Krishna Chandra Chalisey

Former Head of Communications and IHL ICRC Kathmandu, Life Member, Nepal Council of World Affairs

Introduction

Nitishastra encompasses a comprehensive ancient Hindu discipline that spans governance, ethics, social welfare, behavior, and royal duties. It is often equated with Niti (polity and governance) and Nitisar (the essence of polity) and represents the science of governing a state. This concept is closely intertwined with Arthashastra (economics and governance) and Dharmashastra (religious law), forming an integral part of Dharma (righteousness) and Darshan (philosophy). Moreover, Nitishastra delves into philosophical realms, particularly concerning moral principles. The origins of ethical values can be traced to religious and philosophical beliefs, with diverse traditions emphasizing the importance of virtuous behavior for content and meaningful life. Nitishastra (Oppert, Wisdom Library, 1882) serves as a valuable guide encompassing moral, social, economic, and political dimensions, offering practical advice for societal well-being, especially benefiting rulers and ministers. Equipped with the wisdom of Niti, they can effectively navigate challenges and achieve prominence on a global scale. Within Nitishastra, the four pursuits of human life known as Purushartha — dharma (righteousness), artha (wealth), kama (pleasure), and moksha (liberation) — are explored.

Many revered Rishis and Acharyas (spiritual Gurus and scholars) renowned for their deep knowledge and philosophical insights have authored numerous Nitishastras. While these treatises share commonalities in addressing ethics, morality, governance, policy, law, statecraft, diplomacy, and military conduct, each Niti text may emphasize different aspects based on its intended audience and purpose. While some Niti texts cater to the broader populace, others specifically target governmental authorities or both groups simultaneously. Among these Niti texts, certain ones are notable for their discussions on the rules of war, also known as the law of armed conflict. They are as follows.

  1. Arthashastra of Kautilya, by Chanakya
  2. Kamandakiya Nitisar (the elements of polity), by Kamandaka
  3. Shukra Niti, by Shukracharya
  4. Nitiprakashika, by Vaishampayana
  5. Manusmriti (the code of Manu), by Manu

Unlike other Niti texts such as Chanakya Niti and Vidur Niti, which do not delve into the realm of warfare and its regulations, they offer practical guidance on familial obligations, social duties, ethics, and moral philosophy. Chanakya Niti, in particular, is revered for its timeless wisdom distilled from generations of human experience, providing reflections on everyday life challenges and solutions applicable to individuals ranging from leaders to ordinary citizens (Gautam, 2024). These texts are characterized by succinct and profound statements. Its aphorisms, which remain relevant and frequently cited, offer insights into various aspects of life including familial and social dynamics, relationships with friends and foes, the pursuit of wealth and knowledge, and the inevitability of mortality. They also guide distinguishing between right and wrong, appropriate behavior, and managing challenging circumstances (Haskar, 2020).

Hindu Nitishastra includes Panchatantra and Hitopadesha, both collections of fables presented in Sanskrit verse and prose. These works are characterized by their simplicity and accessibility, making them understandable even to those with limited knowledge. While Hinduism’s discussions on warfare typically center around the epic narratives of Ramayana and Mahabharata, classified under the Itihas category of Hindu scriptures, this article does not concentrate on these epics. Instead, it focuses on Niti texts specifically addressing the rules of war. It’s important to acknowledge that the aforementioned Niti texts provide insights into the art and science of warfare.

In modern times, nation-states have established the rules of war by ratifying international conventions and treaties. Among these treaties, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 hold significant importance. Presently, international humanitarian law (IHL) is the prevalent term used to denote the regulations governing warfare. IHL consists of a collection of regulations designed to minimize the humanitarian consequences of armed conflicts. Its primary objective is to limit the tactics and weapons employed by conflicting parties and to guarantee the safeguarding and humanitarian treatment of individuals who are not actively involved in or have ceased direct involvement in hostilities. Fundamentally, IHL encompasses the global legal principles establishing the minimum standards of humanity to be upheld in any circumstance of armed conflict (Nils Melzer, 2016).

The formal codification of modern IHL began with the adoption of the initial Geneva Convention in 1864. However, historical evidence suggests that the development of rules governing warfare dates back to prehistoric and ancient periods. The Niti texts mentioned earlier, ranging from the 4th century BCE to the 7th century CE, serve as evidence of this historical evolution. Throughout history, rules of war have accompanied every conflict, consistently aiming to alleviate the cruelty and inhumanity of warfare. Unfortunately, there have been instances of severe violations of these rules, both in the past and present, underscoring the urgent need for collective efforts to promote respect for and compliance with the rules of war.

Niti Texts and the Rules of War

Manusmriti (the code of Manu or the law of Manu)

Manusmriti, an ancient text of great antiquity, has served as the foundation for Hindu legal principles and societal traditions for hundreds of years. It is also known as Manava Dharmashastra. The sacred laws of the Hindus represent the insights and instructions of revered sages who were inspired by the principles and customs delineated in the Vedic texts. The book has been attributed to the legendary first man and lawgiver, Manu. According to the Hindu Vedic tradition, Manu is considered the first spiritual son of Brahma and a progenitor of the human race. Manusmriti is an essential law book of the Hindus (Hind Utsav, 2023). This poetic composition, composed in Sanskrit, is believed to have originated between the 2nd century BCE and the 3rd century CE. It purports to be a dialogue delivered by Manu and Bhrigu concerning various aspects of Dharma, encompassing obligations, entitlements, regulations, behavior, and moral principles. A significant portion of his legal teachings has become outdated, as they primarily address the obligations of different castes (Varna), customs, and social circumstances that are no longer relevant or applicable in contemporary times, rendering them obsolete. However, some of the ancient teachings are still useful to the current world. Manusmriti, primarily a law book, has Niti elements as well. The British colonial administration utilized this ancient legal manuscript to construct Hindu law. Manusmriti was among the initial Sanskrit works to undergo translation into English by the British in 1776.

Chapter 7 of the Manusmriti delves into the responsibilities of a monarch, outlining the essential virtues he should embody and the vices he should shun. Additionally, it emphasizes the preference for resolving conflicts through negotiations and reconciliations to minimize warfare. In situations where war becomes unavoidable, soldiers are instructed not to harm civilians, non-combatants, or individuals who have surrendered. The text also underscores the importance of proportionate use of force (Buhler, 2024).

Manusmriti (16.4.2.2) covers the conduct of war, war strategy, and all aspects of military management. It also covers the law of war binding on the army. Those rules are as follows (Acharya P. S., 2009).

  1. A king, even if faced with opponents of equal, greater, or lesser strength, should not hesitate to engage in battle while protecting his people, recognizing the obligation of Kshatriyas (warriors).
  2. The best way for a king to ensure happiness is by refraining from retreat in battle, safeguarding the populace, and respecting the Brahmanas.
  3. Those kings who, seeking to slay each other in battle, fight with the utmost exertion and do not turn back, go to heaven.
  4. When a soldier fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blazing with fire.
  5. He should refrain from striking those who have sought refuge on a high place in flight, a eunuch, someone who supplicates with joined palms, one who flees with disheveled hair, one who sits down, or one who declares allegiance saying, “I am yours”.
  6. A soldier must never attack an individual who is asleep, lacks armor, is naked, disarmed, merely observing the fight, or engaged in combat with another foe.
  7. A soldier should refrain from attacking those whose weapons are shattered, those in sorrow, severely wounded individuals, those in fear, or those who have fled. In all these situations, he should recall the obligations of honorable warriors.

Arthashastra of Kautilya

The Arthashastra is a classic Sanskrit document from ancient India that delves into the realms of statecraft, political science, economic policy, and military strategy. Kautilya, also known as Vishnugupta or Chanakya, is acknowledged as the author of this text. Hailing from Takshashila, he served as a scholar, mentor, and protector of Emperor Chandragupta Maurya. Kautilya played a pivotal role in toppling the Nanda dynasty, paving the way for Chandragupta Maurya to ascend to the throne of Magadha in 319 BCE. The Arthashastra is most likely completed in the available form between the 2nd century BCE and 3rd century CE. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is an encyclopedic tome dealing with finer aspects of statecraft in its many dimensions. It is obviously meant for the top policymakers (Gautam, 2024).

It is believed that Kautilya authored the Arthashastra as a practical guide for Chandragupta, providing instructions on effective rulership and advocating for proactive measures in addressing political issues, regardless of ethical considerations. The title of the text originates from the Sanskrit terms Artha, meaning “aim,” and Shastra, signifying “treatise.” Arthashastra, known as the science of politics, offers a comprehensive insight into statecraft, providing monarchs with the knowledge needed to govern effectively. Artha is understood in Hinduism as one of the fundamental aims of human beings in pursuing wealth and social status (World History, 2024).

The tenth book of the Arthashastra delves into the science of warfare and military strategy, outlining the art and proficiency of combat. It comprises six chapters covering various facets of war, detailed as follows (Ramasastry, 2024).

Chapter 1 – encampment, chapter 2 – march of the camp and protection of the army in times of distress and attack, chapter 3 – forms of treacherous fights, encouragement to one’s own army and fight between one’s own and enemy’s armies, chapter 4 – battlefields; the work of infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants, chapter 5 – the distinctive array of troops in respect of wings, flanks, and front; the distinction between strong and weak troops; and battle with infantry, cavalry, chariots, and elephants, chapter 6 – the array of the army like a staff, a snake, a circle, or in detached order; the array of the army against that of an enemy.

Among the six chapters, chapter 3 of Book X discusses various deceitful strategies in warfare. It suggests that a leader with a formidable army, successful in intrigue and adequately prepared against threats, may engage in open combat if in a favorable position. Otherwise, resorting to treacherous tactics is advisable. The leader should seize opportunities to strike when the enemy’s army faces turmoil or intense assault. Alternatively, one can exploit a favorable position by attacking an enemy entangled in an unfavorable one.

Kautilya advocates for engaging in open and honorable combat when a state possesses strength, and the circumstances are advantageous. In the event of unfavorable conditions, he recommends resorting to treacherous tactics. While there isn’t an absolute prohibition on the use of deceitful methods, it’s deemed preferable to avoid them whenever possible. The decision to opt for either open or treacherous combat depends on the circumstances faced by the weaker state. While treacherous combat isn’t inherently deemed unethical, the preference leans towards open warfare. Nevertheless, within Hindu Sanatan Dharma, treacherous combat is generally considered to contradict the rules law of war.

While the Arthashastra encompasses various facets of governance and statecraft, including military strategy, it lacks explicit and definitive rules of war. Shaped by its historical and cultural context, the Arthashastra’s approach to warfare reflects the practical and often ruthless nature of ancient Indian statecraft. The text does not provide a comprehensive set of ethical guidelines specifically for warfare. Although Book X of the Arthashastra, dedicated to war, is quite detailed, it does not delve into the laws of war. Instead, it discusses a treacherous fight, generally considered unrighteous, and an open or fair fight, considered righteous.”

Chapter 3 continues with guidance on open and fair combat. A righteous king should gather his army, designate the battlefield and time for battle, and address them in this manner: “I am a paid servant just like you all; we share this land for our enjoyment; together, we must strike the enemy I have identified.”

Kamandakiya Nitisar (the elements of polity)

The Kamandakiya Nitisara, an ancient treatise on politics and statecraft, is credited to Kamandaka, a disciple of Chanakya. He was a sage and a military strategist. The Kamandakiya Nitisara (Nitisara of Kamandak) is considered an abbreviated version of Arthashastra. Traditionally believed to have originated in the 4th-3rd century BCE, modern scholarship offers diverse dates ranging from the 3rd to the 7th centuries CE. It is a revised version drawing from the Shukra Niti of the 4th century BCE and is dedicated to Chandragupta, the ruler of Magadh, India. The Nitisara, consisting of 19 sections, encompasses a wide array of social aspects. These include theories regarding social hierarchy, the structure of the state, the responsibilities of rulers, the organization of government, principles and policies of governance, inter-state relations, ethical considerations concerning envoys and spies, the implementation of political strategies, various military tactics, moral viewpoints, and more.

Nitisara diverges from Arthashastra in that it emphasizes the valor and military attributes of the ruler, while the latter relies more on the execution of royal responsibilities (Gautam, 2024). Kamandakiya Nitisar was translated from Sanskrit into English by M. N. Dutt, Rector, Keshub Academy, Calcutta in 1896.

This text primarily focuses on the principles of statecraft, military strategy, and governance. It contains guidelines for rulers and kings on how to conduct themselves in matters of state, diplomacy, and warfare (Dutt, 1896). In Section XVIII of the Kamandakiya Nitisar, topics such as warfare methods, generals’ movements, and surprise strategies are discussed. Unlike other Niti texts like Nitiprakashika, Manusmriti, and Shukra Niti, it doesn’t explicitly delineate the rules of war. However, points 53 to 69 of section XVIII touch upon these rules. The section introduces the concept of “unfair war” and justifies it by citing instances of foes being slain through deceitful means, considering such actions not contradictory to righteousness. For instance, Ashwathama, Drona’s son, killed five sons of Draupadi while they slept at night. However, in other publications and critiques, such incidents are regarded as grave violations of the law of war, now recognized as international humanitarian law.

The relevant points on the rules of war from the Nitisar section XVIII (The various modes of warfare, the movements of the generals, and surprise) are as follows:

  1. When all these calamities overtake his army, a king should protect it; but when the hostile troops are overtaken by them, he should fall upon them and annihilate them.

Comment: Annihilating the enemy can be viewed as a severe transgression. The fundamental tenet of contemporary law of war is that the application of force ought to be restricted to the minimum necessary to neutralize the opposing party.

  1. Having affected an alienation between the foe and his Prakritis (allies) and with the advantages of the season and the soil in his favor, a king should fight a pitched battle; otherwise, he should fight in underhand ways.

Comment: A king aims for a fair fight if the situation – the season and the soil – is in his favor. If the circumstances do not allow it, it is fine to underhand ways.

  1. He may also place the greater part of the army in the enemy’s back (where consequently his attention will be drawn), slay this latter from the front, falling upon him with the best part of his troops. In this way, the flanks also may be assailed in unfair warfare.

Comment: It is a justification for unfair or unjust attack.

  1. The troops that could not sleep through fear of being attacked in the night and that have been worn out through the toils of night-keeping should be assaulted and annihilated on the day following.

Comment: The acute necessity of annihilation is questionable here.

  1. Thus, a king should always slay his foes by unfair war. The slaughter of foes by deceitful measures is not detrimental to one’s righteousness. The son of Drona with his sharp weapon slew the troops of the Pandavas when they were unsuspectingly locked in the arms of sleep at night.

Comment: This standard becomes a matter of discussion when considered within the framework of other Niti books. Unjust warfare and deceptive tactics are condoned in this context. The incident involving Ashwatthama, in which he murders the five sons of Draupadi while they are sleeping at night, goes against the established norms that were mutually agreed upon between the Kauravas and Pandavas in the Mahabharata.

Chapter X, titled “The Dissertation on War,” focuses on the discourse surrounding warfare, discussing different strategies based on varying circumstances but excluding the conversation about the rules of war.

These observations indicate that the Kamandakiya Nitisar displays minimal regard for concepts such as war ethics, righteous war (dharmayuddha), fair war, just war, and righteousness. Instead, it appears more focused on attaining victory in warfare irrespective of the methods utilized.

Shukra Niti (the Niti of Shukra)

The Shukra Niti is thought to have originated in the 16th century CE, but its mention in the Mahabharata suggests an earlier composition, likely before the Mahabharata period, which spans from the 3rd century BCE to the 3rd century CE. Serving as a comprehensive guide for maintaining social order, Shukra Niti addresses both political and non-political facets. The political section provides instructions for rulers, ministers, the legal system, and international relations. Conversely, the non-political section encompasses ethics, economics, architecture, and other social and religious laws. This intricate codification spans five chapters. Shukra Niti offers valuable insights into politics and military science, particularly in Section VII of Chapter IV, which extensively covers the topic of the army. Authored by Shukra or Shukracharya, one of the seven sages and the preceptor of demons (asuras), the translation is based on the text edited by Dr. Gustav Oppert for the Madras Government in 1882 (Oppert, Sukraniti, 1882).

The army-related portion, denoted as the seventh of chapter 4, encompasses hundreds of Niti statements. The pertinent aspects of the rules of war in these points are outlined below, with additional explanatory notes to enhance comprehension.

Shukracharya: The monarch should maintain vigilance and never fully trust the enemy, even after making peace. An example of this caution is illustrated in ancient tales when Indra slew Vritra during a period of truce.

The explanatory note:  Shukracharya does not place trust in the promises of treaties. Instead, he counsels rulers to adhere to the principle that ceasefires should be honored only as long as they serve their interests or are advantageous. He cites examples from Puranic history where even the most revered figures did not hesitate to break solemn commitments to further their own goals.

Shukracharya: The appropriate demise for a Kshatriya occurs on the battlefield amidst open conflict, and the passing of a Kshatriya in bed is considered sinful. Even the Brahmin who defends oneself when under attack earns praise in society, as the valor of a Kshatriya also stems from Brahma. Additionally, kings who courageously engage in battle and defeat each other are guaranteed entry into heaven.

The explanatory note: This principle attributed to Shukracharya seems reminiscent of the moral codes observed in Spartan and Bushido traditions. The principles of militarism or Kshatriyaism remain consistent across different regions and cultures. Society and family units typically have no room for deserters or those who fail in their duties as warriors.

Shukracharya: One wouldn’t be guilty of the sin of killing an unborn child (i.e., a fetus) if they defend themselves against an infant who threatens them with a weapon. However, committing such an act under different circumstances would indeed constitute an offense.

The explanatory note: These lines discuss the concept akin to “Enemy Character” in modern international law, where any and all adversaries are deemed targets for elimination, regardless of their status, including Brahman individuals and infants. While traditional Hindu Shastra mandates severe purifications for killing a Brahman or an embryo, Shukracharya’s military morality disregards these rules during wartime. Such individuals are considered no different from regular foes the moment they adopt hostile roles. This notion parallels the situations in modern international humanitarian law where civilians forfeit their protected status upon engaging directly in hostilities.

Once again, Shukracharya demonstrates his stance not on absolute morality, but on prescribing duties that may seem conflicting or contradictory, yet are necessitated by human life and societal needs. His principle prioritizes truth over consistency, with the ultimate truth being the advancement of societal benefits. Given the ever-changing interests of humanity and the perpetual complexities disrupting social order, Shukracharya doesn’t hesitate to advocate inconsistent duties, which may starkly differ from those used earlier. Thus, even the Brahman, typically expected to refrain from military engagement, is obliged to accept it as a religious and moral imperative under dire circumstances. A society guided by such pragmatic principles is compelled to evolve and progress with the times, not only adapting to the diverse demands of different eras but also leveraging the environment and global forces to further its growth and development objectives.

Shukracharya: In times of war, the adversary must be defeated regardless of whether the conflict adheres to moral codes. The horseman should be targeted with a kunta (spear) sword, the charioteer and elephant rider with arrows, elephants against elephants, horses against horses, chariots against chariots, infantry against infantry, ensuring a matched combat where each opponent faces their equivalent weapon or missile.

Those who adhere to the principles of righteousness should refrain from harming individuals under specific circumstances. These include a person who is incapacitated on the ground, physically impaired, displaying gestures of submission, sitting disheveled, expressing submission verbally, asleep, nude or unarmed, observing others in combat, consuming water, or food, occupied with tasks, terrified, or retreating.

The explanatory note: Shukracharya’s military moral codes outline individuals who should not be targeted for harm. Various indicators of weakness or submission are detailed, including disheveled hair, which symbolizes defeat and inadequacy. This suggests that during that era, cutting off hair was not a customary practice. Here Shukracharya demonstrates humanistic gesture.

Shukracharya: The elderly, the infants, women, and even kings, when they are alone, are not to be targeted for killing. However, adhering to prescribed methods does not deviate from the moral path when killing another. These principles, though, pertain solely to warfare conducted in alignment with moral standards and not otherwise. No form of warfare eradicates a formidable foe as effectively as kutayuddha (deceitful war), which is warfare conducted in defiance of moral principles.

Explanatory note: Shukracharya’s aforementioned statements affirm the necessity of sparing certain groups of individuals who are not directly engaged in combat. These rules are regarded as fundamental norms in the rules of war. Additionally, we encounter contradictions with his other assertions within these statements.

Shukracharya: In ancient times, the strategy of deceitful warfare was esteemed by Rama, Krishna, Indra, and other deities. It was through kuta (deceit) that Vali, Yavana, and Namuchi were killed.

The explanatory note: These are various strategies through which deceit, or “kuta,” can be employed to overpower the enemy without their awareness. Shukracharya advises against adhering strictly to conventional moral and religious principles in military matters. He advocates for expediency and diplomacy, emphasizing the importance of adapting to changing circumstances.

In the pursuit of defeating the enemy, one cannot rely solely on a single method but must employ diverse tactics based on shifts in the enemy’s behavior or the political environment. Shukracharya cautions against placing trust in the treaties or promises of adversaries and encourages rulers to be prepared to assert dominance.

For a ruler, achieving desired objectives takes precedence over traditional notions of morality and truth. According to Shukra Niti, actions characterized as irreligious, immoral, inconsistent, or deceptive, which are traits of “kutayuddha,” should not dissuade the ruler from adopting a step that leads to the desired outcome.

Shukracharya: Shukracharya integrated the knowledge admired by sages such as Manu into Nitisara, comprising twenty-two thousand verses.

The explanatory note: Shukra adheres to the traditions established by Manu, with no reference to Kautilya or Chanakya. It’s noteworthy that Shukra Niti bears a striking resemblance to Manusmriti in both sentiment and language, whereas the renowned Hindu socio-political and socio-economic treatise, Arthashastra, appears to have minimal influence on Shukra Niti. Shukra Niti is considered the authentic Nitishastra or genuine science of morals, while others are regarded as pseudoscientific.

Chapter 4, Section 7 of Shukra Niti concludes with the assertion that there does not exist political doctrine across the three realms that compares to the wisdom of Shukra. Shukra’s poetic work stands as the definitive guide for statesmen; all other political codes are deemed insignificant in comparison. Rulers who neglect this doctrine are deemed unfortunate and destined for suffering or ruin.

According to Shukracharya, while one may live without grammar, logic, and Vedanta, the absence of Niti is intolerable. He regards Niti as an indispensable element necessary for upholding social order within society.

Nitiprakashika (expounder of polity)

Sage Vaishampayana, who served as the narrator of the Mahabharata, was the elucidator of Nitiprakashika, an ancient treatise focusing on the science of war. Nitiprakashika primarily delves into Dhanurveda, encompassing the knowledge of war, weaponry, and military strategies. Additionally, it provides insights into Nitishastra, addressing the practice of politics, governance, and state administration. However, the majority of verses in Nitiprakashika are dedicated to the categorization and depiction of diverse weapon types, organized into four distinct classifications: Mukta (released), Amukta (not released), Muktamukta (released and/or not-released), and Mantramukta (released with specific mantras). The treatise also outlines the fundamental rules of war. Vaishampayana acquired the wisdom conveyed in Nitiprakashika from his Guru Veda Vyasa, making it a comprehensive work on the science of polity (Oppert, Wisdom Library, 1882).

The Nitiprakashika is composed of 546 verses, divided into eight sections. The initial section commences with Vaishampayana’s journey to Takshashila, where he meets Emperor Janamejaya, the descendant of Parikshit, the grandson of Abhimanyu, and the great-grandson of Arjuna. After customary pleasantries, the sage and emperor engage in a conversation about political and military matters, unveiling the complexities of the science of war. References and passages related to war are abundant in Vedic literature. It is believed that this text originated over 3000 years ago, either after or during the Mahabharata war, which is mentioned in the text. However, in the introduction to the initial edition of the text, Dr. Gustav Oppert identifies Vaishampayana as belonging to the era directly following the Mahabharata. Dr. Oppert of Madras Presidency College edited and published the Nitiprakashika for the first time in 1882 (Oppert, Wisdom library, 1882).

Following the principles outlined in prominent Dharmashastra texts and Itihas like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the Nitiprakashika outlines ethical codes to be adhered to by the brave warriors’ armies on both sides. Among the lesser-known Niti texts, the Nitiprakashika stands as a genuine and comprehensive discourse on the science of war (Oppert, Wisdom Library, 1882).

Nitiprakashika declares those who fight without running away from the enemy attain heaven (VII. 44). It dictates the various ethical war codes that are to be strictly followed in a Dharmayuddha (Oppert, Wisdom Library, 1882) as follows:

  1. None should attack an enemy with concealed weapons (VII. 45).
  2. 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 (VII. 46).
  3. 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 (VII. 47).
  4. 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 (VII. 48).
  5. 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 (VII. 49).
  6. Under the section war crime and punishments, the text states that despite the seriousness of the offense, a messenger or envoy cannot be punished with a death sentence (VII. 63cd). This tradition has been observed during the wars depicted in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.

The Ramayana reveals that generally, the kings were against warfare. For instance, Rama rejected the idea of performing the Rajasuya sacrifice because it meant the destruction of many lives. He preferred the Ashwamedha which establishes sovereignty through subjugation and acceptance of authority without bloodshed (VII. 74-81).

The Mahabharata (XII. 97. 2) expresses the perspective that a king should engage in warfare solely for the establishment of a righteous kingdom, and avoidance of unnecessary conflict is advised in Dharmayuddha, a just war guided by ethical principles, is consistently praised in Hindu literatures. Warriors who uphold a code of conduct are greatly revered. In ancient times, waging war without consideration for moral standards was believed to reduce warfare to mere animal ferocity. Therefore, Hindu kings consistently favored Dharmayuddha, a just and righteous war sanctioned by society (Oppert, Wisdom Library, 1882).

Conclusion                                                                         

This article examines five Hindu Niti texts – Manusmriti, Arthashastra of Kautilya, Kamandakiya Nitisara, Shukra Niti, and Nitiprakashika to explore the extent and character of war regulations. The texts adequately cover military strategies, statecraft, and diplomacy across the board. However, the regulations concerning warfare are somewhat limited and differ among the texts, albeit sharing certain similarities. Manusmriti and Nitiprakashika stand out among the five texts for their clear and explicit guidelines regarding the conduct of war, advocating for righteous warfare if a state must engage with another. Both Niti texts outline nearly identical guidelines for warfare.

The Arthashastra of Kautilya lacks precise guidelines regarding the rules of warfare, although Kautilya favors a transparent and just confrontation. However, he permits deceitful tactics in unfavorable circumstances. Clear and obligatory regulations ensuring a righteous war are absent in the Arthashastra. On the other hand, Kamandakiya Nitisara addresses some fundamental aspects of war ethics. It introduces the concept of an “unfair war” and rationalizes it as not conflicting with one’s moral integrity, citing the example of Ashwatthama’s killing of Draupadi’s five sons. It advises engaging in a pitched battle if conditions permit, otherwise advocating for the monarch to resort to covert methods. Kamandakiya Nitisara shows less concern for war ethics compared to its emphasis on the ruler’s valor and military prowess. The contrast between Kamandakiya Nitisara and Arthashastra lies in their focal points: while Nitisara emphasizes the ruler’s courage and military attributes, Arthashastra concentrates on the fulfillment of the monarch’s duties.

Shukra Niti displays specificity and a broader scope in addressing the ethics of warfare. It prohibits the killing of certain protected groups of individuals. However, it also emphasizes the necessity of Kutayuddha (unrighteous warfare) to secure victory in conflicts. It asserts that in warfare, enemies must be eliminated regardless of whether the engagement adheres to moral principles or not. Circumstances may warrant the use of deceptive tactics or “kuta.” Shukra Niti demonstrates a limited concern for adhering strictly to the rules of warfare. It integrates the wisdom appreciated by the sage Manu into its principles. Shukra Niti is claimed as authentic Nitishastra while others are regarded as pseudoscience.

This article underscores the regulations of warfare delineated in the previously mentioned five Hindu Niti texts. A thorough analysis of these regulations could prove beneficial for further investigation. Following this, examining how these regulations correlate with contemporary international humanitarian law could also be a valuable pursuit. There is potential to supplement modern IHL with the rules of war outlined in the Hindu Nitishastra. Ultimately, this could contribute to a deeper and more nuanced understanding of IHL both in its theoretical framework and practical application.

References

(n.d.).

Acharya, P. S. (2009). Srimatham. Retrieved from Srimatham: https://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/manu_for_modern_times.pdf

Acharya, P. S. (2009). The Laws of Manu for the 21st Century. Sydney: Acharya, Pt. Sri Rama Ramanuj .

Buhler, G. (2024). Sacred Texts. Retrieved from Sacred Texts: https://sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm

Dutt, M. N. (1896). Internet archive. Retrieved from Internet archive: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.217516/page/n3/mode/2up

Gautam, P. (2024). IDSA. Journal of Defence Studies, 17(1), 137 – 146. Retrieved from IDSA.

Haskar, A. (2020). Chanakya Niti. Guragaon: Penguin Books.

Hind Utsav. (2023, 11 2). Hind Utsav. Retrieved from Hind Utsav: https://www.hindutsav.com/manusmriti/

Nils Melzer. (2016). International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction. Geneva: ICRC. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/4231-international-humanitarian-law-comprehensive-introduction

Oppert, D. G. (1882). Sukraniti. Retrieved from Sukraniti: https://archive.org/details/Sukra_Niti

Oppert, D. G. (1882). Wisdom library. Retrieved from Wisdom library: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/nitiprakasika-critical-analysis/d/doc1147764.html

Oppert, D. G. (1882). Wisdom Library. Retrieved from Wisdom Library: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nitishastra

Oppert, D. G. (1882). Wisdom Library. Retrieved from Wisdom Library: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/nitiprakasika-critical-analysis/d/doc1147848.html

Oppert, D. G. (1882). Wisdom Library. Retrieved from Wisdom Library: https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/essay/nitiprakasika-critical-analysis/d/doc1147848.html

Ramasastry, R. (2024). Internet archive. Retrieved from Internet archive: https://archive.org/details/Arthasastra_English_Translation

Shanhaz, D. R. (2021). Kautilya’s Arthashastra: Art of Governance and Policy Making. Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, 8-12. Retrieved from www.questjournals.org

Wisdom Library. (2023, 12 8). Wisdom Library. Retrieved from Wisdom Library: https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/nitiprakashika

World History. (2024). World History. Retrieved from World History: https://www.worldhistory.org/Arthashastra/