Violence in a religious context, and especially in the context of the Bhagavad-Gita is a quite complex subject.

Materialists often see no problem in using violence to obtain whatever they want, be it richness, a kingdom, a woman, and so on. In the Bhagavad-Gita we see this exemplified in the figure of Duryodhana, who was ready to use all necessary means to achieve his goal of destroying the Pandavas and becoming king.

This type of violence is condemned in the Bhagavad-Gita by both Arjuna and Krsna.

Arjuna says, on Bg 1.37-38: “O Janārdana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one’s family or quarreling with friends, why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?”

Krsna says, on Bg 16.9: “Following such conclusions, the demoniac, who are lost to themselves and who have no intelligence, engage in unbeneficial, horrible works meant to destroy the world.”

According to the Vedas, there are six kinds of aggressors: 1) one who ministers poison, 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. These aggressors are mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in his purport to BG 1.36.

According to the scriptures, one may fight and even kill any of these 6 types of aggressors without incurring sin. This is actually considered a religious duty when it involves protecting one’s dependents.

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 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 first canto of Srimad Bhagavatam, in the pastime of the meeting 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.

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.

In this way, employing violence for material gain, especially when involving harm to innocent people is sinful and adharmic. Reacting to such violence and fighting an aggressor to protect one’s dependents is dharmic, and such violence may be employed by all classes of people without fear of suffering karmic reactions. Higher than that however is saintly behavior based on forgiveness and in finding non-violent options to protect oneself and others. This principle is well fit to be used for Brahmanas and Vaishnavas, as well as pious people.

Arjuna argued based on this principle through the first chapter. Although Duryodhana and others were aggressors, he was ready to forgive them under the principle of saintly behavior. He was even prepared to be killed unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield. Srila Prabhupada mentions in BG 1.45 that “All these symptoms are due to soft-heartedness resulting from his being a great devotee of the Lord.”

In the second chapter, however, Krsna introduces a higher principle: Arjuna is a Ksatriya, and thus his duty is to fight for the right cause under religious principles, for which he was trained since he was a child. Ksatriyas have the duty of fighting because they are trained to employ violence in a way that is beneficial not only for the people they are protecting but also for the aggressor himself. Considering that the soul is immortal and transmigrates through many bodies in the course of his journey in conditioned life, offering a better destination for the soul is more important than offering a comfortable position in this life.

By fighting according to his religious duty as a Ksatriya, Arjuna didn’t have to fear karmic reactions, for this killing would be religious and advantageous for his enemies. As Prabhupada mentions in his purport to BG 2.27: “The Battle of Kurukṣetra, being the will of the Supreme, was an inevitable event, and to fight for the right cause is the duty of a kṣatriya. Why should he be afraid of or aggrieved at the death of his relatives since he was discharging his proper duty? He did not deserve to break the law, thereby becoming subjected to the reactions of sinful acts, of which he was so afraid. By avoiding the discharge of his proper duty, he would not be able to stop the death of his relatives, and he would be degraded due to his selection of the wrong path of action.”

Krsna emphasizes this point in the verse itself (2.27): One who has taken his birth is sure to die, and after death one is sure to take birth again. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.”

Krsna argues in favor of Arjuna discharging his duty as a Ksatriya on three different levels:

The first level is executing one’s duty to obtain favorable results:

“Considering your specific duty as a kṣatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.
O Pārtha, happy are the kṣatriyas to whom such fighting opportunities come unsought, opening for them the doors of the heavenly planets.
If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.
People will always speak of your infamy, and for a respectable person, dishonor is worse than death.” (BG 2.31-34)

The second level is in the context of niskama-karma-yoga, performing one’s duty as an offering to the Lord, without attachment for the result:

“A self-realized man has no purpose to fulfill in the discharge of his prescribed duties, nor has he any reason not to perform such work. Nor has he any need to depend on any other living being.
Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act as a matter of duty, for by working without attachment one attains the Supreme.
Kings such as Janaka attained perfection solely by performance of prescribed duties. Therefore, just for the sake of educating the people in general, you should perform your work.
Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.” (BG 3.18-21)

On the way, Krsna also poses other arguments, including the idea that one is forced to act according to one’s nature, and therefore it was better for Arjuna to fight according to his religious duty as a Ksatriya than to avoid the fight and go to meditate in the forest: “Everyone is forced to act helplessly according to the qualities he has acquired from the modes of material nature; therefore no one can refrain from doing something, not even for a moment.” (BG 3.5)

Finally, however, Krsna offers the highest level, which is to just surrender to Him and follow his direct order, without considering one’s position or duty according to the ordinary principles of Dharma. This principle of acting directly for Krsna’s satisfaction, without considering other factors is higher than both sakama-karma-yoga (where one is still attached to the results) and niskama-karma-yoga (where one is not attached to the results, but may be attached to the activity itself). When one surrenders to Krsna and acts on a platform of pure love, he becomes higher than any of the previous levels. That’s what Krsna recommends at the end of the Bhagavad-Gita:

“Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.
Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.” (Bg 18.64-66)

The words of Krsna are universally applicable, but each one needs to apply these words in his or her particular context. For a family man, to fight in the battle means to perform his duty to maintain and protect his family. For a pregnant lady, to fight in the battle means to protect her child. For a teacher, it means to properly teach his students, and so on.

Krsna alerts that to abandon one’s duty and try to perform the duties of others is dangerous. Arjuna was a Grhasta and a Ksatriya and wanted to go to meditate in the forest, which is the duty of a Brahmana or renounced person. The same would apply to a Brahmana or Vaishya who would desire to abandon his occupation to fight in a battle. Krsna alerts that performing the duty of others is dangerous and does not lead to any positive outcome. Drona and Parasurama were Brahmanas who became Ksatriyas, but because they were great personalities this did not degrade their consciousness, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

In this way, we have the following gradation for the use of violence or non-violence in a religious context:

1- Use of violence for achieving material gain due to greediness, etc. (Adharmic, condemned in the Bhagavad-Gita)
2- Use of violence to fight an aggressor and defend one’s dependents (Dharmic, recommended for regular people)
3- Forgiveness and searching for peaceful solutions (Dharmic, suitable for Brahmanas and Vaishnavas, but not for Ksatriyas)
4- Fighting according to dharmic principles (Dharmic, appropriate for Ksatriyas)
5- Fighting as a duty, without attachment (higher)
6- Fighting as a service to Krsna, according to His desire, regardless of dharmic and adharmic principles (highest)