For the past several weeks, we have been discussing the great Indian Epic namely the Mahabharata.
As we saw, the most significant part of this story is the final war in which millions were massacred – brothers killed brothers, students killed their teachers, sons killed their parents and grandparents, friends killed their friends, and so on. It was a saga of brutal killing and ‘fight unto death’ with utter disregard to right and wrong.
In that case, how was the war called the war of righteousness? Apparently, the author of this Epic, namely Vyasa, is supposed to have written it to convey what righteousness is all about!
But throughout the war all norms were flouted, with winning as the only goal. It was a loud assertion of “end justifies the means”! Was that Vyasa’s notion of righteousness?
In today’s world, with our self-centered view towards everything, many of the wrong doings in the war may be dismissed as fair and inevitable. Even some of my listeners/readers have remarked that what happened during the war was not unfair after all! Each was justified in indulging in whatever wrong they did.
The villains of the entire drama namely the Kauravas, did whatever they did to safeguard their self-interest. “Anybody else in their place would have done exactly the same” - that was what one of my readers felt.
Were the Pandavas right?
They killed the great warrior Bhishma, who was also their Grandsire, in a deceitful way. Yudhishthira who always projected himself as a righteous man, told a grave lie just to neutralize Drona who was also his teacher.
Arjuna mercilessly killed Karna when he was begging for a respite! Afterall who was Karna? Karna was none other than his own blood brother. But Arjuna killed him when Karna was not even armed and ready to fight!
Bhima broke the rules of the fair mace fight and attacked Duryodhana by hitting him on his thighs which was forbidden. Even the Gods did not approve of such an unrighteous act.
Were all these acts righteous?
Or was Krishna to be blamed for all the unrighteous acts done by the Pandavas?
Afterall, it was Krishna who forced Arjuna to attack Bhishma by taking Shikandi as the cover. Arjuna was reluctant to do such a heinous act. But Krishna convinced him to go ahead.
Yudhishthira who never wanted to lie was forced by Krishna to mislead Drona by uttering a half true statement about the elephant Ashwatthama being killed by Bhima.
In the case of Karna too, Krishna did everything to disarm Karna – first by revealing him his real origins, then by luring him with the throne, and again by emotionally blackmailing him by sending Kunti to him. When everything else failed, Krishna forced a reluctant Arjuna to attack Karna when he was unarmed and down on earth.
Krishna knew fully well that Bhima was no match to Duryodhana and could never vanquish him in a fair fight. So, he hinted to Bhima to resort to unfair means. Even Yudhishthira was ashamed of whatever Bhima did, but Krishna justified the act. He even tried to pacify Balarama who resented this unrighteous act of Bhima.
So, it was Krishna who was the root cause of all unrighteous acts done by the Pandavas?!
But Krishna is believed to be a God incarnate! Is a God incarnate justified in doing whatever he did?
When an ordinary person commits a mistake, we can pardon such a person by giving the benefit of his ignorance. All humans are bound to err some time or other. So, they can be pardoned. But what about a God incarnate?
His doing a wrong act sets a precedent that misleads other ordinary people who take him as a model. So, were not Krishna’s ways grave sins? Should he not have acted in a more prudent way to suite his image as a God incarnate?
Or was Vyasa trying to say that righteousness meant different things – one for ordinary people and one for God incarnates! A God can do whatever he likes, because he is after all God!
Or was Vyasa trying to convey the negative, by showing what acts are considered to be unrighteous and warn us to avoid doing such mistakes? Was he trying to define righteousness by elaborating on unrighteousness?
It is quite a tricky issue.
In the very beginning, I had promised that I would stay neutral and give no judgement. I wanted you to ponder over the entire set of events and come to your own conclusions using your own yardsticks of righteousness.
But then, I may be accused of painting Krishna in a bad light, a Krishna whom millions of devout Hindus consider as a God incarnate and the one who can never do a wrong act!
I may also give a chance to some who may try to justify their wrong doings by quoting Krishna’s example. I have seen many people justifying their wrong doing by quoting incidents from Mahabharata – “if Krishna could do that why not me?”
There is also a chance that I may help people who always want to condemn Hindu beliefs and project them as immoral people – if such people do exist as many Hindus fear.
Probably, I should be more fair and show other facets of this scenario. That is what I intend to do in the next episode. So, don’t miss it.
Meanwhile, please put in your views by means of comments, so that I can take them into account when I discuss next time.
That was Mahabharata episode 20
Based on the 5000 year old Indian Epic namely Mahabharata. © Dr.King 2019.
No comments:
Post a Comment