NISKAMAKARMA- A REFLECTION

The Bhagvad Gita is a holy book of Hindus, which has been guiding the lives of people
and building the social system for last thousands of years through its spiritual, moral teaching
and preaching. There are several commentaries on the Gita by different Indian saints, thinkers,
writers as well as philosophers who have professed their views taking in different angles. The
Gita (the song of God) is the core essence of Vedas and Upanisadas. The words of Lord Krishna
are worldwide for prescription of moral values to the mankind. Niskama karma as the key
concept of Bhagvad Gita is widely discussed.
The ways of knowledge (Jnana), action (karma) and devotion (bhakti) have been
conceived as the three-fold way of the highest state, i.e., liberation (moksa) in the classical Indian
literature. The three-fold pursuits correspond to the cognitive, conative and affective faculties in
man. Jnanavadins underline the primacy of knowledge over action and devotion. Unless one has
the right vision of reality, on does not know the art of doing action. In other words, action done
under ignorance creates actional bondage. Similarly, devotion bereft of knowledge might take the
form of dogmatic clinging. Those who plead for the primacy of devotion argue that unless
knowledge culminates in devotion it is no better than mere body of information. On the other
hand, an action devoid of devotion is tainted by ego. The karmavadins may come out with more
cogent arguments in pointing out that action is the inevitable manifestation of knowledge and
devotion. Indeed the nature of the action provides an index to the understanding of ones
knowledge and devotion. The philosophical schools in India, orthodox and heterodox, stress the
importance of ideal living. Unlike in the West where knowledge is pursued for the sake of
knowledge, in Oriental philosophy knowledge is pursued for liberation (sa vidya ya vimuktaye).
Philosophical exercise should not only satisfy the theoretic curiosity of the individual, but
crystalise into real living. Since human life is an opportunity to climb higher in the ladder of
evolution. It is imperative that the individual must learn that art of living. Yoga in general and
karmayoga in particular expound the secret of ideal action (yogah karmasu kausalam).
Action is different from event in so far as events are caused by non-human antecedents
whereas an action is determined by free-will of the human agent. One is free to act in the way
one likes. This does not mean that there are no circumstances which influence the agent to act in

a particular way but that they cannot overpower the exercise of free-will. Free-will, therefore, is
the distinctive mark of human action. Exercise of free-will presupposes that there are alternative
ends which the agent can intend to achieve and given a particular end there could be alternative
mean of attaining it. Thus to act freely means that the agent undertakes rational deliberation on
the ends and means and wills to act in the manner that is deemed proper. The individual is free to
choose the way of good or the evil. It is an account of free choice that human action assumes the
normative dimension. The concept of reward and punishment presuppose that the individual is
free to act. On account of acting freely the moral agent is made accountable for his action. Moral
accountability goes hand-in-hand with freedom of will. Though the individual is free in respect
of doing action, strict determination prevails with regard to action and consequences. The action
having been performed the consequences inevitably follow. The deterministic relation between
action and consequences is as irrevocable as the relation between cause and effect with the sole
difference that cause-effect determination is said to be a part of natural order whereas the actionconsequence determination refers to the uniformity in the domain of moral order. It can be
meaningfully said that determination is naturalistic and moral universe are two-fold expression
of the order, immanent in the very nature of reality which has been terms as Rta in the classical
literature. Action and consequences are to two sides of the same phenomena. The moral agent, by
choosing to act in a particular way, remains bound to the consequences of action. Action, good or
bad, have inevitable consequences. Therefore, apparently there is no room for moral agent to
escape from the actional bondage which accrues in the form of consequences. On the other hand,
the exigencies are of existence demand that one must act:
For no one can remain even
for a moment without doing work.
If act one must and to act is to remain necessarily bound to the consequences, then the
life of action seems to be inconsistent with liberation. The paradox is that the proponents of
karma doctrine take action to be the sole means to liberation. Thus there is logical impasse. The
thesis of niskama karma resolves the impasse by enunciating the dynamics of action phenomena.
According to the classical exposition of the doctrine, the individual does not remain bound only
because he chooses to act. The real cause of bondage is not the action but the sense of doership,
the sense of I feeling which the agent imbibes while doing action. The sense of agency makes

him appropriate the action to himself. Since the action is his, the consequence also is his. In other
words, by owning the action one also owns the consequences of action and thereby remains
bound to the domain of dualities.
The action and consequences constitute an integral part of causal nexus. To cite the
classical example of moral dilemma in the Bhagavad Gita one finds that as long as Arjuna thinks
that he has to take up arms and be the cause of death of his kinsmen he is in despair. Lord
Krishna comes to his rescue in making him understand that he should not act as an agent but as
an instrument (nimitta). Arjuna has to place himself as mere instrument to fulfill the will of the
Divine. So he has to fight not with the intention of victory or defeat, but with sole intention of
putting an end to evil and thereby make room for the reign of righteousness (dharma).
Establishment of dharma (dharms sansthapana) being the will of God, Arjunas endeavour is
simply to make himself a fit instrument to translate the will of the Master into action. He is not to
act as an agent but as a trustee of the divine. With the suspension of the sense of agency one
withdraws oneself from action phenomena. The consequences, good or bad, are directed by the
Lord. When the sense of agent-hood is given up, the desire for fruits of action disappears.
Arjuna has to fight regardless of consequences because the consequences are dispensed with by
many non-agential factors.
Thy concern is with action alone, never with results.
Let not the fruits of action be thy motive, or let thy
attachment be for inaction.
But there is no complete annihilation of agency. Arjuna should make himself a fit
instrument. To that extent there is room for free-will. Since the agent acts only with consonance
with will of the Divine, the only intention behind every action should be the well-being of
collective body, i.e., lokasamgraha. The agent by suspending the sense of I filling or the sense
of doership not only takes God as the agent of all actions but sees the consequences as
belonging to the Divine agent. This makes him offer the consequences at the feet of the Divine.
So every instance of action becomes an instance of sacrifice (yajna).
Action performed in the spirit of yajna or sacrifice
ceases to be a source of bondage.

This is an ideal action where the individual acts having been immune to the consequence
of action and the performance of each action offers opportunity of turning ordinary actions
(karma) into desireless action ( niskama karma). The desireless action or niskama karma is not
only prescribed for the individual, it is recommended for the society at large.

References
1. B.G., II- 50.
2. B.G., III- 15.
3. S Radhakrishnan, The Bhagvat Gita.
4. B.G., II- 47.
5. Sri Aurobindo, Essays on the Gita.
6. Mohanty A.K., Karma