Chandragupta Maurya | Pg7 Clothing, Pg8 CGM Nanda +Chanakya WAR Ethics - Page 8

Originally posted by: Kaana

I am yet to read it all. But I can't help asking this, which has been going on in my mind for sometime.

I personally feel CGM is a greater glory of India - the true "the great" than Ashoka and Akbar. Why were they called great - this needs to be understood first. Please throw some light here when you get time.

Kaana,
Do read the complete thread.
There are some good discussions in this thread towards the end.

About your question - Believe me, a complete book can be written in order to decide who was a more GREAT monarch. I hope you remember the following old post of mine, which i made on your request, last year, in the MP Forum, in order to answer the same question you have put here. :)

What is the BASIS of Greatness ?
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/bharat-ka-veer-putra-maharana-pratap/4363101/what-is-the-basis-of-greatness

My views about the Greatness of people are mentioned in it. A year has passed by since i made that post, and i can add a lot more in it, as i think i benefited by more reading and being in company of learned folks. Based on what you think / say, we can carry our discussion forward on this issue again, if new points are put forth. :)

Originally posted by: history_geek

Kaana,
Its great to see you here. Long long time.

Just when i had made my mind to stop posting in CN Forum, you are here.

Are you talking of the Mauryan seal which i have posted in the blog post ? If yes, then that's dated to late 4th century BCE - and it corresponds to time of Chandragupta Maurya. That is present in the National Museum now.

You are right in comparing it with the Asoka Chakra because this seal matches with the Chakra of Asoka.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Kaana,
Its great to see you here. Long long time.

Just when i had made my mind to stop posting in CN Forum, you are here.

Are you talking of the Mauryan seal which i have posted in the blog post ? If yes, then that's dated to late 4th century BCE - and it corresponds to time of Chandragupta Maurya. That is present in the National Museum now.

You are right in comparing it with the Asoka Chakra because this seal matches with the Chakra of Asoka.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Kaana,
Do read the complete thread.
There are some good discussions in this thread towards the end.

About your question - Believe me, a complete book can be written in order to decide who was a more GREAT monarch. I hope you remember the following old post of mine, which i made on your request, last year, in the MP Forum, in order to answer the same question you have put here. :)

What is the BASIS of Greatness ?
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/bharat-ka-veer-putra-maharana-pratap/4363101/what-is-the-basis-of-greatness

My views about the Greatness of people are mentioned in it. A year has passed by since i made that post, and i can add a lot more in it, as i think i benefited by more reading and being in company of learned folks. Based on what you think / say, we can carry our discussion forward on this issue again, if new points are put forth. :)

Originally posted by: Kaana

If my history knowledge is right no king has ruled from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Even the greatest empires stopped mid way into South India. What was the reason?

I understand the cholas were powerful. Was it because of this. But could it be a reason across all empires? Also if I am right Pallavas won over Kalinga sometime. I do not remember the timelines. Please bear with my gross ignorance here.

Yes, right.
No one ruled from Kashmir to the Southern most tip - Kanyakumari. But it was not possible. I remember i have answered this question too somewhere in the past, but due to time constraints i can not give the link / search that post.

Cholas, Cheras, Pallavas, Pandyas, Hoysalas, etc. were powerful at different times. The glory of any kingdom does not lasts forever. Till the time an empire / kingdom is powerful they can defend themselves. It takes just one correct attack from the enemy and it nullifies the various defeats which they might have faced in the past.

There can be many reasons why the major empires were not able to go deep into South. Unknown and tough terrain and a relatively unknown territory of the South was a major reason, often quoted. The Vindhyas were regarded as the boundary dividing North and South.

If you read the history of resistance which the native Indian kingdoms / rulers gave to the invading forces, the role played by terrain always comes into picture. MP and Shivaji the basic tool was guerilla warfare which was made possible by terrain. Both were helped by tribals too.

Another thing - If you see a century wise progress made by the invading forces, you will understand another aspect. The continuous rebellions and the counter attacks / uprisings by kingdoms in the North prevented the rulers of North from going into South. Bin Qasim gained Sindh as early as 8th century. Slowly the area which forms present day Afghanistan and West Pakistan was snatched till 10th - 11th century. Though, it took the tactical miscalculation of Prithviraj Chauhan which opened the doors of Indian mainland. You see the process of march from Sindh to Rajasthan (very small distance) took 4 centuries. There are lot of skirmishes recorded.

Alaudin Khilji went as deep as Madhurai with the help of Malik Kafur in the 13th - 14th century. Quite early. To reach South, they needed to subjugate the North completely which was not easily possible and never happened in totality. You would be amazed to see various empires and civilizations vanished which were West of India in no time during 7th-8th century AD but not in India. Think!

I am not saying that these were the only reasons. There can be other reasons too, like excellent leadership qualities of the kings which prevented the forces from North going deep inside.


BTW,
Do check these 2 threads.
I've 2 other historical threads in this forum (possibly i won't be making more).

#2.
History of Nanda dynasty - Mahapadmananda and Dhanananda | From Alexander to arrival of Chandragupta Maurya | Updated on Pg-3 about the Wars in Ancient / Mauryan Era
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/chandra-nandini/4735921/history-of-nandas-from-alexander-2-arrival-of-cgm-update-pg-3-wars

#3.
Status of Women in Magadhan Mauryan Society | Updated on Pg-2 about Sculptures ; Pg-3 Alexander Vs. an Indian Queen
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/chandra-nandini/4747538/women-in-mauryan-age-pg3-alexander-vs-an-indian-queen-pg5-vishkanya

Their summary can be found here :
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/138411814

Originally posted by: Kaana

It was a treat to read this. Thanks very much Abhay.

I have quote a few querie's to the expert. Will keep posting them.

Is the chakra (MauRyan seal) from the days of CGM? We hear it as Ashoka chakra, so wonder.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Kaana,
Its great to see you here. Long long time.

Just when i had made my mind to stop posting in CN Forum, you are here.

Are you talking of the Mauryan seal which i have posted in the blog post ? If yes, then that's dated to late 4th century BCE - and it corresponds to time of Chandragupta Maurya. That is present in the National Museum now.

You are right in comparing it with the Asoka Chakra because this seal matches with the Chakra of Asoka.

Originally posted by: history_geek

War Ethics : Chanakya

I came across some interesting points about Chanakya and his views on how to fight a war. He says many things about war. He is in favor of fighting a war with complete honesty but he also mentions some points which a king should follow if he is not sure of the honesty of his enemy, or is not sure of his own win in the war.


Chanakya says that any kind of attack is favorable. After striking at the front of the enemy's army, one should strike it again by means of his elephants and horses when it has shown its back and is running away.

If the front attack is unfavourable, he should strike it from behind; If the attack on the rear is unfavourable, he should strike it in front; when attack on one side is unfavourable, he should strike it on the other.

Bottomline : By hook or crook one should do anything to break the enemy.



After having captured the enemy's cattle (which were used for transporting the equipment of war) or having destroyed the enemy's dogs ( they were special war dogs ), he may induce the enemy's brave men to come out and may slay them.

One should make the enemy's men sleepless by harassing them at night, he may strike them during the day, when they are weary from want of sleep and are parched by heat, himself being under the shade.

With his army of elephants enshrouded with cotton and leather dress, one may offer a night-battle to his enemy. Or he may strike the enemy's men during the afternoon when they are tired by making preparations during the forenoon; or he may strike the whole of the enemy's army when it is facing the sun.

Chanakya in his Arthashastra has given how much prize money should be given to the soldier who brings the head of enemy from the war field. Chanakya mentions prize money for various deeds including the money which shall be awarded for slaying the king of the enemy ; for slaying the commander-in-chief, and the heir-apparent; for destroying an elephant or a chariot.

Chanakya displays a great sense of diplomacy. He says after fighting with your enemy if you realize that the enemy is more strong, then the king should seek peace;

if the armies are of equal strength, he (king) should make peace when requested for it;

and if the enemy is inferior, he should destroy the enemy completely,


But here also Chanakya is cautious. He says never attack that enemy which has secured a favourable position and is reckless of life. Because when a broken army, reckless of life, resumes its attack, its fury becomes irresistible; hence one should not harass a broken
army (of the enemy).

For those who have problem in understanding this, think of the practice of Saka done by the Rajputs. When they knew that they would not win the battle then they attacked the enemy to extract maximum vengeance and inflict maximum damage on the enemy. Chanakya says that it is always advisable to leave such a army in peace as they become very dangerous.


Chanakya supports spreading the false news of the danger among the ranks of the enemy, even setting the fire to the women quarters of the enemy, and the store-house of grains and other things.


Very practical, Chanakya was. His writings come across as devoid of morals and ethics, prima facie. History remembers him as a cold man, a heartless teacher (oxymoron) , a proud and revengeful master , a person merciless in precepts. A person rich in cruelty. He had only one religion and one goal and that was the protection of the state and administration. He never felt obliged to go according to the sastras. He is called Machiavelli for no other reason. Clever - cunning - ruthless in his methods.

Originally posted by: history_geek

War Ethics : Chanakya

I came across some interesting points about Chanakya and his views on how to fight a war. He says many things about war. He is in favor of fighting a war with complete honesty but he also mentions some points which a king should follow if he is not sure of the honesty of his enemy, or is not sure of his own win in the war.


Chanakya says that any kind of attack is favorable. After striking at the front of the enemy's army, one should strike it again by means of his elephants and horses when it has shown its back and is running away.

If the front attack is unfavourable, he should strike it from behind; If the attack on the rear is unfavourable, he should strike it in front; when attack on one side is unfavourable, he should strike it on the other.

Bottomline : By hook or crook one should do anything to break the enemy.



After having captured the enemy's cattle (which were used for transporting the equipment of war) or having destroyed the enemy's dogs ( they were special war dogs ), he may induce the enemy's brave men to come out and may slay them.

One should make the enemy's men sleepless by harassing them at night, he may strike them during the day, when they are weary from want of sleep and are parched by heat, himself being under the shade.

With his army of elephants enshrouded with cotton and leather dress, one may offer a night-battle to his enemy. Or he may strike the enemy's men during the afternoon when they are tired by making preparations during the forenoon; or he may strike the whole of the enemy's army when it is facing the sun.

Chanakya in his Arthashastra has given how much prize money should be given to the soldier who brings the head of enemy from the war field. Chanakya mentions prize money for various deeds including the money which shall be awarded for slaying the king of the enemy ; for slaying the commander-in-chief, and the heir-apparent; for destroying an elephant or a chariot.

Chanakya displays a great sense of diplomacy. He says after fighting with your enemy if you realize that the enemy is more strong, then the king should seek peace;

if the armies are of equal strength, he (king) should make peace when requested for it;

and if the enemy is inferior, he should destroy the enemy completely,


But here also Chanakya is cautious. He says never attack that enemy which has secured a favourable position and is reckless of life. Because when a broken army, reckless of life, resumes its attack, its fury becomes irresistible; hence one should not harass a broken
army (of the enemy).

For those who have problem in understanding this, think of the practice of Saka done by the Rajputs. When they knew that they would not win the battle then they attacked the enemy to extract maximum vengeance and inflict maximum damage on the enemy. Chanakya says that it is always advisable to leave such a army in peace as they become very dangerous.


Chanakya supports spreading the false news of the danger among the ranks of the enemy, even setting the fire to the women quarters of the enemy, and the store-house of grains and other things.


Very practical, Chanakya was. His writings come across as devoid of morals and ethics, prima facie. History remembers him as a cold man, a heartless teacher (oxymoron) , a proud and revengeful master , a person merciless in precepts. A person rich in cruelty. He had only one religion and one goal and that was the protection of the state and administration. He never felt obliged to go according to the sastras. He is called Machiavelli for no other reason. Clever - cunning - ruthless in his methods.

Bhaskar,

I am quoting part of my comment from another thread. On that thread we were discussing whether Chanakya follows dharma-sastras in order to follow his dharm.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/139016861

I am quoting the part which is related to Chanakya here. The words which are relevant to your comment have been highlighted in bold.


The principle of Mayacaro mentioned in Santi Parva of Mahabharata is as follows :


It means - "Religion and Morality teaches us to behave with others in the same way as they behave with us ; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons".

Mayacaro principle does not leave any scope for ambiguity or contextual evaluation. It is a very clear and objective assessment. It permits one to be deceitful towards a deceitful person. Does this gives anyone a permission to use deceit with a person who might not be deceitful ? No. The permission to use "unscruplous" means is only permitted against a immoral enemy.

But Chanakya won't hesitate to use "unscruplous" means even against a "moral" enemy if his his "scruplous" means fail to yield the desired result. As its said, according to Chanakya, the ends are important, but he was not toiling for selfish ends. He was working for the state - to build Bharatvarsha.

If we turn to Arthasastra. The Mayacaro principle will be rendered invalid and hence can not be used to explain actions of Chanakya. As you said - " According to Chanakya, greater good is held in mind and put before the conduct." This is true. But what is the definition of that "greater good" ? That greater good is "protection of state".

For Chanakya, everything boils down to just one thing - state and administration. He says : " Sukhasya mulam dharma: , dharmasya mulam artha: , arthasya mulam rajyam " which means "Righteousness is the root of happiness, wealth is the root of righteousness, state is the root of wealth". Even here dharma and state are related by him. And, in order to keep the state running, Chanakya prescribes "anything and everything".

For example : Chanakya permits assasination of a rival king when he goes to perform worship in a temple. Is this according to the Dharmasastras ? No. Killing in a temple is a sin according to the Agni Purana. { All these Puranas are penned down in the Kaliyug, and were widely followed.}

This violates the Mayacaro but it can be justified for the case of Chanakya. This is "dharma" for Chanakya. Its his obligation towards his state. According to Chanakya, he is simply doing what is in best interest of his state. Despite going against the dharma-sastras, he is following the dharma. Dharma IS subtle - as you say. Chanakya justifies everything like this only. His duty is towards his state and protecting the state is his dharma and for that he does not needs any dharmasastras. And for this reason only, Chanakya was criticized by Bana Bhatta who lived in the court of King Harshavardhana during the 7th century AD. And it is a severe criticism, because Bana Bhatta was a serious follower of dharmasastras and did not like the approach of Arthashastra.

This discussion is endless. There are many military historians, so many thinkers and philosophers and tonnes of material on ethics. But no conclusion on this topic, at least i am yet to arrive at any conclusion. My reply is according to my present status of reading. :)


It may appear that i am criticizing Chanakya. But that is not the case. It is only my admiration for this great strategist and one of the brightest brains of Bharatvarsha, that i am writing and participating in this discussion.

Though, i am still of the opinion (unless i am 'corrected' or countered ) that Chanakya did not follow the dharma sastras, but it is not his fault. We have to see the era in which he lived.

To be fair enough to him, the country had just then witnessed a political turmoil. The Greeks were knocking at the doors on the North West, even subjugated Punjab. The country had already seen strangehold of foreign domination. The greatest empire of the Magadha was unpopular and deteriorating. Chanakya would also have been aware of the tactics employed by the Greeks, which were surely not according to the dharmasastras of Indians.

He was probably the first person to understand the practical needs of the country. He knew whom he was fighting against, and had a great sense of human psychology. So, under such circumstances, what he did can not be criticized without giving a second thought to his objectives and the adverse circumstances he was fighting against.

Anyone who reads Arthasastra, will see, ultimately Chanakya connects everything with Dharma and Artha.


The following invocation is carved on one of the red sandstone arches over one of the main portals of the South Block in the Central Secretariat of the Government of India -


Perhaps, even the Government of India, realized the basic ideology of Indic thought and civilization, stressing upon the importance of Dharma as well as Artha.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Bhaskar,

I am quoting part of my comment from another thread. On that thread we were discussing whether Chanakya follows dharma-sastras in order to follow his dharm.

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/139016861

I am quoting the part which is related to Chanakya here. The words which are relevant to your comment have been highlighted in bold.


The principle of Mayacaro mentioned in Santi Parva of Mahabharata is as follows :

yasmin yatha vartate yo manushya: , tasmins tatha vartitavyam sa dharma: |
mayacaro mayaya badh-ittavya: , sadhvacara: sadhuma pratyupeya: ||

It means - "Religion and Morality teaches us to behave with others in the same way as they behave with us ; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons".

Mayacaro principle does not leave any scope for ambiguity or contextual evaluation. It is a very clear and objective assessment. It permits one to be deceitful towards a deceitful person. Does this gives anyone a permission to use deceit with a person who might not be deceitful ? No. The permission to use "unscruplous" means is only permitted against a immoral enemy.

But Chanakya won't hesitate to use "unscruplous" means even against a "moral" enemy if his his "scruplous" means fail to yield the desired result. As its said, according to Chanakya, the ends are important, but he was not toiling for selfish ends. He was working for the state - to build Bharatvarsha.

If we turn to Arthasastra. The Mayacaro principle will be rendered invalid and hence can not be used to explain actions of Chanakya. As you said - " According to Chanakya, greater good is held in mind and put before the conduct." This is true. But what is the definition of that "greater good" ? That greater good is "protection of state".

For Chanakya, everything boils down to just one thing - state and administration. He says : " Sukhasya mulam dharma: , dharmasya mulam artha: , arthasya mulam rajyam " which means "Righteousness is the root of happiness, wealth is the root of righteousness, state is the root of wealth". Even here dharma and state are related by him. And, in order to keep the state running, Chanakya prescribes "anything and everything".

For example : Chanakya permits assasination of a rival king when he goes to perform worship in a temple. Is this according to the Dharmasastras ? No. Killing in a temple is a sin according to the Agni Purana. { All these Puranas are penned down in the Kaliyug, and were widely followed.}

This violates the Mayacaro but it can be justified for the case of Chanakya. This is "dharma" for Chanakya. Its his obligation towards his state. According to Chanakya, he is simply doing what is in best interest of his state. Despite going against the dharma-sastras, he is following the dharma. Dharma IS subtle - as you say. Chanakya justifies everything like this only. His duty is towards his state and protecting the state is his dharma and for that he does not needs any dharmasastras. And for this reason only, Chanakya was criticized by Bana Bhatta who lived in the court of King Harshavardhana during the 7th century AD. And it is a severe criticism, because Bana Bhatta was a serious follower of dharmasastras and did not like the approach of Arthashastra.

This discussion is endless. There are many military historians, so many thinkers and philosophers and tonnes of material on ethics. But no conclusion on this topic, at least i am yet to arrive at any conclusion. My reply is according to my present status of reading. :)


It may appear that i am criticizing Chanakya. But that is not the case. It is only my admiration for this great strategist and one of the brightest brains of Bharatvarsha, that i am writing and participating in this discussion.

Though, i am still of the opinion (unless i am 'corrected' or countered ) that Chanakya did not follow the dharma sastras, but it is not his fault. We have to see the era in which he lived.

To be fair enough to him, the country had just then witnessed a political turmoil. The Greeks were knocking at the doors on the North West, even subjugated Punjab. The country had already seen strangehold of foreign domination. The greatest empire of the Magadha was unpopular and deteriorating. Chanakya would also have been aware of the tactics employed by the Greeks, which were surely not according to the dharmasastras of Indians.

He was probably the first person to understand the practical needs of the country. He knew whom he was fighting against, and had a great sense of human psychology. So, under such circumstances, what he did can not be criticized without giving a second thought to his objectives and the adverse circumstances he was fighting against.

Anyone who reads Arthasastra, will see, ultimately Chanakya connects everything with Dharma and Artha.


The following invocation is carved on one of the red sandstone arches over one of the main portals of the South Block in the Central Secretariat of the Government of India -

"Atha Dharm-Artha-phalaya Rajyaya Nama: "
It means : "Honor the state - the root of law and weal"

Perhaps, even the Government of India, realized the basic ideology of Indic thought and civilization, stressing upon the importance of Dharma as well as Artha.