Chandragupta Maurya | Pg7 Clothing, Pg8 CGM Nanda +Chanakya WAR Ethics - Page 6

Thanks for the response😊. I will respond in detail as soon as I get time. For now I will keep it short due to lack of time. History is His Story. The story accepted by majority scholars will become official history but it is subject to revisions as we grow and evolve. I didn't mean to say Indo China war was caused by media reports. I ment that it greatly added fuel to fire at that time. The reasons I have studied in much detail but will not express in open forum as you can get charged for high treason. Henderson Brooks report would summarise my view on subject😕. Edited by maharathikarna - 7 years ago

Originally posted by: maharathikarna

Thanks for the response😊. I will respond in detail as soon as I get time. For now I will keep it short due to lack of time. History is His Story. The story accepted by majority scholars will become official history but it is subject to revisions as we grow and evolve.


Bhaskar,
My idea is to read as many versions possible. And then give a judgement on the same. There is always a room for improvement because we never know which book / source might have escaped our scrutiny. Will look forward to your views.


I didn't mean to say Indo China war was caused by media reports. I ment that it greatly added fuel to fire at that time. The reasons I have studied in much detail but will not express in open forum as you can get charged for high treason. Henderson Brooks report would summarise my view on subject😕.

I understood that point. You were critical of the forward post policy of the Indian government. Henderson Brooks report is itself a ticking bomb. Many shining stars of our history are supposed to be held guilty in that report. Precisely for that reason that report would never be declassified. And, for that reason only, i just provided a link to that report's commentary, instead of explaining about it, 'coz some folks of our history are treated as unquestionable. ;)

My critique of official history stems from the fact that kings like rajendran chola and his father raja raja chola or for that matter zorawar singh or hari singh nalwa or even baji rao peshwa don't get any significant space in it despite their grand achievements compared to people like pritviraj chauhan who get much space.

I remember reading about Cholas in detail in my school books. Though, there was complete absence of Peshwa Bajirao and Zorawar Singh, but for that you got to blame the administration of 1970s who wrote history with particular motivations. Even Rama Chandra Guha {he calls himself a lapsed Marxist} has criticized this approach of history writing in our curriculum.

And if there is any step, even remotely taken to make any change, the hue and cry raised is known to all. In fact, contrary to your view, i have a grievance that the Prithviraj (PRC) is not given that position in the official history as he deserved. He is respected in popular public memory but has just 2-3 paragraphs in our history textbooks. How much we know about him, except that he fought 2 wars and his affair with Sanyogita ? Our books talk more about Md. Ghori.

Moreover, the TV show made by Sagars was FAR from the history of PRC. The audience loved it but there not a shred of historical accuracy in that show. They based it on Prithviraj Raso which was more of a fictional work. PRC's mother was from a Kalachuri dynasty of Malwa not from the family of Delhi ruler as that show had shown. Neither his father died fighting with Bhimadev.

BTW, i wrote a post about General Zorawar Singh and shared it on my social media account this year. 12th October was his death anniversary. I will share if you wish.


But then my views will be heretic in majority  view. So i normally don't express myself in forums n restrict myself in research😆.

Don't feel singled out. My views also fall in the same category, mostly, and i experienced this in an earlier forum where i used to write a lot. Great to have you here.

Two new threads about Mauryans :


Thread 2

This post includes the history of Nanda rulers and their origin, including the conspiracy of the Queen of Shishunaga along with the Nanda barber to murder her husband, and more...

I have included the pictures of sculptures which were obtained from visits to various museums, which give us an idea about the prevailing culture of that period.


Forum Thread Link :

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/topic/4735921


Direct Post Link :

History of Nanda Rulers | Mahapadma Nanda and Dhana Nanda | Pre - Mauryan Magadha Empire before arrival of Alexander and rise of Chandragupta Maurya I With ancient sculptures




Thread 3

I was reading about the Mauryan Empire & came across few snippets which made me make a post on the position of women in that period. Overall, i got an impression that they held high status in the society and their condition had not deteriorated as it happened in the later ancient period and medieval ages.

I have quoted, mostly Greeks, and some Indian accounts of this period. The topics i have discussed are :

- Marriage System & Dowry : which was quite simple.

- Conditions when a wife could divorce a husband : women treated at par with men.

- Education of Women : they remained unmarried in some cases to continue studies.

- Women Warriors in Military : an eye opener. Must read.

- Practice of Widow Burning : More like the modern day Sati but voluntary in Mauryan times.

- Courtesans : Held in great respect. I have also mentioned the story of Amrapali and Gautam Buddha.

- Prostitutes : They were employed in the royal household on a big salary. They held the royal umbrella & attended upon the king while he was on his throne. Chanakya holds them in high importance.


Forum Thread Link :

Status of Women in Magadhan Mauryan Society | Updt CGM - Helena Pg-1
https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/4747538


Direct Post Link :

Status of Women in Magadhan Mauryan Society | With Sculptures and Jewels

Chandrgupta's army at the time of fighting against Nandas had many native Indian rulers. Surely he did not take full fledged help from the Greek army of Alexander. But...

A Sanskrit text mentions Yavans forming a small part of the army of CGM against Nandas, but that may not mean Macedonians. Alexander after his death had left the Indian territories under his general named Eudeymus. He was placed along with Porus. The Yavans may mean those foreign forces who were under Porus. Later, Eudeymus is said to have murdered Porus.

Parvataka also aligned with Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya to fight Nandas.

The Kamboja rulers aligned with CGM against Nandas. Kambojas are mentioned in Mahabharata too. They fought on side of Kauravas. Earlier  their territories were located beyond Gandhara, beyond Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan. According to Ptolemy, they lived as far as river Oxus in Bactria.

During the times of Alexander, they had settled around present day Rajauri in Jammu and Kashmir. Manu calls them Kshatriyas.

According to Chanakaya, 5 types of people should always be included in the army. And, the robbers / dacoits / bandits, were mentioned among those 5 types. ;)

The people of present day Nepal also helped Chandragupta to fight against the Nandas. They are called Gurkhas now. They were called the "terrible fighters" in the Greek accounts. They are mentioned in the Yajurveda, Atharvaveda, and are described as "mountain people and hunters of the forests and deadly warriors."

In the dharmasastra by Manu , they are mentioned as low Kshatriyas, which meant that they were considered to be of advanced civilization, but outside the ambit of Vedic influence. They are mentioned in vedic literature and are described as gold-like, i.e, yellow in color in skin color.

The Vedas, Ramayana and Mahabharata viewed them as fearful and terrible mountain people. The Ramayana describes them in the Kiskindha Kanda. In Vedic texts, the Himalayan region extending from Himachal Pradesh in the west, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Nepal, Assam and Tripura in the east to Chittagong in the south was referred as their country.

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.

Here it is also important to differentiate with the battle tactics in ancient India and in medieval India. Ancient India was different, and there is no doubt about that.

Despite whatever Chanakya says in Arthashastra ; the fact of the matter is - there are sufficient manuals written by Manu and many other contemporary thinkers / philosophers etc. which give a fine description of the war ethics of those times. If we are reading Chanakya, we have to read the others too and argue in a balanced manner.

Chanakya's is a special case & his writings can not be taken to generalize the tactics adopted by all the other kings. Also, we should remember that the writings of Chanakya are advisory in nature. It is not a niti sastra nor the dharma sastra to which all the kings or priestly class adhered by.

Even Chanakya favors to fight a war on honest lines before employing any treacherous tactics. I mentioned it in the update above. There are special cases & reasons for which he advocates treachery. Treachery is different and it should not be confused with ethical means. Harming women etc. on a systematic scale like done in medieval times was unheard of in BCE era - more so because women were themselves a part of the fighting forces. And this is 4th century BCE ; the post Vedic age, the condition of women was not so bad.

{
For more information check this latest thread :
Status of Women in Mauryan Age
Updated on Pg 2 about Sculpture of Women Warriors
Pg3 about Battle of Alexander vs an Indian Queen

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/4747538
}

Certain code of warfare was followed and the situation was not so gory as we imagine to be. We have medieval examples too. Krishnadeva Raya released the wife of the defeated Gajapati ruler who had fallen in his hands. The reason given was his following the code of warfare as given in the sastras.

Since most discussion revolves around Chanakya, it is important to note that, he spared all the captives of war after defeat of the Nanda ruler & ordered Chandragupta to free them. This is mentioned in Mudra Rakshasa. Looks impossible ? But one of the text says this.

A Buddhist (or Jain, i forgot) account says that Chanakya spared the life of the Nanda ruler and allowed him to go alive with his wife and with as much treasure he wanted to take at once to the forest to live in exile.

As i mentioned earlier, the finest testimony of following ethics during a war in ancient India comes from the Greek ambassador Megasthenese who stayed in the court of Chandragupta Maurya, whereby he clearly expresses his surprise by saying - "while it is a common practice in all the nations of world to destroy the land of enemy and reduce it to uncultivable land during a war ; among the Indians, on the contrary the tillers of the soil who are regarded as sacred were treated inviolable. Even if the battle is raging in their neighborhood the combatants allow them to continue their work and they remain unmolested. Neither they destroy the enemy territory nor they put fire to it."

{
This was mentioned in thread 2.
Here : https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/138043335
}

Megasthenese was surprised, probably, because prior to this experience he had seen the Greek form of warfare, which included total carnage and no adherence to any ethics in warfare. This makes him record this observation with a surprise. I have listed a massacre of Alexander in an old post on my thread whose link i shared above {Link}, when he was fighting against an Indian Queen.

A glimpse of ethical warfare in ancient India is also found in the ancient Tamil epic called Silappadikaram. Members from the South, especially, must have read that epic. It mentions a case where members of the defeated army tried to escape the war field in disguise of ascetics / Brahman saints / war musicians etc. and they were not harmed by the victorious army. This is because the above mentioned category of people could not be harmed in a warfare according to the sastras. Still some of them were captured by Senguttuvan and brought to the monarch but he was reprimanded for having broken the code of warfare.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Here it is also important to differentiate with the battle tactics in ancient India and in medieval India. Ancient India was different, and there is no doubt about that.

Despite whatever Chanakya says in Arthashastra ; the fact of the matter is - there are sufficient manuals written by Manu and many other contemporary thinkers / philosophers etc. which give a fine description of the war ethics of those times. If we are reading Chanakya, we have to read the others too and argue in a balanced manner.

Chanakya's is a special case & his writings can not be taken to generalize the tactics adopted by all the other kings. Also, we should remember that the writings of Chanakya are advisory in nature. It is not a niti sastra nor the dharma sastra to which all the kings or priestly class adhered by.

Even Chanakya favors to fight a war on honest lines before employing any treacherous tactics. I mentioned it in the update above. There are special cases & reasons for which he advocates treachery. Treachery is different and it should not be confused with ethical means. Harming women etc. on a systematic scale like done in medieval times was unheard of in BCE era - more so because women were themselves a part of the fighting forces. And this is 4th century BCE ; the post Vedic age, the condition of women was not so bad.

{
For more information check this latest thread :
Status of Women in Mauryan Age
Updated on Pg 2 about Sculpture of Women Warriors
Pg3 about Battle of Alexander vs an Indian Queen

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/topic/4747538
}

Certain code of warfare was followed and the situation was not so gory as we imagine to be. We have medieval examples too. Krishnadeva Raya released the wife of the defeated Gajapati ruler who had fallen in his hands. The reason given was his following the code of warfare as given in the sastras.

Since most discussion revolves around Chanakya, it is important to note that, he spared all the captives of war after defeat of the Nanda ruler & ordered Chandragupta to free them. This is mentioned in Mudra Rakshasa. Looks impossible ? But one of the text says this.

A Buddhist (or Jain, i forgot) account says that Chanakya spared the life of the Nanda ruler and allowed him to go alive with his wife and with as much treasure he wanted to take at once to the forest to live in exile.

As i mentioned earlier, the finest testimony of following ethics during a war in ancient India comes from the Greek ambassador Megasthenese who stayed in the court of Chandragupta Maurya, whereby he clearly expresses his surprise by saying - "while it is a common practice in all the nations of world to destroy the land of enemy and reduce it to uncultivable land during a war ; among the Indians, on the contrary the tillers of the soil who are regarded as sacred were treated inviolable. Even if the battle is raging in their neighborhood the combatants allow them to continue their work and they remain unmolested. Neither they destroy the enemy territory nor they put fire to it."

{
This was mentioned in thread 2.
Here : https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/post/138043335
}

Megasthenese was surprised, probably, because prior to this experience he had seen the Greek form of warfare, which included total carnage and no adherence to any ethics in warfare. This makes him record this observation with a surprise. I have listed a massacre of Alexander in an old post on my thread whose link i shared above {Link}, when he was fighting against an Indian Queen.

A glimpse of ethical warfare in ancient India is also found in the ancient Tamil epic called Silappadikaram. Members from the South, especially, must have read that epic. It mentions a case where members of the defeated army tried to escape the war field in disguise of ascetics / Brahman saints / war musicians etc. and they were not harmed by the victorious army. This is because the above mentioned category of people could not be harmed in a warfare according to the sastras. Still some of them were captured by Senguttuvan and brought to the monarch but he was reprimanded for having broken the code of warfare.

Originally posted by: devkidmd

I read about what Megasthenes has written about war ethics in his Indica too. 

I guess it is called the "scorched earth" technique or something. It is admirable that such a policy that disallowed the use of it was followed thousands of years ago.

From whatever little I have read of Indica, the ambassador comes across as a staunch Indophile.😆

Great to see you back, Devki.

Scorched Earth Policy is different. It is a technique of burning or destroying crops or other resources that might be of use to an invading enemy force. This was used by Maharana Pratap against war with Mughals. And more recently, by Vietnam against the United States in their war few decades back.

What Megasthenese says is that no one (enemy) touched the farmer or his lands, etc while fighting a war. And this is an almost confirmed fact because similar tradition is also mentioned in the Buddhist literature.

Megasthenese, being new to the Indian land was greatly in awe of the customs here. Since you have read a bit about his writings , as you say, then you must have seen how he writes everything "great Indian culture" ; "great Indian tribes" ; "great Indian XYZ"  ; etc. ;)

Though, there is need to verify and compare his writings with other sources too, to arrive at a more clear conclusion. His original work is lost, and whatever survives has been divided in 4 categories by the historians based on the degree of reliability in those 4 categories. Category 1 being the most reliable and 4 the least.

PS : Megasthenese knew Porus too and had met him. He writes - Porus was the greatest Indian king ; even greater than Chandragupta Maurya.

Originally posted by: history_geek

Great to see you back, Devki.

Scorched Earth Policy is different. It is a technique of burning or destroying crops or other resources that might be of use to an invading enemy force. This was used by Maharana Pratap against war with Mughals. And more recently, by Vietnam against the United States in their war few decades back.

What Megasthenese says is that no one (enemy) touched the farmer or his lands, etc while fighting a war. And this is an almost confirmed fact because similar tradition is also mentioned in the Buddhist literature.

Megasthenese, being new to the Indian land was greatly in awe of the customs here. Since you have read a bit about his writings , as you say, then you must have seen how he writes everything "great Indian culture" ; "great Indian tribes" ; "great Indian XYZ"  ; etc. ;)

Though, there is need to verify and compare his writings with other sources too, to arrive at a more clear conclusion. His original work is lost, and whatever survives has been divided in 4 categories by the historians based on the degree of reliability in those 4 categories. Category 1 being the most reliable and 4 the least.

PS : Megasthenese knew Porus too and had met him. He writes - Porus was the greatest Indian king ; even greater than Chandragupta Maurya.

Originally posted by: Teejsssgod

emperor

I didn't understand your comment.