Types of War in Vedic Period

The ancient thinkers of statecraft treat war as an institution recognised in custom or in law. The Vedic Āryans and the Dāsas were proficient in the art of war. They followed some rules and regulations during the war time. In the seventh chapter of the Manusmṛti, Manu prescribes exhaustive rules of warfare, stressing mainly the principles of war ethics.^[1] There are four means or upāyas for overcoming the opposition, viz. Sāma (making peace or conciliation), dāna (grants), bheda (creating dissension) and daṇḍa (employment of force). According to Manu, among these four means the learned always recommend the conciliation and the employment of force for the prosperity of the kingdom.^[2] In the employment of force, they followed some general principles and ethics, such as how to get at the enemy’s armed forces, how to crush it, how to destroy the enemies, proper time and place for war, etc. War should be governed by ethical and moral codes.

In the Vedic period, there are three kinds of warfare, viz. land warfare, naval warfare and aerial warfare. The battle of the ten kings, popularly known as dāśarājñayuddha, mentioned in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā, refers to the existence of land warfare.^[3] It indicates the diplomacy of the rulers during the Vedic period. At that period, river banks were often selected for battle. For instance, the dāśarājña battle took place on the bank of the Paruṣṇī river.^[4] Griffith states that Paruṣṇī is now known as Rāvī.^[5] On the bank of the Yamunā river, Tṛtsus fought with Bheda.^[6] The battle between Vṛcīvats and Abhyāvartin Cāyamāna, is mentioned in the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā,^[7] which took place near Hariyūpīyā and Yavyāvatī. Commenting the word hariyūpīyā, Sāyaṇācārya says that Hariyūpīyā is the name of a town or river.^[8] Again, Yavyāvatī is the name of a river, and according to Sāyaṇācārya, is identical with the Hariyūpīyā.^[9] A.C. Das observes that Hariyūpīyā and Yavyāvatī are the names of rivers or towns which may have been situated towards the outside of Sapta-Sindhu.^[10] The selection of the river bank as the place of battle and device of driving the enemies into the river appear to be one of the modes of Āryan warfare.

The naval warfare though not widely practised during the Vedic period, yet it was not unknown in ancient India. Naval battles were fought only when the theatre of hostilities made it impossible to fight on land. The use of boats and ships are mentioned in the Vedic literature.^[11] The term plava is used to denote a boat.^[12]

Sāyaṇācārya explains the term plava as—

plavaṃ prasiddhaṃ plutisādhanaṃ plavaṃ nāvam //^[13]

Boats were indeed used in war, but probably more often as transports than as fighting line of ships. The navy is mentioned as one of the limbs of a complete army in the Śāntiparvan of the Mahābhārata also.^[14] The Manusmṛti also describes the war with boats in water.^[15] The Ṛgveda-saṃhitā describes the Aśvins as rescuing and conveying Bhujyu safely using swift ships.^[16] The Aśvins brought Bhujyu to his father’s house in a hundred oared ship.^[17] The word śatāritrāṃ nāvam means a ship with a hundred, i.e. with many oars.^[18] The Ṛgveda-saṃhitā states that a fleet of four boats was sent by the Aśvins to rescue Bhujyu from being drowned to death in the midsea.^[19] It is mentioned that the Aśvins rescued Tugra’s son with animated ship with wings.^[20] The Śatapathabrāhmaṇa also contains the concept of a ship that sails heavenwards, where Agnihotra rite is referred to as the ship, of which the Āhavanīya and Gārhapatya fires represent the two sides and the steersman is the Agnihotṛn, who offers milk to the three Agnis.^[21]

Sāyaṇācārya in his commentary says—

svargyāyāḥ svargaprāptihetubhūtāyāstasyā agnihotrarūpāyāḥ nāvaḥ āhavanīyagārhapatyau naumaṇḍe ubhe pārśve, bhittī ityarthaḥ/^[22]

Wars were generally of two groups, viz. dharmayuddha and kūṭayuddha. Though the Vedic literature does not contemplate any clear distinction between these two wars, yet the principles of these two types of war are described in the Dharmaśāstras and the Epics. Among these, the former is just and righteous one and the later is a crafty fight carried secretly. Dharmayuddha is a war carried on the principles of dharma, i.e. the kṣatradharma or the law of kings or warriors. From the early period, people fought with their enemies, wild animals, diseases, etc. In the Śrīmadbhāgavadgitā, war is regarded as the prime duty of the Kṣatriya.^[23] People fought in defence of the truth and their rights as they understood them and for this a faith came in ordeal of war. In a Ṛgvedic verse sa vājaṃ yātāpaduṣpadā…etc., it is mentioned that on the most auspicious path Indra goes to battle.^[24]

Commenting on the verse, Sāyaṇācārya says—

vājaṃ śūrairgantavyaṃ saṃgrāmaṃ yātā saḥ indraḥ/ apaduṣpadā apagataduṣṭapatanena yan gacchan…//

In this type of war, no secret or concealed tactics were applied, and there is no application of stratagem or artifice in the operation of the war. The fight was fought at the predetermined time and place and according to the strict codes of ethics and military rules. The Aitareyabrāhmaṇa mentions the names of kings like Janamejaya Pārikṣita, Śatānīka, Āmbāṣṭhya, Yudhāṃauṣṭi,Viśvakarmā, Sudās Paijavana and Bharata Dauṣṣanti, who went conquering in every direction and for that they performed the horse sacrifice.^[25] They campaigned primarily perhaps to exact homage, and secondarily only to annex territories nearer home. Actually, these are the beginnings of the ideal of righteous conquest. On the other hand, diplomacy is also used in the war by the civilized people for the victory in war. War and diplomacy are interrelated. In the kūṭayuddha, the warriors were permitted to attack at any time and under all circumstances. In this war, the enemy country was to be devastated, trees were to be cut, crops and stores were to be burnt down and civilians were to be taken into captivity. The Ṛgveda-saṃhitā mentions that fraud was used in fighting.^[26] The Aśvins killed the son of Viṣvāc, an Asura with a poisoned arrow.^[27]

Sāyaṇācārya in his commentary says—

he aśvinau…./viṣvācaḥ vividhagatiyuktasya etatsaṃjñasya asurasya jātam utpannamapatyaṃ viṣeṇa kṣveḍena ahataṃ yuvāṃ hatavantau//^[28]

Another verse of the Ṛgveda-saṃhitā describes how for king Sudās, Indra caused the enemies Kavaṣa and Druhyu to be drowned to death.^[29] The unrighteous war is mentioned in the Athavavedasaṃhitā also.^[30] The Athavavedasaṃhitā contains charms against the poison of a poisoned arrow.^[31] The poisoned arrows were used in war and the conqueror was afraid of them.^[32] But the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra states that the warrior should not use the poisoned arrows.^[33]

Govindasvāmin in his commentary says—

karṇavantyastrāṇi karṇīni śūlādīni/ viṣeṇa liptāni digdhāni/ asamāsaḥ pratyekaṃ pratiṣedhaprāptyarthaḥ//^[34]

The warrior used the incantation for the destruction of the enemies by the preparation and use of water thunderbolt.^[35] Sometimes charms and amulets were also used for the disestablishment of the rival, which is mentioned in the Atharvaveda-saṃhitā.

In one of the Atharvavedic verses, Indra is requested to confound the army of the enemies with the blast of fire, of wind and make them disappear after scattering them—

indra senāṃ mohayāmitrāṇām/ agnervātasya dhrājyā tān viṣūco vi nāśaya //.^[36]

Commenting the verse, Sāyaṇācārya says—

he indra amitrāṇām śatrūṇāṃ senām svakīyayā māyayā mohaya mūḍhā vicittāṃ kartavyatā kuru /tataḥ agneḥ vātasya vāyośca militayostayoḥ (dhrājyā) dhrājiḥ dahanaviṣaye yā vegitā gatistathāvidhayā vegagatyā tayoreva vā gatyā tān senāgatān śatrūn viṣūcaḥ sarvataḥ palāyamānān kṛtvā vi nāśaya//

In another verse, Indra is prayed to create confusion among the enemies, the Maruts to slay with force and Agni to take away its eyes and let it go back conquered.^[37] The seer addresses the Maruts to pierce with baffling darkness, the adversaries coming with force so that one of them may not know another.^[38] Besides references to the charms, the plants like Darbha, Apāmārga, etc., were also used in the war.^[39] The Atharvaveda-saṃhitā mentions that Aśvattha, Vādhaka, Khādira, Tājadbhaṅga, etc., were used to destroy the enemy.^[40]

In order to capture and destroy the enemy, the battlefield was covered with traps and nets. A white footed goat or sheep was released to the camp of the enemy to find out whether the track was dangerous with the traps and nets.^[41] The Atharvaveda-saṃhitā mentions patsaṅginī, which is a kind of trap.^[42] The traps of the knotty Āhva plants and Vādhaka tree, which are called as the fetters of death were placed on the way of the approaching enemy army.^[43]

The burning of the rotten ropes and creating smoke were also a trick to delude the enemy—

pūtirajjurupadhmānī pūtiṃ senāṃ kṛṇotvamūm/ dhūmamagniṃ parādṛśyāmitrā hṛtsvā dadhatāṃ bhayam//^[44]

When the enemy was caught in the traps, they died of hunger, exhaustion, slaughter and fear.^[45] One method of warfare consisted of setting fire to surrounding walls of wood.^[46]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Manusmṛti , 7.89-108

[2]:

sāmādīnāmupāyānāṃ caturṇāmapi paṇḍitāḥ/ sāmadaṇḍau praśaṃsanti nityaṃ rāṣṭrābhivṛddhaye// Ibid., 7.109

[3]:

Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 7.18

[4]:

Ibid., 7.18.5, 8

[5]:

Vide, Griffith, R.T.H., The Hymns of the Ṛgveda, p. 342

[6]:

āvadindraṃ yamunā tṛtsavaśca prātra bhedaṃ sarvatātā muṣāyat/ ajāsaśca śigravo yakṣavaśca baliṃ śīrṣāṇi jabhruraśvyāni// Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 7.18.19

[7]:

Ibid., 6.27

[8]:

hariyūpīyā nāma kācinnadī kācinnagarī vā // Sāyaṇa, Ibid., 6.27.5

[9]:

yavyāvatyāṃ pūrvoktāyāṃ hariyūpīyāyāṃ // Sāyaṇa, Ibid., 6.27.6

[10]:

Vide, Das, A.C., Ṛgvedic Culture, p.156

[11]:

Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 1.46.7, 1.116.5, 10.101.2 Also vide, Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa , 4.2.5.10

[12]:

yuvametaṃ cakrathuḥ sindhuṣu plavamātmanvantaṃ pakṣiṇaṃ taugryāya kam/ Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 1.182.5 Also vide, Atharvaveda-saṃhitā , 12.2.48, Taittirīya-saṃhitā , 5.3.10.2

[13]:

Sāyaṇa, Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 1.182.5

[14]:

rathā nāgā hayāścaiva pādātāścaiva pāṇḍava/ viṣṭirnāvaścarāścaiva deśikā iti cāṣṭamam// Mahābhārata , 12.59.41

[15]:

syandanāśvaiḥ same yudhyed anūpe naudvipaistathā/ vṛkṣagulmāvṛte cāpairasicarmāyudhaiḥ sthale// Manusmṛti , 7.192

[16]:

Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 1.117.14,15

[17]:

anārambhaṇe tadavīrayethāmanāsthāne agrabhaṇe samudre/ yadaśvinā ūhathurbhujyumastaṃ śatāritrāṃ nāvamātasthivāṃsam// Ibid., 1.116.5

[18]:

śatāritrāṃ bahvaritrām// Sāyaṇa., Ibid.

[19]:

avaviddhaṃ taugryamapsvantaranārambhaṇe tamasi praviddham/ catasro nāvo jaṭhalasya juṣṭā udaśvibhyāmiṣitāḥ pārayanti //Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 1.182.6

[20]:

yuvametaṃ cakrathuḥ sindhuṣu plavamātmanvantaṃ pakṣiṇaṃ taugryāya kam/ yena devatrā manasā nirūhathuḥ supaptanī petathuḥ kṣodaso mahaḥ// Ibid., 1.182.5

[21]:

naurha vā eṣā svargyā / yadagnihotraṃ tasyā’etasyai nāvaḥ svargyāyā’āhavanīyaścaiva gārhapatyaśca naumaṇḍe’ athaiṣa eva nāvājo yatkṣīrahotā// Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa , 2.3.3.15

[22]:

Sāyaṇa, Ibid.

[23]:

dharmyāddhi yuddhācchreyo’nyat kṣatriyasya na vidyate/ Śrīmadbhāgavadgitā , 2.31

[24]:

sa vājaṃ yātāpaduṣpadā yantsvarṣātā pari ṣadatsaniṣyan/ anarvā yacchatadurasya vedo ghnañchiśnadevā abhi varpasā bhūt/ Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 10.99.3

[25]:

Aitareya-brāhmaṇa , 8.4

[26]:

Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 1.117.16, 7.18.12

[27]:

ajohavīdaśvinā vartikā vāmāsno yatsīmamuñcataṃ vṛkasya/ vi jayuṣā yayathuḥ sānvadrerjātaṃ viṣvāco ahataṃ viṣeṇa// Ibid., 1.117.16

[28]:

Sāyaṇa, Ibid.

[29]:

adha śrutaṃ kavaṣaṃ vṛddhamapsvanu druhyuṃ ni vṛṇagvajrabāhuḥ/ vṛṇānā atra sakhyāya sakhyaṃ tvāyanto ye amadannanu tvā// Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 7.18.12

[30]:

ima uptā mṛtyupāśā yānākramya na mucyase/ amuṣyā hantu senāyā idaṃ kūṭaṃ sahasraśaḥ //Atharvaveda-saṃhitā , 8.8.16

[31]:

Ibid., 4.6, 4.7

[32]:

arasasta iṣo śalyotho te arasaṃ viṣam/ utārasasya vṛkṣasya dhanuṣṭe arasārasam// Atharvaveda-saṃhitā , 4.6.6 Also vide, Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 6.75.15

[33]:

na karṇibhirna digdhaiḥ praharet// Baudhāyana-dharma-sūtra , 1.10.10

[34]:

Govindasvāmin, Ibid.

[35]:

śatrunāśanasamarthabalam udake praveśya tadudake vajratvaṃ kalpayitvā śatrum abhilakṣya tat prakṣipati // Sāyaṇa, Atharvaveda-saṃhitā ,10.5

[36]:

Atharvaveda-saṃhitā , 3.1.5

[37]:

indraḥ senāṃ mohayatu maruto ghnantvojasā / cakṣūṃṣyagnirā dattāṃ punaretu parājitā // Ibid., 3.1.6

[38]:

asau yā senā marutaḥ pareṣāmasmānaityabhyojasā spardhamānā/ tāṃ vidhyata tamasāpavratena yathaiṣāmanyo anyaṃ na jānāt// Ibid., 3.2.6

[39]:

Ibid., 4.19

[40]:

amūnaśvattha niḥ śṛṇīhi khādāmūn khadirājiram/ tājadbhaṅga iva bhajyantāṃ hantvenān vadhako vadhaiḥ// Ibid., 8.8.3

[41]:

Kauśika-sūtra , 14.22

[42]:

āditya cakṣurā datsva marīcayonu dhāvata/ patsaṅginīrā sajantu vigate bāhuvīrye// Atharvaveda-saṃhitā , 5.21.10

[43]:

paruṣānamūn paruṣāhvaḥ kṛṇotu hantvenān vadhako vadhaiḥ/ kṣipraṃ śara iva bhajyantāṃ bṛhajjālena saṃditāḥ // Ibid., 8.8.4

[44]:

Ibid., 8.8.2

[45]:

mṛtyorāṣamā padyantāṃ kṣudhaṃ sediṃ vadhaṃ bhayam/ indraścākṣujālābhyāṃ śarva senāmamūṃ hatam// Ibid., 8.8.18

[46]:

tvadbhiyā viśa āyannasiknīrasamanā jahatīrbhojanāni/ vaiśvānara pūrave śośucānaḥ puro yadagne darayannadīdeḥ // Ṛgveda-saṃhitā , 7.5.3