CUSTOMS OF WARFARE IN ANCIENT INDIA.

I t may seem a far cry from discussions on questions of modern international law to the customs of warfare in ancient India. Yet a study of these has a threefold value. As members of the British Empire, Indian civilisation has much to teach us. I n this hunying age we are too apt to think that t h e problems of to-day are new, whereas most of them presented themselves 2,000 or 3,000 years ago, and in some respects u e are not much nearer a solution. Yet, whilst we sometimes recognise Greek, Roman OF Hebrew f contributions to the laws o war, for most of us Indian customs are of necessity a sealed book. Thirdly, at the moment, because Germany broke the laws of war, and other countries perforce departed from the conventions, there is a feeling of pessimism on the subject, and many believe that it is hopeless to make rules which will only be broken : t h a t in war there can be no law." As far as this paper is concerned, I have two main difficulties. First, the understanding of the subject necessitates some acquaintance with the groundwork of Indian history and polity, and indeed of the Hindu social system. Secondly, there is an enormous mess of material available, for a period between the twelfth century B.C. and-the twelfth century A . D . ; and though it has been necessary to consult hundreds of volumes, to give details of theee is manifestly impossible. Suffice it to say that the period begins with the Aryan invasion of India, and ends with the Mohammedan conquest. It includes mighty dynasties, one of which, the Mauryan, proved a match for Seleukos, a successor of Alexander the Great. Six hundred years later a Gupta Dynasty in Northern India brought Indian civilisation to perhaps its zenith. Ordinarily, however, and in the absence of a Power pre-eminently strong,
"

t h e Indian States, if we can use the term, were constantly in a position of warfare with one another, and had many opportunities of putting their rules of war to the tec3t. It will be obvious that with so many different dynasties ruling at different times and in various parts of India., it would be idle to expect common usages any more than in Europe. Yet to this day, after thousands of years, the epic tradition, enshrined in the Mahiibhiirata and in the Riimiiyana, the chief sacred books of the Hindus, still Lingers in t h e Indian Army; and in Palestine and on the n g r i s the Indian soldier believed that he was fight-ing for the same Dharma for which his ancestors, as he thought, fought on the field of Kurukshetra, near Delhi, over three thousand years ago. I shall now simply summarise the evidence, endeavouring to illustrate the variety of the problems which the ancient Hindus considered, rather t'han attempt, with the short time at our disposal, to work them out in detail.
Commencement of War.

From the earliest times there was a custom of giving notice before engaging in battle. By the despatch of envoys, whose function, it might be, was to set forth clearly t.he issues at stake, and to offer peace if t h e righteous demands of their masters were accepted, i t was hoped to secure what in these days we should call " As thou askest for peace, no one will regard " a good Press." thee as sinful." I n t h e event of rejection, a day might be fixed for battle, with special reference not merely to climatic conditions, but to an auspicious day. Whilst the prudence of t h e priests saw t h e wisdom of formalities, to the warrior the giving of notice was in accordance with his ideas of chivalry. I n addition t o notice before battle, formal declarations of war were not uncommon. t These did not necessarily involve actual military operations. L might be better to secure the impoverishment of the foe, to lay a n embargo on his merchandise, and starve him into submission. Conversely, t.here might be an agreement of peace, and a t the same time a relentless underground campaign against the enemy, in which spies and secret agents took a prominent part. There was from very early times a third school of thought which held t h a t the essence of successful warfare is swiftness, the surprising

of the enemy a t the moment selected by the attacker. I n some cases the blackest treachery was practised, but this was contrary to the Dharma of pious kings. Huien Tsang, t h e Chinese Pilgrim of the seventh century A.D., tells us t h a t the Marfithiis, if going f to seek revenge, first give the enemy warning. I we judge peoples as well as individuals by their highest qualities, we should not neglect the desire for fair-play evinced by the oft-recurring indication of " notice " before engaging in battle. And we can do so without claiming for a moment that this was the practice of conquering kings, much less of weaker kings, whose only chance of success must often have been in stratagem.

Temperamenta Belli.
I n the rules made for the conduct of war in India, we have two important principles recognised and emphasised. The first is that poisonous weapons should not be used, inasmuch as they involve treachery. The second prohibits the use of such weapons as cause unnecessary suffering. " When he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed in w d , nor with such as are barbed, poisoned, or the poinh of which are blazing with fire." Again, " Neither poisoned nor barbed arrows should be used. These are the weapons of the wicked." The prohibition does not mean, of course, that such means were not employed. On t h e whole it is clear that poisoned weapons were used in war both in the epic age, in Mauryan times, and for some time after; but the praotice died out, and I can find no evidence of their use in the Gupta age or subsequently. So with the view t h a t certain weapons were fit only for barbarous tribes. The discovery t h a t they were not fitting for honourable warriors was a great one. " They who without turning their bat& on their enemies are killed in battle . . . go to heaven if they do not use treacherous weapons. " W e now come to the rules laid down for honourable warriors :( a ) The principle underlying these is perhaps best summed up in the Rfimfiyana: " It is odious for Kshattriyas to make away with those who cannot defend themselves.'c Whilst in the law books, and, indeed, in the epics generally, the rules are couched in general terms, it is to be noted that in their origin they appear

t o have been caste rules and as such dependent largely on mutual observance. Thus a Kshattriya m u s t not put on mail f to fight a Kshattriya without mail. And again, " I a warrior fights deceitfully, he should be fought by deceitful means." Whilst there are occasional recognitions of peoples outside t h e Hindu system, as a rule we a r e reading of a world wholly Hindu, and t h e rules are for the Hindu warrior. ( b ) T h e ordered c o n d u c t of n battle. -4 car warrior should fight a car warrior. One on horse should fight one on horse. Elephant riders m u s t fight with elephant riders, as one on foot fights a foot soldier." Prima facie, these would appear not s a much rules of war as rules of single combat, suitable rather to a military tournament than to actual warfare. They recall to us t h e combats in I v a n h w and the jousts of t h e knights. I t m u s t be admitted t h a t as rules of actual warfare they find no place in the Hindu military system. Their value, however, will be more apparent when considered with others of a similar nature. Thus, ( c ) R u l e s against fighting t h o s e t a k e n at a disadvantage in t h e actual conabat. " When the antagonist has fallen into distress h e should not he struck. Brave warriors do not shoot a t one whose arrows are exhausted." I t is t o be feared. however, t h a t t h e breaches of t h e rule recorded are more numerous t h a n the observances. ( d ) X e c e s s i t y for notice cznd prohibitions n p ' n a t striking one t h a t i s unprepared. This rule should be studied in connection with what we have already said as to the tradition of giving notice before engaging in battle. ( e ) Prohibition s i m i b r t o " D o n o t strike Oelou; t h e belt." The slaying of t h e Kuru chief D u r y d h a n a by striking him beneath f t h e navel is the most famous violation o this rule, the spirit of which will be appreciated by every modern sportsman. Duryodhana says " If yoxi vanquish m e by deceitful means, your infamy will last for ever. " It may be noted that whilst pries& justified t h e unfairness, the warriors looking on were displeased, and t h e offending king feared his wife's reproaches. (f) R u b qaa'nst fighting one engaged i n battle w i t h a n o t h e r . One case where this rule was violated has a bearing on a modem problem. I n t h e epic battle, B. attgcke S., who is
" " " " "

unarmed. A j u n goes a t once to the rescue of S. and attacks B., cutting off his arm. H e is quite frank on the subject. " You were about t o slay my friend, though h e was unarmed. I had to protect my friend, and you had no right to attack him when he was unarmed. The connection between an epic battle and a modem fight a t sea is somewhat remote, but in the case of t h e Baralong, I think, a precisely similar instance was reported. A German submarine was attacking a helpless merchant ship. A British warship i n t e ~ e n e d and attacked t h e submarine. I n the Indian epic this would have been fully justified. (g) Rules against attacking a retreating e n e m y . " No one should strike another that is retreating, or one who flees with dishevelled hair. I n all these cases let him remember t h e duty of honourable warriors." We find these rules enjoined from three different motives : first,, chivalrous; secondly, religious; and thirdly, from the standpoint of prudence. H e is a wise person who does not disregard even a weak foe." That t h e seed sown by these doctrines did not utterly perish is shown by When t h e Chinese Huien Tsang many hundreds of years later. one turns to flee, another pursues him, but they, the MarBthis, do not kill a man when h e is down." ( h ) Rule against slaying one who has asked for quarter. " H e is no son of t h e Vrishni race who slayeth t h e foe fallen a t his feet." This rule, often rendered of no effect in the confusion of battle, should be considered along with (9 T h e generd rule of sparing refugees and suppliants. " Even a wicked enemy, if h e seeks shelter, should not be slain." Thie, indeed, was fundamental, but in these days, though i t embodies one of t h e earliest traditions of our race, i t has often been forgotten. ( j ) Differentiation between combatant and non-combatant port i o m of the army recognised. Thus car-drivers, men engaged in t h e transport of weapons . . . should never be slain. No one should slay him who goes out to procure forage or fodder, camp followers or thoee t h a t do menial service." The regular usage, however, seems undoubtedly to have been to kill t h e chariot driver. ( k ) Distincltion between non-combatants i n general and t h e
" " "

fighting forces recognised. The observance of this principle is specially noted by the Greek Megasthenes and Arrian. Actual Indian evidence is .rather to the contrary. (1) Prohibition against slaying animals employed i n hattle. This also was often unheeded. I n the Mahabharata we find arrangements made for giving rest to animals." Bn the march chariots are drawn by oxen. Horses are led by the halter, that their legs be not galled or inflamed, or their spirits damped by drawing chariots " (Megasthenes). ( m ) Prohibitions atgainst slaying those suffering from any natural, physical, or mental incapacity, whether due t o permanant M accidental causes. Such rules are interesting as showing the fertility of mind of those who devised them, and how they seemed to take account of all possible cases. I n battle they could not be observed. (n) Rules against killing' anyone w i t h special qualifications. " No one should kill him that ie skilled in a special art (such as mining)." This rule needs study in connection with the Hindu theory of function. The principle has been recognised in the recent wRr, when many were exempted from war service because of some special qualifioations, and many, alas I possessed of these and not exempted were particularly mourned for. ( 0 ) W h o l e classes exempted from slaughter. " H e is no son of the Vrishni race who slayeth a woman, a boy or an old man." It was an ancient rule of chivalry not to slay a woman, and only justifiable in the interesta of society. ( p ) Prohibitions against slaying certain classes w i t h special sanctity a t t a ~ h e d - - f o r example, Brahmans, Kine, envoys. (q) Places of special s a m c t i t ~t o be avoided. " Forsaking ceme teries and temples dedicated to the gods, and sacred trees, and grounds covered with ant-hills, that host occupied every other place." We can well imagine that warriors who wished t o incur no ill-will from the Brahmans bore these rules cmefully in mind. B u t we read again and again of the destruction of temples, and reprobation of the practice. ( r ) Care of t h e wounded. " Let him not strike one who has been grievously wounded." This rule has already been several times referred to under general principles, but it seems t call o for special mention. Thus it is written, "A wounded opponent

shall either be sent to his own home, or, if brought to the victor's quarters, have his wounds attended to, and when cured he shall be set at liberty. This is eternal duty." I n the MahBbhBrata we are told how Yuddhisthira's army contained surgmns and physicians, all versed in their own sciences and furnished with every ingredient. The fact that there were many breaches of this should not prevent us from recognising the magnanimity of the epic rule. Secondly, there is evidence as to the advanced arrangements for care of the wounded, prepared beforehand, carried out during the battle, and also the recognition of duties to the wounded after the battle. Thirdly, the care directed towards the enemy's wounded after the battle. Whether this ( 8 ) " Night e l a u g h t a horrible and infamous." aversion to night a t h k s is due to a warrior's horror of treachery, or to legislation by priests as to what ought to be the practice in war, we do not know. At any rate, it embodies a wholesome instinct against treacherous attack, and a clear distinction between what wae a regular act of war and what was murder. From the point of view of military strategy, both in theory and practice, night attacks were often urged, and often carried out, but the idea of slaying the enemy as they slept is viewed with horror. ( t ) Honour t o a fallen foe. " With death our enmity has terminated. " ( u ) Pensions for widows of slain soWers. It wss the duty of a conquering king to see that the wives of slain soldiers should be provided for, and it would appear from the MahBbhBrata that this held true even of the wives of enemies. We may note here that according to Vrihaspati a soldier on the bat'tlefield was protected from legal imprisonment. ( v ) Punishment of d e e e r t m . On the other hand, heavy was the punishment for deserters. They should be slain or stoned, or even burned to death. The consequences of flying from battle are loss of wealth, death, infamy, and reproach. Worse still, if slain in flight, the unhappy warrior had to bear the weight of his master's sins in the next world. But there were higher methods than simply punishment or appeals t o fear. Special rewards were given to those who rallied the retreating troops. Commanders were exhorted to address the chief warriors thus: " Let us swear to conquer, and never to desert one another." Another incentive

i s : " What will the wives say of m e ? " A most striking scene is where a prince in later days assembles his warriors and urges those that love their lives to retire. The proud answer is: We are Rajputs, and a11 ready to die in battle. " ( w ) N o t t o turn one's back i battle. n i s brings us to the n most remarkable rule of all, where death was held to be the happy end of the Kshattriya warrior. " The warrior who fought fairly, Heaven awaited, if he was slain : if victorious, Earth." It would be possible to show, as in our own times, that such a spirit was not always manifested. But here again the grand tradition has come down to this day. I t was typified by the burning words of the Princess Vidula to her laggard son as she urged him to go out to battle. It is better to flare up even for a moment than smoke for ever and ever ! B e true to thy name. B e my son." I have now set out some of the chief rules, but though these are simple, the principles on which they rest cannot be properly understood, as I have said, wit-hout a study of Hindu polity and an acquaintance with the Hindu social system, with specid reference to t h e theory of Dharma. Of the rules given some are genuine evidenoe of ancient chivalry; others plainly owe their existence to priestly influence. From the earliest times there was another school of thought which argued that the enemy has to be killed in war, whether this is conducted according t o the rules of morality or otherwise. By these every argument for fair play was frankly ridiculed. To high moralists the standard of o what was right changed according t time, place and circumstances, and Dharma" varied with the age. I n actual practice many of the rules were quite impracticable, and suggest, as we have said, the tournament rather than the battlefield. To this day there are many rules both in military tournaments and manaeuvres which would be generally forgotten in war. To watch young Japanese practise ju-jiteu is an unforgettable experience. The strict adherence to etiquette and to all the rules of the game is a striking feature. They have their influence when the student becomes the soldier, and help him in his calling. But war is different from the gymnasium. So may it well have been with the early Hindus. They had their training for war, and some of these were rules observed in practice and in jousts. They were of course forgotken in the heat o battle, as the narrators conf
" " "

stantly confess. B u t they had their weight in forming a tradition of chivalry lasting down through t5he centuries. It might be asked, admitting that the observance of some of these rules was quite impracticable, that some were drawn up by priests-the lawyers of t h e time--who had never seen a battlefield, that in the heat of battle even such as were possible of observance were ignored, what value lay in them, what sanction had they? It might be argued that there was a strong religious sanction for their observance, with penalties for breaches both in this world and the next. But with " Dharma " variable according to ciroumstances, and justificahion found either in the wiokedness of the enemy or the need to protect the righteous, there was little to restrain the conqueror. One Indian hero indeed frankly says, I n war there is no law." The inscriptions tell their own tale of many violations. Yet, in spite of the subtlety of priests and the arguments of military strategists, and the many failures which Indian history records, the warrior tribes o India have never lost the memory of the chivalrous traditions f handed down from t h e earliest times. I have cited testimony as to the Mariithas : no European chivalry displays finer heroism than did the Bajputs. I n mcdern times, in the Indian Army, Gurkha, Garhwali, Punjabi, and others, under British officers, have maintained their highest traditions. At the outset of the Great War, nowhere in the E a s t were the objects for which the Allies fought better understood than by the peasants of India. They believed that the Allies were fighting for Dharma and on behalf of their plighted word. Public opinion was on our side. And the way had been prepared thousands of years ago by warriors and priest8 who had argued out the principles of honourable warfare and how the game should be played.
"

O n Invasions Possibly in no branch of the subject of war in India have we clearer information, both as to the theory and the practice through successive ages, than on invasions. On the whole, the Hindus differentiated very clearly between what was permissible for an invader and the policy which ought to be carried out when a country was conquered. I n the one case devastation and plunder were the rule : in the other, as we shall see, there was abundant

evidence of a broadminded and enlightened policy, the principles of which might still be studied with profit. It might be asked why, even in theory, there was this difference. On the one hand, it was the king's duty to protect his own subjects and to punish the wicked who were his enemies. On the other hand, to the Brahman, if he could gain his object with a minimum of slaughter, the cause of morality would be served. I the land of the enemy f was ravaged, his powers of resistance would be considerably weakened, and by his wealth the cause of the righteous would be strengthened. The most shriking evidence as to the actualities of war in ancient India is given in the 13th Edict of the Bhuddist Emperor Asoka, issued probably in 256 B . c . , seventy years after Alexander the Great's campaign. " His Majesty . . . in the ninth year af his reign conquered the Kalingas; 150,000 persons were thence carried away captive, 100,000 there slain, and many times that number perished. His Majesty feels remorse on account of the conquest of the Kalingas, because during the subjugation of a previously unconquered country slaughter, death and taking away captive of the people necessarily occur, whereat His Majesty feels profound sorrow and regret. To many others dwelling in the country befalls violence, or slaughter, or separation from those they love. Even those who are themselves protected-ruin falls on their friends, acquaintances, comrades and relatives, and in this way violence is done to those who are personally unhurt." I n consequence of the sufferings brought about by this campaign, Asoka thereafter foreswore warfare, and he left his descendants to rid themselves of the popular notion that conquest by war is the duty o kings. f The study of hundreds of inscriptions confirms the impression of ruin and spoliation. The Emperor's conclusion is noteworthy. The only way to avoid the suffering caused by war is to abstain from war altogether.

The Ikeatment of the Conquered. When the wicked had been conquered and made to understand their duties a new situation arose. They were now in an attitude of submission, and their pride had abated. I n these circumstances duties towards them devolved on the conqueror. That is to say, the duty which he formerly owed to his original subjects

of protecting them against the enemy, h e now owes to those who have recently come under his sway. Instead of being an oppressor, he was to be regarded as a protector. YBjna-valkya says: Customs, laws and family usages which obtain in a country should be preserved when t h a t country has been acquired. " Thus Vishnu : Having conquered the country of his foe, let him not abolish or disregard the laws d that country." Considerable insight is shown in the MahBbhBrata: " A king should never do such an injury to his foe as would rankle in the latter's heart," which is worth engraving as an epitome of Indian wisdom. There were many reasons for not pressing too hardly on a defeated foe. From t h e point of view of t h e statesman, there was the danger of agitation if the existing state of things f was disturbed. I the king cared for his fair fame h e must not go too far. From t h e military point of view, there was the danger of having communications c u t off if h e m u p i e d an enemy's country during the rains, and was left there. Other passages show quite a contrary theory and practice, akin to the doctrine of parcere subjectis e t de b e h r e superbos. Many other problems were faced-Ownership of land m transfer of rule, distribution of booty. There is no hint of displeasure a t t h e practice of taking booty. The only rules were as to its proper distribution. Women as captives, slavery, tribute, forced levies, forced labour, employment of members of a hostile country as guides, and t h e use of irregular troops are all dealt with. I n the words of the Mahlbhhrata, If the conqueror was equitable, all was well: if he was not, the conquered suffered terribly.
" "

Peace. Minute differentiations were made as t t h e different kinds of o peace which could be obtained. The severity or otherwise of the terms depended of course on the position in which a king or raja found himself a t t h e end of hostilities. If cession of land or wealth or persons was demanded, a conquered king was advised t o give as much trouble as he could to the conqueror. The presumption was t h a t the conquered was biding his time, " crouching t h a t h e might spring again." If the weak was not bound to accept a state o things to his f disadvantage permanently, on the other hand " what the strong

man sayeth is morality." " There is no such thing as a foe. There is no such thing in existence as a friend. It is force of circumstances t h a t creates friends and foes." The principles of State polity, as we should expect, look upon treaties as mere matters of temporary convenience. But though treaties were often regarded a s but relative to t h e circumstances -a view not unconfirmed by history-it must not be thought that the highest authorities spoke against their sanctity. If a n Indian Pandit to-day were asked what was the " Dharma " .of a good king in the matter of treaties, he would cite such s verse a s : " Having entered an agreement in the presence of all good men, who dareth break i t for the sake of a kingdom upon -earth? " I n later days, as Tod tells us, among t3he Rajputs -the " truth teller " was the most comprehensive praise, whilst a pledge once given by a Rajput remains inviolable. A high respeot for truth, however, is not incompatible with t h e temporary nature of arrangements made between kings. I n early times, as recorded by Kautilya, a peace secured by an oath was regarded as binding under all circumstances. I t has been pointed out t h a t this regard for the sanctity of the oath indicates a marked difference between ancient and modern scciety. I n addition to many forms of peace, the Indians of old were familiar with such ideas as armistices-as when both sides stopped fighting, we are told, a t t h e request of Brahmans-and truces. Thus, we read of a herald sent to announce the expiry o the truce to the enemy, who added seven days to the time f agreed on, " according to Rajput faith." Of securities for t h e fulfilment of the terms of peace, one of long standing was the giving of hostagm to t h e Indian conqueror. The important thing, often overlooked by the British Government in its dealings with Irishmen, was to secure someone capable of controlling the enemy's actions. At first, agreements of peace must often have been arranged orally, but from very early times, as we learn from Kautilya, written treaties were in use and duly registered. An interesting factor, to which reference is constantly made both in the sacred books, in Kautilya, and in inscriptions, is the Circle or League of States-the Mandala. I t was customary from early times for kings to belong to Leagues or Circles of

States. These, according to Xautilya, were a t once instruments of aggression and preventives against any one king becoming too powerful. T'he Circle" was a p t to get wrathful if a conqueror pressed his claims too vigorously. On the other hand, these leagues often proved very oppressive. Thus, even in Ancient India we have the idea of a balance of power," and weaker kings hastened t o loin whichever combination was likely t o further their interests most. From t h e existence of these and similar institutions, Indian writers have argued t h a t there was a complete system of international Iaw in ancient India, and in a recent article in the Hibbert Journal (July, 1915) Mr. Mitra has pointed out the surprising insight of t h e Hindus into the questions which vex us now. It is a pity, however, to introduce terms with a history wholly modern into discussions on ancient polity. m e territories of Indian Rajas could scarcely be called States a t all in t h e modern sense of t h e term. Non-Indian peoples do not come within the scope of the Hindu religion or social system, and the rules I have cited could scarcely be called laws. It is doubtful whether some were even customs, a s t h e evidence does not show that they were observed. I n our view, t h e use of such terms as international law for t h e conditions of ancient India is undesirable, and tends to make t h e student forget t h e unique features of the Hindu system. It is one thing to try t o understand t h e bases of an ancient society: the h s k is unnecessarily complicated when terms with a history wholly modern are introduced. Some, of course, speak of ancient Greek City States as having the germs of international law in their relations with one another, and if this is Jlowable in t h e case of ancient Greece, it might be permissible for ancient India also. B u t so many qualifications would have to be introduced that i t seems much better to discard the use of such terms altogether. Looking a t Indian history a s a whole, i t is difficult to find any such conception either in t h e relations of a conquering king to his vassals, or in the days of unstable equilibrium when smaller States vied with each other for mastery. If we go to books on Hindu polity, we might as well look for international law in the Prince " as in these. On the other hand, if we study Hinduism-which more than any other religion is a social system-we shall find not a n international
" " "

but a caste view of society. 4nd when men describe the relations of Hindu States as international they seem in danger of giving to them attributes which they had not, and of ignoring those which they had in marked measure. I again we take the history d the f Rajputs, as detailed by Tod, we find there evidence of m w y remarkable customs and polnts of etiquette In their mutual relations. We miss their whole p i n t if we speak of them aa international. The ideal Ralput warrior fought fairly and died gamely, not because of any rule of international law, but because it was his duty o Dharma to do so. The strongest bond was r caste," and not national. So in a different setting has it bean with the British Kavy. I t , too, haa its standard o Dharma, and f of what is proper conduct, and it has nobly lived up to the rules of the game. I n India the old warrior traditions, a t first confined to a few fighting claw, have so spread that now, north and south, each of the many races of India regards them as its own. If human nature be roughly the same in each country, if in a study of Indian history you can w e up to a certain stage a t any r h the world's history in microcosm, is it not possible to draw something of a moral? From tales of medisval chivalry, from the records o our fighting forces both by land and sea, and now in the f air, from the spirit of sportsmanship which is inherent in our people, w e have inherited a great tradition of fair play. This is now ,so strong that it has become indeed Dharma-a Dharma which, I trust, does not vary from ite standards. In Germany during the war years, and before, and a t t h e m o ~ e n in Ireland, the people t seem to have lost d l idea of what is proper conduct for honourable warriors. It ia the funotion of a society such as this to keep before the world the idea of international right, and to help gee that in each country there is a n approximahion to the highest standards. In India, in spite of d l the obstacles, an idea of Dharma has been kept alive-with intermissions-for thousands of years by a warrior tradition sanctioned by religion and public opinion. It still persists in the Indian Army, partly beaause the Raj has not orumbled away, and the presence of a settled government allows Mope for it. I n India during the last seventeen years, most elaborate propaganda has been carried on similar to what waa succeeded in Ireland, but the bulk of the people have not yet been infected, because there is still the notion of Dharma, and
"

the peasant's Dhanna (save in moments of excitement) is to go with hie work. Where it failed in India in past centuries was in periods of anarchy due to the absence of a settled government. Where there is anarchy, Hindus teach us, there can be no Dharma. I n the case of conquering kings, its failure was due to the absence of strict standards or sanctions and to any real means of restraining the powerful. More fortunate than t h e ancient Hindus at some periods, in England we have not only the tradition, but law is the basis of our society, and the English people as a whole have a striking regard for it. I we apply t h e teaching of ancient India to such questions as f the League of Nations, we shall find t h a t all rules will fail if they are impracticable and have no sanctions to secure their being carried out : that though public opinion may be a strong factor, Without it will be of no avail in a State where there is no law. government there can be no Dharma." On the other hand, there f is t h e value o having a standard-call it Dharma, call i t international law, o what you will-and of educating a whole people to r its truth. As regards the League of Nations, is there not an idea that there ie t o much machinery, too many clauses, no adequate o provision for a sanction for any of the ordinances of the League or for any international arrangements which may be made, whether in peace or war? The story of ancient India perhaps points to a surer way. With a few fighting clans a warrior's tradition grew up, sanctioned bf religion, which ultimately spread all over the Indian continent, md has influenced the outlook on life to this day of many diff ferent races. I we take but one modern instance, the people of the United States have fundamentally the same outlook on life a3 we have, the same standards of international right, the same t regard for the sanctity of treaties and for t h e maintenance of law. The machinery of the League of Nations frightens them: they distrust its powers, and they doubt its practicability in its present form. Throughout the British Empire our ideals have r s p r d , and they find a ready response in the United States. As missionaries of the League of Nations there, we fail: might we not succeed bet4ter if we made clear those great principles which we hold in common and from a common source? I we put them f in a sentence, it would be that nations as well as individuals
"

should play the game, and that this is inviolable whether in peace or war. And i t is possible that this doctrine might permeate into t h e ranks of our late enemies. B u t if in the Empire we allow the principles of law to be overthrown; if we act on one standard in Dublin and on another in London: if our Government in international affairs shows that i t has no fixed principles or standardsthen it will be very hard for us to establish confidence in a League of Nations or anything else, and we shall be driven t o the conclusion of the Hindu moralists that in politics there were no standards. A few days ago, a General poured ridicule on the idea of t h e League of Nations-. If he had known t h a t behind all the machinery t.he League embodied all t h e highest traditions of the order to which he belonged; t h a t i t was an attempt t bring into international relations those same principles o of fair play which in t h e fighting services, in sporb, in business, are the salt of our national life, and represent perhaps the highest achievement of the English people; that the one hope of civilisation seems to be t o have t h e various peoples inoculated with similar ideas-then we might have had t.he General not a n opponent but an ally. Of ancient India, kings, dynasties, empires, leagues, circles of states-all have passed away. An idea of chivalry has lingered three thousand years and permeated a continent. So will it be with the League of Nations. I it is f regarded as an artificial organisation, devised by unpractical lawyers, i t will pass. B u t once in England and America i t is recognised t h a t the League is not a foreign invention, but the embodiment of t h e finest traditions of our race, with its base in law and i b sanction in a public opinion ready to fight for it if necessary, we shall have a powerful impetus towards the spread of our ideals. And just as in ancient India, with t h e help of priests, t h e warrior's code spread through a continent and, in theory a t least, was adopted by every race, so one would hope that, with the assistance of lawyers and supported by public opinion, the traditions which are our common heritage will spread and ultimately find a response among all peoples. R u t if this is to be the case, there must be no shifting standards, no rules which break down amid t.he stress of battle, and a thorough appreciation by the people that all which the League of Nations or whatever organisation takes its place embodies and stands for is t h e observance in

international relations of those same principles of good faith and fair play which are the keynote of our national life. NOTE.-A short account was also given of Dharma in its abstract and concrete senses. It often means proper conduct relative to time, place, and circumstances. ( R e a d before t h e Grotius S o c i e t y on J u l y 4th, 1922.) Mr. Bewes said the Society was greatly indebted for the highly interesting paper. H e himself had no special knowledge of t h e subject, and he would confine himself to expressing the opinion t h a t in t h e conduct, of war t h e better feelings of humanity would eventually prevail. Mr. Henriques said that, in view qf the immense ground covered by Mr. Armour, more time was required for criticism. Some of the Hindu rules were very like those of Greece and Itome. The juu feciale, for instance, was very similar as to the commencement and conduct of war. The prohibition against poisoned weapons and causing unnecessary suffering was also current amongst the Greeks and Romans. I n the case of the Israelites, the conduct of war was frequently atrocious, and t h e Hindu would not always observe rules of war-as, for instance, in the Mutiny. A national standard had been substituted for an individual standard. Mr. Jacobs referred t o General Dyer's conduct a t Amritsar. H e considered t h a t the attempt ought t o be made rather to suppress war than to make war more humane. Rules for the humane conduct of war were injurious, inasmuch as they intended to make war respectable, and thus to increase the chances of war. Mr. Mullins thought that the facts stated did not offer much hope for future amelioration of the conduct of war. Human nature remained much the same. The principles laid down in t h e rules had proved too high for observance in practice. H e referred to the doctrine of reprisals. H e also asked whether there was any indication of an attempt to punish war criminals after war. Admiral Dent said that where war was carried on by a warrior caste, rules were generally observed. For the observance of rules, military forces must be highly disciplined. B u t the modern tendency was against t h e warrior caste and in favour of the nationin-arms. To lay down rules under present conditions made i t

f very difficult for the military t o conduct war humanely. I the national discipline was lowered, atrocities would follow. He referred to the way in which the United States athletes in the Olympia games had responded to the British sentiments of fair play. H e thought that if you made war more humane, there would be more of it. Mr. Manisty dwelt upon the enormous interest of the paper. H e insisted t h a t in the conduct of war the law was observed. War had not abrogated all law. Some of the rules had to be observed. The League of Nations was endeavouring to induce individuals to substitute arbitration for war. Unless t h e League succeeded in its attempt, arbitration would fail. Public opinion was only that of individuals. Professor Bellot considered that Mr. Armour had made a very real contribution to the subject. H e had filled a gap in its history. H e referred to the rules for ameliorating the harshness of war in Persia, Assyria and Egypt, and of the peace treaties of the latter Power, which had recently come to light. Some of the regulations were very similar to those of the Hindu rules. Much as he desired t'he abolition of war, he saw no immediate prospect of it, and, in the meantime, it was necessary to have rules for its conduct. I n fact, history proved that it was impossible for military operations to be carried on without rules. H e insisted that the distinction between combatants and non-combatants must be maintained. " Frightfulness," which the Germans called " thoroughness," did not pay even from the military point of view. H e disagreed with the idea that by making war more humane you would increase its occurrence. Mr. Amour, in reply, said that it was difficult to apply ancient rules of warfare to happenings at Amritsar. Whilst the rules forbade attacking men who were fleeing or unarmed, everything depended on the circumstances of the case, and a plea in defence of the incident might have been set up-the need to protect sooiety or the punishment of the wicked. As regards sanctions against breaches of the rules, it was difficult to find any, unless in the denunciations of priests, the desire for the good opinion of one's fellow-warriors, and fear of the reproaches of the women. (Various methods of penance are indicated for those who offended against religious rules.)