Gita 01.45 The War Was Not To Gain A Kingdom But To Protect The Rule Of Law

 

Audio Link 1: https://www.thespiritualscientist.com/gita-01-45-the-war-was-not-to-gain-a-kingdom-but-to-protect-the-rule-of-law/

 

yadi mām apratīkāram

aśastraṁ śastra-pāṇayaḥ

dhārtarāṣṭrā raṇe hanyus

tan me kṣema-taraṁ bhavet

 

Word-for-word:

yadi — even if; mām — me; apratīkāram — without being resistant; aśastram — without being fully equipped; śastra-pāṇayaḥ — those with weapons in hand; dhārtarāṣṭrāḥ — the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra; raṇe — on the battlefield; hanyuḥ — may kill; tat — that; me — for me; kṣema-taram — better; bhavet — would be.

 

Translation:

Better for me if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.

 

Explanation:

Here, Arjuna speaks for the last time in this chapter, after which the conclusion will follow. In this verse, Arjuna firmly expresses his resolve:

yadi mām apratīkāram : “Even if I am unresisting, not countering—indeed,

aśastraṁ śastra-pāṇayaḥ : without even holding weapons to face those armed with weapons—

dhārtarāṣṭrā raṇe hanyus : if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra kill me on the battlefield,

tan me kṣema-taraṁ bhavet : that would be better for me.”

 

In this verse, Arjuna uses a comparison when he says kṣema-taraṁ (better), indicating something preferable. The object of this comparison is explained in the preceding verse.

 

Arjuna contrasts two choices here—remaining unresistant and weaponless versus fighting and possibly being killed. In the previous verse, he expressed that it might be better to be killed rather than to kill his own loved ones—his own relatives—for the sake of a kingdom. Instead of taking their lives, dying at their hands would be better. This is the essence of the comparison Arjuna draws between these two options across the verses.

 

Arjuna believes it is better to avoid fighting because he feels that killing his loved ones would generate bad karma, ultimately leading him to hell. This bad karma, he reasons, would arise from the destruction of the dynasty’s protectors in battle. If the protectors are killed, the dynasty would become polluted, leading to the deterioration and eventual destruction of all that is sacred. For Arjuna, the only way to avoid this catastrophe is to abstain from war. Yet, there remains a question—will his chosen course of action truly prevent the disaster he fears?

 

Sometimes, certain things are destined to unfold in a particular way, beyond our power to avoid them. However, we can still take a stand. We can choose not to act in ways that conflict with what we know to be right.

 

Sometimes, we take action not with the hope that it will change the outcome, but to make a statement. We want to take a stand and be counted among those who uphold principles. Arjuna feels he is making a principled choice by forfeiting his claim to the kingdom and choosing to avoid war. He believes that the potential catastrophe could be averted if the war itself can be prevented.

 

However, Duryodhana is a vicious wrongdoer, and such a person deserves punishment. His cruelty was displayed brazenly when he attempted to violate Draupadī right in the palace, in full view—not only in front of the general public but in the presence of those meant to uphold the law. To disrobe and dishonor a woman is reprehensible anywhere, but to do so publicly, with onlookers watching, is even more so. And to commit such an act in a setting akin to a police station or a court, in the presence of those tasked with enforcing justice, is especially heinous.

 

A person driven by envy and a desire to subdue his perceived enemies—the Pāṇḍavas—who would go to such extremes, using his power to openly defy the law in front of those meant to enforce it, would, in turn, become an unquestioned and unchallenged enforcer of the law. However, the law he would impose would be the law of the jungle, a law defined by cruelty and caprice. His actions would be guided not by justice but by whatever satisfies his whimsical desires. His sole concern would be his own pleasure, and whatever gives him pleasure, he would do—immediately, without hesitation.

 

Such was the ghastly disposition of Duryodhana, and it was his actions that made the war inevitable. It was his aggression, not the Pāṇḍavas’, that sparked the conflict. He had attacked and stolen their kingdom, refusing to return it. Now, when the Pāṇḍavas were fighting, they were fighting to ensure that the rule of law prevailed.

 

If Duryodhana could so brazenly attempt to dishonor his own sister-in-law, who was married to five powerful kings, and get away with it scot-free, his cruelty would only grow bolder. He would feel empowered to victimize many others in the same way. Therefore, it was vital that he be reined in.

 

Arjuna was being misled by a false dialectic about what was truly at stake in the war. A dialectic of this or that, as though the war was simply about the kingdom. In reality, what was at stake was not the kingdom but the rule of law. Protecting the rule of law was vital for the kṣatriyas, who were meant to be the martial guardians of society. The deep-rooted adharma of Duryodhana and the profound purpose of Kṛṣṇa to establish dharma were the true focus. This was what Arjuna was called to uphold.

 

For Arjuna to move forward was essential, not just for securing a kingdom for his family, but for ensuring the rule of dharma for all of humanity. However, at this moment, he has framed the issue in a different—perhaps even incorrect—way, which has led him to a wrong decision. How he has wrongly framed the issue, and the correct way to approach it, will be revealed in the course of the Bhagavad-gītā, beginning with Kṛṣṇa’s discourse in the next chapter.