What is “Dharma”? – Concluding Part
The final part of “What is Dharma” by Harapriya. Today, can one fight a dharma yudh against adharma?
*** What is “Dharma”? – Concluding Part by K Harapriya ***
Can one fight a dharma yudh against adharma?
The Mahabharata gives a pretty clear answer —-yes, we can fight a dharmic war mostly although some acts of adharma will be committed.
This will seem like equivocation to most people because we tend to believe two prevailing myths:  one, that dharmic people should be held to much higher standards than the totally adharmic;  and two, that the forces of evil (adharma) are naturally weaker than the forces of the righteous (dharm).
Both of these are not true. Firstly, holding the dharmic to much higher standards than the adharmic, will weaken the righteous.
Secondly, the Mahabharata tells us that the adharmic are often as strong as or stronger than the dharmic.  This may be because they are not constrained by any moral code, and may in fact, be victors in most battles and wars. It is therefore necessary to evolve strategies to fight them, taking advantage of their weaknesses.
Several examples are given in the Mahabharata but the three most poignant ones are the killing of Bhisma, Drona and Karna.
Bhisma
In the Bhisma Parva of the Mahabharata,  the battles between the Pandavas and Kauravas are documented. According to Kisari Mohan Ganguli’s translation of the Mahabharata,  the war raged on for many days with Bhisma decimating many of the Pandava forces. Arjuna always has the moral reluctance to kill his Guru and uncle. He repeatedly brushes of Krishna’s exhortation to kill Bhisma. He says, “ How… shall I fight in battle with the grandsire who is my senior in years, who is possessed of wisdom and intelligence, who is the oldest member of our race?â€Â He even recounts how he used to climb onto Bhisma’s lap as a child and call him father to which Bhisma replied, “I am not thy father but thy father’s fatherâ€.
Arjuna is at many times (as evidenced in the Gita) ready to give up the kingdom if it would stop the fighting. Here, he is very similar to Yudhishtra.
It is Krishna who provides the moral compass and the correct perspective. He says “one should slay even an aged person endowed with every merit and worthy of reverence if he cometh as a foe, or indeed any other who approacheth for destroying oneselfâ€
Bhisma on the other hand, does not suffer from such doubts and conflicts. He puts every effort into killing as many of the Pandava army as possible. When Duryodhana repeatedly approaches him and questions him on his inability to kill the Pandavas, Bhisma is very offended because he knows that he has put all his effort into killing them. In fact, Arjuna goes from his half-hearted attacks to a full blown attack on Bhisma, using Shikandin only after realizing that the Kauravas have no moral angst in destroying him or his sons. It takes Arjuna ten days of battle to come to this realization.
Drona
Similarly, Drona too has no affection for the Pandavas when he approaches them as a foe. We can tell this from the episode of the killing of Abhimanyu. In that incident, both Drona and Karna lead the Kauravas against the sixteen year old warrior.  Abhimanyu was surrounded by eight warriors. When Abhimanyu loses his horses and is on the ground,  Dushasana’s son hits Abhimanyu on the head with a mace. None of these actions trouble Drona. As a guru of the Pandavas, and the son of the great Rishi , Bharadwaj, one would expect Drona to have a clear sense of dharma; yet associating with the immoral Duryodhana has perhaps changed Drona. We see time and again the overwhelming doubts the Pandavas have over their actions while none of the Kauravas have even the slightest troubling of the conscience. This includes Karna who actively participated in the killing of his own nephews Ghatotkacha and Abhimanyu.
Karna
One of the enduring stories about Karna, is the inherent nobility and grace of Karna.  Here was the true son on Kunti, the first born, the son of the resplendent Surya, the one unjustly disowned by his mother at birth, yet one who valorously gives his kavacha (armor) and kundala (earrings) to Indra who appears in the form of a mendicant. True, Karna is all these. In fact, he comes across as a more likable person than Arjuna, because he had to struggle so much in life to achieve anything. Yet, he is also one who stands by and watches Duryodhana cheat in a game, and has his brother’s wife dragged out by the hair. Karna is one of those who attack Abhimanyu when Abhimanyu has lost his chariot and weapons. He has no problem asking for Indra’s weapon when he gives him his armor and earrings and asks for Indra’s weapon to kill Indra’s son Arjuna. Karna’s hatred of Arjuna was so great that he hesitates to use Indra’s shakthi against Ghatotkacha until Duryodhana pleads with him, since Ghatotkacha is decimating the Kaurava army.
Krishna’s advice to Arjuna during the fight with Bhisma and Karna are often held up by modern critics as inciting violence. It is often said that the violence Krishna supports to remove the adharmic from power is in itself the very embodiment of adharma.
This understanding of the Mahabharata is fundamentally flawed. To claim that Krishna’s advice is immoral is to claim that a human has no moral authority or obligation to defend himself. In fact, even animals understand the moral imperative to defend themselves. It is useless to talk of ahimsa when confronted with the violent foe; likewise to claim that one should follow the strictest of rules when confronted with an enemy who is stronger and follows no rules is ultimately suicidal.
It is in this context that we have to understand Krishna’s advice. Bhisma, Drona and Karna are invincible. This is how Krishna views them. There is no way to kill them except through the use of strategy which exploits their weaknesses. Bhisma’s weakness was that he would not fight against Shikandin because Shikandin was born a woman. The fact that Shikandin in now a man fails to impress Bhisma. When Arjuna uses Shikandin as a shield, he does not do so through trickery. Bhisma knowingly refrains from fighting. This then is Bhisma’s choice.
Likewise, in the death of Drona, there is no other way to defeat him. Yes, Yudhishtra lies that Ashwattama is dead, knowing that Drona will think it is his son and not the elephant. That is indeed an act of adharma. Yet, Drona in fact commits a greater sin in refraining from fighting after he hears this. Has he not pledged his duty and loyalty to Duryodhana? Should he not have continued fighting, unhampered by emotions as a true warrior should? Unfortunately, Drona is further hampered by his own karma – his humiliation of King Drupada and his demanding guru dakshina from Ekalavya without even teaching him. Ultimately, his death is caused by his own actions, including his support of Duryodhana.
In the case of Karna, it is a combination of Karna’s own karma coming to haunt him. Karna acquires his skill partially by lying to Parasurama that he is not a Kshatriya. When Parasurama finds out, he curses Karna with a memory lapse at a crucial period. He is further hindered by the fact that he has given his divine armor and earrings which protected him. However, even these need not have affected him, if he had not supported Duryodhana.
In these three examples, there is the underlying message that ultimately, those who commit adharma and those who support the adharmic (even if they themselves do not commit any adharmic acts) are considered equally culpable .
Mahatma Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita
In our post-independent times, Gandhi has emerged as an alternative interpreter of the Gita. His focus on Ahimsa, where one never resorts to violence, no matter what the provocation, is considered a legitimate interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita. However, there is a fundamental flaw in such an interpretation. Ahimsa, as a concept when there is reference of it in the Mahabharata and other Indian texts, mostly refer to the non-killing of the vulnerable (children, women, unarmed men and animals).   There is no reference to ahimsa when one is confronting forces that seek to destroy one. In fact the Gita clearly states that is one’s moral duty (dharma) to protect oneself and one’s dependents. Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa is from Jainism and more in line with the Christian concepts of martyrdom, where one dies for the cause and is immediately elevated.
In Hinduism, one may fight a battle and die in it, but the death for one who refuses to fight on the battlefield holds no special greatness. Hindus do not embrace martyrdom. Martyrdom only exists in religions where heaven is promised only to those true believers and people who die for the religion. In Hinduism, swarga was attained not on the basis of belief but in performing duty. Thus, we see in the Mahabharata, Bhisma, Drona etc. all go to swarga since they did their duty as kshatriyas, even though they supported the adharmic.
In conclusion, the concept of dharma alone is pradhaana (prime importance) in our religion. Ithihaas, Purananas, and the Vedas help us determine what is dharma because we truly understand that if we uphold dharma, it will protect us.
Dharmo Rakshathi rakshithaha – he who protects dharma will be protected by dharma.
*** End***
Follow the links to Part 1 and Part 2.
Related Posts:
First, Shivaratri greetings.
K. Harapriya, nice to see this series, you have obviously done a lot of research.
However, I would like to disagree on the point regarding Gandhiji. Hinduism too has some concept of super-ahiMsA wherein a person doesn’t even bother to protect himself or herself. That is not exclusive to Christianity. Our purANas as well as writings of modern Hindu swamis contain several instances of sages not reacting when people torture them. And patan~jali yOga-sUtras say “ahiMsA-pratiShThAyAm tatsannidhau vaira-tyAgaH”, once a person is firmly established in ahiMsA, hatred is given up in his(/her) presence (by someone who would otherwise have hatred). To some extent, I think this applied to the Mahatma too.
But the point is, that ahiMsA was meant for people who had certain maturity. Even sermon on the mount was probably meant for the specific disciples to whom Christ addressed those words. The Mahatma perhaps felt that every Hindu should follow the Mahatma’s principle of ahiMsA to that level, and I think this was perhaps because he felt strongly that if he could progress so much spiritually then everyone else could (he says time and again that anyone could do all that he did). But this kind of assumption doesn’t gel with our Hindu understanding of different people being different as a result of having gone through different experiences in previous life times. But still, I don’t think we can accuse the Mahatma of making a totally non-Hindu interpretation.
An aside, as this is something I am passionate about. But Arjuna’s confusion was not due to scruples of ahiMsA. He was totally okay with fighting but was concerned about *his relatives* being killed. So Shankaracharya beautifully writes that due to the notion of “I” and “mine”, Arjuna was afflicted by sorrow and delusion, the twin doshas that give rise to(/sustain) saMsAra. And also the Lord does tell him towards the end that even if Arjuna decides not to fight, his own material nature would make him fight. Shankaracharya says in his commentary to verse 2.18 that “yuddhyasva” is not an injunction to fight, but merely in the sense of “you may fight”, and emphasizes that the aim of gItA is not to make a statement along those lines but to lift people out of saMsAra. I am afraid many Hindus go a bit overboard trying to justify the war.
Totally unrelated but since the conversion related threads are closed I don’t know where else to post this.
“Haitians are Satanic and Deserve Their Suffering” said Christian missionary Pat Robertson. Then came the child kidnapping revealations of Idaho missionaries. Now they are fully exposed with causing rift in Haiti population, thanks to injecting “My God is the only way to heaven, else you are condemned to Hell” poison.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/578/story/1309757.html
Christian missionaries are finally getting exposed in what they are doing in Haiti. The catastrophe has driven a wedge between Haiti’s religions as Christian groups make inroads among shaken Voodoo followers. “People see rice being distributed in front of churches and those homeless now needing papers are being offered baptism certificates that can act as identity documentsâ€
Hunting Souls through Fraud! Adharma!
Really great posts.
I especially like the last paragraphs as they clear on following Dharam
Brilliant posts.
So much to ponder over! These three posts will be referred to again and again by any one who wants to understand Dharma in its truest sense, not in the modern convoluted and perverted sense!
@froginthewell,
we must remember that such rules as “i am not bothered about anything” are applicable only to those who take up sanyasasramam right after brahmacharyam.
The reason is that if one takes up grihasthasramam after brahmacharyam, he is accepting complete responsibility of the family and thus, it becomes his duty to take care of self and family. This includes security from threats of all forms. If need be, one shouldnt hesitate in taking lethal action against the enemy of the family. Without this, there would be no family bond. Thus, according to me, Gandhiji might have brought about a completely different thought into the fore but has completely killed the idea of security in commmon hindu’s mind.
Today, how many hindus really take care of themselves so that they can protect their families? The whole system including yoga, ayurveda etc., was devised by our ancient rishis to make sure people build their physical and mental strengths to endure any difficulty. Today, not many of the avg. hindus would be able to fight an enemy when under attack.
Though a war is not justified, fighting against the wrong or adharmic, and self-defense are not unjust under any circumstances. IMHO, self (and family) defense is a must i.e., a duty and fighting against the adharmic is a choice one can take up according to other dependencies.
OT,
One cant expect a poor man to fight against an immoral ruler when he is unable to feed his family. It is his duty first to get himself and his family out of poverty, into a good and healthy life. Today, many Hindus are in this state. They are too poor to fight the attrocities of the state (ruler). It was evident and visible when Kashmiri pundits were under attack. Not many hindus stood up. Why? Not because they dont understand dharma but on the contrary, because they do.
Once most of them come out of poverty, the first thing that will come to their mind is fighting the atrocities of state. This is embedded and programmed into an avarage hindu mind, unless secular, yet christian, education successfully kills it or re-programs it. Dharma shall be established again.
@ Vivek.
While I am in overall agreement with what the author and you say, I would differ on certain minor points.
1. The duty to safeguard Dharma is not limited to the Grihastha. Even a Sanyasi would have to do it. To me they are parallel and not overriding (i.e. the ashram you are in doesn’t decide your reaction to an Adharmic act). But an individual would choose which of his Dharma to uphold. You cant expect a Grihastha to come in the street at the drop of an hat and protest for his dharma to feed his family takes precedence. But under extreme circumstances the overall interest (the interest of the society) would be more important. Individuals abandoning their livelihood to join the freedom struggle, the recent Jammu protest post the amarnath imbroglio. Contrast with the lack of protest from the ordinary germans / occupied french etc in case of the Jewish Holocaust. In this case the Individual does not rise above their personal dharma to the societal role. Another case,as you said, would be the absence of protest in case of kashmiri pundits.
2.My personal experience has been that it is the Middle class and above who fall into the trap of safeguarding what they have and hence “wink” at the lapses of the “immoral ruler” in your example. The poor are generally the first to react – may not be efficient or effective but certainly immediate.
rgds/sridhar
2.
In the first place, thanks to Harapriya for the series. I have a couple of points to add:
Bhagavad Gita is not a dharma-shaastra. If you read the famous colophon of each chapter of gItA, it says that it is an upanishad, a brahma-vidya (text imparting knowledge of absolute), and yoga-shaastra (the practice book by which one achieves the brahma-vidya. One cannot use it as a dharma-shaastra (the text that deals with rightful conduct in the world). In this sense, use of B.G is dangerous. But, thanks to the commentators, we can hope to understand the nuances.
All B.G commentators have separated out this aspect by talking about two-fold dharma as imparted in B.G. The basis for this delineation is the verse ‘lokesmin dvividha nishhTa’ of 3.3. Shankara calls the two dharmas imparted in the text as pravRitti dharma and nivRitti dharma. Even Madhva for that matter uses similar phrases in his introduction to his commentary (this is needed because he differs from Shankara very drastically in many places)!
Now, Is the B.G extolling violence or condemning violence? This is a queer question and the gItA itself says seemingly contradicting statements about violence. (a) In 2.37, Krishna says ‘hato vaa praapsyasi svargaM’ (If you die while performing duty, you will attain svarga), while He says as an injunctive way in 11.33: ‘jitvaa shatrUn bhunxva raajyaM saMriddhaM’ (destroy the foes before you bhishhma etc.) etc. (b) Compare this with a list of number of times Krishna says: ahiMsaa, sarva-bhUte-rataH etc.
The resolution to this is verse 18.17: ‘yasya naaha.nkR^ito bhaavo’ meaning: He who has not the feeling of egoism, whose intellect is not tainted, he does not kill, nor does he become bound-even by killing these creatures!. Reading the above verse carefully shows that the primary foe that Krishna wants Arjuna to conquer is not the external foes, but the internal one, called Ego. One who has conquered it can do anything. But even here, such a person cannot use this verse as an injunction for violence. Because, he would use the ahiMsa verses extolled everywhere in gItA instead. See for example: chapter 12 ending verses.
On Gandhi-ji using the gItA for ahiMsa, it should be noted that he saw it as a spiritual book and wanted all people to become spiritual. One who follows nivRtitti dharma. So, his interpretation of ahiMsa as the core value extolled in gItA is not wrong. It is just for an aspirant in the spiritual path. But establishing dharma is something that achieves well being of all people and is needed. If someone has to use violence — against Islamic invadors by Indian Kings, or by Jews against Nazis — then it has to be used. This is also justified by Arjuna using aatataayi in 1.36. One can read the dharma-shaaastras to find out that Duryodhana and his gang qualifies in all aspects the definition of an aatataayi. I wish to be politically incorrect and point out that Islamic Terrorists qualify in every aspect the definition of aatataayi-s.
Frog-ji: I agree with you, though I should point out that you used basic yama-niyama from Patanjali-Yoga, a practice book for people on spiritual path (yoga), which talks to a different aspirant than one who is wishing to establish dharma.
Sridhar Krishna: (i) A sannyaasi would have no injunction to protect dharma. It is true that even in ancient times, one of the fierce resistances was lead by sannyaasiis. Case in point: the naaga-saadhus, who were selected from xatriya clan to protect other saadhus from Islamic priests who killed Infidels after their namaaj (as a ritual!!!) But the point remains that the first aashrama (brahmacharya) is primarily for education purposes and fourth aashrama (sanyaasa) is primarily for moxa purposes. (ii) A sign of true decadance of an age is when gRihastaas are going for artha and kaama, rather than protection of dharma, when it is their responsibility to protect and serve the other aashramaas. Though is entirely laudable that sannyaasiis like Swami Dayananda of recent times (of Arsha Vidya, not the Arya Samaj founder) are in the forefront of revival of Hinduism. But it is not their primary job!!!
Ramakrishna
@ amar.
My perception of this discussion is that there are two levels at which we are discussing. One is the extreme circumstances like the Kurukshetra war. Here what would apply is Apadh Dharma. The need for Dharma Yudh etc arises only then.
Then there are normal circumstances. Does the sanyasin renounce everything?. Does his renunciation include Dharma? My understanding is he renounces worldly desires to protect and/or propagate Dharma. When I say protection of dharma I do not mean the killing of the Adharmic but following the rules of dharma – performing the rites enjoined upon a sanyasi. If in my earlier post I conveyed the impression that a sanyasi would be fighting a war the i would like to clear the impression. Exceptions to add to those mentioned earlier would be Samart Ramadas (Sivaji’s Guru), Vidyaranya (Guru Of Harihara and Bukka, the founders of Vijayanagar). But these would fall under Apadh Dharma.
In the overall context of this discussion i feel the following extract (from the Book “Hindu Dharma” – Chap 2 Part 22 would be relevant. The book is an english translation of lectures made over the years by the Kanchi Acharya. The Chapter is on Ahimsa.
“If a great dharma or principle is made common to all, in the end it is likely to lead to a situation in which no one will respect it in practice. In our religion – to repeat – the rule of absolute non-violence is meant only for sanyasins. Following their example, Brahmins, Vaishnavas in regions like Gujarat and Saivas in the South like Vellalas and Komutti Cettis practice ahimsa. Without being bound by any sastric injunction they have voluntarily adopted the principle and practised it from generation to generation. Influenced by the Sattva Guna of the ascetics these communities have become vegetarian on their own. And following their example and without being compelled to do so, other castes too abstain from meat on days like the new moon, on the day of the sraddha, and days sacred to various deities. When a principle is imposed only on a few, since it is difficult to make it universal, it becomes an ideal for others to whom it may not formally apply: they try to practice it as far as they can. Non-violence is a samanya dharma (a dharma common to all) in Hinduism. It is kept as an ideal though, on accasion, adherence to it is not practical.
In the vedic dharma the definition of ahimsa is the absence of ill-feeling in all action.”
These are the concluding lines of the chapter. But if an earlier paragraph is read here it would convey what the sage wants to convey.
“In a war, heroes of the army sacrifice themselves in the cause of their nation. Is it not better to lay down one’s life for the sake of others than fatten oneself doing nothing?
It is easy to claim oral allegiance to the principle of non-injury but difficult to practice the same. Quarrels and disputes are inevitable in the workaday world. In dealing with them action that is apparently violent may have to be taken. The intention or purpose is important here, not the action itself. Certain types of violence are justified according to the sastras and not considered sinful, because such violence is not committed for our personal delight but in pursuance of our duty towards society: the offering of an animal in sacrifice, sentencing a murderer to death, killing an enemy in war”
rgds/sridhar
Sridhar Krishna: Thanks for the comment quoting Kanchi Acharya’s book, which I have read (multiple times). I have nothing further to add, as the book is self contained and is the final authority.
To others, the book by Kanch Acharya (also called as Mahaswamigal) is wholly available online at the following link. Please spend time to read it. It can get difficult to read at times, but is perhaps the best complete book available on the net about Hinduism.
http://www.kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html
@Sridhar Krishna,
I agree that Sanyasis have as much responsibility toward state as a Grihastha, but philosophy on how Sanyasin leads his life allows him a choice to do this. For example, Kanchi Sankara, Swami Vivekananda etc., led the attack on elements trying to destroy Dharma but other sanyasis who were contemporaries to them, and some others like Chaintya Mahaprabhu, and in today’s context Mata Amritanandamayi, Satya Sai baba etc are mostly interested in understanding and propagating Bhakti, oneness etc than actually protecting Dharma and destroying Adharma. So they clearly have a choice to agitate against Adharma or meditate to destroy it. But Grihasta, has no such choice. He has to stand guard all the time. He has to protect his family. That is his Dharma.
I completely agree with you on the note that
“My understanding is he renounces worldly desires to protect and/or propagate Dharma. When I say protection of dharma I do not mean the killing of the Adharmic but following the rules of dharma – performing the rites enjoined upon a sanyasi. If in my earlier post I conveyed the impression that a sanyasi would be fighting a war the i would like to clear the impression. Exceptions to add to those mentioned earlier would be Samart Ramadas (Sivaji’s Guru), Vidyaranya (Guru Of Harihara and Bukka, the founders of Vijayanagar). But these would fall under Apadh Dharma.”
@ Harapriya
Many thanks for an excellent and erudite article on Dharma. It is easier to discuss a few minor points like the rest of us have done but it would take days of effort to write such a cogent article which is deep in meaning yet simple to understand.
rgds/sridhar
@ vivek.
Your explanation of the Grihastha’ swadharma of maintaining the family is simple but yet excellent.
rgds/sridhar
“Karmanye Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,
Ma Karma Phala Hetur Bhurmatey Sangostva Akarmani”
Meaning: “You have a right to perform your prescribed action,but you are not entitled to the fruits of your action.
Never consider yourself the cause of the results your activities,and never be associated to not doing your duty.”
This explains Dharma to a large extent. Individuals perform what they think is their Dharma (activities they are involved in – one can agree or disagree on the very nature of the activities. Also ones dharma can be interpretted as others adharma in this Kaliyuga) as for the results of the Dharma again is not in their hands (can be proved with maany examples from trivial to that relating to mythology).
Dharma is an individual’s understanding, analysing of an issue of situation they have encountered.
Mahabaratha is a classic example of where kith and kin fight over issues which are smeared with jealous, creed, power, undue desire and to what extent individuals go to fullfill ones own needs and desires.
On the backdrop of Kaurava- Pandavas Krishna defines what is and what needs to be the best course of action to addressed when Good needs to be confronted with Evil.
All the talk suggests to me that dharma is pregnant with religious and mystical significance. Swmami Vivikanada states this quite categorically. This hardly needs elaborating any further because it is the lesson on dharma in the Gita that Krishna gives Arjuna, which in essence is right conduct for someone who is a kshatriya.
The word dharma would hold none or little mystery for a student of linguistics and philosophy. Plato in his Socratic dialogues turns over quite a few words which could only be defined in a circular sort of way as is the case with the word dharma. The roots of the word comes from Sanskrit meaning to uphold. The different flavours that comes with different meanings attributed to it means that it ceases to have any one meaning. For example it is hard to equate the maintenance of the inequalities of caste rules with development of a system of law that has to promote the harmonious whole with principles of equality before the law. I can see the benefits of uplifting dharma in the new light of law based on reason and principles. Law is not concerned with the difficult choices faced by the actors of the Mahabharat. They made personal decisions. From the point of view of law, the Panadvas in declaring war against their king amounted to treason, but as the actors were not thinking in legal terms but dharmic terms, legal niceties can be excused. It should be quite clear that clothing with the superficial coating of dharma has the capacity to overturn the order of society leaving it even more vulnerable than ever. When kings replace each other in such decisive ways, the effectiveness of their methods should speak louder than by any application of sophistry.
Dear All: Thanks for sharing your thoughts…but above all, I am grateful to Harapriya for a great articulation of this difficult concept.
I will soon be collating the three parts in a single document and make it available for download.
@amar
You make an important point on the proper understanding of ahimsa. The Vedic understanding of the term as “the absence of ill feeling” more closely approximates to Krishna’s injunction not to be carried away by the fruits of one’s labour but to see it in the context of the overall good. If Krishna does not quite justify state power for the war, we are bound to conclude that ahimsa should not run counter to state sanctioned violence whether it is in the carrying out of capital punishment or wars however justified or not. The modern understanding of ahimsa as promoted by Gandhi (which was already an established fact) is also in tune with the Christian religion. The trouble for Hindus is that the Christian religion is a partnership with the state power as manifested by their king. Such kings have sought conquests and pursued wars as a natural to the exercise of state power. When the Hindu population came decisively under the sway of ahimsa, the state lost the power to act in any decisive way. I am afraid that represents the present condition of India where no matter how great the provocation by Pakistan and Bangladesh, the GOI fails to act to deter them.
A relevant comment made on the Wharton website in the context of ShriKrishna advising Arjun to use “under-hand” methods...
***
Comment made by Harsh Verma
“Lord Krishna repeatedly devises “underhanded” methods to defeat the opposing army — going so far as to encourage the protagonist, Arjuna, to attack and kill an unarmed adversary.”
Whoa!! Let us take the example that they have quoted. What these authors have not written is that this incident took place in the battle field itself. The story that they are referring to is the conversation between Lord Krishna, Arjuna and Karna in the middle of the battle field. Karna and Arjuna fought a mighty battle in which Arjuna had the upper hand and disarmed his opponent Karna whereupon karna requested that he be allowed to take fresh weapons for the fight.
This was not a personal challenge between two heroes but a part of the battle itself with multitudes of soldiers dying on both sides. Arjuna hesitated but Krishna reminded him that they were in the battle field not in a personal duel with strict rules and codes.
This was a battle to the death.
Secondly Karna had not surrendered. If he had done so then Arjuna would have been honour bound to not only save but protect him.
Thirdly Krishna reminded Arjuna that Karna had wrongly humiliated the Pandava brothers and had caused the public humiliation of Draupadi. As such he was not an innocent deserving of mercy.
Yet these contexts are not commented upon by these authors. Reading that one sentence would make one feel that Krishna caused Arjuna to take arms against an innocent bystander not an enemy in battle. These people simply havent read the epics themselves and their knowledge comes from translated versions or worse from a class of writers whose only point is to attack Indian culture.
They talk of the Arthashastra but conviniently ignore Megasthenes’ ‘Indica’ written by the Selucid ambassador to the Indian court. The Arthashastra and the Indic are contemporary because both belong to the mauryan age. Megasthenes was the ambassador of Selucus Nkator who took over Alexander’s eastern half of the empire and came into conflict with Chandragupta Maurya in about 320 BC. Selucus sent his ambassador Megasthenes to the mauryan court who in turn wrote a book on his Indian experiences on his return titled ‘Indica’.
One of the most important comments that he makes is that Indians do not hurt non combatants in wars. Compared to wars in europe where cities were pillaged, women were raped and infants and children massacred if they belonged to the defeated party common people in India had nothing to fear from battle. This kind of ethical standards was completely unknown in Europe and aroused wonder universally. Yet these four students with a selective knowledge of history, a half baked knowledge of their own culture and a political agenda to propogate do not pause to consider these facts. After all these ‘inconvinient truths’ have to be hidden!