Acharya Prashant explains that the war in the Shrimad Bhagavad Gita was a necessity, comparing it to a surgical procedure required to remove cancer from a body. He asserts that the law of Karma is absolute and cannot be violated; individuals must inevitably face the consequences of their actions. If Arjuna had chosen not to fight, it would not have saved Duryodhana from his fate but would have instead burdened Arjuna with the consequences of neglecting his duty. The speaker emphasizes that when a part of the collective existence becomes a source of destruction, its removal is essential for the well-being of the whole. While the preferred method of dealing with the wicked is transformation, there are instances where such change is impossible. Acharya Prashant points out that Shri Krishna himself attempted to negotiate peace by asking for a mere five villages, yet Duryodhana responded by attempting to imprison him. This demonstrates that some individuals are beyond persuasion. The war was not a personal struggle for power or property but a fulfillment of one's duty toward the millions of subjects who would otherwise suffer under an unjust ruler. The speaker clarifies that Arjuna's initial refusal to fight was not born out of spiritual enlightenment or genuine compassion, but rather out of personal attachment and mental conditioning. He was blinded by his relationships with his kin, which is a form of delusion. Acharya Prashant concludes that in the battle between righteous duty and personal attachment, one must always choose Dharma. The destruction caused by the war was a means to prevent an even greater catastrophe that would have resulted from the unchecked reign of unrighteousness.