Dharmic and Adharmic wars. What to do when our country goes to war?
Devotees fighting in wars is unfortunately becoming a relevant topic, as wars are spreading around the world and involving countries where devotees are present. What to do in such cases?
You can receive new articles directly in your inbox. Subscription is free; donations are welcome.
Devotees fighting in wars is unfortunately becoming a relevant topic, as wars are spreading around the world and involving countries where devotees are present. Wars involve very strong sentiments, and such sentiments often cloud our vision. When our vision is clouded, we can easily confuse adharma and dharma, and perform sinful activities, thinking we are doing good.
In the Vedas, we read about many wars fought in the name of dharma, starting with the battle of Kurukṣetra, where the kṣatriyas who defended dharma grouped around the Pandavas to fight the adharmic forces led by Duryodhana. There are also other very famous battles, like Lord Rama fighting against Rāvaṇa, or many instances where demigods fought with demons to prevent them from taking the universe and advancing their exploitative agenda.
In this way, the concept of dharmic wars is very much present in the Vedas. There were dharmic wars in the past, and many devotees fought in them, going from pure devotees, like Arjuna and Hanumān, to devotees still dealing with material desires, such as ordinary demigods. More than that, Kṛṣṇa Himself took part in many of these wars, upholding His words in the Bhagavad-gītā, that He descends whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice and a predominant rise of irreligion.
However, when we try to transport the idea of dharmic war to the current context, we face lots of problems.
First of all, not all wars are dharmic. Quite the opposite, most wars are profoundly irreligious. We will struggle to find anything dharmic in the struggle between the Germans and Soviets in WW2, for example, where both sides indiscriminately targeted civilians in horrific ways. By definition, dharmic wars must be fought according to dharmic principles.
We then come to the figure of the kṣatriyas, who were trained to fight according to such dharmic principles. Just like a doctor is the only one who is authorized to perform surgery, a kṣatriya is the only one authorized to wage war. Both cases follow a very simple logic: a layman can’t perform surgery because he is not trained to do it, and will thus invariably put the life of the patient at risk. Similarly, a kṣatriya is the only one authorized to wage war because he is the only one who is trained to do it according to dharmic principles.
Wars nowadays are invariably performed by people who don’t have such training, and as a result, we see that, invariably, civilians are targeted, and innocents are killed. Modern wars are thus invariably adharmic in nature.
In the past, even demons would wage war according to religious principles, meeting their enemies in faraway places, where they could fight without harming civilians. In modern wars, however, soldiers in all kinds of armies entrench themselves inside cities, which leads to battles with terrible humanitarian costs. In such cases, should devotees be involved in the fight on either of the two sides? I don’t think so.
Another point to consider, however, is that there are different types of wars. Some wars are fought over territory or resources like oil. There is a border region with some strategic importance, and two armies fight over it. One of the sides is defeated, and the winner takes the disputed territory. In this case, there would be absolutely no reason for devotees to get involved, as it is just a fight over land and material benefits. These are just materialistic disputes that Prabhupāda compares with dogs fighting over a bone.
A country is just like an apartment where we live. We may be born and live there most of our lives, because this apartment gives us shelter. However, the day here is no water, no electricity, it is not safe, and the neighbors want to force us to fight in a senseless dispute over land, we may leave for another place and continue our practice of Kṛṣṇa consciousness there. There is no reason to be sentimental about it.
Some wars, however, are genocidal. In this case, an army moves into a populated area to destroy or subjugate a population. Such wars have a terrible humanitarian cost and usually involve widespread bombing of civilian centers, mass killings, and so on, which affect whole communities. In such situations, devotees may be dragged into the fight under the principle of self-defense, which is another idea clearly defined in the Vedas.
The Vedas describe six types of enemies that may be killed. Śrila Prabhupāda explains this point in his purport to BG 1.36:
“According to Vedic injunctions, there are six kinds of aggressors: (1) a poison giver, (2) one who sets fire to the house, (3) one who attacks with deadly weapons, (4) one who plunders riches, (5) one who occupies another’s land, and (6) one who kidnaps a wife. Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors.”
This happens because different types of guardians have a duty to protect their dependents, regardless of whether they are kṣatriyas or not. Fathers have a duty to protect their families; community leaders have a duty to protect their communities, and so on. When one’s family or community is attacked, one may take weapons to fight or even kill an aggressor, and such killing is considered dharmic because it is done for the protection of the innocent.
In the Krsna book, for example, it’s mentioned that the cowherds had bows and arrows to defend themselves against bandits. Kṣatriyas may fight to defend the state, while vaiśyas and others may fight to protect their communities when attacked. Even a śūdra may fight with an assailant who invades his house and attacks his family.
However, at the same purport, Śrila Prabhupāda also alerts for another side of the question:
“Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a Ksatriya. Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly.”
Here two sides of the question are given. The first side is saintly behavior: although ordinarily such aggressors may be killed, a Vaiṣnava is by nature non-violent, and he is thus inclined to forgive. Such forgiveness is the path for one going back to godhead since it frees one from the bondage of karma. This is a point discussed in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, in the pastime of King Parīkṣit and the bull.
The other side, however, is that the ones in positions of responsibility have the duty of protecting their dependents. For a brāhmana, forgiveness is dharmic, since the brāhmana is supposed to be a saintly person. However, for a kṣatriya responsible for the protection of a group of people, to fail in reacting to an external aggressor is adharmic, since he is neglecting his duty. Both the brāhmana and the kṣatriya may be equally advanced devotees, but the way they may react in the case of an attack on their community may be radically different.
Śrila Prabhupāda once said that at a certain point in the future, devotees would have a japa-mālā in one hand and a machine gun in the other. Certainly, we should not be involved in wars of conquest. Unlike certain other religious groups throughout history, our methods in spreading Kṛṣṇa Consciousness are peaceful. However, at times, devotees may be forced into fighting to protect their families and communities from violence and death.
Yet another side, however, is that brāhmanas are not advised to use violence. A brāhmana is supposed to depend on the protection of God instead of defending himself using his own strength. A brāhmana is also supposed to be forgiving, and not risk his life fighting for temporary material things, such as money or land.
Taking all into consideration, generally, the best course of action is to avoid getting involved in the fight in the first place. Thousands of devotees left the now-occupied regions in Ukraine before the start of the war, or shortly after, for example. Fleeing a war zone is a much more effective way of protecting one’s family than taking into arms.
When we speak about self-defense, the dharmic principle is more about defending one’s dependents than fighting the aggressor. Fighting the aggressor is a concession in cases where other alternatives are not possible. One who kills an aggressor doesn’t incur sin, but this is something that should be done only in the last case. When a war or some other great conflict happens, usually the most effective way to protect one’s dependents is to just gather the family and one’s valuables and move to another place. This is actually the most dharmic thing to do in most cases, and usually, the best option for devotees since it’s non-violent.
Being non-violent, however, doesn’t mean being neutral. A devotee should call a spade a spade and denounce an aggressor when that’s the case, as well as assist people who are suffering due to this act of aggression. Non-violence should not be used as an excuse for negligence. That’s a problem that we seem to frequently face: we speak about neutrality when the reality is that we just don’t care. We can see that despite all the difficulties devotees faced in Ukraine, for example, many failed to voice their condemnation. Is this neutrality or indifference?
Another point that is often mentioned is the idea of people who die in wars being promoted to the celestial planets. We can see that this idea appears over and over inside religious communities. Christians used it during the Crusades, fanatical Muslims often invoke it during their jihads, and now we also have devotees advocating that people who die fighting in whatever war they support will be promoted to the celestial planets. This is, however, a completely idiotic idea.
Promotion to the celestial planets happens only in very specific circumstances, where one sacrifices his life to perform his sacred duty. A trained kṣatriya has the duty of fighting, and therefore if he lies down his life in battle, fighting to uphold the principles of dharma, he is promoted to the celestial planets as a reward, just like a brāhmana who dedicates his life to perform religious sacrifices. However, this is a very specific case and is applicable only to trained kṣatriyas fighting in religious wars. A vaiśya fighting to defend his property, or a śūdra fighting to defend his house, doesn’t have the same benefit. A vaiśya or a śūdra killing someone in self-defense is not considered sinful, but it is not a very highly pious activity either.
Brāhmanas, however, become degraded when they fight, because a brāhmana is supposed to act under higher religious principles, such as tolerance and forgiveness, and depend on divine protection, instead of his own strength. A brāhmana who dies fighting thus just degrades himself, as he is supposed to avoid the fight using his superior intelligence, and not quarrel over land or material possessions. Even if one’s country is occupied, he may just continue his life in a different country. Identification with one’s country is even more foolish than identification with the body. In the Vedas, one who identifies with his country is compared with an animal, devoid of any superior intelligence.
As we can see, the topic of devotees fighting in wars is quite complicated and has many angles. In general, devotees are considered to be brāhmanas, and therefore we should avoid getting involved in conflicts, preferring to adopt peaceful approaches such as fleeing the conflict zone. One may choose to fight to defend his community under some circumstances, but this should be a very careful decision because there is much to lose and little to gain.
Devotees who are professional soldiers may end up dragged into wars as a side-effect of their profession, but they should be very careful in how they act. It should be understood that they are not kṣatriyas trained in dharmic warfare, and thus they are responsible for any harm they commit to innocent people. A devotee who becomes involved in a war of conquest waged against an innocent population becomes a war criminal, and will have to face the consequences of his acts. Even the chanting of the holy names can’t be used to compensate for such sins since the holy names can’t be used to atone for sins committed intentionally.
A devotee may also be conscripted into the army and forced to fight, which is a more complicated case. In a situation like this, one may be forced to shoot an enemy soldier to save his own life, for example. However, there are always ways to avoid conscription, like hiding, fleeing to another country, invoking the principle of conscientious objection, or even taking one’s chances by just refusing to fight and risking jail time. All these options are probably better than getting involved in a senseless war. At the time Prabhupāda was present, many devotees were being conscripted into the Vietnam War, but most of them were able to avoid it by different means.
A devotee may decide to join his country’s army to fight against an aggressor under the principle of self-defense, but even this should be done extremely carefully, because nowadays even defending armies act in adharmic ways, fighting in populated areas, killing enemy soldiers who are willing to surrender, using torture and so on. One may volunteer to fight, thinking that he is signing up to defend his community, but he will probably be faced with a very different reality on the battlefield.
This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can also choose a paid subscription to support this work.
You can also receive the updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.