HINDU MYTHOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

* UTKARSH MISHRA

* FACULTY OF LAW LL.B(HONS.) 3rd yr

* UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW , INDIA

Abstract:

This article examines the relationship between Hinduism and fundamental concepts of
International law. After reviewing the sources of Hinduism, it considers the permissibility and
types of war in ancient India, Rules for Ambassadors, Inviolability of Ambassadors, explores the
rules of warfare and investigates whether war was a matter of course or regarded as a ruler’s
last choice. It then sets out the humanitarian principles that already applied at that time.
Finally, it considers how far the concepts of Hinduism have helped in the development of
international law.

REASONS FOR CONFLICTS BETWEEN NATIONS:

 The India- Pakistan Kasmir Conflict

 Tibet and the Dalai Lama ’ s Struggle for Independence from China.
 Thailand and Cambodia Border Clashes over the Preah Vihear Temple.
 The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in Sri Lanka.
 The Taliban and Afghanistan. Al Qaida and West Asia.

If we read any recent newspaper, we are likely to see more and more coverage of conflicts
involving religion and state. This troubling pattern is specifically acute in Asia, where the
relationship between religion and society is particularly tense. Pathology of this situation
reveals that sovereign and religion are not at ease with today’s Asian society. This is striking
given that many of the founding fathers of modern international law were naturalists and
religious scholars.

International law in Europe emerged form the works of religious naturalist scholars like Spanish
Francisco Suárez(1548-1617), Italian Alberico Gentili (1552-1608), and Dutch Hugo Grotius
(15831645). In his works, Gentili premised that the God was the legislator. Such premise is not
uncommon of the legal scholars of that time. Gentili’s first book on international law, “De
Legationibus Libri Tres ,”was published in 1582. Suárez entered the Society of Jesus at
Salamanca, studied philosophy and theology, and wrote “De Triplici Virtute Theologica, Fide,
Spe, et Charitate ” (The Three Theological virtues, faith, Hope and Charity). Gentili and Suárez
wrote long before the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and Grotius cited the works of Gentili in his
“De jure belli ac pacis libri tres” (On the Law of War and Peace: Three books). The forefathers of
modern international law, therefore, were mostly naturalists and religious scholars.

ROLE OF HINDUISM IN THE DEVLOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

The discussion above brings into light the role and importance of religion, particularly
Christianity, in the making of international law. The question now is whether the contribution
of Christianity is enough to make international law complete and universal. Are there
possibilities of contributions from other major religions of the world? India, with a Hindu
population of over 80 percent, continues to be the largest secular democracy. This fact points
to the inherent secularism and universalism of Hinduism. After the end of colonisation, India
survived the scare of fundamentalism from its division based on a “two nation theory ” in 1947,
the assassination of Gandhi in 1948 by a Hindu extremist, and the existence of the then only
Hindu state, Nepal, on its border. Pakistan, on the contrary, has not been able to cultivate
secularism. The Islamic theology with its military nexus has undermined the growth of Pakistan
as a democracy. This dichotomy suggests that Hinduism has played a subtle role in the
secularisation of the Indian polity and legal system.

Modern India has been rather silent on its role in international law. This reticence remains
unexplained in the comparative literature on international law. India’s history with
international relations theories date back to ancient times. Various Hindu texts from some eight
millennia ago passed over to generations by the method of “ shruti” and manuscripted later,
contain one of the most complete sets of international laws and relations. “ Dharma” remains
the central aspect to this discourse. The opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in
the Nuclear Weapons cases, particularly those delivered by Third World judges, cited these
Hindu scriptures as sources of international law.

IN RAMAYANA PERIOD:

The existence of a highly developed International Law in ancient India is proved by two facts

1. The post of ambassador was reserved for persons of the highest ability,

2. The ambassadors enjoyed diplomatic immunity subject to certain reservations.

In the Ramayana the principle of the inviolability of the life of an ambassador is affirmed. In the
interview between ambassador Hanumana and King Ravana in the Lanka Kanda of the
Ramayana, Hanumana delivered a message from King Rama to the King of Lankas "O King of the
Rakshasa race I have brought a message from King Sugriva for you. The ruler of the Vanara tribe
is your" brother King. He sends you his greetings."

Note the language, which was obviously the language of the protocol of those days. On hearing
the speech of the ambass ador, King Ravana flew into a rage and ordered that he be executed.
Bibhishana intervened and reminded the King that an ambassador could not be put to death:
"Show forgiveness, O King; and shed all anger; regain your normal mood and be pleased to
listen to me. A King who knows the law will never order the killing of an ambassador." King
Ravana objected, "This fellow himself has violated the Code. He has killed my soldiers and
grossly abused his status." Bibhishana replied: "O King of the Rakshasa race, after determining
what is proper and what is improper, inflict on him some punishment which is proper in the
case of an ambassador." The King was still not convinced and said: "It is not illegal to kill an
ambassador who himself has violated the Code. This man has killed so many Rakshasa soldiers
and is guilty of murder. I shall put him to death as a punishment for his crimes." But Bibhishana
persisted that whatever his faults, an ambassador's person was inviolate and he could not be
killed. "O King of the Rakshasa race," continued Bibhishana, "be pleased in what is the essence
of the law on this point.

The sages have declared that an ambassador's person is inviolate at all times and in all
circumstances and an ambassador can never be put to death," and Bibhishana then discussed
the violation of the Code by ambassador Hanumana, and said, "There is no doubt that this
ambassador is guilty of crimes without parallel. Nevertheless, the sages have laid down that the
execution of an ambassador is not permitted because there are other diverse forms of
punishment prescribed for an ambassador.“Amputation of a limb, flogging, shaving of the head,
branding-these are the punishments prescribed-(note the word 'prescribed'). There is no
authority for the killing of an ambassador."

Bibhishana then explained the principle on which the inviolability of the ambassador was
founded. "Whether an ambassador is a good person or an evil person is irrelevant, for he is only
an agent sent by another and speaks in the interest of another. An ambassador, therefore, is
never liable to the death penalty." Bibhishana further explained that all the punishment for the
acts and words of an ambassador must be reserved for his principal. Both the law enjoining that
an ambassador's life is inviolate and the principle on which it is founded are summed up in this
and the following verse. "I see no merit in slaying this man. It is his principals who have sent
him who deserve the death penalty." Now the King was convinced and said: "There is force in
your argument. I concede that an ambassador's murder has been condemned by law. But he
must be given some other punishment." Scores of centuries have passed-it is difficult to assess
how many-since the Ramayana was composed by Valmiki.

IN MAHABHARTA PERIOD:

The scene now shifts to Hastinapur where the Kings of the Kuru race ruled. War between the
Kauravas and the Pandavas was imminent. But Krishna agreed to make one last effort to
preserve peace to prevent the cold war which had been simmering for thirteen years from
holding over as hot war. He went as ambassador of King Yudhishthira to the Court of King
Dhritarashtra at Hastinapur-an ambassador of goodwill. He said: "I shall go to the Court of
Kaurava King in the interests of both the parties." When Krishna arrived at the Hastinapur
Court, Duryodhana invited him to stay with him and accept his hospitality. Krishna declined the
invitation, because the code of conduct of an envoy who was on a special mission to the
enemy's Court prohibited acceptance of the enemy's hospitality unless and until his mission
was successful.

He observed: "An envoy on a mission can accept hospitality and favours (from the enemy) only
if he succeeds in his mission (Kritartha hi) Therefore, Bharata, you must wait for the success of
my mission after which you may shower hospitality on me and my ministers”. Later,
Duryodhana, in conspiracy with Shakuni and Karna, proposed before the Kuru Sabha that
Krishna should be arrested and confined so that the Pandavas might lose their strongest
supporter." His proposal shocked every member of the Kuru Sabha; and the first to denounce it
was his own father, the King, who said: "Duryodhana, as the ruler of the peopley you should not
even utter such words. What you propose is against the ancient Law." "Krishna is coming to us
as an ambassador. He has done us no wrong. How do you get the right to arrest him? "

The oldest member of the Sabha, Bhishma Pitamaha, was so shocked that after denouncing
Duryodhana's proposal he walked out of the Sabha. He said, “This man has discarded all laws
and is bent upon committing what is a crime and a sin. I am not prepared to listen to his
words." Having said this, the venerable old warrior Bhishma got up and left the assembly hall.
In the Shanti Parva Bhishma reaffirmed this principle of inviolability of the person of the envoy
in even stronger language and said that a sovereign who kills any envoy goes to hell. Thus, the
inviolability of the person of an ambassador was a fundamental principle of the law or rules
governing relations between States. It had become so sacrosanct that any proposal for violating
it was condemned outright as shocking. The implications of these facts are important. A rule
does not acquire sanctity in a day. It has an origin; it develops into a practice; it then becomes a
custom; and finally it acquires the status of an "ancient law". Throughout this period, the
practice must follow without interruption. It was already a law in the time of the Ramayana and
had been elevated to the status of an andent Code of conduct. All this development could take
place only under the pressure of continuous relations between States, not all of whom were
monarchies.

RULE OF WAR IN ANCIENT INDIA:

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.

The code of Manu advises the king: “when he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike
with weapons concealed (in wood), nor with (such as are) barbed, poisoned, or the points of
which are blazing with fire.” Whether he himself fights or engages others to fight for him, the
king must ensure that the battle will be an honest duel. Elsewhere the code of Manu proclaims:
“let him not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who
joins the palms of his hands (in supplication) nor one who (flees) with flying hair nor one who
sits down nor one who says, ‘I am thine’. Nor one who is sleeping, nor one who has lost his coat
of mail, nor one who is naked nor one who is disarmed nor one who looks on without taking
part in the battle nor one who is fighting with another foe.” Great importance was attached to
distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants during war. According to Manu:
“persons walking on the road, not participating in the conflict, or mere travellers, or those who
are engaged in eating and drinking or pursuing their special avocations or activities or
diplomatic errands and of course the Brahmins, unless they are engaged in war, were not to be
killed.”

IN MODERN INDIA:

Coming now to the historic times, Kautilya devotes a whole Chapter to the duties of an
ambassador. Chapter XVI bears the title Doota Pranidbi. One of the duties of an ambassador
was to state the object of the mission as exactly as entrusted to him even at the cost of his life.
Kautilya considers the possibility of the enemy under a fit of rage, being tempted to kill the
envoy. Kautilya recommends that if such a situation arises, the enemy should be reminded of
the immunity enjoyed by an ambassador under the Code which is enunciated by Kautilya
himself in these words: "Kings can speak only through their ambassadors. (Doota Mukha vai
rajanah). An ambassador must, even in the face of weapons raised against him, express his
mission exactly in accordance with his instructions. Therefore, an ambassador cannot be put to
death, even if he belongs to the lowest caste. An ambassador's speech is really the speech of
another. This is the raw governing the status of ambassadors."

CONCLUSION:

From the above given examples it can be clearly understand that Modern International Law
learned many things from Indian Mythology . Hinduism believes that war is undesirable and
must be avoided because it involves the killing of fellow human beings. Kautilya notably
underlines the importance of negotiations between sovereigns who play a considerable role in
the conclusion of alliances and in issues pertaining to war and peace. Specifically, kings were
requested, before resorting to war, to have recourse to negotiation as the principal means of
resolving conflicts. Kautilya’s Arthasastra defines war as an offensive (objectionable) operation.
The Sukranitisara, Agni Purana and other works of earlier days hold more or less similar
positions. Lastlly, As much As I know, It can be said that Hinduism played an crucial role in the
development of international law.