DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Learnings of International Law from Ancient India

SUBMITTED TO – SUBMITTED BY–

Dr. Abdullah Nasir Pratham Dhoka
Assistant Professor 210101048
(Law) B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University 4th Semester, Section

1|P a ge
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher, Dr. Abdullah Nasir, who gave
me this opportunity to do this project. I would also like to thank him for providing
exemplary guidance, monitoring, and constant encouragement throughout the course
of this project. Without his motivation, inspiration, and efforts I would not have been
able to make this project.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my parents and
mentors for providing me with the morals and support for completing this task through
various stages. I am also obliged to the Librarian of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya
National Law University for providing timely e-library access to me. I am grateful for
their cooperation during the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I would also like to thank my family, friends, and colleagues for their constant
encouragement without which this project would not have been possible.

-Pratham Dhoka

2|P a ge
Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................... 2
INTRODUCTION ................................................ 4
WHAT IS DHARMA?.......................................... 5
ON WAR AND HUMANITARIANISM ............. 6
KAUTILYA’S DIPLOMACY .............................. 9
THE GITA AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS......... 10
CONCLUSION ................................................... 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 13

3|P a ge
 INTRODUCTION
International Law has not always been the way we know it today, it has evolved over many
centuries, millenniums even. From very ancient times, the relationship between empires,
kingdoms, and clans has been governed by certain codes. In the olden days, there used to be
ministers like Chanakya in Chandragupta’s court who would dictate the terms of foreign
relations and war. Indian texts like Vedas and Smritis had codified rules and customs of war,
trade, and foreign relations years before any of the western scholars could have thought.

‘Modern international law, as the name suggests, is rather new. As late as September 8, 1873,
eleven men met at the Town Hall of Ghent in Belgium, adopting the Statute of the Institut de
Droit International, defining the organisation as the organ of the juridical conscience of the
civilised world. But the politics of semantics explains why a particular civilisation was
considered superior over "others" that existed in different time and geography. The non-
Europeans continued to remain obscured in the occidental narrations of cultural contribution
to the making of laws of the civilised states. One can also debate and refute the self-defining
narrow European construction of the "civilised" states, which apparently excluded Asian,
African, and Latin American cultures.’1

In the contemporary scenario, the absence of India or Asia when looking for the source of
modern international law is primarily a result of the oppression and intellectual destruction of
the colonies. As they say, it is the winner who writes the history. The rich knowledge of Indian
heritage has been erased from our memories and libraries quite painfully. We do not know
exactly how much we have lost; it is only what is left that occupies the spaces of our minds.

We will now look at many simple yet unique concepts from ancient to medieval India that
define the rules of war and international relations. These also come from the epics of literature
like the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Ramayana. ‘The evidences or witnesses of
International Law in ancient India are many and various. These may broadly be classified into
(i) the evidences of the Dharmasastras, (ii) the evidences of the Arthasastras, those of the (iii)
Puranas, and lastly (iv) of inscriptions.’2

1
Alakh Niranjan Singh and Prabhakar Singh, “What Can International Law Learn from Indian Mythology,
Hinduism and History?” (2009) 2 Journal of East Asia and International Law
<http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2009.2.1.10> accessed 10 March 2023
2
Pramathanath Bandyopadhyay, International Law and Custom: In Ancient India (Calcutta University Press
1920)

4|P a ge
 WHAT IS DHARMA?
‘Dharma as stated by Roller, 'used in a legal sense, . . . refers to the laws and traditions
governing society, informing every citizen of the rules governing social life.' He explains that
‘Dharma is usually classified according to the requirements of one's position in society and
stage in life, for these represent the main factors of time, place, and circumstance that determine
one's own specific dharma.’3 ‘The complexity of these rules which are known as Dharma has
eluded writers, whether Western or Oriental, in their attempt to analyze the essence of
Hinduism. For instance, Gluck lich observes that 'Dharma is not a what, it is how: there is the
dharma of conduct, of course, and this we usually understand as law and morality.' Dharma is
the law of righteousness which regulates relations between the individual, the family, the
community, and the state.’4

Gandhi constantly stressed on seeing all people's faiths as aspects of the same truth, which is
God. As a result, the concept of fair war in Hinduism is not necessarily a Hindu fight against
other nations or people of other religions; rather, it is a Hindu war against the bad characters
of the day, whether national or alien. Simply put, the Hindu notion of just war is founded on
right and wrong, fairness, and injustice in the daily lives of all mortals, Hindus and non-Hindus
alike. Illegal and unjust conduct, such as the denial of rights to which one was entitled, sparked
legitimate conflicts. The fundamental reasons for two great battles waged in ancient India's
history, the great wars of Ramayana and Mahabharata, respectively, were abducting someone
else's wife and unlawfully seizing others' property.

‘If we make a probe into the history of ancient India, we find that no distinction between
believers and non-believers was recognised in regard to inter-state conduct and even when the
former were involved in a death struggle of war with the latter or whether the war was fought
within or without Aryavarta or whether it was a just and righteous war (Dharma Yuddha) or an
unjust war (Adharma Yuddha), it was expressly enjoined by the sacred laws of Dharmasastra
that all belligerents at all times and in all circumstances must adhere to the accepted rules of
warfare. This universality of application which is a distinct Indian contribution to the
development of inter-state law dates back to two thousand years and it has given birth to several

3
Surya P. Subedi, “The Concept In Hinduism Of Just War” (2003) 8 Journal of Conflict & Security Law
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/26294280> accessed 10 March 2023
4
ibid

5|P a ge
basic principles of international law some of which originating from India took centuries to
evolve before they could be universally recognised.’5

ON WAR AND HUMANITARIANISM

‘Ancient Indian writers enunciated several causes for war, which can be classified into four
broad categories: the desire to secure imperial power, either through aggression or through the
permitted modes of the Ashvamedha or Vajapeya (special kinds of sacrifices); self-
preservation; the maintenance of the balance of power; and the prevention by a monarch of the
oppression of his people. The theft of a wife was also a cause of war. For example, in the epic
Ramayana, Ravana’s abduction of Rama’s wife was the reason for waging war.’6

‘The laws of war in ancient India drew a clear distinction between civilians and belligerents.
That same principle is found in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I, while Article 51 thereof
protects civilians from military operations. Manu also laid down certain principles that should
be followed by both warring parties. For example, combat between mounted and unmounted
soldiers was strictly forbidden. Furthermore, combat between warriors of officer rank and foot
soldiers was not allowed, since the former would generally be much better armed and trained
than the latter. Collective attacks against a single soldier and the slaying of a warrior who was
temporarily at a disadvantage during battle were strictly prohibited.’7

Only warriors who truly fight in battle, according to the Manusmriti, are entitled to the spoils
of war. But, they must be shared with the monarch since the kings who have hired them to
settle scores with foes seek the best part of the plunder. In this regard, the conqueror is urged
to provide tax exemptions rather than looting the conquered country. He must strive to win
over the commoners of conquered areas while avoiding actions that may aggravate their
resentment. He should not be vengeful, but rather provide amnesty to everyone who has
surrendered to him.

5
Nagendra Singh, ‘India and International Law’ (1968) (21) 3 Revista Española de Derecho Internacional
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/44294282> accessed 13 March 2023
6
Manoj Kumar Sinha, ‘Hinduism and international humanitarian law’ (2005) (87) 858 International Review of
the Red Cross <https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_858-4.pdf> accessed 14 March
2023
7
ibid

6|P a ge
Sastry8 has summarized the most frequently cited rules of Hindu laws of war:

1. A warrior in armour must not fight with another warrior without armour.

2. Fighting should be on a one-to-one basis and one should stop fighting when the opponent
becomes disabled.

3. Warriors should fight only with their equals, e.g., cavalry soldiers should not attack a chariot
warrior.

4. Poisoned or barbed arrows should not be used.

5. A weak or wounded man should not be killed, nor one who has no son.

6. He whose weapon is broken or whose bowstring is cut or who has lost his chariot should
not be hit.

7. One who surrenders should not be killed, but he can be captured as a prisoner of war.

8. A King should fight only with a King.

9. Aged men, women of all ages, children, and those in retreat should not be killed.

10. The panic-stricken and retreating foe should not be pursued hotly.

11. The sleepy, the thirsty, a peaceful citizen walking along the road, the insane, one engaged
in eating, a camp-follower, a war musician, and the guards at the gates should not be killed.

12. Spectators and other non-combatants should not be fought against, nor those hiding in
fear.

13. Gardens, temples, and other places of public worship should be left unmolested.

14. Prisoners of war should be treated humanely.

15. A wounded prisoner should either be sent home or should have his wounds attended to.

16. When a fort can be captured by other means, no attempt should be made to set fire to it, for
fire will cause indiscriminate damage.

17. Fighting should not take place at night.

8
K.R.R. Sastry, 'Hinduism and International Law', in 117 Recueil des Cours (1966-I) 507
<https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/the-hague-academy-collected-
courses/*A9789028615427_06> accessed 12 March 2023

7|P a ge
18. In order to be strictly in accordance with dharma the place and time of battle must be
specified beforehand.

‘The roots of humanitarianism can be traced back to ancient India, where respect for the laws
of war was deeply rooted in the armed forces. Those ancient laws, which were enshrined in the
code of law of Manu and his Dharma Sastra (or Manusmriti), established rules for the conduct
of rulers towards their peoples, including, for example, the obligation to treat the vanquished
humanely and the prohibition of poisoned weapons.’9

The Rig's Veda also outlined the proper way to conduct a war. According to Vedic norms, it is
unjust to hit someone from behind, cowardly to poison the point of an arrow, and atrocious to
harm the sick or elderly, children, or women. The Ramayana portrays an intriguing debate
between Ravana and his brother Vibhishana concerning an ambassador's
security. Ravana intended to assassinate Envoy Hanuman, who had been at his court on Rama's
behalf. His brother Vibhishana warned him that killing the ambassador would be against Raj
Dharma (the duty of kings).

In the course of epic combat, the Ramayana offers another remarkable story: an ultra-
destructive weapon became available to Lakshmana, Rama's younger brother, which could
annihilate the entire enemy race, including those who could not wield arms. Rama counselled
Lakshmana that the weapon could not be deployed because such mass destruction was
forbidden by old war regulations, even though Ravana was fighting an unfair war with an unjust
goal.

The epic poem Mahabharata tells a similar story: Arjuna avoided employing an ultra-
destructive weapon in a conventional conflict because, when fighting was limited to regular
conventional weapons, the use of extraordinary or unconventional types was immoral, in
addition to violating religious precepts or the accepted laws of warfare. Prisoners of battle
should not be enslaved, according to the Agni Purana. If soldiers were taken prisoner, they
were supposed to be freed after the fighting stopped.

9
Manoj Kumar Sinha, ‘Hinduism and international humanitarian law’ (2005) (87) 858 International Review of
the Red Cross <https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_858-4.pdf> accessed 14 March
2023

8|P a ge
 KAUTILYA’S DIPLOMACY
Kautilya is known as the India's Machiavelli. Yet, referring to Kautilya as the Indian
Machiavelli misses the true significance of his work. In terms of the breadth and depth of his
knowledge of international affairs, he was unquestionably superior to both Machiavelli as an
author and Bismarck as a practitioner. In the early nineteenth century, this is how the West
discovered him. His most popular name, Chanakya, or Vishnugupta, is commonly referred to
as Kautilya. Kautilya was a major counsellor to Chandragupta Maurya, the Indian ruler (c. 317-
293 B.C) who conquered the Nanda monarchs, halted the progress of Alexander's successors,
and united most of the Indian subcontinent into the Magadha empire for the first time in ancient
Indian history. Kautilya was immediately recognised with two magnificent victories: halting
the juggernaut of Alexander's successors and unifying India into one Magadha Empire with
borders reaching all the way to Afghanistan. These are noteworthy achievements in terms of
statecraft and military strategy. Kautilya was also an accomplished writer. The Kautilya's
Arthasastra, written around 300 B.C., is a science of politics meant to teach a wise king how to
govern with detailed positive international law. This is the oldest positive international law
treatise. Kautilya delivers wide-ranging and extremely fascinating views on war and diplomacy
in this work.

‘The Kautilya conception of the international system was embodied in the idea of mandala,
commonly translated as the circle of states. The concept of mandala occupies a prominent
place; both in Hindu and Buddhist writings, but in relation to international politics it has been
most fully developed in the Arthasastra. It has been described as a bi-centric international
system. According to Kautilya, the king's status determines his foreign policy. Kautilya devotes
a chapter to 'sadhgunyas' or the "six-fold policy" which represents a typology of foreign policy
which is based upon the status of the actor. The six-fold policy consists of: accommodation
(sandhi); hostility (vigraha); indifference (asana); attack (yana); protection (samsraya); and
double policy (dvaidhibhava). The policy differs according to whether it is being directed
toward kings who are superior, inferior, or of equal stature. The bulk of the international
portions of the Arthasastra is a discussion of the policies that may be appropriately pursued by
'superior' or 'inferior' kings. Having to choose between them, an inferior king pursues
accommodation, seeks protection, or resorts to a double policy. The superior king, however,
can afford hostility or attack, while one facing an equal king maintains indifference. This
sixfold policy could be used to explain why China and the United States will not try to indulge

9|P a ge
in an armed conflict. The short time taken by the United States of America while deciding to
bomb Afghanistan and Iraq can also be explained by the concept of the relative strength of
states codified as rules of state behaviour in Arthasastra. It also explains the double policy of
the Indo-American and American-Pakistan relationship. Arthasastra beautifully explains how
the USSR was dismantled with the use of the tactics that Kautilya wrote some c. 317-293
B.C.’10

THE GITA AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky that would be like the
splendour of the mighty one.... Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

- Robert Oppenheimer, in reference to the Trinity test of Atomic Bomb in New

Mexico, the father of atomic bomb, famously recalled the Bhagavad Gita.

‘The US Special Representative for Nuclear Non-proliferation, Christopher Ford, while giving
the opening remarks to the 2007 Preparatory Committee Meeting of the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in Vienna, Austria, reminded the world about the second part
of Oppenheimer's quote. He rightly pointed out Oppenheimer's mistake. He pointed out that
Oppenheimer did not mention the next words in the same breadth - I am the Source of things
that are yet to be. The US representative, fortunately, quoted the verse in the right perspective.
His quotation was an effort to sketch the imagery of devastation (so vividly painted in various
chapters of the Mahabharata) which an irresponsible use of nuclear weapons can cause.’11

When Judge C. G. Weeramantry made an explicit reference to the Bhagavad Gita in his dissent
in the court's advisory judgement on the legitimacy of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the
ICJ created a direct conversation with Indian mythology. ‘Justice Weeramantry's opinion, for
example, refers to the maintenance of obligations arising from treaties and other sources of
international law. It sought support from Bhagavad Gita as other sources of international law.
The argument against the legality of nuclear weapons rests principally not upon treaties, but
upon such other sources of international law (mainly humanitarian law), whose principles are

10
Alakh Niranjan Singh and Prabhakar Singh, “What Can International Law Learn from Indian Mythology,
Hinduism and History?” (2009) 2 Journal of East Asia and International Law
<http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2009.2.1.10> accessed 10 March 2023
11
ibid

10 | P a g e
universally accepted. This ICJ reference to oriental wisdom came from the Bhagavad Gita and
the mythological exchange between Lord Krishna (Vishnu in Human incarnation) and his
disciple Arjuna in the middle of a Dharmayuddha or righteous war where both sides were
armed with nuclear weapons (called divyastra e.g., Brahmastra and Pashupatiastra). In
Mahabharata, there are thirty-seven references to this nuclear weapon. Before Arjuna acquires
those nuclear weapons from the respective gods, he is strictly advised by them to use it as a
threat weapon rather than a weapon to be actually used in the war. This case presented before
the ICJ the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons.’12

12
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 LC.J. 226 (July 8) (dissenting
opinion of Judge C.G. Weeramantry), <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf> accessed 13 March
2023

11 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION
“India is the cradle of the human race, the birthplace of human speech, the mother of
history, the grandmother of legend, and the great-grandmother of tradition. our most
valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India only.”
- Mark Twain

A peek into the past and we come out so much wiser. We must respect our heritage texts as
much as we revere our heritage buildings. The intricacies of humanitarian and international
law that we have realized today were all placed in written records hundreds and thousands of
years ago in ancient and medieval India. The shadows of our colonial pasts have eaten up our
identities and our ability to solve our problems ourselves. Today we look up to western
philosophers for solutions to the problems that haunt us, but there used to be a time when we
were the solution seekers, not the help seekers. As much as we would like to embrace modernity
and reject tradition because of some flaws or inequalities perpetrated in the long past, it would
be better if we started to chaff out the bad parts because there is so much good in the store.

We learned how the international law we know today has been shaped by western society at
large. The biggest role being played by the Hague Conventions on either side of the completion
of the 19th millennium after Christ. It was decades of treaties, debates, and conventions that
chiselled out the international law of today. However, things would have been so much easy if
they took inspiration from the ancient texts of India which are a reflection of an intellectual
past, of course, parts of it were discriminatory but that much discretion is always advised. The
Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, the smritis, the Upanishads, and
the much later treaties on politics called the Arthasastra. And so much more to learn about
international law, laws of war, humanitarian law, diplomacy, and nuclear proliferation. From
Robert Oppenheimer to the International Court of Justice, the learning that flows from the
Ganga of Indian knowledge is all engrossing and can help everybody whether it is spiritually,
scientifically, medically, mathematically, philosophically, intellectually, or in any which way.
So let us start connecting back to the roots in the hope of gaining knowledge that can solve our
problems on the worldwide level.

12 | P a g e
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
 https://scholar.google.com/
 Alakh Niranjan Singh and Prabhakar Singh, “What Can International Law Learn from
Indian Mythology, Hinduism and History?” (2009) 2 Journal of East Asia and
International Law <http://dx.doi.org/10.14330/jeail.2009.2.1.10> accessed 10 March
2023
 Pramathanath Bandyopadhyay, International Law and Custom: In Ancient India
(Calcutta University Press 1920)
 Surya P. Subedi, “The Concept In Hinduism Of Just War” (2003) 8 Journal of
Conflict & Security Law <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26294280> accessed 10 March
2023
 Nagendra Singh, ‘India and International Law’ (1968) (21) 3 Revista Española de
Derecho Internacional <https://www.jstor.org/stable/44294282> accessed 13 March
2023
 Manoj Kumar Sinha, ‘Hinduism and international humanitarian law’ (2005) (87) 858
International Review of the Red Cross <https://international-
review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irrc_858-4.pdf> accessed 14 March 2023
 K.R.R. Sastry, 'Hinduism and International Law', in 117 Recueil des Cours (1966-I)
507 <https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/the-hague-academy-collected-
courses/*A9789028615427_06> accessed 12 March 2023
 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 LC.J. 226
(July 8) (dissenting opinion of Judge C.G. Weeramantry), <http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf> accessed 13 March 2023

13 | P a g e