what value lay in them, what sanc-tion had they? It might be argued that there was a strongreligious sanction for their observance, with penalties for breachesboth in this world and the next. Bu t with " Dharma " variableaccording to ciroumstances, and justificahion found either in thewiokedness of the enemy or the need to protect the righteous,there was little to restrain the conqueror. One Indian heroindeed frankly says, " In war there is no law." The inscriptionstell their own tale of many violations. Yet, in spite of thesubtlety of priests and the arguments of military strategists, andthe many failures which Indian history records, the warrior tribesof India have never lost the memory of th e chivalrous traditionshanded down from the earliest times. I have cited testimony asto the Mariithas : no European chivalry displays finer heroismthan did the Bajputs. I n mcdern times, in the Indian Army,Gurkha, Garhwali, Punjabi, and others, under British officers,have maintained their highest traditions. At the outset of theGreat War, nowhere in the East were the objects for which theAllies fought better understood than by the peasants of India.They believed that the Allies were fighting for Dharma and onbehalf of their plighted word. Public opinion was on our side.And the way had been prepared thousands of years ago bywarriors and priest8 who had argued out the principles ofhonourable warfare and how the game should be played.

O n I n v a s i o n sPossibly in no branch of the subject of war in India have we

clearer information, both as to the theory and the practice throughsuccessive ages, than on invasions. On the whole, the Hindusdifferentiated very clearly between what was permissible for aninvader and the policy which ought to be carried out when acountry was conquered. I n the one case devastation and plunderwere the rule : in the other, as we shall see, there was abundant


10/18

evidence of a broadminded and enlightened policy, the principlesof which might still be studied with profit. It might be askedwhy, even in theory, there was this difference. On the one hand,it was the king's duty to protect his own subjects and to punishthe wicked who were his enemies. On the other hand, to theBrahman, if he could gain his object with a minimum of slaughter,the cause of morality would be served. If the land of the enemywas ravaged, his powers of resistance would be considerablyweakened, and by his wealth the cause of the righteous wouldbe strengthened. The most shriking evidence as to the actualitiesof war in ancient India is given in the 13th Edict of t heBhuddist Emperor Asoka, issued probably in 256 B . c . , seventyyears after Alexander the Great's campaign. " His Majesty . . .in the ninth year af his reign conquered the Kalingas; 150,000persons were thence carried away captive, 100,000 there slain,and many times that number perished. His Majesty feelsremorse on account of the conquest of the Kalingas, becauseduring th e subjugation of a previously unconquered countryslaughter, death and taking away captive of the people necessarilyoccur, whereat His Majesty feels profound sorrow and regret.To many others dwelling in the country befalls violence, orslaughter, or separation from those they love. Even those whoare themselves protected-ruin falls on their friends, acquaint-ances, comrades and relatives, and in this way violence is doneto those who are personally unhurt." I n consequence of thesufferings brought about by this campaign, Asoka thereafter fore-swore warfare, and he left his descendants to rid themselves ofthe popular notion that conquest by war is the duty of kings.

The study of hundreds of inscriptions confirms the impressionof ruin and spoliation. The Emperor's conclusion is noteworthy.The only way to avoid the suffering caused by war is to abstainfrom war altogether.

Th e Ikeat ment of th e Conquered .When the wicked had been conquered and made to understand

their duties a new situation arose. They were now in an attitudeof submission, and their pride had abated. In these circum-stances duties towards them devolved on the conqueror. Thatis to say, the duty which he formerly owed to his original subjects


11/18

of protecting them against the enemy, he now owes to those whohave recently come under his sway. Instead of being anoppressor, he was to be regarded as a protector. YBjna-valkyasays: " Customs, laws and family usages which obtain in acountry should be preserved when that country has beenacquired." Thus Vishnu : " Having conquered the country ofhis foe, let him not abolish or disregard the laws d ha t country."Considerable insight is shown in the MahBbhBrata: " A kingshould never do such an injury to his foe as would rankle in thelatter's heart," which is worth engraving as an epitome of Indianwisdom. There were many reasons for not pressing too hardlyon a defeated foe. From the point of view of t he statesman,there was the danger of agitation if t he existing state of thingswas disturbed. If the king cared for his fair fame he must notgo too far. From the military point of view, there was thedanger of having communications c u t off if he mu p i e d anenemy's country during the rains, and was left there.

Other passages show quite a contrary theory and practice, akinto the doctrine of p ar ce re s u b j e c ti s e t d e b e h r e s u p e r bo s . Manyother problems were faced-Ownership of land m transfer ofrule, distribution of booty. There is no hint of displeasure a tthe practice of taking booty. The only rules were as to its properdistribution. Women as captives, slavery, tribute, forced levies,forced labour, employment of members of a hostile country asguides, and the use of irregular troops are all deal t with. In thewords of the Mahlbhhrata, If the conqueror was equitable, allwas well: if he was not, the conquered suffered terribly.

Peace .Minute differentiations were made as to the different kinds ofpeace which could be obtained. The severity or otherwise of theterms depended of course on the position in which a king or raja

found himself a t the end of hostilities. If cession of land orwealth or persons was demanded, a conquered king was advisedto give as much trouble as he could to the conqueror. The pre-sumption was that the conquered was biding his time, " crouchingthat he might spring again."

If the weak was not bound to accept a state of things to hisdisadvantage permanently, on the other hand " what the strong


12/18

man sayeth is morality." " There is no such thing as a foe.There is no such thing in existence as a friend. It is force ofcircumstances that creates friends and foes."The principles of State polity, as we should expect , look upon

treaties as mere matters of temporary convenience. But thoughtreaties were often regarded as but relative to the circumstances-a view not unconfirmed by history-it must not be thoughttha t the highest authorities spoke against their sancti ty. Ifa n Indian Pandit to-day were asked what was the " Dharma ".o f a good king in the matt er of treaties, he would cite such sverse as: " Having entered an agreement in th e presence of allgood men , who dareth break i t for the sake of a kingdom upon-earth? " I n later days, as Tod tells us, among t3he Rajputs-the " truth teller " was the most comprehensive praise, whilst apledge once given by a Rajput remains inviolable. A highrespeot for truth, however, is not incompatible with the tem-porary nature of arrangements made between kings. I n earlytimes, as recorded by Kautilya, a peace secured by an oath wasregarded as binding under all circumstances. I t has been pointedout that this regard for the sanctity of the oath indicates amarked difference between ancient and modern scciety.

I n addition to many forms of peace, the Indians of old werefamiliar with such ideas as armistices-as when both sidesstopped fighting, we are told, a t th e request of Brahmans-andtruces. Thus, we read of a herald sent to announce the expiryof the truce to the enemy, who added seven days to the timeagreed on, " according to Rajput faith." Of securities for thefulfilment of the terms of peace, one of long standing was thegiving of hostagm t o the Indian conqueror. The importantthing, often overlooked by the British Government in its dealingswith Irishmen, was to secure someone capable of controlling theenemy's actions.At first, agreements of peace must often have been arrangedorally, but from very early times, as we learn from Kautilya,written treaties were in use and duly registered.

An interesting factor, to which reference is constantly madeboth in the sacred books, in Kautilya, and in inscriptions, is theCircle or League of States-the Mandala. I t was customaryfrom early times for kings to belong to Leagues or Circles of


13/18

States. These, according to Xautilya, were a t once instrumentsof aggression and preventives against any one king becomingtoo powerful. T'he " Circle" was a p t to get wrathful if a con-queror pressed his claims too vigorously. On th e other hand,these leagues often proved very oppressive. Thus, even inAncient India we have t he idea of a " balance of power," andweaker kings hastened to loin whichever combination was likelyto further their interests most.

From the existence of these and similar institutions, Indianwriters have argued th at there was a complete system of inter-national Iaw in ancient India, and in a recent article in theHibbe r t J o u r n a l (July, 1915) Mr. Mitra has pointed out the sur-prising insight of t he Hindus into the questions which vex us now.It is a pity, however, to introduce terms with a history whollymodern into discussions on ancient polity. m e territories ofIndian Ra jas could scarcely be called S tat es a t all in t he modernsense of t he term. Non-Indian peoples do not come within thescope of the Hindu religion or social system, and the rules I havecited could scarcely be called laws. It is doubtful whether somewere even customs, a s the evidence does not show that they wereobserved. I n our view, the use of such terms as internationallaw for th e conditions of ancient Ind ia is undesirable, and tends tomake th e stude nt forget the unique features of th e Hindu system.It is one thing to try t o understand th e bases of an ancientsociety: the h s k is unnecessarily complicated when terms witha history wholly modern are introduced. Some, of course, speakof ancient Greek City States as having the germs of internationallaw in their relations with one another, and if this is Jlowable inthe case of ancient Greece, it might be permissible for ancientIndia also. B u t so many qualifications would have to be intro-duced tha t i t seems much better to discard the use of such termsaltogether. Looking a t Indian history a s a whole, it is difficultto find any such conception either in the relations of a conqueringking to his vassals, or in the days of unstable equilibrium whensmaller Sta tes vied with each other for mastery. If we go tobooks on Hindu polity, we might as well look for international lawin the " Prince " as in these.

On the other hand, if we study Hinduism-which more than anyother religion is a social system-we shall find not an international


14/18

but a caste view of society. 4nd when men describe the relationsof Hindu States as international they seem in danger of giving tothem attributes which they had not, and of ignoring those whichthey had in marked measure. If again we take the history d heRajputs, as detailed by Tod, we find there evidence of m w yremarkable customs and polnts of etiquette In their mutual rela-tions. We miss their whole p i n t if we speak of them aainternational. The ideal Ralput warrior fought fairly and diedgamely, not because of any rule of international law, but becauseit was his duty or Dharma to do so. The strongest bond was" caste," and not national. So in a different setting has it beanwith the British Kavy. I t , too, haa its standard of Dharma, andof what is proper conduct, and it has nobly lived up to the rules ofthe game. In India the old warrior traditions, a t first confined toa few fighting claw, have so spread that now, north and south,each of the many races of India regards them as its own. I f humannature b e roughly the same in each country, if in a study ofIndian history you can we up to a certain s tage a t any r h heworld's history in microcosm, is it not possible to draw some-thing of a moral? From tales of medisval chivalry, from therecords of our fighting forces both by land and sea, and now in theair, from the spirit of sportsmanship which is inherent in ourpeople, w e have inherited a great tradition of fair play. This isnow ,sostrong that i t has become indeed Dharma-a Dharma which,I trust, does not vary from ite standards. In Germany during thewar years, and before, and a t th e m o ~ e n tn Ireland, the peopleseem to have lost d l dea of what is proper conduct for honourablewarriors. It ia the funotion of a society such as this t o keep beforethe world the idea of international right, and to help gee that ineach country there is an approximahion to the highest standards.In India, in spite of d l the obstacles, an idea of Dharma has beenkept alive-with intermissions-for thousands of years by awarrior tradition sanctioned by religion and public opinion. Itstill persists in the Indian Army, partly beaause the R a j has notorumbled away, and the presence of a settled government allowsMope for it. I n India during the last seventeen years, mostelaborate propaganda has been carried on similar to what waasucceeded in Ireland, but the bulk of the people have not yetbeen infected, because there is still the notion of Dharma, and


15/18

the peasant's Dhanna (save in moments of excitement) is togo with hie work. Where it failed in India in past centuries wasin periods of anarchy due to th e absence of a settled govern-ment . Where there is anarchy, Hindus teach us, there can beno Dharma. In the case of conquering kings, its failure was dueto the absence of str ict standards or sanctions and t o any realmeans of restraining the powerful. More fortunate than th eancient Hindus at some periods, in England we have not only thetradition, but law is the basis of our society, and the Englishpeople as a whole have a striking regard for it.

If we apply the teaching of ancient India to such questions asthe League of Nations, we shall find tha t all rules will fail if theyare impracticable and have no sanctions to secure their beingcarried out : that though public opinion may be a strong factor,it will be of no avail in a St ate where there is no law. " Withoutgovernment there can be no Dharma." On th e other hand, thereis the value of having a standard-call i t Dharma, call i t inter-national law, orwhat you will-and of educating a whole people toits truth. As regards th e League of Nations, is there not an ideathat there ie too much machinery, too many clauses, no adequateprovision for a sanction for any of the ordinances of the Leagueor for any international arrangements which may be made,whether in peace or war?

The story of ancient India perhaps points to a surer way.With a few fighting clans a warrior's tradition grew up, sanctionedbf religion, which ultimately spread all over the Indian continent,md has influenced the outlook on life to this day of many dif-ferent races. If we take but one modern instance, the people ofthe United States have fundamentally the same outlook on lifeat3 we have, the same standards of international right, the sameregard for the sanctity of treaties and for the maintenance of law.The machinery of the League of Nations frightens them: theydistrust its powers, and they doubt its practicability in its presentform. Throughout th e British Empire our ideals have r s p r d ,and they find a ready response in the United States. Asmissionaries of the League of Nations there, we fail: might wenot succeed bet4ter if we made clear those great principles whichwe hold in common and from a common source? If we put themin a sentence, it would be that nations as well as individuals


16/18

should play the game, and that this is inviolable whether in peaceor war. And i t is possible tha t this doctrine might permeateinto the ranks of our late enemies. B u t if in the Empire we allowthe principles of law to be overthrown; if we act on one standardin Dublin and on another in London: if our Government in inter-national affairs shows that it has no fixed principles or standards-then it will be very hard for us to establish confidence in a Leagueof Nations or anything else, and we shall be driven to the conclu-sion of th e Hindu moralists that in politics there were nostandards. A few days ago, a General poured ridicule on th e ideaof the League of Nations-. If he had known that behindall the machinery t.he League embodied all the highesttraditions of the order to which he belonged; that it was anattempt to bring into international relations those same principlesof fair play which in the fighting services, in sporb, in business,are th e salt of our national life, and represent perhaps the highestachievement of t he English people; that the one hope of civilisa-tion seems to be to have the various peoples inoculated withsimilar ideas-then we might have had t.he General no t a nopponent but a n ally. Of ancient India, kings, dynasties, empires,leagues, circles of states-all have passed away. An idea ofchivalry has lingered three thousand years and permeated acontinent. So will it be with th e League of Nations. If it isregarded as an artificial organisation, devised by unpracticallawyers, i t will pass. B u t once in England and America it isrecognised that the League is not a foreign invention, but theembodiment of t he finest traditions of our race, with its base inlaw and i b sanction in a public opinion ready to fight for it ifnecessary, we shall have a powerful impetus towards the spread ofour ideals. And just as in ancient India, with th e help of priests,the warrior's code spread through a continent and , in theory a tleast, was adopted by every race, so one would hope that, with theassistance of lawyers and supported by public opinion, the tradi-tions which are our common heritage will spread and ultimatelyfind a response among all peoples. Ru t if this is to be the case,there mus t be no shifting standards, no rules which break downamid t.he stress of batt le, and a thorough appreciation by thepeople that all which the League of Nations or whatever organisa-tion takes its place embodies and stands for is the observance in


17/18

international relations of those same principles of good faith andfair play which are the keynote of our national life.

NOTE.-A short account was also given of Dharma in itsabstract and concrete senses. It often means proper conductrelative to time, place, and circumstances.

( R e a d b e f o r e t h e Grotius S o c i e t y on J u l y 4 th , 1922.)Mr. Bewes said the Society was greatly indebted for the highly

interesting paper. He himself had no special knowledge of t hesubject, and he would confine himself to expressing the opiniontha t in the conduct, of war the better feelings of humanity wouldeventually prevail.Mr. Henriques said that, in view qf the immense groundcovered by Mr. Armour, more time was required for criticism.Some of the Hind u rules were very like those of Greece andItome. The juu fec iale , for instance, was very similar as to thecommencement and conduct of war. The prohibition againstpoisoned weapons and causing unnecessary suffering was alsocurrent amongst the Greeks and Romans. I n the case of theIsraelites, the conduct of war was frequently atrocious, and t h eHindu would not always observe rules of war-as, for instance,in th e Mutiny. A national standard had been substituted for anindividual standard.

Mr. Jacobs referred to General Dyer's conduct a t Amritsar. H econsidered that t he a ttemp t ought to be made rather to suppresswar than to make war more humane. Rules for the humaneconduct of war were injurious, inasmuch as they intended to makewar respectable, and thus to increase the chances of war.

Mr. Mullins thought that the facts stated did not offer muchhope for fu ture amelioration of the conduct of war. Humannature remained much th e same. The principles laid down in therules had proved too high for observance in practice. He referredto the doctrine of reprisals. H e also asked whether there was anyindication of an a ttempt to punish war criminals after war.

Admiral Dent said that where war was carried on by a warriorcaste, rules were generally observed. For the observance of rules,military forces must be highly disciplined. Bu t the moderntendency was against the warrior caste and in favour of the nation-in-arms. To lay down rules under present conditions made i t


18/18

very difficult for the military to conduct war humanely. If thenational discipline was lowered, atrocities would follow. Hereferred to the way in which the United States athletes in theOlympia games had responded to the British sentiments of fairplay. H e thought that if you made war more humane, therewould be more of it.

Mr. Manisty dwelt upon the enormous interest of the paper.H e insisted that in the conduct of war the law was observed.War had not abrogated all law. Some of the rules had to beobserved. The League of Nations was endeavouring to induceindividuals to substitute arbitration for war. Unless the Leaguesucceeded in its attempt , arbitration would fail. Public opinionwas only that of individuals.

Professor Bellot considered that Mr. Armour had made a veryreal contribution to the subject. H e had filled a gap in its history.H e referred to the rules for ameliorating the harshness of war inPersia, Assyria and Egypt, and of the peace treaties of the latterPower, which had recently come to light. Some of the regula-tions were very similar to those of the Hindu rules. Much as hedesired t'he abolition of war, he saw no immediate prospect of i t,and, in the meantime, i t was necessary to have rules for itsconduct. I n fact, history proved tha t it was impossible formilitary operations to be carried on without rules. H e insistedthat the distinction between combatants and non-combatantsmust be maintained. " Frightfulness," which the Germans called" thoroughness," did not pay even from the military point ofview. H e disagreed with the idea that by making war morehumane you would increase its occurrence.

Mr. Amour, in reply, said that it was difficult to applyancient rules of warfare to happenings at Amritsar. Whilst therules forbade attacking men who were fleeing or unarmed,everything depended on the circumstances of the case, and aplea in defence of the incident might have been set up-theneed to protect sooiety or the punishment of the wicked. Asregards sanctions against breaches of the rules, it was difficultto find any, unless in the denunciations of priests, the desirefor the good opinion of one's fellow-warriors, and fear of thereproaches of the women. (Various methods of penance areindicated for those who offended against religious rules.)

Customs of Warfare in Ancient India

Documents

Transcript of Customs of Warfare in Ancient India