The problem statement of the Bhagavad Gita is very clear. It appears in the first chapter itself. How do we decide who is an insider in a family, and who is an outsider? Who is mine, and who is not mine? As a warrior, Arjun has no problem killing people. But he has a problem killing family members. Krishna helps him overcome his moral issue by analysing what constitutes family, and how it impacts decision-making. This matters in family businesses today as it did in Mahabharat times. How do we separate the personal from the professional?

The Bhagavad Gita has nothing to do with violence or non-violence, duty or caste, as many people proclaim. Arjun is only wondering about the ethics of killing family members, since one is supposed to protect one’s family, as per social norm. At its core, the Bhagavad Gita is trying to unravel the meaning and significance behind the possessive adjective ‘my’ and the possessive pronoun ‘mine’.

Right at the beginning, Dhritrashtra asks, ‘What is happening in the battlefield between my sons and the sons of Pandu?’ He does not refer to Pandu’s children as his nephews, very clearly establishing that he considers them outsiders. But when Arjun expresses himself, his dilemma is that he sees insiders on both sides of the battlefield. There is no outsider here.

Then, towards the middle of the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna takes his cosmic form and demonstrates how everybody is inside him. Therefore, for God nobody is an outsider. Yet, God has to decide who eats and who gets eaten. Krishna has to take a side in a debate, or a fight. Those he supports are his family. Those he opposes are also his family. Loyalty has a very different meaning in the divine world. Krishna’s line of sight is wider than Arjun’s and Dhristarashtra’s.

So how do we decide who is inside and who is outside? And why is this question important? It comes down to inheritance. We bequeath our properties to those who we consider to be our own. This is a clever cultural invention created to outsmart death. We identify ourselves with our property. We die, but our property doesn’t die. To give ourselves the delusion of immortality, we pass on our property to those we consider extensions of ourselves, the insider, our family, our relatives. Therefore, Mahabharata is constantly dealing with the issue of inheritance.

Bhagavad Gita is part of Mahabharata, which repeatedly demonstrates how difficult it is to decide who is an insider. For the entire battle is fought between people who call themselves the Kuru clan. However, none of them are Kurus by blood. The bloodline ended with the grand uncle Bhishma, who had taken a vow of celibacy. Their fathers were fathered by a sage called Vyasa on the widows of the last Kuru king. So they were Kuru by law. While the ‘seed’ was not Kuru, the ‘field’ (widow’s body) belonged to the Kuru king. This made Pandu and Dhritarashtra and their children Kurus.

The story repeatedly shows the complications of who constitutes a brother. Is it defined by having a common father or a common mother? Nakul and Sahadev do not share the same mother with the other three Pandavas. All of them have different fathers but have been adopted by a common man called Pandu. The man they consider an outsider, Karna, turns out to be their own brother because he is born of Kunti.

So Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita raise questions of insiders and outsiders, of inheritance, and excommunication, questions that still plague us today. Untalented children are made managing directors of companies only because of bloodline. Professionals are considered outsiders as they are paid for services. Daughters now demand they be treated as insiders not outsiders. The state with its legal system decides who is family and who is not.

The state struggles with religious laws in determining who is the legitimate son and who is not. State decides if same-sex marriages can take place. For the Indian state, as per the judges, the family that rejects the gay man remains the insider while the gay man’s long-term partner remains the outsider, as they have refused to recognise same-sex marriage. Apparently, that’s what Indian culture states. Those who defend this stance need to read the Bhagavad Gita and Mahabharata. Family is an artificial construct. Not a natural one.