The Mahabharata is one of the great epics of ancient India.  It contains a history of a war between two rival families, or peoples, and its text includes teachings with reference to “everything that it concerned a cultivated Hindoo to know.”  The heroes in this recorded war, between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, are in the habit of lying without stint; yet there is evidence that they recognized the sin of lying even to an enemy in time of war, and when a decisive advantage might be gained by it.  At a point in the combat when Yudhishthira, a leader of the Pandavas, was in extremity in his battling with Drona, a leader of the Kauravas, the divine Krishna told Yudhishthira that, if he would tell Drona (for in these mythical contests the combatants were usually within speaking distance of each other) that his loved “son Aswatthanea was dead, the old warrior would immediately lay down his arms and become an easy prey.”  But Yudhishthira “had never been known to tell a falsehood,” and in this instance he “utterly refused to tell a lie, even to secure the death of so powerful an enemy.” [1] Although it came about that Drona was, as a matter of fact, defeated by treachery, the sin of lying, even in time of war, and to an enemy, is clearly brought out as a recognized principle of both theory and action among the ancient Hindoos.

[Footnote 1:  See Wheeler’s History of India, I., 321.]

There is a famous passion-play popular in Southern India and Ceylon, which illustrates the Hindoo ideal of truthfulness at every risk or cost.  Viswamitra, the tempter and accuser as represented in the Vedas, appears in the council of the gods, face to face with Indra.  The question is raised by Indra, who is the most virtuous sovereign on earth.  He asks, “What chief of mortals is there, who has never told a lie?” Harischandra, king of Ayodiah (Oude) is named as such a man.  Viswamitra denies it.  It is agreed (as in the testing of Job, according to the Bible story) that Viswamitra may employ any means whatsoever for the inducing of Harischandra to lie, unhindered by Indra or any other god.  If he succeeds in his effort, he shall secure to himself all the merit of the good deeds of Harischandra; but if Harischandra cannot be induced to lie, Viswamitra must add half his merit to that of Harischandra.[1]

[Footnote 1:  Arichandra, the Martyr of Truth:  A Tamil Drama translated into English by Muta Coomara Swamy; cited in Conway’s Demonology and Devil Lore, II., 35-43.]

First, Viswamitra induces Harischandra to become the custodian of a fabulous treasure, with a promise to deliver it up when called for.  Then he brings him into such a strait that he must give up to Viswamitra all his possessions, including that treasure and his kingdom, in order to retain his personal virtue.  After this, Viswamitra demands the return by Harischandra of the gold which has been already surrendered, claiming that its surrender was not according to the contract.  In this emergency Viswamitra suggests, that if Harischandra will only deny that he owes this amount to his enemy the debt shall at once be canceled.  “Such a declaration I can never make,” says Harischandra.  “I owe thee the gold, and pay it I will.”