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 Kuruksetra, where the Kshatriyas 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 Ravana, 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 Hanuman to devotees still dealing with material desires, such as ordinary demigods. More than that, Krsna Himself took part in many of these wars, upholding his words in the Bhagavad-Gita, of Him descending 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 Adharmic. 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 and used torture and rape as weapons. By definition, Dharmic wars must be fought according to Dharmic principles.
We then come to the figure of the Ksatriyas, 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 Ksatriya is the only one authorized to wage wars. 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 Ksatriya 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.
We can analyze this principle in the recent conflict in Israel, for example. Terrorists attacked innocent civilians, which is profoundly Adharmic, while the IDF retributed by bombing densely populated cities, also killing thousands of innocents. One may argue that one side may be less Adharmic than the other, and surely there are many good arguments that can be made in this direction, but the truth is that both acted in terribly sinful ways. Should devotees be involved in the fight on any of the two sides? I don’t think so. Fighting and killing terrorists who crossed the border and performed raids was clearly justified, but proceeding to attack them inside a densely populated territory is much more complicated.
Another point to consider, however, is that there are different types of wars.
Some wars are fought around 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 Prabhupada compares with dogs fighting over a bone.
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, rapes, and so on, that 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. Srila Prabhupada 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 Ksatriyas 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. Ksatriyas may fight to defend the state, while Vaishyas and others may fight to protect their communities when attacked. Even a Sudra may fight with an assailant who invades his house and attacks his family.
However, at the same purport, Srila Prabhupada 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 Vaishnava 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 Srimad Bhagavatam, in the pastime of King Pariksit and the bull.
The other side however is that the ones in positions of responsibility have the duty of protecting their dependents. For a Brahmana, forgiveness is dharmic, since the Brahmana is supposed to be a saintly person. However, for a Ksatriya 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 Brahmana and the Ksatriya may be equally advanced devotees, but the way they may react in the case of an attack on their community may be radically different.
Srila Prabhupada once said that at a certain point in the future devotees would have a Japa mala 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 Krsna Consciousness are pacific. 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 Brahmanas are not advised to use violence. A Brahmana is supposed to depend on the protection of God instead of defending himself using his own strength. A Brahmana 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-violent 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? I will leave it to the reader to consider.
Another point that often is 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 bogus idea.
Promotion to the celestial planets happens only in very specific circumstances, where one sacrifices his life to perform his sacred duty. A trained Ksatriya 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 Brahmana who dedicates his life to perform religious sacrifices. However, this is a very specific case and is applicable only to trained Kshatriyas fighting in religious wars. A Vaishya fighting to defend his property, or a Sudra fighting to defend his house doesn’t have the same benefit. A Vaishya or a Sudra killing someone in self-defense is not considered sinful, but it is not a very highly pious activity eighter.
Brahmanas however become degraded when they fight, because a Brahmana is supposed to act under higher religious principles, such as tolerance and forgiveness, and depend on divine protection, instead of his own strength. A Brahmana 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 Brahmanas, 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 professions, but they should be very careful in how they act. It should be understood that they are not Ksatriyas 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 Prabhupada was present, many devotees were being conscripted into the Vietnam War, but most of them (if not all) 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.