Exploring the Influence of South Asia’s Religious Traditions on International Humanitarian Law

South Asia’s religious traditions have profoundly shaped humanitarian principles long before modern international law emerged. From ancient Hindu texts outlining rules of righteous warfare to Islamic jurisprudence protecting civilians, these spiritual traditions established ethical frameworks that resonate remarkably with today’s International Humanitarian Law.

The Hindu concept of dharma yuddha and righteous warfare 🔗

Hinduism introduced the concept of dharma yuddha or righteous war, which established ethical boundaries for armed conflict centuries before the Geneva Conventions. This principle required that war must be fought according to strict moral guidelines. At its core, dharma yuddha distinguished between righteous and unrighteous warfare, demanding that even in conflict, ethical considerations must prevail.

The ancient Hindu epics, particularly the Mahabharata and Ramayana, outlined detailed rules of engagement. These texts emphasized proportionality of force, minimization of human suffering, care for war survivors, immunity for non-combatants, and balancing military necessity with humanity. Warriors were prohibited from attacking those who had surrendered, lost their weapons, were sleeping, or were non-combatants such as priests, women, children, and the elderly.

The Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu legal text, clearly stated that warriors must not slay those who have surrendered, are without arms, are sleeping, are naked, have untied hair, or are mere onlookers. This remarkable attention to civilian protection and combatant status mirrors modern IHL principles established thousands of years later.

The tension between ahimsa and duty 🔗

Central to Hindu thought is the principle of ahimsa or non-violence. However, ahimsa coexists with the warrior’s duty to protect society, creating what scholars call a “dharmic double helix.” While non-violence was extolled as the supreme virtue, regulated violence was sanctioned for social welfare, self-defense, and protection of the innocent. This tension is famously explored in the Bhagavad Gita, where Krishna counsels the warrior Arjuna to fulfill his duty while maintaining inner compassion and detachment.

Islamic law and the protection of civilians 🔗

Islamic jurisprudence developed comprehensive rules governing warfare more than a millennium before modern IHL was codified. According to scholars, the limits placed on Muslims in the conduct of war gave jihad an ideological-cum-ethical dimension, and most fundamental categories of protection found in the Geneva Conventions existed in basic form in Islamic teachings.

The primary sources of Islamic law-the Quran, the Sunnah, and the conduct of early military commanders-established clear protections for non-combatants. Women, children, peasants, religious personnel, and medical workers could not be targeted. Islamic law also prohibited the destruction of crops, poisoning water supplies, and harming those who had surrendered.

Distinction and proportionality in Islamic tradition 🔗

Islamic law emphasized the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The Prophet Muhammad explicitly prohibited the killing of women and children, and classical jurists included categories of protected persons based on a general prohibition against attacking those who do not participate in hostilities. This principle closely parallels the modern IHL requirement to distinguish between military objectives and civilian populations.

The concept of proportionality was also central to Islamic rules of war. Force had to be proportionate to the threat, and Muslims were required to pursue peaceful resolution before resorting to armed conflict. The four-stage diplomatic process-conciliation, gift-giving, creating division among enemies, and only finally force-demonstrated Islam’s preference for peaceful conflict resolution.

Buddhist principles of compassion in conflict 🔗

Buddhism’s fundamental principle of ahimsa took an even stricter stance on non-violence. The first precept of Buddhism prohibits killing, and the notion of non-harming requires that one should actively practice loving kindness towards all. Buddhist texts declared that “There is no greater happiness than peace,” establishing a clear preference for non-violent resolution of conflicts.

The Buddhist principle of ahimsa is applicable even during war, as Buddhist texts and philosophy clearly declare that one must avoid actions that cause suffering to oneself or others. This principle extends beyond mere prohibition of killing to encompass psychological harm and the cultivation of compassion even toward enemies.

Buddhist influence on humanitarian conduct 🔗

Buddhist Emperor Ashoka provides a historical example of these principles in practice. After witnessing the devastation of the Kalinga War in the 3rd century BCE, Ashoka renounced military conquest in favor of conquest by Dharma and stressed the sanctity of animal life in his inscriptions. His transformation illustrated Buddhism’s power to shape state policy toward more humane governance.

While Buddhism acknowledges that defensive warfare may be necessary for protecting communities, it maintains that such actions must be undertaken with the right intention-compassion rather than hatred, protection rather than revenge. This emphasis on mental state and motivation adds a psychological dimension to rules of warfare often absent in purely legal frameworks.

Christian just war theory and civilian protection 🔗

Christianity’s contribution to IHL primarily came through the development of just war theory. St. Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century CE and later St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century established criteria for when war could be morally justified and how it should be conducted. IHL’s closest ancestor is the Christian just war tradition, whose jus ad bellum and jus in bello architecture and core criteria are now embodied respectively in the UN Charter and IHL.

Just war theory required that war must have just cause, be declared by legitimate authority, have right intention, be a last resort, and maintain reasonable hope of success. More relevant to IHL, the theory’s jus in bello principles demanded discrimination between combatants and non-combatants, proportionality in the use of force, and humane treatment of prisoners.

The principle of noncombatant immunity 🔗

The principle of noncombatant immunity holds that civilians and noncombatants should be protected and spared from harm during armed conflicts. This Christian ethical principle, rooted in the belief in the sanctity of all human life, directly influenced modern IHL’s central tenet of civilian protection. The Bible’s emphasis on protecting the innocent found expression in rules prohibiting attacks on civilian populations and requiring military necessity for any action that might harm non-combatants.

Thomas Aquinas further developed these concepts by arguing that force used in war must be proportionate to the offense committed. This principle aimed to minimize suffering and destruction, aligning with Christian values of compassion and mercy while acknowledging the reality of armed conflict.

Convergence and continuing relevance 🔗

The remarkable convergence between these ancient religious traditions and modern IHL is not coincidental. All emerged from recognition of warfare’s capacity to cause tremendous suffering and the moral imperative to limit that suffering. Whether through Hindu dharma, Islamic principles, Buddhist compassion, or Christian just war theory, each tradition sought to humanize armed conflict by establishing boundaries on acceptable conduct.

These religious frameworks continue to influence contemporary humanitarian discourse. In regions where religious identity remains strong, engagement with traditional teachings can enhance IHL compliance. The International Committee of the Red Cross has recognized this, conducting dialogues with Islamic scholars and other religious leaders worldwide to explore commonalities between religious law and IHL.

South Asia’s religious traditions remind us that humanitarian principles have deep historical roots across cultures. The protection of civilians, proportionate use of force, humane treatment of prisoners, and preference for peaceful resolution are not recent Western inventions but universal values expressed through different cultural and spiritual lenses. These ancient wisdom traditions continue to offer valuable insights for addressing contemporary challenges in armed conflict and building a more humane world.

What do you think? How can religious traditions continue to strengthen humanitarian law in modern conflicts? In what ways might ancient principles of compassion and restraint in warfare address contemporary challenges like cyber warfare or autonomous weapons?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma-yuddha
2. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/charting-hinduisms-rules-of-armed-conflict-indian-sacred-texts-and-ihl-920
3. https://www.britannica.com/topic/ahimsa
4. https://www.middleeasteye.net/big-story/islamic-law-and-rules-war
5. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/09/29/islamic-laws-of-war-and-international-humanitarian-law-big-homework-for-islamic-jurists/
6. https://centeronconscience.org/buddhism/
7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14639947.2022.2080362
8. https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/religion-and-ihl-920
9. https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2023/11/03/three-key-principles-about-just-war-theory-and-the-christian-tradition/