Why Adharma Must Sometimes be Embraced to Defeat it

Can righteousness afford to remain passive in the face of overwhelming unrighteousness? Should dharma shy away from using unconventional methods when survival itself is at stake? Can the ends ever justify the means when the stakes are as high as the survival of humanity?

The eternal struggle between dharma (righteousness) and adharma (unrighteousness) forms the core of Indian philosophy and epics. However, there are times when dharma faces an existential threat, where adhering strictly to its principles might enable adharma to thrive unchecked. In such scenarios, the unthinkable becomes necessary — adopting adharmic methods to restore and perpetuate dharma.

This paradoxical necessity is not a moral compromise but a nuanced strategy to ensure the long-term survival of righteousness and justice.

Adopting ‘Adharma’ to Protect ‘Dharma’: Lessons from Indian Epics

The Mahabharata: Krishna's Strategic Use of Adharma

The Mahabharata offers the most compelling examples of this philosophy. Lord Krishna, the epitome of dharma, employed seemingly adharmic strategies to defeat the Kauravas, whose adharma had plunged the world into chaos.

The Fall of Bhishma:

Krishna instructed Arjuna to use Shikhandi — a reincarnated soul who Bhishma had vowed not to fight against — as a shield. This tactic, while seemingly underhanded, was necessary to defeat Bhishma, who stood invincible and posed a significant obstacle to restoring dharma.

Moral: When conventional methods fail, unconventional means become the dharma.

Karna's Demise:

During the battle, Krishna advised Arjuna to attack Karna while he was unarmed and struggling with his chariot wheel. While this act might be viewed as adharmic, it was a calculated decision to eliminate a warrior whose loyalty to adharma perpetuated injustice.

Moral: The greater good sometimes demands sacrifices of conventional morality.

The Ramayana: Rama’s Pragmatic Approach

Lord Rama, often regarded as the epitome of dharma, also demonstrated pragmatism when faced with challenges that demanded flexibility.

Killing Vali:

Rama shot Vali from behind, a move that was questioned even in his own time. However, Rama’s justification was clear — Vali had usurped his brother’s wife and kingdom, breaking dharma. Rama’s action restored rightful order and ensured Sugriva’s alliance, critical for defeating Ravana.

Moral: Context matters in determining dharma; actions are justified if they serve a higher purpose.

Hanuman's Burning of Lanka:

Hanuman’s fiery destruction of Lanka was a strategic move to weaken Ravana’s forces and send a message of divine justice. While it involved collateral damage, it paved the way for the ultimate victory of dharma.

Moral: Sometimes, calculated destruction is necessary for creation and restoration.

The Philosophical Justification: When ‘Adharma’ Becomes ‘Dharma’

Indian scriptures emphasize the fluidity of dharma, acknowledging that rigid adherence to principles can sometimes result in greater harm. The Bhagavad Gita encapsulates this dilemma:

“Whatever action is performed by a great man, common men follow. Whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.”

This teaching underscores the importance of context-driven action, where the intent behind the action takes precedence over its outward appearance.

When Terror Demands Force

The modern analogy of combating terrorism offers a stark parallel. Terrorists hide in civilian areas, exploiting societal values of non-violence and protection for the innocent. While regrettable, targeted action — even at the cost of collateral damage — is often the only way to neutralize such threats. Much like Krishna’s strategies in the Mahabharata, these actions serve the greater good by protecting countless lives.

The Ends Justify the Means?

Critics might argue that adopting adharmic means risks eroding the sanctity of dharma itself. However, history and philosophy remind us that inaction in the face of evil is itself a form of adharma. The Manusmriti states:

“For the welfare of the world, a king must use both the danda (punishment) and dharma judiciously.”

The Ethical Tightrope: Balancing Means & Ends

Intent Over Action:

The guiding principle should always be the intent behind the action. When the goal is to restore justice and harmony, even unconventional methods become sanctified.

Proportionality Matters:

Actions should be proportional to the threat posed. The use of adharma must be precise, targeted, and devoid of malice.

Accountability:

Just as Krishna took responsibility for his strategies, leaders who employ such methods must remain accountable to dharma.

Final Thoughts: Is Adharma Always the Enemy?

What is the value of dharma if it cannot defend itself against adharma? Can righteousness afford to remain inert while injustice thrives? How do we navigate the delicate balance between morality and pragmatism without losing sight of our ultimate goals?

The timeless lessons of Indian epics remind us that dharma is not about blind adherence to rules but about ensuring justice, harmony, and the greater good. When faced with existential threats, the true test of righteousness lies in its ability to adapt, evolve, and sometimes even embrace the unthinkable to ensure its survival. After all, what good is dharma if it cannot rise to defeat adharma in its most insidious forms?

Image (c) istock.com