From Bazaz: The Role Of The Bhagavad Gita In Indian Life, chapter 10. The author begins his interpretation of the composition of the Gita.

At the beginning of the Christian Era, Indian society was in a state of flux. Buddhism was on the decline and counter-revolutionary forces were marching ahead in long strides. Although the Brahmins had been able to stage a comeback to a position of eminence and power they did not feel sure of their ultimate success. So long as the Indian intelligentsia or even a substantial part of it entertained a lingering faith in the rationalist-materialist philosophy which gave birth to the heterodox creeds like Buddhism and Jainism, the Brahmins could not afford to lie on the oars or be complacent. The Brahmin doctrines and dogmas had, under the altered conditions, crystallized in the Vedanta philosophy which though comprehensively explained and discussed in a number of Upanishads, demanded further clarification to convince the questioning elite. Badrayana did his best to meet this need by producing the Brahma Sutras but his work proved insufficient to carry conviction.


Soon after Badrayana, or may be during his lifetime, was born a genius who composed the Bhagavad-Gita, a poem of 700 lucid verses, which was destined to play a historical role and achieve the greatest popularity as a scripture of the Hindu society. The author fully grasped the spirit of the times and effectively presented a thesis which, in a skilful manner, not only undermined the Samkhya but also elevated the cult of Vasudeva Krishna of which God-worship is the predominant feature. “The poem was written” says W. D. P. Hill, “at a time when men were afraid of the influence of free speculation on the restricting power of caste. Religious ideas were filtering through the lower social levels, and the ‘natural duties’ of the various castes were being neglected or interchanged. Krishna was avatara at Kurukshetra not when the poem was composed, but it is reasonable to suppose that the fancied conditions of his time on earth reflect the actual conditions of the Gita age. Dharma needed re-establishment.”


Traditionally the Bhagavad-Gita is believed to have been a dialogue between Arjuna, one of the five Pandava brothers, and his charioteer, Krishna, a kshatriya chief of the Yadava dynasty, held on the battlefield of Kurukshetra (near modern Panipat) at the commencement of the Mahabharata War fought between two influential clans of kshatriyas in ancient India. The orthodox Hindus hold that every word of the poem was uttered as recorded before the war started. But among the scholars, both Indian and foreign, there exist divergent opinions about it. It is generally held that though the main points of discussion might have been raised and answered on the battlefield, their elaboration and verification was a subsequent work of the talented poet and thinker named Krishna-Dvaipayana Vyasa, the legendary author of the Mahabharata epic. In any case, the Bhagavad-Gita is considered by orthodox scholars to be of divine origin.


The Hindu writers, including B.G. TiIak, R.G. Bhandarkar, S. Radhakrishnan, S. Dasgupta and others, are generally of the view that the Bhagavad-Gita is an ancient scripture composed by a single author. Says Tilak: “I have shown with proofs that the present Mahabharata and the present Gita must have been written by one and the same hand. When these treatises are accepted as being written by the same hand, and, therefore necessarily contemporaneous, one can easily fix the date of the Gita by fixing the date of the Mahabharata.”


But some other Hindu authors differ from this view. At least two of them, G. V. Ketkar and G. S. Khair, ardent admirers of the poem, think that there are at least three authors who composed parts of the Bhagavad-Gita at different times. In a scholarly treatise entitled Quest for the Original Gita, Khair has shed light from various angles on his theory that different authors have contributed different portions of the poem during a period of nearly three hundred years (500 B.C. to 200 B.C,). He has specified the verses contributed by the three poets on the basis of style, ideas and approach to philosophical and theological issues. He has contended that one and the same author could not have expressed grossly contradictory ideas contained in the poem nor used different language, syntax and words which are found in it. 


Some writers have challenged the thesis that any dialogue all took place between Arjuna and Sri Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. They think it is a myth, a figment of imagination of a poet and has no basis in fact or history. Mahatma Gandhi has entertained doubts about the claim that Gita is a historical work. “Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita”, he declares, I felt that it was not .a historical work, but that under the guise of physical warfare, It described the duel that perpetually went on in the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring.


Although most of the Hindu writers and commentators now concede that there are a number of interpolations in the poem, they are still reluctant to accept the theory of plural authorship of the holy scripture. Dr. Radhakrishnan suggests that the text may have received many alterations in subsequent times but the author is one and the same person. 


Among the Western scholars many have challenged the Hindu stand and raised several controversial issues about the origin, authorship and date of the Gita. An English translation of the Gita by Charles Wilkins appeared as early as 1785 A.C. which had been rendered under instructions of Warren Hastings, first British Governor¬General of India. It was followed by other translations not only in English but also in German and French affording an opportunity to European orientalists to examine critically the literary merits of the poem and its philosophical content. Not being able to reconcile different doctrines presented in the Gita a theory of interpolations was advanced in 1826 by W. Von Humboldt who held that only chapters I to XI and verses 63 to 78 of Chapter XVIII were included in the original Bhagavad -Gita. 


A.B. Keith thinks that the Gita was originally an Upanishad of the Svetaswatara type but later it was adopted to the cult of Vasudeva Krishna. Richard Garbe whose critical comments were widely noticed by Indian scholars, said: “The theistic part is the original Gita, and the pantheistic part is the later addition. The theistic and bhakti part along with Samkhya¬Yoga is the original; the Mimamsa and Vedanta portions are of later date”. Summarizing his view, Garbe observed: “In short, in the old poem Krishnaism philosophically based on the Samkhya-Yoga is proclaimed; in the additions made in the recession, the Vedanta philosophy is taught”. “For the most part”, writes Hill, already quoted above, “the theory of a recast document is founded on the fact that the poem attempts to reconcile so many differing points of view, and appears in many passages to be inconsistent with itself.”


As against these views Edward J. Thomas thought that “the tendency of modern criticism is in favour of the unity of authorship.” 


Like the controversy about its authorship, there are different theories about the time when the Bhagavad-Gita was composed. Such wide apart dates as 500 B,C. and 300 A.C. have been suggested or fixed by writers. Here again, while the Hindus display a tendency to declare the scripture as ancient with pseudo-scientific and semi-historic proofs, the foreigners are generally inclined to believe that the poem in its present form could not have been produced earlier than the fourth century A.C. Some feeble attempts have been made to assert that the Bhagavad-Gita was available in 1000 B.C. Jawaharlal Nehru says that “it was composed and written in pre-Buddhistic age.”


 This theory has been rejected by scholars because it is beyond doubt that the author was fully conversant with the Buddhist philosophy. D. D. Kosambi has pointed out that “without (knowledge of) Buddhism chapter ii 55 .. 72 (recited daily as prayers at Mahatma Gandhi’s Ashrama) would be Impossible. The brahmanirvana of the Bhagavad- Gita chapter ii, 72 and Chapter v, 25 is the Buddhist ideal state of escape from the effects of karma.” 
Evidence of astronomy, literary style and meter of the poem as well as evolution of thought in India, have been pressed into service to stress their respective conclusions by some scholars. After much hair-splitting and extensive consideration of the views of some authorities on ancient Sanskrit literature, B. G. Tilak concludes: “When one considers all the proofs mentioned there does not remain the slightest doubt that the present Bhagavad-Gita was in existence at least five hundred years before the Saka Era (78-A.C.). The opinions of Dr. Bhandarkar, the late Mr. (Kashi Nath) Telang, Rao Bahadur Chintaman Vaidya, and the late Mr. Dikshit were more or less the same, and they must be taken as correct on this point.” Dr. Radhakrishnan thinks that “the Bhagavad-Gita is later than the great movement represented by the early Upanishads and earlier than the period of the development of the (six) philosophic systems and their formulation in sutras. From its archaic constructions and internal references, we may infer that it is definitely a work of the pre-Christian Era”. He assigns fifth century B.C. as its date.


Pandit Seetalnath Tattvabhushan is among the few Indian scholars whose intensive research has compelled them to arrive at the decision that the poem could not have been composed before the first century B.C. 


The non-Indian writers are, broadly speaking, more objective in fixing the date. They do not think that the Gita is older than the Christian Era. While M. Winternitz and Rudolph Otto believe that the poem was composed in the fourth century of the Christian Era, Richard Garbe and J. N. Farquhar hold that it was produced a century or two earlier. According to Garbe the original work arose about 200 B,C. and it was worked into the present form by some followers of the Vedanta in the 2nd century A.C. In his introduction to the famous translation of the Bhagavad-Gita in English verse entitled Song Celestial Sir Edwin Arnold, a lover of Sanskrit culture, after considering the arguments that the poem is anterior to Christian era, observes: “The weight of evidence however tends to place its composition at about the third century after Christ.” This view is corroborated by D. D. Kosambi who dates the work as somewhere between 150-350 A.C. nearer the later than the earlier date. In his opinion “the ideas are older not original, except perhaps the novel use of bhakti. The language is high classical Sanskrit such as could not have been written much before the Guptas, though meter still shows the occasional irregularity (8-10, 11 and 15-3 etc.) in trishtubs, characteristic of Mahabharata as a whole.” If the social and moral conditions that give rise to the philosophical doctrines and religious notions contained in the Gita, are dispassionately taken into account, one cannot help agreeing with Edwin Arnold and Kosambi that the poem must have been completed in its existing form in the 3rd century A.C. 


Nevertheless, the authorship no less than the date of the Gita, continue to be the subject of controversy as much as ever. But whether the poem was actually a dialogue between man and God, whether the dialogue took place on the battlefield or in the imagination of some talented poet, whether the composer was one or more than one is of lesser significance to us who are more interested in knowing the role that the scripture has played in the formation of the character of a Hindu, individually, and of the Hindu society collectively. 


We have to take the Gita, as it has been accepted by the Hindus as a holy book, and critically analyse its contents dealing with vital matters of human life. Without being influenced by preconceived notions or deep-rooted prejudices, we must judge the poem as a whole and its parts separately by no other yardstick than reason. 


We must studiously shun to read far-fetched meanings in common words used and numerous statements made by the author; neither must we add nor subtract from what has been said in their dialogues by Arjuna and Sri Krishna. 


For the last sixteen hundred years the Bhagavad-Gita has been seriously studied, adored as a religious scripture and followed as a divine command. It has deeply influenced generation after generation of the Hindu society in this long period of history. It is of profound importance to know of what use the poem has been in moulding the character of the people, in forging their destiny and in directing the social affairs of the country. Also, if the Hindus continue to respose faith in the doctrines taught by the Gita, what might be in store for them in future.


It would appear that by the time the Gita, came to be composed, the Aryans had reconciled themselves to accepting the swarthy Dravidians as equal members of the society and accorded their heroes an exalted place. “Krishna in the Rig Veda is a demon, his name being the generic designation of hostile dark-skinned pre Aryans.” But in the Bhagavad¬Gita the same dark-skinned Krishna is the avatar of Vishnu who is the repository of dharma and the saviour of mankind. Did this change take place to make neo- Brahminism as popular among the non-Aryans as it was among the Aryans?


Another notable development after the decline of Buddhism which the Gita indicates is the acceptance of neo-Brahmin philosophy by at least a section of kshatriya thinkers who, as we know, had served as the vanguard of the Buddhist Revolution. The author has shrewdly assigned the task of teacher to Krishna, a section of a kshatriya clan, when ordinarily the role should have been played by a learned Brahmin acharya (teacher).


To spread his ideas and theories effectively among the people of all classes, the author chose the well-known method of the Upanishads namely, dialogue between a confused, bewildered intellectual who asks questions to get light on vital human problems, and a skilful, awe-inspiring elder who is well-versed in the philosophy of neo-Brahminism and has completely identified himself with it. At the commencement of the Christian Era thousands of such perplexed intellectuals were thronging educational institutions and meeting-halls all over the country. Converted to neo-Brahminism, they however continued to applaud rationalist doctrines, egalitarian principles and humanist values. They were thought to be a source of danger and caused apprehensions in the minds of the leaders of the counter-revolution bent upon making their victory complete. It was to fully reclaim the confused elite and large sections of society influenced by them that Badrayana wrote the Brahma Sutras and it was with the same object in view that Vyasa or some other gifted though anonymous author, composed the Bhagavad-Gita.


The poem consists of 700 verses divided into eighteen cantos. In the colophon at the end of every canto, the author claims that it is an Upanishad teaching Brahma Vidya (the knowledge of the Absolute) and Yoga Shastra (the Science of the Yoga).


No student of Indian philosophy can fail to see close relationship between. the Upanishads and the Gita. B. G. Tilak has given a number of quotations from different Upanishads which the author of the Gita has incorporated in his poem.13 Other scholars have noted similar concepts, language, style and phraseology in the Upanishads and the Gita. Indeed, a number of verses have been bodily lifted from the former and incorporated in the latter as fittingly as to seem to be more original in their new setting than in the Upanishads themselves.


In the dialogues, whether imaginary or real, Arjuna represents the typical fumbling, uncertain intellectual and Sri Krishna the authoritative, dogmatic and relentless scholar both of whom are sound in the Hindu society from those early days down to the modern times. Not without reason both characters have been taken from the warrior castes because the kshatriyas were the chief factor in making the Buddhist Revolution and must have stood as a hurdle in the path of counter revolution. To make the kshatriyas sing the song of neo-Brahminism was appropriately calculated to become effective in leading counter-revolution to its full fruition.


But Arjuna is not the intellectual whose knowledge of rationalist philosophy is sound or whose doubts are strong. His questions are mostly frivolous and superficial nor do they challenge the basic theories of Brahminism. From the outset he is inclined to accept the dogmas and tenets of Vedic religion, provided his lingering doubts are satisfactorily removed. In the India of the 3rd and 4th century A.C., when Buddhism had laid down arms in its struggle for human emancipation and owned defeat by accepting various irrational beliefs of Brahminism as part of Mahayana, there must have been countless educated and semi-educated Indians like the one depicted by the author of the Gita in the person of Arjuna. It  did convert such so called intellectuals wherever found and made them staunch followers of theistic religion of the Vedanta that the poem was composed.


Judged by his role in the Mahabharata War, .SrI Krishna the most representative philosopher of the Hindu culture   had been evolved after the defeat of Buddhism by Brahmin thinkers. Commenting on the orations of Sri Krishna, Kosambi writes: “A t every stage in the Crisis of the (Mahabbarata) war, his (Krishna’s) advice wins the day by the most crooked of the means which could have never occurred to the others. “ This spirit is reflected in the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita.


It is, however, well to remember that the author of the Bhagavad-Gita was dealing with a very tough, complex .and complicated cultural problem. No one should feel surprised at the any contradictions found throughout the Poem. “The different elements which, at the period of the composition of the Gita, were competing with each other within the Hindu system”, points out Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, “are brought together and integrated into a comprehensive synthesis, free and large, subtle and profound. The teacher refines and reconciles the different currents of thought, the Vedic cult of sacrifice, the Upanishadic teaching of the transcendent Brahman, the Bhagavata theism and tender piety, the Samkhya dualism and the Yoga meditation. He draws all these living elements of Hindu life and thought into an organic unity. He adopts the method, not of denial but of penetration and shows these different lines of thought converge towards the same end.” 


Whether the author was successful in synthesization of various thoughts is a different matter which we shall consider a little later, but there can be no denial that his task was immense. Clinching the issue about the aim of the author Hill says: “The sectarian author wished to insist on the absolute supremacy of Krishna Vasudeva, and at the same time to conciliate the enemies of his cult. The poem may be called an uncompromising union.”


To make the impact of his ideas more pronounced the author chose the battle-field of Kurukshetra as the scene of the dialogue. It was an appropriate setting. Not only as part of the Epic the poem would be assured a place in the holy books of the Indian society, it would also create deep impression in the receptive minds of the religious people. Archie J. Brahm says: “Vyasa has indeed chosen a dramatic scene which prepares his audience with great expectation.” The senseless cruelty, the utter disregard of moral values, the absence of human affection, lack of decency and utter callousness displayed in the course of the Mahabharata War prepare the mind for pessimism, self-surrender and other-worldliness which are the main characteristic of the Gita philosophy.