Political History of Northern India

SR No.: 001744
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Gulabchandra Chaudhary
Publisher: Sohanlal Jain Dharm Pracharak Samiti Amrutsar
Publication Year: 1954
Total Pages: 482
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, History, & Culture
File Size: 10 MB

Page 408

378
POLITICAL HISTORY OF N. INDIA FROM JAIN SOURCES
him, who is unjust, addicted to vices, and whose friends, ministers, feudatories and generals are dissentient.1
He should annihilate the enemy who is without shelter or weak in protection. If the enemy turns to be an ally he should be killed or deprived of all the prowess. He should consider his enemy who is elevated with the three constituent elements of regal power as a strong one, and devoid of these elements, as a weak one, and equal in them as an equal.2
The conquering monarch, decreasing in strength, should make a treaty by some agreement; if there be any violation of the treaty it should be corrected by swearing, etc.; and growing in strength, the conquering monarch should overcome his enemy if there be no agitation in his own camp.3
During our period, at the time of war, states were mostly divided into two or three groups. Some of the states sided with their friends and others joined the enemies. Some of them remained neutral. We know from the Bījāpura Jain inscription of Dhavala of Hathundi that Dhavala was neutral and gave shelter to those who sought for it.4 Annexation and, sometimes, restoration of a rival's state were the policy of the day. For instance, Jayasiinha Siddharāja annexed the territory of Yasovarma Paramāra and assumed the title of Avantinatha,5 while Mūlarāja restored Gräharipu and made him an ally. Kumārapāla, sometimes, annexed the territory of the Cähamānas of Naddūla by appointing his generals to look after it and, some times, restored their territory on their accepting his suzerainty.?
Peace and Treaties: Somadeva says that the earth is not the hereditary possession of any one; it is only enjoyed by the strong and powerful. Thus, he declares that war is inevitable. But, in the same voice, he also denounces the councillors and friends who advise a king to wage war or to leave the earth.9 He prefers diplomacy to an armed conflict, for diplomacy is more effective than force. 10 He further states that the objects which may be achieved by peaceful means should not be got by armed conflict,11
1 Ibid., p. 320, sutra 30. 2 Ibid., sutras 31, 32 and 33. 3 Ibid., sutras 50-51. 4 See supra, pp. 180-182. 5 See supra, p. 252. 6 See supra, p. 227. ? See supra, p. 151 ff. & Nitivā., p. 331: T ESTTAT FIRTI : f ata agar! 9 Ibid., p. 344 : f ait mai ar 7: THE GETI HAITI TI 10 Ibid., p. 346: 451 JRS STIET 17TTI 11 Ibid., p. 351: THE YEAT Wit!