By P.K.Balachandran/Ceylon Today
Colombo, July 24: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) defines International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as: “a set of rules that seek to limit the humanitarian consequences of armed conflicts. It is sometimes also referred to as the law of armed conflict or the law of war (jus in bello). The primary purpose of IHL is to restrict the means and methods of warfare that parties to a conflict may employ and to ensure the protection and humane treatment of persons who are not, or no longer, taking a direct part in the hostilities”.
It was the father of the IHL, Henry Dunant, who inspired the creation of the ICRC and the Geneva Conventions that govern certain aspects of the conduct of war and the aftermath of wars.
Scholars of Buddhism, both Sri Lankan and foreign, point out that the principles of Buddhism are embedded in the IHL and that a study of Buddhism and its lore will help internalize the ethics underlying the IHL.
Though to talk of Buddhism and war in the same breath will seem incongruous, Buddhism has been realistic enough to accept that it is in the nature of men and societies to fight, and fight violently. It therefore offers ways of minimising the chance of war, and if war does happen, how to minimise its impact. That indeed is the aim of the IHL also.
Buddhism aims at reducing sorrow or suffering, including suffering arising from violence. Historically, wherever the kings had internalized Buddhist principles, violence had been minimal.
The Indian scholar Prof. P.Y.Bapat states in his book 2500 Years.of.Buddhism (Publications Division Government of India, 1956): “Not a single page of Buddhist history has ever been lurid with the light of inquisitional fires, or darkened with the smoke of heretic or heathen cities ablaze , or red with the blood of guiltless victims of religious hatred. Buddhism wields only one sword, the sword of wisdom, and recognizes only one enemy- ignorance. This is the testimony of history, and is not to be gainsaid.”
Indeed it can said categorically, that the rule of Buddhists like Asoka (268-232 BCE) and the Pala dynasty of Bengal (750 to 1161 CE) were manifestly just and ethical.
Prof P.D.Padmasiri of Peradeniya University says in his essay on Buddhism and the laws of war: “ There is a rich body of ethical principles and conventions related to the conduct of war preserved in the Buddhist tradition, especially in its body of canonical and commentarial literature.”
This was reflected in the practices of those who professed to be Buddhists, he adds.
“Although they were not codified as laws in the history of Buddhism, they can be recognised as extremely significant ethical principles that could have an impact on any attempt to develop a system of IHL that is intended to minimise human suffering in situations of war, whether international or civil,” Padmasiri says.
The scholar recalls that after he attained enlightenment, the Buddha was asked about the purpose of his teaching. He replied that it was for avoiding conflict (viggaha) with anyone in the world, and to end all tendencies in the human mind to engage in behaviour productive of quarrels that may eventually grow into wars or major forms of armed conflict.
While sorrow or suffering is natural in some cases and unavoidable, suffering brought about by “unwholesome” conduct is both avoidable and controllable, Buddhism says. Therefore, Buddhism primarily deals with suffering that humans inflict upon themselves as well as others.
And the roots of such conduct are: greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa) conjoined with delusion (moha). War is but an expression of these three roots of evil.
Even a just and ethically oriented party may be drawn into an armed conflict in order to defend itself against unjust aggression. Be that as it may, Buddhism says that any war, just or unjust, has to be fought as per ethical principles.
The root of an ethical war are in the Buddhist concept of just governance (the dhamma raja). Buddhism had evolved ten principles of governance (dasa-rāja-dhamma), which are: (1) dāna (charity), (2) sila (virtuous conduct), (3) pariccaga (sacrifice), (4) ajjava (uprightness), (5) maddava (mildness), (6) tapa (austerity), (7) akkodha (absence of anger), (8) avihiṃsa (non-injury), (9) khanti (patience) and (10) avirodhana (non-retaliation).
Each one of these has implication for the minimisation of suffering in situations of armed conflict.
Padmasiri goes on to give examples of ethics from Buddhist mythology and lore. In Buddhist mythology, the god Sakka is represented as an ethical model to be emulated in situations where a party in war is in a position of strength.
In one case, the devas (gods) under the leadership of Sakka emerge victorious over the asuras (a group of evil-minded celestial beings) led by Vepacitti. Vepacitti is brought to Sakka’s territory bound in chains. Vepacitti hurls insults at Sakka. Thereupon, Matali, the driver of Sakka’s chariot, asks Sakka to retaliate. But a calm Sakka points out that the practice of restraint and patience while being in a position of strength is the most commendable attitude. Narrating this story, the Buddha approved Sakka’s stand as an ethical one contributing to all round happiness.
On another occasion the Asuras defeat the Devas, and the Devas, led by Sakka, flee from the battleground. On the way, they destroy nests of the Supaṇṇa bird (a mythical bird). Learning of this, Sakka orders his army to turn back, despite the imminent threat to his warriors’ lives from the pursuing Asuras. But Vepacitti’s army of Asuras, suspecting that Sakka was turning back with reinforcements to fight them, flees in fear. The Buddha then says that Sakka was victorious because of his righteous conduct in relation to the Supanna birds.
The Bhojajaniya Jataka, King Brahmadatta of Banaras yielded to the call of a Bodhisattva (a Buddha to be) not to kill defeated kings but to release them after making them commit a binding oath of allegiance.
King Asoka of Magadha (268-39 BC) had turned to Buddhism and pacifism after the horrendous Kalinga war, even though he was the victor. He then issued many edicts in the conquered areas based on the Buddhistic ideas of compassion. In Rock Edict II, he decreed benevolent measures, such as the establishment of medical services for both humans and animals, reflecting the Buddhistic dhammiko dhamma-raja.
In Sri Lanka, to prevent wars and bloodshed, certain kings had voluntarily abdicated and retreated into the forest to lead a life of renunciation and spiritual development, points out A.T.Ariyaratna of Sarvodaya in a lecture on the conduct of war.
In the battle between the Sinhala-Buddhist king Durugamunu and the Tamil king Elara (161 o 162 BCE), Dutugemunu called Elara for a combat between the two of them in order to prevent mass bloodshed, Ariyaratne says. And when Elara was slain, Dutugemunu gave Elara a royal funeral. He also pardoned the late King Elara’s army and rehabilitated them.
He got a monument (chetiya) erected in the memory of this South Indian Tamil King and he had certain rules enforced for the future generations to respect the tomb of Elara.
Padmasiri backs this up with a quote from the Mahawamsa: “ On the spot where his (Elara’s) body had fallen he (Dutugemunu) burned it with the catafalque (a decorated wooden framework supporting the coffin of a distinguished person during a funeral) and there did he build a monument and ordain worship. And even to this day, the princes of Lanka, when they draw near to this place, are wont to silence their music because of this worship.”
Therefore, ethical conduct in battle and respect for the dead in war, whether friend or foe, are enjoined in Buddhism as well as modern International Humanitarian Law.
END
