Is a neutral person in a religious war equal to an enemy, according to GITA?

  • Politics are off-topic for our site. May 23, 2018 at 11:39
  • Its ok, regardless of politics then? What does GITA says about a neutral person , also i would like to know the prase number , any help will be appreciated
    – OM-ॐ
    May 23, 2018 at 11:44
  • Possible duplicate of Does one gain pāpa or puṇya by remaining neutral in a moral crisis?. This question covers all the Hindu scriptures (also Bhagavad Gita). Answer is from Ramayana and Mahabharata. May 23, 2018 at 11:49
  • There is no such thing as a 'religious' war. Wars are wars. They are done for worldly reasons, not Godly reasons. It may be a individual person's dharmic duty to fight in a war, but don't get confused that a war is fought for religious reasons. Worldly people may raise the specter of God to incite people to war, but they do so for worldly reasons alone. May 24, 2018 at 5:02

4 Answers 4


Gita is quite clear that one must oppose the wicked and fight on the side of dharma. There is no room for neutrality in a war against adharma. The concrete example is that of Arjuna. He refused to fight against adharma on personal grounds. Sri Krishna chastised him for such unmanliness.

O Arjuna! Whence has this loathsome stupidity come upon you in this crisis? It (this attitude) is unworthy of a noble personage.** It is a bar to heaven and a cause of much disrepute.**

Gita 2.2

O Partha! Yield not to unmanliness! It befits thee not. Abandoning this base faint-heartedness, rise up, O dreaded hero!

Gita 2.3

Hindu dharma usually recommends nonviolence. However, there may be occasions when violence is necessary for defence of dharma.

Highest Morality

Tuladhara said, ‘O Jajali, I know morality, which is eternal, with all its mysteries. It is nothing else than that ancient morality which is known to all, and which consists of universal friendliness, and is fraught with beneficence to all creatures. That mode of living which is founded upon a total harmlessness towards all creatures or (in case of actual necessity) upon a minimum of such harm, is the highest morality.’

(Mahabharata Santi Parva Section CCLXII)

A neutral person in a war against adharma is not an enemy but he is definitely misguided.

  • 1
    Thus this answers my concern . Thank you Pradip Da
    – OM-ॐ
    May 24, 2018 at 4:22
  • 1
    it really depends upon what the person's station in life is and what is a righteous war. The 2 sides in the Gita were not dependent upon each person or group deciding on which side to fight. A king at the time of the Gita would send out messengers to the other kings asking them to fight with him. It was the custom at the time to fight with the side that had its messenger ask first. Remember also that Krishna, although the charioteer for Arjuna, had his own army fight on the opposite side. May 24, 2018 at 4:57

Gita directly doesn't discuss about the particular term "neutrality" during the war. However, it does [repeatedly] discuss that for whatever reasons abandoning the righteous war (Dharma Yudhha) results in sin.

BG 2.33 - अथ चैत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि। ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।
On the other hand, if you will not fight this righteous battle, then forsaking your own duty and fame, you will incur sin.
BG 2.34 - People also will speak of your unending infamy. And to an honoured person infamy is worse than death.

Famous example of being neutral in the religious war was Krishna's own half brother BalarAma, who didn't participate in any way during the war.
In famous BRC Mahabharata, in the episode of Duryodhana's defeat, it's illustrated nicely in this small scene between Krishna & BalarAma. Though it may not be exactly according to the scripture of Mahabharata, but it conveys the sentiment very well.


Is a neutral person in a religious war equals to enemy, according to GITA?

No according to Shrimad Bhagavad Gita a neutral person is actually best among yogi's This is mentioned by Shree Krishna in Chapter 6 - Verse 9. Below is the English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambhirananda.

साधुष्वपि च पापेषु समबुद्धिर्विशिष्यते।।6.9।।

sādhuṣv api ca pāpeṣu sama-buddhir viśiṣyate

6.9 The first line of the verse beginning with 'benefactor,' etc. is a single compound word. Visisyate, he excels, i.e. he is the best among all those who are established in Yoga-(a different reading is vimucyate, he becomes free); sama-buddhih, who has sameness of view, i.e. whose mind is not engaged with the estion of who one is and what he does; with regard to a suhrd, benefactor-one who does some good without consideration of return; mitram, a friend, one who is affectionate; arih, a foe; udasinah, a neutral, who sides with nobody; madhyasthah, an arbiter, who is a well-wisher of two conflicting parties; dvesyah, the hateful, who is repulsive to oneself; bandhuh, a relative;- to all these as also sadhusu, with regard to good people, who follow the scriptures; api ca, and even; papesu, sinners, who perform prohibited actions-with regard to all of them. Therefore, to acire this excellent result-

A person is considered still further advanced when he regards honest well-wishers, affectionate benefactors, theneutral , mediators, the envious, friends and enemies, the pious and the sinners all with an equal mind.

Here as desired by you the two or more conflicting parties can be regarded as those whom are fighting religious war. So no the neutral person who sees no difference between differentationing parties (even religious), and is benefactor to all is considered as advance yogi.

  • hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/27636 This answer above has flaws It states that neutral person is considered as advance yogi. But according to verse. Advance yogi treats foe, ally or neutral person with sama buddhi One treating with sama buddhi is yogi not the neutral person. And also it is to be noted that yogi treats everyone with sama buddhi should not be taken as yogi treats all the same Jan 19, 2021 at 17:28

When Duryodhana lay dying after his fight with Bhima, Balarama, who had just arrived, wanted to punish Bhima for not following rules...He had lifted his weapon, when Lord Krishna stopped him. In sharp tones, he reminded Balarama that he had gone on a pilgrimage, refusing to take sides in the war between dharma and adharma. A person who does so has no right to comment or take action later.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .