Gita 03.24 – Krishna turns on its head Arjuna’s argument about varna-sankara
utsīdeyur ime lokā
na kuryāṁ karma ced aham
saṅkarasya ca kartā syām
upahanyām imāḥ prajāḥ (Bg 3.24)
Word-for-word:
utsīdeyuḥ — would be put into ruin; ime — all these; lokāḥ — worlds; na — not; kuryām — I perform; karma — prescribed duties; cet — if; aham — I; saṅkarasya — of unwanted population; ca — and; kartā — creator; syām — would be; upahanyām — would destroy; imāḥ — all these; prajāḥ — living entities.
Translation:
If I did not perform prescribed duties, all these worlds would be put to ruination. I would be the cause of creating unwanted population, and I would thereby destroy the peace of all living beings.
Explanation:
utsīdeyur ime lokāḥ: There would be disruption in these worlds.
na kuryāṁ karma ced aham: if I did not perform My duties.
saṅkarasya ca kartā syām: I would be the cause of unwanted population (saṅkara). Saṅkara here refers to varṇa-saṅkara, which was mentioned in the first chapter.
upahanyām imāḥ prajāḥ: and thus, there would be chaos and complete disorder among the living beings.
Kṛṣṇa is describing the widespread consequences that would affect people across the worlds, using the phrases utsīdeyur ime lokāḥ in the first line and upahanyām imāḥ prajāḥ in the fourth line.
What exactly is Kṛṣṇa referring to here? How does the concept of varṇa-saṅkara come into the picture?
A kṣatriya’s duty is to protect society from unscrupulous and malevolent invaders—those who are driven by power without any regard for principles. It is the responsibility of the kṣatriya to safeguard the people from such threats and uphold order and righteousness in society.
And how does a kṣatriya protect? By setting an example through their own conduct—kṣatāt trayate iti kṣatriya—a kṣatriya is one who protects others from harm. When anti-social elements are not checked by the kṣatriyas, they grow unchecked and become emboldened. If Kṛṣṇa does not take action against the demoniac forces, these elements will overrun society. They will disrupt and dominate the general population and wreak havoc throughout society.
Generally, whenever invaders conquer a land, the greatest casualties are often the women. They are exploited, enslaved, and brutalized. Frequently, such exploitation results in the birth of children. These children, born illegitimately and often growing up without proper care or identity, may later become a burden to society.
Hence, Kṛṣṇa explains that if the kṣatriyas fail to protect society, the dependent members—especially the women, who are meant to be protected—will be left vulnerable. This neglect will ultimately lead to varṇa-saṅkara—saṅkarasya ca kartā syām.
Here, Kṛṣṇa has skilfully and thoroughly turned Arjuna’s argument on its head. Arjuna had claimed that fighting would lead to varṇa-saṅkara, but Kṛṣṇa now tells him that if he refuses to fight, that will actually be the cause of varṇa-saṅkara.
How did Kṛṣṇa turn that argument around so dramatically and thoroughly?
When Arjuna presented his argument, he was thinking that if he fought motivated by greed, it would set a negative precedent—others too would act out of greed. When people act under such selfish motives, they overpower and eliminate the guardians of society (kula-kṣaya)—the protectors and elders of the family and social order. With their destruction, women would be left unprotected, leading to their exploitation.
Here, Kṛṣṇa points to the very same consequences that Arjuna feared—but He presents a completely opposite causal chain for how that scenario would unfold.
Kṛṣṇa explains that if Arjuna refuses to fight, people will see this as an approval of neglecting one’s duties. And when duty is neglected, chaos follows—kṣatriyas will fail to protect society, dharma will decline, and ultimately women will be left unprotected and exploited, resulting in varṇa-saṅkara (unwanted progeny).
Now, which scenario is actually correct? What exactly will lead to varṇa-saṅkara—Arjuna’s version or Kṛṣṇa’s?
The point is that in the Mahābhārata, before the Bhagavad-gītā was spoken, extensive efforts were made to avoid the war. Despite all those efforts, the war still became inevitable—indicating that it was not a war driven merely by greed, as Arjuna was imagining.
In verse 1.44 of the Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna exclaimed, āho bata mahat pāpaṁ and yat rājya-sukha-lobhena—lamenting that they were fighting out of greed for kingdom and pleasure. But in reality, the war was not motivated by greed. This became evident from the fact that the Pāṇḍavas were willing to make peace on highly accommodating terms—so much so that they were ready to settle for just five villages instead of reclaiming their vast kingdom.
That would have been a huge, huge comedown. Imagine a property dispute between two sons of a business magnate after the magnate passes away. Suppose one son says, “I don’t want any conflict—just give me one small company somewhere so that I have some means to live.”
Here is someone who has the rightful claim to inherit hundreds of companies—or at least assets worth hundreds of crores of rupees—yet he is ready to settle for just one small company. That clearly shows he is not driven by greed.
Similarly, the Pāṇḍavas were ready to settle for just five villages, even though they rightfully owned a vast kingdom. This clearly shows that they were not motivated by greed.
Thus, Arjuna’s assessment of the Pāṇḍavas’ motives was incorrect—they were not fighting out of selfish desire but out of duty. As kṣatriyas, it was their responsibility to rule and, more importantly, to ensure that the unrighteous—such as Duryodhana and the Kauravas—did not remain in power and continue exploiting society.
Arjuna’s assessment was flawed because, at that moment, he misunderstood the true motives of the Pāṇḍavas. He mistakenly attributed greed to himself and his brothers, whereas in reality, that greed was not present at all.
Kṛṣṇa, on the other hand, presented a far more realistic and accurate scenario. He explained that when the protectors of society—the kṣatriyas—fail to perform their duty, society becomes disrupted. If the guardians of society, the kṣatriyas, become lazy or irresponsible, unscrupulous individuals will be quick to exploit the situation. They will disrupt law and order and pursue their own selfish agendas, taking full advantage of the resulting disorder.
To use a contemporary example: sometimes the police may be excessively vigilant and punish a criminal more harshly than necessary. That is certainly not ideal—justice should be proportionate, and punishment should fit the crime.
However, the danger to society from such occasional excesses is far less than the danger that would arise if the police fail to do their duty altogether. If the police do nothing—if they don’t punish anyone at all—then criminals will have complete freedom to act as they please, and society will quickly descend into lawlessness.
Hence, Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna, “This is what will happen, O Arjuna, if I don’t do My duty.” And by implication, He is also saying, “If you neglect your duty, the consequences will be the same.”
Both Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna are kṣatriyas—at least in this context, Kṛṣṇa is playing the role of a kṣatriya, even though He is God. Kṛṣṇa explains that if Arjuna neglects his duty, society will be wrecked. Therefore, Arjuna’s worst fear—the scenario he is so desperately trying to avoid, varṇa-saṅkara, the disruption of social order—will actually come true if he refrains from fighting. Ironically, Arjuna will end up causing the very thing he is trying to prevent, not by action, but by inaction.
By refusing to fight, by not performing his duty, and by failing to set the right example, Arjuna would end up causing the very destruction he hoped to prevent.
Therefore, the subtext—the underlying message Kṛṣṇa is giving—is: Gird your shoulders and do your duty. Perform your duty, because that is the only way you can truly protect society from the dangers you fear and guide it toward both material and spiritual prosperity.
Thank you.
Leave A Comment