Kartavya — Duty

6.1 Svadharma and Duty in Indian Ethics

Kartavya (Duty) in Indian philosophy is not merely an abstract principle but is always contextualised in role (Svadharma):

• Svadharma = one's own duty arising from one's nature, station, and relationships
• The Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 3, verse 35): "Better is one's own Dharma though imperfectly performed, than the Dharma of another well-performed" — Svadharma is the basis of authentic duty
• For an administrator, Svadharma is the duty arising from one's constitutional oath, professional role, and position as a public servant

Rajadharma (King's/Administrator's Duty): Kautilya's Arthashastra defines Rajadharma as the specific duties of the ruler/administrator — justice (Danda), welfare (Yogakshema), security, and merit-based administration. Violating Rajadharma is not merely a professional failure but an ethical transgression.

6.2 Kant's Deontological Duty and Comparison with Indian Kartavya

Kant's Categorical Imperative (1785): Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. Duty is absolute — not contingent on outcomes or personal benefit.

Dimension	Kantian Duty	Indian Kartavya
Source	Pure reason; universal moral law	Cosmic order (Rit, Dharma), role, relationship
Basis	Rational self-legislation	Dharmic order + personal constitution
Universality	Universal — same for all rational beings	Contextual — varies by role/station (Svadharma)
Outcome	Irrelevant to determining rightness	Considered but subordinated to Dharma
Self	Autonomous rational agent	Part of a cosmic web of obligations (Rin)

Synthesis: Both traditions agree that duty is unconditional at its core — you cannot bribe your way out of constitutional obligations (Kant) or karmic consequences (Karmavada). Both resist pure consequentialism. The key difference is that Indian Kartavya is more contextualised in social role, while Kantian duty is more universally abstract.

---