Indian Dharma versus Turko-Mongol Conquest: A Comparative Study of War Ethics
Introduction
History is not only about the rise and fall of dynasties but also about the ethical frameworks that guided societies. Nowhere is this more evident than in the contrast between India’s civilizational ethos of dharma-yuddha (righteous war) and the traditions of conquest imported by Turko-Afghan invaders from the 11th century onward. The true rupture began with Mahmud of Ghazni’s brutal raids (1000–1027 CE), which introduced systematic plunder, temple destruction, enslavement, and mass civilian atrocities into the subcontinent. What had once been wars fought under codes of restraint by Indian rulers gave way to campaigns framed as religious duty (jihad) and marked by a culture of barbarism. This pattern, set in motion by Ghazni, was carried forward by Ghori, the Delhi Sultans, Timur, the Lodis, and finally Babur, whose victory at Panipat in 1526 laid the foundation of the Mughal Empire.
The Indian response, particularly that of the Rajputs, highlighted a starkly different code of honor—one rooted in dharma, restraint, and protection of women. This essay examines these contrasting ethical worlds by analyzing Indian texts like the Mahabharata and Manusmriti, comparing them with the practices reflected in Babur’s Baburnama and later Persian chronicles like Tabaqat-i-Akbari.
Indian Dharmic Codes of War
The Mahabharata and Rules of Combat
The Mahabharata, one of the foundational epics of Indian civilization, presents the dharma-yuddha or “righteous war” ideal. Several principles emerge:
- No harm to civilians – Farmers, priests, and non-combatants were to be spared.
- Respect for women – Women were never to be treated as war booty. Even in the Mahabharata, Draupadi’s humiliation is condemned as a grave sin.
- Rules of battle – Wars were fought at designated times (from sunrise to sunset), with equal weapons, and only between warriors. Attacking an unarmed or fleeing soldier was considered adharma (unrighteous).
The Dharmshashtra
1. No Harm to Civilians
- Dharmashastras strictly forbid harming non-combatants.
- Farmers, women, children, and ascetics were never to be attacked.
- Example: Mahabharata states that soldiers must only fight other soldiers; harming civilians was adharma.
2. No Looting or Enslavement
- Looting civilian property was condemned.
- Unlike Turkic or Arab invaders, Hindu kings were expected to protect the wealth and dignity of subjects, even of enemy lands, once the battle was over.
3. Respect for Women
- Dharmashastras clearly state women cannot be harmed, molested, or enslaved during wars.
- In fact, abducting women was treated as a crime of adharma and would dishonor a king.
- Contrast: Invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni and Babur openly boasted of enslaving women in court chronicles.
4. Treatment of Prisoners
- Prisoners of war were not to be executed cruelly or enslaved.
- Yājñavalkya Smriti mentions that defeated enemies could be released, ransomed, or absorbed into service – but not massacred.
- This is why Indian warfare was often described as “limited war” compared to the total annihilation strategies of invaders.
5. War as Last Resort
- Diplomacy, alliances, and treaties were always considered first.
- Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Dharmashastras both stress that a king should avoid unnecessary bloodshed, using war only when dharma and protection of people demanded it.
These prescriptions formed the basis of a civilized ethic of war, even if not always perfectly followed in practice.
Rajput Code of Honor
Women’s Honor as Collective Dignity
The Rajputs, who dominated much of northwestern India during Babur’s time, saw themselves as kshatriyas, heirs to the dharmic codes of war. Their martial ethos placed supreme importance on protecting women’s dignity. Enemy women were not treated as spoils of war, and Rajput folklore celebrates warriors who safeguarded women—even from rival clans.
Jauhar and Saka
The practices of jauhar and saka exemplify this ethos:
- Jauhar: In the face of certain defeat against invaders, Rajput women and children committed mass self-immolation to escape enslavement and violation.
- Saka: After jauhar, Rajput men would charge into battle wearing saffron, fighting to the death in a last stand.
These tragic acts were not about glorifying death but about choosing honor over dishonor, particularly against invaders who viewed women as plunder.
Turko-Mongol and Afghan Ethos of Conquest
Central Asian War Culture
The world from which Babur came was shaped by the Turko-Mongol and Timurid traditions. In this martial culture:
- War was primarily about plunder and expansion.
- Capturing slaves, including women, was a standard practice.
- Armies were often paid not in wages but through rights to loot.
Babur’s ancestor Timur, who invaded Delhi in 1398, openly described in his memoirs how thousands of women were seized and distributed among soldiers.
Baburnama and Persian Chronicles
Babur’s memoir, the Baburnama, though polished in style, contains references to the seizure of “wives, children, and goods” after victories. He avoids explicit mention of rape but makes clear that captives were taken as part of the spoils.
Later chroniclers like Nizamuddin Ahmad (Tabaqat-i-Akbari) noted that after Babur’s victories “many women and children were taken captive, and the spoil was beyond computation.” Abu’l Fazl, in the Akbarnama, also confirmed that early Mughal campaigns included plunder and capture of civilians.
Practices of Enslavement
In Islamic jurisprudence of the medieval period, captives could be enslaved. Women captives were often taken into harems or sold in markets. While some rulers like Akbar later tried to curtail these practices, in Babur’s time they were standard.
The Battle of Khanwa: A Cultural Collision
The Battle of Khanwa (1527) between Babur and Rana Sanga epitomizes the clash of these two worlds.
- Babur’s victory was celebrated in Central Asian terms: building towers of severed heads, taking prisoners, and enriching his army with loot.
- The Rajputs, even in defeat, became immortalized in folklore for their refusal to bow to dishonor. Jauhar and saka became symbols of resistance, underlining that for them, the dignity of women and the code of dharma mattered more than survival.
India’s Civilizational Maturity versus Conquest Ethos
India’s Advanced Ethos
By the 16th century, India was one of the world’s most sophisticated civilizations:
- Urban centers like Delhi, Varanasi, and Vijayanagara had flourishing economies.
- Literature, art, music, and architecture were highly developed.
- Ethical frameworks, deeply tied to dharma, shaped conduct—even in war.
Invaders’ Motivations
By contrast, Babur and earlier sultans came primarily for military and material gain. The subcontinent’s immense wealth attracted them. Their ethos of war was utilitarian, driven by conquest, booty, and survival in harsh Central Asian steppe traditions.
Assimilation Over Time
Interestingly, while the early Mughals like Babur brought this harsher ethos, later emperors, particularly Akbar, assimilated into India’s civilizational fabric. Akbar abolished the enslavement of war captives and married Rajput princesses to forge alliances, signaling a shift from conquest to integration. This demonstrates that while invaders may have been militarily dominant, civilizationally, it was India that influenced them, not the other way around.
Comparative Analysis
| Aspect | Indian Dharmic/Rajput Tradition | Turko-Mongol/Mughal Tradition (Babur’s Era) |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment of Civilians | Civilians, priests, farmers not to be harmed | Looting and massacre common after conquest |
| Treatment of Women | Women never to be violated; enemy queens treated with respect | Women taken as booty, enslaved, or concubines |
| Rules of War | Dharma-yuddha: fought by rules, in daylight, between equals | Total war: surprise, massacres, destruction |
| Symbol of Defeat | Jauhar and saka: death over dishonor | Enslavement and forced assimilation |
| Motivation | Dharma, honor, prestige | Plunder, survival, expansion |
| Legacy | Cultural memory of valor and sacrifice | Empire-building but remembered for atrocities |
Conclusion
The encounter between Babur’s Central Asian forces and the Rajputs in the 16th century was not merely a military contest. It was a confrontation between two ethical universes: one rooted in India’s civilizational ethos of dharma and honor, the other shaped by Turko-Mongol traditions of conquest and plunder.
While Babur succeeded militarily, the Rajputs left behind a moral legacy that continues to resonate. Their refusal to dishonor women, their insistence on dying with dignity, and their commitment to dharmic codes stand as markers of India’s civilizational maturity. The invaders, despite their temporary triumphs, eventually assimilated into Indian traditions—an implicit recognition that India’s civilization was deeper and more enduring than the cultures of conquest that came from outside.
Thus, the historical record suggests that India was indeed far more civilized than the invaders who sought to dominate it. Babur may have founded the Mughal dynasty, but the Rajputs, through their ethos, preserved the moral compass of Indian civilization.
Comments are closed.