ABSTRACT
My intention in these pages is to further our understanding of just war theory in the Hindu context by reviewing debates about killing in the sacrificial context, the requirement of kings to exercise force, and the quest for an interiorized, nonviolent apprehension of reality. I will consider the justification of violence from the perspective of the brahmin as both sacrificial practitioner and sacrificial theorist, and in light of the duties of the king as interpreted by theorists who argue that the use of force, and so the causing of pain, can be obligatory. While reflection on the royal exercise of power is more directly relevant to the formulation of theories about just wars, reflection on sacrificial violence and the brahminical justification of it within a wider context of nonviolence most clearly elucidates the categories and calculations making sense of reflection on royal power. I will not be suggesting that there is an exact Hindu parallel to just war theory as developed in the Christian mediaeval period and modem West, but only that there has been serious and relevant reflection on violence and the choice to be violent or nonviolent-and thus the foundations for a just war theory.
