Will a soldier who drops bombs on the enemy during war time get karma for those actions? Would it be better for the soldier to drop the bombs on empty fields rather than on the enemies directly?

Does a soldier who drops a bomb on the enemies during wartime get karma? Is it better for the soldier to drop the bomb on an empty area so that there are no casualties?

Life is tough. One reason it is tough is because bad things happen to us. But another bigger reason is that sometimes bad things have to be done by us. That is what Krishna tells Arjuna in the section from 1846 to 1848, that all endeavours are covered by fault, just as fire is covered by smoke. Sarvaarambhahi doshena dhume naguniribavrata.

That’s why one has to accept the material world in its fullness, as it is, without any illusions that it will be a happy place or even that it will be a place where we will be able to live always happily and virtuously, in terms of the actions that we do. Even good people at times have to do bad actions, at least actions that are going to have some bad consequences, even if those are not the primary consequences which they intend to do when they take up those actions.

So the rightness and wrongness of actions can be decided broadly by three factors: the intent with which we do it, the content of what we are doing, and the effect that it results. So sometimes an action may have an effect that is unfortunate, but if that is not the intended effect, but is a by, or as military terminology puts it, collateral damage, then that should be minimized as much as possible. If it cannot be avoided, that does not mean the duty itself is to be abandoned.

While war is terrible, sometimes war is the only way to prevent something far more terrible from happening. And if someone has chosen the profession of becoming a soldier, then fighting and killing is what they are trained to do, and that is what they are expected to do, and are paid to do, and they can do it better than civilians. If somebody has strong moral reservations about fighting and the violence involved in fighting itself, then they should not be a part of the military profession.

We all have our dharma, and one way of understanding dharma is harmonious belonging, that we belong to a larger whole, and we need to belong harmoniously, in the sense that we need to do our part, that is expected from us, in the whole, and the whole needs to do its part. So if we drive on the road, we need to follow the rules of road traffic, and the authorities overseeing the road transport system should ensure that there are no dangerous potholes or other inordinate dangers that come to us, even when we are driving safely.

Similarly, with respect to military dharma, there will be two parts. That individuals, in terms of the soldiers in the defense forces, have proved their part of fighting, as and when they are called up to do. Now the collective, here the military authorities, and the political authorities who are leading the country, have the responsibility to do their part, which means that they do not send soldiers on unnecessary wars, they carefully try their best to settle disputes by means other than war.

If a soldier feels that a war is being fought for ulterior motives of the political aggrandizement of the particular leaders in charge, and not for the good of the country, or the good of humanity, then a soldier can be a conscientious objector. But those are exceptional situations, and generally, the soldiers need to neither be seen to be abandoning the army in the time of need, nor be actually doing that.

When Arjuna protested about the duty of fighting the war, and claimed to be a conscientious objector to the war, meaning that his conscience did not let him fight the war, Krishna educated him about how the war was for a righteous cause. However, if a soldier has taken the salary from the government during peace time, and then suddenly, during war time, decides not to do what the army strategy requires them to do, because of a desire to avoid causing violence, then the soldier will be failing in their duty.

As far as one will get karma or not, we can get our karma in various ways. We can get karma by doing something that harms others. But we can get karma by failing to do what we are expected to do also. So rather than worrying too much about which activity will cause how much karma, we need to understand the underlying principle that karma, the whole purpose of karma, is accountability, which should lead one to thoughtful, responsible action. All actions will involve some karmic complications.

When doctors give antibiotics to patients, you could say that the doctor is being a systematic, cold-blooded murderer of all the germs that will be killed by the antibiotics. But that is for saving the life of the patient, or improving the quality of life of the patient, and that is considered to be a greater good in that context. The philosophy of karma is meant to encourage thoughtfulness and responsibility and accountability, not paranoia or paralysis or irresponsibility.