• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Arth Of War
#1
With apologies to Sun Tzu for twisting the name of his ageless work on statecraft, I wish to start a topic thats familiar territor for most IFites and BRites. In I-F we have touched upon some aspects of this through our Ithihasa-Purana, Indian History and Pre Modern Warfare threads but we must look deeper into the texts to reveal the very subtle and hidden wisdom of our ancient thought.
By the very title Arth (Meaning) of War, I wish to find out if we have a well thought out and comprehensive approach to War.....War and the whole baggage of war.
Things like why war, how and when to start a war, what justifies the war, whats the moral foundation of the conflict, how to *continue* the war till some sort of "decision" is reached......and the obvious post mortem of the conflict. A very good (maybe the only) Indian pointer to the whole process of conlict is the Mahabharata.

The question will become more clear after the reader carefully studies some insights from a BRF thread...I shall freely quote them in order in the following posts so as to create some sort of a synopsis on the idea. I will post the relevant stuff here with permission.......

Thanks.
  Reply
#2
Here's the post that started it all.....Page 4, abovesaid thread in BRF

Sunil said
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Doctrinaire approaches to War on the grand scale are rare in India. The emphasis in India is usually on flexibility to the extent possible.

There are doctrinal aspects to the instruments of military craft - but these are not mentioned in open discussions of obvious reasons. This should explain the abundance of questions such as "So what is the Special Force Doctrine in India?" or "What exactly is India's nuclear doctrine?" or "How does India's doctrine dictate the use of tanks?"... etc...

It may be important to consider the context of Tanham's essays. Tanham may have been referring to a specific debate that existed between the political elite and the military elite in India on the exact role and purpose of military force in the context of statecraft. India (in the time that Tanham wrote his paper) was in a lot of trouble. The military was involved in COIN operations in Kashmir, Punjab and the NE. The source of these insurgencies was Pakistan. The military was pushing for a strike on Pakistan to enable a more ergonomic management of the terrorist groups. The politicians for their part could not come up with sufficiently predictable model for the costs of attacking Pakistan. This led to some difficult situations. Things were particularly difficult in the context of Sri Lanka, where the military was concerned about the adverse situation vis-a-vis the LTTE and the politicians could not pull together the support needed to give the Army a free hand in the affected areas.

An additional note on the Vedas (again mentioned in passing ONLY - not intended to start a discussion on the Vedas or related topics.). The Vedas are a very complicated and intricate system of information. Even in the theistic sphere there is considerable interpretation required to penetrate the Vedas. Most knowledge derived from the Vedas currently is based more on the various Vedic sutras, and commentaries (bhasya on the sutra) on the sutra. Most commentaries are actually more realistically points to initiate further debate. The process of commentary usually involves part speculation and part intuition. Both of these are shaped by the prevailing intellectual climate of the time. So to construct a "Vedic Theory of War" from scratch is a bit difficult even for the most experienced Vedic expert. It may be easier to construct a theory of War from the Arthashastra (i.e. Earthashatter... Smile ) but even that is difficult.

That having been said, what purpose would such an effort serve in the current (or our simulated) political climate? How would this be useful to the DCH? I mean even after the "Theory of War" is created, it would still require that the DCH CCS evolve it to fit the situation before them?...

I am not saying this to scotch the debate on this issue. I know full well that everyone likes to have a clear idea of why they are going to war. Today people (as for eons before) fondly wish that there was a Yudh Sutra , that summarized Vedic thinking on War, its causes and the moral purposes behind the use of force. However no such Yudh Sutra is known to exist. How does the DCH shape its thinking to war under such conditions?

I think you have asked a very interesting question. Could the proposed participants and others please weigh in on this issue?

Under what conditions today - would the declaration of War be considered acceptable? How should the conduct of war be effected?

It may be recalled that the Mahabharat speaks volumes on this issue, on the nature of a "Just War" and what happens when the war departs from this paradigm.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#3
And on Page 5

Sunil said
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In my pessimistic view, there will never be total "war" or total "peace", throughout human history, there have largely been conditions of "not war" and "not peace". Conflicts have simmered under the surface, and wherever possible they have boiled up into massive events that disrupted social order.

To its proponents, every "peace" has been an "unjust peace", and every "war" has been a "Just War". Actually (again in passing only), the Mahabharat presents a vivid case of an unjust peace that puts the political elite of its time into considerable confusion and eventually gives way to a "Just War". Per the story the perpetration of a single provocation creates a period of political stability, but this illusion quickly disintegrates and a cataclysmic "war" results. The results of this war are so debiltating that even the victors lose their taste for the fruits of victory.

The political elite of every time, in my opinion, subtlely seeks a fantasy; the fantasy of unchallenged power and this every so surreptitiously drives them towards a "Just War". For in a "Just War", social conscience and political review is suspended, and the citizens voluntarily submit to the will of the state. In the case of Pakistan this is quite visible.

It may also be noted that in Pakistan, the political elite have fallen into a trap. They have become slaves of their fantasy, and the conduct of "Just War" has eroded society completely - social conscience is dead and so is political review. Without these the state quickly loses its moral foundation. So in order to ward off a complete state collapse, they have to keep fighting a "Just War".

Everyone is prone to this - including Indians, Americans, Martians, etc...

Again (in passing only) returning to the Mahabharat, the political elite of the time are put to considerable strain trying to devise a justification for the "Just War" and very quickly the "Just War" departs from the parameters set in the rules of War. This corruption of War, in turn causes the complete erosion of the moral authority of the elite. So severe is this erosion, that after the war ends, the victors soon abdicate - handing over the spoils of victory to a completely new person.

Viewed in this fashion, I feel one gets a sense of the broad corners of a "War". It may help to keep this in mind when contemplating a war with Pakistan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#4
Ok....pls read through the other pages in that thread....I will be cluttering the thread with quotes otherwise <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Be free to discuss the theistic/moral implications of the issue. Is there a pattern in other texts, any alternate views, any new insights you guys come up with....any works on Indian war doctrine you people know of?
Cheers!
  Reply
#5
Anand K,

It would be nice if we can post all relevant quotes from that thread here. We usually archive the whole threads on blogspot http://indiaforumarchives.blogspot.com and it would be nice if we had all relevant posts on that thread. For example, I found Nachiketa's post extremely relevant

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Looks like the thread is turning into Arjuna Vishada Yoga with all the lament about the costs of war. A reading of the BhagvadGita is suggested.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But without the context and the sequence of the posts it is difficult to understand his post.
  Reply
#6
Arthashtra qoute on war-
"To be in accordance with dharma, the place and time of battle must be specified beforehand"

"In the territories acquired by him, the conquerror shall continue the practice of all customs which are in accordance with dharma, and shall introduce those which had not been observed before. Likewise, he shall stop the practise of any customs not in accordance with dharma and shall also refrain from introducting them"
  Reply
#7
parsuram<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->p
Granted that this thread has taken a serious detour from its purpose, but imo, it is a necessary detour, and one that can lay foundations for addressing strategies for conflicts & their resoultions in an Indian context. Rudradev, you embarrass me by including me with Hauma Hamiddha & Gudakesa; HH, particularly is an extremely learned person, with a huge storehouse of knowledge in these matters. I merely read books. And from reading Swami Saraswati's MB, let me share what he had to say about the Hindu epics (my translation): "the Ramayna and the Mahabharat are like the heart, soul, mind & body of hindu civilization. The Ramayana is the soul and heart - pure & idealistic, while the MB is like the mind and body - it scales the hights and plumbs the depth of human experience". He goes on to compare the two in various ways, for instance noting the difference in the role of ordinary people. In the Ramayna, Ayodhya's common people castigate & berate Dasrath for the treatment Kakayi metes out to Sita (clothing Sita wears on her way to exile), where as in the MB, even Bhishma, the patrirch of the Kurus, looks on impassively while Draupadi is draged by her hair in open court and disrobed. Ramayana is, above all, about an enlightened social welfare state ('ram-rajya'), which impacts directly the common people. Mahabharat is about power, about getting it & excersizing it. Other comparisons are equally apt: Rama refusing to strike a injured & fallen Ravana, while injured and compromised Bhisma, Karna, Abhimanyu, etc. are savagely killed. My own opinion is that India needs both - the Ramayna for what to aim for, and the Mahabharat for how to get there.

Just a few more comments on what is relevent from the MB to the modern Indian republic. Some of our modern leaders have displayed some basic flaws of Yudhisher's charecter. Yudhister was a study in avoidance & apeasment. Instead of confronting the kaurvas after escaping death by arson, he leads his brothers to the yamuna and builds Indraprasth as his capital, and procedes to act as he was the king of the Kurus. Avoidance. He then wishes to stage the rajasya yagna as if he was already emperor. Krishna reminds him that it takes more than a yagna to be emperor. He has to act like one. (Shades of Nehru here - India is a great nation and civilization, we are a light unto the world etc., blah etc. - hey!, first do what it takes). So Krishna advises Yudhishter to begin by taking care of a problem in Magdh - Jarasandh was getting too big for his boots. But it takes Krishna, Bhimsen and Arjun to go and confront Jarasandh. Bhimsen kills him. Again, Yudhishter does not want to get his hands dirty. Unless small conflicts are dealt with firmly and with overwhelming force, one is on the way to a massive war & a terminal conflict. Contrast Yudhishter's avoidance and apeasment with Duryodhan's uncomplicated philosophy. In his own words: " Concede nothing. Even if you lose a very little, you have lost". That should bring to mind some of India's current adversaries.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#8
Even when it comes to Ramayana methinks we attribute too much of our own biases. One of my favorite parts ..

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry440.htm

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When Ráma saw each bloody trace
On King Sugríva's limbs and face,
He cried, while, sorrowing at the view,
His arms about his friend he threw:
'Too venturous chieftain, kings like us
Bring not their lives in peril thus;
Nor, save when counsel shows the need,
Attempt so bold, so rash a deed.
Remember. I, Vibhíshan all
Have sorrowed fearing for thy fall.
O do not--for us all I speak--
These desperate adventures seek,
'I could not,' cried Sugríva, 'brook
Upon the giant king to look,

p. 458

Nor challenge to the deadly strife
The fiend who robbed thee of thy wife.'
'Now Lakshman, marshal,' Ráma cried,
'Our legions where the woods are wide,
And stand we ready to oppose
The fury of our giant foes.
This day our armies shall ascend
The walls which Rávan's powers defend,
And floods of Rákshas blood shall stain
The streets encumbered with the slain.'
Down from the peak he came, and viewed
The Vánars' ordered multitude.
Each captain there for battle burned,
Each fiery eye to Lanká turned.
On, where the royal brothers led
To Lanká's walls the legions sped.
The northern gate, where giant foes
Swarmed round their monarch, Ráma chose
Where he in person might direct
The battle, and his troops protect.
What arm but his the post might keep
Where, strong as he who sways the deep,  1
Mid thousands armed with bow and mace,
Stood Rávan mightiest of his race?
The eastern gate was Níla's post.
Where marshalled stood his Vánar host,
And Mainda with his troops arrayed,
And Dwivid stood to lend him aid.
The southern gate was Angad's care,
Who ranged his bold battalions there.
Hanúmán by the port that faced
The setting sun his legions placed,
And King Sugríva held the wood
East of the gate where Rávan stood.
On every side the myriads met,
And Lanká's walls of close beset
That scarce the roving gale could win
A passage to the hosts within.
Loud as the angry ocean's roar
When wild waves lash the rocky shore,
Ten thousand thousand throats upsent
A shout that tore the firmament,
And Lanká with each grove and brook
And tower and wall and rampart shook.
The giants heard, and were appalled:
<b>Then Raghu's son to Angad called,
And, led by kingly duty,  2 gave
This order merciful as brave:
'Go, Angad, Rávan's presence seek,
And thus my words of warning speak:
'How art thou changed and fallen now,
O Monarch of the giants, thou
Whose impious fury would not spare
Saint, nymph, or spirit of the air;
Whose foot in haughty triumph trod
On Yaksha, king, and Serpent God:

How art thou fallen from thy pride
Which Brahmá's favour fortified!
With myriads at thy Lanká's gate
I stand my righteous ire to sate,
And punish thee with sword and flame,
The tyrant fiend who stole my dame.
Now show the might, employ the guile,
O Monarch of the giants' isle,
Which stole a helpless dame away:
Call up thy power and strength to-day.
Once more I warn thee, Rákshas King,
This hour the Maithil lady bring,
And, yielding while there yet is time,
Seek, suppliant, pardon for the crime,
Or I will leave beneath the sun
No living Rákshas, no, not one.
In vain from battle wilt thou fly,
Or borne on pinions seek the sky;
The hand of Ráma shall not spare;
His fiery shaft shall smite thee there.'</b>

He ceased: and Angad bowed his head;
Thence like embodied flame be sped,
And lighted from his airy road
Within the Rákshas king's abode.
There sate, the centre of a ring
Of counsellors, the giant king.
Swift through the circle Angad pressed,
And spoke with fury in his breast:
'Sent by the lord of Kosal's land,
His envoy here, O King, I stand,
Angad the son of Báli: fame
Has haply taught thine ears my name.
Thus in the words of Ráma I
Am come to warn thee or defy:
Come forth, and fighting in the van
Display the spirit of a man.
This arm shall slay thee, tyrant: all
Thy nobles, kith and kin shall fall:
And earth and heaven, from terror freed,
Shall joy to see the oppressor bleed,
Vibhíshan, when his foe is slain,
Anointed king in peace shall reign.
Once more I counsel thee: repent,
Avoid the mortal punishment,
With honour due the dame restore,
And pardon for thy sin implore.'

Loud rose the king's infuriate cry:
'Seize, seize the Vánar, let him lie.'
Four of his band their lord obeyed,
And eager hands on Angad laid.
He purposing his strength to show
Gave no resistance to the foe,
But swiftly round his captors cast
His mighty arms and held them fast.
Fierce shout and cry around him rang:
Light to the palace roof he sprang,
There his detaining arms unwound.
And hurled the giants to the ground,
Then, smiting with a fearful stroke,
A turret from the roof he broke,--
As when the fiery levin sent

p. 459

By Indra from the clouds has rent
The proud peak of the Lord of Snow,-
And flung the stony mass below.
Again with loud terrific cry
He sprang exulting to the sky,
And, joyous for his errand done,
Stood by the side of Raghu's son.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#9
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>War Fighting Traditions, Two Millenniums back and now</b>.
Guest Column-by Hari Sud.

The son of Dushyant and Shakuntla became the great king of Pratishtthan. His name was Bhaaratha (the letter “a”, was added later by English scholars to all names, places and events). The country took his name and retained it until the Arab Muslim invaders arrived in Sind in 711 AD and then later Afghan-Turks arrived in Delhi in 1191 AD. The country, during and after the reign of Bhaaratha for five millenniums, retained Aryan culture and tradition. When did Bhaaratha ruled, is not quite certain. The great dramatist Kalidas while writing the famous drama Shakuntla put the date around 6000 BC. Later kings ruled Kingdoms carved out of Bhaaratha (or Bharat) based on ethnicity, geography and cultural proximity. This peninsula enclosed by Himalayan, Cape Comarin and Hindukush had its two main inhabitants, the Aryans and the Dravids. Both subscribed to the same religion and philosophy although their ethnic background was different. The word Hindu describes the copper age descendants of Aryans and Dravids, which later were enslaved by Muslims. 

The Arabs, the Persian, the Turks and the Afghans used the word Hindustan loosely to describe enslaved people. The Hindustan became known as the country of Hindus. The Moguls chose to use the word Hindustan to describe the land Babur intended to conquer. Books and literature of that time e.g. Baburnama writes of Babur’s conquest of Hindus country. The English baptized, the land of Hindus in the nineteenth century as India. This name is universally used to describe this peninsula, today. 

The sub-continent had a glorious culture; religion and philosophy evolved over six millenniums until it was rudely interrupted by the Muslim invasion. Vedas were composed (6000 BC to 2000 BC). Religion and culture evolved. Great sages excelled in art and science.  Statecraft was discussed and implemented. Evolution of culture, religion and philosophy continued for hundreds of years. Kings contested with each other for influence and lordship of land and people. Wars were fought and victories were celebrated in poems and literature. Some of the immortalized poems are Ramayana and Mahabharata.  The good guys, Devas, fought the bad guys, Rakshaks and always vanquished the latter. Gods took sides and ensured victory for the good guys. Like this the evolution continued. 

By no means this was a peaceful time. True to their form, kings and princes indulged in their favorite pastime of grabbing each other’s land & property and settled disputes in the battlefield. Military traditions were developed and maintained. Standing armies were signs of might of the kingdom. Ashwamed Yagya  (omnipotent power display) was performed to challenge anybody who dared not to accept the suzerainty of one kingdom over its small neighbors. Yodha (a warrior) word was coined for brave militarily trained men. Weapons included Astra, where divine power was invoked and Shastras, which were personal use combat weapons. Chariot and horse formed the offensive arm of the armies.  Astras of that time were as close as possible to today’s weapons of mass destruction.  

In all its shape and form the good old days were no different than today’s world except that all conflicts were local in nature. Outside influences did not exist as nobody could cross the mountains and mount a military campaign until Alexander arrived in 325 BC or Mohammed Ghauri arrived in 1191 AD. The former was a conqueror with no intention to stay. The latter was a destroyer with intent to subjugate and settle to rule. 

<b>Vedas and War tradition </b>
War craft has been described in Vedas and other great texts of that time. The Rig Veda describes the battle of 10 kings. Later treatise describes, Devas and Rakshas perfecting weapons of mass destruction. The Ramayna has description of multitude of Astras where extra-terrestrial power is invoked for its effectiveness.  Rama had many such weapons and so did the Ravana. One of the heroes of the Mahabharat, Arjuna, constantly trained to retain edge over his enemies. Later period treatise describes 5 major kingdoms in the peninsula around fourth millennium BC. The warrior class (Surya Vanshis and Chandra Vanshis etc.) inherited the kingship and right to rule by virtue of chivalry, victory in the battlefield and extra-ordinary wisdom. Some were good kings others were despots. Wars ensued over one issue or the other. 

The point is that the Art of war making and actual war is not a new concept in the subcontinent. It has been practised as an ultimate tool to settle arguments.    

<b>Ramayana & Mahabharata are war stories</b> 
Ramayana and Mahabharata are war stories immortalized by the great sages to educate and advise the future generation on need to avoid war. If not avoided then these poems detail process to execute it with a great fineness. Tactical maneuvering to confuse the enemy like Chakarvu in Mahabharata was practiced to end the battle sooner than later. Flying machines were in use to hurl missiles at each other in Ramayana. 

<b>Buddha and Mahavira are Born </b> 
The age of Buddha and Mahavira was an age of enlightenment, where suffering of people became the prime concern of the ruling class. This age began at the beginning of 6th century BC.  Buddha and Mahavira propounded pacifist thoughts. These views suited the time and became the buzzword of the whole society. Mutual incrimination of the competing kings were set aside in favor of higher thoughts. Warlike people saw 300 years of peace after Buddha. It also resulted in slow decay of the traditional instruments required to maintain your identity, independence, safety etc i.e. war and war preparations. The theory that the independence of a nation is guaranteed by its standing army was set aside. The whole nation turned to the path of enlightenment and peace. The ruling class gave up war and stayed under the illusion that the sub-continent could never be invaded. 

<b>Alexander Arrives in the Sub-continent</b> 
Alexander in his march East took full advantage of the situation. He was aware of possible danger ahead but was confident of overcoming it when he decided to cross the Hindukush Mountains. He had been informed of great kingdoms, which lay ahead where sages meditate for months and years and comparable philosophy to his own had been developed independent of Aristotle, Plato or Socrates. He was also aware of the under currents of the political divide, which could work in his favor. He crossed the Khyber Pass and obtained an easy victory over the King Porus who ruled Taxila (east of Khyber Pass).  

Alexander although militarily superior was far away from his home. He was using local mercenaries to supplement Greek soldiers lost in previous battles in Persia, hence could not be at his best. But he defeated Porus (King Parwatwshwar) with ease. The reasons of defeat are documented in the history. Greek references speak of a midnight maneuver in which Alexander’s army suddenly appeared behind Porus’s army. This sent the latter into a panic. Victory was easy. The foregoing is a well-known maneuver in any military traditions. The question is that how could king Porus leave his flanks exposed. How come his spies never picked up the movements of a large segment of the Greek army on his flanks?  

It speaks volumes about kings lost in the depths of enlightenment and ignoring the war craft. The latter had taken a back seat in the everyday affairs of the state. It took one hundred years before the great Guru Chanakya re-invigorated the nation and ejected the Greeks out of India after Alexander’s death.   

Ashoka was cruel king to begin with but he turned into a dove under Buddha’s influence. All the hard work of Chanakya was lost. Next 900 years saw Guptas, Kanishka etc rule. Again there was no visible danger from outside hence war preparations were taking a back seat. Hardly did they know that a much bigger external political and religious force is emerging on the western border.  

Bedouin tribesmen had found a Prophet in Mohammed. The latter had a revelation from the God. The warlike desert marauders suddenly found an identity and a purpose. They began their journey of conquest by conquering initially the neighborhood and then went West all the way to Spain. In the East their internal division of Shia and Sunni prevented their rapid spread. Later an Arab army reached Sind about 3000 miles from Baghdaad and beat the local king, Rajah Dahar in 711 AD. Rajah Dahar was an Aryan descendant. With the rapid rise of Buddhism, the kingdom had turned soft. He learnt about his mistake the hard way when a 24-year-old nephew of Caliph of Baghdad with 700 men beat a home army, six times larger. The invaders had all the disadvantages but they prevailed. Reasons – When the Sindh Rajah was practicing enlightenment, the Arabs armies were perfecting the cavalry warfare and the Sindh was one of their many victories. Again the art of cavalry warfare was not new to the Aryans but it had been given up in favor of high thinking and austere life.   

<b>Muslim Horde Arrives in the Sub-continent  </b>
Ghauri was a Muslim marauder, who crossed over from Gazni to Multan and appeared near Delhi. First time, he did not prepare well. He lost and became King Prithvi Raj Chauhan’s prisoner. The latter very ineptly released him not realizing that it is against any war tactic to release the enemy prematurely. This, he learned the hard way a year later. Ghauri executed a well-known war tactic i.e. allied with Turks for a later victory. Ghauri was not an inept leader. He executed the adversary and forever established the Flag of Islam in Delhi. The Arabs, Turks and Afghanis found a very soft society in the sub-continent. They kept coming in droves. Feeble efforts were made to expel them by Rana Sangha at Kannah in 1527 AD but failed, A second effort was made in 1556 AD by Hemu (Raja Hem Chandra) at Panipat 2 and failed and finally to stop the Afghan marauder Ahmad Shah Abdali in 1761 AD at Panipat 3, Marathas lost all the influence they had gathered in Delhi. 

All these failures were symptoms of bigger malady i.e. the society had gone soft. Some even had welcomed the invaders. What a pity! 

Muslim on the other hand had learnt the art of war from the Arabs, Mongols, Greeks, and Romans and had perfected it. In the Muslim Middle East and Central Asia, the economic and social welfare of the society was left to the experts and ministers. The leaders practiced war only and were always on the look out for new people and territories to conquer. Further East of Central Asia lay China, which had a greater military tradition than the Muslims, hence they turned their attention to cross the Hindukush.     

<b>British walked all over India – How?</b> 
British walked all over India with ease. They were technologically superior and used another classic war tactic i.e. divide the enemy and destroy it piecemeal. Bribing the adversary’s commanders was common to ensure complete battlefield victory. All these three British strategic tactics i.e. technology, splitting the enemy with dissension and bribery had been practiced by them for 600 years prior in Scotland and then in France. They had no difficulty in implementing these concepts in India. Even the Muslim military prowess of medieval age could not stop their rampage. Realizing that the country is diverse and large, they needed a large standing army. To which, they decided to recruit the locals. In order to kindle the fire of bravery, chivalry and tradition they took full advantage of ancient Hindu military texts traditions. They did the similar to get Muslim recruits. They exploited ethnicity and cultural divide to create an army of politically reliable people. The word “martial class” was coined. Only people who fitted this description were recruited. This worked well for them.  

When the British left in 1947, the army had to be re-organized by accepting both the martial classes as well as ordinary people into the army.  

<b>Post Independence</b> 
Mahatma Gandhi who peacefully ejected the British also had some inclination to believe in Buddha philosophy. He and his successors who inherited the power in Delhi believed in peace and co-existence. This illusion resulted in ignoring the legitimate defense needs for 25 years. Even though the Chinese mounted pressure in the North and newly created Muslim Pakistan created pressure in the West, enlightened philosophies were enunciated. The matter came to a head in 1965, when Pakistan decided to fight the Fourth Battle of Panipat . They were not lucky this time. The martial traditions, which the British had previously decided to exploit for their own good, had taken a hold in the Indian Army. The latter held their defensive line in the face of a massive attack and prevented the breakthrough, by Pakistan. Now Jehadism is being used to bolster their intention. The latter has the same purpose. Kashmir issue is mere tip of the iceberg. 

How could India not make its military stronger than its adversary? I believe a lesson has to be leant from now un-officially admitted statement that it was the Pakistani terrorists who attacked the Indian Parliament in December of 2001. Indian move to threaten the enemy with retaliation was the right move at that time. America could broach the peace at that time but only time will tell whether peace will succeed or not.  

The modern day military in India has to be built to a level where adventurism on enemy’s part becomes an expensive proposition for him. Enemy cannot be spared to try again as Ghauri did. They have to be dealt with severely first time. 

<b>1 962 Chinese Invasion was an Eye Opener </b>
Indian Army performed miserably in 1962 when the Chinese struck across the Thagla Ridge in NEFA. It was an old military strategy of fixed defenses the Indian Army followed. Chinese had learnt to outflank fixed defenses in Korea. They repeated it in NEFA and outflanked all Indian defenses at Sela Pass. Politicians shared most of the blame for lack of preparation. The Army’s strategists could not be held blameless for precipitating defenses at one point and ignoring the flanks completely. It was Porus-Alexander situation all over again. Indian Army at that time was much more of a parade ground army. The defeat in1962, lead to the complete re-organization of the army. By 1965, it was able to give a better account of itself. As a matter of fact the political masters and the military leaders were jolted into learning war-making techniques. Hence1962 is considered as a watershed year where better preparation for future wars became a national priority. 

<b>Has nonviolence paid any dividends?  </b>
History is our classroom. Foreign powers from Alexander to Muslims occupied India when India became soft. Blame it on Buddha or natural shift in human behavior. This resulted in subjugation, slavery, economic decapitation, lack of self-esteem etc. The non-violence in old times resulted in Alexander scoring an easy victory 2400 years back. Then successive waves of Muslim invaders had an easy picking even though the locals in the battlefield heavily outnumbered them. What was wrong – possibly we had lost the skill to make war. Mahatama Gandhi was probably right in not challenging the British military might. Instead he exploited one British weakness i.e. rule of law. Also by mid twentieth century the British had fought too many wars, which had weakened them economically. Hence they wished out. Leaving the colonies after dividing them, to fight amongst them was the easiest way out.  

In the end I may say that, India has to keep its powder dry. The art of making war has to be restored to its pre-eminent position. Tendencies to ignore defense in favor of moral high ground do not serve well, if history is our guide. War is not a moral affair and it cannot be treated as such. Enemies are to be kept at bay. Only then independence is assured.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#10
Continued.....

Karthik.K
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't wish to turn this into an argument about our interpretation of the Mahabharata. But I belive the entire message of the epic is being distorted here to justify arguments by Gudakesa. The essence of the Mahabharata, to the best of my understanding, was that the war had to be fought to uphold dharma, whatever the personal losses involved for the participants. The war itself was not about getting back the kingdom or earthly possessions. Towards this end, the Lord orders the Pandavas to commit foul play. There is absolutely no scope for any ambiguity on justification for the war. Indeed the war was decided long ago when Draupadi cries out her heart to Krishna, who promises her Quote:
Those who tormented you will be stricken to death in the bloody quagmire of a lost battle. Wipe your eyes. I solemnly promise that you’re grievous wrongs shall be amply avenged.


Neither can there be any comparison between the two sides, inspite of flouting the norms of war by both parties. Read Krishna's defence of Bhima to Balarama for having hit Duryodhana below the navel.

Sunil wrote:
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->My key point what that (as in the Mahabharat) the "moral foundation" of War is articifial and that unless the "War" is chosen carefully, the "moral foundation" will not sustain creating all sorts of issues. To that end I gave the example of the US in the Cold War.
....
However the "moral foundation" of this war was weak. The US failed to sustain its alliance with the Islamists after the Cold War and what we are seeing in the form of troubles in the Oil producing countries and America war with the Islamists of Pakistan etc... are all manifestations of the weaknesses in the "moral foundation" of the Cold War. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

What exactly do you mean by moral foundation and how exactly do you reckon that the moral foundation of the Cold War was weak ? I just don't get it. Neither do I get the parallel you are trying to draw between the Mahabharata and the Cold War. Please clarify<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#11
Sunil wrote

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Karthik K,

What I present before you are my opinions on the issue of the moral foundation of war. They may agree with the text of Gudakesa's posts but I do not claim that is what he is saying.

The moral foundation of War provides the basis for the rationality of the War. It provides a psychological tool for the participants to accept the systematic breakdown of social norms and order. Most importantly the "moral foundation of the war" actively promotes premeditated and organized murder - the highest crime in any organized society. The moral foundation also furnishes a class of leaders who foster the activity of war in the political, diplomatic, military and economic sphere.

In order to do this, the moral foundation uses a logical trick. It creates two artificial constructs in ideological space, dharma (right) and adharma (wrong). These are defined into a social context in an extremely selective fashion, the exact nature of the definition depending intensely on the hands of the people that craft it. Once this is done, the moral foundation then calls upon its followers to compete for the complete control of the ideological space in a controlled conflict.

A well chosen moral foundation for a war does the following:

1) expedites a process of social change in an ordered fashion, and
2) produces a new and lasting social order that replaces an older one that is past its time.

The moral foundation of the war however routinely fails on both accounts. When it fails in the former, it creates a war of attrition that ultimately crosses the bounds of what the morality of war justifies, and atrocities multiply. However it is the second step that often causes the most trouble. War though expedited does not produce a stable political order in its aftermath. Without political order - the state of conflict reappears.

In the case of the Mahabharat and the Cold War, the leaders of one political faction prevailed over their supposed adversaries and subsequently could not enjoy the fruits of their success neither could they guarentee political stability. The line of Pandu eventually relinquished the kingdom and the Americans are now at effectively war with their former allies - the Pakistanis and the Saudis.

While it could be said that the Mahabharat argues that War should only be conducted for "moral reasons" but the converse is also holds that a "War" conducted without the necessary sense of detachment from material affairs will eventually produce a sense of "defeat" even for the "victor". The completeness of the Mahabharat lies in the fact that the "losers" of the War attain Heaven while the "Winners" of the war have to endure suffering on earth. Those attached to the notion of "Victory" are ultimately made to taste "Defeat".<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#12
Manav wrote

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->>>In order to do this, the moral foundation uses a logical trick. It creates two artificial constructs in ideological space, dharma (right) and adharma (wrong).<<

Hmmm....perhaps the '(im)moral' warrior fighting for (a)dharma is operating within the 'fog of illusion'? This (ontological) condition does not seem to be the (ontological) condition of the 'warrior' in the first place - as per the Bhagavad-Gita!

Regds<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#13
Quote Kanu
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Keep in mind that the Kauravas had flouted the rules of statecraft and even humanity many times before. They had tried to kill Bhima as a kid, they tried to burn the house the Pandavas were staying in etc. On many a occasion they had ignored the very foundations of dharma.

Thus Krishna told the Pandavas to fight fire with fire, he told them to stop feeling sad and sorry for themselves and do what they know in the end is going to be the only way to end the matter once and for all, war. The Kauravas on many a occasion gave the Pandavas reasons to declare war, aside from the attempted murder attempt the Kauravas also rigged the dice in the gambling game, Mama Shakauni had used magic and prayer to fix it so that they would win.

Before the battle the Kauravas trick one of the uncles who was going to fight for the Pandavas to join their side by luring him to the wrong camp.

During the battle itself it is the Kauravas who initially break the rules by attacking Abhimanyu. The rules were for one on one fights but they all gang up on him and even when he is injured and obviously no threat they continue their attack. Only after this do the Pandavas truly become the Chanakayan yindoos they need to be to uphold Dharma.

Indeed in many ways the Brits and the Yanks now are like the blind king Dhidrashtra,  they have the power to put to end at once all the idiocy but they can't see past their own ego and self interest and eventually they will pretend to be neutral yet their support will lie behind their MuNNA. India like the Pandavas will have to eventually overcome the obstacles and learn to ignore Dhidrashtra and take what is rightdully its. Ofcourse the question is, who will be Krishna in all this? 

The Kauravas time and time again flouted dharma on many a occasion. And Krishna time and time again hinted what needed to be done. And that was that there it is no good to show compassion and trust to those that dont deserve it, there are inevitably going to be times when reason and truth alone won't win. That is when war must be waged, to up hold the dharma and truth sometimes you will have to engage into battle and ignore the rules of the dharma to protect it in the long run.

We in India too often rush to make peace with Pakis in the same sense, only when we have unleashed the fury of righteousness as in 1971 did we get peace for a while. Indeed Sre Aurobindo even said that this like the Mahabharata repeating itself and India will one day have to take to the battlefield, even if we are outnumbered by the Allies of the TSP to truly let dharma regain its preeminence in the subcontinent. For in the end the truth alone triumphs. I feel that a proper study of the Mahabharata will reveal many lessons that are still very relevant to us in this day.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#14
AJay wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-"Kanu"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Kanu")<!--QuoteEBegin-->{excerpts from Mahabharata deleted)...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

It would b good to read one chapter in MB which is called "Draupadi-Dharamaraja Samvada" in which Draupadi counsels YudhishThira to act like the Kshatriya he is, to break the vow of the Aranayavasa and Ahnatavasa and take the war to Kauravas. But Yudhishtira does not listen to her but goes through the requisite 12 years of Aranyavasa and 1 year Agnatavasa hardship.

This could be fit into Sunil's model as follows. Dharmaraja might have felt that the time is not ripe, i.e. the proper environment has not been created to garner popular support from the citizens and other rulers and would lose the war against powerful foe.

Whatever Kauravas and Shakuni did was par for the course. Nobody would act nobly when the stakes are as high as they were. It is only in superficial (or some would say "propagandizing") movies like "Troy" and "Alexander" one would see noble intentions ascribed to what were basically blood-thirsty Greek barbarians.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#15
Kanu wrote

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No it wasnt par for course. Even after the partition of Hastinapur and Indrapruhsta the Kauravas still wanted more, they were greedy they wanted absolute power and wouldnt let anything stop them from getting it. They already had a kingdom with large resources, their Kshatriya dharma stated that if they wished to wage war and take the land from the Pandavas then that would atleast be legitimate. They were cowards though, they didnt have the guts to face the Pandavas so they cheated in the game. Kshatriya dharama states that they can gamble and whatever they win legitimately is fine, but they cheated the whole thing should have been void and illegal but they got away with it.

Yudhistir had no right to put his wife or brothers on the line, Krishna scolded him for that, he doesnt have the right to speak for someone else in such high stakes. His brothers too should have spoken up, Bhima did but he was told to quiten down. Dhidrashtra, Bhismasen, Acharya all should have put a stop to it but they put protocol and politics above what was the right thing to do. Everyone was guilty in a way but the Kauravas were most guilty and in the end they paid the highest price. Krishna told them all that they were all wrong on the day of the game, some were a lot more wrong though.

I agree with timing though. Yet I feel Yudhistir still believed that Duryodhona still had a bit of honor left in him so he went ahead and fullfilled his part of the bargain (and in the process the seeds for the Kauravas final destruction were laid as alliances were made during the 1 year in the palace with Uttara etc). Yet the only honor Duryodhona had left in him was Karan, his relationship with Karan was the only time when he truly showed any compassion. He befriended Karan initially for his own gain but in the end he was the only one to truly look beyond Karan's seemining low caste up bringing, and Karan almost turned the battle at Kurukshetra.

I agree with you on the Greeks at Troy bit. They were looking for a reason and Paris gave them one. You know what they say, after Kurukshetra all the rules went out of the window, all rules of honor were hollow. And if we look at history since then, those that have been able to be the most vile have ended up winning.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#16
AJay wrote

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-"Sunil"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Sunil")<!--QuoteEBegin-->The line of Pandu eventually relinquished the kingdom<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The line of Pandu never relinquishes the kingdom - only the direct victors in the war - Ydhishtira and borthers - who relinquish. Actually narration of Mahabharatha starts with Janamejaya - the great great grandson of Pandu condcuting Sarpa Yagna to kill Takshaka who bites and kills his father Parikshit (the baby killed in the womb of Uttara but revived by Krishna). So, the victors and their line did enjoy the fruits of victory for several generations to come. It only adds to your and Gudakesa's point that there is no absolute "moral" justification for any war - only a coming together of ambition and the means to shape the future in such a way that one's ambitions are achieved.

Unless of course one takes the rational view that it is impossible to resurrect a dead baby. Then Pariskhit could be a nobody anointed by Krishna to carry on the line of Pandu.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#17
Sunil wrote

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi AJay,

Actually the line of Pandu barring the five brothers and Parikshit is wiped out in the War. Parikshit survives only on account of Krishna's direct intervention. This is the point everyone seems to latch on to - the idea that if you declare a "Moral War" then somehow magically God will save your a**. Our jihadi neighbors certainly take this idea very seriously.

What people I feel tend to miss is that the Line of Dhritarasthra actually all ascend to Heaven while the Line of Pandu is left to suffer the grief of the loss of its loved ones on Earth. The entire significance of the walk up the mountain is lost on most people - that the line of Pandu had to account for their actions - including all the transgressions of moral conduct in the war that they approved of. Barring a handful of people that I know of, most do not acknowledge that the psychological burden of having initiated a destructive war bore heavily on the Pandu brothers and perhaps that caused them to turn to "Moral justification" as a way of dealing with that. No one I know admits that the manner in which the storytellers ascribe moral conduct solely to the five brothers could easily be a reflection of the fact that victors alone influence the writing of history.

For the DCH this may come as a bit of a surprise. To most people I know the philosophical subtlety in the story is lost.

I tend to view the Mahabharat - with its complicated discussions of politics in an advanced civilization, of the moral of leadership and of war, and of the horrific consequences of war - as the best guide to people who want to think about war (esp. nuclear war) in the modern context. From the perspective of discussion on BRF, it is unfortunate that there is a theistic implication associated with the Mahabharat - this makes a fuller discussion of its details difficult within the limit of forum guidelines.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#18
AJay wrote

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sunil

You are right as usual. A literal reading of Mahabharata leads to ascribing supernatural powers to the victors especially the movers and shakers of the story, i.e. Krishna and Arjuna (Gudakesa:-)).

Probably the danger of Rajaji's Mahabharata for DCH is that it is very lucid and written for young readers. Once the curious youngster knows the story, she/he would move on never to come back to the unabridged version to read it in detail and cogitate upon the philosophical and moral implications of a great war and the aftermath. It was certainly the case for me. Only recently I have picked up a fuller version in Telugu which took some time to finish. I intend to read the 21 volume BORI version some day. Might gain some insights into why we Indians are like we are.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#19
Rudradev's post

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with all the glib parallels to Mahabharat being drawn here: of course the Mahabharat has wisdom from which we could refine a unique perspective on conflict, but we should be wary lest our discussions of it lead us along yet another rhetorical route to oversimplification.

For instance, what is this business of Western Bloc = Pandavas and Soviet Bloc = Kauravas? Where does this analogy even begin to come from? And how far are we going to take it? Are we seriously going to equate Yudhishtira's oath of "Ashwatthama is dead" to American genocide in Vietnam? Both could be characterized as "moral lapses in the larger interest of defeating the enemy" but are they even of the same order of magnitude?

Please. It's one thing to mine the wisdom of the Mahabharat with serious and careful analysis, it's quite another to skim the surface and end up loading our perceptions of conflict in today's world with unwarranted value judgements.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply
#20
KGoan's reply

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Rudradev:

But how else to begin?

We complain that western methodologies and world views superimposed on us are clearly not adequate for us to create our *own* world view in understanding events within *our* historical narrative.

Yet when a start is made here, it's dismissed as "shallow". Very well, lets say it is shallow, how else would such a discussion begin? It can hardly start with esoteric info on the difference between Pali and classical Tamil versions, can it?

Perhaps it may progress there, but it can't *start* there.

Such discussions, using our *own* civilisational memory, *have* to begin at the "shallow" end. After all, you'd hardly ask a first year med student to do open heart surgery, or a first year business student to run IBM, no?

The Mahabharata and Ramayana are *the* meta-narratives of our civilisation - and even if our understanding is crude and "shallow", (I don't dispute you here because I don't know enough but; personally, I've found the discussion extremely informative, especially Gudakesa and Sunil's posts), what else are we to use?

Have a little patience dude. You know BR. We'll yabber about it long enough, perhaps have the odd flame war and locked threads as it skirts the religion issue, but we'll get there in the end.

That's what the forums about after all.

ps. Now what I'm looking forward to is your post interpreting this stuff. Seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)