Chapter 6

Apaddharma

Vipatigrasta~ kala~ iipadkiila~, i.e., the times of distress, misfortune, calamity etc.
Dharma, as we studied earlier, stands for right conduct at a particular time and place.
However, circumstances change and so do the understanding of right and wrong. The
circumstances might demand transgression and reinterpretation of the prescribed dharma
that create moral dilemmas. The law-givers also identify this need for contingency.
Therefore, they provide us with alternative codes of conduct, known as apaddharma,
which otherwise would appear as adharma. According to the dictum of apaddharma, a
man could act contrary to his svadharma during crisis, without putting his var~a-status at
a risk.

6.1. Apaddharma in the Dharmasutras and the Smrtis

In the preceding chapters,· we observed that rules for occupations and personal conduct
constitute a major part of dharma. If a person acts contrary to these rules, the social-
order gets jeopardized. However, all men can not find employment within the limits of
prescribed occupations. Moreover, one may not possess the essential qualifications for
the particular occupation prescribed for one's varlJa. The law-givers, understanding these
exigencies, allow some concessions for those who fail to get employment within the

.
varna-structure .
Gautama explains it as follows: The rules for times of distress are that a
brahmana may study under a non-brahma.pa teacher. However, when the course of study
is finished the brahma.pa pupil surpasses his teacher in venerability. In times of distress, a
brahmal}.a can either offer sacrifices for all varl]as, or he can teach, or accept gifts from
all varl'}aS, in this order of preference. On the failure of these lawful occupations, he may
live by the occupations of a ksatriya. On the failure of these also, he may live by the
occupations of a vaiS'ya. 1 Baudnayana also enjoins that a brahmaiJ.a, who is unable to
subsist by either teaching, or by sacrificing for others, or by the acceptance of gifts, shall
maintain himself by following the duties of a k~atriya, because that is the next in the
varrJa hierarchy. If he still fails to sustain himself, he may also adopt the livelihood of a
vaisya. 2

I GDh. 7.1-7.
2
BDh. 2.2.4. 16 and 19.

186
 I

It is apparent from the above that what is tantamount to a grave sin in normal
times, is legally pennitted by the law-givers for the times of misfortune. However, Visnu ..
is of the opinion that what has been acquired by the mode of livelihood of one's own
varY)a, is called 'white'; what has been acquired by the mode of livelihood of the varYJa
bela\\' one's own, is called. 'mottled'; and what has been acquired by two or more degree
lower than one's own, is calkd 'black'. 3 Thus a b:rnlunaJ).a, in distress, may, with little
discredit, take to tighting and ruling professions of the k~atriyas, and more blemishes
would be attached to the foUowers of agriculture, trade and other professions of the
vaisyas. But Apas.tamba forbids a brlilunrup to touch a weapon, though he may be only
desirous of examining it,,4 fru.· Jess for using it as a means of livelihood. He includes the
son of a bramnru:a, who follows the profession of a k~atriya, among the people who
defile the company if they ar'e invited to a fraddha (funeral ceremony). 5
According to Gautama, agriculture and trade are lawfuJ for a bfahmai).a provided
he does not do the work personally, likewise he can live by lending money on interest if
he employs agents for this. 6 Vasi~!ha, on the other hand, considers usury as a greater sin
than bralunaqac:ide. 7 Manu also forbids usury to a bfahmaJ).a and a ~atriya, but permits
them to charge a low-intere:st: to an evil person. 8 Bau.dliayana declares that trade, tencling
cattle,, and lending money are degrading for a brahm~a. 9 It is to be noticed that
agriculture is not included. in the list. Apastamba considers trade to be unlawful for a
However, he adds that in times of distress, a brahrn~a may trade in lawful
10
brahmai).a.
merchandise, avoiding forbidden goods. 11 Manu asks a brarunru:a and a k~atriya to
carefully avoid the pursuit of agriculture, which causes injury to many creatures.
Moreover, agriculture also means dependence on others. 12 Elsewhere, Manu designates
agriculture by the word pramrtta, i.e., pre-eminent: in the loss of life. 13 Baudnayana says
that the study of the Vedas tends to destroy agriculture. Similarly, devotion to
agriculture harms the study of the Vedas. Therefore, one, who is unable to look after
both, should give up agriculture. 14 Trade is accepted as a more respectful occupation

3
Visnu. 58.6-8.
4
Apdh.l.l0.29.6.
5
Apdh. 2.7.172L
6
GDh. I 0.5-6 .
7
VDh. 2.40-42.
8
Manu. 10.117.
9
BDh. 1.5.10.24.
10
Apdh. 1.7.20.10.
II Apdh. 1.7.20.11.
12
Manu. 10.83--'84.
13
Manu. 4.5.
14
BDh. 1.5.1 0.30.

187
than agriculture. It is interesting to note here that even if a bfahmru:a is compelled by
circumstances to take to trade as the means of livelihood, he must not trade in a large
number of articles. 15
Manu ordains that a dvija can resort to weapons to establish var1JiiSramadharma,
to protect himself, women, brahmanas, cows, etc. 16 He incurs no sin if he kills others for
the above-mentioned purpose. Manu gives the examples of Ajigarta (who killed his own
son to satisfy his hunger), Vamadeva (who wanted to eat the flesh of dog in order to
save his life), and Vi/vamitra (who ate the flesh of a dog). None of them incurred any
sin, because their transgression was caused by the exigencies of the circumstances. 17
Manu enjoins that a brahmaq.a can accept gifts from any one as nothing can defile him,
for he himself is a purifier. 18 However, Narada asks a brahmaq.a, who, during the times
of distress, had acquiied wealth by adopting the occupations of a ksatriya, to perform a
penance and to relinquish the adopted mode of livelihood as soon as the crisis was
over. 19 If a brahmaq.a takes delight in the occupation of a k~atriya and persists in them,
he is declared a professional soldier.20 Gautama quotes others who permit even the
occupation of a S'udra for a dvija, in case his life is in danger?1 It seems that while a
brahmapa may be permitted to transgress his svadharma, it is demanded that he must
return to his svadharma. immediately after the crisis. If he does not return back to the
prescribed profession, he may lose his exalted social status.
Similarly a k~atriya need not stick to his svadharma during calamity; Manu says
that a rajanya in adversity, may make his living by all other means but he should never
take the avocations of the brahma.t].as, his superiors. 22 If a man of lower var11a, through
greed, makes his living by the innate activities of his superiors, the king should
confiscate his wealth and banish him immediately. 23 It is ordained that a k~atriya, like a
brahma.t].a, must not trade in certain items. 24 Moreover,he must avoid agriculture? 5
The law-givers lay down that if a vaisya finds it difficult to support himself by
his own occupations, he should take the occupations of the ~iidras, i.e., to live by serving

15
GDh. 7.7; VDh. 2.24.
16
Manu. 8.348-349.
17
Manu. 10.105-108.
18
Manu. 10.102.
19
Narada. 10.59.
20
Narada. 1.60.
21
GDh. 7.23.
22
Manu. 10.95.
23
Manu. 10.86. See also VDh. 2.22-3.
24
VDh. 2.24-38.
25
Manu. 10.83-84.

188
the members of the dvija-varrJas.Z 6 A vaisya is also included among the dvijas. But the
above injunction clarifies that vaisyas are seen as separate from the category of
briilunaJ)as and ks~triyas. Louis Dumont rightly observers that the £udra is opposed to
the block of the first three, the vaisya is opposed to the block of brahrnai].a and k~atriya,

which finally divides into tv;o_2 7

It comes as no surprise that such an idea is expressed in the Dharma/iistras, for a
vaisya, even though financially strong, is placed as a poor third in the hierarchy of varf!a.
He ha., no choice but to work as a sudra, the only inferior var1Ja. Manu says that a gtdra
should serve the brahmaJ].a in times of crisis. This would secure him all ends, failing that
he may serve a k~atriya, or may maintain himself by attending even a wealthy vai{ya? 8
This pronouncement suggests that a sudra's senrice is primarily reserved for tl~e upper
two varrJas. Aceording to Mc:mu, a king should carefully compel the vaisya and the tudra
to perform their respective tasks for if these van.ws swerve from their duties they throw
the whole world into eonfillsion?9 Elsewhere, Manu says that the ~udra, distresse,d for
subsistence, many settlle down in any part of the country. 30 R.S. Sharma interprets the
passage thus: 8uch injiunC1tions point to some kind of socio-economic crisis .... There
seems to have been dec.ay ilil farming and trading. Sharma writes that the crisis appears to
have deeply affected the producing masses and encouraged migration. He maintains that
Manu's measure, for making the vai£yas and siidras work, may have been necessitated by
social conventions madle worse by foreign invasions. Perhaps., when the strong rule of the
Mauryas broke down, :it was found increasingly difficult to keep the vaisyas and ~udras
within the bounds of their assigned rules. 31
Although, we cannot say, with certainty, that iipaddharma reflects the prevailing
socio-economic and politieal crisis, the liberal provisions, provided by the law-givers,
who are othenvise quite :strict, could not have been perceived in normal situation.
Probably such provisions were devised to help the brahrnanical social set-up to maintain
itself despite the changing socio-economic milieu. Moreover, the law-givers do not
permit cent percent freedom from prescribed code of conduct. In general, members of
<my van]a who fall short of their specific duties, except in cases of emergencjr, "migrate

26
Manu. 10.98.
27
Louis Domont, Homo Hierarchicus, p.l06. See also p.79.
28
Manu. 10.121.
29
Manu. 8.418.
'0
" Manu. 2.24. /
31
R.S. Sharma, Siidras, p.l93.

189
 into despicable bodies" and "will become the servants ofthe dasyus" .32 The law-givers33
leave us in no doubt that a man can never escape the rewards of his action, a dictum that
would act as deterrent to digressions. They do not speak about apaddharma of a woman
or that of a king. Trangression of dharma by a woman is deemed dangerous for the
social fabric. So far as the king is concerned, his position as the upholder of dharma
would not permit him to trangress, for how would a trangressor prevent the kaliyuga.

6.2. Apaddharma in the Didactic Sections of the Mahiibharata

The authors of the Mahabharata, on the line of the Dharmafastrakaras, accept that strict
regulations of the normal times cannot be applicable to the times of crises. Undoubtedly,
Dharmic code cannot cover all eventualities of life. Therefore, the redactors list a distinct
code of conduct for crisis. Dharmaraja Yudhisthira defines apad, and asks Bhl~ma:

When righteousness suffers decay and is transgressed by all, when unrighteousness

become righteousness and vice-versa, when all restraints disappear ... When people are
. oppressed by king and robbers, when men of all the four varrJllS become stupefied in
respect of their duties ... When the brahmaq.as become exceedingly afflicted, when the
clouds do not pour a drop of rain ... How, indeed should a brahm~a maintain himself at
such a time? 34
In his answer to Yudhi~thira, Bhi~ma narrates the story of ViSvamitra, who was
forced to eat dog's meat, an unclean food, to save his life. Such an act was not considered
a sin, since he ate the forbidden food when his life was in danger. We will take up the
details of the story in the next section (vyavahara). A.K. Majumdar interprets
iipaddharma differently: There must have been some brahmaq.as who could not learn the
Vedas, which for them really meant committing a huge literature to memory. To
memorize a single text is a most formidable task. But failure to do so meant destitution,
unless the untutored brahrn.aq.a inherited wealth. For, he could neither be a teacher, nor
take up any other vocation. Naturally some of them become vagabonds. Even so, the
established socio-economic pattern of life, which ruthlessly circumscribed their
opportunities at homes, had an important bearing on the spread of braluna.t}.ical culture. 35
It is important to clarify that ritual categories remained static, even though the
occupation carried out by their members changed during crisis. Thus a brahmel9-a could

32
Manu. 12.70-72.
33
Manu. 12.74-81. Yaj. 3.209-211.
34
Mbh. 12.79.12-13 and 19.
35
A.K. MaJumdar, Economic Background, p.93.

190
be teacher or a priest, and at the period of crisis he could be an administrator or even a
trader. Similarly a k1iatriya might become a teacher or a trader to survive. The actual
functioning of the me:mbe~rs of any var1Ja may change during crisis, but the composition,
role and function of members of a var'la remained constant and represented an idealised
theory of social functioning. Such a provision permitted the brahmar}ical ideologues to

.
assert a great1er relevanc1e of varniiframadharma as they saw it, since varna structure .
could fit into any social-condition and survive any social-crisis.
As usual, Yudhi~thira initiates a session by raising a number of questions
regarding the nature of human acts and of the causative forces that influence human
actions. He points OUlt that a brahma.q.a may suppmt himself by the practices of a k~atriya.
Can he, however, at any time support himself by the practice of a vaisya's duties 36
Blli~ma answers in the affirmative. According to Blil~ma, when a brahmai}.a loses his
means of support and falls into distress, he may certainly betake himself to the practices
of a vaisya and derive his support from agriculture and cattle. This should be done only if
a brahmill).a is incompet1::nt for a ~atriya's duties. B~ma adds that a brnluna.J)a· should
refrain from dealing in wine, salt, sessamurn seeds, animals having manes, bl:tlls, money,
meat and cooked food. 37 Bh!~ma states that if a brahm~.a sells these proscribed goods,
he incurs sin and sinks into well. 38
,.
In another chaJ!>ter of the Siintiparva, Bhl~ma enumerates that even as a
brahma.IJ.a, in season of distress, may officiate at the sacrifice of a person for whom he
would not officiate (at normal times), and may eat forbidden food, so there is no doubt
that a k~atriya in distress may take wealth from all except ascetic brahma.I]as. There is
nothing called improper outlet for one who is afflicted. In a season of calamity, when
ordinary practices cannot be followed, a k~atriya may live by even unjust and improper
means. It is seen that 1he brahma.q.as do the same when their means of living are
destroyed. Bm~ma contlinues that when the brahrna.I!as (at such times) conduct thus, what
doubt is there in respec:t of the ~atriyas? Indeed, it is a settled rule. A k~atriya may (by
force) take whatever he: can from the rich, without sinking into despondency and yielding
to destruction. It s!b.ould be known that a ~atriya is bo1h protector and destroyer of the
people . Bhi~ma says that a ksatriya in distress should talce (by force) what he can, wifLh a
purpose to protect the people (ultimately). Bhi~ma says that in fact, no person in this

06
Mbh. 12.79.1.
7
] Mbh. 12.79.2 and 4.
Js Mbh. 12.79.5.

191
world can support life without injuring other creatures. The very ascetic leading to a
solitary life in the forest is no exception ... 39
It is important to notice that Bhi~ma sanctions even robbery for a k~atriya in
distress, provided he does so in order to protect the people. While the Dharmafastras
impose some restrictions, BhT~ma says that there is nothing improper and unjust for an
afflicted man. A.K. Majumdar analyses Blii~ma's pronouncement thus: Bhf~ma's

equivocation seems to indicate the true state of affairs in times of distress. During such
period, when there was no food, and commercial activities were practically at a stand
still, it was idle to expect men, who had no experience of agriculture and trade, to take up
those vocations profitably. They were trained in arms and others were not. So the most
natural thing for them would have been to rob others, and this they probably did. 40
One cannot say, with an authority, that Bh1~ma's words reflect an actual social
condition. However, it is obvious that nothing is considered abhorrent for a person who
is in distress. A k~atriya can rob without incurring any sin, so long as he robs for the
welfare of the people. The general rule appears to be that a person can digress from his
svadharma without threatening the variJa-structure. Such flexibility within· an otherwise
rigid code of conduct seems to have helped the maintenance of variJa-system through a
troubled state of affairs.
Blii~ma does not speak about the apaddharma of a vaisya and a sfidra. Going by
the rule, i.e., a nian can adopt the profession of succeeding varf}as while the reverse is
strictly prohibited, a vaisya can take up the profession of a sudra. Since a siidra is already
placed at the lowest rung of social hierarchy, there cannot be any distinct apaddharma

.
for him. However, we notice that Bhisma takes a different stand when Yudhisthira asks ..
him that when k~atriyas become incompetent to prevent varf!uscuhkara and fail to control
robbery; and a non-k~atriya succeeds in wielding the rod of chastisement, is he justified
in doing what he does or is he restrained by the ordinances, since he is not a ks.atriya.
Bhi~ma elucidates that be he a siidra, or be he a member of any varYJa, he, who helps the
helpless men, who are oppressed by robbers, deserves respect in every way. BhT~ma also
puts a counter-question: what is the need of a· king, who is incompetent to protect his
people. Indeed, a person, who always protects the good and restrains the wicked,
deserves to become the king and to govern the world. 41

39
Mbh. 12.128.21-28.
40
A.K. Majumdar, Economic Background, p.98.
41
Mbh. 12.79.37-40. '

192
 Thus, fche ltv.fahabharata records that unrighteousness becomes righteousness and
righteousness becomes unrighteousness depending upon the circumstances, thne and
place. 42 The circumstances also dictate actions of a person. Theroefore, there: is the
provision of Zipaddharma, so that man can brave all crises without disturbing the social
structuJre. The provisions on iipaddharma also attest the notion of brahrn~ical law-
givers that the truth of dharma lies in the dark-cave. The flexibility provided by
iipaddharma also seems to be an effective tool to preserve varrJadharma and to present it
as a lasting social set-up.

6.3. Vyavahara in the Mahabharata

In the previous sections we observed that apaddharma was gene.rally defined as
permissible digression from dharma during a period of crisis. Now we will examine how
apaddhat·ma was practised in 'real' life exigencies. We will also enquire about the extent
to which a man could take liberty of this provision, and whether apaddharma 'had its
own limitations.
One of the most prominent stories depicting a man's conducts during a Grisis is
that of Visviiinitra. BhT~ma recounted this story thus: Towards the end of the tretoyuga
and the beginning of the dvaparayuga, a frightful drought occurr;ed extending over
twelve years. There was no rain. All dharma was destroyed and people ate one another.
"
The great sage Visvamitra came to a place inhabited by candalas who ate dogs;;· seeing
dogs' meat he tried to steal it. He reasoned that theft was permissible in times of
extremity. A eal)gala tried to stop him from committing a grave sin of eating the meat of
a dog. But Viisvrunitra ate the meat af1:er duly offering it first to pi·trs and deities. He
burnt away his sin afterwards by performing asceticism. 43
·we are told that the cal}gala objected saying that what was an improper aet could
never become a proper one. Vifvamitra explained to him that a r~i could do what was
sinful. He argued that he was a brahmrup, an observant of rigid vows. According to
/
Visvarnitra, hils act would be regarded as righteous in a person of clean soul. To a person
of unclean soul, however, the eating of dog's flesh would appear sinful. The story
informs us that Vi~~amitra divided that meat into as many portions as were necessruy,
accordimg to ithe injunctions of the scriptures, and by invoking the gods with Indra as

42
Mbh. 12.79.31.
43
Mbh. 12.139.13-92 .

193
their head (for accepting their share). Surprisingly, the chief of celestials, Indra, began to
pour copiously, immediately after Vi{vrunitra offered the food to gods. 44
One may doubt whether Vi~vamitra could remain pious after performing what
appears to be an impious act. The Mahabharata dispels one's doubt. Vis'vamitra not only
burnt away all his sins through penance, he also achieved great ascetic success.
Moreover, Vi£vamitra's act of making an offering to gods and pif(s was considered
sufficient to inspire Indra to respond soon with rains. Wendy O'Flaherty is of the opinion
that in human terms, hunger is the epitome of lipaddharma, the extremity in which social
conventions cease to function. 45
There is another story that depicts hunger as crisis, though its end is somewhat
different from that of Vi£vfunitra. The story tells us that once there was a terrible drought
.
and widespread starvation, the seven sages along with Arundhatf wandered the earth in
search for food. They saw a dead boy and, as they were starving, they began to cook him.
While they were cooking, king V{l{adarbhi came to them and implored them to refrain
from eating forbidden food. He offered them riches and food, but the sages refused to
accept any gift from the king. However, they left the boy uncooked and went ahead in
the forest in search for some other food. The king sent his ministers to give them gold,
but they refused that too. Then the king got furious. He performed a sacrifice, which
produced a hideous witch, whom he sent to destroy the seven sages and ArundhatT. In the
meantime, one mendicant joined the sages. The mendicant, named Suna.Q.sakha, saved
/
the~ sages from the witch. Sunal).sakha was in fact Indra who came, in the guise of a
mendicant, to protect the sages. He told the sages that their lack of greed had procured
heaven for them. The sages went to heaven with Indra. 46
The sages' lack of greed even under the pressure of hunger was established by
their refusal to accept gifts of the king. They did not eat the human child when the king
interfered. However, apaddharma did not always endorse every action under the pretext
of crisis. A story of a brahma!).a sage, named Gautama, supports the above observation.
A young bra:hma!).a, named Gautama, was poor and ignorant of the Vedas. Being unable
to earn money he went to a prosperous village, where he was warmly received by a
dasyu. The dasyu gave him a piece of new cloth and a widowed woman. Gautama lived
happily in the village. Every day, he went, like other dasyus, into the forest and

44
Mbh. 12.141. passim. (P.C. Roy's tr.)
::Wendy Daniger O'Flaherty, Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology, Motilal Banarasidas, 1976, Delhi, p.31.
Mbh. 13.94-95. passim.

194
slaughtered \Vild c:nmes in abundance. Later, another br1ihma11a chanced to visit
Gautama's habitation. The virtuous brahm~a, devoted to the study of the Vedas,
reprimanded Gautan1a. for his fall. Gautama argued that he was doing so to earn wealth.
However,, Gautama, as he was aware of his faults, left the village and moved toward sea
to earn riches. On the way, he met a crane, named Rajadharrna. Ra:jadha.rma was
possessed of merits and great wisdom. He helped Gautama to gain great riches from
Viriipak~a, the Icing of raksasas. Gautan1a, on his way back, had no food to eat.
Therefore, he killed :R:.'ajadharrna when the latter was asleep. Viriipak~a, a close friend of
Rajadharma, asked his assistants to find out the reason behind Rajadhanna's
disappearance. Gautama's misdeed was soon discovered and the king ordered his
soldiers to kill him. Gautama's deed was considered so sinful and repulsive, for he had
killed his benefactor, that even dasyus and rak~asas refused to eat his flesh, although they
were cannibals. 47
The account of the vile brahmal).a was perhaps a reminder to the people that a
man must observe smne basic codes of conduct all the time. He was not pennitted to
loose all bounds m1der the pretext of iipaddharma. Gautama was killed because of his
impious action. Th1e story also conveys a message that the dictum, 'one should always
preserve one's life', was not the final truth. In other words, understanding of dharma was
never complete and perfect. A man was expected to act for the maintenance of a larger
dharma, even if that meant sacrifice of smaller ones. However, the choice was not easy
when the dilemmas arost!. The story of Kau.Sika suggests the same. A hermit, Kau~ika by
name, had taken a vow to tell the truth all his life. One day, a group of bandits were
chasing some traveUers with the intention of killing them. Kau~ika was sitting at a
crossroad through which the travellers passed by. They requested him not to show the
miscreants the;! way they fled. Kausika did not answer. Soon the bandits arrived, and
knowing that the hermit would not lie, they asked him about the travellers. Kaufika told
the truth. Consequently, the travellers were caught and killed. As a result, Kau§ika failed
to reach heaven, even though he did his duty and kept his vow. 48 Kaufika's ambition was
to attain heaven. But his telling the truth mined his dream totally. Kausika, in fulfilling
his duty, was insensitive to human life.
~~q.a narrated the above story to Arjuna to make the latter understand the
importance of dharma, which is dictated by time and circumstances. K.r~l).a said that

4"'
' Mbh. 12.168-172. passim. (P.C. Roy's tr.)
4
R Mbh. 8.49. passim.

195
although Kau§ika wanted to do his duty, he was unwise and foolish. Beyond doubt,
telling the truth was the highest virtue, but under mitigating circumstances (such as
destruction of innocent lives and loss of all possessions etc.) telling a lie may be the
dharma. A 'lie' might be as good as a 'truth' and 'truth might be as bad as a lie', depending
upon the circumstances. So, the constraints or the contingencies of the situation dictated
dharma, at times. The Dharma/astras, while extolling truth and honesty as dharma,
considered that saving a life was the greatest dharma.
Kfgta narrated the story of Kausika to help Arjuna choose between two
irreconcilable obligations, promise-keeping and avoidance of fratricide. The incident that
led to the dilemma was as follows: Yudhi~!hlra had fled the battlefield after being
disgracefully humiliated by Kan:a in an encounter. When Arjuna came to ask

.. .
Yudhisthira about the event, Yudhisthira
. flared up in anger. He told Arjuna that all his
boastfulness about being the finest archer in the world was lot of nonsense, because the
war was dragging on. In a rage, he not only insulted Arjuna, he slighted the Ganq1va-
bow as well. The bow was the most precious possession of Arjuna. It was a gift to him
from AgnT. Arjuna held it so dear to heart that he had taken a vow to kill any one who
would ever speak ill of Gangiva. Hence, Yudhi~~hira's words put Arjuna in a difficult
situation. His lcyatradharma induced him to keep his promise. Arjuna explained to Kr~l).a

that he was obliged to commit fratricide in order to keep his vow. KI:~qa argued that he
could keep his vow without actually killing Yudhi~!hlra. Arjuna could reproach his elder
brother, since insult and harsh words to an elder brother was tantamount to killing him. 49
Arjuna rightly argued that there was no higher duty than keeping a promise. But
when the issue of promise-keeping arose just before his union with Ulupl, he was quite
flexible about the main condition of his self-exile. On learning that Arjuna had taken a
vow of twelve year long celibacy, the Naga maiden argued that his vow was related only
to Draupadl. She believed that there would be no adharma in his accepting her; and even
if there was some slight violation of dharma, he would gain much more in dharma by
saving her life. 50 Interestingly, Arjuna not only assuaged Ulupl's desires, but soon after
this event, on seeing Citrangada, he proposed to marry her and he made no mention of
his vow of celibacy. During twelve years when he was to live without women, he
attached himself to three women (including Subhadra). One may feel amused about this,

49
Mbh. 8.49. passim
50
Mbh. 1.2I3-2I4.passim.
but Arjuna regru:ded it as a perfectly good conduct, because his promi,se was 'only in
relation to Draupadl'.
In the above·-mentio:ced stories, moral dilemmas emerged. from attempting to
remain virtuous. In each case, the solution may appear to be nothing more than an
excuse, but situational constraints demanded that Kau.s'ika should tell a lie and Atjuna
must not commit fratricide, a grave sin. Besides, Arjtma's action would have defeated
the larger purpose of the war, i.e., establishing dharma. Moreover, according to Kr'sna, ...
saving life of creatures should be accorded the highest priority. He clearly ranked the
value of saving life higher than telling a truth or keeping a promise.

...
Bimal Krishna Matilal compares Krsna's ethics with that of Kant, thus:
According to Kant, the objective practical rules should form a harmonious whole, a
system characterized by consistency, much like a system of true beliefs. Krsna, on the ...
other hand, argued that nothing could be an unconditional obligation when it was in
conflict with the avoidance of grossly unjust and criminal acts such as fratricide.
Anachronistically Rama was more Kantian. .KJ.:~I].a's ethics had concern for a richer
scheme of values, moral and non-moral, presupposing a very complex societal and
familial structure. 51
~~l}a did insist that whenever n;vo equally strong duties or obligations were in
conflict, one must choose that which was relatively more ethical. The acco1mt of
Gautama and his son Cinikari supports the above conclusion. A sage, named Gautama,
had ordered his son, C~rakan; to kill his mother, as she was a fallen woman. Having
given the order, Gautama went to the forest to practise penance. Cirakari never executed
any task without pondering over it. He pondered over his father's order as well, and
considered it his duty to protect his mother instead of killing her. Moreover, according to
Cirak-ari, Gautama could be a true husband only if he took care of his wife and protected
her. Cirakar! reached the tconclusion that he would not slay his mother. In the meanwhile
Gautama realised his mistake and rushed back to his house. He was relieved to find his
wife alive. He blessed Ciiiikatl for his thoughtfulness. 52
Although obedienc:e to one's father's command was regarded as a dharma of the
highest order, Cirakari got blessings from his father in spite of disobedience. One may
recall a similar incidence when Para.S'urama, obeying his father's order, slew his mother
and received boons. However, in the present case, the son was rewarded for

"' Bimal Krishna Matilal, Moral Dilemmas p.l4.

52
Mbh. 12.258. passim.

197
disobedience. The story reemphasises the supposition that the· concept of dharma shifted
in accordance with the context, even though dharma was considered eternal.
The 'Great War' of the Mahlibharata, the dharmayuddha, is it~elf full of
instances that appear contrary to dharma at first glance. For instance, the death of
Bh1~ma was so badly needed that K{~pa himself ran to kill him, thus going against his
own words, his vow to participate in the battle only as a non-combatant. 53 However,
Yudhi~thira stopped him from breaking his promise. The Paq~avas were unable to kill
"
Bh1~ma in direct fight, so they decided to use Sikhandfn as a shield. Bhlsma had taken a
vow not to kill Sikhandfn, as he was a woman (Amba) in his previous birth. ~~!la
prepared Arjuna to execute the act by reminding him that he had taken a vow to kill
Bhisma, and his /qlitradharmci commanded him to carry out that vow. Alf Hiltebeitel
aptly says that a connection is once again made between vows and dharma. We are taken
back to the initial act when K.r~\la had offered to break his vow in order to fulfil Arjuna's
vow for him. 54 In summary, vows were meant to be kept or broken according to the
demand of exigencies.
Another glaring transgression occurred when Drol}a was slain by taking recourse
to a lie. Seeing the great carnage brought on by Droqa's prowess, Kt~:pa pleaded that the
Pfu}.Q.avas would have to take recourse to a stratagem for victory, even if it required

.. . suggested that some one should declare to Drona

setting aside dharma. Krsna . that
Asvathama, his son, was killed. The news ·would make Drona give up his arms.
. .
Yudhi~~hira accepted the responsibility with a little he3itance. BhTrna killed ari elephant
~ .
named Asvathama and announced that someone with the name had fallen. But Droi].a,
not believing Bliima's words, asked Yudhi~~hira. Droqa firmly believed that Yudhi~\hira

would not speak an untruth, even for the sake of the kingdom of the three worlds.
Therefore, he asked him especially, and no one else. 55 It appears that Dro:qa was
attentive, above all, to the virtue of truth. But in ~~l).a, the opposite assumption was
operative: sovereignty also required committing a few sins. Moreover, smaller virtues
must be sacrificed for the sake of establishing dharma. He persuaded Yudhi~!hira to tell
the lie,.for it was the only course to win the dharmyuddha. He told Yudhi~thira, "Save us
from Droqa Untruth may be better than truth, if it is told to save a life." 56 Yudhi~thira
succumbed to the pressure, although he added inaudibly that an elephant was killed.

53
Mbh. 6.103.passim.
54
A If Hiltebeital, The Ritual, p.250.
55
Mbh. 7.164.95-96.
56
Mbh. 7.164.107.

198
K!·~r:a had assured Yudhis.tpira that falsehood in this case would not affect him. But the
assurance was baseless. Yudhi~!hira's chariot, which had so far remained four inches
above the earth, immediately touched the earth after the told 1he lie, the only lie he told
in life, indicating his fall.
The Kar11aparva records a similar ineident. When one of the wheels of Kafl'!a's
Chariot got stuck in a crevice, he appealed to Atjtma not to shoot an arrow at him, for it
would be unheroic. Atjuna believed the same, but ]~~~a mocked at KaJ11a's plea and
reminded him that Karr!a bjn1self had killed his opponents when they were in distress.
K~~11a asked Arjuna to shoot the shaft for Kall)a deserved no mercy. Arjuna obeyed that
command. 57 Similarly Duryodhana was struck down by Bhiin.a below the navel, which
r. /

was in violation of the rules: of gadayuddha ..>S The cases of killing of Abhimanyu, Salya
etc. add to the Jist of violation of rules in a war, which was being fought to establish
dharma.

.' . endorsed all these acts of the Pandavas.

However, Krsna . .
Indeed, he was
instrumental in most such cases of violation of dharma for the sake of winning the
dharmayuddha. He argued. that use of adharma was necessary to scor,e victory over
deceitful Duryodhana. 59 The war was a dharmayuddha for the P[qqavas. They were
tighting for a just cause; so the onus to be right also lay with them. One wonders if one
can really call such a battle dharmayuddha. Bimal Krishna Matilal clarifies that it was
called dharmayuddha itn a technical sense. In this sense, dharma is what one should do or
should not do in a pruticullar domain of human behaviour. According to Matilal, it was
called dharmayuddha because both sides agreed to observe the rules of the war, in
accordru1ce with dharma, ~md not because it was a battle between the good and the evil.60
One is amusedl if such a war could be called a dharmayuddha even in technical sense,
where the rules of the war were often flayed.
The events of the war proved that the righteous side was not far behind in

...
violating rules. Krsna instigated the Pandavas to break the rules time and again, for,
according to him, there was no other way to win the battle and establish dharma. The
Kauravas, since they belonged to the unrighteous side, were not expected to abide by the
rules of the Vl'ar. The Pandavas
,. f•
were compelled to take recourse to adharma, since the
good should mould itself according to the emergency, so that ultimately dharma could

57
Mhh. 8.66. passim.
58
Mbh. 9.59.6.
59
Mbh. 9.59. passim.
60
Bimal Krishna Matilal, "Krsna: In Defence of a Devious Divinity", in Arvind Sharma (ed..), Essays, pp.
401-418.

199
 ..
prevail upon adharma. It was realised by the Pandavas that the good was unable to deal
with the evil, crafty, deceitful and greedy, on its own ground. Therefore, it must
challenge the evil on the latter's ground.
However, it would be wrong to deduce from the above discussion that dharma
could always be compromised. Yudhi~tffira had to suffer due to his white lie to Drol).a.
Surprisingly, transgressions by others did not invite so much criticism and insult as in the
case of Yudhisthira.
... .. being dedicated to dharma, was
One can speculate that Yudhisthira,
expected to represent dharma at its best. He was not expected to compromise, at any
cost, with the lofty ideal of truthfulness. Therefore, his transgression appeared too
embarrassing to go unnoticed. Even a crisis could not serve as a rationale in his case.
To conclude, dharma was well defined for ordinary situations and normal times.
Neither concession nor any violation was permitted. But all ordinances could not be
perfectly laid down in advance, and some space for deviation was accepted. It was also
accepted that virtue must be redefined according to situation, keeping the objective of
preservation of the variJa oriented social-structure in mind. The whole concept of
apaddharma appears to give scope for dealing with any such crisis. One could take resort
to emergency measures so that the overall varna-structure could be preserved, and
•
dharma could be established at the end. One can say that apaddharma was one of the

.
efficient instruments that contributed to the continuance of the brahmanical social
structure.

200