Means Vs. Ends 1

Would means justify ends or would ends justify means? There have been endless debates on this by scholars of excellent reputation. However as far as I know that this debate has produced two schools of thoughts – a) moralists, who decry every so called foul act and try to view the world through the prism of righteousness, and therefore opine on behalf of righteous means for anything and everything and b) pragmatists – who assert that righteousness is good as long as it is practical and therefore would depend on situation. Means and ends can be righteous if ordained practical, else one should be “pragmatic”.

Now imagine two hypothetical situations. In the first, a child is going to die because his parents cannot afford his medical treatment. There is a rich man living nearby who has plenty of money but would not donate. There is no other source of getting help for the child. In the second, a gang of rapists is dragging a hapless victim in an uninhabited place. The only way of rescuing her is to attack and even kill those wretches. Everybody would agree that in first situation the righteous end would be the recovery of the child through proper treatment, while in the second that of rescuing the victim. But the means adopted in both cannot be virtuous. In the first, one will have to either rob or steal to get money from that rich miser to donate it to the poor, while in the second one would have to injure or even kill those thugs to rescue the poor victim. In which situation would end justify means?

Means are justifiable as long as the ends are virtuous. This is also the lesson from Mahabharata. If we look into the great carnage in the war we’ll find several notable instances where we would shook our head sadly by seeing the acts of transgression of morality even though the war is termed as “righteous” by all noble souls. In fact the war remains righteous till Bhisma, the grand old man, falls. After he falls, the war becomes bloodier and murkier with both sides breaching the rules agreed upon initially. Six warriors (seven including Jayadhratha who had been indirectly responsible) took turns in hunting and killing young Abhimanyu who had fought valiantly and who had been weaponless and without a car before he was slain. This was condoned by none other than Drona, the preceptor and a person highly regarded by all and highly versed in morality. Jaradhratha was killed by Arjuna while the former was under the misplaced assumption that sun had set owing to an illusion created by Lord Krishna. Bhurisrava was beheaded by Satyaki when the former had his arms cut by Arjuna and had intended to renounce world through Yoga. Drona was slain by Dhristadyumna when the former had given up fighting. Before this, being urged by Bhima and Lord Krishna, the virtuous king Yudhisthira lied about the death of Aswatthama in a view to disarm Drona who was wreaking havoc with Pandava army. Arjuna killed Karna under the instigation of Lord Krishna when Karna was busy lifting his chariot wheels that had sunk deep into the earth. Bhima was instigated by Lord Krishna to kill Duryadhana by smashing the latter’s thighs in a war with mace, an act considered as highly inappropriate amongst mace warriors. Aswatthama killed the sleeping Panchalas and the sons of Pandavas, who had survived the war, in the dead of night by attacking the victorious Pandava camp. Lord Krishna plotted the circumstances for killing Jarasandha through Bhima. Treacherous Shakuni, Karna and Duryadhana with passive support from the blind king Dhritarastra, planned for the usurpation of the Pandava kingdom using an unfair game of dice.

Now in all these cases did the means justify the ends? Why would Lord Krishna, the Supreme Being, do something which the moralists would find objectionable? Why would he urge Yudhisthira, the epitome of virtue and morality to tell a lie? These and many other questions are thrown by Mahabharata to us to ponder upon.