Prithviraj Chauhan, after defeating the Afghan ruler Muhammad Ghori in the First Battle of Tarain in 1191, magnanimously spared him. However, in the ensuing Second Battle of Tarain (1192), Ghori triumphed and later executed Prithviraj.
This historical episode, deeply ingrained in India’s collective memory, raises questions about the costs of moral decisions: while Prithviraj’s actions might be seen as noble, they did not guarantee his survival. This prompts introspection on whether his end was a result of Ghori’s actions or his own ethical choices.
In the grand dance of evolution, morality is a handicap. For humanity to maintain its position as the pinnacle of evolution on earth, an unwavering pursuit of absolute morality might be counterproductive. The nature of warfare has transformed over time, and military strategies have become more sophisticated. Islamic factions exploit global moral values for their own agenda. Such actions have influenced geopolitical dynamics in areas, including parts of India. If unchecked, these trends could have broader global implications.
Today’s narrative war is multifaceted. The Islamic faction points to Palestine as a significant concern, portraying Israel as a colonising force that has subdued a vast Palestinian population. On the other hand, Hamas, a militant organisation, received backing and was voted into power in Gaza in 2006 by many Palestinians. Established in 1987, Hamas has carried out countless attacks against Israelis.
In 1972, a Palestinian terror group kiIIed 11 Israeli Olympians in Germany. Just last week in Oct 2023, Hamas militants indiscriminately massacred over 260 people at a Music Festival, while over 150 have been captured. Given such a provocation, how should a morally standing body act? What would be considered justifiable actions by a morally adherent entity?
The world is divided into two quarters.
- Those who follow a moral standard.
- Those who kill, rape and hurt indiscriminately.
The standard of morality only applies to those who care about it. “We already know they would do that, but do you (the 1st segment) have to also stoop to the same levels?” This is a new kind of war where the moral side is wearing a handicap of morality while the immoral ones have free reign. The liberals of the society, without realising ( or realising! ) are acting as this handicap to the moral world.
Islamic adherents believe that glory lies in dying for their cause. Life on this earth is short and is just a testing ground for their faith. If they pass this test, there is an eternal life in heaven waiting for them on the other side of death. To pass this test, they have to act in accordance with their book and faith which asks them to even kill people who don’t subscribe to their faith. I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!'” (Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).
In the Mahabharata, during the Kurukshetra war, there’s a crucial moment when Karna’s chariot wheel gets stuck in the mud, leaving him vulnerable. According to the rules of warfare, a warrior should not attack another who is not in a position to defend himself, such as when he is unarmed or not on his chariot. Arjuna hesitates, given this ethical concern.
However, Krishna reminds Arjuna of all the times the Kauravas, including Karna, did not adhere to dharma during the course of the conflict, such as the game of dice that led to Draupadi’s humiliation and the killing of Abhimanyu, Arjuna’s son, in an unfair combat.
Krishna tells Arjuna, “When they were killing Abhimanyu in an unfair combat, where was then, your sense of fairness? When Draupadi was humiliated in the Kaurava court, where was then, your righteousness?”
By reminding Arjuna of these instances, Krishna makes a point about the relativity of dharma in complex situations. He emphasises the larger objective of the war, which is to restore dharma in the world. Given the context, Krishna’s argument is not so much about promoting adharma but pointing out that a strict interpretation of rules might not always serve the purpose of dharma.
In this tumultuous dance of geopolitics and war, the moral compass often finds itself spinning, searching for a definitive north. The tales of Prithviraj Chauhan and Arjuna from the Mahabharata underscore the perpetual struggle between stringent morality and pragmatic decision-making in the face of adversaries who may not adhere to the same ethical standards.
The historical and modern episodes presented elicit a crucial question for humanity: How does one reconcile adherence to a strict moral code in a world where adversaries might exploit such scruples for strategic advantage? As radical ideologies continue to emerge and challenge global peace, the need for introspection is paramount. It is imperative for societies to understand and perhaps redefine what it means to be morally upright in an increasingly complex world.