KURU S OUR CONTEMPORARIES Introduction

Transcription

1 KURU S OUR CONTEMPORARIES Introduction At the core of the Mahabharata is the fratricidal war to annihilation for the throne of Hastinapur. The question is whether it is merely an exciting and grand tale of heroism, war, valor and sacrifice on a vast canvas, or an idealistic allegory of the victory of good over evil or is it a complex tale from which every generation can derive its own meaning and is thus imbued with intense contemporary relevance. Even a cursory survey of the last millennium shows that it has been largely dominated by the West. It has also been engulfed in violent conflicts that had their roots in the West but spread to the other parts of the world whether it was the post Renaissance continental wars of supremacy between the European powers, whether it was the various revolutions gone astray from their ideals, whether it was the colonial exploitation of Africa and Asia by the Western imperialistic powers, whether it was the World Wars followed by the Cold war, whether it was regional strife, boundary disputes, ideological and ethnic cleansing and whether it is terrorism and fundamentalism. Mahabharata has repeated itself over and over again with savageness and butchery all our international humanitarian institutions and conventions notwithstanding. After the battle of Kurukshetra was over Ashwatthama, in a state of terrible vengeance, butchered all the sleeping warriors in the Pandava camp. The five Pandavas and Vasudeva luckily escaped as they were not there. Krishna cursed Ashwathama for his sinful act : For three thousand years thou shalt wander over this earth, without a companion and without being able to talk with any one. Alone and without anybody by thy side, thou shalt wander through diverse countries, and blood shall emanate from thee, and inaccessible forests and dreary moors shall be thy abode! Thou shalt wander over the Earth, O thou of sinful soul, with the weight of all diseases on thee.1 Ashwatthama s quiet reply is : With thyself among all men, O holy one, I shall live! Let the words of this illustrious and foremost of men become true! 2 And Ashwatthama seems to have had the last laugh as he still wanders together with Krishna among all men. Dharma and Adharma have got bewilderingly intercoiled and all has been endless war, confusion and bloodshed. Even in the realm of ideas, events and movements have started mainly from the West. They begain around the fifteenth century with the Renaissance and culminated in the twentieth century. The seventeenth century brought the idea of progress through Enlightenment and for the next two centuries, Europe became a scene of intense intellectual activity in the field of education and culture with far reaching ramifications in all spheres of life. Keen interest developed in the applied sciences as humankind tried to break free from tradition, convention and prejudice. The Age of Enlightenment and Reason brought a great sense of optimism and paved the way for the Industrial Revolution that transformed the lives of people. The Industrial Revolution harnessed technology for the production of economic wealth and material prosperity. Wealth and the means of production became the focus of study for the first time. Science and technology made nature subservient to man and money was enthroned replacing human values. However, the pursuit and accumulation of wealth led to the terrible exploitation of man by man. This became a cause of disillusionment in the agenda of progress as intense hostility developed between workers and employers. Other disillusionments were to follow. Science had claimed the pursuit of truth as its ideal. It was seen as the chief tool of progress; not just material progress but also moral progress. The idea was that as men acquired more and more knowledge, they would become wiser and wiser and consequently more impartial and just. The subsequent course of events belied this faith. Liberty, equality and fraternity, the great ideals of the French Revolution that aroused so much enthusiasm proved to be hollow words as events unfolded. Democratic institutions that men fought to build and died for have also proved to be so imperfect that often they have ended up supporting greater authoritarianism and corruption than the ones they replaced. The truth of science itself got limited to only that knowledge which was gained through the senses. By dismissing possibilities of any higher form or source of knowledge, utility replaced truth as the object of science. This is not a value judgement as the point of view in itself proved very useful in ridding the human mind of its irrational beliefs and blind superstitions. It led to a marked advance in the economic sphere raising standards of living, improving health care and ameliorating conditions of

2 work. Far reaching societal changes came about like the abolition of slavery and child labor, dismantling of colonialism, protection of the rights of workers leading to an improvement in their social status, emancipation of women, better health care services, elimination of famines and starvation deaths and increase in longevity. However, two things also took place. One, different nations arrived at different levels of material prosperity for historical and sociological reasons and within each of them, too, there were marked inequalities and disparities leading to masses of people being depried of basic human subsistence, economic and social well being, consequent rivalries, strife and conflict. Second, no amount of material progress and social engineering could prevent two major world wars from taking place causing massive destruction not to speak of regional wars that continued and that have never ever come to a halt. Hence all our efforts to eliminate human suffering, violence and conflict through education, use of reason, creation of societal wealth and material prosperity have not really succeeded. Why? Perhaps, this is because as Sri Aurobindo points out: Modern society has discovered a new principal of survival, progress, but the aim of that progress it has never discovered, -- unless the aim is always more knowledge, more equipment, convenience and comfort, more enjoyment, a greater and still greater complexity of the social economy, a more and more cumbrously opulent life. But these things must lead in the end where the old led, for they are only the same things on a larger scale; they lead in a circle, that is to say, nowhere, they do not escape from the cycle of birth, growth, decay and death, they do not really find the secret of self-prolongation by constant, self-renewal which is the principle of immortality, but only seem for a moment to find it by the illusion of a series of experiments of which each ends in disappointment. That so far has been the nature of modern progress.3 Mahabharata addresses some of these vital concerns like the pursuit of power, wealth, self interest and worldly pleasures; how are they to be achieved and what is the value or satisfaction gained when that is done; and the cause of human suffering and conflict. The epic presents a complexity of motives in which egotism and revenge mask themselves as heroic valor, sacrifice, destiny and duty. It gives no simple answers. Every character faces dilemmas either because of his own self interest or weakness of character or because the issues and actions involve insoluble moral dilemmas, that is, there are equally valid alternatives and an individual has make choices that may prove tragic as all actions have inexorable consequences in which both chance and cause and effect are factors. Such situation are familiar to us being a part of our own experience. That is why, as Chaturvedi Badrinath points out, there is increasingly in the world today A renewed search for those conditions in man s life that should make it possible for him to achieve material prosperity without spiritual poverty, pleasure without reducing human worth, knowledge that will not seek, power that will be exercised with wisdom and compassion and a right relationship between the one and the other that will enhance both and debase neither.4 Pursuit of Self- Interest Mahabharata is realistic in the issues that it explores. It accepts that all beings are motivated by self interest so the question is what does individuals self interest really consist of and whether it is really at variance with societal interests. The epic ends with the anguished cry of Vyasa, With uplifted arms I am crying aloud but nobody hears me. From Righteousness is wealth as also Pleasure. Why should not Righteousness, therefore, be courted?5 What Vyasa is saying is that the pursuit of wealth and pleasure is essential but it must be done righteously otherwise it will defeat its own purpose. Mahabharata enumerates four aims of life dharma or righteousness, artha or the pursuit of wealth, kama or the pursuit of love and pleasure and particularly sexual pleasure and finally moksha or liberation from them all or the state of being unmoved by both pleasure and pain. Dharma is the root of Artha and Kama and Moksha the final aim of life. Mahabharata understands well that the pursuit of wealth and sexual pleasure are the two overwhelmingly dominant facts of life. Hence, self interest or svartha is the spring of all human actions and also at the root of all human conflicts. As is said in the Shanti Parva, everybody adopts whatever means are required to serve selfinterest. Neither is friendship permanent nor is enmity; it is self-interest that makes somebody now a friend and then an enemy. The material world is shot through with self interest and no one is beloved of anyone. The affection between brother and brother, between man and wife is based solely on self interest, there being no love or affection without reason. Reasons are altered by time and so is self interest.6

3 However, as the Mahabharata shows us, the problem is that since most people have a very limited view of self interest, they live in a state of perpetual conflict as their interests keep colliding with those of others. A larger view of self interest does not necessarily end all conflict because conflict is an inevitable part of human life. What it does is to change one s attitude towards others and therefore towards the problem of conflict. But for this to happen, one s own understanding, particularly of one s own self, has to change and that is the aim of all dharmic thought.7 There is conflict and violence in human relationships not because there is an absence of selfless love from the generality of human affairs but because there is not even serious self-love. If there were, it would lead to two different directions according to the Mahabharata. First, we would not need to decide whether selfless love is anything more than an idealistic sentiment because it would be quite obvious that one s self interest, at least to a certain extent, can only be served by serving the interest of others. The two are inseparably bound. For instance, one can enjoy freedom only if one is willing to let the others enjoy it too. In a way, this is the essence of the theory of Karma; that what one does to others alters one s own self in the same measure or even in a greater measure.8 For example, acquiring wealth is one of the aims of life but wealth is also a source of conflict. However, the answer is not necessarily the ideal of poverty because that would be at variance with societal interest and even against individual interest. Therefore, intelligent self-interest would make us clearly realize that before wealth can be generated, earned and enjoyed, there must exist conditions for social peace and harmony. This leads us to Vyasa s point that the pursuit of wealth or Artha must be subject to Dharma. Hence, the Mahabharata says that only that wealth, that which comes through adharma is improper. This is really to uphold the sovereignty of dharma as law, and of law as fairness, reasonableness and justice.9 Intelligent self interest also demands that a part of one s wealth be devoted to the interest and service of others, individually and collectively. Wealth only increases by sharing and distributing it. This leads us to the second direction to which enlightened self-interest would take us the examination of the nature of human desire, for desire is at the basis of self- interest10. Mahabharata does a deep analysis of desire for wealth at different places in the Vana Parva, the Udyog Parva and the Shanti Parva. To take an example, Shri Krishna on his last peace mission to the Kauravas on behalf of the Pandavas tells Duryodhana. The exertions of the wise are always associated with virtue, profit and desire. If, indeed, all these three cannot be attained, men follow at least virtue and profit. If, again, these three are pursued separately, it is seen that they that have their hearts under control, choose virtue, they that are neither good nor bad but occupy a middle station, choose profit which is always the subject of dispute; while they that are fools choose the gratification of desire. The fool that from temptation giveth up virtue and pursueth profit and desire by unrighteous means, is soon destroyed by his senses. He that seeketh profit and desire, should yet practise virtue at the outset, for neither profit nor desire is (really) dissociated from virtue. It hath been said that virtue alone is the cause of the three, for he that seeketh the three may by the aid of the virtue alone, grow like fire when brought into contact with a heap of dry grass.11 A very interesting conversation takes place on this subject between Yudhishthira and his brothers in the Shanti Parva. The course of the world, says Yudhishthira rests upon Virtue, Wealth and Desire. Amongst those three, he asks, which is the foremost, which the second and which the last in point of importance. 12 A great discussion follows on the relative merits of dharma, artha and kama. According to Arjuna, This world, is the field of action. Action, therefore, is applauded here. Agriculture, trade, keep of cattle, and diverse kinds of arts, constitute what is called Profit. Profit, again, is the end of all such acts. Without Profit or Wealth, both Virtue and (the objects of ) Desire cannot be won.13 Nakula and Sahdeva supporting Arjuna conclude: Sitting or lying, walking and standing, one should strive after the acquisition of wealth even by the most vigorous of means. If wealth, which is difficult of acquisition and highly agreeable, he earned, the person that has earned it, without doubt, is seen to obtain all the objects of desire. That wealth which is connected with virtue, as also that virtue which is connected with wealth, is certainly like nectar. For this reason, our opinions are as follows. A person without wealth cannot gratify any desire; similarly, there can be no wealth in one that is destitute of virtue. He, therefore, who is outside the pale of both virtue and wealth, is an object of fear unto the world. For this reason, one should seek the acquisition of Wealth with a devoted mind, without disregarding the requirements of

4 Virtue. They who believe in (the wisdom of) this saying succeed in acquiring whatever they desire. One should practice Virtue; next acquire Wealth without sacrificing, Virtue; and then seek the gratification of Desire, for this should be the last act of one who has been successful in acquiring Wealth.14 For Bhima, however, nothing including wealth can be acquired without the motivating force of desire. He says: One without Desire never wishes for wealth. One without Desire never wishes for Virtue. One who is destitute of Desire can never feel any wish. For this reason, Desire is the foremost of all the three. It is under the influence of Desire that the very rishis devote themselves to penances subsisting upon fruits, of living upon roots or air only. Others possessed of Vedic lore are engaged upon the Vedas and their branches or upon rites of faith and sacrificial acts, or upon making gifts or accepting them. Traders, agriculturists, keepers of cattle, artists and artisans, and those who are employed in rites of propitiation, all act from Desire. Some there are that dive unto the depths of the ocean, induced by Desire. Desire, indeed, takes various forms. Everything is pervaded by the Principle of Desire. A man outside the pale of Desire never is, was, or will be, seen in this world. This, is the truth. Both Virtue and Wealth are based upon Desire.15. But Desire alone is not enough. Bhima s conclusion, therefore, is Virtue, Profit and Desire should be equally attended to. That man who devotes himself to only one them is certainly not a superior person. He is said to be middling who devotes himself to only two of them. He, on the other hand, is the best of his species who attends to all the three.16 The Battle of Kurukshetra The world of Mahabharata, however, is not one of debate and discussion. It is essentially a world of action and the epic has to contend with how these principles work themselves out in that world because that is the world which we have to inhabit and work in. It is the application of these principles in the real world that is of relevance to us. As the two armies stand arrayed in the battlefield of Kurukshetra, Arjuna the man of actions falters: Beholding these kingsmen, O Krishna, assembled together and eager for the fight, my limbs become languid and my mouth becomes dry. My body trembles and my hair stands on end. Gandiva slips from my hand, and my skin burns. I am unable to stand ( any longer); my mind seems to wander. I behold adverse omens, too, O Kesava. I do not desire victory, O Krishna, not sovereignty, nor pleasures. Of what use would sovereignty be to us, O Govinda, or enjoyments, or even life, since they for whose sake sovereignty, enjoyments and pleasures are desired by us, are here arranged for battle ready to give up life and wealth, viz. preceptors, sires, sons and grandsires, maternal uncles, fatherin-laws, grandsons, brother-in-laws and kinsmen. I wish not so slay these though they slay me, O slayer of Madhu, even for the sake of the sovereignty of the three worlds, what then for the sake of (this) earth? What gratification can be ours, O Janardana, by slaying the Dhartarashtras? Even if they be regarded as foes, sin will overtake us if we slay them. Therefore, it behoveth us not to slay the sons of Dhritrashtra who are our own kinsmen. How, O Madhava, can we be happy by killing our own kinsmen? Even if these, with judgments, perverted by avarice, do not see the evil that ariseth from the extermination of a race, and the sin of internecine quarrels, why should not we, O Janardana, who see the evils of the extermination of a race, learn to abstain from that sin?17 Krishna uses every argument to make Arjuna fight but the end seems to vindicate Arjuna as Duryodhana has the last laugh. He mocks at Yudhishthira as he rubs it in that what Yudhishthira has won is but a hollow victory. They amongst the Kurus, says Duryodhana to him. For whose sake I desired sovereignty, that is, those brothers of mine all lie dead on the field! I do not, again, like to enjoy any longer the earth that is now shorn of wealth and reft of superior Kshatriyas and that hath, therefore, become like widowed lady!.. This shorn earth, O king, now exists for thee! What king is there that would like to rule a kingdom divested of friends and allies?18 Yudhishthira himself, is inconsolable after the war. He laments: Full of pride and arrogance, ourselves, however, through covetousness and folly and from desire of enjoying the sweets of sovereignty, have fallen into this plight. Beholding those kinsmen of ours that were bent on acquiring sovereignty of the world slain on the field of battle, such grief hath been ours that one cannot gladden us by giving the sovereignty of even the three worlds. Alas, having slain,

5 for the sake of the earth, such lords of earth as deserved not to be slain by us, we are bearing the weight of existence, deprived of friends and reft of the very objects of life. Like a pack of dogs fighting one another for a piece of meat great disasters have overtaken us! That piece of meat is no longer dear to us. On the other hand, it shall be thrown aside. They that have been slain should not have been slain for the sake of even the whole earth or mountains of gold, or all the horses and kine in this world. Thus what the great war establishes is that no possession that needs violence to acquire it is of any worth, for it cannot be enjoyed without fresh anxieties about retaining it. A conflict that is resolved by force and violence will only generate a more intense conflict and greater violence.20 This is amply proved by the butchery perpetrated by Ashwatthama after the Pandavas have decisively won the war. That truth is no truth at all which for its validation must be forced upon others. Hence, we see the self destruction of the Vrishni race, disillusionment of Krishna and his ignoble end when he couldn t defend himself even against an ordinary hunter, and the humbling of Ajuna when his Gandiva failed him while protecting the Vrishni women from desecration. The storyteller drives home the point that the knowledge of weapons is not forever.21 Yet the battle is described as dharmayuddha or a just war and the battlefield dharmakshatra as the field for the battle of righteousness. Over and ever again it is repeated that let there be history where there is righteousness. And what is the role of Krishna? Why does he prevail upon Arjuna to fight? Why is he the most important adviser and decision-maker on the side of the Pandavas? And why is his advice usually so devious, at least an the face of it? Here we come to the ambiguities and paradoxes of dharma or righteousness and truth. Dharma works at different levels, is elusive and multifaceted. At the most technical level, the Mahabharata war is a dharmayuddha because it is fought according to a code of conduct to which both sides agree. This is one meaning of dharma which is a limited technical one. At the beginning of the battle, the rules of warfare are enumerated and accepted by both sides. These are universally accepted norms on humanitarian grounds and prevail in any civilized society. For example, nobody should fight and kill someone who is running away from the battlefield. Nobody should attack an unarmed and defenseless person. Fighting must be among equals. A charioteer should fight a charioteer, a horsemen horsemen; and other such norms.22 However, these rules were violated by both sides at crucial moments during the war. On the Kaurava side, the killing of Abhimanyu, alone and defenseless, by a group of seven warriors, led by Dronacharya, Drona himself slaying the fleeing Pandava soldiers indiscriminately just before this death, the butchery of Ashwatthama are just some instances. On the Pandava side, too, there are several instances the slaying of Jayadratha, the felling of Bhishma with the help of Shikhandi, the killing of the defenseless Karna, the beheading of Drona by Yudhishthira s uttering a lie that Ashwatthama was dead, and Bhima defeating Duryodhana in the mace duel by breaking his thigh. Hence it is made amply clear that a dharmayudhha degenerates into an adharmayudha in the heat of the battle when victory is at stake. An interesting fact is that all the transgressions are done on Krishna s insistence. This gives rise to at least two questions. If Krishna is devious why does Vyasa say to Yudhishthira, thither is Krishna where righteousness is, and thither is victory where Krishna is 23. Hence, what is the status and role Krishna? Is he divine or is he human and if divine what is the nature of divinity? Why does he act so deviously? In acting thus does he follow dharma or not? What is the nature of dharma and how should one act according to it? These questions lead us into some vital concepts and philosophical issues explored in depth by Mahabharata that are related to the path of righteousness and truth and the conflicts that confront a human being in trying to follow it. Krishna is held to be squarely responsible for the events of Mahabharata. The dying Duryodhana lists his faults. O son of Kansa s slave, thon hast, it seems, no shame, for hast thou forgotten that I have been struck down most unfairly, judged by the rules that prevail in encounters with the mace? It was thou who unfairly caused this act by reminding Bhima with a hint about the breaking of my thighs! Dost thou think I did not mark it when Arjuna (acting under thy advice) hinted it to Bhima? Having caused thousands of kings, who always fought fairly to be slain through diverse kinds of unfair means, feelest

6 thou no shame or no adherence for those acts? Day after day having caused a great carnage of heroic warriors, thou caused the grandsire to be slain by placing Sikhandi to the fore! Having again caused an elephant of the name of Ashwatthama to be slain, O thou of wicked understanding, thou causedst the preceptor to lay aside his weapons. Thinkest thou that this is not known to me! While again that valiant hero was about to be slain by this cruel Dhrishtadyumna, thou didst not dissuade the latter! The dart that had been begged (of Sakra as a boon) by Karna for the slaughter of Arjuna, was baffled by thee through Ghatotkacha? Who is there that is more sinful than thou? Similarly, the mighty Bhurisravas, with one of his arms lopped off and while observant of the Praya vow, was caused to be slain by thee through the agency of the high-souled Satyaki. Karna had done a great feat for vanquishing Partha. Thou, however, causedst Aswasena, the son of that prince of snakes (viz., Takshaka), to be baffled in achieving his purpose! When again the wheel of Karna s car sank in mire and Karna was afflicted with calamity and almost vanquished on that account when, indeed, that foremost of men became anxious to liberate his wheel, - thou causedst that Karna to be then slain! If ye had fought me and Karna and Bhishma and Drona by fair means, victory then, without doubt, would never have been yours. By adopting the most crooked and unrighteous of means thou hast caused many kings observant of the duties of their order and ourselves also to be slain!.24 Gandhari finds it in here heart to forgive the Pandavas the death of her sons but is unable to absolve Krishna of his responsibility. Hence, she curses him: Thou wert competent to prevent the slaughter, for thou hast a large number of followers and a vast force. Thou hadst eloquence, and thou hadst the power ( for bringing about peace). Since deliberately, O slayer of Madhu, thou wert indifferent to this universal carnage, therefore, O mightyarmed one, thou shouldst reap the fruit of this act. By the little merit I have acquired through waiting dutifully on my husband, by merit so difficult to attain, I shall curse thee, O Wielder of the discus and the mace! Since thou wert indifferent to the Kurus and the Pandavas whilst they slew each other, therefore, O Govinda, thou shalt be the slayer of thy own kinsmen! On the thirty-sixth year from this, O slayer of Madhu, thou shalt, after causing the slaughter of thy kinsmen and friends and sons, perish by disgustful means within the wilderness. The ladies of thy race, deprived of sons, kinsmen, and friends, shall weep and cry even as these ladies of the Bharata race! 25 Utanka, a great ascetic, also holds Krishna responsible for the Kurukshetra carnage and is enraged by Krishna s apparent irresponsibility. Since though able, O Krishna, thou didst not rescue those foremost ones of Kuru s race, who were thy relatives and therefore, dear to thee, I shall without doubt, curse thee. Since thou didst not forcibly compel them to forbear, therefore, O slayer of Madhu, I shall, filled with wrath, denounce a curse on thee. It seems, O Madhava, that though fully able (to save them), thou wert indifferent to these foremost of Kurus who overwhelmed by insincerity and hypocrisy have all met with destruction.26 So all roads seem to lead to Krishna, his actions and his responsibilities. Krishna can be seen both as human and divine but his actions need to be analyzed in the context of dharma. If he is god he should have prevented this carnage. Or, was he, as the divine, playing out a larger vision or scheme in order to establish dharma on earth. He reveals his virata roop to Arjuna in which he shows him that he as Kaal or Time had already slain the Kauravas and Pandavas as also his own race, the Yadavas as people had sinned in the freedom of action allowed to them. Even god, as Matilal point out, cannot make the world a better place overnight where every being will forget their enmity and hatred towards each other and live in perfect peace and harmony. Every creature is free to perform his karma and thereby create his own destiny in which god should not intervene. But when the earth is full of hatred, enmity and sin, when justice is in danger of being trampled on forever, when disaster after disaster imperils the very existence of being, then, as Krishna expounds in the Gita, god may intervene in whatever way he can.27 However, the Mahabharata while acknowledging at some places the divinity of Krishna, rejects it in favour of realism and emphasizes the human Krishna rather than Krishna the god. The consequences of unrighteous behavior could only be worked out through the Kurushetra war and Krishna the human being could only try that justice was done at the end. This was difficult as the might of the Kauravas was greater than that of the Pandavas but the Pandavas had been deprived of their rights for thirteen years through trickery and fraud. Krishna himself says:

7 Born now in the order of humanity, I must act as a human being. I appealed to them (the Kauravas) most piteously. But stupefied as they were deprived of their senses, they refused to accept my words. I frightened them, filled with wrath, referring to some greater fear ( as the consequences of their slighting my message). But once more I showed themselves my usual (human) form. Possessed as they were of unrighteousness, and assailed by the virtue of time, all of them have been righteously slain in battle.28 The question then is, was Durupodhana wrong and was the battle of Kurukshetra fought to protect certain moral or religious values. The answer is not easy because all is grey in Mahabharata as in life. It is almost impossible to decide that one side fights a just war while the either side is unalloyed evil.29 In fact the storyteller is at pains to emphasize that the Pandavas did not win the war through their powers but by luck. After the war, Krishna asks Arjuna to get down from the chariot first and then he dismounts himself. As soon as he does that it is reduced to ashes. Krishna explains that the chariot and already been consumed by diverse kinds of weapons. It did not fall into pieces earlier because he sat on it. He goes on to state unequivocally to Yudhishthira. By good luck, thou hast won the victory, O son of Kunti! By good luck, thy foes have been vanquished! By good luck, the wielder of Gandiva and Bhimsena the son of Pandu, and thyself O King, and the two sons of Madri, have escaped with life from this battle so destructive of heroes, and have escaped after having slain your foes!30 As far as Duryodhana was concerned, fighting with the Pandavas to secure the entire Kingdom and not just half of it was ethical. He was convinced that he had a natural right to the throne and he, therefore, tried to secure it by fair means or foul. For the time he ruled he was a good king. He was a proud man who staked everything to save his pride upto the end. Even on his death bed his straight forward and heroic replies to Krishna can only evoke admiration. That is why, perhaps, he ascended to heaven before the Pandavas.31 Both the Kauravas and the Pandavas did evil acts. Both stooped almost equally to meanness, to devious and devilish strategies to conquer. The Kauravas were meaner and their humiliation was uncalled for and highly unethical. It was unpardonable noble. This made Pandavas the preferred side but greatness was on both sides and both tried at different times to maintain certain moral principles, values and virtues. In such a situation, the Pandavas could only win against the stronger side of the Kauravas with the help of strategy and strategies cannot be restricted to just and fair means. There is a touch of realism here. Idealism would have demanded the victory of good over evil following ideally constructed strategies. But the storyteller preferred realism. Our world is really an imperfect world and this is all we have. The course of certain events cannot be stopped. All that Krishna can do is to salvage justice at the end of the battle. This, however, leads to a paradox. In order to save justice towards the end, many unjust and immoral acts are perpetrated. But what kind of justice is this? A sense of justice that kills all other senses of justice? But is this right? This is the ultimate puzzle, a puzzle that we see even today all around but which is too frustrating to yield a solution.32 Krishna obviously compromised his moral integrity at different times in order to ensure victory for the Pandavas which he perceived to be the right side or at least more right than the Kauravas. It can be asked that if Krishna did not stoop to devious means and make others do the same and if as a consequence the Kauravas had won, would the world have been a better place or would it have contributed to the well being of humanity. The answer cannot be yes. If the Kauravas had won, our inherent sense of justice would have suffered a setback and our trust in the moral order of the universe would have been impaired.33 The issue then is that of dharma or righteousness or justice. What is dharma? Does it lead to moral dilemmas of the kind portrayed in Mahabharata? Is it still necessary to act according to it? And if so, how does one decide a course of action faced by a dilemma created by conflicting duties or values? Often a person is confronted by two or more moral obligations and he cannot fulfil one without violating his duty to another. It presents irreconcilable alternatives and the choice between them seems to be made irrationally or for reasons other than moral. Is there any absolute value? Telling the truth would perhaps qualify as one but is it? One episode from Mahabharata would serve to show its complexity. Sage Kaushika had taken the vow of telling the truth all his life. One day he was sitting near a crossroad when some travelers ran by trying to escape the bandits who were chasing them. They requested Kaushika not to reveal to the bandits where they had fled to but

8 he did not answer. The bandits, knowing that the hermit would not lie, asked him about the travelers. Kaushika told them the truth. Consequently the travelers were killed by the bandits. Kaushika was punished with hell because he had chosen his duty to tell the truth over saving innocent lives. As a result of Kaushika s truth telling the travelers were caught by the bandits and put to death. Kaushika did not go to heaven because of this act of cruelty. His abiding by his vow to tell the truth came to nothing because situational constraints may necessitate rejecting the duty of telling the truth over the greater duty of saving an innocent life. This is not to propagate expedience but to argue that there are times when a lie becomes a higher truth when it can save innocent lives. It is only one s ego that would make one choose otherwise. Hence, Shanti Parva defines dharma as : Righteousness was declared for the advancement and growth of all creatures. Therefore, that which leads to advancement and growth is righteousness. Righteousness was declared for restraining creatures from injuring one another. Therefore, that is Righteousness which prevents injury to creatures. Righteousness is so called because it upholds all creatures. In fact, all creatures are upheld by Righteousness. Therefore, that is righteousness which is capable of upholding all creatures.34 In any case, both good and evil actions have consequences both known and unknown whether done consciously or unconsciously. Krishna illustrates this with another story that of Balaka, the hunter. Balaka used to hunt animals to feed his blind parents. He had a rare skill of being able to aim accurately by mere sound. One day, by chance, he thus killed a ferocious creature called Andha and the gods showered flowers in celebration. Andha had become a monster after receiving a boon from Brahma that made him almost indestructible. Puffed with pride and arrogance he began to kill all creatures. Although Balaka was unaware of what he had achieved by destroying Andha, he nevertheless got his reward. This may seem plain luck but it also shows that human life cannot be made to run a rigid course as there are external factors beyond one s control. However, the underlying message is that life is preferable to death because lost dharma can only be retrieved if one continues to live. Another episode in Shanti Parva illustrates this point. Vishwamitra starving and desperately hungry because of famine reaches a hut in search of food. He finds a fresh piece of dog s flesh outside it. He is about to take it and leave when the Chandala, the master of the hut, comes out and tries to prevent him from eating it by pointing out that this would destroy his dharma and his tapasya, the sadhana of his entire life. Vishwamitra s reply is that in extra-ordinary circumstances, if a person can somehow save his life, he should do it because life is preferable to death. It is only by living that dharma can be attained and, therefore, one should not be contemptuous of an action that can preserve life. Vishwamitra is willing to commit the sin of eating dog s flesh because it is only if he lives that he can lead a pure life fulfilling his dharma. Interestingly, when the Chandal gives him the piece of flesh, he does not eat it alone. He proceeds to make the customary offerings to the gods, the forefathers and to all living entities. Just then the rains come and the drought ends for all bringing an end to famine. Yudhishthira is unnerved on hearing this story from Bhishma because of the very thought of Vishwamitra eating dog s flesh but Bhishma tells him to remember that the shastras cannot be read in isolation and with a weak heart. The totality of the shastras has to be considered to obtain wisdom that is not rigid and mechanical.35 The Message of Mahabharata The story of Mahabharata is not essentially about courage, valor or strength but about spiritual strength, flexibility and the ability to face life unflinchingly. Truth has to be a living truth otherwise it is no truth. Falsehood in itself has no existence by itself. It only gains predominance when truth becomes stagnant, dead, separate from the flow of life. That is why the waters of a pond rot but those of a flowing river remain ever fresh. This truth of an individual, of a society, of a community or of a nation has to be in consonance with cosmic and universal truths. When the immediate truth becomes at variance with the universal truth, it must be discarded, as it becomes low. Another underlying theme of Mahabharata is karuna or compassion for all irrespective of personal considerations. This is the individual dharma and each character has to constantly seek it and measure up to it. Whenever a major character is unable to recognize it, some minor character of a sub story emphasizes it for him. Bhishma and Drona remain quiet when Yudhishthira wagers Draupadi. They do not stir when she is publicly humiliated and called a slave to be enjoyed by all and to be at the mercy of all. But Duryodhana s brother, Vikarna stands up saying, a woman is not a piece of property who can be wagered. The whole game of dice has been wrong. The silence of the elders

9 implies that at one time this may have been true but not any more; in contemporary society she has become man s property. Vikarna leaves because this specific truth is at variance with the eternal truth or the universal norm. The significance of Vikarna s sudden protest is that no matter how much truth is sought to be hidden or suppressed it will eventually emerge and often from the most unexpected sources. A morally intolerable event succeeds in courageously uncovering the truth because that truth is within all of us; that truth is life s unmitigated truth. It demands that we have to live this truth under the most unfavorable circumstances and that if we do not do so on our own life will make us live it. Truth will eventually have to be upheld even if it comes from the least likely quarters and this will have to be done without excuses, without prejudices and without biases. Another universal truth that Mahabharata teaches us is that dharma cannot be merely studied. It has to be continuously tested on one s pulses in life. This is because there is no rigid or absolute dharma. The dharma of ordinary life is different from the dharma of crises situations and such situations are infinite, so how can it be reduced to a mere inflexible code. One way to test the rightness of actions is to ask the question whether you are doing something out of fear of someone or is someone taking an action because he fears you. Another question is whether your action merely conforms to societal norms or is it the means of universal good even if it is not in consonance with the strict demands of society. Mahabharata, forces decisions where choices have to be made between conflicting dharmas. This has to be done after great thought, concentration and consideration. For example Gautama orders his son Chirkari to kill his mother as she has transgressed the dharma and leaves for the forests. Chirkari is caught between following his father s orders as a son or his own duty to protect his mother. He decides to follow the latter arguing that when a husband does not remain a provider or a protector, he loses the rights of a husband. In the meantime Gautama realizes his error and rushes back to prevent it being carried out. He blesses his son for disobeying him and realizes that in worldly affairs it is not right to take decisions in haste or anger. Dharma moves slowly. It requires patience and often leads to extreme loneliness. Yudhishthira is the most obvious example. He is alone in his decision to stand by his word of thirteen years of exile although he knows that Shakuni has cheated; he is alone in deciding to rescue the Kauravas from the Gandharvas. But dharma also sustains, gives faith that ultimately it cannot be destroyed. Adharma may provide short-term rapid gains but when it is destroyed, it is from its roots. Nothing remains. Dharma may appear to cause suffering but ultimately it prevails. At an even higher level, there is actually no conflict between a lower and higher truth. However, in arriving at the higher truth, one s own immediate self interest has to be eliminated and all points of view have to be considered. Then, no conflict remains because the realization dawns on one that one s own good ultimately lies in everyone s good and what is not everyone s good cannot also be good for the individual in the long term no matter how many gains it provides in the short term. Shri Krishna represents the inner truth of Mahabharata although he is not its hero. His pivotal role is to keep reminding human beings not to forget their humanness. He is not with anyone and yet he is with everyone. He participates in the battle in a strange way by giving his near invincible army to Duryodhana and himself becoming the charioteer for Arjuna with a vow not to take up arms. He remains unmoved in spite of the huge destruction after the war because he has to look to the universal good and not to the good of a few. The entire Mahabharata is suffused with the personality of Shri Krishna. He sees everyone getting defeated, humiliated, regretting at one time or another, being wounded by truth but Krishna never regrets, never cries, never feels helpless, is indifferent to both victory and defeat and even at the moment of death, remains unagitated. Struck by Jara s arrow, he is grateful to him for liberating him from his physical body. He accepts that through Jara, Eklavya has found rest as his revenge against the arrogance of the entire kshatriya class has now been taken. He gratefully accepts this moment of his wounded life with a large heart, understanding and serenity. He is indifferent to all and yet comprehends the needs and desires of all. That is why he can impart knowledge to his dear friend Uddhava and then let him go. He does not ask him to stay with him and serve him. He is courageous enough to inspire Arjuna to war, protect him at every step, make him victorious and then put him in a situation where his Gandiva for which he was willing to kill Yudhishthira becomes worthless when the Vrishris are destroying themselves. Thus he crushes Arjuna s arrogance as a warrior.

10 Why is Krishna so heartless to Gandhari? Perhaps because he remains untouched by the sorrow caused by human relationships, he wants to drive home the lesson that man is ultimately responsible for his own griefs and misfortunes and that a community s grief is also brought upon by the community on itself. The cause of suffering lie within not outside not in any friend or enemy, not in any circumstance of time or artificial code of conduct. This lesson has to be repeatedly learnt over and over again by every individual. To teach it, the Divine must also descend to earth, be a part of human relationships, go through the pain of attachment and parting, see the human condition with human eyes take the burden of the responsibility of the self and unflinchingly accept death by being pierced by hunter s arrow in the foot. The individual human being may be destroyed but the ultimate value of what it means to be human must be realized and elevated. Conclusion: In a work as vast and varied as Mahabharata, each individual must derive his own meaning from it as from life. While at one level, it is a victory song, that is only a superficial reading of it. It is important to remember that it is being narrated to Arjuna s grandson Janamejaya that is, two generations have passed. How quickly human beings forget is obvious from the fact that within two generations itself the cycle of revenge has begun again and Janamejaya is preparing a naga sacrifice to avenge the death of his father Parikshit who died of a snakebite, bitten by Takshaka. That is, Mahabharata can be read as History or Itihaas. The Indian concept of History was quite different from the western one. It is not necessarily a chronological narration of verifiable events. The idea of history is connected with the idea of time. The reality of time has been seen in two ways in India. One is the ever present time or kaal that is eternal in the sense that it never finishes or comes to an end. The second is time that is continuously completed, paradoxical though it may sound. It implies that every moment is at once complete but simultaneously connected with the next. What is truly significant is not that which is found in the specifics of time but in that which even while so bound is of universal significance. The idea is to project the significance of events in infinity through their sequence in a specific portion of time. As Sukthankar says, it is to penetrate behind the phenomena to the core of things and they represent but so many pulsating reflexes of one and the same gigantic all-embracing synthesis. 37 The book ends with the feeling that in spite of all that has been said, nothing will happen because nothing ever happens and that this cry from the forests will go in vain. But will it? When a person like Vyasa talks of victory, he cannot mean simply physical victory. Nor can it only be the destruction of ignorance. What the great narrative, perhaps, wishes to convey is that such darkness will come again and again and that ambivalence about values too will occur again and again. A man can only recount it whether someone listens or not. It is an act of stepping back to watch the flow of the river of time. It is the story of life which will never be over. However, the aim of Mahabharata cannot be merely to show the victory of dharma over adharma because that in any case always eventually takes place. Its aim, perhaps, is to try to make us understand the nature of true victory and true dharma. It is not victory as conceived by Dhritrashtra or the victory lamented by Yudhishthira. It is a message of life that transcends death; a song of peace while portraying the worst carnage possible but leaving no doubt about the utter futility of wars; it opens the path to transcending one s own concerns and seeing that one s happiness can only be a part of everyone s happiness. It presents the ideal of the truly unconquerable state of mind that can accept with equanimity, happiness, unhappiness, like, dislike, whatever may come one s way, to never accept defeat in one s heart and to remain calm and centred whether there is ease or disease. It is only when humanity evolves towards this that the world will see the diminishing of strife and the dawn of peace. End notes: 1. Mahabharata, Sauptika Parva, Section XVI, Vol.VIII, p.37. All citations from Mahabharata are from Kisari Mohan Ganguli, trans., The Mahabharata of Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa, New Delhi: Munshiram Manohar Lal, 1970, 5th edn., Ibid. See also Rajmohan Gandhi, Revenge and Reconciliation, New Delhi: Penguim Books India 1999, pp Sri Aurobindo, Sri Aurobindo Birth Centenary Library (SABCL) Vol.15, p.210. Cited by Pavitra (PB. Saint-Hillaire), Education and The Aim of Human Life, Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education, 1st edn. 1961, rpt. 1996, p.37.