Dharmayuddha: Feasibility and Problems
A Dharmayuddha, as described in Mahabharata, was
the rules of engagements followed by the belligerents as the code of honor in
ancient India. It was meant to provide both sides an even ground to compete
with each other for victory. They are considered chivalric and fair and they
make the war more like a game and not an outbreak of all out hostilities.
A good Wikipedia article about Dharmayuddha can be found here.
The most famous rules are as follows along with
my view of their usefulness (Green ones are feasible according to me and the application of Red ones seem to be difficult and impractical):
1. Fighting
must begin no earlier than sunrise and end exactly at sunset: It
provides troops with adequate rest at night. Also provides a sense of security
at night to relieve the troops of their mental stress. But also causes the
troop to be caught off guard by an enemy trying to exploit this vulnerability
by breaking the rules. Such events have been seen again and again in the
history of India, Indian army being surprised by the foreign enemies before
dawn (Purus against Alexander, Prithwiraj against Ghori etc).
2. Multiple
warriors may not attack a single warrior: I think that directly
contradicts the principle of force concentration which is one of the basic
manoeuvres employed in the battlefield. This rule severely decreases the
manoeuvrability of an army preventing decisive victory hard to gain.
3.
Two warriors may duel, or engage in
prolonged personal combat, only if they carry the same weapons and they are on
the same mount (no mount, a horse, an elephant, or a chariot): No problem if the rule is limited to
the dueling of distinguished warriors, but if it is applied to the common troopers
as well, the concept of Chaturanga (combination of infantry, cavalry, elephant
and charioteers) army becomes pointless. None can be deployed to their full potential;
like Elephants can’t be used to break enemy ranks and cavalry can’t charge
enemy infantry. This will severely hamper development of diverse tactics.
4.
No warrior may kill or injure a warrior
who has surrendered: This
perfectly synchronizes with modern rules of engagement.
5.
One who surrenders becomes a prisoner of
war and will then be subject to the protections of a prisoner of war: This is a very good principle
providing security to POW of both sides.
6.
No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed
warrior: It’s a
very chivalric rule. But that will prevent a belligerent to pursue a routed
army giving them chance to regroup.
7.
No warrior may kill or injure an
unconscious warrior: That’s
a very good principle. There is no point in harming a soldier who is not even
able to defend himself.
8.
No warrior may kill or injure a person or
animal not taking part in the war: It will prevent collateral damage of a battle
to a large extent. So it’s a very desirable principle. But it will also prevent
armies to employ some sorts of desperate last line defenses like scorched earth
policy. It will also prevent commerce raiding and these types of offence.
9.
No warrior may kill or injure a warrior
whose back is turned away: This has same problem as point 6. Letting the enemy regroup and attack
again is never a desirable option.
10.
No warrior may strike an animal not
considered a direct threat: I think this rule prevents killing of the chariot horses or the mounts
of the warriors. This certainly does not make sense. Because killing the mounts
is easier than killing a horseman in many situations, especially in those days
of unarmored horses.
11.
The rules specific to each weapon must be
followed. For example, it is prohibited to strike below the waist in mace
warfare: This
should be applicable to dueling elite warriors only. As these rules, if applied
to common troopers, would prevent development of sophisticated weapons tactics.
12.
Warriors may not engage in any 'unfair'
warfare whatsoever: Off course the word ‘unfair’ needs further explanation. Anyway war is
not a game and thousands of lives of soldiers depend on the decision of their
commanders. ‘Fairness’ seems a little bit luxury here.
13.
The lives of women, prisoners of war, and
farmers are sacred: Certainly
it’s a good principle. It will prevent collateral damage and spoils of war like
the 8th point.
14.
Pillaging the land is forbidden: It is a humane principle. But if the
victor does not wish to capture land, he does not have any prize according to
this rule. Anyway this rule will prevent complete destruction of the enemy.
As can
be seen, Principles of Dharmayuddha have mixed usefulness. Some of the rules
are insufficient to allow troop maneuvering according to the battlefield needs.
Other rules prevent unnecessary destructions of resources and population by the
victors.
Anyway, in war the lives of the troopers are
precious and a commander should try to bring minimal number of casualties to
his own army. The lives of common soldiers are a very costly price to pay for
the chivalrous glory of the elite warriors. The war should be ended with as
less damage as possible. But some rules of Dharmayuddha tend to convert the
potential war of maneuver to a war of attrition wearing down both sides
increasing over all damage. A little more maneuvering, than what Dharmayuddha
permits, is often necessary to save thousands of lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comment. Your comment will be visible after moderation.