In recent times, many critics of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi have invoked a particular pada (part) of a śloka in an attempt to tarnish his reputation in the public sphere. They propagate the narrative that Gandhi deliberately omitted the succeeding pada while quoting the verse because it did not align with his political views. According to this claim, he intentionally withheld the latter portion of the verse from his audience.
These individuals assert that the next line reads:
अहिंसा परमो धर्मः । धर्महिंसा तथैव च ।
Ahiṃsā Paramo Dharmaḥ. Dharma-Hiṃsā Tathaiva Ca.
Not only that, this group of people further claims that the above statement is one of the ślokas found in the Mahābhārata.
This claim is entirely false.
The Mahābhārata contains three principal ślokas that include the phrase "Ahiṃsā Paramo Dharmaḥ." None of them, however, are followed by the words "Dharma-Hiṃsā Tathaiva Ca." These three verses, along with their respective contexts, are discussed below.
The First Śloka
The first śloka is found in the Ādi Parva, the first Parva of the Mahābhārata.
अहिंसा परमो धर्मः सर्वप्राणभृतां स्मृतः ।
तस्मात्प्राणभृतः सर्वान्न हिंस्याद्ब्राह्मणः क्वचित् ।।
Anvaya —
अहिंसा सर्वप्राणभृतां परमो धर्मः स्मृतः। तस्मात् ब्राह्मणः सर्वान् प्राणभृतः क्वचित् न हिंस्यात्।
Artha —
Ahiṃsā is regarded as the supreme dharma for all living beings. Therefore, a Brāhmaṇa should never kill any living creature under any circumstances.
Prasaṅga —
This is the eleventh śloka of the twelfth adhyāya of the Ādi Parva of the Mahābhārata. In this passage, a serpent belonging to the Dundubha species expounds the principle of ahiṃsā (non-violence) before Mahātmā Ruru, who is about to kill him out of a desire for revenge.
Mahātmā Ruru, the grandson of the illustrious sage Śaunaka—one of the Saptarṣis, the promulgator of numerous principles of astrology, and regarded in tradition as the world's first Kulapati (head of a great Gurukula)—had suffered the tragic loss of his wife, Pramadvarā, who died from the bite of a serpent. Through the extraordinary act of sacrificing half of his own lifespan, Ruru restored her to life. After their marriage, however, he vowed to exterminate all serpents in retaliation for the suffering they had caused him. It was in fulfillment of this vow that he was about to slay the Dundubha serpent.
Upon hearing the serpent's profound discourse on the doctrine of ahiṃsā, Ruru realized that this was no ordinary creature but a great and noble being. Recognizing his spiritual wisdom, Ruru abandoned his intention and spared the serpent's life.
Note: This episode is narrated by the sage Śaunaka to King Janamejaya in the course of the Sarpa Satra (Serpent Sacrifice), as recounted in the Mahābhārata.
The Second Śloka
Another śloka pertaining to the principle of ahiṃsā (non-violence) is found in the Anuśāsana Parva of the Mahābhārata.
अहिंसा परमो धर्मस्तथाहिंसा परं तपः ।
अहिंसा परमं सत्यं यतो धर्मः प्रवर्तते ।। २३ ।।
Anvaya —
अहिंसा परमः धर्मः। तथा अहिंसा परं तपः। अहिंसा परमं सत्यम्, यतः धर्मः प्रवर्तते।
Artha —
Ahiṃsā (non-violence) is indeed the highest dharma, the supreme tapas (austerity), and the ultimate truth; for it is from ahiṃsā that dharma originates, is established, and is sustained.
Prasaṅga —
This śloka is found in Chapter 115 of the Anuśāsana Parva of the Mahābhārata. In this chapter, following the Kurukṣetra War, Grandfather Bhīṣma instructs Yudhiṣṭhira on the ethical implications of meat consumption and advocates its renunciation. The context and intended meaning of this śloka become even clearer when it is read alongside the verses immediately preceding and following it.
तस्माद् विद्धि महाराज मांसस्य परिवर्जनम् ।
धर्मस्यायतनं श्रेष्ठं स्वर्गस्य च सुखस्य च ।। २२ ।। (Preceding Śloka)
Artha —
Therefore, O King, understand that the renunciation of meat is the supreme foundation of dharma, the attainment of svarga (heaven), and true happiness.
न हि मांसं तृणात् काष्ठादुपलाद् वापि जायते ।
हत्वा जन्तुं ततो मांसं तस्माद् दोषस्तु भक्षणे ।। २४ ।। (Following Śloka)
Artha —
Meat does not originate from grass, wood, or stone; it is obtained only through the killing of a living being. Therefore, its consumption involves a grave doṣa (moral fault).
Taken together, these two ślokas make it evident that although the intervening verse appears, at first glance, to expound the general principle of ahiṃsā, its immediate context concerns the renunciation of meat consumption. Thus, the celebrated statement "Ahiṃsā Paramo Dharmaḥ" is employed here specifically within the discourse on abstaining from meat, rather than as an isolated philosophical declaration on non-violence.
The Third Śloka
The Anuśāsana Parva of the Mahābhārata also contains another significant śloka pertaining to the principle of ahiṃsā (non-violence).
अहिंसा परमो धर्मो ह्यहिंसा परमं सुखम् ।
अहिंसा धर्मशास्त्रेषु सर्वेषु परमं पदम् ।।
Anvaya —
अहिंसा परमः धर्मः। अहिंसा परमं सुखम्। अहिंसा सर्वेषु धर्मशास्त्रेषु परमं पदम् (उच्यते / स्मृता)।
Artha —
Ahiṃsā (non-violence) is the highest dharma; ahiṃsā is the supreme source of happiness; and in all the Dharmaśāstras, ahiṃsā is accorded the highest place.
Prasaṅga —
This śloka forms part of the dialogue between Lord Śiva and Goddess Pārvatī concerning Rājadharma (the duties of a king) and related subjects. In the ślokas immediately preceding this passage, Lord Śiva expounds the principles of Rājadharma, declaring:
वध्यान् घातयेद्यस्त्ववध्यान् परिरक्षति ।।
अवध्या ब्राह्मणा गावो दूताश्चैव पिता तथा ।
विद्यां ग्राहयते यश्च ये च पूर्वोपकारिणः ।।
स्त्रियश्चैव न हन्तव्या यश्च सर्वातिथिर्नरः ।।
Artha —
A king should execute those who are deserving of capital punishment while protecting those who are not. Brāhmaṇas, cows, messengers, one's father, one's teacher who imparts knowledge, and those who have previously rendered beneficent service are all regarded as inviolable and should not be put to death. Likewise, women and any person who extends hospitality to all should never be slain.
Thereafter, Lord Śiva declares ahiṃsā (non-violence) to be the highest dharma. The teaching is thus clear: although ahiṃsā is the supreme moral principle, it is not an absolute injunction applicable in every circumstance. When a ruler is required to defend the kingdom, protect the innocent, or uphold dharma against aggression, the use of force—including, where necessary, the slaying of the aggressor—is regarded as both necessary and justified in the proper discharge of Rājadharma.
Conclusion
The statement—
"Ahiṃsā Paramo Dharmaḥ, Dharma-Hiṃsā Tathaiva Ca."
—is not found in the Mahābhārata. However, the principles embodied in this statement are undeniably reflected throughout the broader corpus of our scriptures. While the exact wording is absent from the Mahābhārata, its underlying philosophical truth finds expression in numerous scriptural passages that recognise both the supremacy of ahiṃsā and the righteous use of force in the protection of dharma.
As for me, I do not embrace this statement because I believe it to be a verse from the Mahābhārata. Rather, I embrace it because I believe in the truth that it conveys. In an age where both indiscriminate violence and passive inaction can become threats to society, the proper understanding of dharma, ahiṃsā, and the legitimate use of force in defence of righteousness is, perhaps, more relevant than ever.