If a daughter takes care of her parents because the son doesn’t, is she giving up her sva-dharma?

We should all do our swadharma and not someone else’s dharma. But what if, for example, my brother had put my parents in an old age home, and I chose to take care of them instead—was I doing someone else’s dharma? And can we take up someone else’s dharma during an emergency? In that case, can I consider this an emergency where I took care of my brother’s dharma?

Answer: Yes.

This is an important question because it raises fundamental issues about what swadharma actually means. Is swadharma simply the duty of the son to take care of the parents—and not the mother’s or the daughter’s? Let’s try to go deeper into this concept.

The principle of swadharma is rooted in the idea that each of us has a unique psychophysical nature, which, in the Vedic tradition, is broadly classified into four varnas. If we envision each varna as a pathway, then our body is like a vehicle that travels best on a specific path. A motorcycle may need a smooth path, a bicycle a different one, and a truck yet another. Similarly, we function best and grow most effectively when our roles in society align with our innate nature.

This way, we can contribute optimally, experience inner contentment, and evolve spiritually. In this sense, acting according to our swadharma is how we can best serve Krishna—using the resources and capacities he has given us. It’s like being a warrior who’s been given a sword; it’s unwise to fight with a spear that one neither possesses nor knows how to use.

Now, how does this apply to modern society, which is quite different from traditional times? One could say that Kali-yuga itself is a kind of aapat—an emergency—because society has lost sight of psychophysical compatibility and even the ultimate purpose of life. In such a situation, we may not always be able to act according to the ideal swadharma model, but there are higher principles to consider.

One such principle is that we have a duty to care for those who have cared for us—our parents. Traditionally, yes, the sons were expected to care for their parents, and ideally they still should. But if they don’t, what’s the alternative? If we have the capacity to take care of our parents, then why not?

You could call it aapat-dharma, a duty taken up in an emergency when others neglect it. But even if you don’t frame it that way, caring for your parents is not something opposed to swadharma. After all, today’s occupational roles and family dynamics are not determined solely by ancient varna designations. Is it that only sons are naturally suited to care for their parents, and daughters or mothers are not? That doesn’t hold true, especially in today’s world, where women are often educated, independent, and fully capable.

Taking care of one’s parents, if one has the ability, is certainly laudable. It is an act of dharma. And even if it falls outside one’s designated swadharma, if it’s done out of compassion and responsibility in the absence of anyone else stepping up, then it is rightly considered aapat-dharma—and it is not just acceptable, but admirable.

Thank you.