Verse : 37
Tasmān nārhāḥ vayaṁ hantuṁ dhārtarāṣṭrān svabāndhavān
Svajanaṁ hi kathaṁ hatvā sukhinaḥ syāma Mādhava ||37||
Word Meaning:
- Tasmāt — Therefore
- Na arhāḥ — Are not fit / should not
- Vayam — We
- Hantum — To kill
- Dhārtarāṣṭrān — The sons of Dhritarashtra
- Sva-bandhavān — Our own relatives
- Sva-janam — Our own people
- Hi — Surely / indeed
- Katham — How
- Hatvā — After killing
- Sukhinah syāma — Could be happy / attain happiness
- Mādhava — O Krishna (descendant of the Madhu clan)
Therefore, O Mādhava, it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, our own relatives. How can we be happy after killing our own kinsmen?
Expanded Meaning:
This verse marks a pivotal emotional climax in Arjuna’s internal conflict. He openly declares to Krishna (Mādhava) that they should not engage in this war because it involves the destruction of their own kin — their sva-bandhavān and sva-janam — their very bloodline, their extended family. Arjuna is overwhelmed by moha (delusion) and kārpaṇya (weak-heartedness) as he emotionally identifies with those on the other side.
This is not an argument of logic or strategy — it’s a deeply human plea arising from pain, attachment, and compassion gone awry.
Contextual Analysis:
1. “Na arhāḥ vayam hantum…” — The Moral Dilemma
Arjuna declares that they are not entitled or justified in killing the sons of Dhritarashtra. He is not only questioning the legality of the war but also its moral and ethical legitimacy.
- Implied Question: Even if we are victorious, at what cost?
- He implies that dharma is not merely about doing one’s duty — it is about preserving human values and relationships.
2. “Dhārtarāṣṭrān sva-bandhavān…” — The Conflict of Dharma and Affection
Arjuna doesn’t refer to them as rival warriors or oppressors, but as relatives — the sons of Dhritarashtra, his cousins. The phrase sva-bandhavān — our own kinsmen — reinforces this emotional identification.
- He sees not enemies, but family on the other side of the battlefield.
- This sentiment weakens his resolve and clouds his ability to see the broader perspective of dharma-yuddha (righteous war).
3. “Sva-janam hi katham hatvā sukhinah syāma…” — A Deep Existential Question
Arjuna asks: “How can we ever be happy after killing our own people?” This is not just a question about the outcome of war, but about the cost of victory.
- He sees the war as a zero-sum game: win the kingdom, but lose your soul.
- His idea of happiness (sukha) is still tied to relationships, not yet transformed by the higher knowledge that Krishna will soon reveal.
Philosophical Interpretation:
1. Attachment as the Root of Delusion:
Arjuna’s love and attachment to family blinds him to the greater cause. He forgets that the war is not for personal gain but for upholding dharma.
- This reflects how often our emotional bonds can cloud our judgment and lead us to moral paralysis.
2. Conflict Between Personal Morality and Universal Duty:
The verse showcases the tension between relative morality (killing relatives is wrong) and absolute dharma (fighting evil is necessary).
- Arjuna sees only the immediate suffering, not the long-term consequences of inaction.
3. The Illusion of Happiness (Sukha):
Arjuna assumes that happiness is linked to external circumstances — family, peace, unity — rather than inner detachment and righteous action.
- The Gita challenges this assumption and redefines happiness as the result of acting in accordance with dharma, not emotion.
Spiritual Symbolism:
| Element | Symbolism |
|---|---|
| Arjuna | The individual soul (jīva) conflicted between ego and higher purpose |
| Dhārtarāṣṭrās | The entrenched egoic tendencies or inner enemies within one’s psyche |
| Sva-janam | The attachments and identities that create illusion of separateness |
| Mādhava (Krishna) | The Supreme Consciousness guiding the soul toward clarity and truth |
| Battlefield | Life itself — the field (Kurukshetra) where dharma must be practiced |
Psychological Insights:
- Emotional Disintegration: Arjuna, despite being a warrior, collapses emotionally when forced to confront his attachments.
- Avoidance of Pain: His argument masks his desire to avoid the inner turmoil of painful decisions — a defense mechanism common in human conflict.
- Fear of Consequences: He fears not just death, but the emotional aftermath — guilt, remorse, and alienation.
Reflection Questions:
When faced with a hard choice between emotion and duty, what guides your decision — your heart or your dharma?
Can attachment ever justify inaction in the face of injustice?
What is true happiness? Is it the absence of suffering or the fulfillment of righteous action?
How do we deal with conflicts where both sides are ‘our own people’?
When do compassion and inaction become synonymous with enabling adharma?
Conclusion:
Bhagavad Gita 1.37 is a heartfelt cry of a noble soul caught in an impossible situation — to destroy the very people he once loved and respected. Yet this verse also marks the turning point in Arjuna’s internal journey. It is a mirror of our own moments of ethical crisis, where love collides with responsibility, and where emotion challenges dharma.
In the upcoming verses, Krishna will address this dilemma by lifting Arjuna — and us — from the personal to the cosmic plane of action, where duty is not based on emotion, but on eternal principles.