Rules and Ethics of warfare in Ancient India

War as a political institution has always been a necessary evil since the dawn of mankind’s territorial shenanigans. To the early Indian tribes, kings, emperors, dynasties and military chieftains, war was a holy affair.

In ancient India, offering sacrifices to their respective tribal gods and goddesses was a common affair before the actual expedition began. To them, God was all-powerful and would protect the soldiers and grant them victory on the battlefield. They believed that the Gods accompanied them in person on the field of combat.

A Sculpture carved during the Gupta period (3rd century CE to 6th century CE) shows a scene from the Mahabharata.

The ancient Indian art of warfare valued both Niti and Shaurya i.e. ethical principles and valour respectively. The term Niti Shastra, which is the title given to treatises on ancient Indian polity, opines that though the subjects treated in them are secular, they had their bases in religion. As a matter of fact, religion dictated every facet of life of every individual in ancient India right from birth to death and everything in-between. It was therefore a customary belief that waging war without regard to moral standards degraded the institution of warfare into mere animalistic savagery.

Ancient Indian military doctrine recognised two kinds of warfare: Dharmayudha and Kutayuddha. Dharmayudha is a war carried out on the principles of dharma (the righteous war) meaning here the Kshatriya dharma or the law of kings and warriors is applied. In other words, it was a just and righteous war that had the approval of society. It was straight and regulated combat. On the other hand, Kutayuddha was an unrighteous war and was carried out in secrecy, occasionally influenced by the use of mantras, charms and spells. However, we will focus on the laws and ethics practised in a righteous war. It is quite clear that religion dictated international law and ethics in ancient India.

Aggression was the exception and defence was the rule

Genuine attempts were made to avoid armed contests and to keep peaceful relations. If diplomacy failed to bring about compromise and war was provoked surely there was retaliation, but with stern codes of conduct.

The following are some of the rules which were followed on the battlefield mentioned in the Baudhayana Dharmasutra, Apastambha Dharmasutra, Agni Purana, testimonies of Megasthenes, Tamil literature and inscriptions found on pillars erected during the reign of emperor Samudragupta.

1. A warrior in armour must not fight with a Kshatriya who is not clad in a coat of mail.
2. One should fight only one enemy and cease fighting when the opponent becomes disabled.
3. If the enemies clad in Mail his opponent should put on armour.
4. A Cavalry soldier should not attack a chariot warrior. But a chariot warrior could attack a chariot warrior. Similarly, a horse warrior could resist another horse warrior. The general rule is that warriors should fight only with their equals.
5. Poisoned or barbed arrows should not be used.
6. A weak or wounded man should not be killed, nor one who has no son.
7. He whose weapon is broken or whose bowstring is God or who has lost his chariot should not be hit.
8. A warrior who requests to be rescued saying I am thine (yours) or joins his hands and supplication or throws of his weapon must not be killed but he can be captured as a prisoner of war.
9. A king should fight only with a king and not with warriors of inferior status.
10. If a Brahmin enters the battlefield to bring about peace between the contesting parties both should stop fighting. And no injury should be inflicted on such a Brahman.
11. He is a wretch who retreats stricken with fear from the field of battle.
12. One should never lament over a hero killed in the battle for he becomes the Lord of thousands of nymphs.
13. Aged men, women, children, the retreating, or one who holds a straw and his lips as a sign of unconditional surrender should not be killed.
14. The panic-stricken and scattered foe should not be pursued hotly.
15. No one should kill the sleepy or the thirsty or the fatigued or whose Armour had slipped, a peaceful citizen walking along the road, one engaged in eating or drinking, the mad and the insane, one who went out of the camp to buy provisions, a camp-follower, menials and the guards at the gates.
16. In case of an insufficient supply of numbers in a particular division or divisions of the army, substitutes may be used. An elephant may be opposed by five forces of 15 men and four horses; one Horsemen may be opposed by 3 footmen and three horsemen by one elephant rider.
17. It is forbidden to kill a Brahman by caste or by profession or one who declared himself a Brahmin, or a cow or an outcaste.
18. He should not be killed who gets up on an eminence or a tree, who is a eunuch or a war musician. The Silappadikaram refers to warriors escaping from the field of battle in disguise as ascetics, Brahmins, musicians and last but not least, hermaphrodites. Most of them were allowed to run away though some were captured and sent to far off lands. When these captives were presented before the Pandya or Chola monarchs, the latter spoke disparagingly of Senguttuvan as having transgressed the limits of fair fighting.
19. It is further prohibited to fight those who do not offer to fight who hide in fear or who go to the field as spectators; the great war at Kurukshetra affords ample proof that spectators were admitted into the battlefield during the scene of action and they were not injured or otherwise harmed.
20. Another feature of the Dharmayuddha was to leave the fruit and flower gardens, temples and other places of public worship unmolested. Megasthanes mentions that among other nations it is common in the context of war to ravage the soil and then reduce it to an uncultivated waste. However, among the Indians on the contrary by whom husbandmen are regarded as a class that is sacred and inviolable tillers of the soil even when the battle is raging in the neighbourhood are understood by any sense of danger from the combatants and either side invasion the conflict make carnage of each other but allow those engaged in husbandry to remain unmolested.
21. Prisoners of war were generally to be accorded generous treatment. In the age of Brahmanas, the fettered prisoner was sent out of the kingdom and was permitted to remain on the outskirts. Occasionally the captive agreed to become a slave of the captor for a period of one year after which he became a free man. If maidens were among the prisoners of war they were courteously treated and were induced to marry persons in the conqueror’s choice. If they declined the offer, they were sent back to their homes under proper escort.
22. A wounded opponent should either be sent to his own home or if taken to the victor’s photos you should have his wounds attended to by skilled surgeons. women were appointed to nurse the wounded. physicians with surgical instruments, machines, remedial oils and bandage clothes in their hands were available at their disposal for treatment.

These laws and their translations have been sourced from renowned Indian historian Dr V.R. Ramchandra Dikshitar’s opus on War in Ancient India.

According to a 3rd-century play named Mudraraksasa (The Signet of the Minister), which narrates the ascent of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya to the Magadhan throne, Kautilya(Chanakya) set the prisoners free who were captured in the war by Chandragupta.

In the 2nd century, the northern kings Kanaka and Vijaya who were taken captives in the Ganges expedition were liberated by King Senguttuvan of the Chera dynasty and sent back to their capitals.

There are numerous references of the vanquished monarchs being reinstated on the throne but if the enemy king had met with his demise in battle, his son or nearest relative was installed on the throne on certain terms of the alliance. The defeated monarchs were free to retain their own laws and customs for it was well realised that any violation of these would result in a mass rebellion which would be unthinkable to challenge.

There are many references to such laws etched on inscriptions. The Allahabad pillar inscription of Emperor Samudragupta of the Gupta Empire, states that the Dakshinapath (Deccan) rulers captured during his wars were set free and the Atavika kings (tribal kings) were enrolled to the service of the conqueror. On the other hand, some chieftains voiced their inclination towards accepting the emperor’s authority by agreeing to indemnify tribute. It is thus seen that as far as possible the internal system of administration and the various social institutions of the subjugated lands were left undisturbed. The conqueror, traditionally, was content with the acknowledgement of his ascendency and did not fret himself as long as his sovereignty was not tested.

The great Sangam poet Nakkirar describes how King Nedunjeliyan II of the Pandyan dynasty behaved towards the wounded soldiers in his camp. At midnight despite the inclement weather and drenching rain, the king left his camp with his attendants holding lighted torches and visited his soldiers making sympathetic enquiries of them.

It is important to note that it was in tradition and customary to battle during the day and cease fighting during the night. This practice is also mentioned in the epic of Mahabharat and the practice of all righteous wars. According to the renowned military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz, when the Army retired for rest all feelings of asperity and animosity were to be draped and both the opposing parties were to conduct much like allies.

The philosophy of ethics in warfare in ancient India was quite pious and governed by religion. War was not a tool for inflicting dominance or an instrument of imperialism but the last resort in early Indian antiquity. As we move forward in time during the age of Haryanka and Mauryan dynasties, imperialistic ambitions blossomed but the essence of ethics remained. By the medieval period, all the rules and principles of warfare faded away as Kuttayudha or the unrighteous wars become a common attitude to wage wars.