Food for thought
Apr. 3rd, 2003 02:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silversolitaireGita on Fighting Terrorism
By Rajiv Malhotra
In the Bhagavad Gita, God appears in human form as Krishna, to guide Arjuna in the fight/don't fight dilemma that Arjuna faces. What might this 18 chapter holiest of the Hindu scriptures teach us in the dilemma we now face concerning global terrorism? Krishna's advice fits neither of the two extremes that are presently dominating the media debate: At one end are the majority of Americans who promote revenge against the terrorists, as a notion of justice - an eye for an eye. At the other end is a minority of anti-war activists who want no violence, and instead advocate that the US should take the blame for having caused hatred against itself. The Gita's message rejects BOTH these. Its short-term message for this situation pertains to the ethics of war, and its long-term message calls for systemic changes required by both Islam and the West in order to harmonize humanity.
Dharmic War
Krishna scolds Arjuna for his initial attitude of abandonment, saying that there is a global evil that must be dealt with; Arjuna is the best qualified one to fight this evil given his training, capabilities, and position. This is God's work and not his own. By analogy, one could argue that the US must play Arjuna's role, being positioned as the only superpower and having the resources to carry this out. In Hindu dharma, a ruler has the obligation to protect the public from such menaces, and to abandon this role would be irresponsible. God's advice to Arjuna is: "Engage in battle with equanimity and without getting overwhelmed by the extremes of joy and sorrow, gain and loss, and thus you won't incur sin."
A just war ("dharma-yudh" = war-as-duty) should not be for revenge but for the prevention of terrorism in the future. The Hindu idea of justice is in the form of karmic consequence; but these consequences are for God to take care of, whenever and however he chooses. The Gita emphasizes one's rightful action, but always letting God take care of the fruits. Therefore, from President Bush down to the pilots making the strikes, the attitude should be one of doing duty for the sake of ridding society of evil, and not for revenge.
Furthermore, the response has to be relevant and proportional. The Gita does not condone indiscriminate "carpet bombing". Since karma is individual and merit based, there cannot be racial profiling against anyone.
It is also made clear in the Gita that Arjuna has nothing personal to gain from winning. He does not seek power, wealth, fame or glory. Hence, it is not an act to be carried out by the ego and must be free of selfish motives. Applying this to the present dilemma, there are some implications:
[cut, read the rest here]
Discuss? *g*
Well, my points are these. First off, we mustn't forget that this article was written in late 2001, so there is no direct reference to the Iraq war yet. However, it's still scary how well it fits, isn't it? This article doesn't condone Bush's actions, but rather relates when they would by justifyable. And why they're not.
Perhaps a little bit about the background of the Gita would be helpful.
Arjuna fought a battle he was obliged to fight in order to save his people and reinstall order and justice. He, being one of the five Pandu princes, was banished and expelled from his land by his cousin Duryodhana who was the eldest of one-hundred brothers. Seeing the hardship and pain inflicted on his people by this unfair treatment, Arjuna and his four brothers returned to the land of the Kuru to fight for what was rightfully his and save his people from further prosecution. At the dawn of the battle, Arjuna asks Lord Krishna, who has become his friend and companion as a reward for his fortitude and nobility of character, to drive his war chariot to a position where he may witness the two contending parties. Upon surveying the raging battle between dear ones on both sides, Arjuna is overcome with horror and refuses to engage in such a fratricidal war. He throws down his weapons and declares that he would rather die than shed the blood of his kinsmen on the other side.
Lord Krishna then explains to him in the epic that is known as the Bhagavad-Gita the importance of performing one's duty in accordance with ones nature, the existence of the hidden self and the omnipresence of God. He relates to Arjuna such basic concepts as the nature of our existence, the nature of our true self, our true relationship with God, the truth about action and inaction, the correct meaning of knowledge and ignorance, the inborn qualities of man and how they bind him to the mortal world, the meaning of true devotion, the right attitude towards the external world, and so on. Thus enlightened Arjuna is able to partake in the battle and reclaim his people's position.
The difference here is that Arjuna recognizes his duty and acts accordingly. He does not desire power, fame or wealth, he merely does what is necessary. Bush's motives are questionable, at best. He claims that he is too accepting his duty as defender of the world. However, the target of his warfare isn't the evil he is seeking to extinguish, but innocent people who have no relation to the ones he is fighting. If Bush was targetting specifically camps of Bin-Laden and other terrorist groups directly and evidently related to acts of terrorism against the United States, I doubt a lot of people would object. But he's not. He's carpet-bombing an area where there might be something bad going on but we're not really sure and we just think they're terrorists because, well. Because. This is where all his good intentions are inevitably annihilated.
Furthermore, even if everything Bush did was justified and supported, his motivations are essentially selfish. He does this to protect himself and his allies whereas such an act would only then be excuseable if the desire to protect was extended to allies, strangers and even non-supporters. Not to mention the obvious hypocrisy involved, born from the notion of "My enemy's enemies are my friends" and "Who isn't with me is against me".
I think the Bhagavad-Gita is pretty clear about this. So, in the light of this sacred text it is safe to say the Bush is heading the wrong way. You mustn't oppose all fighting either, because sometimes it is necessary to fight for what needs to be preserved, but fashioning these justifications after your own selfish desires is wrong.
Okay, that's just my two cents. Any input?
By Rajiv Malhotra
In the Bhagavad Gita, God appears in human form as Krishna, to guide Arjuna in the fight/don't fight dilemma that Arjuna faces. What might this 18 chapter holiest of the Hindu scriptures teach us in the dilemma we now face concerning global terrorism? Krishna's advice fits neither of the two extremes that are presently dominating the media debate: At one end are the majority of Americans who promote revenge against the terrorists, as a notion of justice - an eye for an eye. At the other end is a minority of anti-war activists who want no violence, and instead advocate that the US should take the blame for having caused hatred against itself. The Gita's message rejects BOTH these. Its short-term message for this situation pertains to the ethics of war, and its long-term message calls for systemic changes required by both Islam and the West in order to harmonize humanity.
Dharmic War
Krishna scolds Arjuna for his initial attitude of abandonment, saying that there is a global evil that must be dealt with; Arjuna is the best qualified one to fight this evil given his training, capabilities, and position. This is God's work and not his own. By analogy, one could argue that the US must play Arjuna's role, being positioned as the only superpower and having the resources to carry this out. In Hindu dharma, a ruler has the obligation to protect the public from such menaces, and to abandon this role would be irresponsible. God's advice to Arjuna is: "Engage in battle with equanimity and without getting overwhelmed by the extremes of joy and sorrow, gain and loss, and thus you won't incur sin."
A just war ("dharma-yudh" = war-as-duty) should not be for revenge but for the prevention of terrorism in the future. The Hindu idea of justice is in the form of karmic consequence; but these consequences are for God to take care of, whenever and however he chooses. The Gita emphasizes one's rightful action, but always letting God take care of the fruits. Therefore, from President Bush down to the pilots making the strikes, the attitude should be one of doing duty for the sake of ridding society of evil, and not for revenge.
Furthermore, the response has to be relevant and proportional. The Gita does not condone indiscriminate "carpet bombing". Since karma is individual and merit based, there cannot be racial profiling against anyone.
It is also made clear in the Gita that Arjuna has nothing personal to gain from winning. He does not seek power, wealth, fame or glory. Hence, it is not an act to be carried out by the ego and must be free of selfish motives. Applying this to the present dilemma, there are some implications:
- The US should not be motivated for the sake of securing its oil supply, as that would be a selfish act.
- The US should not focus on ending only the terrorism that is against the US, but rather, it should deal equally with all terrorism that hurts anyone in the world, including remote corners where the US does not perceive a direct selfish interest at this time. Everything is totally interconnected as per Indian cosmogony, and there is no morality in segregating the US's selfish interests from the interests of humanity at large. Unfortunately, Senator Kerry, head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, amongst other policymakers, has defined the area of US interests to be from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia, which means that the Indian subcontinent's Islamic terrorism remains a blind spot.
- The US cannot aid terrorists one year by classifying them as freedom fighters against a US enemy, and fight them the next year when they turn sour.
- For decades, Saudi Arabia has sponsored Wahhabi Islam, a fundamentalist variety of Islam, and funded 'madrassas' (religious schools) to expand the market share of Islam in poor countries. Madrassas often teach Islamic extremism and triumphalism, and then some of the youth advance into the hands of jihad preachers who are linked to some madrassas if not in charge of them. Yet, given their importance to the US oil supply, the Saudis have not been taken to task.
- Pakistan created the Taliban, with US funding and weapons, to fight a jihad against the Soviets. This is not emphasized today by the US media, as it might embarrass prior presidencies and some of the senior cabinet members today who played a role in those governments. We must also ask whether strengthening the dictatorial Army rule in Pakistan, and thus subverting democracy, is in the best interests of Pakistan's citizens. US media has stated that 15% to 20% of Pakistanis are Talibanized, and given its population of 140 million, that is larger than the total population of Afghanistan. Pakistan has openly hosted Bin Laden's operating bases to attack civilian targets in India, killing more Indians than any other nationality from terrorism over the past five years.
[cut, read the rest here]
* * * * * * * *
Discuss? *g*
Well, my points are these. First off, we mustn't forget that this article was written in late 2001, so there is no direct reference to the Iraq war yet. However, it's still scary how well it fits, isn't it? This article doesn't condone Bush's actions, but rather relates when they would by justifyable. And why they're not.
Perhaps a little bit about the background of the Gita would be helpful.
Arjuna fought a battle he was obliged to fight in order to save his people and reinstall order and justice. He, being one of the five Pandu princes, was banished and expelled from his land by his cousin Duryodhana who was the eldest of one-hundred brothers. Seeing the hardship and pain inflicted on his people by this unfair treatment, Arjuna and his four brothers returned to the land of the Kuru to fight for what was rightfully his and save his people from further prosecution. At the dawn of the battle, Arjuna asks Lord Krishna, who has become his friend and companion as a reward for his fortitude and nobility of character, to drive his war chariot to a position where he may witness the two contending parties. Upon surveying the raging battle between dear ones on both sides, Arjuna is overcome with horror and refuses to engage in such a fratricidal war. He throws down his weapons and declares that he would rather die than shed the blood of his kinsmen on the other side.
Lord Krishna then explains to him in the epic that is known as the Bhagavad-Gita the importance of performing one's duty in accordance with ones nature, the existence of the hidden self and the omnipresence of God. He relates to Arjuna such basic concepts as the nature of our existence, the nature of our true self, our true relationship with God, the truth about action and inaction, the correct meaning of knowledge and ignorance, the inborn qualities of man and how they bind him to the mortal world, the meaning of true devotion, the right attitude towards the external world, and so on. Thus enlightened Arjuna is able to partake in the battle and reclaim his people's position.
* * * * * * * *
The difference here is that Arjuna recognizes his duty and acts accordingly. He does not desire power, fame or wealth, he merely does what is necessary. Bush's motives are questionable, at best. He claims that he is too accepting his duty as defender of the world. However, the target of his warfare isn't the evil he is seeking to extinguish, but innocent people who have no relation to the ones he is fighting. If Bush was targetting specifically camps of Bin-Laden and other terrorist groups directly and evidently related to acts of terrorism against the United States, I doubt a lot of people would object. But he's not. He's carpet-bombing an area where there might be something bad going on but we're not really sure and we just think they're terrorists because, well. Because. This is where all his good intentions are inevitably annihilated.
Furthermore, even if everything Bush did was justified and supported, his motivations are essentially selfish. He does this to protect himself and his allies whereas such an act would only then be excuseable if the desire to protect was extended to allies, strangers and even non-supporters. Not to mention the obvious hypocrisy involved, born from the notion of "My enemy's enemies are my friends" and "Who isn't with me is against me".
I think the Bhagavad-Gita is pretty clear about this. So, in the light of this sacred text it is safe to say the Bush is heading the wrong way. You mustn't oppose all fighting either, because sometimes it is necessary to fight for what needs to be preserved, but fashioning these justifications after your own selfish desires is wrong.
Okay, that's just my two cents. Any input?
