Chapter VIII. Bala (The Army)

Volume III pp. 200–215

Chapter VIII. Bala (The Army)

Bala (The Army).

Bala is also called danda in Kant and elsewhere According to Sumantu danda means 'punishment, corporal or monetary' and the army with its four arms is included by Sumantu under kośa (acc to S V p 46) ¹ In the Ṛgveda we have frequent references to armies, weapons, battles &c The word senāni occurs in Ṛg X 84 2 where Māmpī (martial Fury) is invoked to be the Commander ² Ṛg VI 75 is full of references to bows, arrows, armour, bow-strings, quiver, charioteer, horses, chariots &c. Kāṁ (XIII 34–37) states that the king possessed of a sound financial position increases his depleted army, supports his own subjects and is depended upon even by his enemies All the following result from the possession of a (powerful) army viz increase of the wealth of one's friends and enemies and of the (king's) territories, prompt attainment of objects that seemed distant, protection of what is already secured, destruction of the armies of the enemy, the keeping together of one's army Most authorities agree in saying that troops are of six kinds viz maula (hereditary), bhṛta or bhṛtaka or bhṛtya (hired troops), śreṇī (guild troops), mitra (troops of an ally or friendly power or feudatories), amitra (troops that once belonged to the enemy), atavi or ātavika (wild tribes as troops) Vide Kaut ³ IX. 2 (first sentence), Kāṁ. XVIII 4, Agnipurāṇa 242 1–2, Mānasollāsa (II 6, verse 556 p 76) The first three works say that each earlier variety of troops is superior to each later one Maula troops corresponded to the modern standing army since Kaut (IX 2) prefers them on the ground that they depend on the king for maintenance and are being constantly drilled They most probably consisted of persons who and whose ancestors got tax-free lands in lieu of military service The Sabhāparva 5. 63 appears to refer to four kinds (omitting śreṇī and amitra) and Yuddhakaṇḍa 17 24 refers to five (omitting śreṇī). The Āśramavāsikaparva⁴ (7 7-8) names five kinds (except anūtra) and states that maula and mitra armies are superior to the rest and hired troops and śreṇī troops are each other's equalṣ This division of armies into various kinds is mentioned in the grant of Dhruvasena I of Valabhī in Gupta-Valabhī year 206 (E I. vol. XI p 106, where the king is said to have acquired the kingdom with the help of maula, bhṛta, mitra and śreṇī armies). Mānasollāsa defines the ātavika⁵ army as consisting of niṣūdas, mlecchus and similar castes dwelling in the vicinity of mountains and anūtra troops as soldiers who once belonged to an enemy king but being defeated were taken captive and made slaveṣ Accord-ing to the Rājatinīratnākara (p 38) 'aribala' means 'troops that come to a king after leaving the king's enemy '. Kāṃ XVIII 7 says that the ātavika troops are, by nature, irreligious, greedy, anāryas and non-observers of truth. They correspond to the penḍharis and freebooters of later times The reasons why hereditary and other troops are superior to anūtra and ātavika varie-ties are explained at great length by Kaut. IX. 2 and Kāṃ XVIII 5-6. Kaut. (IX 2) states that an amitra army led by an ārya is superior to wild tribe troops Both of them are out for plunder and in case no plunder can be had or when there is a disaster they may prove as dangerous as snakeṣ By śreṇī-bala he has in mind the organized bands of soldiers to whom he refers elsewhere as 'vārtāśastropajīvinah ' (vide p. 89 above). As it is not unlikely that members of trade-guilds either them-selves learnt the profession of arms or engaged soldiers for the protection of their merchandise and property, these could be pressed into his service by a king in case of need and were distinguished from the hereditary army and hired troops as śreṇī-bala. Differing from the ācāryas that troops composed of brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas and śūdras are superior for enlistment in the order of the castes, Kaut holds that an army of kṣatriyas well-trained in the wielding of arms or an army of vaisyas and sūdras having greater numerical strength is better than an army composed of brāhmaṇa soldiers, since an enemy may win over the latter army by prostrating himself before them ⁶ Vide H Dh vol II pp 122–123 for discussion on the question whether brāhmaṇas could become soldiers In Udyoga- parva 96 7 (cr ed chap 94) it is said that king Dambhod- bhava every day asked in the morning whether there was any śūdra, vaiśya, kṣatriya or brāhmaṇa equal or superior to him in armed conflict That shows that soldiers of castes other than kṣatriyas were not unheard of in the Epic age Kām IV. (63, 65, 67) says that the hereditary army (pītr-paitāmaha) should consist mostly of kṣatriyas In the Maliya copperplate of Mahārāja Dharasena II (252 Valabhi samvat i. e. 571–72 A. D.) Bhātarka, the founder of the Valabhi dynasty, is said to have secured the kingdom with the help of maula, bhṛta, mitra and śreṇi troops (Gupta Inscriptions p. 165). Śukra (II. 137–139) says that the soldiers may be śūdras, kṣatriyas, vaiśyas, mlecchas or of mixed castes, provided they are brave, restrained, well-built, devoted to their master and their dharma, and hate the enemy. Śānti (101 3–5) describes in what respects soldiers from Gāndhāra, Sindhu and other countries and Yavanas and Deccan soldiers excel, remarks that brave and strong men are to be found everywhere (verse 6) and that men from the border (i e. bhullas and kavartas accord- ing to Nīlakaṇṭha) are desperate fighters, would never run away from battle and so should be preferred for enlistment in the army (verse 19). The Yaśastilaka III (pp 461–467) describes the characteristics of Northern Indian (auttarāpatha), Deccan (dākṣiṇātya), Dramila (South Indian), Tīrhut (Taira- bhukta) and Gurjara soldierṣ An army was said to be composed of four parts, viz. elephants, horses, chariots and foot-soldiers (caturanga bala). Kāṃ XVIII 24 says that bala is sixfold, viz the four sections of infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants together with mantra (line of policy) and kośa (treasury) In Śānti. 103. 38 the army is said to have six angas (the well- known four plus kośa and roads for traffic) According to Kauṭiliya (IL 2, VII. 11) and Kāṃ XIX. 62 the destruction of the enemy's forces and victory depended on elephants ⁷ Śānti- parva (100. 24) says that an army in which the infantry pre- dominates remains firm and that cavalry and chariots are all right when there is no raiṇ Śānti (59. 41-42) enumerates eight elements of the army viz. the well-known four (elephants etc), visti (labourers or porters who gave free labour and were only fed but were paid no wages), boats, spies, and guides (deśika) ⁸ Vide Śānti 121. 44 also. In the Mahābhārata elephants do not, except in rare cases, play any role in the fighting that went on, while chariots and the other arms of an army are described everywhere. In the Virāṭaparva (65. 6) Vikarṇa was seated on an elephant when he attacked Arjuna; Bhīṣmaparva 20. 7 refers to Duryodhana as riding an elephant and (95. 32-33) Bhagadatta is described as seated on an elephant when he attacked Bhīma. In this respect the Epic carries on the vedic tradition Megasthenes (Fragment 1 p. 30) notes that in ancient India elephants were trained for war and turned the scale of victory. Vast armies were kept by ancient kings and emperorṣ When Śatrughna started against the demon Lavana he had an army of 4000 horses, 2000 chariots and 100 elephants with him (Rāmāyaṇa VII. 64. 2-4). In the Daśakumāracarita VIII the cynical jester Vihārabhadra reminds his master that the latter had 10000 elephants, three lakhs of horse and numberless foot-soldiers (B. S. S. p. 133, of eḍ of 1919) Megasthenes (in Fragment XXVII p 68) speaks of the camp of Sandrakottos (Candragupta Maurya) that had 400000 men, notes (in Fragment LVI) that the king of Palibothra had in his pay a standing army of six lakhs of foot-soldiers, 30000 cavalry and 9000 elephants (p 141, McCrindle), that the king of Horatae (Surāstra) had 150000 foot-soldiers, 5000 cavalry and 1600 elephants (ibid p. 150) and that even the Paudyan kingdom ruled by women had 150000 foot and 500 elephants (ibiḍ p. 147). Vide Beal's ‘Buddhist Records &c.' vol. lp 213 for the armies collected by Harsa in his march against the murderer of his elder brother (viz 5000 elephants, 2000 horse and 50000 foot-soldiers) and the vast armies that he had after six years of conquest viz. 60000 elephants and 100000 cavalry In the Āsvamedhikarparva (60. 14-20) it is narrated that when Drona assumed the post of commander-in-chief the Kaurava army had been reduced to 9 akṣauhinīs from eleven, that only five were left when Karna became Senāpatī and the Pāndavas had then only three left and under Śalya's command there were only three akṣauhinīs and the Pāndavas could oppose to him only one. In reply to a question from Dhṛtarāṣṭra Yudhishthira states that in the great war the total number of warriors killed in battle came to the colossal figure of 1660020006 (Stripava 26. 9).⁹ The Udyogaparva gives (155. 24-26) the following table for an akṣauhinī: 500 elephants, 500 chariots, 1500 cavalry and 2500 foot-soldiers constituted an army called senā, 10 senās= prianū, 10 prianās=sūlnnī, 10 vūlnīs=dhvajinī, 10 dhvajinīs= cumū and 10 camūs=aksauhinī. The Kauravas had eleven akṣauhinīs and the Pāndavas had 7. If we take the table in Adi 2. 19-22 one aksauhini contained 21870 elephants, the same number of chariots, 65610 horses and 109350 foot-soldiers ¹⁰ But if the other tables be followed then the numbers may be much larger still. Another table furnished by Udyogaparva 155. 28-29 is: 55 men constituted patti, 3 pattis=senāmukha or gulma, 3 gulmas=gaṇa and there were ayutas (10 thousands ) of gaṇas in the army of the Kauravas The Ādiparva (2 19-22) differs from both tables in some respectṣ The Udyogaparva 155 22 further notes that each horseman was surrounded by ten men as attendants (nara daśa hayaścāsan pādaraksāh samantatah). Though throughout the centuries the infantry not much importance seems to have been attached to them as compared with chariots or horsemeṇ The lexicon called Vaijayanti says that patti consists of three horses, five foot- soldiers, one chariot and one elephant, that three pattis are equal to senāmukha and that senāmukha, gulma, gaṇa, vāhini, pṛtanā, camū, anikini represent each three times as many as the preceding one and that 10 anikinis are equal to an aksauhinī. The Nitiprakasika¹¹ gives a table of groups from patti to aksauhini and remarks that each of these groups had in turn numerous supporting men e g each elephant was followed by a hundred horsemen and a thousand foot-soldiers and each horse- man was supported by a thousand toot-soldiers (VII. 3-10). Manu VII. 192 refers to battles on water also. From references in the Mahābhārata it appears that chariots had only two wheels Vide Bhisma 98 47, Droṇaparva 154 3, Salya 16 24 (Saineyo daksinaṁ cakraṁ Dhṛṣṭadyumnas-tathottaram). Two noted warriors were told oft to guard the two wheels of the chariot of the principal commanders and are called ‘cakra-raksan’ (vide Bhisma 54. 76, 108 5, Drona 91, 36, Karna 11. 31, 34. 44). Chariots of great warriors were drawn by four horses e g Adi. 198 15, Udyoga 48. 50, Drona 145 81 Udyoga 83. 15-21 describe the chariot of Krsna and Udyoga 140. 21 states that chariots had small tinkling bells attached to them and also screens of tiger-skiṇ The Rg contains very graphic description of chariotṣ Chariots were generally drawn by two horses in the vedic age (Rg V 30 1, V 36 5, VI 23 1) and had two wheels, but the chariot of the Asvins is described as having three wheels (Rg. I. 118. 2, I 157. 3, X. 41 1). Ghatotkaca, however, had eight wheels to his chariot (Drona 156. 61, 175 13). The Sukranitisāra (II. 140-148) mentions another method of grouping the army. Five or six foot-soldiers made a patti over which there was an officer called pallipa, over 30 pattipālas there was the gaulmika, over 100 gaulmikas was the officer called śātānika. who had as his assistants an officer called anusātika, a senāni and a lokhaka (scribe), the officer over twenty elephants or horses was called nāyaka (compare modern “naik”). Each of these officers should have a distinctive badge indicative of their position Ayodhyā 100. 32 (=Sabhā 5. 48) asks ‘I hope you give at the proper time pay and rations to your soldiers according to their deserts and do not delay payment’ Both Nār (sambhūya-22) and Br state that among persons who work for hire the best is the soldier. The Mānasollāsa (II 6. 566-569 p 80) describes that the chiefs of the hereditary army should always be honoured by the king with presents of jewels, ornaments, costly clothes and sweet words and sumptuous provision for their maintenance should be made by bestowing on them a village, or two or more villages, and heaps of gold, while hired soldiers should be paid every day or every month or once in three, four or six months or once in a year according to the needs of the king Megasthenes (Frag-ment XXXIV p. 88) describes the organization of the Indian army: ‘A third governing body directs military affairs, of which there were six divisions with five members to each One co-operates with the admiral of the fleet, another with the superintendent of bullock trains, the third division has charge of foot-soldiers, the fourth of horses, the fifth of war chariots and the sixth of elephants’ In medieval times chariots appear to have become obsolete In the graphic descriptions of armies contained in the Harsacarita (particularly in the 7th ucchvāsa) war chariots are conspicuous by their absence The Mahābhārata often speaks of horses from the countries to the north-west of India as the best; vide Sabhā 53 5 (for Kāmboja and Gāndhāra horses), Udyoga 86 6 (horses from Bālhī), Droṇa 125 25 and Sauptika 13 2 (Kāmboja horses) The Harsacarita II speaks of the best horses as coming from Vanāyu, Āraṭṭa, Kāmboja, Sindhudeśa and Pārasīka Śukra lays down certain practical rules about the army (IV 7. 379-390) He says that the soldiers should be encamped outside the town or village but not far from it, that no money-lending should be allowed between the soldiers and the village people, that the king should open separate shops for goods required by soldiers, that no army should be encamped at one place for more than a year, that soldiers should not enter the village without the king’s permission, that receipts should be taken from soldiers for payments made to them and they should be furnished with a writing about their pay. Some of these rules are very olḍ The Udyogaparva¹² 37. 30 mentions among persons with whom no contractual transactions should be entered into, the king, the king’s servants and soldiers

The Arthaśāstra contains an elaborate discussion (in IX. 1–7 and X. 1–6) about the organization of the king’s army, the proper time and place for starting on an invasion, internal and external troubles and calamities and measures against them, means of dealing with traitors and enemies, religious remedies (worshipping gods and falling at the feet of brāhmaṇas, magical rites based upon the Atharvaveda) against misfortunes like fire and flood, epidemics, famine &c., encampment (skandhāvāra) of armies, treacherous and strategic fighting, proper battle grounds, encouragement to one’s own army, free labourers and their work, different arrangements or formations (vyūhas) of armieṣ Considerations of space prevent any treatment of these matterṣ But a few notable points will be set out here. A king may invade his enemy’s country either in Mārgaśīrṣa (when the crops sown in the rains are ready) or in Caitra or when the enemy is suffering from some calamity. Śānti (100. 10–11) says the same thing. Internal trouble arises when any minister, purohita, senāpati or the crown prince is angry or dissatisfied with the king, who should get rid of such trouble by giving up his own fault or by pointing out the danger arising from an enemy. If the crown prince causes trouble he should be kept in confinement or killed, if there is another son of good character. The trouble caused by a provincial Governor or the officer in charge of boundaries (antapāla), the chief of wild tribes or a conquered king is termed external. The king should meet it by setting up one against the other. The encampment of an army is to be made on a site declared to be the best according to the science of buildings and measured by the nāyaka (the chief of the army), carpenter and astrologer, the encampment being circular, square or rectangular and having four gates, six roads and nine divisionṣ Disputes, drinking, holding merry gatherings (samāja) and gambling should be prohibited in the camp and the system of passes should be enforced (X. 1). Vanaparva (15. 14, 19) also refers to the system of passes and the fact that dancers and musicians were driven away, when Dvārakā was besieged by Śālva From Udyoga 151 58 (cr eḍ 149. 53), 195. 12-19 (cr ed 196 12-19 ) it appears that markets, prosti- tutes, conveyances, oxen, machines, arms and physicians accompanied an army and that the camp (senāniveśa or skandhāvāra ) of Duryodhana looked like the capital itself and was five yojanas in extent Physicians with surgical instruments, blunt instruments (like tweezers), medicines, curative oils and bandages in their hands and women ( nurses ) looking after the food and drink of the army should stand behind the soldiers uttering encouraging words ¹³ (Kaut X. 3) The Bhīṣmaparva 120 55 also states that doctors well-versed in extracting splinters or arrow-heads (from the body) approached with their surgical instruments to extract the darts from Bhīṣma's body The duties of the labourers (viṣṭi ) were to examine the camp, roads, bridges, wells, and river ghāts, to carry machines, weapons, armour, utensils, fodder, to remove from the battle-field wounded men along with their weapons and armour.¹⁴ Each commander had some distinguishing device as his banner e. g Bhīṣma had a golden tāla tree as his standard (Bhīṣmaparva VI 17 18, tālena mahatā Bhīṣmaḥ pañcatāreņa ketunā). In X 6 Kauṭilya speaks of several formations (vyūhas) called danda, bhoga, mandala, asanihata and the subdivisions such as gomūtrikā, makara &c In Kāṃ XVIII 48-49, XIX 40 ff., Manu VII. 187-191, Nītiprakāśikā, chap 6 and in the Mahābhārata many vyūhas are described Vanaparva (285 6-7) refers to Rāvana's arrangement of his army according to the rules of Usanas and of Rāma's army according to Bārhaspatya rules The āśrama- vāsikaparva 7 15 refers to the formations called Śakaṭa, Padma and Vajra described in the work of Uśanas Kauṭilya X 6 also refers to Auśanasa and Bārhaspatya arrangements of armieṣ Droṇa 75 27, 87 22-24, Karṇaparva 11 14 and 28 mention certain vyūhas like Makara, Śakaṭa &c Vide also Mānasollāsa II. 20 verses 1170-1181 pp 134-135, Agnipurāṇa 242 7-8 and 42-73 for vyūhas Though Kauṭilya recommends all sorts of tricks and treachery for securing a victory, the III] Mahābhārata holds up a high ideal. The Bhīṣmaparva ¹⁵ 21. 10 remarks that conquerors do not secure victory so much by their armies and prowess as by truthfulness, freedom from cruelty, the observance of dharma and energetic actionṣ The Śānti- parva (95. 17–18) states that it is better to die while fighting according to the rules of dharma rather than obtain a victory by wicked actionṣ

In the Bhīṣmaparva (I. 27–32) certain rules of war agreed upon between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavas are set out, such as one should fight only with one similarly equipped (i e. a foot- soldier with a foot-soldier and so on), one should not kill a soldier who is already in combat with another, or who has turned back from fight or is without armour. Āp Dh. S. II. 5. 10. 12, Gaut. X. 17–18, Yāj I 326, Manu VII. 90–93, Śānti 95. 7–14, 96.3, Śānti 98. 48–49, 297. 4, Droṇaparva 143. 8, Karṇa 90. 111–113, Sauptika 5. 11–12, 6. 21–23, Śankha (quoted by the Mit on Yāj I 326 ), Bauḍ Dh. S.I. 10. 10–12, Vṛddha-Hārita VII. 226, Bṛhat-Parāśara X p. 281, Śukra IV. 7. 354–362, Yuddha-kāṇḍa 18. 27–28 contain rules of war dictated by noble sentiments of humanity and chivalry. Some of these (that will bear comparison with the conventions of the Geneva and Hague Conferences) are set out here Gaut. (X 17–18) ¹⁶ states: ‘no sin is committed by injuring or slaying men in battle excepting him who has lost his horse, charioteer or weapons, him who joins his hands (in supplication for life), whose hair are dishevelled (in flying), who turns away from the field, who sits down, who climbs an eminence or a tree (in flight), except envoys or messengers, except him who declares himself to be a cow or a brāhmaṇa'. Vṛddha-Hārita VII 216 exempts spectatorṣ Manu (VII 90–93) declares “one should not fight with treacherous (or concealed) weapons, or with barbed or poisoned weapons or with weapons the points of which are blazing with fire. Let a fighter not strike one who has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hand (in supplica- tion), nor one with flying hair (in flight), nor one who sits down or says 'I am thine', nor one who is asleep, nor one who has lost armour, nor one who is naked or disarmed, nor one who is merely looking on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another foe, nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one who is afflicted with sorrow, nor one seriously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flee. Sankha adds that a soldier should not kill another while the latter is drinking water or taking his meals or is taking off his shoes, nor should one kill a woman, a female elephant, nor a charioteer, nor a bard nor a brāhmaṇa nor should one who is not a king (or noble) kill one who is a king Bauḍ Dh S I. 10 10 forbids the use of poisoned or barbed arrows ( karmun ) Sānti 95. 11 also does the same. Sānti (95 13-14) enjoins that even an enemy soldier, when wounded, should be treated with medicine and allowed to go when his wounds are healed ¹⁷ Sānti adds that a soldier should not kill boys or old men nor from behind nor one who holds a blade of grass in his mouth (as a mark of submission ). These rules, though probably ideal and not strictly followed in every case, are far more humane as compared with the practice in modern warfare when non- combatants are killed from the air even at night without warn- ing. In ancient times non-combatants went generally un- molested, to which Megasthenes bears testimony when he says (Frag I. p 32) 'Tillers of the soil even when battle is raging in the neighbourhood are undisturbed by any sense of danger, for the combatants allow those engaged in husbandry to remain quite unmolesteḍ' Manu VII. 32 allows a king to harass his enemy's country, but Medhātithi on VII. 32 asks the invader to save his enemy's people if possible ( particularly brāhmaṇas) The rule in gadāyuddha (fight with maces or clubs) was that no blow was to be struck below the navel (Śalyaparva 60 6 ) But this rule was violated by Bhima when he struck Duryodhana on the thigh with his mace. Duryodhana recounts (in Salya 61) all the bad deeds of Krsna and the Pāndavas and the only reply that Krsna makes is that he too was guilty of numerous breaches of morality and the chivalrous rules of war (such as the slaying of Abhimanyu by many engaging him at one time). The general rule was that fighting ceased when the sun went down (Bhisma 49. 52–53). But in Droṇaparva 154 and 163. 16 ff we have a description of night battles and it is provided that chariots, elephants and horses should carry lampṣ

It has already been shown how it was the duty of a kṣatriya and of every soldier to fight and die in battle rather than run away. A fighting spirit was inculcated by holding out several rewardṣ One was the acquisition of booty and territory (Gaut. X. 41, Manu VII. 206, Bhagavadgītā II. 37); others were the satisfaction of having done one's duty as a kṣatriya (Gitā II. 31–33), honour and fame (Gita II. 34–35), heaven and other-worldly rewards (Yāj. I. 324, Manu VII. 88–89), protection of brāhmaṇas (Āp. Dh S. II 10. 26. 2–3). Viṣṇu Dh S III. 44–46 have already been quoted above (p 58). The Sānti (98. 40–41) states that a soldier who runs away from the field falls into Hell. Yāj (I 324–325) declares that those who, while fighting with weapons that are not treacherous (poisoned &c.) for the sake of the land (of their master or of the enemy) die in battle without turning back from it go to heaven like yogins, that each step of those who do not flee even when their comrades have been killed is equal to a solemn sacrifice (like the Asvamedha), the king (the master) takes away all the merit of those who run away from the battlefield and are then killeḍ Manu VII. 95 contains the same idea These remarks were applicable not only to kṣatriya soldiers, but to soldiers of all castes who maintained themselves by following the profession of arms Vide Rājanītiprakāśa p. 407. Parāśara (III. 31) and Brhat-Parāśara X. p 281 remark that a valiant soldier who does not seek mercy though surrounded by many enemies and falls fighting attains imperishable worlds and that when he reaches heaven divine damsels run after him to choose him as their Lord (III. 34–35). Parāśara III. 36 is a ¹⁸ verse which is one of the two quoted by Kaut (X 3) when soldiers are to be urged on to fight Kauṭilya (in X 3) advises that the king him- self and his mantrin and purohita should urge on his soldiers by quoting Vedic and classical Sanskrit passages about the rewards waiting for those who fall fighting for their master and the religious punishments for those who run away Astrologers should infuse spirit into their side by asserting that the heavenly aspects favour their side The day before the battle the king should observe a fast, offer oblations into fire to the accom- paniment of Atharvaveda mantras and cause benedictory texts to be repeated that refer to victory Bards should recite lays describing heaven as the reward for the brave and hell for the timid and extol the caste, guild, family, deeds and character of the soldiers The assistants of the purohita should declare that they have practised witchcraft against the enemy. The commander- in-chief and the officers under him should address the army as follows —‘a hundred thousand (panas) will be the reward for him who kills the enemy king, fifty thousand for him who kills the commander-in-chief or the crown prince, . a hundred for slaying the officer of the patti (a battalion), twenty for bringing the head (of a common soldier) and twice the pay and the booty seized by each to all soldiers’ Kām (XIX 18-21) says that the king should give the rewards (promised as in Kaut) to the soldiers after they succeed in the exploits men- tioned Vide also Mānasollāsa II 20 verses 1163–1167 (pp 133- 134) for similar promises Gaut (X 20-23) prescribes that whatever wealth is acquired by a soldier by his individual effort should be given to him by the king, but the horse or elephant caught by a soldier goes to the king, that if many soldiers by a joint effort obtain some valuable plunder the king should choose and retain the best for himself and the rest should be divided among the soldiers according to their services in the battle Vide Manu VII. 96-97 (which allow even a chariot, horse or elephant to be retained as booty by the soldier and everything else including female slaves, except jewels, gold and silver), Kām XIX ¹⁹ 21-22, Śukra IV. 7. 372

A treatise will be required to deal with the weapons of war from ancient timeṣ Even in the Ṛgveda several weapons are mentioned e g ṛsti (Ṛg V 52 6, V 57 2 and 6 on the shoulders III] of the Maruts), arrows (V. 57. 2, VI. 75. 17), quivers (V. 57. 2), the ankuśa (of Indra in VIII. 17. 10, X 44. 9), paraśu (X. 28. 8), kṛpāṇa (probably a dagger, in X 22 10), vajra made of ayas (X. 48. 3, X. 113. 5). Atharvaveda IV. 6. 6. refers to poisoned arrows In the Atharvaveda ²⁰ I. 16. 2 and 4 reference is made to lead as destroying sorcerers and it is said ‘if you kill our cow or horse or man we shall pierce you with lead so that you will cease to kill our strong men’. In Tai S. I. 5 7. 6 it is said ²¹ that when a samudh is offered into fire with the mantra ‘indhānās-tvā śatam himāh’ the sacrificer discharges against his enemy the śataghni (weapon killing a hundred) which acts like vajra itself’. Dr. Oppert in his Introduction to the Nitiprakāśikā pp 10–13 relies on these and other passages for holding that the ancient Indians knew fire-arms and that Atharvaveda I 16.4 refers to leaden balls discharged from cylinderṣ Vide Dr. Oppert’s work on the ‘weapons, army organisation and political maxims of the ancient Hindus’ (1880), where he describes several weapons and holds that gunpowder was known in India long before the 13th century A. D. Mr. G. T. Date’s ‘Art of war in Ancient India’ (London 1929), Dr. P. C. Chakravarti’s work (1941, Dacca) and Prof. Dikshitar’s book on the same subject may be consulted for detailṣ The numerous weapons mentioned in the Mahābhārata (e. g Udyoga 155. 3–9) also are passed over here. Vide Hop. A. O. S. Vol XIII pp. 269–303 for detailed descriptionṣ The Allahabad Stone Pillar Inscription of Samudragupta (middle of 4th century A. D) contains a long list of weapons (C I. I. III pp. 6–7) ²² One important question is whether gunpowder and fire-arms were known to our ancient and medieval works Śukra refers to gunpowder called agnicūrṇa in II 93,196, IV. 7. 203, guns (IV. 7. 209–211) and gives the formula of gunpowder in IV. 7. 201 (viz the mixing of five palas of saltpetre, one pala of sulphur and one pala of coal powder). The Śukranītisāra is comparatively a late work and was probably written in the 13th or 14th century when cannon came to be used in Europe for the first time. Both in the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata the word śataghni (killing a hundred people) occurs frequently. In the Yuddhakaṇḍa²³ 3 13 it is stated that at the gates of Laṁkā hundreds of iron śataghnis, looking burnished, sharp and terrible, had been arranged by the demonṣ In a poetic description of Laṁkā in the Sundarakāṇḍa chap 2, it is said that śataghnis and śūlas were like the hair on the head of Laṁkā (verse 21). In the Vanaparva 15 there is a fine description of Dvāravati (Dvārkā) besieged by Śālva, in which it is said that the capital had numerous towers and turrets, machines, tomaras, aṅkuśas, śataghnis &c. In Ādi. 207. 34, Vanaparva 169. 16, 284. 5, 290 24, Droṇa 156 70, Karṇa 11. 8, Śalya 45 110 the śataghni is mentioned, but it is impossible to find from these what exactly it was like. From Vanaparva 284 31 it appears that the śataghnis were discharged with force by the hands and had wheels and round balls or stones in it. In Droṇa 179. 46 it is said that the śataghni employed by Ghaṭotkaca had wheels and killed four horses at once. In Droṇa 199 19 śataghnis are said to have two or four wheelṣ In Vanaparva²⁴ 284 4 it is said that the powder of sarjarasa (resin from Sal tree) had been collecteḍ In the Harivaṁśa (Bhavisyaparva 44 20), among the weapons hurled at Narasimha by Hiraṇyakaśipu were blazing śataghnis (śataghṇībhīṣa dīptābhir-daṇḍairapi sudāruṇaiḥ). In Rāmāyaṇa VII. 32 44 we are told that at the tip of the weapon called musala (club) blazed forth fire like a bunch of Aśoka flowerṣ The Sundarakāṇḍa couples together śataghnī and musala (4. 18). It looks probable that resinous powder was used in some cylindrical contrivance (or rockets) mounted on wheels and capable of throwing stoneṣ But gunpowder appears not to have been useḍ There is no description of smoke due to śataghniṣ Hopkins (J. A. O. S XIII pp 299-303) holds that gunpowder and fire-arms were unknown to the great Epic and in the present state of our knowledge this view seems to be correct.

The Nitiprakāśikā (chapters 2-5) names and describes numerous weapons divided into four classes viz. mukta (thrown or discharged such as arrows), amukta (not thrown such as swords ),muktāmukta (thrown and not thrown, such as astras which after discharge can be taken back) and mantramukta (astras which cannot be taken back). The Agni purāṇa (249-252 ) and the Visnudharmottara (II 178-182 ) give a summary of the Dhanurveda (both agreeing almost word for word, but the latter containing more verses than the former) and speak of five kinds of weapons viz yantramukta (discharged from a machine, a sling, bow &c. ), panimukta (thrown with the hand such as a stone or tomara ), muktamukta (like a prasa ), amukta (sword ) and niyuddha or bahuyuddha (wrestling). The science of astras was of a supernatural kinḍ In the epics and purāṇas, the great heroes are said to have learnt astravidya either from a teacher or from their father or by practising austerities and sometimes (as in the case of Kusa and Lava) certain astras pass to the son by the mere fact of his birth and the wish of his father. Whether the Dhanurveda often referred to in the epics had consign-ed this science of astras to writing and could have enabled a reader to possess the miraculous powers attributed to astras is more then a modern can say. The Agni purāṇa (chap. 134-135) contains magical incantations for victory in war and conquest of the worldṣ The Parasurama pratapa (Rajavallabhakanda folios 9-12 ) contains numerous mantras and yantras and incantations derived from Tantra works like the Brahmayamala.

The Mahābhārata is careful to point out that an army consti-tutes the most inferior kind of bala (power). Udyogaparva (37 52-55 ) states that bala is of five kinds viz. brute force (bahubala), that due to the acquisition of ministers (amatya-labha), that derived from wealth (dhanalabha), that from noble descent (abhyatabala) and the power of wisdom (prajaabala), which last is the best of all. These are quoted by the Budhabhusana p. 79. In Santi 134 8 it is said ²⁵ that there is nothing that the strong cannot accomplish and that whatever the strong do is pure. In another place it is said ‘everything is wholesome to the powerful’ (Asramavasi 30. 24). In Adi 175. 45 a warrior’s power is scorned and the power of the spiritual merit of brāhmaṇas is extolled as the real power.