Gandhi, Godse and Geeta

Why is Gita so difficult to read?! Am I just stoooopid? Is there a simple introduction to the book? :(

#38 That (not denying and making every allowance for the humanity of an opponent ) is what distinguishes a warrior from a murderer. This is the reason warriors were bound by codes of war and there is the Geneva Convention.

To clarify the confusion that some people are having due to an inherent logical fallacy in the above article, let me go back to the basics and post the original statements of Geeta,


-----------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 2
karmaNyevaadhikaaraste maa phaleshu kadaachana |
maa karmaphalaheturbhuu maatesaN^gotsvakarmaNi || (2:47)

A person has the right towards action alone and not towards the fruit of action. Let not the fruit of action be the motive for acting. Also, Let there not be any attachment to inaction.

Chapter 3- Karma-Yoga
na hi kascit ksanam api ,jatu tisthaty akarma-krt
karyate hy avasah karma ,sarvah prakrti-jair gunaih (3:05)

Translation: All men are forced to act helplessly according to the impulses born of the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.


niyatam kuru karma tvam ,karma jyayo hy akarmanah
sarira-yatrapi ca te ,na prasiddhyed akarmanah (3:08)

Translation: Perform your prescribed duty, for action is better than inaction. A man cannot even maintain his physical body without work.

---------------------------------------------------

I looked at the other verses too on Karma in Geeta too. Nowhere it says that everyone should do what he thinks ``right``. The words like ``prescribed duty`` etc clearly point out towards a reference frame(dharma) that defines what is ``prescribed``.

In response to writer`s innocent probe--``...should holy scriptures play a role in morality?``----Scriptures are neither holy nor moral.It may be termed as ``Amoral``,if one cannot downright say it ``Immoral``,in the strict dilactical sense.

dost-mittar: Sorry for being late on the scene since I did not know Nand Tandan is your real name. I think you have touched about two interesting issues here. One, as you mentioned is about the role of holy scriptures in morality and the other is the importance of after thoughts. I was told about Bhagawad Gita as after thought many years back but for believers it is not acceptable. In many ways it is hisyory book and marketing as a just cause following victory. History is full of examples of after thoughts such as justification of dropping atomic bombs on Japan and Musharraf overthrowing civilian government. Some time ago, I also had a discussion about Waris Shah explaining each character of Heer story in terms of Sufi maarfat at the end of his poetry. They were certainly after thoughts. After thoughts are like open book or take home exams/ assignment where all related material can be freely utilized.
All scriptures contain after thought parts but for believers, they sound remarkably true predictions because they do not believe them to be added after the event with outcome already known.
If Gita is reas as after thought trying to put positive spin or Quran trying to put positive spins on holy wars, basically mean explanation and not guideline or blueprint for future events. Therefore morality beyond the original event is not to be based on a postscript. It is individual responsibility to be moral acccording to the moral standards of the time and scriptures can be used as a mean of conentrating on right thoughts, not an end.
Yeh ghata jo uthee, pyas sub kee bujhi
aashyaN pe kisi ke gireN bijliaN to yeh ghata kya kare
Chingari koi bhaRke

dost-mittar #34
If you drawing parallels of the moral sense of Godse with the moral sense of Krishna, the analogy breaks down even further. Do you want to go into that? Rama`s killing of Vali from behind is the closest where such a killing is carried out by a `role model` and even Vali reprimanded Rama for it.

Bowing down to greet Gandhiji could well have been a deceitful artifice to assist Godse in his aim, not a sign of respect.

Like all assassins, by his act and his method, Godse was denying the essential humanity in his victim. Thats what distinguishes a warrior from a murderer. This is the reason warriors were bound by codes of war and there is the Geneva Convention.

The fundamental moral message of the Gita is not only to realise the humanity in all humans but the divinity in all creation. It goes against everything in the Gita to deny the humanity in another like an assassin or murderer does. The fact that the victim was Gandhiji of all people in my view made the moral infringement even worse.

Dost-mitterji
Humans have an infinite capacity for rationalization and religion is often the tool of choice in making ourselves justify some actions which are morally indefensible otherwise. Religion can even make some of us forget the biological imperative of self-preservation. It is not surprising at all that Godse uses Gita to justify his actions to himself. I won`t be surprised if the band of cow-saviours in Jhajjar sleep peacefully at night believing that they have done their dharma by killing five humans.

dost-mittar #25

And my point is: did Godse employ the methodology employed in the Gita to arrive at his conclusions? As I argued earlier these seem to include dialog, listing of choices, thinking through of consequences of ones actions so as to arrive at a notion of svadharma. I see no evidence of that.

Sadna,

It is beside the point whether Godse was right or wrong, or whether he followed the message a hundred percent. Godse if he was taking his inspiration from Geeta, was interpreting it the way he saw it.

Besides, after the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, all people who did not agree with some of Gandhi`s action were painted black with a large brush. Godse was a maratha and as such did not suffer from the consequences of the partition, however a lot of punjabis who had to come to India after losing everything would have liked to kill Gandhi and felt justified about. I am writing this because I saw with how much passion my grandfather hated him.

dost-mittar ji,
tau ye aap they? maafi ka talabgar huN, lekin mera andaza sahi nikla.
Literal translation: nowhere to go away,nor a place to stay. or in simple english : catch-22.

Urstruly #15.

The idea is that some time people do things which would normally be considered evil, but they feel they have a justification for doing that evil for greated good or higher calling.

One example could be the concept of honor killings in your country. It is a murder but is refered to as an honor. The killers in this case place a higher value on the family`s izzat than the right to life of a family member.

Dost-Mittar

I dont get whatsoever moral dilemma you tried to present. The Geeta says that one must carry out his Karma not according to what he thinks right but according to Dharma. Thus it establishes an absolute frame of reference based on which ``right`` can be distinguished from ``wrong``. Without this clearcut understanding of Geeta, one may be mislead into thinking Hitler or Neanderthal Modi were right since they can also claim that they did whatever they thought ``right``. The catch is not what they believe to be ``right`` but whether it is in accordance with Dharma. This is the logical fallacy of ``relativism`` in your article.

Now at the next level the question is what constitutes this body of laws called Dharma that would determine the ``rightness`` of an act. The Dharma, loosely speaking, is a code of ethics incorporating values like honesty,truth, non-violence etc. One of the inscriptions on Ashoka`s rock edict actually defines Dharma in these terms which I can post after some google search if you want. Now we would have to ask whether it is Dharmic to shoot a person who has differing views than you. Did Gandhi go about murdering people who disagreed with him? Why couldn`t Godse have started his own revolution based on followers of his ideology and compete against Gandhi. Gandhi presented his ideas before the people and people followed him of their own volition. If it is not Dharmic to murder a person because of ideological dissent then the act of Godse was un-Dharmic though he might have thought it ``right``. Thus there is no moral dilemma presented by Geeta as far as I can see. The confusion arises because of logical fallacy in the argument and confusing everyone`s conception of ``right`` with the Dharma.

PS
Bheesham and Bheeshma, I am not sure but I think that North Indians generally spell it in the former way and South Indians in the latter way``

I think Banjara is right in this case. The correct Sanskrit spelling is Bheeshma and North Indians, in general, spell it this way and not the other way. Basically Hindi and Sanskrit have a lot of half consonants that are not present in urdu and perhaps Gurmukhee.

my dear dost mitter ji -- I had an inkling somehow or other I was responsible:-) --

`half-seriously`? -- then we are even:-)

dost-mittar #25
I am not sure how I guessed, but I`m sorry I prempted you by posting it.

If I may ask, what are your references to statements about Godse?

btw, I meant`` the Mahabharata raises more questions than it answers``

dost-mittar I am not comfortable with the analogy from the Mahabharata. Like Arjuna killed Bhishma Godse killed Gandhiji joylessly and out of a sense of pure duty.

This analogy doesnot work. In the Mahabharata, knowing well the horrific consequences of violence, repeated attempts were made to reach a peaceful settlement and avoid war. When war was finally declared, the enemy was given a chance to mobilise and bear arms, Arjuna didnot fight unarmed enemies. Inspite of knowing all other means to avoid violence had failed, Arjuna was reluctant to kill his elders including Bhishma and when war inevitably led to his defeating Bhishma on the battlefield he tried to atone by making sure Bhishma died a relatively comfortable death.

Unlike Arjuna, Godse seems to have chosen the path of violence straightaway. Did Godse ever try to approach Gandhiji and try to persuade him to change his views or actions about whatever Godse objected to? No. Did Godse ever try any other peaceful form of advocacy or resistance open to a civilised person ?. Did Godse ever issue a formal declaration of hostilities letting Gandhi at least know that such an adversary existed and for what reason? No. Gandhi first met his assassin when he was dying and never knew why he was killed. Thats Godse`s out and out moral cowardice not duty.

btw the Gita says
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-24.html
18:25 Action which is begun out of illusion without considering consequence, destruction, violence and ones own ability to fulfil is called [tamasic] (ignorant in tendency).

Seems to fit Godse to a t.

re sadna #19

Furthermore, Yudhishtir gave up his claim on Hastinapur throne and founded a new kingdom in Indraprastha. Even that was taken away from pandavas for 13 years by deceit. They decided to fight a war after Duryodhana refused to return Indraprastha or even five villages after the 13 years were over.

Urstruly:

``Gita is a source of moral code and Pandwas acted correctly because they acted on this moral code``

First statement ``Gandhi did what he did because he acted on Gita``

Second statement ``Godse did what he did because he acted on Gita``

You miss the point in the opening statement. The Panadavas were right because they acted on the moral code of the Gita. However, Bhishmapitamah was also correct because he acted on a similar moral code of Karma and Dharma, though he was on the opposite side. If you look at the wider aspect of Mahabharata, mano on the side of the Kauravas are not painted as evil because they are obligated in doing their duty. Examples are Dronacharya, Bheeshma and most of all Karna, the eldest Pandava who fights out of loyalty to Duryodhan though his moral character is different. His loyalty to Duryodhana is not questioned or depicted as evil.

In a similar sense, Gandhi acted correctly as he was following his dharma. So was Godse, who acted on principle and not on the basis of selfish gain.