Why
Should Arjuna Kill? The Bhagavad Gitā’s Justification of Selective Violence.*
-Dr. Ravi Khangai, Assistant
Professor,
Department of History,
Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj
Nagpur University,
Amravati Road, Nagpur,
Maharashtra, India- 440033.
E mail- 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 or does the epic gives a message that violence is inevitable?
The epic does not
project any stereotypical ideal way of life, but looks at it from different
perspectives. It seems to be giving a message that not having a war is probably
the best situation, but sometimes one’s sincere desire of avoiding
a war may encourage evil. If good people
withdraw from life, the space will be left open for evil to fill the void.
Probably a part of
human psyche is inclined towards renunciation, which is personified in Arjuna’s
behavior just before the war when he refuses to fight. Kṛṣṇa on the other hand
represents an opinion, according to which, leading an active life of a householder
without attachment to the world around you is better. He does not condemn the
renunciation altogether but says that asceticism should not be an impulsive
decision and it is not for everybody.
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. Arjuna’s position was similar.
Key
words- Ahiṃsā, Dharma, Bewildered,
Greed, Family, Varṇa.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I.
Introduction-
Kṛṣṇa’s justification
of war in the epic Mahābhārata is being discussed time and again among the
people engaged with the Indian philosophical tradition. The epic is very
complex text and does not take a one sided view of the human situations, but
looks at it from the different perspectives. While repeatedly stating ‘Ahiṃsā Parmo Dharma’ (Non-violence is
the greatest Dharma), the epic is full of wars.
The Bhagavad Gitā is narrated by Kṛṣṇa to
Arjuna in a situation when Arjuna was going through moral crises. His kingdom
was snatched by his cousin Duryodhana. As a duty of Kṣatriya (the warrior clan) he is supposed to fight and take back
his kingdom. But the matter was not simple. He had to fight and possibly kill
not only his cousin but many relatives who were supporting his Cousin. Arjuna’s mind was filled with piety and he
asks if the kingdom is really so valuable that he should be killing his kith
and kin for it. Overcame with sense of guilt and fear of sin that he might be
accumulating during the war, he throws away his bow and arrows and says that it
will be better to live on alms than enjoying the kingdom earned by bloodshed.
Taken out of the
context, Arjuna’s arguments will sound very noble. He thinks self-annihilation
is better than killing one’s kith and kin. But probably excess of virtue also
turns out to be a vice. Surrendering to evil will encourage evil. Arjuna had
been born in the family of warriors and was brought up as a warrior. He was a hero
of many battles, but now he was flinching from killing in the war, nor because
he had renounced the killing altogether, but he was not willing to strike the
people that he considered as his own. Kṛṣṇa says that this is an ignorant
attachment. If a warrior can kill someone for some reason, he should be ready
to kill his own kith and kin as well. In fact the Bhagavad Gitā gives a message
that our body is a temporary abode where the divine energy resides for time
being. It says that our body is like cloth and as we discard the old, soiled
cloths, similarly the soul also discards the old body and takes the new one. (Radhakrishnan
S p.108) If body is not ours, how the relatives related to the body can be
ours?
His friend, philosopher
and guide Kṛṣṇa makes Arjuna aware about the evil that may result if Arjuna
withdraws from the war. Kṛṣṇa reminds him that as a person from the warrior
caste, he should not flinch from the war that is fought for the just cause. It
is not right to get bound by the ties of affection and tolerate injustice. For
the greater cause one may have to kill our kith and kin. Though the argument
starts here, it goes further and elaborates on many philosophical aspect of
life like nature of soul and divine, necessity of self restrain and a way towards
peace and liberation.
The Bhagavad Gitā,
which is a part of the Mahābhārata runs into eighteen chapters and seven
hundred verses. Though according to the legend it is Seer Vaiśya , who is the
author of the Mahābhārata which includes the Bhagavad Gitā as well. But the scholars
say that it is not a work of one person, but grew over a long period of time.(Radhakrishnan,
p.14) . As it grew over a long period of
time, we find the reflection of the long philosophical churning into it. Arjuna’s
desire is manifestation of the philosophy of withdrawal from life and the
philosophy of right action with right attitude is personified in Kṛṣṇa’s
thinking.
Both the armies were
standing face to face. The day had finally arrived for which the preparation
was going on for years. There was a lot of tension in the air. Warriors from
both the side were aware that they may have to kill their own kith and kin.
Arjuna, one of the greatest warriors and an important pillar of strength from
the Pāṇḍavā’s side wanted to take a look at his opponents and requested his
charioteer, friend, philosopher and guide Kṛṣṇa to station his chariot in
between both the armies. (1:21)[1].
Seeing his grandfather,
preceptor and other kith and kin on the other side Arjuna became sentimental
and gave up. He throws away his bow and arrows and his condition is narrated in
his own words as,
“…..my
limbs quail, my mouth goes dry, my body shakes and my hair stands on end” (1:29)
He admits his confusion
and psychological weakness as he says,
“My
being is stricken with the weakness of (sentimental) pity. With my mind bewildered
about my duty” (2:7)
II.
Arjuna’s
justification of withdrawing from the war-
Preaching non-violence Arjuna
says,
“Happier
far would it be for me if Dhṛtarāṣţra’s sons, weapon in hand, should strike me
down on the battlefield, unresisting and unarmed” (1:46)
Apparently the lines
seem to be echoing the very sublime sentiments of non-violence. The argument
that Arjuna puts forward appears to be valid from moral point of view! Self-annihilation
is better than killing! Arjuna’s
justifications for withdrawing from the war can be summarized as;
II.1
Sin in killing kith and kin-
There is a sin in
killing kith and kin for the sake of material gain. The material gains can be enjoyed
with the near and dear and not by killing them. Arjuna feels sad that he and
his relatives are willing to kill each others for the kingdom.
“…..Of
what use is kingdom to us, O Kṛṣṇa, or enjoyment or even life? Those for whose
sake we desire kingdom, enjoyments and pleasures, they stand here in battle,
renouncing their lives and riches” (1:32,33)
Overcome with pity for his near and dear he
says that I will not kill them for the kingdom of three words[2],
even if they are bent upon killing him (1:35). Arjuna seems to be taking a
stand that even if somebody is violent to us, we should not stoop low and react
in a similar manner. But Arjuna’s non-violence seems to be confined to his kith
and kin. Commenting on the obvious pity that Arjuna seems to be preaching, S.
Radhakrishnan writes,
“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”
(S. Radhakrishnan 2004:98)
Arjuna had aversion
towards fighting against grandfather Bhīṣhma and teacher Droṇa whom he
described as pūjārhāv (worthy of
worship) (2:4).
He does not seem to
have any aversion to killing in general, but his main argument is that he
cannot kill his own people as he says,
“….How
can we be happy, O Mādhava (Kṛṣṇa), if we kill our own people?” (1:37)
He says that it is
better to live by begging than slaying honoured teachers and enjoying the world
delights which are rudhirapradigdhān (smeared with blood) (2:5)
According to him the destruction
of the family is sin and they i.e. Kṛṣṇa and the Pāṇḍavas who understands this
should turn away from this, even if the Kauravas who are overpowered by greed
do not see any wrong in it. (1:38,39)
II.2
Fearful consequences of the war-
Arjuna argues that when
the families are destroyed during the war, the practice of traditional laws
will be stopped leading to lawlessness. (1:40). When lawlessness prevails,
women of the family becomes corrupt leading to Varṇasaṁkaraḥ i.e. confusion of castes. (1:41)
If the progenies are
born out of union between the man and woman from different Varṇas[3]
then it is called Varṇasaṁkaraḥ.
Arjuna fears that during the period of lawlessness, women will have relations
with undesirable men as there will be no control over them. Restrictions that
are imposed on the union between different Varṇa
will be violated and Varṇa system may
break down. The patriarchal attitude of controlling sexuality and fertility of
women is reflected in Arjuna’s fear as he seems to be holding women more
responsible for maintaining the purity of Varṇa.
Varṇasaṁkaraḥ
seems to a very heinous crime from Arjuna’s perspective as he says this leads
to various evils like it destroys Kuldharmāś
(laws of the family) and Jātidharmāḥ
(laws of the castes).The person as well as his family who has contributed
towards this lawlessness will go to hell. During the period of lawlessness, the
spirits of ancestors will also fall (from heaven) as they will be deprived of
their offerings of rice and water. (1:42, 43)
The importance given to
the rituals about the dead ancestors is reflected here. The Hindus offer rice
and water to the spirit of the dead ancestors.
After narrating the
calamities that may befall as consequences of the war, Arjuna feels sad that he
was bent upon committing all these sins by killing his own people due his greed
for the kingdom. (1:45). He relapses
into the mood of self-annihilating surrender and says,
“Far
better would it be for me if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣţra, with weapons in hand slay
me in the battle, while I remain unresisting and unarmed.” (1:46)
Having narrated all the
calamities that may befall, Arjuna sank down on the seat of his chariot,
casting away his bow and arrows and his condition is described as ‘Śokasaṁvignamānasḥ’ ( spirit overwhelmed
by sorrow)(1:47)
Arjuna was one of the
foremost warriors on the Pāṇḍavā’s side. It was difficult to win the war
without him. Counting on his archery skill the Pāṇḍavās prepared for the war.
He had been a hero of many battles earlier and killed number of people earlier.
But suddenly he was inclined towards renunciation and justifies non-violence.
Based on above two
arguments, Arjun justifies his withdrawal from the war.
III.
Kṛṣṇa’s
counter arguments-
Carried away with the affection
for his relatives Arjuna could not reflect upon the consequences of his
withdrawal from the war and declines to fight. Kṛṣṇa however puts forward
following counter points urging Arjuna to fight.
III.1
Reminds him of his nobility and
Reputation –
Kṛṣṇa’s first reaction
is surprise and he rebukes Arjuna
“Whence
has come to thee this stain (this dejection) of spirit in this hour of crisis?”
(2:2).
He further says that
Arjuna’s this act is anāryajuṣţam
(not suitable for an Arya[4]),
asvargyam (does not lead to heaven), akīrtikaram (disgracing). (2:2)
Further Kṛṣṇa urges him
that this kind of klaibyaṁ (unmanliness)
does not suit him and he should cast off this kṣudraṁ hṛgayadaurbalyaṁ (petty faintheartedness). Calling him paraṁtapa (oppressor of the foes) Kṛṣṇa
tries to boost his morale. (2:3)
If Arjuna withdraws from the war, people will
speak ill of him and his reputation is at stake. Urging Arjuna to fight for
honour he says,
“The
world will forever recount the story of thy disgrace; and for a man of honour
disgrace is worse than death” (2:34)
III.2
Gain at both the ends-
Kṛṣṇa also tries to
motivate Arjuna by saying that he have gains at both the ends;
“Slain,
you shall gain heaven, victorious, you shall inherit the earth” (2:37)
It was believed that if
a warrior is killed in the war he goes to heaven and if Arjuna wins he will
enjoy the kingdom on earth.
III.3
Responsibility towards society-
Arjuna also had
responsibility towards society. He was like a role model for the Kṣtriyas and abandoning his Kṣatrdharma,(Dharma[5]of Kṣatriya
to fight a righteous war) might
have very adverse consequences. It will not only have an immediate adverse
result like annihilation of the Pāṇḍavā army, but it will also create a wrong
precedent for the coming generations. If he withdraws from the war, other Kṣtriyas will follow his examples and
thus it will perpetuate evil.
“Yad-yad ācharti śreṣţhas tad-tad eve’ taro
janaḥ
sa yet parṁāṇaṁ kurute
lokas tad anuvartate” (3:21)
(Whatsoever a great man
does, the same is done by others as well.
Whatever standard he
sets, the world follows.)
Arjuna’s withdrawal
would have also sent the message that it is not wrong to surrender to
uncompromising, obstinate aggressor than fighting. Many people have gathered on
the battlefield in support of the Pāṇḍavās. If Arjuna suddenly withdraws, it
may spread panic among them. It is important for the leader to control his mood
swings.
Kṛṣṇa also says that a
spiritually evolved person should be a ‘Sarvbhūthite
ratāḥ’, (12:4) i.e. a person engaged in the welfare of all. Arjuna’s
fighting presumably will lead to the victory of good over evil and will
contribute to the general well being of the humanity.
Arjuna being from the
ruling class of the Kṣtriya, is
expected to protect the ‘Dharma’ and punish
those who violate it. If Arjuna can kill someone for the same reason, he should
be willing to kill his own kith and kin for the same. Arjuna had already fought
number of battles and killed many people before this. Now Duryodhana and his
supporters challenged him by not handing him over the kingdom to the Pāṇḍavās even
after the Pāṇḍavās had fulfilled their obligation of staying in forest for
twelve years and one year incognito. Duryodhana was uncompromising as he says,
“As
long as I am alive,……….I shall not surrender as much as a pin-prick of land to
the Pāṇḍavas” ” (Buitenen1978:421)
It was obligatory on Arjuna’s part to fight against
injustice according to the prevailing Kṣatriya
code of conduct. Bowing down before
the aggressor with the desire of maintaining peace does not always work.
Chamberlain tried his best to avoid war and went on compromising with Hitler,
but it further inflamed Hitler’s greed leading to disastrous result.
Arjuna should not back
off just because the people who are challenging him are his relatives. Fighting
to establish justice may even spiral into greater violence. Interpreting Gitā’s
message Gandhi says,
“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” (Gandhi 2010:25)
Gandhi interprets
Arjuna’s confusion as,
“….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” (ibid:21)
Further justifying Kṛṣṇa
urging Arjuan to fight, Gandhi says Arjuna should be prepared to kill both Droṇa
and Bhīṣhma, for they have joined wrong side. Going one step further he says,
“Should
it become necessary to cut off, with a sword , one’s father’s head, one must do
so if one is a Kṣatriya and has a
sword, and if one would cut off anyone else’s head in a similar circumstances”
(ibid)
So if Arjuna finds
somebody else deserved to be killed for some particular transgression, but he
does not want to kill his own kinsman for the same then that is an ignorant
attachment. According to Gandhi, Gitā wanted to free Arjuna from this ignorance
that some people are his relatives and some are not. Arjuna was an ideal for
many, if he gave in to his emotional impulse and withdraws from the war, it
might led to the acceptance of such behavior in future, when the warrior will
not raise arms against their kith and kin, even if they knew that what they are
doing is not right.
The Bhagavad Gitā describes
the nature and duties of Kṣtriyas,
“Valour,
spiritedness, constancy, resourcefulness, not fleeing from battle, generosity
and the capacity to rule are the natural duties of a Kṣtriya” (18:43)
In ‘the Book of the Effort’(fifth book of the epic) when
Kṛṣṇa’s peace mission fails, Kuntī sends a very stern message to her sons
through him. For Yudhiṣṭhira, the eldest of her son who was more inclined
towards contemplation she says,
“You
have mere rote learning of the Veda without understanding …..the baron was
created from his chest, to live by the strength of his arms, to act always
mercilessly for the protection of his subjects”[6]
(Buitenen1978:429)
Reminding him of the
duties of the king she says,
“A
king infected by cowardice, who does not act ruthlessly, does not win the
reward that result from the protection of his subjects” (ibid:430)
Echoing the traditional
expectations about the qualities that the Kṣtriyas
should possess she says,
“Neither
Pāṇḍu nor I nor grandfather have ever prayed that you be blessed with the
wisdom you live by; the blessings I asked were sacrifice, generosity,
austerity, heroism, offspring, greatness of spirit, and the enjoyment of
strength forever.” (ibid)
The conflict of the two
different attitudes towards life, one that is in favor of renunciation and the
other that is inclined towards action seems to have found place in the epic.
The epic however seems to be more inclined towards the way of action, though
not denying the space to renunciation altogether. It seems to be celebrating
the Kṣatriya way of life. Kuntī appears
to be mocking Yudhiṣṭhira for his inclination towards philosophical musing and
mild demur. Yudhiṣṭhira is also scolded by Bhīma during the Āraṇyakaparvan (the Book of forest, the
third book of the epic) for behaving that does not suit the Kṣtriya.
“Pray,
great king, look to the baronial Law! It is not, great king, the baron’s law to
sit in the forest! Kingship alone, as the wise know, is the baron’s supreme
law” (Buitenen 1975;317)
Later on during the
war, Karna mockingly equates him with the ‘Brahmin’, indicating that the
Brahmincal behavior of philosophical discourse is not suitable on the
battlefield.
“You
possess the strength of the Brahman and are devoted to studying and the task of
performing sacrifices” (Debroy, 2013,Volume 7:161)
In fact among the Pāṇḍavās it was Yudhiṣṭhira,
who seems to be indecisive and more in need of motivation to fight. But why the
Bhagavad Gitā was narrated to Arjuna and not to Yudhiṣṭhira? Probably, the epic is trying to give the
message that the resolute warrior like Arjuna may also face moral dilemma and
confusion about the duty! It was not the first time that Arjuna was fighting
against his own kith and kin. He had already done this earlier. ((Buitenen1978:63-119)
Kuntī also narrates a
story of queen Vidurā and her son Saṃjaya to Kṛṣṇa to be communicated to Yudhiṣṭhira
(Buitenen1978:431-438). In the story the spirited queen prods her defeated son
to fight and recover his kingdom. It seems like a prelude to the Bhagavad Gitā.
The queen scolds her dejected son in a very harsh tone and tells him to be
ambitious and enterprising. The Kṣtriyas
should fight, earn riches. The Brahminical attitude of upholding the ‘Cāturvarṇa’ (The four Varṇas)
is reflected in Vidurā’s following utterance,
“…..rather
break in the middle than bend! Proud of heart, you should go about like a
rutting elephant, bowing before Brahmins and always to the law, Saṃjaya.
Subduing the other classes and striking down all evildoers, a baron should be
the same as long as he lives” (Buitenen1978: 435)
In
the story the mother tells her son that if you do not fight at the right time,
“you
will commit an act of extreme cruelty” (ibid)
Praising enterprise,
the queen says that not trying has only one consequence i.e. nothing, but
trying can bring result or not. (ibid: 436)
Emphasizing the need of
a leader to be fearless she says,
“The
king should never be afraid in an emergency; and even if he is frightened, he
should not act like a frightened man. For if people see their king frightened,
they all become frightened themselves” (ibid: 437)
At the end of the story
the son gathers his strength and conquers his enemy. Kuntī also says that this
story should be repeated by ministers to their kings and if a pregnant woman
hears this she will give birth to a hero, who will be,
“.a
champion in learning, austerity, self-control, an ascetic, blazing with the
luster of Brahman, honoured with applause, fiery, strong, lordly, a great
warrior, daring, unassailable, an invincible conqueror. A chastiser of the
wicked and protector of the law-abiding that baroness shall bear, a hero whose
valor is truth” (ibid:438)
The above utterance of Kuntī
gives a list of the qualities that is expected of Kṣtriyas. Here learning, austerity and self-control is not ruled
out but a Kṣatriya should not flinch
from the righteous war. Arjuna is described as a warrior who had self control.
He could withdraw the divine weapon released by him but not Aśvatthāman. (Debroy
2013,Vol. 8:55)
Kṛṣṇa reminds Arjuna
that the duty that has come to his share due to his station in life should be
done without attachment and without thinking about the consequences,
“But
even these works ought to be performed, giving up attachment and desire for
fruits. ……the renunciation of any duty that ought to be done is not right.”
(18:6,7)
Kṛṣṇa says that a wise
man does the duty that he has to perform without any attachment. When the duty
demands something is to be done, one should not think about what is pleasant or
unpleasant. (18:10)
Killing of kith and kin
and preceptor is justified by Bhīṣhma in Śāntiparvan as,
“…..as
giving, studying, and asceticism are law for Brahmins, the striking down of
bodies in battle is law for kṣatriyas. It truly was lawful and Meritorious
Action that he kill fathers, grandfathers, sons, teachers, affinal and blood
relatives who proceeded against him wrongly in the war. The kṣatriya who kills
even his teachers in war, when they are greedy and wicked…….he, Keśava, knows
what is lawful. The kṣatriya who is called to battle must always fight”
(Fitzgerald 2004:290)
Vivekananda interprets
Arjuna’s weakness as,
“…..many
a time comes when we want to interpret our weakness and cowardice as
forgiveness and renunciation. There is no merit in the renunciation of a
beggar……..we know how often in our lives through laziness and cowardice. We
give up the battle and try to hypnotize our minds into the belief that we are
brave” (Vivekananda 2009:459)
Vivekananda says that
here also Arjuan was trying to fool Kṛṣṇa. Arjuna cannot strike his relatives,
but tries to justify himself by bringing higher moral ideas like how
non-resistance is better than resistance (ibid 460)
Making analysis of the
conflict in Arjuna’s mind, Vivekananda says,
“…there
is s conflict in Arjuna’s heart between his emotionalism and his duty. The
nearer we are to (beasts and) birds, the more we are in the hells of emotions.
We call it love. It is self-hypnotization. We are under the control of our
emotion like animals. A cow can sacrifice its life for its young. Every animal
can” (ibid)
Elaborating further he
says,
“….Arjuna
is under the control of his emotionalism. He is not what he should be—a great
self controlled, enlightened sage working through the eternal light of reason.
He has become like an animal, like a baby, just letting his heart carry away
his brain, making a fool of himself and trying to cover his weakness with the
flowering names of ‘love’ and so on. Kṛṣṇa sees through that. Arjuna talks like
a man of little learning and brings out many reasons, but at the same time he
talk the language of a fool” (ibid)
III.4
Philosophical argument about body and soul-
Kṛṣṇa says that as soul
is eternal, non-perishable, by killing his kith and kin Arjuna will be only killing
their physical bodies. Explaining the nature of soul, he says,
“nai ’naṁ chindanti śastrāṇi Nai
’naṁ dahati pāvakaḥ
Na cai ’naṁ
kledayanty āpo Na śoṣayati mārutaḥ”
(2:23)
(Weapon do not cleave
this self, fire does not burn him;
Waters do not make him
wet; nor does the wind make him dry.)
Arjuna is reminded that
the wise person should not mourn either for the living or for the dead (2:11). Death
is certain for the one who is born and birth is certain for the dead and so
Arjuna should not grieve for that which is inevitable. (2:27).
Slowly Kṛṣṇa tells
Arjuna the right way of doing work is to act without attachment and remain even
minded in success and failure. Trying to dispel Arjuna’s attachment to his kith
and kin which was preventing him from raising arms, Kṛṣṇa gives the message
that a balanced person should rise above this,
“He
who is equal-minded among friends, companions and foes, among those who are
neutral and impartial, among those who are hateful and related, among saints
and sinners, he excels” (6:9)
Kṛṣṇa prevails that it
is the same soul that dwells inside everyone.
“I
…….am the self seated in the hearts of all creatures.” (10:20)
By this logic the God
is there in the heart of Duryodhana as well, but it was necessary to kill him
for the greater good.
III.5
Grihasthāshramā is better than Sanysḥāshramā-
The Bhagavad Gitā also
seems to be taking a stand that Grihasthāshramā
(life of a householder) is better than the Sanyasāshramā.
(life of an ascetic)
“saṁnyāsaḥ
karmayogaś ca niḥśreyasakarāv ubhau
tayos tu karmasaṁnyāsāt
karmayogo viśiṣyate” (5:2)
(The renunciation of
works and their unselfish performance both lead to the soul’s salvation. But of
the two, the unselfish performance of works is better than their renunciation)
Though the ascetics have their role in the
society in terms of philosophical, spiritual contribution but the Sanysḥāshramā by itself is not
sustainable. It need to be supported by
the economically productive Grihasthāshramā.
The Bhagavad Gitā does not outright reject the Sanysḥā, but seem to be taking stand that what an ascetic can
achieve by renouncing the world, an householder can also achieve by performing
his duties in a detached manner. The spiritual accomplishment that an ascetic
can obtain can be obtained by a householder as well and in addition he can be
an economically contributory member of the society. A householder also does an
important work of producing progenies to succeed as next generation. By urging
Arjuna to fight the Bhagavad Gitā also seems to be justifying the necessity of Grihasthāshramā. The arguments that
Arjuna was putting forward to withdraw from the war may be suitable for an
ascetic but not a householder like Arjuna.
Kṛṣṇa also gives an
example of king Janaka, who had achieved perfection by detached work with the
view of the maintenance of the world.(3:20)
Janaka was the king of
Mithilā, who ruled by giving up his personal sense of being the worker. (Radhakrishnan
2004:139)
Ashwāghoshā also in his
‘Budhcharita’ gives an example of
king Janaka to show how liberation can be achieved by remaining householder.
(Dinkar2009:521).During the period that followed Buddha, huge number of young
people were becoming monks and it was harmful to the society. (ibid:161).Buddhism
looked at life as something evil and preached the philosophy of running away
from life and so that philosophy was opposed. (ibid:216)
One has to use the
discretion depending upon his situation in life. Had Arjuna lived the life of
an ascetic since beginning, his adherence to non-violence would have been
justified. Reminding him of Kṣtriya’s duty Kṛṣṇa urges Arjuna to fight in a detached manner as
his duty. He also says that each man wins perfection by complete absorption in
his duty,
“Better
one’s own duty, though uninviting, than another’s which may be more easily
performed; doing duty which accords with one’s nature, one incurs no sin”
(18:47)
Thus fighting is the
duty of Arjuna as a Kṣtriya. He
should not renounce the world like an ascetic. Everyone doing the duties
according to their Varna was also important to maintain social order. Bhagavad
Gitā brings sanctity to the ‘Cāturvarṇa’ as Kṛṣṇa (the supreme divine now) says,
“cāturvarṇyaṁ
mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇakarmavibhāgaśaḥ” (4:13)
(the fourfold order was
created by me according to the division of quality of work)
Indian religious texts
are very often used to bring sanctity to the cāturvarṇa system.
Kṛṣṇa reminds him of
his innate nature of Kṣatriya as he
says,
“If
obsessed by the sense of ‘I’, you thinkest, ‘I will not fight’, vain is thy
obsession; (thy) nature will compel thee” (18;59)
Arjuna since childhood
was brought up as Kṣatriya and that
has become his nature. What one repeatedly does becomes his nature. Even if he
now refrains from the war he might jump into it if he sees that his Pāṇḍavā
brothers and his sons are being killed by the Kauravas. Sitting quite even in
that situation would have been possible had he became ascetic much earlier and
remained detached from the world around him.
Fitzgerald believes
that Yudhiṣṭhira was designed as refutation of Emperor Aśoka. The brāhmaṇas were denied special privileges
due to Aśoka’s policy of equality and non-violence. They deliberately portrayed
Yudhiṣṭhira as the ideal king who upholds Cāturvarṇa,
fights wars and performs sacrifices. (Fitzgerald 2004:138)
III.6
Concept of Āpaddharma (Law at the
time of distress) and Inevitability of violence-
“Revenge
is not always better, but neither is forgiveness” (Buitenen1975: 276)
The epic elaborates on
the concept of ‘Āpaddharma’, i.e. Law
at the time of distress (Fitzgerald
2004:494-544) and on number of times
gives message that all the rules and regulations are made for the preservation
of life. Blind adherence to them may lead to undesirable consequences. There is
no stereotypical code of conduct that is suitable for everyone and in all the
situations.
“When
the supreme forms of dharma decay and
are transgressed by all the people, adharma
transforms into dharma and dharma goes into adharma” (Debroy,Volume 8,2013:542)
Non-violence can be
ethical in normal situation, but sometimes situation may demand killing for the
greater cause. Bhīṣhma tells Yudhiṣṭhira,
“….
tradition teaches that the fault in killing one who should not be killed is the
same as not killing one who should be killed” (Fitzgerald;2004;543)
Arjuna was in a similar situation. His
withdrawal would have led to greater Adharma.
But at the same time the Pāṇḍavās could not escape the consequences of their
transgressions that they have committed to win the war. They had to spend some
time in hell. (Ganguli, Swargarohanikaparva
2008:6)
Kṛṣṇa also takes a stand
that becoming totally non-violent is impossible. All the actions have evil in
it and there is nothing that is absolutely good or bad but at the same time one
cannot escape action,
“One should not give up the work
suited to one’s nature, O son of Kuntī (Arjuna), though it may be defective,
for all enterprises are clouded by defects as fire by smoke.” (18:48)
Renunciation of action altogether may led to
self annihilation, which the Gitā does not justify. Preservation of life is
very important. The epic narrates a story when Sage Viśhwamitra justifies
stealing of dog’s flesh to save his life during famine. (Fitzgerald 2004:541)
Dog’s flesh is forbidden food for the sage in normal circumstances. But
preserving one’s life is greater Dharma
and to follow that Dharma, the sage
breaks the rule. Following the same logic, non-violence can be a principle to
be followed in the normal circumstances, but there might be situations when not
killing someone may led to greater violence in future. Same logic is followed
by the state machinery when the criminals, whose existences are threat to society,
are given death sentences.
So long body and soul is together there
will be action and violence. Gandhi, the apostle
of non-violence also admits that some violence is inevitable. He says,
“…..ahimsa
is an ideal which it is impossible to realize to perfection. It may be possible
to realize it in thought, but not always in action” (Gandhi 2010:24)
Elaborating further on
the inevitability of violence Gandhi says,
“It
is impossible for the human body always to observe ahimsa…….violence is inescapable. In everyday life and
activities……..violence of one kind or another unavoidable” (ibid 24)
Tilak also says that
though Non-violence is the greatest Dharma,
if somebody comes to kill you or rape your wife of daughter or burn your house
or take away your property and there is no one to protect us, what shall we do?
Shall we neglect the apparent threat and still stick to the belief that being
Non-violent is the greatest moral law or if he is not listening we should
punish him to the best of our capabilities. (Tilak 2006:19). Allowing an
aggressor to have his way will be violence towards oneself.
The canvas of life cannot
be painted as black and white. Gandhi says,
“Nothing
in the world is wholly good or wholly evil. Where there is action, there is
always some evil” (Gandhi 2010:37).
The Book of the forest,
the third book of the epic, gives the colloquy of the Brahmin and the Hunter,
in this the hunter who sells meat for living also says that some violence is
inevitable,
“Men
who furrow with plowshares kill many creatures that lie in the ground…….fish
swallow fish……..creatures live off other creatures,…..the living are
cannibals……..who in this world does not hurt something alive”( Buitenen1975:624)
According to above logic, Arjuna cannot but act and
cause violence, so it is better to act with right awareness. According to
Mukherji, the hunter’s assertion of the impossibility of completely non-violent
life appears to be an answer to the early Buddhist and Jaina canonical emphasis
on Ahiṃsā.( Mukherji 2014:228)
III.7
Necessity for the Pāṇḍavās to win the war.
During the war as well
as during the narration of the epic, the Kauravas and the Pāṇḍavās both the
side engage in some unethical practices. Though the Pāṇḍavās won, Yudhiṣṭhira was
filled with the remorse for killing his own relatives and was inclined towards
renunciation. Even during the war he was quite uncomfortable while resorting to
unethical methods of annihilating Droṇa, his preceptor.(Debroy 2012:456) We do not find
similar remorse expressed by Duryodhana for his different acts like poisoning
of Bhīma (Buitenen1973: 265)attempt of burning
of the Pāṇḍavās (ibid.285-291)and humiliation of
Draupadī. (Buitenen1975:141) He is uncompromising and seems to be lacking the
capacity of objective introspection. Though there were transgressions from both
the side, capacity of repenting makes Yudhiṣṭhira, the leader of the Pāṇḍavās a
better human being and so it becomes important that he should be victorious.
Duryodhana refuses to budge in spite of the persuasion of many. The epic had
developed over centuries , may be from 400 B.C. to 400 A.D. (Buitenen1973; p.xxv) and the underlying desire of human mind of
seeing the victory of good over evil seems to have reflected in it. Had Arjuna abandoned the war, the whole
purpose of grand undertaking of human mind over centuries would have been
defeated. It would have led to the victory of Kauravas and the generations
would have lost the hope that goodness eventually wins. Weather goodness eventually wins in all the
cases is again debatable, but the epic reflects hopes, aspirations of the
people among whom it grew. Having an ideal (may be difficult to achieve) is
better as it keeps the hopes alive.
Another good quality of
the Pāṇḍavā’s side (apart from repenting) was their willingness to compromise
which stands out in contrast to the obstinate Duryodhana. The Pāṇḍavās
fulfilled their promise of staying in exile in forest for twelve years and one
year incognito. Yudhiṣṭhira refused to go to war in spite of the repeated
provocations from Draupadī and Bhīma (Buitenen1975:275-295) The Pāṇḍavās were
willing to be satisfied with five villages and settle in favor of peace. They
were willing to put behind the humiliation of Draupadī, poisoning of Bhīma and
attempt of burning them alive. 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 with his utterance that he
will not give a land equal to the point of needle to the Pāṇḍavās. Probably
epic gives the message that this uncompromising behavior led him to his doom.
Nobody is perfect, but if you are obstinate, uncompromising and lacks
compassion you are more inclined towards evil. Killing of Bhīṣhma and Droṇa
also has a message that taking a favor from the evil is fraught with dangers.
Hypothetically, Arjuna’s withdrawal from the war would have probably
led to the annihilation of the Pāṇḍavā army. There was no archer who could
stand against Bhīṣhma, Droṇa and Karna. After annihilating the Pāṇḍavā army,
what kind of treatment they will give to the Pāṇḍavā women? Duryodhana’s
attempt of burning the Pāṇḍavā and Kuntī alive , Draupadī’s humiliation and the
helplessness of Bhīṣhma and Droṇa, are indicative that to what extent the
situation can go. Intoxicated with pride and revenge he and his supporters
(mainly Karṇa and Duḥśāsana) did not fear that the Pāṇḍavās might take revenge
if they humiliate Draupadī in the assembly. Once that fear is removed (after
the killing of the Pāṇḍavās) there was a possibility of greater atrocities. In
contrast the Pāṇḍavās treated Dhṛtarāṣţra and Gandhari with respect. (Ganguli, Ashramvasparva 2008:1)
III.8
Facing the consequences of the past action-
Arjuna’s past Karma i.e. acquiring divine weapon (Buitenen;1975;299-305)
and supporting the war efforts had contributed to the situation when now both
the armies were standing face to face. Had Arjuna and other Pāṇḍavās adopted
the advice given by Saṃjaya (the messenger from Dhṛtarāṣţra) of becoming
mendicant (Buitenen;1978;222-224) probably the war situation would have not
risen.
Though the Pāṇḍavās
explored all the possibilities of peace, they were probably aware that war is
inevitable. That is the reason that Arjuna collected divine weapons and the Pāṇḍavās
maintained contact with the possible allies. This was a prudent policy and not
an approach of the simpleton indulging in the wishful thinking that everything
will eventually turn out to be better.
Now with all the
options of peace exhausted, the war preparation was done, huge army was
collected and now if the Arjuna backs off, the people who had gathered in
support of the Pāṇḍavās will loose their faith. Arjuna being one of the
important leaders from the Pāṇḍavās side needs to control his mood swing. If
the leader of the army is fickle minded, it is disastrous for the army.
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” (Gandhi 2010:6)
As journey had already
started long back, he should finish it this time and later decide if he wants
to refrain from further journeys altogether.
III.9
Inaction can become negative action-
The epic on number of
occasion gives a message that one cannot escape the consequences of his inaction
if he chooses to sit on the fences when injustice is perpetuated. 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. (Buitenen1975;147) The epic
seems to be blaming Bhīṣhma and Droṇa for not intervening decisively and
stopping the humiliation. Thus their inaction became their negative Karma. Similarly if Arjuna withdraws, he
cannot escape the consequences of his inaction of remaining ideal if the evil
minded Duryodhana wins the war.
The epic also seems to
be conveying the message that there is a limit to forgiveness. Draupadī while
trying to encourage Yudhiṣṭhira to fight against the Kauravas narrates a story
of king Prahlāda. About revenge and forgiveness the king says,
“Revenge
is not always better, but neither is forgiveness” (Buitenen1975:276)
The king further
elaborates the harmful results of always forgiving like people may snatch his
property, servants rebelling and somebody demanding his wife. Similarly if he
is always angry, that also finally leads to harmful effects like people may
drift away from him. (ibid)
III.10
The war, inevitable evil?
The narration of the
epic does have an undertone message about the futility of war. The Souptika Parva which comes at the end of
the war is full of gory details of killing of the victorious Pāṇḍavā army by Aśvatthāman
(Debroy, Volume 8,2013:3-64). The Strīparvan
(the book of the women) describes the lamentation of women whose husbands,
fathers, sons and brothers were killed in the war and also portrays the horrors
of the war. It describes that the hand (of Bhūriśravas,
one of the slain warrior ) that used
to remove his wife’s cloth and caress
her body during love making is now severed from his body and having put her husband’s arm
in her lap she is mourning pitiably. (Fitzgerald
2004;68) The description seems to have been a deliberate attempt of creating
dislike for war as it juxtapositions pleasure of love making and sorrow of
death. But immediately after this chapter, Kṛṣṇa tells Gandhari,
“A
Brahmin woman brings forth a baby destined for ascetic……..a vaiśya woman a
cowherd- but a kṣatriya woman like you brings forth a baby destined for
slaughter” (Fitzgerald 2004:72)
This seems to be reaffirming the necessity of war
and Varṇa system and significance of
pre-destination in human life.
The Bhagavad Gitā seems to be reaffirming that fighting
and dying is Dharma of the Kṣatriya.
“Happy
are the Kṣatriyas O Pārtha (Arjuna), for
whom such a war comes of its own accord as an open door to heaven.”(2:32)
Karṇa also compares the
great battle to sacred sacrifice and says that let the Kṣatriyas die with honour.
“May
these barons, old in learning and days, O bull among barons, not die a useless
death….Let the full circle of the baronage find their death by the sword”
(Buitenen1978: 447)
Aware of his
transgressions, he seems to be demanding honourable death. He tells Kṛṣṇa
“The
insults I heaped on the Pāṇḍavās, to please Duryodhana, those I regret. When
you see me cut down by the left-handed Archer, it will be Re-piling of the fire
of their sacrifice” (Buitenen1978: 447)
He seems to be
underlining the inevitability of war by refusing to change the side. He says
that neither joy nor fear, nor all of earth can make him traitor. Relying on
him Duryodhana prepared for the war and not fighting now will bring disgrace to
him and Arjuna. (Buitenen1978: 446)
According to Mukherji,
the Mahābhārata foregrounds the inevitability
of war in the affairs of state. There are situations which can be resolved only
through violent means and in Brāhmaṇic
traditions main aim of life is preservation of Dharma rather than practice of Ahiṃsā
(Mukherji 2014:220)
The Kṣatriyas code of honourable death in
the war is also reflected in Bhīṣhma’s words,
“It
is not right that a Kṣatriya should
die upon his bed, coughing up phlegm and bile, weeping pitifully…….A Kṣatriya
who has slaughtered enemies in battles ought to die surrounded by his
kinsmen, his body completely mangled by the sharp blades of weapon” (Fitzgerald
2004:415)
Though the Pāṇḍavās
were victorious, they achieved victory at what cost? All their children were
dead. Yudhiṣṭhira’s felt remorse after the war and was inclined towards
renunciation. Condemning the Kṣatrdharma,(Dharma
of
Kṣatriya) which compel us to kill he says,
“Damn
the Kṣatra way! Damn the power of the
mighty chest! Damn the unforgiving stubbornness that brought us to this
disaster!” (Fitzgerald 2004:180).
Aśvatthāman, before proceeding to kill the sleeping
Pāṇḍavā army at the end of the war laments the Kṣatrdharma.
“I
have been born in the brahmana linage that is greatly revered. However, because
of misfortune, I am engaged in the dharma of kshatriyas” (Debroy, Volume
8,2013:12)
IV.
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.”
(ibid)
The belief that we are
leading a life on the earth is a result of past sins had also found place in
the epic. Bhīṣhma’s life is personification of this. He was one of the eight
Vasus (the demigods) who stole the cow of the sage and were cursed to lead life
on the earth. The Vasu who actually stole it was punished with a longer life on
the earth was born as Bhīṣhma and the other Vasus who supported him escaped the
life on the earth very quickly.( Buitenen 1973:220-222 ). Thus the life in this
mortal world will continue with it’s violence, conflict and deception.
During the war both the
side suffered heavy losses. Was it worth to fight a war for the sake of
kingdom? While the war preparation was on, this possibility of losing the near
and dear one was not ruled out. Probably the epic gives a message that
preserving life is important but there could be situation when we have to
disregard the life and be ready to make a supreme sacrifice. Be ready to kill
or get killed! As the Bhagavad Gitā says,
“swadharme nidhanaṁ śreyaḥ” (3.35)
(Better is death in the
fulfillment of one’s own law)
The ideal is to escape,
but it is not possible to escape so long body and soul are together. We will
continue to breath and think. So it is better to do ‘Karma’ consciously and avoid violence to the extent possible. Probably
human being will continue to act, continue to feel remorse and continue to
search for justification of his action and existence.
Does the epic gives the
message that sometimes the situation may force us to act unethically as not
resorting to it may have disastrous consequences, but at the same time we cannot
escape the consequences of our action! The situation is quite paradoxical and
at a time skeptical as it seems to be suggesting that there is no way of
leading a pure life and what fate had written for us is bound to happen. Are we
just a pawn in the hands of destiny? Does human endeavor have any role in
shaping our life or everything is predetermined?
“The
lord abides in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, causing them to turn around
by his power as if they were mounted on a machine” (18:61)
Does
the divine play with mortals? Shakespeare also echoes the similar sentiments in
‘King Lear’
“As
flies to wanton boys are we to th’ gods; They kill us for their sport.”
(Shakespeare:173)
The Bhagavad Gitā and the Mahābhārata
seems to be taking stand that renunciation and non-violence are virtues, but if
they are practiced at the wrong time without evaluating the implications, it
may lead to disastrous consequences. Sanysḥā
i.e. asceticism should not to be a sudden, impulsive decision, neither it
should be taken because the world has disappointed you.
Does the epic gives a
message that if a war is thrust upon you and all the possibilities of the
peaceful settlements have proved failure, it is better to fight to the best of
your capabilities? But desire of avoiding war should remain at the back of
one’s mind and one should constantly do self analysis if he/she is responsible
for violence. Arjuna was filled with self doubt and Yudhiṣṭhira’s self censor
is obvious at many places in the epic.
The epic shows that
everything in life is relational, everything concerning man is discussed
relationally, and, in that in the pair of opposites. (Chaturvedi 2013:114)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
References-
1.
Buitenen J.A.B. van, ‘The Mahābhārata,
Volume 1’, The University of Chicago Press, 1973.
2. Buitenen
J.A.B. van, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 2’, The University of Chicago Press, 1975.
3. Buitenen
J.A.B. van, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 3’, The University of Chicago Press, 1978.
4. Chaturvedi
Badrinath, ‘The Mahābhārata, An inquiry in the human condition’, Orinet BlackSwan,
Hydrabad, 2013.
5. Debroy
Bibek, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 6’, Penguin, New Delhi, 2012.
6. Debroy
Bibek, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 7’, Penguin, New Delhi, 2013.
7. Debroy
Bibek, ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume 8’, Penguin, New Delhi, 2013.
8.
Dinkar Ramdharisingh, ‘Sanskritike Char Adhaya’, Lokbharati,
Allahabad,2009.
9.
Fitzgerald James L. ‘The Mahābhārata,
Volume 7’, The University of Chicago Press,
2004.
10.
Gandhi Mahatma, ‘The Bhagavad Gitā ’, Jaico Books, Mumbai, India, 2010.
11.
Ganguli K.M. ‘The Mahābhārata, Volume
IV’, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, 2008.
12. Mukherji
G., ‘Hiṃsā-Ahiṃsā in the Mahābhārata, The Lonely Position of Yudhiṣṭhira’ in Arindam Chakrabarti and
Sibaji Bandyopadhyay (eds.) ‘Mahābhārata
now, Narration, Aesthetics, Ethics’pp. 219-243,
Routledge, New Delhi, 2014.
13.
Radhakrishnan S, “The Bhagavadgita” HarperCollins, New Delhi,
2004.
14. Shakespeare
W., ‘The tragedy of king Lear’, Folger Shakespeare Library (Downloaded from http://www.folgerdigitaltexts.org)
15. Swami
Vivekananda, ‘the complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume I’, Advaita Ashrama,
Kolkata, 2009.
16.
Tilak Bal Gangadhar, ‘Sribhagavadgitarahsya’, Tilak Bandhu,
Pune, India, 2006.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
*The author acknowledges
the valuable inputs received from the lecture of Arindam Chakrabarti, Professor
of philosophy at University of Hawaii which he delivered at IIAS, Shimla, India
during September 2012.
[1]
The
verses of the Bhagavad Gitā are taken/referred form Radhakrishnan S, “The Bhagavadgitā” HarperCollins, New Delhi,
2004 in Chapter no: verse no. format.
[2] . Heaven, Earth and Hell.
[3] Varṇa-literally
color, later on became synonym with social stratification in Ancient India when
society began to be divided into four Varṇas
– Brahmins, Kṣtriya,
Vaiśya and Sūdra.
In the course of time different castes were evolved out of this and different
tribes who increasingly came under the Brahminical influence were accommodated
in the different Varṇas. Restrictions
were put on the matrimonial alliances across the castes.
[5]
‘Dharma’
is difficult to translate in English, though law is used as synonym. A detailed
discussion on the concept of ‘Dharma’
in the epic is given by James L. Fitzgerald in introduction to ‘The Mahābhārata, volume 7, book 12. The Book
of Peace, Part One’, The university of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2004.
[6] It
was believed that the Brahmins are created from the head of Purūshā, the primordial man, Kṣtriyas from arms, Vaīshās from the thighs and Sūdras
from the feet symbolizing the nature of work that these four Varṇas are supposed to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment