the bhagavad gita on war and peace

8/10/2019 The Bhagavad Gita on War and Peace

1/11

K

padhyaya

The Bhagavad

I

on war and

pe ce

With the world precariously poised between war and peace, the question is

often raised in India whether the

Bhagavad Gitd

advocates war or peace.

Posed in such a form, however, the question tends to create some misleading

impressions, namely that the

Gita

is primarily interested in teaching either

war or peace and that a teaching of war and of peace must be incompatible.

None of these suppositions tu rn out to be tru e in the light of what th e

Gitd

primarily stan ds for. T h e central message of th e

Gitii

is something more

fundamental, something having a universal range, in the total perspective of

which the question of war and peace is just one problem among many others.

Moreover, as envisaged by the

Gitii,

war is not incompatible with a life of

peace and righteousness.

I t should be made clear at the very outset that the peace spoken of here

as an alternative to war is not to be confused with that which is frequently

referred to in the

Gitd

as th e ultimate end of life.' T he re can be hardly any

doubt or controversy about the fact that peace

( &t i ) ,

in this sense, is al-

most universally recognized by the different religio-philosophical systems of

India to be the supreme end of life, with different means suggested to attain

it. So the problem posed here is not in relation to the supreme end but only

with reference to the means adopted to achieve it. In other words, the prob-

lem is whether the

Gitii

enjoins violent or nonviolent means.

There are, indeed, some factors which naturally give rise to the impression

that the primary teaching of the

Gitii

consists in prescribing either war or

peace, violent or nonviolent means. Evidently, the

G ~ t d

s taught on the war-

front at th e crucial time when A rju na , just before the commencement of the

war, is terribly upset with the problem whether to fight or not to fight. In the

course of the exhortation, he is explicitly and repeatedly told :

get up,

A rju na , with a resolve to fight, get ready for the battle, fight, Ar jun a,

remember me at all times and fight, fight dispassionately, etc. But, on

the other hand, virtues like nonviolence

(ahiuizsd)

non-anger

(akrodhah)

peace

(Sdnt ih)

forgiveness

( k s a w )

amity

(adrohah)

and compassion to

beings

(dayd bhfitesu)

are enumerated as essential possessions of a righteous

man (XVI.

2 , 3 ) .

Being free from enmity to all creatures (X I.

5 3 )

and doing

good to all beings

(V. 25 ;

X I I . 4) are considered the

sine qua non

of attain-

ing the highest goal. In view of these facts, some people, stressing one or the

other side, are led to think that the

Gita

stands primarily for either war or

peace.

Even some eminent scholars and admirers of the

Gitd

seem to be deluded

by this paradoxical situation and try to resolve the difficulty by suggesting

that war is not intended here to be taken literally but only allegorically. For

K . N. Ubadhyaya is Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Indian Institute of Technology,

Kanpur, India.

GitU 11

70, 71;

IV ; XVIII 6 2 ; Sdntim nirvdpaparamdm

VI. 1 5 ) .


2/11

example, Gandhi, the well-known champion of nonviolence and a noted ad-

mirer and devoted follower of the Gitti, comments as follows:

"I

felt that it

[ the

Gitd]

was not a historical work bu t that unde r the gu ise of physical war-

fare it described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind,

and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of

the internal duel more a l l ~ r i n g . " ~

S. Radhakrishnan, attempting a further amplification of the same view, ob-

serves: "The life of the soul is symbolised by the battlefield of Kuruksetra,

and the Kauravas are the enemies who impede the progress of the soul. Ar-

juna attempts to recapture the kingdom of man by resisting the temptations

and controlling the passion^."^ According to him "the chariot stands for the

psychophysical vehicle. The steeds are the senses, the reins their controls, but

the ch arioteer, the g uide is the spirit or real self, Htman. Kysna, th e charioteer,

is the Spirit in us."4

Such attempts at allegorical explanation may be quite ingenious, but they

are not convincing since it is almost impossible to provide similar explana-

tions for all the different warriors of the two parties mentioned by name, for

the elaborate paraphernalia of war referred to in a realistic manner, and for

the en tire sequence of ev ents described in the course of the n arrative . I n fact,

if the allegorical or metaphorical interpretation is accepted, the

Gita

will lose

all its relevance to the context of the

Mahiibhiirata

in which it is fitted, and

which it itself presupposes and relates throughout the text.

Another effort to extricate the Gitd from the aforesaid difficulty is made

by Nataraja Guru who, though accepting the fact of actual war, makes the

plea that the background of war should not be taken to impair "the wisdom

teaching" of the

Grtn.

H e urges "that in the study of the

Grtcz

the blemish of

the canvas should not be attributed to the picture in the mind of t he painter.

T h e canvas here was the historical setting of the Mahfibhnrata as described

in the epic poem, and the painting was the wisdom teaching that VyHsa

wanted to transmit to future generat ions through this m e di um ." T h is ob-

servation of N ata raj a G uru am ounts to saying tha t VyBsa, the a utho r of

"wisdom teaching" (th e

Grtd

is perhaps regarded by him mainly as a gospel

of knowledge and renunciation to be practiced adequately by saints and yo-

gins) has not displayed his wisdom in selecting the appropriate background

for this teaching. W e are, however, inclined to think tha t its autho r was really

anxious to bring out as prominently as possible his commendation for the

relentless discharge of one's duty

svadharma) at all costs and in all situa-

M.

K.

Gandhi,

Gitd: Th e Mother ,

ed. Ja g Parvesh Chander (4th ed. Lah ore: Indian

Publishing Works,

1946-47)) p. 14.

Indian Philosophy

(London: George Allen Unw in Ltd., 1958),

I, 520.

he

Bhagavadgitd

(Lon don: George Allen Unw in

Ltd.,

1960),

p.

85.

6 The Bhagavadgita

(Bombay: Asia Publishing House,

1960),

p.

ix.


3/11

tions, and that the background for this teaching was well-chosen, since by

weaving it with the cen tral them e of the Epic-the w ar itself-the au tho r

secures for it the desired prominence. W e are, therefore, inclined to tre at th e

descrip tion of w ar in the Grta in its literal and no t allegorical sense.

Should we then say that the Grta preaches war and violence without com-

punction and shows no respect or regard for life? Scholars such as Professor

Karl H. Potter and Professor

K.

N. Jayatilleke, who take the Gita teaching

of war in its literal sense, seem to support this position. In an open disregard

to the explicit statements of Arjuna, uttered with utmost pity or compassion

(kypayd paraya'vi;to;

I. 28;

11.

I) ,

that he would not incur the sin of killing

even for the sake of t he kingdom of th e three worlds

I.

35-36,45), would

prefer begging to killing (11. 5), would not inflict injury with his arrows on

worthy people (II.4), and would prefer to be killed rather than to live to

enjoy the pleasures tainted with blood (I . 35 ), Professor Po tter notices a

"singular lack of pityw6on the part of A rju na and observes that

he (Arjuna) worries about everything else but the pain he may inflict upon

those he wounds or kills. It is therefore not appropriate for Krishna to give

him an extended answer intended to alleviate worries about the pain he might

produce. For other people, it is extremely important to do so; it is the pain

one causes others that most worries a Christian, or indeed a Buddhist or a

Jain, when he considers what to do in Arjuna's case.7

Thus, according to him there is "the feeling that this is a callous philosophy."*

Professor Jayatil leke also thinks that the G w ~ ,n contradistinction to Bud-

dhism, exhorts "to fight at any cost in a war in which the state is engaged."O

Such an interpretation of the Gita prescribing reckless war in an unreserved

manner seems to be another extreme view held by scholars. The true sig-

nificance of the Gitd teaching, however, as I understand it, is something

deeper, and the problem deserves a more careful consideration.

T h e despondency of A rju na is looked upon by

K n n a no t mere ly as the

accidental passing mood of a disheartened man, but as a deep-rooted and

widespread belief of people, symptomatic of the age , that t he t ru e goal of life

can be realized only by shaking off the burden of active worldly life. This

doctrine of renunciation (nivytti) was so dominant in India that renouncing

worldly life was considered the very first step to pursue a higher life. The

Gltd takes up the challenge of the age and puts forward a predominantly ac-

tivistic philosophy while preserving a t the same time th e essence of renuncia-

tion. Thus, it attempts to solve the very fundamental issue of the norm of

~Presugposifionsof India's Philosophies

(Englewood Cliffs,

N.J.

Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

1963),

p.

20.

Ibid., pp. 20-21.

8

Ibid.,

p. 21.

"Some Aspects of Gita and Buddhist Ethics,"

University

of

Ceylon

Review

XIII,

nos. 2

3

(1955), 146.


4/11

human conduct and offers a general guiding principle which is equally appli-

cable to all particu lar p roblems of life, includ ing the one of w ar and peace

with which Arjuna was confronted.

T h e keynote of this principle is activism (pravy tti)1 which seeks to incor-

porate in itself the essence of renunciation (nivytti). Thus, renunciation is

no longer a renunciation of action but a renunciation in action, as Professor

Hiriya nna calls it.ll It is this renunciation in action, o r disinterested dis-

charge of one's duty, which is reinforced by the Gfta from its different stand-

points of knowledge ( j s ~ n a ) , evotion (bhakti) and action (karm a) regard-

less of the fruit, and which is said to lead ultimately t o the highest goal.

From the standpoint of knowledge, Arjuna is reminded of the imperish-

able and immortal nature of the Self and is exhorted to remain firm and un-

perturbed in the discharge of his du ty (11. 13-3 0). T h e knower of the t ru th

is said to rise above the vicissitudes of life and is no longer to be moved by

the rise or fall (birth or death) of perishable things, no longer to be swayed

by emotional weaknesses, desires, and passions. Thus, by pointing out the

inevitability of the destruction of the physical body, on the one hand, and

the impossibility of the des truction of th e etern al self, on the o ther, A rj un a

is asked to perform his duties with equanim ity (s am atva) or detachment

(sa hn yd sa) . It is said: The wise man, Arju na, who remains equal in

pain and pleasure (samaduhkhasukham) and who is not troubled by these

(pairs of opp osites), he, indeed, is fit for attaining immo rtality (11. 1 5 ).

By means of devotion also the same teaching is imparted. Devotion con-

sists not in escaping from worldly duties but in dedicating all activities to

God. It does not requ ire abandonmen t of w ork but only the abandonment

of selfish desires. T h is is the cr ux of the teach ing of complete surre nder to

God. Accordingly, A rju na is tol d: Dedicating all actions to M e by your

spiritualised mind and being free from desire and egotism, fight without the

fever (of emo tion) (111 .30). W ith your mind and intellect given to Me,

you will undoubtedly come to Me (V II I. 7) . Work is worship, the best

homage to God. Man attains perfection by worshipping H im throu gh his

own duty (X V III . 46 . Thus, the true import of devotion is taught as fol-

lows

:

Doing continually all actions whatsoever, resigning unto Me, one

reaches by My grace the eternal and imperishable goal (X V II I. 56).

T he same is reiterated through the teaching of karmayoga. Yoga in this

context is defined

as

equanimity (sa ma tva m ; 11 .4 8) o r skillfulness in ac-

tion (ka rm m u kaus'alam; 50 ). Action performed in the state of absolute

equanimity or with u tter detachment to the fruit is considered skillful,

since in so doing a man goes unsullied even while engaged in action. Action,

thus, is veritably converted into inaction. It is clearly sta ted : Hav ing aban-

10

Cf

Pravyttilak,capaJ caiva dharmo ndrdyapdtmakah. Mahdbhdrata Sdn ti,

347 ,

80-81.

Outl ines of Indian Ph ilosojh y (Lon don: George Allen Unw in Ltd., 1958),

p.

121.


5/11

doned attachment to the fruit of action, ever content and free from depen-

dence, one, even though engaged in action, does nothing at all I V . 2 0 ) .

He is not contaminated even though he works (V. 7 ) . So the famous teaching

of karmayoga ru ns as follows: Action alone is thy concern and never its

fruits 1 1. 4 7 ) , and it is added Man a ttains to the highest by performing

action without attachment 111. 19).

T hus the precept of distinterested performance of one's own duty sva-

dharma) is offered by the Gzta as the central guiding principle which is woven

in the very fibers of a ll the paths advocated by it. F ro m this general principle

it automatically follows that the royal prince, Arjuna, should stick unflinch-

ingly to his pious duty of fighting against t he evildoers.

The re is, however, one very important point regard ing this precept of duty

for duty's sake which must not be lost sight of, namely that the d uty to be

perform ed m ust be in keeping wi th the codes of mora lity as embodied in the

scripture. A man cannot take recourse to a profession which is mean and for-

bidden and vindicate it by saying that it is his duty. The Gata clearly says:

Therefore let the scripture be your authority for determining what should

be done and what should not be done X V I . 2 4 ) . It is also adde d: He

who discards the scrip tural law and acts according to the promptings of his

desire does not attain either perfection, or happiness or the supreme goal

X V I . 23) .

From these considerations it is clear that the war is prescribed by the Gita

for A rj un a only because it happens to be one of the sacred duties of a k ~ a t r i y a

in a special circumstance.12 I n keeping wi th its ideal of duty for duty's sake,

the

Grtd quite naturally upholds the view that a warrior following his royal

duty rdjadharma) and a contemplative sage following the du ty of a recluse

yat idharmu) reach the same goal nihireyasakariiv ubhau; 2 ) . Th e same

is explicitly declared by the Mahdbhnrata thou best of men, there a re only

these tw o who pierce the constellation of the sun [rea ch the sphere of

Brah man ] the one is the recluse who is endowed with yoga and the other is

the warrior who falls fighting in the battle field. 13 Thus anyone, whether he

be a recluse or a w arrio r, if he falls from his enjoined sacred duty, would

incur sin 11. 33 ) . One must, the refore, unflinchingly stick to one's righteously

enjoined duty and one should be ready t o sacrifice even one's life in its fulfill-

ment 111. 35 ) . This is the central teaching of the Gttd.

Moreover, in connection with the duty of fighting, it is important to note

that 1) the war which Arjuna is exhorted to plunge into is not a reckless

aggression but a righteous war dha rmy a yuddha, 11.31

;

dharmya sangrdma,

laof

the various duties

o

a

k ~ a t r i y a ,

as enumerated by the

Gitd (XVIII. 43),

one is

"not to run away from the battle" (yuddh e cd'py apald yanam ).

1s

dv dv imau purufavy dghra siiryama pdala bhedinau, parivraf yogayuktaS ca rav e cd

bhimukho hatab. Mahdbhdrata, Udyoga 32. 65.


6/11

64

padbyaya

11.33) aimed at fighting against evildoers (dtatdyinah I. 36)

(2)

that it is

to be fought not with the fury of anger and passion or with the feeling of

vengeance, hatred, or greed, but with a pur e sense of duty an d with utter

detachment, and (3) that war is to be looked upon more as an exception

than the rule.

On e cannot correctly understand and appreciate the position of the Gitd in

relation to war unless one has a due awareness of the concept of righteous

war, since it is only the righteous war (dha rmy a yuddha or dharmy a san-

grdm a) and not just any war th at is sanctioned by the Gitd.14 I n fact, righ-

teousness (d ha rm a) is the focal point of the Gita, even of th e Mahiibharata

itself, of which the Gitd is only a pa rt. All worldly ac tivities a re to be per-

formed in keeping with this righteousness. I n one of its concluding verses

the Mahiibharata fervently appeals to one to follow the righteous mode of

living in these wo rds : W ith uplifted hand I proclaim and no one pays heed

to me. Eve n wealth and enjoym ent are to be procured by means of righteous-

ness. Why not uphold that righteousness. 15 The Gitn itself begins by men-

tioning the battlefield a s d ha rm ak ~e tra (th e field of righteousness). T he

despondency of A rj una is clearly on moral grounds. H e is not afraid of any-

thing but m oral sins. H e is ready to sacrifice even his life (I . 32 ,3 5, 46 ) but

not to comm it moral sins. Repeatedly he exclaim s: Alas, what a great sin

(ma hat piipaun) are we resolved to commit (1 .4 5 ) why should we not

have the wisdom to tur n away from this sin (papiit) ( I. 39) Only sin

(papaun eva) shall we incur by killing these evildoers (I . 36 ). Th us, express-

ing his concern for the mora l sin, he entreating ly says to Kysr;la: Being be-

wildered about righteousness (dharnzasapmiidha-cet*), I ask Thee. Tell

me for certain wherein lies the good (S reyah ). Kysga natura lly instructs

him about his righteous duty and points out how he will be saved from sins

and attain the supreme good (Sreyah param avdpsyatha; 111.11). He clearly

say s: He who works having given up attachment is not touched by sin JJ

(lipyate na sa pa pe na ; V. 10 ) You shall not thus incur sin (nai'vam

papam avapsyasi; 11.38) you shall cross over all sins by the boat of wis-

dom alone (I V .

36 .

B ut on the other hand, if you do not fight this righ-

teous war (dharmyam sangrdmam), then having fallen from your duty and

glory, you shall incur sin (pdpaun avc?psyasi) (1 1. 33 ). It is explicitly de-

clared that when there is a decline of righteou sness the supreme divinity

reincarnates himself to establish righteousness (IV. 8 .

But what type of war is to be called a righteous war? Samkara, in his com-

14 While reminding Arjuna of his

svadharma, yvna

refers only to the righteous war:

dharmydd dhi yuddhdc chreyo' nyat kqotriyasya na vidyate

11. 31.

31) atha cet tvam

im am dha rmya m s alig rdm av na karigjlan '

11.

33) .

16nrdhvabdhur v iraumy egah nu ca ka ic icchy~ot imd m, dharmdd art hai ca kdmaS ca sa

dharmah kim na sevyate .


7/11

mentary on the Gitd, sheds but little light and passes on with the remark that

it is a war fought in defense of people (prajdrak;a?zdrtham).16 Rlmlnuja

takes it in the sense of a war w hich is in keeping with justice (nydyatah

pravyttd t yu d d k t ) .I7 Though the Grtd does not elaborate this concept of righ-

teous war, it does contain a clue whereby its view may be ascertained with

reasonable plausibility. W e have stated that A rju na was despondent ou t of his

sheer regard for righteousness, and he takes the stand that the killing even

of evildoers (dtatdyinah) is sinful. Kysna dissuades him from this thought

and rem inds him of the righteous du ty of a k satriya to fight against such

offenders. The word 'dtatdyiyi' is a significant one. It is said: "One who sets

fire, gives poison, attacks with weapon in hand, plunders the property, dis-

possesses of the ter rit or y as well as of women-these six ar e evil-doers

(dtatdyinah)" (VaSi;thasmyti

111.

16 ). W ith regard to such a heinous crimi-

nal, the Manusm yti say s: "Whe ther he be a teacher, an infant, an old man or

a much learned brahmin, if he comes as a criminal (dta tdy i), one should kill

him without any consideration. T he re is no sin in killing a criminal (dtatdy i) . 18

H e is said to be killed by his own ou trageou s conduct. Now , in the light of the

story of the M a h b h r a t a (which the Gitd presupposes), it is not difficult to

see that the Kauravas, against whom Arjuna is asked to fight, had committed

not one but all the six heinous crimes.lg Th ey had furthe r thw arted all attem pts

made by Kysna for a peaceful settlement of th e dispute by refusing t o accept

th e request of giving even five villages, the b are minimum for the five Pgndavas.

They have, therefore, rightly been called criminals (dtatdyinah) by the Gita.

But even then Arjuna feels that he would be committing sin by killing these

criminals. I t is against this att itude of A rjun a that K y s ~ a mparts the teach-

ing of righteous wa r and explicitly proclaims: "Th ere is no good higher than

rig hte ois wa r for a Ksatriya" (11 .31 ). T h e attitude of the Grtd in this respect

is amply illustrated from the ideal set by Klsna (the incarnate God) Himself

who is said to "assume birt h for the protection of the righteou s ones, the de-

struction of the evil-doers and the establishment of righteousness" ( I V . 8 .

I t is in the light of this very ideal tha t wa r is considered con ~pa tiblewith the

life of righ teousness, vi rtu e, o r peace.

T h e second imp ortan t consideration of th e Gitd in relation to this duty of

fighting is that, like all other duties,

it

also has to be performed with a de-

tached and dispassionate mind. It is only on this condition that Arjuna is said

to remain uncontaminated by th e sin of killing, since in so perform ing an act,

16 Samkara on ita 11. 31.

17

RPm5nuja on itd

11. 31.

18 anusmlti VIII. 350-351.

19 W e are told by the epic narrative tha t the Kau rava s had set fire to the house of th e

PSndav as, given poison t o Bhima, deprived them of their property and kingdom , insulted

their wife in open royal court, and were ultimately planning to launch

an

armed attack

on them.


8/11

he would be veritably converting action into inaction. Thus Kysva says:

Treat alike pleasure and pain, gain and loss, victory and defeat and then

get ready for the battle. Th us you shall not incur sin (11.38). He who is

not self-conceited, whose mind is not attached, even though he slays these

worlds, he neither slays nor is he bound (X V II I. 17 . Thus, according to

the

Gita,

the fighter has to exhibit the most difficult feat of indulging in out-

ward fighting and remaining inwardly at peace at the same time. This is the

core of the teac hing of renunciation in action.

It may not, however, be quite possible for a beginner to reach this ideal of

absolute detachment. Should he, then, not stick to his righteous duty and try

to defend himself against heinous criminals? The Gita, in such a situation,

seems to moderate its strict standard and ad ds : Even a little of this dharma

[discipline of detachm ent] saves one from grea t fear (11 .40 ). Nevertheless,

one is enjoined to make constant efforts to attain the ideal of perfect detach-

ment (VI.

35,36 .

Lastly it may be noted that war or violence as sanctioned by the Grtd is

not a norm al code of conduct. A s indicated above, it is to be used only in

an exceptional situation when one has to deal with incorrigible criminals, and

where all peaceful means are found unavailing. Barring this exception, the

GTta stands for peace or nonviolence as much as does any o ther religio-philo-

sophical tex t of the world, and delivers the m essage of love and compassion

with perfect purity of purpose. Its teaching about war, thus, can neither be

ignored as an exercise in allegory nor looked upon as an exhortation for reck-

less war.

What is important to note here is that the Grta considers it morally right

to take recourse to arm s against inc orrigible crimina ls for th e sake of self-

defense and protection of the righteous people. One has, however, to see that

this measure is adopted as a last resort, and the fight is fought with a sense

of pious duty and utt er equanimity. Now , no one can deny that to protect

oneself and other innocent people is a noble end. It is also agreed that one

should try one's best to adopt all possible peaceful means to achieve this end.

But in case all possible peaceful means are found unavailing, and one is facing

disaster at the hands of incorrigible criminals, the question arises whether or

not in such an exceptional situation, one is morally justified in ta king recourse

to violence.

I t is not difficult to see that the absolute abandonment of violence in every

shape and form is an impracticability. T h e rem ark of th e Bhdgavat that the

life lives on life

j i v o

j5varya jT ~ an ar n *~s not without truth. Even the

avowed champions of nonviolence, like the Buddha in the ancient past and

2oSrimad

Bhagwafam,

Vol.

111

ed.

A.

C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Vrinda ban: The

League of Devotees, 1965 ,

I 13,

47; cf. Manr4~nrytiV. 28


9/11

Gandhi in recent times, have to acknowledge directly or indirectly the limita-

tions of nonviolence.

That absolute adherence to nonviolence and other virtues in a household

society--comprised of average people leading a norm al day-to-day life-is

nearly an impossibility is acknowledged by the Buddha. While exhorting

people to renounce worldly life, he is frequently found to remark:

A

holy

life in all its purity and perfection is not easy to practise while leading the life

of a h ~ u s e h o l d e r . ~ ~hould every householder then renounce the world and

be a recluse? Obviously it is not possible to convert the whole world into a

society of monks, for, as the

i ta

rightly points out, monks have to depend

for their subsistence on householders (111.8). Thus, the strict observance

of nonv iolence is not possible in the la rge r society of active householders. It

is interesting to note that the Buddha, after attaining his enlightenment, is

found to ponder the question, whether it is possible to reign w ith dhamma

without killing or causing to kill, without conquering or causing to conquer,

without grieving or causing to grieve. 22 O n being told by Mgra that it is

possible, and on being prom pted by him to take up the life of a king, the

Buddha rebukes him and declines to accept it.

Gandhi also had to approve violence in exceptional situations. It is well-

known that he advised the shooting of a miserably ailing cow. On another

occasion, when some people reported to him that they, owing to his instruc-

tion of nonviolence, did not retaliate against the ravaging soldiers who were

plundering their properties and misbehaving with their womenfolk, Gandhi

rebuked them for misunderstanding his teaching. In such situations he recom-

mends violence in preference to cowardice. H e clearly asserts : Better far

than cowardice is killing and being killed in battle. *

It is no doubt tru e that nonviolent means ar e ordinarily the most efficacious

in bringing about change of heart and effecting enduring peace. But the big

question rema ins : I s it possible to change the h eart of every individual, in-

cluding the most reckless and u nscrupulous crim inals? An d even if it is pos-

sible, is it also possible to effect this change before harm is done to innocent

people? Had all this been possible, we could then consistently argue that the

entire legal code of punishment is morally reprehensible. Nay, we could even

zlnuyidam sukaratp agdram ajjhdvasatd ekdntaparipunnam ekdntaparisuddha?p sari-

khalikhitam brahmacariyam cars tum. Digh a Nik dya ,

ed. T.

W

Rhys Davids and J.

E.

Carpenter, 3 vols. (London: Pali Text Society, 1890-1911), I 63; Majjhima Nikdya,

ed. V Trenkner and R Chalmers,

3

vols. (London: Pali Text Society,

1948-Sl),

I

179,

240, 267; 11 56.

22sakkd u kho rajjam kdretutp ahanam aghdtayam ajinam ajdpayam atocam asocdjayam

dhammend, ti? Satpyutta Nikdya,

ed.

L.

Fleer, 6 vols. (London: Pali Text Society,

1884-

1904), I 116.

s

M.

K.

Gandhi,

Grta: My Mother,

ed. Anand

T .

Hingorani (Bombay: Pearl Publica-

tions Private Ltd. 1965 , p. 66


10/11

have found fault with the justice of th e Alm ighty or wi th the law of karma,

which ordains that sinful men suffer for their sins. Thus, whether we con-

sider the problem in social, theological, or ethical terms it is clear that there

is ample justification for inflicting punishment on criminals, and there is a

limit beyond which nonviolence and forgiveness should not be practiced.

I t is precisely in the light of these considerations tha t the anc ient sc riptures

recomm end the avoidance of e xtrem es even in relation to th e observance of

cardinal virtues24 and refer to situations when exceptions have to be m ade.

W e have already noticed the exceptions made in relation to nonviolence.

Similar exceptional situations may be envisaged in relation to the observance

of o the r virtues like tru th , etc. Fo r example, when you have seen some inno -

cent people running away and hiding themselves in a thick forest in order

to escape plunderers and murderers following them, and you subsequently

are approached by the latter who inquire about those people, should you or

should you not tell them the truth? The Mahabharata first advises to avoid

telling a lie but pe rm its it if no oth er co urse is left to save the lives of inno-

cent people. Its advice is as follows: "Do not speak unless you are asked, and

even if asked unju stly, you should not speak. Th e wise man, though knowing

the truth , should (alterna tely) behave like a dumb o r ignorant man."2G Bu t

if there is no escape from speaking, the Mahabhdrata adds, one may tell a lie.

It says: "If you can escape without speaking, then you should not speak in

any way. But if speaking is necessary or your not speaking is likely to arouse

suspicion, then it has been considered better to tell a lie rather than to tell the

Thus, it has been shown that deviating from acknowledged virtues

like nonviolence, forgiveness, truth, etc., in exceptional situations is not mor-

ally unwarranted or unjustified.

An objection, however, may be raised that such exceptional provisions are

likely to be misused by common people. They may regard even an ordinary

situation t o be an exceptional one and try to justify the ir obvious acts of vio-

lence. To avoid such pitfalls, the GTta suggests certain measures which must

be clearly borne in mind. It points out that the pure discriminative intellect

(vyavasliyatmika buddhih) of men is uniformly of one nature 11.41) and

tha t those who have developed this st ate of intellect cannot fail to discern

whether a situation does or does not warrant a deviation from the acknowl-

edged virtue. The diversity of opinion is expressed and controversy raised in

24na tre ya h satatam tejo nu nityam ireya s? kqama, Tasm dn nityam kqamd tdta papdi-

fair apavdditd. T he M ahdbhdrata,

ed. Visnu

S .

Sukthankar and others, 19 vols (Poona :

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1933-1959),

Aranyaka Parva,

29.

6, 8.

25 nd pyq fah kasyacid brziydn nu cdnydyena pycchatah., jiidnavdn api medh avi ja dava llo-

kam dcaret. Zbid., Sdnti Parva

276.34.

2eakt ijanena cen mokqo ndtrg kt ijet kathamcana, Ava iya m k a j i t a v y a ~VC? san keran v d

fiyaktijandt; Sreyas tatrdnrtavp vaktum satydd iti vicdritav. Zbid., Sdnti Parva

110.

14, 15.


11/11

a

given situation only when ordinary people judge the issue with agitated or

passioned intellect vcisandtmikyd bu dd hih) which th e Gita charac terizes as

indiscriminative intellect avyavatayydtmikd buddhih) Such people, according

to the Gitii X V I .2 4 ) , are to be guided by the authority of the scriptures

which a re supposed to embody the ru les laid down by people of discriminative

intellect). It is only the people of discriminative intellect who are said to be

competent to assess a situation directly and decide th e righ t course of action

in a given situation. Lest everybody claim to be a m an of discriminative intel-

lect, the Gita lays down some important tests, such as the ability to remain

unmoved amidst pleasure a nd pain an d amidst othe r pairs of opposites, etc.

11.54-72), whereby it is easy to determine whether or not one is a man of

discriminative intellect. It is important to remember that Arjuna is asked to

qualify himself through these tests while he is being exhorted to get ready

for the battle 11.

38 .

All this clearly shows that the Gita, in sanctioning the righteous war, fought

with equanimity and in an exceptional situation, is guided by a careful con-

side ration of the problems of an ave rage society.

the bhagavad gita on war and peace

Documents