Violence in the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayana: Just War Criteria . in an Ancient Indian Epic RajBalkaran and A. WalterDorn* D o w n lo a d e WHihnednuliesgitairmmizeadtiofonrscoefcwoanrsfaidreerceodmjpuasrteifiwedithinthoHseinodfuoisthme?rrHeloigwiondso? d from The Just War framework, which evolved from Roman and early h Cfohrcreis.tiAanreththouogsehtt,hsetmipueslatceosmdpisatrianbcltecrtoitetrhiaefodriscsoanucrstieonoinngvitohleenucsee ooff ttp://jaa ancient India? This article examines the influential Sanskrit epic r.o x V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a in order to broach these questions. This analysis ford demonstrates the presence in the ancient work of all seven modern jo Just War criteria—namely (1) Just Cause, (2) Right Intent, (3) Net urn a Benefit, (4) Legitimate Authority, (5) Last Resort, (6) Proportionality ls .o of Means, and (7) Right Conduct. This study also shows the extent to rg which the criteria and the larger discourse in the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a by/ g are distinctly couched within Indic ethical parameters, drawing partic- u e ularly upon the moral precept of ahim.s(cid:1)a (nonviolence). This article st o identifies both similarities and differences between the epic’s criteria n A for warfare and those of the Just War framework. By comparing repre- ug sentations of violence in the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a to modern Western ust 2 legitimizations of force, this study advances the inclusion of Hindu , 2 0 thought into the global discourse on theethicsof warand peace. 1 2 *Raj Balkaran, Department of Religious Studies, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4. E-mail: [email protected]. A. Walter Dorn, Department ofDefenceStudies,RoyalMilitaryCollegeofCanadaandtheCanadianForcesCollege,215Yonge Blvd, Toronto, ON, Canada M5M 3H9. E-mail: [email protected]. We offer our gratitude to Dr. Christopher Framarin and Dr. Elizabeth Rohlman (both Hindu studies faculty at the University of Calgary), as well as the two anonymous JAAR reviewers, for their insightful commentsandsuggestionswhichservedtoenrichthisarticle. JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion,pp.1–32 doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfs036 PublishedbyOxfordUniversityPress,onbehalfoftheAmericanAcademyofReligion,2012. 2 JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion THE MONUMENTAL SANSKRIT epic R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a functions as an ancient repository of social and moral values which are very much alive today in the Hindu world. The R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a portrays the legendary exploits of the virtuous warrior-prince R(cid:1)ama. The story has undergone innumerable interpolations, redactions, vernacular translations, and local retellings throughout its vast and dynamic receptive history. The themes thereof, however, have remained quintessential aspects of Hindu thought and culture over the centuries, inspiring art, dance, narrative, and moral instruction, not only in India but across South and Southeast Asia to this day.1 R(cid:1)ama is regarded within the Hindu tradition as the exemplar of social and moral conduct, serving to define and perpetuate D o South Asian social values. As Robert Goldman notes, “few works of w n literature produced at any time have been as popular and influential as loa d t[hwehicghreathaasn]denantecriteanintedSa,nsmkroivtede,picenpchoaemnt,edt,heanVd(cid:1)almup¯ıkliifteRd(cid:1)amu(cid:1)anytaon.lda ed fro m millions of people in India and much of Southeast Asia” (1984: 4). h (cid:1) ttp is asTchriebemdotsot tahnecipernitmaonrddiainlfpluoeent-tsiaalgerefnigduitrieonV(cid:1)aolfmt¯ıhkei,eaxnpdlosietrsvoesf aRsamthae ://jaa culmination of a long bardic tradition resulting from an oral composi- r.ox tion originating over two millennia ago. V(cid:1)alm¯ıki is lauded by the ford Hindu religious tradition as its (cid:1)adi kavi (first poet). We are told that jou V(cid:1)alm¯ıki, while tranquilly engaged in his ritual bath at the banks of a rna ls river one morning, was admiring two beautiful krauñca birds engaged .org in the act of mating. The scene is sullied when an arrow from a hunter b/ y (nis.(cid:1)ada) pierces the breast of the male of the pair, leaving the female to gu wail in grief for her fallen mate. V(cid:1)alm¯ıki is so overwhelmed with pity at est o the sorrowful sight that the following curse spontaneously springs from n A his unknowing lips:2 “Since, nis.(cid:1)ada, you killed one of this pair of ug u krauñcas, distracted at the height of passion, you shall not live very st 2 , 2 0 1 2 1A.K.RamanujancommentsontheastonishingnumberofretellingsofthestoryofR(cid:1)amaand theirvastrangeofinfluenceoverSouthAsiaandSouth-EastAsia.Thelistoflanguagesinwhichat leastonetellingisfoundisasfollows:Annamese,Balinese,Bengali,Cambodian,Chinese,Gujarati, Hindi, Javanese, Kannada, Kashmiri, Khotanese, Laotian, Malaysian, Marathi, Oriya, Prakrit, Sanskrit,Santali,Sinhalese,Tamil,Telugu,Thai,andTibetan(Ramanujan1991:24). 2“Then in the intensity of this feeling of compassion (karun.a), the Brahman thought, ‘This is wrong.’Hearingthekrauñcahenwailing,heutteredthesewords:”(tatah. karun.aveditv(cid:1)adadharmo ‘yamitidvijah. |niś(cid:1)amyarudat¯ım. krauñc¯ımidam. vacanamabrav¯ıt,I.2.13).Alltranslationsinthis study are taken from the “V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a Translation Project” based at Berkeley University (California,USA),ofwhichRobertGoldmanisthedirectorandgeneraleditor.Thisprojectmarks asuperbandunprecedentedeffortatyieldingascholarlyEnglishtranslationofthecriticaledition of the ancient masterpiece. The six volumes and the respective translators are I: B(cid:1)alak(cid:1)anda ˙˙ (Goldman 1984), II: Ayodhy(cid:1)ak(cid:1)anda (Pollock 1986), III: Aranyak(cid:1)anda (Pollock 1991), IV: ˙˙ ˙ ˙˙ BalkaranandDorn:ViolenceintheV(cid:1)alm¯ıkiR(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a 3 long!” (m(cid:1)a nis.(cid:1)ada pratis.t.(cid:1)am. tvam agamah. ś(cid:1)aśvat¯ıh. sam(cid:1)ah., yat krauñcamithun(cid:1)ad ekam avadh¯ıh. k(cid:1)amamohitam, I.2.16). This verse is not only indicative of the aesthetic mood of the work, but is also revered as the very first instance of poetry within the Indian subconti- nent. It is telling, for our purposes, that poetry itself is derived from grief, and grief born of violence. The sight of wanton violence affronts the sage’s moral sensibilities, and though he returns it with an act of violence of his own (albeit an arguably more refined variety), the vio- lence of the hunter is condemned by the text, yet that committed by the sage is not: rather, the violent moment occasioning the hunter’s retribution occasions, too, the genesis of poetic verse, and thus consti- tutes cause for celebration. In a like fashion, V(cid:1)alm¯ıki’s R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a func- D o tions to contrast proper and improper uses of force. While the epic w n speaks to many lasting ethical considerations, this study confines itself loa d to one such concern: the legitimization of violence. ed When is violent force justified? This question, especially when fro m concerned with the large-scale loss of human life, has rightly occupied h reevloiglvioedusfdroismcouRrsoemwaonrldanwdideeaorvlyerCthhericsetinatnuritehsi.nAkerJusst(eW.g.arCfricaemroewaonrdk ttp://jaa St. Augustine) and has played a key role in the formation of modern r.ox fo international law. It remains the dominant Western approach, providing rd straightforward criteria to address some of the most basic question jou rn about the use of force. Its criteria can be grouped as follows: a ls .o rg Why use force? Just War (1) A just cause b/ y requires: (2) The right intent g u (3) A net benefit es t o Who should authorize force? (4) A legitimate authority n A When can force be used? (5) As a last resort u g u WHohwatalnedvewl ohferfeortcoe?apply force? ((76)) WProitphorritgiohntaclomndeuancts3of force st 2, 2 0 1 2 To what extent does the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a include the criteria of the Just War model? In order to address this question, we performed a Kiskindhak(cid:1)anda (Lefeber 2005), V: Sundarak(cid:1)anda (Goldman 2005), VI: Yuddhak(cid:1)anda (van ˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ ˙˙ Nooten2009)andVII:Uttarak(cid:1)anda(forthcoming). ˙˙ 3These include the distinction between military and civilian targets. While there is no single definitive source for a statement of the Just War criteria, the principal elements are described in DornandCation(2009),Reichbergetal.(2006),NationalConferenceofCatholicBishops(1983), Johnson(1981),andWalzer(1977).Forfurtherreadingonthedevelopmentandapplicationofthe JustWartradition,seeElshtain(1992)andJohnsonandKelsay(1990). 4 JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion manual sweep of the epic and isolated all episodes and passages explic- itly pertaining to armed force as well as violence more generally. These passages naturally congealed into groups strikingly similar to those of the Just War framework. The vast majority of the ethical conditions relating to violence were directly comparable to at least one of the crite- ria comprising the Just War model. Furthermore, while our examination of the epic retrieved no explicit discourse corresponding to the Just War framework’s “presumption of peace,” we did find significant mate- rial lauding ahim.s(cid:1)a (nonviolence) and correlated values, such as patience, tolerance, forgiveness, and compassion. While this examination serves only as one step toward understand- ing Hindu approaches to armed force, it supports the notion that the D o themes espoused in the Just War tradition are common to long-stand- w n ing indigenous Indian deliberations on the ethics of warfare. Rather loa d than an imposition of Western Just War themes, this study shows how ed very similar ethical considerations assume a distinctly Indian character fro m in the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a. In doing so, the study also indicates the h ainffaidrmeqautiaocny ooff tpheeacJue,staWtahremmeodwehlitcohfuirlolyniacdadllryesasbtohuendepsici’ns caonmpepleixc ttp://jaa largely concerned with the legitimization of warfare. This article serves r.ox fo to further incorporate the Hindu ethics of violence into the broader rd modern global discourse on war and peace. jou rn a ls .o RELATED SCHOLARSHIP rg b/ y Despite the recent rise in scholarship on Hinduism and Just War g u e 2(C00lo9o)n,4eyth2is00c3o;llSeuctbivedeie2n0t0er3p;rAislelenpa2le0s06in; Bcroemkkpear2i0so06n;tPoatwtoonrk20d0o7n;eRoony st on A other religious traditions (Dorn 2010), including Christianity (Johnson ug u 1981), Islam (Kelsay 2007), and Buddhism (Bartholomeusz 2002). st 2 Francis Clooney (2003: 109–126) acknowledges that the discussion of a , 2 0 Hindu Just War is still in its infancy; however, he manages to establish 12 the importance in Hinduism of one key Just War criteria: right inten- tion when going to war (jus ad bellum5). Similarly, Nick Allen focuses his insightful study of the Mah(cid:1)abh(cid:1)arata on Just Cause, in addition to 4Though theseauthors frequentlyrefer to “the epics” as awhole,they rely muchmore heavily on analysis of the Mah(cid:1)abh(cid:1)arata in order to bolster their arguments, largely neglecting the R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a. At least one article in the literature is devoted entirely to the Just War in the Mah(cid:1)abh(cid:1)arata(Allen2006),whilenonegivesuchtreatmenttotheR(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a. 5TheJustWar(bellumjustum)traditionusesLatinterminologyinordertodistinguishbetween two types of concerns: jus ad bellum pertains to the decision to go to war, whereas jus in bello pertains to the ethics of actual combat. Typically, jus ad bellum concerns the first five Just War BalkaranandDorn:ViolenceintheV(cid:1)alm¯ıkiR(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a 5 discussing the epic’s ample supply of parameters for rules of engage- ment and briefly touching upon issues of Right Authority and Last Resort. But what of the other criteria? Torkel Brekke observes that the Hindu tradition has produced an extensive code of ethics for combat during war (jus in bello) but a relatively meager discourse on jus ad bellum criteria, while the Christian tradition exhibits an inverse empha- sis.6 Is jus ad bellum discourse truly scarce in the Hindu context, or is it merely more subtly voiced? It is our task to probe narratives as richly didactic as the R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a in search of the ethical discourses encoded within. This study contends that, Brekke’s observation notwithstanding, the absence of ample comparison between the war ethics of India and D o the West results in large part from the degree to which the Indian w n discourse is embedded in narratives such as the R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a, narratives loa d understudied throughout the history of Indological scholarship. While ed more overtly didactic strata of the Hindu corpus (e.g., Ved(cid:1)anta) have fro m enjoyed far more probing and sustained scholarlyattention than narrative h tceaxrteser(eospfetchieallRy(cid:1)atmhe(cid:1)aypaun.ra(cid:1)an.haass),pitroisvewdoretnhonrmotoinugslythmatotrheefvaars-treaancdhionnggtohinang ttp://jaa strands of philosophy intended for, and preserved by, India’s social and r.ox fo religiouselite. rd The discourses on violence embedded in epic narrative, while far jou less succinct and direct than, for example, Dharmaś(cid:1)astra literature, rna ls nevertheless constitute powerful avenues of insight into lasting ethical .o rg concerns within Hinduism. Though narrative is often considered b/ y descriptive, it is also prescriptive in the Indian context, particularly since g u e Tthheisepisicesspaereciarlelyplethteewcaitshe wsoicthialthaendR(cid:1)ammo(cid:1)aryaaln.iadesoinlocgei,esas(DLahuarnide P2a0t0to2)n. st on A remarks, the work attempts to integrate violence with R(cid:1)ama’s moral ug perfection (2007). Given the epic’s preoccupation with the legitimiza- ust 2 tion of violence, and its enormous clout as a source of social and moral , 2 0 guidance, it serves as an excellent text to help bridge the lacuna in 12 scholarship regarding the intersection of Just War discourse and Hindu ethics pertaining to armed force. categories (Just Cause, Right Intent, Legitimate Authority, Net Benefit, and Last Resort), whereas jusinbellocorrespondstothelasttwo(ProportionalityofMeansandRightConduct). 6Inaseparatearticletitled“TheEthicsofWarandtheConceptofWarin IndiaandEurope,” Brekke(2005)arguesthatsince,intheepictradition,“warisneverproperlydifferentiatedfromthe privateduelbetweenheroes,”thedistinctionbetween“bellumandduellum,whichissoimportant totheJustWartradition,isnotmade.”Thisphenomena,heconcludes,accounts(atleastpartially) for why “an Indian jus ad bellum comparable to the European tradition never existed” (Brekke 2005:83). 6 JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion A work as popular and influential as the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a has, of course, been subject to modification (interpolation, redaction) from one milieu to another acrossthe sweep of its vast geographical and historical transmission. While historicist and philological analysis has byand large dominated the study of Sanskrit texts, “often occupied with excavating textsforthepurposeofreconstructingthechronologyofidentifiablydis- tincttextuallayers”(BlackandGeen2011:9),thisstudyemploysprimar- ily a literary mode of engagement (similar to that of Black 2011; Geen 2011; Lindquist 2011; Patton 2011); that is, we are interested in the epic in its current form, embracing the ideological and creative enterprises of thetext’snumerousinterpolatorsandredactors.Thesearchforapristine, “original”textmaybeasfutileasitisunimportanttotheconcernsofthe D o living tradition which has sculpted the narrative to its current shape in w n accordance with prevailing values. While little can be certain about the loa intentions of V(cid:1)alm¯ıki (or even of his historical existence), it is clear that ded the narrative fabric of the V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a readily lends itself to dis- from cussionoftheethicsofviolence.SinceHinduismpreservesahim.s(cid:1)a(non- h vexiohliebnitcse)soasmanarkeethdicaanl iamnpxeiertaytivree,gaitrdisinngothweonudseerotfhafotrtchee, aRn(cid:1)aman(cid:1)ayxaien.tay ttp://jaa which the epic competently addresses through its characterization and r.ox fo dialogue. It is these literary elements to which we turn in search of rd counselonthelegitimateuseofforce. jou rn a ls .o rg THE JUST WAR CRITERIA b/ y g Just Cause ue s t o This first Just War criterion is arguably the most significant to the n A model as a whole: there must be an appropriate cause to justify vio- ug lweanrcfea.reIfatrheisciitsedalstohetrreuien?ofVt(cid:1)ahlme ¯Rık(cid:1)aimin(cid:1)afyoarnm.as, tuhsevnerwyheaatrslypeicniftihcecaeupsicesthfoart ust 2, 2 the world is imperiled by evil r(cid:1)aks.asas—i.e., demons—who, by means 012 of violence and magical spells, threaten the sanctity and well-being of the other inhabitants of the planet. Their effort is spearheaded by the demon-king R(cid:1)avan.a, who has come to represent the personification of evil against whose vice R(cid:1)ama’s virtue is stanchly contrasted. R(cid:1)avan.a and his entourage terrorize ascetics, interrupting their rituals, thereby causing imbalance in the cosmic order. The Hindu pantheon of gods implore the god Vis.n.u to take incarnation on earth in order to “kill (cid:1) Ravan.a in battle, that mighty thorn in the side of the world, for he is . . . a terror to ascetics and a source of lamentation to the world” (pravr.dd- ham. lokakan.t.akam . . . samare jahi r(cid:1)avan.am . . . tad . . . vir(cid:1)avan.am. BalkaranandDorn:ViolenceintheV(cid:1)alm¯ıkiR(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a 7 tapasvin(cid:1)am tam. bhay(cid:1)avaham, I.14.17–I.14.21). Violence is condoned in this context, given the necessity of combating the force of evil. Vis.n.u descends during King Daśaratha’s ritual sacrifice for progeny, and takes human birth as the warrior-prince R(cid:1)ama.7 Vis.n.u’s ultimate mission (as (cid:1) (cid:1) manifest in the Rama avatara, i.e., his divine descent) is clear: the defeat of evil and restoration of cosmic balance. The welfare of the world is, undoubtedly, viewed as just cause for violent action. R(cid:1)ama, we are told, is driven by the goal of defending the welfare of all beings. Born into the ks.atriya (ruler-warrior) caste as the son of King Daśaratha, R(cid:1)ama is authorized to wield violent force in order to combat evil and protect righteousness. Violent means is the privilege, and indeed the duty, of the ks.atriya class, to whom, among the four castes, D o social governance is entrusted. Both protection and punishment are w n deemed equally vital to social welfare, without which society would loa d decay. Both are accepted as noble causes for violence, as exemplified at ed several junctures throughout the text. fro m During his exile, R(cid:1)ama encounters forest-dwelling sages who h sreumbjiencdtsh.im. . oacfqhuisirekss.a[tariyqauadrutetyr], doefctlhareinsugptrheamt e“arikgihntgeowuhsonepsrsoatemctasssheids ttp://jaa by a sage who lives on nothing but roots and fruit” (yat karoti param. r.ox dharmam. munir mūlaphal(cid:1)aśanah. tatra r(cid:1)ajñaś caturbh(cid:1)agah. . . . raks.a- ford tah., III.5.13). They implore him to carry out his duty and protect them jou (cid:1) (cid:1) rn fsraogmes’trheefumgeenfraocmingperraskes.caustaios.nBayndwiaenldniinhgilavtiioolne,nwceh,icRhamthae bteexctopmreessetnhtes als.o rg as ample cause for the exercise of armed force. Similarly, at the onset of b/ the war between R(cid:1)ama and R(cid:1)avan.a, Vibh¯ıs.an.a, R(cid:1)avan.a’s brother and y gu cgoanurctemanidnisettehri,cadledfeecptsratvoityR.(cid:1)aTmhao’usgahrmseyvedrualeotfoRt(cid:1)ahmead’semadovni-skoirnsga’sreasruros-- est on A picious, R(cid:1)ama accepts Vibh¯ıs.an.a without hesitation because “it is a ug s(eevriaomu.sdtoras.nosgmreashs(cid:1)aionnattorafapilratopapnrno(cid:1)atenc(cid:1)atmthaorsaekws.ahn.oe)c;oimndeeseede,kionngesshheoltuelrd” ust 2, 2 protect the vulnerable “even at the cost of his own life” (pr(cid:1)an.(cid:1)an pari- 012 tyajya) (VI.12.15–VI.12.18). As per the dictates of dharma (righteous- ness), R(cid:1)ama openly welcomes Vibh¯ıs.an.a: the warrior-prince is sworn to “grant protection to all beings who come to [him] for shelter” (sakr.d eva prapann(cid:1)aya tav(cid:1)asm¯ıti ca y(cid:1)acate abhayam. sarvabhūtebhyo dad(cid:1)amy etad vratam. mama, VI.12.20). Protection is privileged over passivity. 7In actuality, Vis.n.u’s incarnation peculiarly occurs among Daśaratha’s four sons, since his essence is transmitted via a magical porridge from which Daśaratha’s three wives eat, in varying proportions,inordertoconceive. 8 JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion By extension, self-preservation is a valid justification for the resort to violence. One must protect oneself against annihilation, especially in order to protect others. An example of this arises in a later episode, in which Hanum(cid:1)an, R(cid:1)ama’s staunch simian devotee, is ˙ (cid:1) (cid:1) (cid:1) captured in Lanka by Ravan.a and his entourage. Hanuman cleverly cites self-defense as his justification for killing several of the demon- king’s warriors (V.48.13), though his official mission in Lan˙k(cid:1)a is only one of reconnaissance. Similarly, Vibh¯ıs.an.a defends R(cid:1)ama’s killing of the demon Khara by invoking self-defense, stating that “all living creatures must strive to the limit of their strength to save their own lives” (avaśyam. pr(cid:1)an.in(cid:1)am. pr(cid:1)an.(cid:1)a raks.itavy(cid:1)a yath(cid:1)abalam, VI.9.14). Clearly, protection (of both the self and other) warrants the D execution of violence. Recall that on the cosmological level, R(cid:1)ama’s ow n very incarnation takes place in order to protect his fellow creatures, loa d and to protect dharma itself. ed In keeping with the theme of protection, the safety of the collective fro m often trumps other ethical considerations. For example, although the h sthlaeug“hRtiegrhotfCaofnedmuaclte”issehctiigohnly),sRtig(cid:1)ammaatiizsedreiqnuSiraendsktroitdeepsitcrocyulttuhrees(hseee- ttp://jaa demon T(cid:1)at.ak(cid:1)a (I.24.13–I.24.19), who poses a threat to the great sage r.ox Viśv(cid:1)amitra, one of R(cid:1)ama’s early mentors. The sage urges R(cid:1)ama to ford slaughter the she-demon without reservation, although doing so is gen- jou rn erally considered morally reprehensible and against the code of the a ls warrior. The fact that the text so explicitly argues against the slaying of .o rg a woman indicates that violence in the text is far from haphazard, but b/ y rather is executed deliberately and thoughtfully, with proper cause. Sage g u kViilślivn(cid:1)agmaitrwaomuragne”s (Rst(cid:1)ar¯ımvaadhtoakrk.tiellghhre.nr.(cid:1)a,anI.d24.n1o5t).bVeiśv“s(cid:1)aomfti-thraeaprrteodceeadbsoutot est on A cite precedents of great men who killed females for a greater cause ug (I.24.17–I.24.18), declaring in summation that “many other great and ust 2 excellent men killed women who were set in the ways of unrighteous- , 2 ness” (etaiś c(cid:1)anyaiś ca bahubh¯ı r(cid:1)ajaputramah(cid:1)atmabhih. adharmanirat(cid:1)a 012 n(cid:1)aryo hat(cid:1)ah. purus.asattamaih., I.24.19). The threat that T(cid:1)at.ak(cid:1)a poses toward other beings outweighs considerations of gender with respect to ks.atriya dharma. Viśv(cid:1)amitra commands him to “kill this utterly dread- ful and wicked yaks.a [demon] woman whose valor is employed for evil purposes” (en(cid:1)am duvr.tt(cid:1)am yaks.¯ım. paramad(cid:1)arun.(cid:1)am jahi (cid:1) (cid:1) dus.t.aparakramam, I.24.13), especially given the immemorial responsi- bility of “a king’s son [to] act for the welfare of the four great social orders” (c(cid:1)aturvarn.yahit(cid:1)arth(cid:1)aya kartavyam. r(cid:1)ajasūnun(cid:1)a, I.24.15). It is worth noting that this specific responsibility (i.e., collective welfare) does not belong exclusively to sovereigns. The text later instructs that BalkaranandDorn:ViolenceintheV(cid:1)alm¯ıkiR(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a 9 social harmony is a responsibility of the entire collective, stating that “all [should] unite to destroy [the] one whose deeds are brutal and per- verse” (karma lokaviruddham. tu kurv(cid:1)an.am. . . . t¯ıks.n.am. sarvajano hanti, III.28.4). But the text does not call the whole of society to arms: ks.atriyas alone may exercise force, and only when presented with rea- sonable cause. Violence is sanctioned as a means of punishment as well as a means (cid:1) of protection and self-defense. For example, Rama executes the monkey-king, V(cid:1)alin, for the sake of upholding righteousness. He metes out punishment to V(cid:1)alin for his adulterous transgressions as well as to fulfill a promise to his ally Sugr¯ıva. In a lengthy speech, R(cid:1)ama declares that “the right of punishing and rewarding” (nigrah(cid:1)anugrah(cid:1)av api D IV.18.6) belongs to the kings of the earth, who retain the right to “duly ow n chastise whoever strays from the path of righteousness” (te vayam. loa m(cid:1)argavibhras.t.am. . . . nigr.hn.¯ımo yath(cid:1)avidhi IV.18.11). Yet this does not ded appear to constitute license for rulers to issue punishment on a whim. fro m R(cid:1)ama is careful to invoke the law which states that V(cid:1)alin’s crime— h dspeeacthif.icAalsly,Ra(cid:1)admualtedryecwlairtehs,hi“sdbearoththeisr’sthweifep—unwisahsmaecnrtimperepsucrniibsehdabfloerbya ttp://jaa man who out of lust approaches his daughter, sister, or younger broth- r.ox er’s wife” (auras¯ım. bhagin¯ım. v(cid:1)api bh(cid:1)ary(cid:1)am. v(cid:1)apy anujasya yah. pracareta ford narah. k(cid:1)am(cid:1)at tasya dan.d.o vadhah. smr.tah., IV.18.22). R(cid:1)ama consoles the jou (cid:1) rn dying Valin that neither he who punishes nor he who is punished a truly perishes, since “each serves the due process of justice” ls.o (k(cid:1)aryak(cid:1)aran.asiddh(cid:1)arth(cid:1)av) (IV.18.53–IV.18.55). Thus, punishment of brg/ y gross ethical transgressions validates the application of lethal force. g u a utEovpeina itnheAidyoeadlhky(cid:1)ian,gtdhoemcarpeiqtaulirceistyaromf st.hIenidByololikc kIIi,nVgd(cid:1)aolmm¯ıkoifpKorotśraalyas; est on A yet it is described as well armed. Though Ayodhy(cid:1)a is prosperous, ug u raenfdinewde,apanodn p(Ie.a5c.1e0fu)l,anwde iatrsektionlgd, Dthaaśtaritathcoan, thaaindedthoevuesrayndims polfemgreenatt st 2, 2 0 chariot warriors with great fighting skills. Even a utopia must be pro- 12 tected from external threat; similarly, internal threats must be met with punishment, but in a reasonable and humane manner. We are told that in Ayodhy(cid:1)a, the king’s administrators would, “if the occasion demanded, punish their own sons” (pr(cid:1)apta k(cid:1)alam. yath(cid:1)a dan.d.am. dh(cid:1)arayeyuh. sutes.v api, I.7.7) and that they “were constant protectors of all honest inhabitants of the realm” (śuc¯ın(cid:1)am raks.it(cid:1)araś ca nityam. vis.ayav(cid:1)asin(cid:1)am, 1.7.9). The V(cid:1)alm¯ıki R(cid:1)am(cid:1)ayan.a asserts that protection and punishment, when alloyed with reason, represent sanctioned and necessary expressions of violence. 10 JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion Right Intent The second criterion comprising the Just War framework is Right Intent, which can be interpreted as having a pure motivation to support righteousness,independentofselfishdesires.Anotherinterpretationinthe Just War tradition is that war be implemented only for the sake of peace. The demon R(cid:1)avan.a’s “rationale” for violence is thoroughly condemned insofarasitissenselesslyself-servingandconflict-provoking.8Bycontrast, what can we gage about the intention of the noblewarrior R(cid:1)ama? On the dayofhiswould-becoronation,uponbeingwrongfullysentencedtofour- teen years of forest exile, R(cid:1)ama had ample opportunity to exercise force for the sake of his own self-interest. He is even urged to do so by his D brother, the passionate Laks.man.a, who insists that they should right the ow wrong by forcefully seizing the throne. However, R(cid:1)ama rejects this advice nlo a and gracefully acquiesces to his sentence of exile, seemingly disinterested d e inpersonalcomfortorentitlement. For R(cid:1)ama,the lossof kingshipand all d fro ofitsamenitiesdoesnotconstituterightintentfortheuseofforce. m The prince regent’s motives appear consistently noble overall, but http are not without blemish. The episode narrating R(cid:1)ama’s slaughter of ://ja V(cid:1)alin is far more questionable, specifically regarding the selflessness of ar.o R(cid:1)ama’s intentions. In Book IV, Kis.kindh(cid:1)ak(cid:1)an.d.a, R(cid:1)ama defeats V(cid:1)alin, xfo having forged an alliance with V(cid:1)alin’s brother, Sugr¯ıva. R(cid:1)ama and rdjo Sugr¯ıva had pledged mutual allegiance and aid in the recovery of their urn a respective wives. Thus, R(cid:1)ama is clearly motivated by self-interest. ls.o However, clearly conscious of the ethical conundrum, V(cid:1)alm¯ıki articu- rg lates intentions on R(cid:1)ama’s behalf which transcend the sphere of self- by/ g interest. V(cid:1)alin himself, on the verge of death, inquires about R(cid:1)ama’s ue s motivation for killing him, wondering what possible merit could be t o n gained thereby. V(cid:1)alm¯ıki, speaking through the dying lord of the A u g monkey-men, indicates that kings must act in accordance with noble u s intentions, including “conciliation, generosity, forbearance, righteous- t 2 , 2 ness, truthfulness, steadiness, and courage, as well as punishment of 0 1 wrongdoers” (s(cid:1)ama d(cid:1)anam. ks.am(cid:1)a dharmah. satyam. dhr.tipar(cid:1)akramau 2 p(cid:1)arthiv(cid:1)an(cid:1)am. gun.(cid:1)a r(cid:1)ajan dan.d.aś c(cid:1)apy apak(cid:1)aris.u, IV.17.25) and that they “must not act capriciously” (na nr.p(cid:1)ah. k(cid:1)amavr.ttayah., IV.17.28). At (cid:1) this juncture, Rama maintains that he acted in the interest of his duty to punish evil-doers. That the text anticipates and defends against the charge that R(cid:1)ama’s motives are solelyself-serving bespeaks an insistence on nobility of intent whilst engaging in violent force. 8Seethe“TheUnjustWar:SageCounselattheCourtofR(cid:1)avan.a”section.