Sanskrit
स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि । धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाच्छ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते ॥
svadharmam api cāvekṣya na vikampitum arhasi dharmyād dhi yuddhāc chreyo'nyat kṣatriyasya na vidyate
Translation
Further, looking to thine own duty thou shouldst not tremble; for there is nothing more welcome to a Kshattriya than righteous war.
Annie Besant · The Bhagavad-Gita, translated by Annie Besant (4th ed., 1922) — Wikisource · Public Domain
Explanation
Having made the metaphysical case, Krishna pivots to Arjuna’s concrete situation: as a kshatriya (a member of the warrior class), fighting a righteous war is his own duty (svadharma) — and there is no higher good, for him specifically, than fulfilling it. This is a contextual, role-bound argument, not a universal one: the Gita is explicit elsewhere that svadharma differs by station, and this verse is Krishna meeting Arjuna inside his own framework rather than asking him to abandon it. The qualifier dharmyāt — “righteous,” lawful — is load-bearing: the claim is not that war is good, but that this war, already just and already joined, is the kṣatriya’s proper field of action. Chapter 18 restates the principle at its most general in BG 18.47.
Study deeper
Word by word
- svadharmamस्वधर्मं
- your own duty
- api cāvekṣyaअपि चावेक्ष्य
- considering as well (api + ca + avekṣya)
- na vikampitum arhasiन विकंपितुं अर्हसि
- you ought not to waver (na + vikampitum + arhasi)
- dharmyād dhi yuddhācधर्ंयाद् धि युद्धाच्
- for than a righteous war (dharmyāt + hi + yuddhāt)
- chreyo'nyatछ्रेयोऽन्यत्
- anything better (śreyaḥ + anyat)
- kṣatriyasyaक्षत्रियस्य
- for a kṣatriya
- na vidyateन विद्यते
- does not exist (na + vidyate)
Commentary
Site Commentary
This verse is easy to misread as a general endorsement of righteous war; it isn’t one. The claim is scoped tightly to “a Kshattriya” — a role, not a universal principle — and everything that follows in verses 32-38 argues from inside that same scoped role rather than from some claim about violence being good in the abstract. The specificity is the whole point: the argument would not transfer to someone in a different role facing a different duty.
Original commentary written for this site · © Amit Singh — original commentary
Concepts
Apply this verse
Lessons
Personal
- When you justify a hard choice to yourself, check whether the justification is actually specific to your role and circumstances or whether you're reaching for a universal principle that doesn't really apply. A reason that only works because of who you specifically are is still a legitimate reason.
Professional
- When you advise a colleague based on what worked for you, be explicit about which parts were general and which were specific to your particular role or stage — advice that quietly assumes a universal principle when it was really role-bound will mislead someone in a different position.
Family & Social
- When you tell family members what they "should" do based on what was right for you, be honest that your reasoning may be scoped to your specific circumstances — what was your duty in your situation isn't automatically theirs in a different one.
Ask yourself
A few ways to take this verse past reading. Ticks and the note stay in this browser.
Reflect on this verse
Keep exploring
Topics