On Thursday (October 20), Congress leader Shivraj Patil stirred the hornet’s nest after he claimed that the concept of ‘Jihad’ is a part of the Bhagavad Gita and that it was taught to Arjuna by Lord Krishna. Patil, who served as the Union Home Minister between 2004-2008 in the Sonia, sorry, Manmohan-led UPA government, made the contentious claims in Delhi during the launch of the biography of Congress leader Mohsina Kidwai.

“There is a lot of discussion about Islam. And our work in the Indian Parliament is not about Jihad but ideals. Jihad is only evoked when all efforts, undertaken with a clear mind, fail,” he asserted. “The concept of Jihad is not limited to the Quran but also the Bhagavad Gita, which is a part of Mahabharat,” he continued. The UPA-era Minister then went a step ahead and alleged that Lord Krishna taught about Jihad to Arjuna during the Dharamyudh between the Pandavas and Kauravas in Kurukshetra. “Lord Krishna had taught Arjuna about Jihad (In Bhagwat Gita). And Jihad does not exist only in Hindu and Islamic scriptures. It is also present in the Holy text of Christians,” he insinuated. Shivraj Patil then justified the concept of Jihad and said, “Despite trying your best, if someone approaches you with weapons, you cannot simply run away…You cannot call it wrong.”

There are, of course, multiple things which are deeply problematic with Shivraj Patil’s statement. The most glaring is his comparison of the Islamic concept of Jihad to Dharma Yuddha, which was being fought during Mahabharat. His assertion that the concept of Jihad exists not only in Islam but in every religious text, including that of Hinduism and Christianity is one that finds no basis in reality and we will delve into the difference in detail. Another interesting aspect of the statement made by Shivraj Patil is that he unwittingly seems to have revealed the motivation behind making such a statement.

In his statement, Patil says “Despite trying your best, if someone approaches you with weapons, you cannot simply run away…You cannot call it wrong”, essentially saying that those who commit Jihad are only responding to aggression against them, thereby whitewashing the theological evidence of what Jihad truly means and also, brushing under the carpet the Jihadi foundation of Islamic terrorism. This statement comes as no surprise since one has to remember how Patil was sacked after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack. In fact, after accusations of him delaying the response to the attack surfaced, Patil had lied to claim that no aircraft was available in Delhi and therefore, there was a delay in sending in NSG commandos. “No aircraft was available here (in Delhi), and then we called one from Chandigarh and dispatched 250-300 NSG commandos within two-three hours to Mumbai and I also travelled with them. That was a freight aircraft and we travelled to Mumbai standing”, he had said. This lie was summarily debunked at the time. Why Patil chose to lie is something we can leave up to the readers to speculate.

Be that as it may, the purpose of this article is to discuss how Shivraj Patil is inexact, to put it mildly, when he conflates the concept of Dharma Yuddh with Jihad and essentially says that the Mahabharat was “Jihad” that Bhagwan Krishna had told Arjun to wage.

What is Jihad

Jihad is one of the most sacred duties that pious Muslims are meant to perform. The word “Jihad”, is an Arabic word which means “struggle”. It is an established fact that Jihad is the struggle for the cause of spreading Islam, using all means available to Muslims, including violence. This kind of Jihad is often referred to as “Holy War”. Now, when Jihad is a means to spread Islam, logic extends that Jihad would be waged against non-Muslims or those who are considered non-believers in the word of Prophet Mohammad and denounce the concept of “There is no God but Allah”.

Essentially, Jihad is a concept of the ultimate subjugation of the non-believer, where, either by convincing them or by using violence, the non-believers are supposed to be brought to the “one true path” of Islam. This is not an opinion formed out of thin air. Islam religious scriptures are evidence of the fact that Jihad is waged against non-believers, using violence, if necessary. Here are some of the verses Wasim Rizvi, who later converted to Hinduism, had cited in his petition where he had asked for 26 verses that promote violence against non-Muslims to be deleted.

Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah)

Verse 191:

And kill them [in battle] wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah¹ is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Ḥarām until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Surah 3 (Ali ‘Imran)

Verse 151:

We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority.¹ And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.

Surah 8 (Al-Anfal)

Verse 65: 

O Prophet, urge the believers to battle. If there are among you twenty [who are] steadfast, they will overcome two hundred. And if there are among you one hundred [who are steadfast], they will overcome a thousand of those who have disbelieved because they are a people who do not understand.

Verse 69:

So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Surah 9 (At-Tawbah)

Verse 5:

And when the inviolable months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakāh, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Verse 14:

Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts [i.e., desires] of a believing people.

Verse 23:

O you who have believed, do not take your fathers or your brothers as allies if they have preferred disbelief over belief. And whoever does so among you – then it is those who are the wrongdoers.

Verse 28:

O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Ḥarām after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.

Verse 29

Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah¹ willingly while they are humbled.

Verse 37:

Indeed, the postponing [of restriction within sacred months] is an increase in disbelief by which those who have disbelieved are led [further] astray. They make it¹ lawful one year and unlawful another year to correspond to the number made unlawful by Allah² and [thus] make lawful what Allah has made unlawful. Made pleasing to them is the evil of their deeds; and Allah does not guide the disbelieving people

Verse 58

And among them are some who criticize you concerning the [distribution of] charities. If they are given from them, they approve; but if they are not given from them, at once they become angry.

Verse 111

Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’ān. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.

Verse 123:

O you who have believed, fight against those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness. And know that Allah is with the righteous.

These are, of course, just some of the verses. The full list of the verses cited by Wasim Rizvi can be read here.

What is Dharma and Dharma Yuddh

Dharma, in itself, is rather difficult to articulate in English since no parallel word or phrase exists to capture its essence. It is a concept inimitable to Sanatan Dharma and the English vocabulary simply falls short. I would therefore depend on greater minds and their wisdom in an attempt to article what it stands for.

“Like the English word ‘law’, the word ‘dharma’ has taken on different connotations. Its original wider meaning is ‘law’. The dharma of any object upholds its existence and regulates its behaviour. It is in this sense that we refer to the dharma of nature, the dharma of water, the dharma of fire and so on…This wider meaning led to the use of the term while describing the laws governing other-worldly objects, irrespective of whether these laws were verifiable or not! The term ‘dharma’ gradually encompassed the mutual relation between Heaven, hell, reincarnation, god, individual (soul), creation and the like. In fact, the word ‘dharma’ soon came to be almost exclusively used in its other-worldly connotation.… The actions of human beings in this world were thought to affect his existence in the hereafter. So ‘dharma’ came to also mean that which upheld his life in the hereafter. In the past, the rules that governed worldly relations between individuals and nations were also termed ‘dharma’. This is clear from terms such as dharma of war (yuddhadharma), dharma of governance (rajdharma), dharma of conduct (vyavahaardharma) and the like”, wrote Veer Savarkar (1934, Vidnyannishtha nibandha or pro-science essays, Samagra Savarkar vangmaya, Vol. 3, p.309-310).

From what Veer Savarkar wrote, it is evident that Dharma is a “duty” that is to be performed, to uphold the purpose of existence. It is the law which governs the conduct of that entity in the fulfilment of his existential duty and the path one must follow to attain Moksha. Dharma, therefore, is not religion, however, it is a part of wider religious tenets.

About Dharma Yuddha, Koenraad Elst once wrote, “The proverbial war in the Hindu worldview is the great war of the Bharata clan, on which the mega-epic Mahabharat elaborates. This epic philosophizes profusely on the principles of dharma yuddha even as it describes the successive episodes of a real-life war. Yuddha means “struggle, war”. Dharma, “sustenance, that which sustains”, effectively means “maintaining the correct relation between the part and the whole”, “playing your specific role in the whole that you are part of”. 

Dharma Yuddh is therefore one’s struggle to fulfil their existential duty. Dharma yuddha means “struggle in accordance with ethics/Dharma” or a “chivalrous war” to uphold morality, ethics, honour, so on and so forth.

How Shivraj Patil was wrong in equating Dharma Yuddh and Jihad

The basic flaw in what Patil has said is the fact that the comparison between Dharma Yuddh and Jihad is like a comparison between apples and oranges. While Dharma Yuddh is the struggle to perform one’s duties towards oneself, one’s Gods and the society at large, Jihad in itself is a concept of slavery where others are subjugated in the name of the “One True God”, by violence if necessary.

Having said that, let us, one by one, talk about how Patil was far divorced from reality when he equated Mahabharat with Jihad.

1. The first and foremost, most glaring falsity in that statement is that while Mahabharat was fought between two branches of the same family, who followed the same religion, Jihad is patently against those who are non-believers in the tenets of Islam. Mahabharat was about two sets of cousins who were pitted against each other for the throne and war became necessary when a peaceful resolution failed. The Mahabharat Dharma Yuddh did not happen over whose God was superior or was the “one true God”. It did not take place as a religious campaign to either spread Hinduism or to ensure that other religions submit to tenets of Sanatan Dharma, even by violence if necessary. During the course of the war of Mahabharat, no religious places were defiled and no mosque was changed into a temple after the place of worship was desecrated. In history, however, whenever Jihad has been waged, it was specifically against non-Muslims to spread Islam by the sword and one of the main characteristics of Jihad was the desecration of religious places.

For example, the unrelenting attacks on Kashi Vishwanath began shortly after Islamic invaders entered India. It was first attacked in the 12th century by Qutb al-Din Aibak. The temple’s peak was damaged in the attack, still, Puja ceremonies continued there even after that. History has it that the destruction of the sacred Hindu temple was carried out under Mohammad of Ghori’s orders.

The Kashi Vishwanath Mandir was once again demolished during the rule of Sikandar Lodi (1489–1517). Evidence implies that Sikandar Lodi was responsible for the invasion of Kashi Vishwanath. In 1669 CE, the ultimate assault on the Kashi Vishwanath Temple was carried out by the Mughal tyrant Aurangzeb. He demolished the temple and replaced it with the Gyanvapi masjid. The remains of the erstwhile mandir can still be seen in the foundation, the columns, and the rear part of the mosque. The Kashi Vishwanath Temple complex, which stands today, is adjacent to the disputed mosque complex and where devotees can do puja and prayers, was built by the great Ahilya Bai Holkar of Indore in 1780. In fact, the Islamic record of Maasir-i-Alamgiri states that on April 9, 1669, Aurangzeb had issued a ‘farman’ decree, “to governors of all the provinces to demolish the schools and temples of the infidels and strongly put down their teachings and religious practices.”

Further, according to Muraqat-i-Abul Hasan, Aurangzeb ordered his soldiers and assistants from Cuttack, Orissa, and on to Medinipur in Bengal to destroy every house with a Hindu deity that was built in the last 12 years. Aurangzeb further ordered that if any temples were reconstructed, they should be demolished again completely so that Hindus could not revive worship at the sites.

According to two Akhbarat dated 28th March and 14th May 1680, even temples in the loyal and friendly Amber state, such as the famed Temple of Jagdish at Goner in Amber, were not spared due to his religious fervour.

History is littered with examples where the places of worship of Kaffirs were brutally and mercilessly desecrated and destroyed because the Islamic barbarians, who waged Jihad in Bharata, considered it “holy war” – changing Dar-ul-Harb to Dar-ul-Islam, which meant ruining every religious symbol of Hindus to establish Islamic symbols instead.

In Mahabharat, there is no commandment given by Bhagwan Krishna to Arjun that requires him to attack the faith of any non-Hindu religious group. It was a battle where even the rules of a righteous and just war were established. How the “just rules of engagement” degraded gradually, based on the unjust methods of the Kauravas, is a matter of a separate debate altogether. In fact, the reason why Mahabharat is called a righteous war is because it was triggered by a woman, Draupadi, being dishonoured. There is no such concept in Islam, in fact, Jihad essentially condones taking sex slaves and war prisoners, which is antithetical to the concept of Dharma itself.

2. In Hindu history, hardly any religious or theological questions have been solved by war. Wars, as we see in the case of Mahabharat, have been the means to settle questions of authority and justice. Questions of a religious and theological nature have always been settled by vaad-vivaad – discussion and debate. Jihad, however, is a different beast altogether. The fact that even theological supremacy against non-believers has been a subject of war, is evidenced by the numerous wars that have been fought since time immemorial – from the battle of Badr, the battle of Uhud, and so on and so forth. From medieval times to now, when Islamic terrorism is rampant against non-Muslims all of the hues, in an attempt to turn nations into Dar-ul-Islam.

In fact, it is pertinent to point out that Mahabharat itself was not a war to settle religious authority as was the case, for example, during the battle of Karbala. Therefore, at an extremely conceptual level, war has never been the means of settling questions of religious authority, religious supremacy etc in Hinduism whereas, the “Holy War” or Jihad has always been a means to settle such issues in the Islamic world. It is therefore outlandish to claim that the very concept of Dharma Yuddh and that of Jihad are similar.

3. Another important aspect to ponder upon is that Dharma and religion itself are not the same. Religion is a set of commandments, rituals, traditions etc to be followed whereas Dharma depends on the time and place. For example, Arjun’s dharma on the battlefield was to wage war against his own relatives, whereas, in a different setting, his Dharma could be that of performing Charity. Islam, however, is a religious duty of every Muslim and is a part of the wider religious commandments of Islam. The two concepts are, therefore, foundationally not the same.

4. One true formless God is an Abrahamic exclusivist concept, and anything similar in the Sanatan theology is entirely of a different philosophical nature. For example, one of the favourite tropes of those who wish to Abrahamise Hinduism is asserting that the concept of Brahman is similar to the concept of “One True God” in Islam. That, however, is not true. Brahman, however, is not a literal “one true God”, but a philosophical concept of a Cosmic Principle and consciousness. Therefore, to say that Hinduism too follows the concept of “One True God” is patently false.

5. The trope that Hindus too worship “One True God” and that Mahabharat was similar to Jihad in Islam is peddled by several Jihadists and Islamists in an attempt to delegitimise Hinduism and assert their exclusivist view that there is ‘No God but Allah’. Even those like Zakir Naik have peddled this trope.

Zakir Naik’s problematic views have been picked up by several Islamic websites and Indian media houses that further the same trope.

Here is an example from mainstream The Print, run by Shekhar Gupta.

It is important to understand the problematic trope saying “Ishwar, Allah Tero Naam” has been long peddled as a syncretic version of how every individual finds their own path to the one true form of divinity, however, in the name of syncretism, Jihad, which aims to subjugate those who don’t submit to their one true God is often pushed under the rug. Shivraj Patil’s statement was essentially the path that Hindus need to tread if they wish to get closer to their own annihilation. While the Hindu might accept Islam as a legitimate path to the divine for those who follow the religion, the Muslim, at least the pious Muslim, would believe that idol worship is satanic and those who don’t follow THEIR true god deserves to be converted by the sword. The Hindus’ path to the divine is one that is illegitimate in Monotheistic faiths and no matter how syncretic Hindus want Hinduism to be, to accept wildly untrue equivalences would only lead to Hinduism being chipped away, with the Islamist delegitimising anything that does not conform to their worldview.