Fwd: [indictraditions] Arvind Sharma on the Bhagavad Gita (I)

[Guest guest]

indictraditions

User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82

"David Gray" indictraditions

Mailing-List: list indictraditions ; contact indictraditions-owner

Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:49:27 -0000

[indictraditions] Arvind Sharma on the Bhagavad Gita (I)

Perspectives from the Indic Religious Traditions

 

 

Arvind Sharma

McGill University

 

 

Does the Bhagavadgita advocate war and violence?

 

It is easy to see how the Bhagavadgita may give rise to such an

impression. First of all, its setting points in that direction. It

is revealed while the opposing forces are poised ready for battle.

Second, Arjuna does not want to engage in combat but is ultimately

persuaded to do so. The Bhagavadgita starts with Arjuna too dejected

to fight and ends as soon as Arjuna's spirits have been revived.

Third, one of the arguments which Krishna uses to urge Arjuna to

fight appeals to the fact that Arjuna is a kshatriya and it is his

duty to fight. And finally, when Krishna displays his cosmic form in

the Eleventh Chapter, not only is a violent apocalypse disclosed,

Krishna therein also tells Arjuna that he has himself made short work

of Arjuna's enemies, who have in effect already been killed by

Krishna (XI. 33). That is, he should formally finish the job.

Obviously then the Bhagavadgita seems to advocate war and violence.

Let us now take a closer look. The impression that the

Bhagavadgita advocates war and violence is often formed by those who

do not read it in the context of the Mahabharata. If one examines

the context closely one realises that war has almost commenced. So

the real issue is not whether war is good or bad but what is the duty

of the warrior when war has as good as commenced. It is this

question which the Bhagavadgita answers and not any other. It does

not sit in judgment on whether war is right or wrong. That question

does not fit its case. And its answer is that once the battled has

commenced it is the duty of a soldier to fight, howsoever unpleasant

that assignment might appear. One cannot become a conscientious

objector after one has been mobilised. So to ask whether Gita

advocates war or not is to ask the wrong question of it and one

cannot hope to get the right answer by asking the wrong question.

Let us now broaden the context beyond the immediate one of

the Gita to include the Mahabharata. It is well known that Krishna

himself went on a peace mission to the Kauravas, in one last-ditch

effort to avoid the war. He went as an ambassador whose person is

held inviolable, otherwise it is impossible to negotiate. And what

did Duryodhana do? Duryodhana tries to apprehend Krishna; Krishna

assumed his cosmic form and broke loose. Many are aware of Krishna's

theophany in the Bhagavadgita, fewer are aware of Krishna 's

theophany in the Kuru court. Let it be remembered that the first

theophany of Krishna is in the context of a peace mission; when that

mission fails and war breaks out, then the occasion for the better-

known but second theophany presents itself.

Finally, the Mahabharata was not just a war; it was a just

war. It was when Duryodhana `needled' the Pandavas, challenged the

Pandavas that he would not let them have even as much land as the

point of a needle without a fight, that the Pandavas had to join

issue with the Kauravas, to assert their legitimate right to the

throne. The choice one was left with was that of letting injustice

triumph over justice. If the Bhagavadgita, one insists, advocates

war despite the evidence adduced above, then let it be remembered

that a just war is involved. The Bhagavadgita does advocate that we

fight for our right, and even then fighting alone is our right!

 

 

 

 

 

 

indictraditions-