When vows cause harm | Shikhandi, Amba and the ethics of leadership

What happens when a person keeps every vow, follows every rule and still leaves another life in ruins? This is the difficult question at the heart of Shikhandi’s story. Long before Kurukshetra, Bhishma went to the swayamvara of the three princesses of Kashi and carried them away for his younger half-brother, Vichitravirya. Amba, the eldest, then told Bhishma the truth: she had already chosen Shalva and intended to marry him. Bhishma allowed her to leave, but Shalva rejected her. When Amba returned, she expressed her desire to marry Bhishma, believing that he now bore responsibility for the situation in which she had been placed. Bhishma, however, could not accept her because of his lifelong vow of celibacy. Each man had reasons for his decision, yet it was Amba who was left to bear the consequences.

Amba’s willingness to speak the truth is itself significant. She did not conceal her commitment to Shalva, even though revealing it complicated the situation before her. Yet speaking the truth is meaningful only when those with the ability to act are prepared to hear and respond to it. This carries an important lesson for institutions as well. Leaders must create an environment where difficult truths can be raised early, because concerns that are heard in time are often easier to address than consequences that are allowed to deepen.

Bhishma’s position should not be judged too simply. His vow embodied extraordinary sacrifice, discipline and loyalty, and it had shaped the course of his life. Yet Amba’s suffering exposes a difficult distinction between adherence to principle and the fuller demands of justice. Through the lens of Niti and Dharma, we can see that Niti may provide rules, order and a framework for conduct, while Dharma asks the deeper question of what is right in the circumstances and who must bear the consequence. Principles do not absolve us from responsibility for the consequences they create. A vow may explain why Bhishma could not marry Amba, but explanation alone could not restore what she had lost.

The same distinction matters in corporate life. Policies, contracts and procedures create consistency and protect institutions from arbitrary decisions, but conformity to a rule cannot be the end of leadership responsibility. A decision may satisfy policy and still damage trust, dignity or fairness. Good leadership does not merely explain why harm occurred or why mistakes were made. It takes responsibility and makes an honest effort to set things right. Rules provide order, but responsible leadership requires judgement, empathy and the willingness to examine whether the outcome was truly fair.

Amba refused to let her grievance disappear into silence. After repeated attempts to obtain redress, her pain hardened into determination. The epic recounts that she was reborn as Shikhandini, the child of King Drupada. Though born female, Shikhandini was raised as a son, and later, through an exchange with the Yaksha Sthuna, acquired a male body and lived as Shikhandi. Dignity begins with refusing to let rejection, exclusion or circumstance define one’s potential. Shikhandi’s life represents persistence in the face of judgements that might otherwise have confined an entire future.

The episode also raises a deeper question about identity and social recognition. Bhishma continued to see Shikhandi through the memory of an earlier female birth, even though Shikhandi stood before him as a trained warrior. The story should not be reduced to labels alone. Human worth cannot be determined by labels or by society’s first judgement of who a person is. Families, organisations and institutions often inherit assumptions about who belongs, who is capable and who should occupy certain roles. Ethical conduct asks us to look beyond those assumptions and judge people through their character, ability and actions.

Yet Amba’s story also contains a warning. Her anger arose from genuine injustice, but her existence became increasingly centred on Bhishma’s downfall. Pain can give us strength and purpose, but it should not become the sole author of our identity. Remembering injustice can inspire courage and the pursuit of accountability, but if every future choice is organised around an old wound, the past continues to exercise power over the present. Justice should ultimately create the possibility of freedom, not another form of captivity.

On the tenth day of the Kurukshetra war, Shikhandi confronted Bhishma. Bhishma would not strike him, while Shikhandi continued to shoot arrows at him. Arjuna urged Shikhandi forward and then used the opening to release the decisive shower of arrows that brought Bhishma down. Shikhandi was therefore not merely a shield. His presence changed the conditions of the battle, and he actively participated in it. What had begun as Amba’s unheard grievance had returned with consequences far beyond the original wrong. An unheard grievance does not simply disappear. Left unresolved, it can become an institutional risk. In corporate life, legitimate hurt that is ignored may return as mistrust, disengagement, resistance or fracture.

Shikhandi’s story is therefore far more than one of revenge. Amba reminds us that injustice cannot be extinguished by explanation, procedure or silence. Shikhandi teaches persistence and the refusal to remain imprisoned by society’s judgement. Bhishma teaches that even honourable vows can produce unjust consequences when compassion and responsibility are absent. Dharma is not merely the keeping of one’s word. It requires us to ask whether justice was served, dignity was protected and consequences were acknowledged and addressed. Leaders must have the courage to correct what their decisions have damaged, because ignored grievances rarely disappear. They often return through the consequences they create.

Views expressed are personal