Principles of war fare (Introduction)

War without a leader or a purpose between two parties or two men can not be called war. Indeed a war is the integrated fight between two parties with a specific purpose.

Acording to international principle:

“War is a contention between two or more states through their armed forces, for the purpose of over powering each other and imposing such conditions of peace as the victor pleases.”

(Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhay, part-II, p,40).

It is worth mentioning that the winner can not impose autocracy according to his will.

War is described as the last weapon. Much properties and many lives are lost in war. Their is no certainty of victory or defeat. In the ancient political books war has been described as the last weapon of a wise King. If the purpose is not surved by sāma, dāna, bheda then the King will try to win the enemy by means of war.

In the Bṛhatparāśara it is said—

na yuddhamāśrayet prājño na kuryāt svavalakṣayam |
vadanti sarve nītijñā daṇḍastvagatikā gatiḥ ||

In the Mahābhārata it is said—

varjanīyaṃ sadā yuddhaṃ rājyakāmena dhīmatā |
upāyaistribhirādānamarthasyāha vṛhaspatiḥ || (śāntiparva)

(As these above veres were seen in the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra edited by Manabendu Bandyopadhaya, part-II, p. 40).

Kauṭilya said—

“sandhivigrahayostulyāyāṃ vṛddhau sandhimupeyāt |
vigrahe hi kṣayavyayapravāsapratyavāyā bhabanti ||” (7.2.1-2)1

“If there is equal advancement in peace or war, he should resort to peace. For in war there are losses, expenses, marches away from home and hindrances”.^[1]

Even Manu said that the king should avoid war if possible and only declares if the three means of sāma, dāna, bheda are failed.

“sāmnā dānena bhedena samastairathavā pṛthak |
vijetuṃ prayatetārīn na yuddhena kadācana ||” 7.198 ||3

“He should, however, try to conquer his foes by conciliation, by well-applied gifts, and by creating dissension, used either separately or conjointly, never by fighting (if it can be avoided)”.^[2]

“anityo vijayo yasmād dṛśyate yudhyamānayoḥ |

parājayaśca saṃgrāme tasmād yuddhaṃ vivarjayet ||” 7.199 ||^[3]

‘For when two princes fight, victory and defeat in the battle are, as experience teaches, uncertain; let him, therefore, avoid an engagement.’^[4]

“trayāṇāmapyupāyānāṃ pūrvoktānāmasambhave |
tathā yudhyeta saṃyato vijayeta ripūn yathā ||” 7.200 ||^[5]

“But if even those three before mentioned expedients fail, then let him duly exerting himself fight in such a manner that he may completely conquer his enemies”.^[6]

Kautily also said in this context—if vijigīṣu king realises that by ally or war he gets the increasing success i.e. attainment of the desired result, then he will obviously make sandhi not war. Beause in war losses (loss of living beings, gradual bungling, little income but much expenditure), expenses (consumption of wealth and corn), staying abroad (starting to a foreign land and living abroad), detriment (giving poison, poisoning of water by the spies of enemy) etc. troubles will happen.

Again, in this way where there is a possibility of acquiring same out put from staying quite and marching—their the vijigīṣu king should accept to be staying quite. This matter is also clearly clarified here.

Again, if there is a possibility to acquire same out put from dual policy and seeking shelter, the vijigīṣu king will take shelter.

Because, dual policy taken king (with another) serves the interests of the other not his own.

“sandhivigrahayostulyāyāṃ vṛddhau sandhimupeyāt | vigrahe hi kṣayavyāyapravāsapratyavāyā bhavanti | tenāsanayānayorāsanaṃ vyākhyātam | dvaidhībhāvasaṃśrayayodvaidhībhāvaṃ gacchet | dvaidhībhūto hi svakarmapradhāna ātmana evopakaroti | saṃśritastu parasyopakaroti, nātmanaḥ |” (7.2.1-5) 9

“If there is equal advancement in peace or war, he should resort to peace. For, in war there are losses, expenses, marches away from home and hindrances. By that is explained (preference for) staying quiet, as between staying quiet and marching. As between dual policy and seeking shelter, he should resort to dual policy. For, he who resorts to the dual policy, giving prominence to his own undertakings, serves only his own interests, while he who takes shelter (with another) serves the interests of the other, not his own.”^[7]

But inspite of these rules some times war became indispensable and some rules regarding war should have been maintained. In the ancient Indian political books their was the mentioning and discussions on these rules. Both Kauṭilya and Manu in their own books gave out rules of war. In comparison with these two, a main difference can be seen. Manu’s

discussion is mainly theoritical and ideal, though he knew about the unfair combat. In this respect Kauṭilya has given out a complete realistic attitude. A one sided and immoral attitude about deception and cheating has been clearly reflected in his book. He is compared to Mekiyabheli, the Itialian politician. Because both of them thought out an immoral means in politics. To fulfill the purpose Kauṭilya was not at all hesitant to the application of win, women, poison or spy. He has said various planned murder, deceptive policy in war, with various types of medicine and magic to destroy the enemy and protection of the army of the vijigīṣu King. Even he has said to apply religious principle or fanaticism in ruling a country.

The brutality in war is quite natural. The evil and the worst sides of human characters become barely expressed during war. But it is true that in the ancient Indian war there is less brutality than the other ancient war of the world.

In this context Kauṭilya also said—

“Conquest of a territory may mean its annexation. By successive conquests an empire may be built up in which the Vijigīṣu would be the sole rular. In case of annexation of territory, the vijigīṣu is advised to win over the people in that territory, and not to terrorize or exploit them for self-aggrandizement. This policy is called labdhapraśamana “pacification of what is conquerd”. The conqueror is to do what is beneficial and agreeable to his new subjects, showing favour, granting exemptions, showering honours and so on. He is to adopt the dress, the language, the customs etc. of the new subjects and show reverence for the deities and enthusiasm for the festivals and fairs in the land. The new territory is thus not to be treated as a colony to be ruled and exploited from a distance. At the same time, efforts must be made to consolidate his rule in the new territory by proving his bonafides and eliminating mischievous and harmful elements.”^[8]

According to Kauṭilya—

‘tasmāt samānaśīlaveṣabhāṣācāratāmupagacchet | deśadaivatasamājotsavavihāreṣu ca bhaktimanuvarteta | (13.5.7-8)^[9]

Means,

“Hence he should adopt a similar character, dress, language, and behaviour (as the subjects). And he should show the same devotion in festivals in honour of deities of the country, festive gatherings and supportive amusements.”^[10]

It is also said the new territory is thus not to be treated as a colony to be ruled and exploited from a distance.

“jitvā sampūjayeddevān vrāhmaṇāṃścaiva dhārmikān |
pradadyāt parihārāṃśca khyāpayedabhayāni ca ||”7.201 ||^[11]

“When he has gained victory, let him duly worship the gods and honour righteous Brāhmanas, let him grant examptions, and let him cause promises of safety to be proclaimed.”^[12]

The term “Parihāra” means “exemption from taxes and payments as well as other immunities”. These “Parihāra” s were regularly attached to all grants to Brāhmaṇas or temples. In our passage a general temporary remission of taxes is probably intended.”^[13]

“sarveṣāntu viditvaiṣāṃ samāsena cikīrṣitam |
sthapayettatra tadvaṃśyaṃ kuryācca samayakriyām ||” 7.202 ||^[14]

“But having fully ascertained the wishes of all the conquered, let him place there a relative of the (vanquished ruler on the throne) and let him impose his conditions (i.e., let him enter into treaties.)^[15]

pramāṇāni ca kurvīta teṣāṃ dharmyān yathoditān |
ratnaiśca pūjayedenaṃ pradhānapuruṣaiḥ saha || 7.203 ||^[16]

“Let him make authoritative the lawful customs of the inhabitants, just as they are stated to be; and let him honour the new king, and his chief officers with precious gifts.”^[17]

Manu also discussed the duties of a king after winning a country. Among these duties he should put the real heir to the throne and establish peace and harmony.

Ancient Indian Politicions discussed many things about war. These were—

1. Proper time for war.
2. Arrangement of Array.
3. Principles of a soulder regarding war etc.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

ibid., part–II, p.325.

[2]:

AShokanath Shastri, (Ed.): Manusaṃhitā (7th Ch.) p. 193.

[3]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op. cit., p.723.

[4]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op. cit., p. 193.

[5]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op. cit., 723.

[6]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op. cit., p. 194.

[7]:

ibid., part–II, p. 325.

[8]:

ibid., part-III, p.261.

[9]:

ibid., part-I, p.266.

[10]:

ibid., part-II, p.491.

[11]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op. cit., p.724.

[12]:

Ashokanath shastri: Op.cit., p. 194.

[13]:

ibid., p. 195.

[14]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op. cit., p.725.

[15]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op. cit., p. 196.

[16]:

Manabendu Bandyopadhaya: Op. cit., p.725.

[17]:

Ashokanath Shastri: Op. cit., p.196.