Means vs. Ends 2

In Ramayana we have couple of examples like Lord Rama killing Vali while the latter was engaged in a battle with Sugriva. Laksman killed Indrajeet while the latter was busy in performing a sacrifice. How do we justify the acts of such so called cruelty and immorality perpetrated by the incarnations of God? And why would the scriptures written by great sages, whose main purpose is education of the masses for a very long period of time, probably till the end of humanity, would glorify such events?


These lead us to look more closely into the end vrs. means debates and the objections raised by moralists as well as apologetics.

It is not that end should always justify means or means should always justify end. However, if the end is virtuous and devoid of any selfish agenda, any means can be adopted for achieving it as long as it does not cause any harm to the innocents. Even this can be a yardstick in judging the actions of Lord Krishna and others in the above scenes in Mahabharata. Everyone would agree that Lord Krishna was devoid of any selfish motive in the battle of Mahabharata. Though being a friend of Pandavas, He was a well wisher of the Kurus and thereby He undertook a peace initiative. During the battle He pledged not to take up a weapon and broke the pledge only once under extreme circumstances when an Arjuna caught by the net of compassion was unable to check the carnage perpetrated by Bhisma. However, as professed by Himself, He wanted both Kurus and Pandavas to be happy and did not cherish any open hostility with Kurus. The only reason He favoured Pandavas was that the latter were on the side of the virtue and righteousness. He wanted Yudhisthira to get a fair share of his kingdom on account of the same righteousness and He had great affection and attachment for Arjuna, His friend, devotee and His companion as the incarnation of the celestial sage Nara. But He had nothing to gain for Himself or His family if Pandavas won. Therefore His motives to achieve the ends in the each of the above scenes were devoid of any selfishness. Yudhisthira who was unjustly denied his kingdom had to be restored his sovereignty. Draupadi’s grave insult in the Kaurava hall was to be avenged. The means adopted need not be virtuous and righteous when ends are so. He wanted Drona’s destruction when the latter was at the height of his might, so that Pandava army could be spared. He helped in the slaughter of Jayadratha by veiling the sun, so that Arjuna did not have to lose his life owing to an impulsive and emotional vow. He arranged for the killing of Karna as only one between Karna and Arjuna would survive the war. He reminded Bhima of his terrible vow during the war with Duryadhana as the latter could not be defeated by Bhima in a straightforward war of mace, because he was too adroit for Bhima. He planned for the killing of Jarasandha beforehand as the latter would have sided with the Kurus in the great battle and would have caused great damage to the Pandava cause. Therefore all the actions of Krishna had been performed with one objective – the establishment of virtue and the defeat of pride and injustice. The end for all of them is thus virtuous, whatever be the means adopted.