section_path: Themes covered/The Gita and War/Ethics, war and violence
section_name: Ethics, war and violence
paragraph_text: Ethics, war and violence
  
  In the Gita, Krishna persuades Arjuna to wage war where the enemy includes some of his own relatives and friends. In light of the Ahimsa (non-violence) teachings in Hindu scriptures, the Gita has been criticized as violating the Ahimsa value, or alternatively, as supporting political violence. The justification of political violence when peaceful protests and all else fails, states Varma, has been a "fairly common feature of modern Indian political thought" along with the "mighty antithesis of Gandhian thought on non-violence". During the independence movement in India, Hindus considered the active "burning and drowning of British goods". While technically illegal under colonial legislation, these acts were viewed as a moral and just war for the sake of liberty and righteous values of the type that the Gita discusses. According to Paul Schaffel the influential Hindu nationalist V.D. Savarkar "often turned to Hindu scripture such as the Bhagavad Gita, arguing that the text justified violence against those who would harm Mother India."
  
  V. R. Narla, in his book length critique of the text titled The Truth About the Gita, criticizes the ethical teachings of the Gita. He argues that the ethics of the Gita are so ambiguous, that one can use it to justify any ethical position. Narla argues that the Gita is mainly a theological argument in favor of the warrior ethos. Narla argues that the fact that the Gita tries constantly to make Arjuna kill his kin in order to gain a petty kingdom shows it is not a pacifist work. Narla compares the Krishna of the Gita with a modern-day terrorist, who uses theology to excuse violence. Narla also cites D.D. Kosambi who argued that the apparent moral of the Gita is "kill your brother if duty calls, without passion; as long as you have faith in Me, all sins are forgiven...".
  
  In his Myth and Reality, the Indian historian D.D. Kosambi argued that the Gita was written as a religious text that could provide support for the actions of the upper castes, including the warrior caste. These sort of exhortations to battle would not have been uncommon in ancient India as it was the job of Indian bards. Kosambi writes that in the Gita, "the high god repeatedly emphasizes the great virtue of non-killing (ahimsa), yet the entire discourse is an incentive to war." He also cites the Gita, which states: "if slain, you gain heaven; if victorious, the earth; so up, son of Kunti, and concentrate on fighting." Kosambi argues that the injunctions and excuses for killing found in the Gita are unethical.
  
  The Indian jurist and politician B. R. Ambedkar also saw the Gita's defense of violence based on the eternity of the soul (atman) as unethical. Ambedkar wrote that "to say that killing is no killing because what is killed is the body and not the soul is an unheard of defense of murder...If Krishna were to appear as a lawyer acting for a client who is being tried for murder and pleaded the defense set out by him in the Bhagavad Gita there is not the slightest doubt that he would be sent to the lunatic asylum."
  
  In his introduction to his translation of the Gita, Purushottama Lal argues that while Arjuna appears as a pacifist, concerned with ahimsa, Krishna "is the militarist " who convinces him to kill. According to Lal, Krishna makes use of a "startling" argument to convince Arjuna to kill, which Lal outlines as "the atman is eternal; only the body dies; so go ahead and kill - you will kill only the body, the atman will remain unaffected." Lal states that "there could hardly be a better example of forked-tongue speciousness." Lal further argues that: "the truth of the matter surely is that no rational refutation is possible of the essential humanist position that killing is wrong...many of the answers given by Krishna appear to be evasive and occasionally sophistic. When logic fails, Krishna apparently resorts to divine magic." According to Lal, in the Gita, Krishna "stuns Arjuna with a glorious 'revelation' of psychedelic intensity." This "confidence trick" is problematic for Lal, who sees Arjuna's plight as a "painful and honest problem that Krishna should have faced on its own terms, painfully and honestly, and did not."
  
  Mahatma Gandhi credited his commitment for ahimsa to the Gita. For Gandhi, the Gita is teaching that people should fight for justice and righteous values, that they should never meekly suffer injustice to avoid a war. According to the Indologist Ananya Vajpeyi, the Gita does not elaborate on the means or stages of war, nor on ahimsa, except for stating that " ahimsa is virtuous and characterizes an awakened, steadfast, ethical man." For Gandhi, states Vajpeyi, ahimsa is the "relationship between self and other" as he and his fellow Indians battled against colonial rule. Gandhian ahimsa is in fact "the essence of the entire Gita", according to Vajpeyi. The teachings of the Gita on ahimsa are ambiguous, states Arvind Sharma, and this is best exemplified by the fact that Nathuram Godse stated the Gita as his inspiration to do his dharma after he assassinated Mahatma Gandhi. Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk and author of books on Zen Buddhism, concurs with Gandhi and states that the Gita is not teaching violence nor propounding a "make war" ideology. Instead, it is teaching peace and discussing one's duty to examine what is right and then act with pure intentions, when one faces difficult and repugnant choices.