India

Lord Narasimha – A treasure trove of martial concepts

Vikram M R, , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Narasimha Jayanthi was on the 11th of May this year (2025). Lord Narasimha was the 4th of the Dashāvatāra (dasha – 10, avatāra – incarnation). Lord Narasimha is a representation of incredible martial prowess. It is this prowess that I delve into in this article, to identify how his abilities are still practiced in real world martial arts, which in turn almost always have real life applications beyond the dojo.

A depiction of Lord Narasimha from the 6th century CE, Badami, Karnataka, India

Lord Narasimha came to be, to specifically counter one Asura, Hiranyakashipu. Hiranyakashipu had a vara (boon) from Lord Brahma which made him impossible to kill and thus functionally immortal. Hiranyakashipu’s boon conferred the following protections on him.

  • He could not be killed by a human or a beast
  • He could not be killed during the day or during the night
  • He could not be killed indoors or outdoors

I am now going to extrapolate a bit. I presume that Hiranyakashipu could not be killed by any weapon wielded by or controlled by a human. Otherwise, arrows would have been able to kill him in an age before gunpowder, an age when there existed “celestial weapons”, or astras of various kinds which could wreak unimaginable damage. Further, we will have to overlook the notion that humans are also beasts, just a different species. I have no idea if the boon took into consideration some specific definition for “human”.

I also presume that he was invulnerable to diseases that were cause by any biological vector, for they would constitute beasts. Considering the protection from the first point, the subsequent 2 points seem like an add-on package in case someone found a loophole in the first one. And as was the case, that is exactly what happened.

Beyond the boon itself, Hiranyakashipu was an incredible warrior, on par with the Devas. He wanted to be on par with Lord Vishnu before going out and conquering the world! This was the motivation for his gaining the boons. Further, he forced people in the lands he conquered to worship him instead of Vishnu. When I say worship, I mean in offerings at pooja, yajna and homa that are performed. There is a lot more nuance to every aspect of this story, which I cannot go into in this article*. I strongly recommend that everyone read the story in detail. Not only is it incredibly entertaining, but it is also full of conundrums and ways of overcoming the same. The connections to various happenings around the world is simply fantastic.

A common depiction of Lord Narasimha and his slaying of Hiranyakashipu in modern times. Image credit – “Prahlad”, published by Amar Chitra Katha

In the end, Vishnu incarnates as Lord Narasimha to destroy Hiranyakashipu. He bursts forth from a large pillar and fights Hiranyakashipu, eventually slaying him. There is a great fight between Hiranyakashipu and Narasimha, at the end of which Hiranyakashipu is disembowelled on the threshold. The end occurs by circumventing each aspect of the boon protecting Hiranyakashipu. These are as mentioned below.

  • Narasimha was neither man nor animal, but both. Hence Hiranyakashipu’s boon did not protect him from Narasimha. Nara means “man” and Simha means “lion”, literally “Man-Lion”.
  • Narasimha fought and killed Hiranyakashipu at twilight, which is neither day not night.
  • Narasimha killed Hiranyakashipu on the threshold, which is neither inside nor outside. I do not know if the threshold was that of his throne room or that of his palace.

From all the iconography I have seen of Lord Narasimha, he used no weapons other than his claws while fighting the mighty Hiranyakashipu. The same were used to disembowel and kill the Asura king. This same pattern is seen even in modern days comics depicting the story of the Narasimha avatāra. At the same time, Hiranyakashipu is depicted as using a sword or mace (gada), sometimes a sword along with a shield. I must add, I guess that the claws of Lord Narasimha were exempt from being classified as a weapon as Narasimha was neither man nor beast.

Lord Narasimha fighting Hiranyakashipu who wields a mace and a sword. Image credit – “Dasha Avatar”, published by Amar Chitra Katha

I will now extrapolate again. Based on the way the fight between Lord Narasimha and Hiranyakashipu is depicted, I think of this as a fight between a great warrior who was wielding weapons and another warrior, who was fighting unarmed. Of course, the fact that Lord Narasimha is a God evens out the odds of going up unarmed against an armed warrior. And the fact that a God had to fight at all and needed weapons (!) shows the martial prowess of Hiranyakashipu.

Now that the details of the fight are clear, let me look at the aspects of the same which, while fantastic, can highlight aspects of real-world martial arts and conflict management.

I will start with the simplest and most obvious one. The use of claws. In the Bujinkan system of martials, among the historical weapons we learn of, there are two interesting ones, which are worn on the fingertips. One is called the “Nekote” and another is the “Kanite”. Nekote means “cat claws” and Kanite means “crab claws”. Visually, to me at least, the two seem very similar.

Both the Kanite and the Nekote are pointed metal tips worn on the fingertips, much like thimbles. The points on these can be used to cause damage to the opponent with a shallow stab or rakes across the body. An image is seen below of the Kanite. These are reminiscent of the claws used by Lord Narasimha to kill Hiranyakashipu.

Kanite (crab claws/finger). Image credit – “Unarmed Fighting Techniques of the Samurai”, by Sensei Hatsumi Masaaki.

Even without the metal attachments, practitioners learn to use the tips of the fingers as weapons. There is a way of striking called “shako ken”. The fingers are used as claws to rake an opponent. Obviously, this is not meant for use against armour or any protected surfaces. It can be used to hook and pull the apparel of opponents. This strike is very similar to using the weapon called the “shuko”. The “shuko” in turn is very similar to a historical Indian weapon called the “bagh nakh”. I had written in greater detail about the bagh nakh and the shuko in a previous post, where I had discussed the martial prowess of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. A link to that article is seen below+.

Another way of striking with the fingertips is with the “Go Shitan Ken”. “Shitan Ken” is to strike with the fingers. “Go” refers to the number 5. So, “Go Shitan Ken” means “five finger strike”, in other words, to strike with the fingertips. This strike involves stabbing at the face or any other part of the opponent with the fingertips. It is not necessarily a strike or stab; it could be a push as well. To increase the force of impact of this strike, the five fingertips could be held together (like while eating). An image of each variant of Go Shitan Ken is seen below.

Two ways of using the fingers to strike (shitan ken). The fingers can be kept apart or held together for the strike.

Considering we are discussing claws here, there is a category of weapons one is taught about in the Bujinkan, called “Shizen Ken”. This refers to “natural weapons”. This in turn refers to weapons one is born with. Shizen Ken includes nails, teeth and even spit, that can be used to cause pain or discomfort to opponents with pinches, rakes, bites and just old-fashioned disgust**. 😛 The claws used by Narasimha would be called a “Shizen Ken”. But if a God that is neither man nor animal uses claws, would that then be a “natural” weapon? I am not sure. 😊

A closeup of Lord Narasimha’s claws. Image on the left is from Pattadakal, Karnataka. Image on the right is from Badami, Karnataka. The depictions are from the 6th and 7th centuries CE respectively.

Form around 2015 to 2020, Hatsumi Sensei, the Soke (inheritor/grandmaster) of the Bujinkan, focused a lot on the concept of “Muto Dori”. We learnt from our teachers, mentors and seniors that this was a very important concept, that included not just physical aspects but also ones relating to the attitude and a spirit of calmness, self-control and of course, breathing. “Muto Dori” in its simplistic form can be translated as “capturing without a weapon”. It means that an unarmed individual can take on and perhaps defeat an opponent wielding weapons, and not just survive.

Needless to say, it is extremely difficult and needs a lot training to achieve this successfully even in the dojo, let alone a real fight. The chances of survival and success diminish considerably if there is more than one opponent with weapons. But the training of this concept is very beneficial in terms of learning one’s weaknesses, achieving a modicum of self-control and in fine tuning one’s extant abilities. Hence, the practice of this concept lasts a lifetime, if not just during one’s time as a budoka.

If we think back to the fight between Lord Narasimha and Hiranyakashipu, Narasimha was demonstrating Muto Dori all through. Hiranyakashipu was a warrior of great prowess and wielded weapons against him. Despite this, Narasimha successfully disarmed and defeated him. Narasimha would have had one goal all through the fight. Hiranyakashipu had to be either manoeuvred towards the threshold, or he had to be moved to the threshold. This means Muto Dori with an objective! Anyone who has ever gone up against an opponent with a weapon while being unarmed would realize how mind boggling an achievement this is!

I am not going into details of how muto dori is practiced because it has to be experienced. No volume of words or even videos will transmit what it entails. So, suffice it to say that as a martial artist, Lord Narasimha’s abilities, for his demonstration of Muto Dori, should be the epitome one can aspire towards.

The above 2 images, the one on the right is a close up of the one on the left, are my favourites. This is a depiction of Narasimha actually fighting Hiranyakashipu in a doorway, with the threshold below them. This image actually shows a fight! Narasimha has locked both arms of Hiranyakashipu, rendering his ability use the sword and shield useless! And he is tackling the legs of the Asura king with his own! This is such a wonderful snapshot of fight in progress! This absolutely is a depiction of MUTO DORI! The image is from Pattadakal, Karnataka, from the 7th century CE.

Now I will look at some martial concepts that relate to conflict management as a whole, which also become apparent from the story of the Narasimha avatāra.

We have all been taught that to make any argument or a counter to any proposal or point raised against oneself or a team, we need to have all the necessary data. Making a point or a counter to one, without necessary and relevant information is almost foolhardy. This is something all of us are taught and practice regularly at work and in various aspects of life.

This same concept is stated in the Bujinkan, mellifluously I must add, as “Tsuki and Suki”. This is something I have heard mentioned a few times during training. Tsuki is a punch or a stab, a thrust in essence. Suki is a hole, more like an opening in armour or a gap in the same. It is a point when a thrust can be applied to cause harm to the opponent. So, one needs to “tsuki” a “suki”. One should attack an opening.

To attack an opening, one first needs to find an opening. To find an opening, one needs to know the opponent and how she or he is moving. Knowing the opponent includes the armour, weapons and objectives of the same. All of this adds up to “having all the necessary information”***. Simply put, having information is a precursor to “identifying the suki to tsuki”. The tsuki itself is the equivalent of counter a point in an argument. In a fight, an attack is a point raised, which is “countered” by a tsuki, which is a counter argument, and all of this is facilitated by information.

This flow of events in the various avatāras of Lord Vishnu is as follows. A great Asura acquires a vara (boon) from Lord Brahma. This boon ensures the invincibility of the Asura as he or she cannot be killed, though he or she is not immortal. This invincibility causes havoc in the world and the Devas, who are the guardians of the world, to lose power and go into hiding. The Devas and people of the world after failing to protect themselves despite all efforts, beseech Lord Vishnu for succour. Lord Vishnu incarnates in an avatāra to end the terror of the Asura and restore balance.

In the flow of events mentioned above, for any avatāra, I suggest that information is key! Lord Vishnu, when he appears as an avatāra, tailors the specific incarnation to circumvent all aspects of the boon the Asura possesses. In other words, the Asura creates the avatāra. Every aspect of the boon is understood, the loopholes are identified and exploited by the avatāra. This is the same as “tsuki to suki”. An opening is identified in the armour provided by the boon and a tsuki is applied to this suki. The avatāra is a tsuki and the loophole in the boon is the suki!

Hiranyakashipu realizes that the chink (suki) in his boon has been identified and is being used to attack (tsuki) him. Image credit – “Prahlad”, published by Amar Chitra Katha.

All this does make one wonder, when the boon is granted, what is the confidentiality around it? Does the Asura announce to the world that he has acquired a set of powers due to the boon? Or is this gradually identified as people lose fights against the Asura? Does Brahma reveal details of the boon he has granted to the Asura, to the Devas who then report it to Lord Vishnu to device a counter? Or does Lord Brahma communicate the details to Lord Vishnu directly? Or does Brahma, who granted the boon, already know the loopholes which he reports to Lord Vishnu? If the answer to these is a “No”, does the duration of an avatāra depend on how long it takes to identify the loopholes? Or is there time taken to identify the “suki” in a boon before an avatāra incarnates? I do not have answers to any of these. Perhaps these are stupid thoughts. We are talking of Gods after all, and time does not have the same meaning in such circumstances, and I could be rambling. 😛

But these questions do lead to an appreciation of the Asuras and how they craft the boon they settle upon. I will explore this through a few examples. Many Asuras asked Brahma to grant them immortality. Lord Brahma could not grant that boon as all that was created had to end. So, the Asuras asked for boons that made them near immortal and definitely invincible, at least for long durations.

  • The Asura Tāraka asked that he be invincible and killed only by a son of Lord Shiva. This was a really smart move as Lord Shiva was a yogi and in deep meditation and unlikely to ever have children. Also, he was in deep mourning after the loss of Devi Sati. Tārakāsura was eventually killed by Lord Kartikeya, the son Lord Shiva and Devi Pārvati (a reincarnation of Sati).
  • The Asura Mahisha asked that he be unkillable by any male, as he was certain that no woman could best him. Devi Durga ended up killing him.
  • Rāvana asked that he be unkillable by most creations of Brahma. But he did not include humans in the list of beings he would not be killed by, as he assumed that humans would never be capable of defeating him. Lord Vishnu incarnated on Earth as Lord Rama, a human, to defeat Rāvana. What is interesting is that Rāvana was defeated by the Vānara king Vāli (Bāli) and the human king Kartaveerya Arjuna, but neither of them killed him.
  • Mahishi, the wife of Mashishāsura asked that she be vulnerable only to a son of Lords Vishnu and Shiva, both male Gods! Eventually, Lord Ayyappa killed Mahishi. Lord Ayyappa was the son of Devi Mohini (the female form of Lord Vishnu) and Lord Shiva.

There are more examples, but the ones mentioned above adequately illustrate the points I am going to make. Asuras were incredible, despite going against Dharma and attempting to upend the natural order of the universe, which would result is the suffering of vast numbers of beings. In all the examples above, the Asuras clearly had a great deal of intelligence. Their awareness of how the world existed at a given time, informed how they crafted their requests for boons.

The consequence of all these boons was that the Devas routinely lost power and the ability to perform their duties as the guardians of the 8 directions and natural phenomena (natural order). The Asuras lorded over the Earth during the time when an avatāra was yet to arrive to reestablish the natural order. Beyond the ability for great information gathering, the Asuras had great presence of mind in wording the request for a boon. The boon is no different from an inviolable contract in modern day parlance. So, their awareness of the strength of language was incontestable. All these observations together indicate that the Asuras were warriors of both physical and intellectual prowess.

Beyond all the above points, the Asuras were rewarded for another aspect. The path to achieving a boon from Lord Brahma was a torturous one. A very long time had to be spent in meditating on Brahma, in unimaginable conditions with all earthly needs overcome. This perseverance deemed one worthy of a boon. Hence, the effort ensured that the boon was inviolable and necessitated the presence of a God on earth to overcome.

The meditation of Hiranyakashipu was brutal on his body. It resulted in him almost dying and plants and anthills growing over him. Image credit – “Prahad”, published by Amar Chitra Katha.

In my opinion all of this seems like what in modern day parlance is termed “Lawfare”. It could also be called “the process is the punishment”. “Lawfare” refers to “warfare through laws”, where the actions of specific peoples are either limited or given free rein through laws of a land. “Process is punishment” is when a person is highly unlikely to be convicted of any wrongdoing under given laws, but needs to work through the due process to get oneself acquitted nevertheless. A lot of resources and time is lost in this process, which has a massive opportunity cost. This cost is the punishment, not the actual one that the law might prescribe, as a conviction is almost certainly not on the cards.

These concepts were used by the Asuras and the avatāras both, with success on both sides. The process of proving oneself as being worthy of a boon ensured that most creatures, including Asuras, Devas, humans, Vānaras and other entities, would NEVER prove themselves eligible. The process was simply too hard to complete and the punishment too much to bear!

I called the boon an inviolable contract earlier. This was despite it bending natural rules and leading to the natural order being threatened. So, it was like a law that no one could violate. The Devas, despite having consumed Amrita, were incapable of overcoming the powers bestowed by the Vara. Even Lords Vishnu and Shiva, despite being the ultimate power in the Universe, were not allowed violate the restrictions of the boon, even if they could. This is why Lord Vishnu, as preserver of the natural order, had to incarnate with specific abilities to nullify the abilities bestowed by a boon. This is undoubtedly “lawfare”, where a law is created by a boon to benefit specific individuals or groups of individuals. Eventually, the law is NOT violated and yet the beneficiary of it is destroyed by identifying the loopholes in the law!

Mashishi asking for a boon, and thus indulging in “Lawfare”. Image credit – “Ayyappa”, published by Amar Chitra Katha.

If one considers the contemporary Indian context, the abrogation of Article 370, the amendment to the Waqf Act and not repealing the laws that curtail the financial freedom of temples are considered “lawfare” by people of different political leanings. There is one interesting aspect about laws in relation to this post which I have added in the notes, simply because it tangential and redundant to the idea already explained. I do recommend that people read it++.

That brings me to the end of this article. The Narasimha avatāra should, beyond the traditional significance and symbolism, open our eyes to knowledge that is not commonly known. This avatāra sheds light on the traditional martial arts and modern conflict management. And if one is not a practitioner of the martial arts, the story of the avatāra can open one to the idea that it is not a fantasy of old, the aspects holding it together are very real. Similarly, the story should hopefully reveal that conflict management is not magic and has no “silver bullet”. Intelligence, effort, time and perseverance are always required.

Notes:

* The last sukta (hymn) of the Rig Veda, as far as I know is called the Aikamatya sukta. Aikamatya roughly translates to “common opinion”. It could also mean, according to the little that I have read, “unity”. But this is not unity through homogenization. It is more like accepting all opinions and coming together. It is something like the modern Indian refrain, “Unity in Diversity”.

This sukta invites everyone to come together around the sacred fire and also states that all the Gods (essentially Gods of everyone) will be given offerings through the fire. I have heard two wonderful interpretations of this sukta. One by Mr. Sanjeev Sanyal, who is the Principal Economic Advisor to the Govt. of India and also a historian and author. Another is by Mr. Abhijit Iyer Mitra, who is a strategic affairs analyst, a Senior Fellow at the IPCS. Both are very well known in Indian media (both traditional media and social media).

Abhijit Iyer Mitra says that this sukta I am referring to is akin to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30 years war in Europe. The treaty of Westphalia allowed citizens to follow any form of Christianity that they chose. It also ensured that the state or ruler cannot mandate the religion to be followed by its citizens. It separated religion and state. It also made all forms of Christianity equal as one could not persecute the other. This is pretty much what the Aikamatya sukta states, that all Gods will be accepted and prayed to and people will come together. The sukta of course, is a few thousand years older than the treaty.

Sanjeev Sanyal expands on this idea by showing what happens if this “agreement” made through the sukta is violated. He uses the stories of King Daksha and Hiranyakashipu (referred to in this article) to explain the same. King Daksha conducted a yajna where all Gods were invited to receive offerings, except Lord Shiva. Daksha’s daughter Devi Sati was married to Lord Shiva and Daksha was against the union. In opposition to her father’s decision, Sati disrupted the yajna by immolating herself in the sacred fire. This angered Lord Shiva and King Daksha was slain.

Hiranyakashipu forced people to abandon their worship of Lord Vishnu. He further demanded that people worship him in Vishnu’s stead. This is the same as King Daksha’s actions. Both Daksha and Hiranyakashipu violated the agreement of the sukta that all Gods would be worshipped. This violation resulted in their being punished. It is like there being a consequence for violating the treaty that mandates freedom of worship and equal respect to all Gods. This is the notion that Sanjeev Sanyal has put forth. I am not aware if others have also suggested the same.

+ https://mundanebudo.com/2025/02/19/chattrapati-shivaji-maharaj-the-bagh-nakh-and-the-shuko/

** In Hindu culture there are “Navarasas”. Nava is nine and Rasas are emotions. One of these is “beebhatsa”. This is “disgust”. It is one of the nine emotions that can be evoked in an audience by any performance. The manner in which Hiranyakashipu is killed, by disembowelment, evokes a sense of disgust, or beebhatsa in the person experiencing the story. This same emotion is evoked by the manner in which Bhima kills Duhshāsana, in the Kurukshetra War in the Mahabharata.

*** In a martial arts context, “knowing the opponent” and “gathering information about the opponent” happens in the flow of the fight. It is not necessarily an activity that happens in a separate time from the fight. One needs to identify aspects of the opponent as the fight is happening. This seems esoteric, but anyone who has done any sparring knows that this happens all the time during training.

One needs to know oneself – one’s own abilities, weaknesses and objectives. And also, all these details about the opponent. In Hindu culture, knowing oneself is called “Swayambodha” and knowing the opponent or enemy is called “Shatrubodha”. I had written an article about these 2 concepts in a previous article, the link to which is seen below.

Connect, Control – Part 1; “Connect, Control = Shatrubodha in flow”

++ The guru of the Asuras, Maharishi Shukrācharya created the “Sanjeevini Vidya” by meditating on Lord Shiva. The Sanjeevini Vidya allowed him to bring back to life Asuras who were slain in battle. And they came back as they were before death, not like zombies from modern day pop culture. This was an effective counter to the Amrita that the Devas had in their possession. Amrita conferred immortality on the Devas, (for the duration of a Manvantara, if I am not wrong).

I presume that Hiranyakashipu and other Asuras who asked Brahma for the boon of immortality did so before the Sanjeevini Vidya was created. If not, there would be no need for such a boon. (And if it was later, would the boon hold if they were brought back after death? I have no idea). Anyway, the Asuras used Brahma’s boons to counter the Devas who had Amrita.

Eventually of course, the Devas gained the ability of Sanjeevini Vidya through subterfuge and a honey trap operation. Why they needed it though, I have no idea, as they already had access to Amrita. Was it to find a counter to the Vidya? Again, I have no idea. In my opinion, this conflict between the Devas and Asuras ended when Bali Chakravarthy was confirmed as the next Indra after the Vāmana avatāra. That’s another treaty by itself, something I have written about in other articles of mine, the links to which I am sharing below. All of these events can be considered technological warfare and “lawfare”.

https://mundanebudo.com/2023/11/24/dashavatara-budo-part-1-issho-khemi/

https://mundanebudo.com/2023/12/07/dashavatara-budo-part-2-katsujiken-satsujiken/

MIGHT IS RIGHT, ALWAYS

Vikram M R, , , , , 3 Comments

Image created by Adarsh Jadhav

In the Bujinkan system of martial arts, one concept that we are taught every so often is “Kyojaku jyugo arubekarazu”. This roughly refers to how there is no hard or soft, and no strong or weak; in other words, it means that there is no duality to explicitly discern. This line is the first of a four line poem1. The entire poem explains how one should not focus on being hard or soft or strong or weak, but instead one should makes one’s body into nothing and replace one’s heart with air to understand enlightenment. This is in reference to a fight or a conflict in general and how one can respond to the same. It refers to the fact that one should not worry about classifying the situation or one’s response, but instead respond as required. In order to do this one should let go of one’s ego, as not doing the same might lead to motives and objectives taking centre stage and skewing what one NEEDS to do with what one HAS TO or WANTS TO do.

This is a wonderful concept. But it is also incredibly difficult to practice in life. There might be times when we all face situations where there are no good choices and hardship has to be endured, because there might be no other option. But is this not a good option by itself? Especially if it allows survival? When I say survival, I mean, not overcoming a challenge or winning over hardships being faced, but dealing with the problem by letting time solve the problem. It is impossible to agree or disagree with this and the answer depends on the actual situation one is facing.

This conundrum reminds one of the statement by the Greek historian Thucydides, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”. This was supposedly in reference to a situation where the island of Melos suffered a massacre of all its men and the women and children were sold into slavery*. This was a case where the other option open to Melos was to surrender and agree to Athenian terms. Should they have taken it? Only the people making the decision at that time would know. The rest is all speculation with the advantage of hindsight.

When we refer to the strong and the weak in terms of nations, one aspect that is recognized is how geography is the key factor that determines the same. This concept was expounded in the book “Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond published in 1998**. This concept has been expanded further by Ian Morris in his 2011 book “Why the west rules – For now”. There are YouTube videos with simpler explanations of both books, the links to which are seen below, where both authors explain their respective theories. In the video, Ian Morris explains how the geography that bestows an advantage to one nation or region changes over time with technological and social development. So, taken together, the might of a nation depends on the geography and the time period when the same is being considered, as that determines the technological and social level of a nation or civilization.

Once we consider technological prowess, it is obvious that it affects all conflict management in modern times. This includes both military/martial and non-military conflicts. Further, it does appear that “non-military” is itself difficult to define these days. We hear of how we live in the age of fourth generation warfare, where we never realize if a war has begun and if it has ended. It is supposedly a case where a state(s) are perpetually in a state of war, though not militarily, as understood in the conventional sense. This refers to information war that is waged to make a society weaken itself and lose without any need for actual military might being employed, or at least with minimal military effort being required.

This war is waged on multiple fronts, like trade and economic policies, disinformation and narrative warfare on social media and conventional media, social engineering and many others I am not qualified to expound on (there is a branch of economics called “Narrative Economics”!). This means that a new set of dualities is being created (technology, communication, economic ability), which must be recognized and somehow nullified, by doing what is needed (no duality remember! 😛 ).

The feeling from the above information made me consider how no real fight is ever fair. There is always a perpetual attempt to make any conflict as unfair as possible, so that one side gains the necessary advantage to move a conflict in one’s favour. This in turn leads to the aspect I am trying to explore further.

“Might is right”. This statement, many a time, is considered in a negative light. Like, “this is not how it should be! Even though it is”. But when we consider various aspects as we shall below, it is perhaps the ONLY bit of the human experience that is ETERNALLY TRUE.

What is “Might”? It is anything, an ability or technology that allows for superiority between any two objects that are being compared, mainly in the context of a conflict (a fight, for simplicity). When I say “ability” here, it could be physical, intellectual, emotional, financial, experiential (this could relate to both skill and physical ability due to experience or wisdom and knowledge due to experience) or spiritual. The objects we are comparing could be two humans, two groups of humans, multiple humans, multiple groups of humans, humans with any non-human lifeform (plant or animal), humans and technological replacements/alternatives for humans (automation enabling code or robots), two or more non-human lifeforms or two or more technologies. Also, we can comfortably, for the purposes of this article use the words “Might” and “Superiority” interchangeably.

From the list of abilities mentioned earlier, we can make a list of the different types of “Might” that can be discerned. Of course, this list can be expanded as necessary. A simplistic example accompanies each type of “Might” as seen below.

  1. Physical might – The ability to beat up (or injure in any way) someone or threaten someone with physical violence
  2. Intellectual might – The ability to prove someone wrong with a greater quantity or quality or knowledge or logic
  3. Emotional might – The ability to withstand hardship better than another based on one’s upbringing or cultural antecedents
  4. Financial might – The ability to achieve something better or faster than someone else by being able to pay others (human resource) or acquire technology (technological resource) to achieve said something
  5. The Might of Experience (Experiential might) – The ability to either do something better than someone else due to having greater experience in the field of that something, OR simply being able to browbeat someone else by claiming greater experience (including academic antecedents like diplomas and certificates)
  6. Spiritual Might – The ability to achieve a given goal by claiming or appearing to have greater spiritual achievements (like a guru with an initiate in a religious context)
  7. Ethical or Moral Might – The ability to get a march over someone by claiming the moral or ethical high ground (like in a comparison between secularism and fascism)
  8. Technological Might – The ability to be superior to someone by dint of having access to superior technology (like drones making the difference between Azerbaijan and Armenia)
  9. Educational Might – The ability to get a march over someone by having greater knowledge due to a better education or using educational credentials to push one’s ideas through without scrutiny
  10. Communication Might (oratory for example, or great writing ability) – The ability to communicate ideas and concepts with or without a twist so as to make them more appealing than the ideas of others
  11. Might of the Network or Might of Association – This is how one can get ahead by virtue of knowing the right people in the right places (or just consider a trading guild of old)
  12. Might of Numbers – The case where one side is superior simply because it has superior numbers compared to the other side
  13. The Might of any other Skills – This is a catchall phrase for anything I might have missed!
  14. A combination of any of the above types of “Might” – As an example, “technological might + communication might = might on social media” (I personally consider “Culture” in this category, as it is a combination of several factors)

Of course, there are a couple of points to consider when we look at the various kinds of “Might”.

  • Some of these “Might” could influence another type or be very similar. For example Ethical Might, Intellectual Might and Educational Might are closely related and inform one another, as one’s education and intellectual abilities might affect one’s ethical outlook.
  • There is the factor of LUCK that could override anyone of these “Might” and mitigate their use at a given time and space (and therefore all natural phenomena come into play as well).

Now that we have defined “Might” and its various manifestations (at least for now), let us consider how “Might” is applied.

Consider all the times that you went to a team mate with a problem at work because she/he very likely could help you solve a problem. The reason you went to your colleague is because she/he had the ability to help you solve the problem. She/he thus had a little more of the “Might” of knowledge (Intellectual Might) or experience (Experiential Might) as compared with you to solve the problem OR she/he added her/his ability (Might) to your own (Might of association or the Network) in order to resolve the problem.

Now consider all the times you went to a friend for help with anything, especially if you were new in a town where your friend was a long-time resident. Here you are using different kinds of “Might” of your friend which are greater than your own (Experience, Network, Intellect, maybe even Communication and Financial) to help yourself.

Lastly, consider how dependent a child is on the abilities of a parent, where the difference in all kinds of “Might” is too large to even consider.

In all the above cases, the ability or “Might” of one was used for the benefit of another. In almost all these cases, like in most cases in life, when we use the ability of others, it is with an implicit and unstated understanding that we will in future use our abilities to return the favour. Or it is possible that the favour, in other words the “loaning of ability (Might)” is a necessity simply to continue one’s association with the other. Either as part of a team or a family or a group of friends.

So, the key to all cases where we use each other’s abilities is, association with each other. By default if you are associated with a group of people you are not associated with some other groups. At best you are associated better with some groups and less well associated with some others.

This “association” with others is an essential trait of us humans. It is what we refer to when we routinely say, “Humans are a social creature/animal”. But since we associate more with some and less with others, we are not exactly “social creatures”. We are more “tribal creatures”. Humans are a “tribal animal” where we put some people, animals, plants, ideas, behaviours and technologies above certain others. This is how we form tribes or groups with whom we have “greater association” and by extension “greater affinity”.

Once tribes are extant, there is by default an “us and them”, just like with packs of wolves or prides of lions. Once there is an “us and them”, all the above abilities (Might) that were used for helping each other and furthering common goals for “us” will be also be used to cause trouble to and mitigate the goal achievement of the “them” or “Others”. Thus, enter CONFLICT.

Conflict is the main prism/lens through which we observe “Might”. “Conflict” as a term can be used to describe a whole host of situations. From a simple argument between two individuals to vast all-encompassing issues like man-animal conflict or wars – both military and for “hearts and minds” or to “preserve culture”.  Whatever be the scale or scope of a conflict, it is decided by the “Might” of one of the participating parties overpowering the “Might” of the other.

This brings us to the crux of the hypothesis in this article, which is that “MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT”. Put in other words, the mighty one is always right because that is how a conflict is decided. Also, one needs to keep in mind that “Might” is never applied fairly, like was mentioned earlier. And like (or “the same”) “Might” is not necessarily applied against the each other. For example, physical might could be met with physical might, but not necessarily. If fact, physical might is likely only met with physical might in a sport.

In almost all real world situations, it is a case of different types of “Might” applied against each other. For example in a military conflict, one side might choose to apply “Communication Might” with propaganda against the “Technological Might” of the other side(s). Hence the term “Asymmetric Warfare”, where the involved sides use different abilities to counter each other in a conflict. This is especially true when one of the sides in a conflict can bring to bear “disproportionate power” on the other side(s). This is when one side is vastly “Mightier” than the other in a specific “Might” (say conventional military strength or martial prowess).

Of course, conflicts are not always decided/resolved (they might eventually be), but for the most part they are managed; hence conflict management. A conflict might not be decided for years on end and in the interim they are only managed, where all parties involved in a conflict try to nudge it in a direction favourable to them. In this situation, “Might is Right” plays a key role, as we shall see further.

When one of the sides in a conflict (which could simply be a difference of opinion) chooses to use a said ability (Might) to nudge a conflict in a direction favourable to it, it almost always is done by ensuring that the ability it has a surplus of, is the factor that is used to further the conflict.

For example, consider a lot of the debates that happen on Television today. The conflict here is that one set of people speaks “for” a topic and the other set speaks “against” the same. The ability or “Might” that is supposed to be used by both sides is “Communication Might”, where the side that communicates its point of view better is supposed to be the winner. One cannot choose “Physical Might” against “Communication Might”. So one of the debaters cannot get irritated and beat up the other and thus win the debate as the other side is physically incapacitated to put forth a point of view.

So, by this setting of rules, it is clear that the side that carries the day is the one that can make its point of view seem correct or superior to that of the other side. Thus, even if the other side has better points or is actually correct, it loses the conflict simply because it could not communicate as effectively as the side that won. In other words, the “Communication Might” of the losing side was lower.

The example used here is of an artificial construct, much like an MMA bout, where no kicking the groin or gouging of the eyes is allowed (in a real street fight these rules do not hinder the fighters). Similarly, in the real world where people make up decisions on Government policies and performance, TV debates might not be last word, since the losing side there might be the one that gets accepted despite being low on “Communication Might”. It might get accepted because it was high on “Emotional Might” or “Might of Experience” wherein the audience connects better with the losing side at an emotional level or its experience might match more closely with the losing side as compared with the winning side. This is where the terms like “Silent Majority” and “Lack of connect” come from.

Consider debates on TV or even Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram) on Government policies, secularism, democracy etc. The point of view that wins on the debate might be the one with “Intellectual Might”. But the one that wins in an election might be the one with greater “Emotional Might”.

Here a large majority of the population might simply not care about secularism, due to past experience (Might of Experience) or a lack of knowledge (lack of “Intellectual Might”). Individuals from this side might never be able to take a considered stand on any fora of debate and discussion for lack of communicative ability that the other side with greater intellect can comprehend. But this side knows that it has the numbers and does not need to convince the other side in a discussion, it does not even need to participate in a discussion! Thus, the side with “Communication Might” and “Intellectual Might” will end up losing against the side with “Emotional Might”, “Might of Experience” and “Might of Numbers”.

Based on this, it is important to understand that while use of a given ability to manage a conflict favourably is important, it is even more important to determine if the ability or ”Might” being used is the right one.

One side in a conflict might choose to ensure only the ability it has an abundance of is used, but it needs to recognize that if this move fails, it has an option to fall back on temporarily or develop the other abilities needed to manage the conflict in its favour.

Consider this. We usually find a lot of umbrage on various fora about the use of violence in various parts of our country (remember all the lynching and our outrage at the same?). This violence is an expression of “Physical Might” and “Might of numbers”. The outrage against this is an expression of “Emotional Might”, “Intellectual Might”, “Communication Might”, “Technological Might” (social media platforms are technology). These latter forms of Might are unable to vanquish or even mitigate the expression of the former for an extended period of time.

This is because there is an asymmetric expression of abilities here and one set of abilities comes out on top of the other set of abilities. This is despite the sides that use the respective abilities being disproportionately superior in those specific abilities, to the other side. The mobs that perpetrate the lynching can never hope to match the communication or technological ability that the ones displaying outrage can. At the same time the ones wanting an end to mob violence can never match the physical might and numerical superiority of the mobs. In the “Emotional Might” and “Intellectual Might” areas there is no telling which side is superior, both can believe the same, but the greater numbers on one side might tilt these two “Might” in their favour.

This asymmetry comes forth due to the state of our society and state. In a democratic state like ours, violence is supposed to a monopoly of the state (police, defence forces, paramilitary forces etc.). And all grievances any individuals or groups have against one another are supposed to be sorted out through dialogue, within or outside a defined legal system. This precludes “Physical Might”, and incentivizes “Communication Might”, “Intellectual Might” and “Financial Might”. But the abilities of institutions of law and order and the legal system might not be able ensure that these incentives work. This becomes exaggerated if other institutions within a democracy are not fair and robust. Thus, “Physical Might” and the “Might of Numbers” never get mitigated.

These are problems in most democracies with large and diverse populations. The law and order machinery and the legal system cannot ensure a proportionate distribution of “Might” in any conflict management. Thus, individuals and groups resort to using any “Might” that can get them ahead.

There is one aspect we must consider specifically while using examples from a civilian and societal context and not a military one. This is the issue of EGO in conflict management. Almost all of us believe we are in the right when we consider an action or argument when it comes to conflict resolution. This is obvious in any debate on TV or social media. The belief in correctness is usually associated with a belief in having “Moral or Ethical Might”. Simply put, we believe, we have the moral or ethical high ground and hence we are right.

The concern is that even though I have listed Moral or Ethical superiority separately, it is really a combination of emotional, intellectual and experiential abilities at least. It might involve technological and financial abilities as well. All of these aspects inform the information we gather and how we process it to arrive at a specific argument or action, that we consider correct and of a superior moral/ethical quality.

Unfortunately, there never need be any agreement on who is right due to moral or ethical aspects. It is not even necessary to agree on who is right in legal aspects. There only needs to be a belief in being right. This belief leads to using other forms of “Might” to ensure this belief is sustained, if the belief has any advantage attached. These advantages could be material like class/caste privilege, subsidies, reservations, or any other.

When an individual or a like-minded group is threatened in their position of correctness or moral high ground by another, they will do anything to not let that happen, so as not to lose the other benefits associated with the previously held position (even if it is just the ability to congregate in a certain way or practice a religion in a certain way). When their belief system is threatened, their EGO is threatened and in order to protect it “Moral or Ethical Might” is always either substituted or supplanted by any other form of Might. Perhaps, Moral or Ethical aspects are altogether irrelevant and only the other abilities are brought to the fore.

Based on the above observation, perhaps the best way to manage a conflict is to be perpetually adaptable. Never fall in love with your favourite “Might”. Always know when it is not working and has to be replaced with a different one. Accept that disproportionate use of any Might is the norm and the response almost always has to be asymmetric, with a different type of “Might”. In other words, like any martial system teaches, learn to overcome EGO. This brings us full circle, back to “Kyojaku jyugo arubekarazu” and the following lines in that poem. Do what it takes, and let go of ego.

One cannot afford to disparage the “Might” that the other side is using even if one feels it is wrong or despicable. That “Might” is being used because it works. See if you can use the same in a “purified” manner (for example do not sermonize the opposition in a debate, treat them as equals even if they do not do the same). And always be ready to change the ability you are using. This might help survive an onslaught or move the conflict in one’s favour.

Lastly, all this means, “MIGHT IS RIGHT, ALWAYS. ONLY THE KIND OF MIGHT USED CAN VARY”.

Notes:

Guns, Germs & Steel – Part 1

Guns, Germs & Steel – Part 2

Guns, Germs & Steel – Part 3

Why the West Rules – For Now

*I am using a common form of this statement. It is very possible that people might have an opinion that the actual Greek statement is not so simply translated and has some nuance to it. But I am using this statement as is for the purposes of this article.

**There are many who do not agree with this theory as is and have specific criticisms of this theory. I am using the theory as I understand it, as it is presented. The criticisms, as far as I can understand do not affect what I am trying to express here by much.

1The entire poem and its translation is seen in the image below. Translation is courtesy of my teacher Shiva Subramanian and my buyu Priyadarshini Mahalingashetty. They in turn translated it from a calligraphy by Nagato Sensei, one of the foremost teachers in the Bujikan system and I was told that it was translated for them by Masako Kawai. Thanks to all of them!