Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Defining Dharma Yuddha: a Taxonomical Approach to Decolonizing Studies on Hindu War Ethics

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Dharma Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

  • 4 Altmetric

Abstract

Extant scholarship on Hindu war ethics uses the term dharma yuddha as a synonym of the term, just war, as conceptualized within Christian theo-ethical frameworks developed primarily in the Western academy. Dharma in the term dharma yuddha is presented as equivalent to the term just in just war, and an antonym of adharma or kuta, i.e., unjust. I track the documentary origins of the term dharma yuddha by surveying the usage of this and similar terms in ancient Hindu sources, including the Mahabharata, the Arthashastra, and selected Dharmasastras. I find that the usage of the term dharma yuddha in primary Hindu sources is markedly different from how it is used in contemporary scholarship: the texts mention a range of types of war that are closely related to, but not the same as, the concept of dharma yuddha; this taxonomical richness and complexity is not captured by a binary analytical framework of just versus unjust. In addition, the relationship between dharma and war remains under-explored and merits a more nuanced study than a one-to-one comparison with Christian just war ethics. I, hence, offer a taxonomical model for dharma yuddha, which places it as part of the yuddha family; the model presents attributes of dharma yuddha that are necessary and/or sufficient and which bear conceptual similarities with attributes of other members in the yuddha family. The model presents these attributes in a hierarchical fashion as is reflected in the texts surveyed. The paper makes two types of contributions: firstly, theoretically, it fills a lacuna in the scholarship on Hindu war ethics by presenting a taxonomical and constructive framework to study war that draws from a systematic survey of wars as presented in the Hindu canon; secondly, methodologically, it seeks to decolonize studies on Hindu ethics by studying the texts on their own terms, as opposed to seeing them through the eyes of Christian and, primarily, Western, analytical categories of war.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Similar to Francis Clooney, I am writing this paper as a Christian and, unlike Clooney, a former Hindu writing on Hinduism. Clooney 2010. Comparative theology: Deep learning across religious borders. John Wiley & Sons.

  2. Rules for going to war.

  3. Rules of conduct during war.

  4. The earliest known treatise written in the subcontinent on statecraft and grand strategy dating back to 300 BCE.

  5. Roy, K. 2007. Just and unjust war in Hindu philosophy. Journal of Military Ethics 6, 3, 232–245

  6. One of the Dharmasastras composed at the beginning of the Common Era. The authorship of this text is attributed to the sage, Manu.

  7. Roy, 2007.

  8. Ibid.

  9. An in-depth discussion on the differences in the ideas of justice and dharma is beyond the scope of this paper but can potentially serve as part of a future research agenda.

  10. Barry, Brian. Theories of justice: a treatise on social justice. Vol. 16. Univ of California Press, 1991. Others have provided more approaches to the question of justice. For a discussion of these approaches, see Lebacqz, Karen. Six theories of justice: perspectives from philosophical and theological ethics. Augsburg Books, 1986.

  11. See Political Theory (Nov., 1977) for a comprehensive bibliography of literature building up on John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice.

  12. For further discussion of Enlightenment thinkers and their approaches to the question of justice, see Winthrop, Delba. “Aristotle and theories of justice.” American Political Science Review 72, no. 4 (1978): 1201–1216 and Cooper, John M. “Two theories of justice.” In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 3–27. American Philosophical Association, 2000. See also, for example, Kolm, Serge-Christophe. Modern theories of justice. MIT Press, 2002 and Roemer, John E. Theories of distributive justice. Harvard University Press, 1998.

  13. See, for example, Capeheart, Loretta, and Dragan Milovanovic. Social justice: theories, issues, and movements. Rutgers University Press, 2007 and Miller, David. “Recent theories of social justice.” British Journal of Political Science 21, no. 3 (1991): 371–391.

  14. See, for example, Liu, Feng. Environmental justice analysis: theories, methods, and practice. CRC Press, 2000.

  15. For a discussion on the definitions of dharma, see Holdrege, Barbara A. “Dharma.” In The Hindu world, pp. 225–260. Routledge, 2004.

  16. Most Christian norms related to just war can be divided into two categories: rules regarding going to war, also known as jus ad bellum, and rules prescribing norms for conduct during war, also known as jus in bello.

  17. As derived from the writings of Augustine and Aquinas. Other scholars have questioned ideas of sovereignty in a post-Cold War world. See Augustine, St. 1887 Contra Faustum Manichaeum, tr. Richard Stathert, pp. 151–365 in Philip Schaff (ed.) The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. IV. Buffalo: Christian Literature; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Q. 40. On War. available at http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm and Hehir, J. Bryan. “Just war theory in a post-Cold War world.” The Journal of Religious Ethics (1992): pp. 237–257.

  18. Augustine had, what John Langan argues, a punitive conception of war, i.e., he saw war as the means not for self-defense, but to set a wrong right. Augustine, in fact, was categorical in arguing that war for self-defense is not a just war. Augustine differentiated between a “right” or “just” peace and an “unjust” peace. Peace if it is unjust needed to be changed through the use of force. From a Thomistic perspective, however, self-defense is a just cause as long as the means used are proportional to what is needed for self-defense. For Aquinas, defending and preserving the self is natural; the onus is on the natural law of what is just. Self-defense/self-preservation is aligned with the natural law, and, hence, serves as a just cause for war. Within Thomistic conceptions, seeking the common good is a just cause for war; such a common good could be protecting a state from outside aggressors, or protecting victims of oppression in foreign lands from an aggressive government. Thomistic ideas find resonance in several contemporary debates on just cause. See Langan, John. “The elements of St. Augustine’s just war theory.” The Journal of Religious Ethics (1984): pp. 19–38.

  19. For Augustine, the objective of conducting a just war is the creation of just peace where inner attitudes of citizens are aligned with what God intended and ordained. Aquinas talked about intended and unintended effects, also known as the principle of double effect. Killing someone in self-defense has two effects: self-preservation and killing the aggressor. As long as the intended effect is aligned with moral actions, it is a lawful act. It is, hence, lawful to kill in self-defense since the intention is self-preservation, which is a natural (and, hence, moral) action. Responsibility of the warring actor to ensure that the action has behind it intentions to produce good consequences and not bad, and the good must be more than the bad side effects. See Aquinas, Thomas, Richard J. Regan, and William P. Baumgarth. On law, morality, and politics. Hackett Publishing, 2003.

  20. Most historical and contemporary just war theorists, with a few modern exceptions, are in agreement that war should be the last resort after all peaceful means have been exhausted. O’Brien (1981), for example, argues: “Every reasonable peaceful alternative should be exhausted” (p. 33). Similar to O’Brien, Orend (2000) says: “A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular through diplomatic negotiation” (49). See O’Brien, William Vincent. “The conduct of just and limited war.” (1981), and Orend, Brian. “Jus post bellum.” Journal of Social Philosophy 31, no. 1 (2000): pp. 117–137.

  21. Aquinas argues that although it is lawful to kill in self-defense since the intention is self-preservation, which is a natural (and, hence, moral) action, it is, unlawful to use force that is much greater than what is required to defend oneself, and thereby, kill someone when a lesser force would have sufficed for self-preservation. In contemporary thinking on just war, proportionality features as a fundamental principle governing the conduct of war. It arises from the principled notion, as advanced by Aquinas and others after him, that belligerents should not have unlimited liberty in terms of choosing the means and size of damage that they can inflict on the adversary. Modern developments in international law governing use of force across international borders are guided by this principle. See Aquinas, Thomas, Richard J. Regan, and William P. Baumgarth. On law, morality, and politics. Hackett Publishing, 2003, and Gardam, Judith Gail. “Proportionality and force in international law.” American Journal of International Law 87, no. 3 (1993): pp. 391–413.

  22. Questions about non-combatant immunity have a genesis in discussions on Aquinas’ principle of double effect applied to war. Ramsey (1976) argues that most Protestant and secular discussions around just war and killing of non-combatants revolve around justification of direct killing of non-combatants in war; “we only have to know that there are non-combatants, not exactly who or where they are, in order to know that warfare should be forces and counter-forces warfare, and attack be limited to legitimate military targets” (p. 68). Whereas a war conducted with the objective of defending victims of aggression can be justified, an objective such as securing freedom for the oppressed cannot. He argues for aggression, in such cases, to be defined in terms of the rival nation’s first resort of arms and/or a challenge by a rival nation to one’s laws and order of peace and justice (p. 90). Only aggression defined in such terms could warrant resort to an armed response. See Ramsey, Paul. “War and the Christian conscience: how shall modern war be conducted justly?” (1976).

  23. A broader and deeper study of the canon could potentially lead to the construction of such a hierarchy, but that is outside the scope of this paper.

  24. Many thanks to Dr. Brahmachari Sharan, professor in Georgetown University, who not only kindly agreed to guide me on this paper, but also helped me look up Sanskrit terms in the primary texts available online.

  25. Mahabharata n.d.-e, Book 5, Section 36, verse 2

  26. Suyuddha is mentioned in the following verses in the Mahabharata: 1.128.4; 1.128.18; 3.13.103; 3.171.12; 5.36.52; 5.132.26; 5.165.25; 6.22.2; 7.5.6; 7.16.25; 7.29.33; 7.164. 13; 7.165.13; 8.26.69; 8.55.5; 8.57.44; 8.68.43; 9.4.25; 9.4.33; 9.4.45; 9.11.43 12.25.24; 12.59.46; 12.100.11; 12.138. 12; 13. 120.9* (0603-1); 13.134.57* (15-981); 14.92.13).

  27. Mahabharata n.d.-g, Book 6, Section 2, verse 2

  28. Manu-smriti mentions suyuddha in the following verses: 7.176; 7.190; 7.198; 7.199; 12.46. Vishnu-smriti mentions it in 3.16. Yama and Angirasa do not mention yuddha or any of its synonyms.

  29. Arthasastra, Book 10, Section 3, verse 30

  30. Mahabharata n.d.-b, Book 7, Section 5, verse 6

  31. Aryayuddha or aryam yuddham is mentioned in the following verses in the Mahabharata: 6.68.31; 6.82.30; 7.21.2; 7.77.13; 7.86.11; 7.100.18; 7.164.9; 8.43.46; 12.272.24.

  32. Incarnations of Lord Vishnu

  33. Mahabharata n.d.-c, Book 6, Section 68, verse 31

  34. Mahabharata n.d.-d, Book 8, Section 43, verse 46

  35. Arthashastra n.d.-c, Book 10, Section 3, verse 26

  36. Arthashastra n.d.-d, Book 10, Section 3, verse 1

  37. Arthashastra n.d.-d, Book 12, Section 2, verse 2

  38. Brihaspati Smriti (n.d). Book 1, Section 23, verse 4

  39. Bhagavad Gita n.d.-e, Chapter 2, verse 31

  40. Mahabharata n.d.-a., Book 10, Section 9, verse 23

  41. Each of these terms is an inherently complex term with theological, philosophical, social, and political import, which given the scope of the current paper, I cannot do justice to.

  42. Bhagavad Gita n.d.-c, Chapter I, verse 45, 39, 36

  43. Bhagavad Gita n.d.-d, Chapter 2, verses 12–19

  44. Commentary by Sri Ramanuja of Sri Sampradaya on Gita II. 31. Available at https://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-31/.

  45. Ibid.

  46. Bhagavad Gita n.d.-a, Chapter 2, verse 38

  47. Bhagavad Gita n.d.-b, Chapter 18, verses 17

  48. The Laws of Manu (1991) translated, annotated, and introduced by W. Doniger with B. K. Smith (New Delhi: Penguin).

  49. Arthashastra n.d.-a, Book 10.

  50. Manu-smriti n.d., 7.88–89

References

  • Aquinas, T., Regan R. J., and Baumgarth W. P. (2003). On law, morality, and politics. Hackett Publishing.

  • Arthasastra (n.d.). Book 12, Section 2, verse 2.

  • Arthashastra (n.d.-a). Book 10.

  • Arthashastra (n.d.-c). Book 10, Section 3, verse 26.

  • Arthashastra (n.d.-d). Book 10, Section 3, verse 1.

  • Barry, B. (1991). Theories of justice: a treatise on social justice. Vol. 16. Univ of California Press.

  • Bhagavad Gita (n.d.-a). Chapter 2, verse 38.

  • Bhagavad Gita (n.d.-b). Chapter 18, verses 17.

  • Bhagavad Gita (n.d.-c). Chapter I, verse 45, 39, 36.

  • Bhagavad Gita (n.d.-d). Chapter 2, verses 12–19.

  • Bhagavad Gita (n.d.-e). Chapter 2, verse 31.

  • Brihaspati Smriti (n.d.). Book 1, Section 23, verse 4.

  • Clooney, F. X. (2010). Comparative theology: deep learning across religious borders. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. M. (2000). Two theories of justice. In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 3–27. American Philosophical Association. The Laws of Manu (1991) translated, annotated, and introduced by W. Doniger with B. K. Smith (New Delhi: Penguin).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creel, A. B. (1972). Dharma as an ethical category relating to freedom and responsibility. Philosophy East and West, 22(2), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, F. (1942). Dominant ideas in the formation of Indian culture. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 62(3), 151–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam, J. G. (1993). Proportionality and force in international law. American Journal of International Law, 87(3), 391–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdrege, B. A (2004). Dharma. In The Hindu world, pp. 225–260. Routledge, Abingdon.

  • Kangle, R. P. (Ed.). (2000). The Kautilya Arthasastra, part III, an english translation with critical and explanatory notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarasidas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karve, I. (1961). Hindu society-an interpretation. Poona: Deccan College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolm, S.-C. (2002). Modern theories of justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebacqz, K. (1986). Six theories of justice: perspectives from philosophical and theological ethics. Minneapolis: Augsburg Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, F. (2000). Environmental justice analysis: theories, methods, and practice. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mahabharata (n.d.-a) Book 10, Section 9, verse 23.

  • Mahabharata (n.d.-b) Book 7, Section 5, verse 6.

  • Mahabharata (n.d.-c) Book 6, Section 68, verse 31

  • Mahabharata (n.d.-d) Book 8, Section 43, verse 46

  • Mahabharata (n.d.-e) Book 5, Section 36, verse 2

  • Mahabharata (n.d.-g) Book 6, Section 2, verse 2

  • Manu-smriti (n.d.) 7.88-89

  • Miller, D. (1991). Recent theories of social justice. British Journal of Political Science, 21(3), 371–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E. (1998). Theories of distributive justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, K. (2007). Just and unjust war in Hindu philosophy. Journal of Military Ethics, 6(3), 232–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subedi, S. P. (2003). The concept in Hinduism of ‘just war’. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 8(2), 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winthrop, D. (1978). Aristotle and theories of justice. American Political Science Review, 72(4), 1201–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearley, L. H. (1990). Mencius and Aquinas: theories of virtue and conceptions of courage. Vol. 2. Albany: Suny Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Theology and Religious Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Arunjana Das

Authors
  1. Arunjana Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arunjana Das.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Das, A. Defining Dharma Yuddha: a Taxonomical Approach to Decolonizing Studies on Hindu War Ethics. DHARM 2, 135–151 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-019-00058-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42240-019-00058-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation