When not fighting can become a
cruelty? Dharmayuddha1,
the righteous war in the Mahābhārata.
-Ravi Khangai, Assistant Professor, Department of
History, RTM Nagpur University
ravikhangai@gmail.com
Abstract-
‘Ahiṃsā Parmo Dharma’ (Non-violence is
the greatest duty), resounds through the Indian epic Mahābhārata number of
times and yet it is full of wars. This dichotomy seems to be a reflection of
the conflicting tendencies in human life.
The
epic does not project any stereotypical ideal way of life, but looks at it from
different perspectives. Not having a war is probably the best situation, but the evil may grow if not resisted.
This
paper juxtapositions two conflicting attitudes towards life; Arjuna’s self
annihilating non-violence vis-à-vis Kṛṣṇa’s advocacy of self preservation which
may at a time involve selective violence.
Blind adherence to non-violence, without evaluating the consequences may
lead to the adverse effect. If one should resist the oppressor or surrender to him
also depends upon the one’s situation in life. A hermit may refuse to fight and
accept the violence of the oppressor as his destiny. But if same is done by a
soldier and police who are duty bound to protect the state and citizens,
anarchy will be let loose, seriously harming the civilization.
Key
words- Ahiṃsā, Dharma, Bewildered,
Greed, Family, Varṇa.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
“The fault in killing one who
should not be killed is the same as not killing one who should be killed”2
The
Mahābhārata portrays complexities and contradictions of human life quite
effectively. While repeatedly referring
‘Ahiṃsā’ i.e. non-violence as the greatest Dharma, the epic also
celebrates the Kṣatriya way of life, which involves wars. As human
situations are unpredictable, it is difficult to set the rigid, universally
accepted code of conduct.
The
fratricidal war between the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavās sets the
background for the ethical debate about violence and non-violence. Arjuna, the
hero of many battles, lost his nerves when the situation demanded that he had
to strike his own people to regain the kingdom, which was unjustly taken from
him. Relapsing into the mood of self-annihilating surrender, he threw his
weapons and refused to fight arguing that it will be better to live on alms
instead of enjoying the kingdom that is smeared with blood of own people.3
Apparently,
Arjuna’s refusal appears to be an act of non-violence. But the epic debates if
non-violence should be followed for its own sake or it is a philosophy which
needs to be applied with discretion to serve some higher purpose.
The
important decisions like war and peace should be taken after lot of
deliberations and cannot be changed on an impulse of an individual. Arjuna’s
withdrawal was not a result of some sublime thinking; neither was it a gradual
evolution towards Nīvrittī, i.e. renunciation.
“The pity of Arjuna has nothing
in common with divine compassion. It is a form of self-indulgence, a shrinking
of the nerves from an act which requires him to hurt his own people”4
Arjuna
was bound by Kṣatradharma5 to fight the war, regain
the kingdom and rule according to the Dharma. If he allows his personal
relations to become barrier in the performance of social obligations, that will
erode his moral authority to wield the power.
“….Arjuna falls into the error of
making a distinction between kinsmen and outsiders. Outsiders may be killed
even if they are not oppressors, and kinsmen may not be killed even if they
are”6
Arjuna
was probably deceiving himself too.
“…..many a time comes when we
want to interpret our weakness and cowardice as forgiveness and
renunciation.……..”7
Kṛṣṇa
through the dialogue in the Bhagavadgītā dispels this emotional weakness of
Arjuna and tries to raise him to the level, where he will fight not with the
desire of material gain, but with some greater purpose.
Conflicting Dharmas?-
“Righteousness sometimes takes the shape of
unrighteousness.”8
Debate about Dharma overshadows the narration
of the epic. It says that practicing of the Dharma, which is not ours,
is also disastrous. A hermit may refrain from using force against the
aggressor, but if a Kṣatriya, who have responsibility of maintaining order,
does that, it will lead to anarchy.
Though
Ahimsa is the highest Dharma, it needs to be protected from those who
are bent upon destroying it. Duryodhana,
under the sway of ego and greed, which are described as demonic qualities in
the 16th chapter of the Bhagavadgītā 9 refused to settle
the matter peacefully and the war became inevitable. Tolerating his aggression
will have led to further rise of Adharama. 10 Dhṛtarāṣţra
tolerated Duryodhana’s many transgressions and thus pushed the whole Kuru clan
towards destruction.
Arjuna
was one of the important warriors on the Pāṇḍavās side. To be able to
win against Karna, he acquired divine weapons.11 counting on his
support the Pāṇḍavās prepared for war. Thus Arjuna was practicing the Dharma
of Kṣatriya for long and if he changes it at a crucial movement, it will be
disastrous for him as well for many who had faith in his ability as a warrior.
If the leader of the army is fickle minded, he will put to risk many lives,
including his own.
Mahatma
Gandhi describes Arjuna’s situation as,
“If a passenger travelling on a
train running at a speed of forty miles an hour suddenly feels an aversion to
travelling and jumps out of the train, he will only have committed
suicide……Arjuna is in similar condition”12
As
journey had already started long back, he should finish it this time and later
decide if he wants to refrain from further journeys.
Can we be completely Nonviolent?-
“…..the living are
cannibals……..who in this world does not hurt something alive”13
Violence is an inseparable part of existence.
Even while breathing we kill numerous microorganisms. However, we can minimize the violence by
putting checks on our greed. We can also counterbalance the harm that our existence
may cause by making conscious, nurturing contribution to the universe. But
completely ceasing to act will led to self annihilation and that will be
violence to us. The epic narrates an episode of sage Viśhwamitra saving his
life by eating dog’s flesh during famine, which is otherwise a forbidden food
for the sages.14 In order to follow the greater Dharma of
preserving one’s life, a smaller Dharma is compromised.
The
epic narrates numerous episodes where the notions of Dharma seem to be
conflicting and one need to use discretion to take a right decision. The canvas
of life cannot be painted as entirely black and white. But the general stand taken by the epic is
whatever nourishes life is Dharma.
“Dharma is so called because it
protects all”15
Arjuna’s
Dharma of Kṣatriya is apparently
conflicting with the ‘Ahiṃsā Parmo
Dharma’,16 but his withdrawal would have led to greater Adharma.
This paradox of need to be apparently violent to protect non-violence sets the
background for the dialogue between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna.
The
violence is intertwined with the existence and more so with the affairs of the
state. If the state machinery refuses to use force, there will be chaos. The
evil will suppress the good. Same logic is followed when the criminals, who
have become threat the human society, are given death sentence.
But
the people who are responsible to regulate the society may themselves become
oppressor if they get too much attached to the power. The epic cautions us in
numerous ways. Though the Pāṇḍavās were victorious, they could not feel
joy as they lost almost everyone. Condemning the Kṣatrdharma,(Dharma of Kṣatriya) which compel us
to kill Yudhiṣṭhira says,
“Damn the Kṣatra way! Damn the power of the mighty chest! Damn the
unforgiving stubbornness that brought us to this disaster!”17
Once
we are involved in the intricacies of the state affairs, we may have to do
everything possible like scheming and plotting to bring down the enemy, but can
we escape the consequences of our Karma? Yudhiṣṭhira, had to spend time in hell
for a single lie that he uttered in his life.18 The epic also says that all the kings have to
invariably see the hell.19
Thus ultimately, the kingdom, wealth, war and its victories are
transitory and almost futile. But if the good people withdraw from this
necessary business of life, the void will be filled with the evil people and
they will not let anyone live in peace.
The
gory details of killing in the Sauptikparvan and heart wrenching cries
of women in the Strīparvan seems to
be conscious attempts of the epic to
create dislike for war and underline the futility of victory. These two parvas
(books) come immediately after the war parvas. The epic does not give time for the
victorious Pāṇḍavā army to celebrate, but ensures that they are slaughtered
too. Thus underlines the transitory nature of the victories in the affairs of
the world.
The
debates in the epic suggest that though human being should strive for Ahiṃsā, a necessity may arise when in
order to preserve Ahiṃsā, one may
have to fight; kill and be killed. Fighting and withdrawing, both will have its
consequences. Thus humanity seems to be trapped in the web of its creation. All
endeavors have evil inherent it.
“Nothing in the world is wholly
good or wholly evil. Where there is action, there is always some evil” 20
Our good intentions may minimize the intensity
of divine retribution, but we cannot escape the consequences of our Karma.
Who shall fight and win? –
If the war is a necessary evil and no one is
perfect, who shall fight and win? Kṛṣṇa tries to raise Arjuna to the level,
where the possibility of misuse of power is minimized; if not eliminated
altogether.
Arjuna is reminded that as a Kṣatriya, he is
duty bound to fight and regain his
kingdom. If a person wielding a power
can punish someone for a particular crime but allows his own people to go scot
free, that will erode his moral authority to hold the power and sets wrong
precedence.
“If one’s kinsmen deserve to be killed, they ought to be killed; and one
must not hesitate even if the entire world are likely to be destroyed as a
consequence”21
A
hermit may allow an aggressor to kill him and accept it as his destiny, but not
a Kṣatriya. It is better for the Kṣatriya to die fighting than surviving by
giving up the Dharma of Kṣatriya. Bhagavadgītā forbids taking up the Dharma
of others.
“swadharme nidhanaṁ śreyaḥ
pardhramo Bhayāvahah”22
(Better
is death in the fulfillment of one’s own Dharma, following the Dharma
of others is perilous)
If
a Kṣatriya refrains from killing at the time of war or do not kill the
oppressor, it becomes as act of Adharma, as this will contribute to the
growth of evil. Inaction, which allows evil to grow, is also an act to be
condemned. The dialogue does not stop here, but it unfolds and tries to raise Arjuna
to the level of an ideal warrior.
Kṛṣṇa
makes Arjuna aware of the evil influence of attachments, lust, anger and greed.
He also expects him to be a ‘sthitaprajňa’23,(a person of
stable intellect) , ‘Sarvabhūtahite ratāh’24, (engaged in the
welfare of all).
Thus Arjuna shall fight not with the narrow
intention of regaining his kingdom, but to uphold the Dharma. Yudhiṣṭhira,
the leader of the Pāṇḍavās himself was known as Dharma
incarnate.
There
were transgressions from the sides of the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavās
both. But Yudhiṣṭhira had a capacity to
introspect and feel remorse for his transgressions, and thus had a potential to
minimize the violence that he may cause to the world. Duryodhana do not feel any necessity to
control his greed and tame his ego. Hatred for the Pāṇḍavās and desire
to eliminate them overpowers his judgments. In Pāṇḍav gītā he
describes his own character as,
‘Jãnãmi dharmam na cha me
pravruttir jãnãmi adharmam na cha me nivruttihi’ 25
(I
know what dharma is, but I cannot abide by it. I know that adharma
is, but I cannot revoke myself from it.)
Yudhiṣṭhira on the other hand is always
willing to compromise and tries his best to avoid the war. He refused to go to
war in spite of the repeated provocations from Draupadī and Bhīma.26
Putting behind the humiliation of Draupadī, poisoning of Bhīma and attempt of
burning them alive, the Pāṇḍavās were willing to be satisfied with five
villages and settle in favor of peace. Bhīma was willing to forgo his oath of
killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣţra. This makes them to stand out as better human
being than the Kauravas. Duryodhana stands in contrast as he says,
“As long as I am alive,……….I
shall not surrender as much as a pin-prick of land to the Pāṇḍavas” 27
The
epic gives the message that this uncompromising behavior led him to his doom
along with all those who supported him.
Nobody is perfect, but if you are obstinate, uncompromising and lacks
compassion you are more inclined towards evil.
Dharma,
in the midst of Adharma.
If
Duryodhana was evil, why he was supported by so many? And why so many were
killed in the war?
Coming
of the catastrophic destruction of human lives is repeatedly hinted in the
epic. The Ādiparvan narrates that the
earth was oppressed because of the general decline of Dharma and Brahmā ordering other gods to incarnate on
the earth ‘to throw off the burden’28. Attempt of disrobing of
Draupadī in the assembly hall and most of the people remaining mute spectator
is one of the indicators that Dharma was weakened. This general decline
of Dharma is echoed by sage Vyāsa in the concluding section of the epic,
“Raising my hands to the sky I shout that
follow Dharma, but nobody listens to me”29
The
age being an age of evil comes repeatedly in the epic. Sage Vyāsa tells his
mother Satyavatī,
“Earth herself is aging. A
dreadful time is at hand, confounded by much witchery, beset by many vices,
when all the acts and manners of the law shall be soiled”30
He
advises her to retire to forest to avoid witnessing of destruction of her own
dynasty.
The
God incarnating as Kṛṣṇa is also indicative that Dharma has declined and needs
restoration,
“dharmasaḿsthāpanārthāya saṁbhavāmi yuge yuge”31
(For
the establishment of Dharma, I descend from age to age)
The indication of the coming of mass
destruction is also given in the Ādiparvan
at the time of Draupadī’s birth.32 Thus the epic is showing the
way of Dharma, in the midst of overpowering Adharma.
In the carnage very few survives. The Pāṇḍavās
also lose all their warriors and Yudhiṣṭhira laments that
“The victory looks more like defeat to me”33.
The
epic does not spare anyone. The Pāṇḍavās are also punished for their
transgressions.34 Everyone has to pay prize of their Karma. The
crime of many who were slaughtered was that
they allowed Adharma to grow. If the injustice is perpetuated and
we allow it to grow by remaining passive we also become a party to evil.
Immediately
after Draupadī’s molestation, Vidura says that if unlawful act is done in the
assembly, the half of the responsibility goes to the leader, a quarter goes to
the culprit and the last quarter goes to those in hall who do not condemn the
culprit.35 The epic seems to be blaming Bhīṣhma and Droṇa for not
intervening decisively and stopping the humiliation. Their inaction became
their negative Karma. Similarly if
Arjuna withdraws, he cannot escape the consequences of his inaction if the evil
minded Duryodhana wins the war.
We
find numerous sages visiting Hāstinapur and advising Dhṛtarāṣţra to restrain
Duryodhana. They also visit the Pāṇḍavās in the exile and gives consolation to
Yudhiṣṭhira. They are generally free from the agonies of life that afflicts the
common mortal, who are not able to overcome their attachments. Thus, though on
the path of Nīvrittī, they do their part in upholding the Dharma.
The
number of people following Dharma are probably always very less as
Bhagavadgītā,
“manuṣyāṇāṇāṁ sahareṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye”36
(Among
thousands of men scarcely one strives for perfection)
Support
of majority, is no guarantee that they are on the side of Dharma. At
times one may have to walk with small number of people and even alone if the
need arises to uphold the Dharma. Rabindrnath Tagore, a very prominent
personification of Indian tradition says in the Bengali song,
“Ekla
cholo re”37 (Walk alone)
Killing
of Bhīṣhma and Droṇa also has a message that taking a favor from the evil is
fraught with dangers.
Conclusion-
“When a great emphasis is placed
upon ahiṃsā, or not to do violence,
and upon satya, or truth, it can be
safely concluded, from that emphasis alone, that both violence and falsehood
must be widespread in human relationships.”38
The
general decline of Dharma is obvious in the narration of the epic. Life
on the earth is depicted as punishment for the sins committed in the past
lives. Bhīṣhma’s sagacious life was a result of a curse.39
Thus the life in this mortal world will
continue with its violence, conflict and deception. The epic however gives us
the hope that we could be a part of those who by conscious efforts achieve
control over their instincts and thus also make a positive impact on the world
around us. We can uphold the Dharma, even if there is overwhelming Adharma
around us. The beginning has to be from ourselves. Arjuna is expected to rise
to the higher level of consciousness. It is after his Moha (delusion)
is removed 40, he becomes suitable to check those who are bent
upon destroying dharma. He is supposed to fight while raised to the divine state i.e. Brāhmīsthiti.41
The
all destructive war takes place after the narration of the Bhagavadgītā and
Arjuna loses his balance on number of occasions. For example his taking of oath
of killing Jayadratha or entering fire next day42 .This goes against
the ideal of sthitaprajňa put forward by Kṛṣṇa. Thus the epic accepts that there will be
always dichotomy between what is ideal and what is being practical. But having an ideal, however utopian it
might be, is always better than not having it at all. Higher the ideal, higher
it will pull the humanity towards its optimum potential. The whole undertaking of the epic seems to be
oriented towards creating better human beings by raising their level of
consciousness from mundane plane to spiritual plane.
“na hi jñānena
sadṛśaḿ, pavitram iha vidyate”43
(There
is nothing as purifying as wisdom)
Here
wisdom (i.e. jñāna)
is state of self-realization and not theoretical knowledge. Bhagavadgītā tries to purify Arjuna and
expects him to conquer the enemies within, before he conquers others. The
strife and conflicts that we see outside are probably enlarged, amplified
versions of the conflicts that we have within.
“Our states, being ourselves
multiplied, are what we are; they write our natures in bolder type, and do our
good or evil on elephantine scale”44
If
we want to establish peace, it should be first created in the minds of men, and
the beginning has to be from oneself as Mahatma Gandhi says,
“Be the change you want to see in
the world”45
The
creators of the epic thought deeply about the life and showed the ways to
contribute positively to humanity and thus it has become a timeless text,
having eternal relevance.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
End Notes and References-
1.
Dharmayuddha-(Dharma
+ yuddha).
‘Dharma’ is difficult to translate in English as the meaning changes with the context. It is
translated differently as righteousness, law, expected behaviors and sacred
duty. The expected Dharma also changes with the situation in life. For
example it is Dharma of the ruling class to ensure that justice
is delivered. It is a Dharma of the sages to study and impart spiritual knowledge. A detailed discussion on the concept of ‘Dharma’ in the epic is given by James
L. Fitzgerald in introduction to ‘The Mahābhārata,
The Book of Peace’, the University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2004 and also in
‘Dharma, studies in its sematic, Cultural and Religious History’ Patrick
Olivelle (Ed.), Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2009. Yuddha
means war and Dharmayuddha means the war that is fought to protect Dharma.
2.
Fitzgerald James L. ‘The Mahābhārata,
Volume 7’, The University of Chicago Press,
2004. P. 543.
3.
Radhakṛṣṇan S, ‘The Bhagavadgītā’ HarperCollins, New Delhi, 2004.(2:5) (All verses
quoted from the Bhagavadgītā are taken from this book.)
4.
Ibid P. 98
5.
Kṣatradharma-
Kṣatriyas were the ruling class in the four fold division of Hindu
society. It was considered to be their dharma to protect the citizen,
deliver the justice and fight just wars.
6.
Mahatma Gandhi, ‘The Bhagavad Gitā ’,
Jaico Books, Mumbai, India, 2010, p.21.
7.
Swami Vivekananda, ‘The Complete Works
of Swami Vivekananda, Volume I’, Advaita Ashrama, Kolkata, 2009, p.459.
8.
Ganguli K.M. ‘The Mahābhārata of Kṛṣṇa-Dvaipāyana Vyāsa, Śāntiparvan, Part- I' Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, 2008.
Pp.320-21.
9.
Radhakṛṣṇan S. (Pp 334-341)
10. Adharama-
Evil,
Undesirable, Apposite to Dharma.
11. Buitenen
J.A.B. van, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 2’, The University of Chicago Press, 1975,
Pp299-305.
12. Mahatma
Gandhi, p.6.
13. Buitenen1975:
p. 624
14. Fitzgerald
2004:p541
15. Dutt
M.N., ‘Mahābhārata, Vol. 6, Parimal Publications, Delhi, 2013. p.267.
16. Dutt M.N., ‘Mahābhārata, Vol. 9, Parimal
Publications, Delhi, 2013. p.479.
17. Fitzgerald
2004:p.180.
18. Debroy
Bibek, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 10’, Penguin, New Delhi, 2014, p.675.
19. Ibid,p.677.
20. Mahatma
Gandhi, p.37.
21. Ibid,
p.25.
22. Bhagavadgītā,
3.35
23. Ibid,
2.54
24. Ibid,
12.4.
25. Khemka
R. ‘Pāṇḍav
gītā’,
Gita Press, Gorakhpur, verse No. 58.
26. Buitenen1975:Pp275-295.
27. Buitenen
J.A.B. van, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 3’, The University of Chicago Press, 1978,
p. 421.
28. It
refers to burden of evil and not physical burden of humans. (Buitenen J.A.B.
van, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 1’, The University of Chicago Press, 1973,
p.138.)
29. Dutt
M.N., ‘Mahābhārata, Vol. 9, p.1014.
30. Buitenen
1973:264
31. Bhagavadgītā 4.8
32. Buitenen
1973: p. 318
33. Fitzgerald
2004:p. 168
34. Debroy,
Vo.l 10, 2014. : p. 677.
35. Buitenen1975:
p.147
36. Bhagavadgītā 7.3
38. Chaturvedi
Badrinath, ‘The Mahābhārata,
An inquiry in the human condition’, Orinet BlackSwan, Hydrabad, 2013, p. 114.
39. Buitenen 1973:220-222.
40. Bhagavadgītā
18.73
41. Bhagavadgītā 2.72
42. Debroy
Bibek, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 6’, Penguin, New Delhi, 2012, p.54.
43. Bhagavadgītā 4.38
44. Durant
Will & Ariel, ‘The Lessons of History’, Simon & Schster, New York,
2010, p.19.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
No comments:
Post a Comment