Sunil's post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Rudradev,
My comments about the Mahabharat were made in passing in the context of the morality of war. I did not intend to draw a wider analogy between the current global situation and the mahabharat but only point out that there are similarities in some of the dynamics - esp. with regards to the "Moral War" aspect of it. I suggested the Mahabharat as most Indians are familiar with it albeit in a theistic context.
The analogy is a limited one:
The Line of Pandu, in the conduct of their "Just War" carried out several atrocities and failed to uphold "Morality". Further more the War itself eliminated most of the line itself and those that remained could not avail of the spoils of power. The "Moral Foundation" failed to create a lasting political order with the Line of Pandu.
Similarly the West in its "Just War" against the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union and International Communism, carried out several atrocities and failed to uphold "Morality". Most notably they failed to sustain a "moral agreement" with the Islamists and so today a global war has broken out between the former allies. The fall of the Soviet Union should have created an atmosphere of political stablility in the World, however today - such stability does not exist - international terrorism is rampant, governments are being toppled at will and the threat of a nuclear holocaust -be it limited to the loss of one city has not receeded in the least.
Therein - the imo the analogy ends<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parsuram wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is an unusual thread to be having this discussion, but I'll bite .
First, it is indeed very proper that the Mahabharat (and Ramayan) form a backdrop to discussions of war in an Indian context. Next, because matters of justifications, compulsions etc. have come up (in regard to a march to war), it is very important to draw certain distinctions. The most important of these relate to Karma (governing personal morality and actions) and Dharma (relating to broader conduct & actions of the State and society). The two are distinct (in an ideal world of hindu myth, as envisioned at its inception, ie 'satya yug', the two were congruent, but diverged as the universe ran down thru dvapar, treta and now, kali yuga). It is under Dharma, that nitis such as those of Chanakya and others have been propounded for the conduct of State policy (including war). All those nitis or rules speak of lying, deceit, other subterfuge etc. as instruments of State policy. Thus, there is debate over whether Yudhishtra's walk through hell (consequent to his lying during the war), is a later addition to the epic so as to confirm to karmic principles, because that "lying" in the conduct of war was eminantly according to dharma (since it was not motivated by any personal desire, but by his responsibilies as King & commander of his armies). The war was not a Karmic, but a Dharmic struggle- "Kurukshetra, Dharmakshetra"... begining of the Gita).
There is another uniquely Indian context to the Mahabharat war. From before and since that war, Indian polity has been possessed of divergent impulses, causing India to oscillate between a strong unified State and a collection of Balkanized States. Yudhishtra and the Pandavs represented the forces of unification, while Duryodhan and the Kauravas were driven by a desire to establish a multiplicy of States (shades of Nehru & Jinnah here). however, my main point is that hindu traditions in India are not just compatible with, but actively prescribe war as a part of Dharma, or societal law.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunil's reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi Parsuram,
The problem with discussing the Mahabharat on BRF is avoiding the theistic implications inherent in the morality of the war. In India however we cannot avoid the Mahabharat when discussing an impending war or conflict. Once the theistic implications are carefully avoided (or more correctly restricted to the context that they were stated in), one can proceed on to a purely political analysis of the situation. This has benifits in the BRF context. However staying clear of extremely subtle stuff like the Samkhya theism is quite hard even for the most experienced scholar.
Note I am specificially leaving out the Ramayana because in terms of the kind of choices that people have to make I feel it is less transparent than the Mahabharat and disentangling the theistic aspects from the political is more difficult.
I accept Kgoan's view that these epics, given the place they occupy in Indian psyche, are a meta-narrative to our civilization - and others in the region (atleast those not suffering from acute cultural schizophrenia).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sunil's reply to Manav's post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>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-->
Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been very busy and this slipped my reading.
Irrespective of whether there is a "fog of illusion", it can be said that both participants pick a rationality for their "War". Whether couched in the language of reactivity or pro-activity, each side picks a definition of "acceptable" and "unacceptable" and around this notion fashions the justification of its conduct. Given the extent of thinking that goes into manufacturing the "Justification of the War", I would be more inclined to call it the "fog of reason" as opposed to a "fog of illusions".
The ontological aspect of this quite complicated and beyond the scope of this thread or forum.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parasuram's reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi sunil:
By all means, we should keep theological considerations out of our review of the Mahabharata in these discussions. Those, in any case, are not central to the conflict the epic covers (any conflict would have sufficed to lay out the Bhagvad gita).
So let us discuss and analyse the hows and whys that led to Kurukshetra. What led the Bharat confederacy, so successfully established by Dushyant's son Bharat, to that horrendous civil war? On the face of it, it was a matter of succession between the sons of Dhritrashtra, the blind regent, and the heirs in waiting, the sons of Pandu. But it was much more than that. Duryodhan was not in the least interested in maintaining a unified confederacy. He was all for letting its parts go their own ways. In this he was encouraged and, indeed, tutored by his uncle, Shakuni of Gandhar, as well as Jayadrath of Sindh (both of whom wanted to be free of Hastinapur). And also by Karna, whom he appointed King of Anga in the east. This movement to dissolve the confederacy is what was the underlying cause of war. I have always emphasized and maintained that there exists a remarkable parallel with India's partition in 1947. So it is very instructive to examine the epic in context of India/pakistan/BD dynamics. The other nearest modern parallel is the American civil war (state's rights).
It is important to examine at what point in the epic did the drive to war overtake all other options. In the begining, Yudhishter was quite willing to have a shared (alternating or rotating) kingship with the Kaurvas. But Duryodhan rejected that - leading to the game of dice, and to Yudhisher losing his inheritence (due to Shakuni). That loss was only temporary (13 years), yet there were already rumbles of war among Yudhishter's allies. (There are parallels here for India, 1937-46). Krishna, ofcourse, is a key person in all this (Krishna, king of the Yadav clan, not Krishna, God's avatar, which, imo, began and ended with the Bhagava Gita). Krishna councelled against war after the gambling loss, but not after the end of that 13 year exile period. It is important to remember that for 12 out of those 13 years the Pandav princes were very much politically active. They maintained the confederacy even under the aging Dhritrashtra (though effectively under Duryodhan). It was when Duryodhan refused to give the Padavas anything after their exile that war became inevitable. Yudhister was willing to settle for 5 villages, under Duryodhan's kingship (recall Gandhi: "Jawaharlal, let Jinnah be the PM", also, Cabnet mission plan, Simla, 1946). But Duryodhan said No, knowing that those 5 villages would reincarnate the entire Bharat federation under the Pandavas. Apeasment did not work then. It does not work now.
Well, without going on about it, I think we need to look at various defing moments in the Mahabharat to get a sense of how the drive to war was born, sustained and enveloped Bharat of that time. I would be glad to contribute my perspective, and hope that this discussion will lead us to some useful insights into current conflict management for India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abhijit's post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
>>Duryodhan was not in the least interested in maintaining a unified confederacy. He was all for letting its parts go their own ways. In this he was encouraged and, indeed, tutored by his uncle, Shakuni of Gandhar, as well as Jayadrath of Sindh (both of whom wanted to be free of Hastinapur). And also by Karna, whom he appointed King of Anga in the east. This movement to dissolve the confederacy is what was the underlying cause of war.
Hi Parsuram, could you pl. provide a link or reference for this part? I was under the impression that Sindhudesh was a distant kingdom that may have been a tributary to Kurus while Angadesh was a part of Kuru empire. I haven't come across the centrifugal tendencies of Duryodhan and his advisors. And certainly not such a reason being the central theme of the rationale for the war. It could be that this aspect, which would have been vital but of not much theistic and moralistic value could have been left out by the latter renditions of MB.
Another aspect of MB that needs some shedding of light is how the Kauravas were able to cobble up a huge coalition in spite of theirs being a wrong and 'adharmic' point of view -
could there have been promises made for carving up the loot after it was done?
Is it possible that there was a huge propaganda/misinformation campaign to show the other side as weaker and/or morally wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rajesh_G and Acharya's contribution
The Indian Art of War by G.D.Bakshi
P.S:.........Anyone got this book...the chapters about the fighting arms and Vyuhas would interest me mucho bigo.. <!--emo&:eager--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/lmaosmiley.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lmaosmiley.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Abhijit's post on other resources
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah...I read that...in addition to his Mahabharata - A Military Analysis. I would also recommend P.C. Sensharma's "Kurukshetra War - A Military Study" and J. Sarkar's "A Military History of India". If you are interested in this stuff, you may also want to look at Dikshitkar's "War in Ancient India".
Sadly though none of these books put forth an Indian philosophy of war. To be sure they allude to it, but a concerted study seems to be missing and waiting to be written.
That being said, the books are interesting and in parts are thought-provoking.
Regds,
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parsuram's info
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Abhijit:
I have a number of texts (my father spent 20-30 years studying & writing on MB as a source of war ideology/strategy in ancient India, and I have inherited his material). What I have written in brief is mostly from a 3 vol. work in hindi by swami Jagdishwaranand Saraswati (ISBN 81-7077-003-3), second edition, 1987. It is a very comprehensive work, with the original sanskrit transated into hindi, and extensive footnotes and cross refrences to other puranic literature. For instance, the author documents how Karna was not Kunti's son, and provides reference to Vayu Puran & the relevent text indicating that Karna was of the Lunar dynasty, desendent of King Anu; he was the son of King Janmajay, grandson of King Drir-rath (v.p 99|111-112). It was not clear how he came to be broughtup by the chariotier Bhagirath. However, Krishna (also of the Lunar dynasty), had prevailed upon Kunti to treat him as her son in childhood. During incidents which led to Duryodhan investing Karna as Anga-raj, Bhimsen objected, but to no avail. Karna gave a personal pledge of aligence to Duryodhan in return for being invested as the king of Anga (Karna asked: "what do you wish from me in return for this honor you have bestowed on me?", and gave his pledge when Duryodhan asked for it).
rajesh:
GD Bakshi is a relative; he and my father shared these interests. My father published his first book on MB warfare in the early 1970s; it was reviewed in HT & TOI. A few days later, an officer from the US embassy called on him at home, and bought two copies from him. Those are now in the Library of Congress My father was quite impressed at the time with how the US payed such close attention to even obscure bits of millitary information. He wished Indians would be as dilligent with their own heritage.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Rudradev's insightful take on this!
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->KGoan,
If I've somehow created the impression that I'm some sort of "expert" on the Mahabharat, let me be the first to dispel it... my experience of it is limited to Rajaji's excellent but certainly abridged translation. I'm not in the same class with Gudakesa, Parsuram or Hauma Hamiddha (I wonder what he would have made of all this?) in my understanding of it. At any rate, my criticism of the discussion is not that it is "shallow"-- I am no scholar to level such a judgement-- rather, it is of the haste to rush to conclusions that seems a distinct possibility if we aren't careful.
I couldn't agree more with your idea that all Indians have a civilizational memory of the two epics. I will go a step further and say that much of Indian history has been influenced by the effect of that civilizational memory on the movers and shakers of various times. Mahavir didn't evolve his philosophies in a vacuum. While Ashoka the Great was undoubtedly a Buddhist, it is impossible to believe that he wasn't intimately familiar with, and hence fundamentally influenced by these epics in his actions and policies. Prithviraj Chauhan was certainly following a code outlined in these epics when he repeatedly declined to send Muhammad Ghauri's head home on a pike, as was Shivaji, magnanimous in victory centuries later. Every ruler of any stature, upto and including Pandit Nehru, has been influenced by the Ramayan and Mahabharat in their practice of statecraft... and influenced in a direction entirely dependent on his or her interpretation of them.
There's the rub, for the Mahabharat isn't a revealed Judeo-Christian-type tract written for the benefit of naked and howling tribesmen, with absolute tenets to be followed on pain of death (and eternal damnation thereafter). IMHO, the Mahabharat is (among other things) the best novel ever written... an unparalleled exposition of universal truths about human nature and the human condition in the context of contemporary history, a feat that every great novelist from Tagore to Hemingway to Greene would have given his right arm to match. As only the greatest novels do it explores the workings of men's minds and lays forth its findings without passing judgement, scrutinizes its subjects deeply while maintaining detachment. And, like the very greatest of novels it is completely open to an infinite number of interpretations.
When Rajaji set to the task of abridging the Mahabharat into a hundred-and-odd pages of English text, he probably was well aware of the gravity of his mission. He was bringing the Mahabharat to generations of newly independent Indians, propogating the civilizational memory that guided our forefathers in a context that educated, English-speaking middle-class Indians, those whom he foresaw would be the leaders of India in decades to come, could access and understand.
My feeling is that the thrust of our current discussion has been trying to analyze Mleccha doings in terms of our epics, attempting to ascribe the motivations of a Yudhishtira or Dronacharya or Shakuni to such J-C barbarians as the Western Bloc (or their b@st@rd children the Islamists). While this is no doubt possible-- the truths of the Mahabharat are universal-- it might be more worth our while to analyze the impact of these epics on US. Explore how interpretations of the Mahabharat prevailing at various times in our history have affected the very course of that history, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse, with a dispassion worthy of Ved Vyas himself. Extrapolate from that how the Mahabharat could be best interpreted in the present context, what lessons of statecraft could be best derived from it to shape our policies today and our destiny tomorrow.
For the day Indic civilization marshals its true strengths, frees itself from the institutionalized contempt that generations of Brown Sahebs and JNU Jholawalas were brainwashed to pour on our civilizational memories, the day we get our act together is the day that the West has dreaded for ages. Yes, of COURSE they prefer an Islamicized Pakistan, a Talibanized Gandhara... the Islamists are their own b@st@rd children and are easy to predict, deal with and understand. We, on the other hand, have by virtue of our civilizational memories the capacity to transcend their grasp and overpower them.
One need look no further than the Chinese for evidence. The ethos of authoritarianism and discipline that was primarily responsible for bringing astounding economic success to such nations as Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea is very firmly rooted in civilizational memories of Confucianism. The very same indigenous philosophies, interpreted differently at other times in their history, made China a nation of opium addicts to be exploited by the West and left them vulnerable to colonialist Japanese and Mongol depradations for centuries. The successes of the Asian Tiger economies, as opposed to the PRC upto 1990, were smugly ascribed by Western luminaries to the fact that they enjoyed free-market capitalism and non-communist (if not exactly democratic) regimes. When the PRC began its stupendous economic ascendance, those Western luminaries predicted that it would not last, that authoritarianism and the denial of democracy could not square with the prosperity that such economic success was sure to bring.
For my money, they are wrong. It is China's civilizational memories, which having survived active attempts to stamp them out entirely during the cultural revolution, shall prove the source of her continued strength. From the Western pulpit of Jeffersonian ethics, individual liberty, free enterprise and democracy, it may appear that China's authoritarianism and prosperity do not mix, that they are bound eventually to lead to a catastrophic and destructive denouement. I have full faith that the civilizational memories of the Chinese will enable them to resolve any apparent contradictions successfully, one way or another. Those in the West who see and understand this are fundamentally terrified, because it would mean that the ideals which they hold dear are not the only recipe for civilizational success, that they aren't the keepers of the only meme that will win out in the end! Somewhere deep down they know that this is true of Indic civilization as well. They will do everything in their power to prevent us from actualizing our own.
So maybe it's time to understand what these epics are really all about, and in the process, we should be unafraid to smash a few icons that have been imposed upon us in an attempt to suppress our analysis of them. Rather than lament the fact that the Indian people seem overjoyed to elect a dynasty of Gandhi-Nehrus, maybe we should attempt to further our own understanding of why this is so... and question whether it behooves us to ride the Western high horse of "democracy" while expressing contempt for our own electorate and its civilizational instincts.
But I get ahead of myself. For the moment, I could not agree more with something Sunil indicated early on in this thread. What Rajaji gave to us, and our parents, with his Mahabharat-- we should attempt to pass on to the DCH generation, because from among them will arise the rulers of India tomorrow. While no generation of Indians in history has been as privileged and empowered as the DCH, no generation has been as susceptible to civilizationally degrading propaganda either.
So I'm going to go back into lurk mode now, and having contributed my 2 N.P., watch the continuation of the Mahabharat discussion with great interest. My humble suggestion is that it would merit a thread of its own.
Going back to the original topic, though, I did have some thoughts about Wargaming and Wargame design that I will try to write up and post here when I get a second. Thanks.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kanu wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->We didnt follow the guidelines of the Mahabharata. Krishna said that when there is war, then fight it in its totallity. Once someone breaks into your house to harm you then you have the right to totally destroy him.
We choose to feed our egos and let go of the maniacs that sought to destroy us, and we paid for that for losing out on almost a millenia of civilizational development.
Now lets look at why Shivaji was more succesful. The fact was that muslims now became part of the subcontinent, Shivaji knew he would have to live with that fact and he had muslims fighting in his army, that is why he didnt seek to eliminate them all. The situation had changed, in 1191 the scenario was different from the time of the Mughal-Maratha conflict.
Shivaji did however fight a more total war, in the sense that he didnt care about rules. When the muslims took advantage of Hindu benevolence by stabbing us in the back in 1192 they won. Simillarily Shivaji used brahminbania cunningnes to kill Afzal Khan with the nails of steel. In war rules rarely matter as long as you win. The only ways Pritvhi could be beaten was by treachery so that is what was done, the only way Aurangzeb could be torn a new asshole was by cunning so that was what was done as well. Both times the war was thrust on the Hindus, the first time we lived under delusional moral laws by incorrectly interpretating our own texts, the second time we were sure not to repeat the same mistake. Hopefully we are not repeating the same mistake today b/c the war isnt won yet, there is still a few more acts left to go.
The winner is alive to discuss morality, the loser is usually dead. So better to win and worry about morals later.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Parsuram wrote
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->sunil, rudradev, kgoan, acharya, ramana, and all others here:
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-->
Whewwwwwwwwww............thats it!
Please take if from here....Give all this a good thought folks.....
All interpretations wud be welcome.
Cheers
According to Vidur-Neeti
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"Kings are said to have five different kinds of strength. Of these the strength of arms is considered to be the most inferior kind. The acquisition of good counsellors is regarded as the second kind of strength. The acquisition of wealth is the third kind of strength. The strength of birth which one naturally acquires from one's sires and grandsires is the fourth kind of strength. That, however, by which all these are won, and which is the foremost of all kinds of strength, is called the strength of the intellect."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In case of India after independence we were always short of weapon but still manage to win war, Nehruâs bad judgment and bad counselors surrounding him was the cause and defeat in 1962 war. India is always short of wealth, Socialism is a problem, so can't fight long war. Operation Parakaram was as good as war but surprisingly economy didn't suffered because of other factor including intellectual wealth. India wants to control population, a bad choice in long run. US lean mean force is not effective. Same error China is planning to make. Better weapon and lack of foot soldiers doesn't means easy victory. US army double in size in Iraq would have controlled whole situation in much lesser time. Now US forces are overstretched in all theaters. During Parakram Indian forces would have overstretched in case of real war and China or Bangladesh involvement. Foremost is strength of intellect is very important, when to go for war plus intellect manpower. This is India's greatest strength for long run.
Vidur neeti is valid today for any country to survive.
Great job AnandK, thanks!
Please note, I am not comfortable with many points presented by this author. However, it is an interesting article to discuss:
STRATEGIC THINKING IN ANCIENT INDIA AND CHINA: KAUTILYA AND SUNZI
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus, ancient Indian thinkers produced two schools of war, diplomacy and interstate relations; the dharmayuddha (ethical warfare) school; and the kutayuddba (devious warfare) school. The two schools were, however, not mutually exclusive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> - Where is this author getting these two schools of war from?
- Did Dharmayuddha require the pardoning of a defeated king? If so, did this contribute to our repeated defeat at the hands of the muslim invaders, previously defeated by us?
- Related to the question above: Was there a strong discouragement to conquering lands out of the Indic region? This meant our kings were great at fighting each other and quickly exchanging daughters, sisters, etc., but lacked the experience and entrepreneurship to launch large external campaigns.
- Lack of internal competition lead to the "chalta hai" attitude that some of you talk about, perhaps this was the reason we faced the external enemy with the same attitude and still do so today!
- Are there any lessons from the Panchatantra that we can apply to understanding the Indian approach to war? I remember some stories that may
apply.
- Has anyone read or discussed: Mahabharata, A Military Analysis by Lt Col G D Bakshi?
Finally, in my opinion, it is very important that Chanakya called his work, perhaps his compilation, ArthaShastra and not RanaNeeti, Art of War, or some such title. Understanding the term ArthaShastra is central to understanding the method employed in the Hindu quest for a sustainable civilization. The challenge for the future generations of India is how to harness this civilizational strength and create a successful nation-state. Very interesting topic - hope to learn and contribute my 2paise!
Thanks for the effort Anand K. A great topic for discussion.
From a little I've read about Arthashshastra or Art of War (or say Prince), there's very little reference of 'just war' or 'moral war'....why is that?
<!--QuoteBegin-pulikeshi+Mar 9 2005, 02:17 AM-->QUOTE(pulikeshi @ Mar 9 2005, 02:17 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Thus, ancient Indian thinkers produced two schools of war, diplomacy and interstate relations; the dharmayuddha (ethical warfare) school; and the kutayuddba (devious warfare) school. The two schools were, however, not mutually exclusive.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> -
</li>
- Where is this author getting these two schools of war from?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hindu military science recognizes two kinds of warfare - the dharmayuddha and the kutayuddha. Dharmayuddha is war carried on the principles of dharma, meaning here the Ksatradharma or the law of Kings and Warriors. In other words, it was a just and righteous war which had the approval of society. On the other hand, kuttayuddha was unrighteous war. It was a crafty fight carried on in secret. The Hindu science of warfare values both niti and saurya i.e. ethical principles and valor. It was therefore realized that the waging of war without regard to moral standards degraded the institution into mere animal ferocity. A monarch desirous of dharma vijaya should conform to the code of ethics enjoined upon warriors. The principles regulating the two kinds of warfare are elaborately described in the Dharmasutras and Dharmasastras, the epics (Ramayana and Mahabharata), the Arthasastra treatises of Kautalya, Kamandaka, and Sukra. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
War in ancient India
Thanks Viren, but I was wondering which book (or reference) in particular clearly mentions these two types of war? I have read Kangle's ArthaShastra, albeit in parts, but do not remember reading an explicit reference to these two types of warfare. In any case my first reading of the AS was more from a historical/political view point.
I have heard about these two types of war, but which book scpecifically mentions them and where - is one question.
PS: This Dharamyuddha - reminds me of Asterix and Obelix in Brittan. Where the Brits decide to drink tea - in the middle of a war at 3 PM - while the Gauls are wondering who's going to be fighting the Romans. <!--emo&  --><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /><!--endemo-->
According to Arthashastra-
Four kinds of war mentioned.
<b>Mantrayuddha</b>, "war by counsel", means the excercise of diplomacy; this applies mainly when a king finds himself in a weaker poistion and considers it unwise to engage in battle.
<b>Prakasayuddha </b>is open warfare, specifying time and place -i.e a set-piece battle.
<b>Kutayuddha </b>is concealed warfare and refer primarily to <i>upajapa</i>, psychological warfare including instigation of treachery in the enemy camp.
<b>Gudayuddha</b>, "clandestine war" is using covert methods to achieve the objective without actually waging a battle, usually by assissinating the enemy. In 'clandestine war' the king used not only his own agents and double agents, but also allies, vassal kings, tribal chiefs and the suborned friends and supporters of the enemy.
Link<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In Hindu polity war, or vigraha, was one of the six conditions of international relations, and the army* or bala one of the seven constituents of the state. Much of the art of warfare was overburdened with pedantic theory. After attempts at appeasement, bribery, internal dissension, and threat had been resorted to and failed, the whole force of the state was to be pitted against the enemy. This was war.
Two kinds of war were distinguished. The dharma-yuddha, 'righteous war', was fought according to the chivalric code of kings and warriors. it was a struggle of good against evil; a crusade or jihad for the establishment of right. Blatant acts of aggression were frequently put into this category. Their justification was expressed in the Mahaabhaarata by Kanika of the line of Bharadvaaja, who advocated the usurpation of degenerate dynasties as a righteous act. The tactics of dharma-yuddha were open (prakaasha), and it was without secrecy or stratagem, although recourse to magical means and mantras (spells) was permissible. Hence it was also called mantra-yuddha, war by spells. The koota-yuddha, 'false war', was actuated by greed (lobha) for territory or spoils, or lust for conquest and massacre. This type of warfare employed the methods of the asura (godless), hence was also called asurayuddha, and included subversion, secret agents, treachery, poisoning of drinking wells, killing of cattle, and sorcerous means. Among the latter was illusion (maayaa), of which only two examples need be given: 'The king is dressed up like a god or disguised as a pillar, and when the enemy comes to worship him, slays him'; 'The king visits the enemy dressed as a woman, or as a devil or evil spirit, and kills him at close quarters' (III, P. 333).
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Viren+Mar 9 2005, 09:11 AM-->QUOTE(Viren @ Mar 9 2005, 09:11 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> Thanks for the effort Anand K. A great topic for discussion.
From a little I've read about Arthashshastra or Art of War (or say Prince), <b>there's very little reference of 'just war' or 'moral war'</b>....why is that? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is an important question.. Methinks (from my very little knowledge) that this concept of "just war" was Augustine's concoction. Xtianity had employed too many rhetorical tricks and were running into a good dose of reality and needed a theological basis to now go and wage wars. But they were now in a fix -> they had to reconcile their previous rhetorics with realities and hence augustine came up with this "just war" concept.
Perhaps Buddhism also faced a similar problem ? And hence the mahayana split ? Can experts comment on how mahayana justifies violence ?
|
