War Ethics (dharmayuddha)

Army organization and administration does not stop with financial commitment of the state; it includes knowledge about the formation of the various units of the army, rules and regulations to be followed during peace and war times, the war ethics, the regular pay structures of the soldiers and the officers and also the rewards that boost the morale of the warriors in the war-front.

The dharmayuddha is always glorified in the Indian literature and the warrior who follows the ethical code of conduct was held in high esteem. In the ancient days waging war without regard to moral codes, it was felt degraded war into mere animal ferocity^[1]. Hence, Hindu kings always preferred Dharmayuddha, a just and righteous war approved by the society. Following the principles laid down by the great dharmaśāstra texts and Itihāsas like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata, Nītiprakāśikā also enlists the various codes of ethics to be followed by the armies of both sides.

Nītiprakāśikā also declares that the brave warriors who fight without running away from the enemy attain heaven (Nītiprakāśikā VII. 44):

[...]

Then Nītiprakāśikā continues to dictate the various ethical war codes that are to be strictly followed in a dharmayudda.

Accordingly, Nītiprakāśikā declares that while fighting in the battlefield none should attack an enemy with concealed weapons Nītiprakāśikā(VII. 45):

[...]

Neither should a man who has climbed upon a tree(possibly out of fear), nor eunuch, nor the one who folds his hands at the sight of an enemy or the man who declares openly his allegiance Nītiprakāśikā (VII. 46):

[...]

The man who is asleep, the one who has bowed down (in submission), the naked, one without weapons, one who has not participated in the fight, a mere onlooker and a person who is engaged in war with another–all these should not be attacked proclaims Nītiprakāśikā(VII. 47):

[...]

Here, the commentary explains the word ‘paśyantam’ as one who does not serve a king—

[...]

The explanation of the term ‘pareṇa samāgatam’ is also interesting, since it makes an important condition that one should not attack another already engaged with somebody in fight:

[...]

Nītiprakāśikā (VII. 48) further adds that a person who is having trouble with his weapons, who is in pain, who has not been able to test his prowess in using the weapon, a menial, a person who has withdrawn from the fight and one who has resorted to an anthill^[2]:

[...]

One who has a blade of grass in his mouth (perhaps one who is surrendering), who has disguised himself in a woman’s garment and one who is the only survivor of a family are not to be killed; if anyone kills them, he is said to become a sinner (Nītiprakāśikā VII. 49):

[...]

Here, the term ‘mukhe tṛṇinam’ is explained by the commentator as [...]—still the meaning is not clear; the term ‘kulasyaikatantum’ is explained as the ‘only person left to continue the line of his family’—

[...]

The main features of ethical codes of war in a nutshell are:

1. One should fight with only one and stop fighting when the enemy is incapacitated.

2. Warriors should fight only with their equals (an equestrian warrior should not fight a chariot warrior).

3. A king should only fight with a king and not of anyone with a lower rank.

4. Poisoned or barbed arrows should not be used.

5. The weak, wounded and defenseless should not be killed.

6. The old, women, children, retreating, surrendering ones, thirsty, sleepy, civilians, menials,those who climb a tree, eunuch, the panicky and scattering foes should not be attacked^[3].

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Raghuvaṃśa 17. 47-8: [...]

[2]:

The term valmīkāśrita is not explained by the commentator. One may at the most make a surmise that it means a person doing penance near whom often the valmīkas are seen.

[3]:

Śāntiparva 95, 96 & 97; Manusmṛti. VII; Agnipurāṇa. 242; Rāmāyaṇa. VI. 80; Śukranīti (IV. 7. 356-362).