The Hindu Tradition14
There are two contradictory traditions about war among Hindus. One, rooted in the epic literature, is concerned with jus in bello but not much with jus ad bellum. Both the Mahabharata and the Ramayana focus, like the Iliad, not on battles but on individual heroes and on duels, which must be fought according to dharma, a term covering proper conduct and the right way of living in peace and war, one of life’s goals in Hindu tradition.
Killing a civilian who is asleep, wounded, or has surrendered is a sin. Fighting is forbidden at night or during the monsoon. In the Bhagavad Gita, the hero Arjuna learns that strict rules govern the conduct of war: cavalry may only go into action against cavalry, infantry against infantry, and third party intervention between similarly armed opponents is condemned. Thus, in the Ramayana, when Ravanna from a chariot attacks Rama who is on foot, the gods interrupt because such a fight is unfair. A king must not use deceit, magic, or trickery. These are rules for duels between individual heroes fighting for such purposes as saving kidnapped maidens (the Ramayana), rather than wars to achieve purposes of state. Even when addressing the duties of the king, the Mahabharata does not discuss what justifies war or who has the authority to declare one. The concern is with heroism, justice, and righteousness—that is, with proper conduct according to dharma.Kautilya’s Arthashastra (Science of Worldly Gains) defines the second Hindu perspective on war. In India, the four traditional goals of life were justice and righteousness (dharma), enjoyment (kama), liberation from the cycle of rebirth (nirvana), and worldly gain (artha). Kautilya believed artha the most important of the four in managing a kingdom. Kings exist to insure the security and prosperity of their kingdoms, which sometimes requires going to war.
However, Kautilya stresses the risks of war, advises caution rather than heroism (useful only because it makes winning more likely), and instructs the king to avoid it if at all possible, making war something close to a last resort. Kautilya believed in alliances and in benevolence toward and preservation of the way of life of the conquered. He speaks little about how to fight, but if it comes to that, advocates any tactics needed to win. Killing an enemy through deceit or trickery is no breach of dharma.The two Hindu traditions are diametrically opposed. The first, rooted in epic literature, sees dharma as fundamental; the second, rooted in experience, sees artha as the goal of statecraft. One sees war as an end in itself, the other as a means to an end. One sees kingship as divine, the second as contractual. One extols bravery, the other prudence. One insists on proportionality, the other condemns it. One condemns trickery; the other praises it. One extols bravery and fighting for its own sake; the other advises prudence and action based on raison d’etat. In a word, the first ignores jus ad bellum, the second ignores jus in bello.