The Bhagvada Gita is one of the most widely read and revered texts of all times. Written over five thousand years ago, the Gita is found in the great epic Mahabharata as a dialogue between Shri Krishna and Arjuna in the middle of the battlefield of Kurukshetra. It is held by many as one of the greatest works of philosophy and spiritual knowledge. However, there is also another view which is that the Gita endorses violence. This view is based on Krishna telling Arjuna to fight in the battlefield. While it is true that Krishna wanted Arjuna to fight against the Kauravas, but does it mean that the Gita endorses violence, this we have to see.

There are many things that need to be understood in this regard but to begin with, there are two main points to be discussed: first, we need to understand what exactly do we mean by violence and non-violence; and second, we need to see if a battle as undertaken by the Pandavas could be considered as violent.

From the point of view of the Gita, we cannot judge the nature of an action just by looking at the physical aspect of the action from the outside. What determines the true nature of action is the intent and approach of the doer. There are three main attitudes towards action explained in the Gita: satvic, rajasic, and tamasic. What these three mean can be understood through an example from the Gita itself. Let’s take an action which is generally considered as a noble action – charity. Gita tells us that not all charity is of the same nature.

When one gives considering the time, place, and need of the receiver, does so because it needs to be done, without expecting something in return, such charity is satvic in nature.  But when one gives expecting something in return, thinking about what he will get by giving, with an agitated mind, such charity is rajasic in nature. Finally, charity done without respect for the receiver, without considering time and place, without considering whether the receiver is deserving of it or not, such charity is tamasic in nature. (Gita, Verses 17.20-22)

In this manner, many types of actions are analyzed in the Gita. One can see that the Gita doesn’t simply go by the physical act per se, rather considers the inner intent and approach of the doer in determining the quality of action. Satvic is an approach closest to the ideal and one needs to try and bring this approach to all actions. The defining characteristics of a satvicaction are:

नियतं सङ्गरहितमरागद्वेषतः कृतम् ।

अफलप्रेप्सुना कर्म यत्तत्सात्त्विकमुच्यते ॥ १८-२३॥

Action which is regulated, done without attachment, without personal like-dislike, without hoping for the result, such an action is satvic in nature. – Gita, 18.23

When an action is performed without looking for personal interest in it but for the interest of all, without the hope of personal gain and fulfilment through it but because it needs to be done, whether one personally wants to or likes to do it or not, then such an action is satvic in nature. Essentially, when “i-ness” and “my-ness” is set aside and the greater good is the motive, then the action is satvic, it is closest to the ideal attitude in action.

Violence is when one acts only for one’s own interest, for one’s own personal gain, disregarding the interests of others. In this sense, any action like eating, speaking, even charity can be violent if the interests of others are disregarded, but an action such as entering into a battle can be non-violent if it is for the greater good.

So, what we have to understand is that violence is to be avoided but not merely in the outer form of the action but in the inner intent and approach towards it. What is to be avoided are the rajasic and tamasic approaches towards actions where everything except personal interest is disregarded. That is why, even though Krishna asks Arjuna to fight, he also asks him to develop ahmisa (Verses 13.8 and 16.2).

In today’s times, we see all war as violence and therefore wrong in the absolute sense. We prefer non-violent means like peace talks, peaceful protests, and such means which do not cause physical harm to others. But is all war violence and are all peaceful protests non-violent? The answer lies in the inner approach of the doer. If the inner approach is violent, it doesn’t matter whether you physically assault or not, damage will be caused.

Having said this, it is true that physical harm is to be avoided as far as possible and solutions should be sought through restraint of physical conflict. But even then, in extreme cases, when the opposing party is not really interested in resolving the issue, where he is an extreme wrong-doer, like a terrorist or a dictator, then, as a last resort, force becomes necessary – for the greater good.

Whenever there is an unjust and oppressive ruler in power, it becomes the duty of the brave to fight for justice. Today, we find people in all parts of the world fighting back to oppressive regimes, with both words and weapons, for the well-being of their countrymen. The same was the case in Mahabharata.

The story of Mahabharata is well known. The Pandavas were denied their rightful share in the kingdom of Hastinapur by their cousin Duryodhana, son of the ruling king Dhritarasthra. Duryodhana conspired numerous times against Pandavas, tried to kill them in Lakshagraha, exiled them twice, and the Pandavas quietly suffered through it all. At the end, when they asked for their share of the kingdom, they were still denied by Duryodhana. There were many peace talks initiated by Pandavas, by their uncle Vidura, and finally by Krishna himself. But Duryodhana did not budge from his decision. He told Krishna that if the Pandavas wanted their kingdom, they will have to fight for it.

We have to also take into account the characterization of Duryodhana as presented by Vyasa. Right from childhood, he had been jealous of the Pandavas. When they turned a barren piece of land into the richest kingdom on the planet, Indraprastha, Duryodhana fumed with jealousy. There are many long dialogues between him and his father in which he expresses how his heart burnt to see the Pandavas prosper. He is presented as a person who was entirely self-centred and his mind set only on wealth and power.

He was, therefore, unfit to be the king. Not just this, but even the citizens of Hastinapur wanted the Pandavas to be in power and not Duryodhana. Given these circumstances, the Pandavas were left with no option but to enter into a war with Duryodhana, as per the rules of war of the time. But we need to remember Pandava’s intent in entering into war. It was not for wealth, power, fame, or kingdom. Their intent was only to give their country a just ruler. It was their duty towards their countrymen and they were simply fulfilling it.

Arjuna, however, forgot about this when he reached the battlefield. The sight of his own cousins and relatives across the enemy line overwhelmed him so much that he forgot the purpose of the battle. He said that he did not wish to fight and win a kingdom. He would rather renounce and live on alms than kill his own people to enjoy the riches of a princely life. It is to him who had forgotten his role and purpose that Krishna gives the guidance that is known as the Bhagavad Gita.

Krishna reminds him of his duty towards his countrymen in the following verse:

स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि ।

धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते ॥२-३१॥

Considering your dharma as a kshatriya you should not fear (this battle). There is nothing better for a kshatriya than fighting a battle according to dharma. – Gita, 2.31

Arjuna was not just a trained warrior but he had a natural inclination towards warfare and protection of the weak. He was therefore called a Kshatriya. He had fought many battles in the past and was known as one of the greatest warriors of his time. Therefore, in this situation, it was his dharma, his duty, to fight against injustice. Actually, not fighting would have caused more harm in this situation than fighting. Krishna reminded him of this.

Moreover, there is an insistence on performing one’s duties throughout the Gita. If the duty entails entering into a war, then it too needs to be done. Let us now look at the reason why fulfilment of one’s duties was held as important.

The Insistence on Duty in the GIta

Gita’s insistence throughout is on adherence to dharma as a means of personal growth. Dharma covers samanya dharma or universal human values, as well as, vishesha dharma i.e. specific duties towards others. One needs to fulfil one’s dharma in all situations regardless of one’s personal like or dislike towards that job. Through this process, one is able to neutralize the hold of likes-dislikes on the mind and appreciate oneness with the world around.

This is called Karmayoga. It is in line with the teaching of the Upanishads, i.e. Vedanta, which reveals the nature of reality about one’s self as being one with the entire universe, as well as, the cause of the universe i.e. Ishvara. In understanding this reality lies the freedom (moksha) from one’s limited idea of self as only this temporary, ever-changing assemblage of body-mind complex. Karmayoga is about orienting one’s life towards this liberating knowledge.

That is why, having told Arjuna to fight, Krishna instructs him about the required approach towards his duty:

सुखदुःखे समे कृत्वा लाभालाभौ जयाजयौ ।

ततो युद्धाय युज्यस्व नैवं पापमवाप्स्यसि ॥२-३८॥

Enter into battle being equal towards happiness and sorrow, gain and loss, winning and losing such that you do not incur papa. – Gita, 2.38

In Karmayoga, one does not perform an action in the delusion that the objects of the world can give one the permanent fulfilment and happiness that one is seeking. One is clear that they can only give temporary relief.  Permanent fulfilment and happiness is only to be found in self-knowledge and therefore actions should be a means towards that end.

The purpose of actions then is not to achieve happiness, profit, fame etc. but mental growth towards that knowledge (antahkaran shuddhi). Actions are not chosen on the basis of what will be more profitable, what will give me more happiness, and such considerations. Only those actions are performed which need to be done. Actions are chosen as per dharma. Through this, one is able to grow out of one’s limited understanding of self and appreciate oneness with the world around.

In performance of one’s duty, one may win a kingdom or lose a kingdom, one may win the wealth of the world or become a pauper, but that is secondary. The result will come according to the laws of Nature. The individual only plays his role. Therefore, one’s main focus is on the performance of dharma. Following verse is relevant to this:

तस्मात्त्वमुत्तिष्ठ यशो लभस्व जित्वा शत्रून् भुङ्क्ष्व राज्यं समृद्धम् ।

मयैवैते निहताः पूर्वमेव निमित्तमात्रं भव सव्यसाचिन् ॥ ११-३३॥

Therefore arise, earn fame, conquer enemies and enjoy a prosperous kingdom. They are already slain by me (Ishvara, through the laws of Nature). You become an instrument only, O Savyasachin (Arjuna). – Gita, 11.33

In this famous verse, Krishna tells Arjuna to simply become an instrument by performing one’s dharma as per the demand of the occasion. Whatever will ensue afterwards will not be his doing. It will be the doing of Nature. The Kauravas will be killed and the kingdom will come to him but that should not be his motive. He simply needs to play his part.

Verses such as this are often misunderstood. They seem to suggest that Krishna is asking Arjuna to fight for fame, wealth, and kingdom. However, one has to look deeper to understand their real intent. That this is the true intent of the Gita is brought out by the very setting of the Gita and its symbolic representations. We will look at it in Part 2 of this article.