Khandav-prastha

In the epic Mahabharata, the episode of Khandavprastha is one of the most important events with serious implications. It also one of the most complicated events that mark the birth of a kingdom, but not without raising a few questions. Let us understand the event better.

Once the Pandavs return with Draupadi after the Lakshagraha event, they get into trouble with the Kauravs and the differences lead to the partition of land, with Hastinapur being retained by the Kauravs and the land better known as Khandavprastha was given to the Pandavs. Khandavprastha, later renamed as Indraprastha, was a tract of land which was a dense jungle with rich flora and fauna. To establish a kingdom, it was inevitable to burn the forest down. However, what is surprising is that that not a single life was spared, be they animals, birds or the naga’s or serpents who used to reside there. It is said that all animals who tried to escape were killed by Arjun or Krishna, and thus all life perished either by fire or by weapons of the two.

Just why was this kind of ‘mass-murder’ necessary? Couldn’t the animals and birds be allowed to leave? Wouldn’t that have been a better alternative instead of such naked bloodbath at the onset of the establishment of a kingdom?

According to the Khandava-daha Parva of Adi Parva (Section CCXXV) of the epic, there is an interesting myth which led to such actions by the two main characters of the epic. When Arjun and Krishna were contemplating the method of clearing the forest of Khandav, an old man came to them and told them that he needed help. He went on to say that he was a Brahmin, who was used to eating a lot of food and needed to be fed. When Arjun asked him the nature of the food that would suffice his hunger, he pointed them towards the forest.

This old man was none other than the Vedic deity, Agni. Agni them went on to related another myth. Once upon a time there lived King Swetaki, who was used to performing yagna’s for the welfare of his kingdom. His over-zealousness for such sacrifices made the sages run away from him out of sheer tiredness and the sore-eyes that they had developed due to being in front of the fire all the time. Not to give up, Swetaki approached Rudra to bail him out and Rudra asked him to approach Sage Durvasa (considered to be an ‘aspect’ of Rudra himself).

Rudra agreed to take up the sacrifices, provided Swetaki arranged for enough ghee, or clarified butter, to last twelve years at a stretch. When Swetaki arranged as directed, Sage Durvasa conducted the sacrifice. However, by consuming so much of ghee, Agni suffered from severe dyspepsia, to the extent that Agni stopped consuming anything for some time. Staying hungry for so long, Agni had now developed a huge appetite which could be satiated only by the Khandav forest and every inhabitant of the forest.

Arjun wanted to know why he couldn’t do it himself and why he needed their help. Agni continued that among the inhabitants of the forest were the nagas, the serpents and their King Takshak. The serpents were under protection of Lord Indra and every time he tried to consume the forest, Indra would send the rains and extinguish the flames. Agni wanted Arjun and Krishna to help him devour the entire forest to satiate his hunger.

The matter now gets complicated as Indra was also Arjun’s father, and would he take up arms against his father at the behest of Agni?

Arjun however agrees to fight it out, but would need celestial weapons. Agni gave him the Gandiva, the bow with quivers which never got depleted of arrows. Agni also gave Krishna the sudarshan-chakra, the weapon of Lord Vishnu (thus establishing Krishna as an avatar of Vishnu). Together Arjun and Krishna are also referred to as the mortal forms of the divine Nar and Narayan.

A sculpture in the temple of Banteay Srei temple in Cambodia
Arjun and Krishna can be seen on either sides with Indra at the top;
Arrows can be seen holding the rain waters.

Soon, Agni lit a small fire and started to consume the forest. When Indra learnt about the fire, he sent his rain clouds. Arjun used his bow to create an impenetrable umbrella of arrows which stopped the rains. When Indra realized what was happening, he himself came down to fight it out but realized that he was no match for his son and Krishna together. Matters came to a standstill only after the entire forest was devoured without a single life escaping, except for Takshak who was not in the forest and his son and four saranga birds. Also, Maya Asura, the architect of the asura’s too managed to save his life in return of a promise of building a never-built-before palace for the Pandavs.

 

At the onset, I had mentioned that this was a complicated myth, as no life was spared in the mass fire, which is supposed to have lasted for fifteen days. All birds, animals and serpents perished in the fire, leading to a life-long enmity between the nagas and the Pandavs with serious repercussions in future.

According to Dr. Pradip Bhattacharya, this conflict brings out many interesting aspects. For one, this is a classic case of father-son conflict (Indra vs. Arjun) which is a common theme in mythologies of the world. It is also a classic case of a conflict between two elements of nature, fire and water. In modern terms, it also depicts the victory of man over nature. Iravati Karve, the author of Yuganta views this as the colonization of the Aryans, by sheer force and decimation of the natives. A number of weapons are introduced during this event, which could be an indication to the impending war.

The entire event displays a complex set of contradictions. The nagas venerated Indra, the god of gods who decides to side with them against his own son and other gods; Pandavs take the help of an asura to build their palace, instead of the celestial architect Vishwakarma; the palace of illusions by itself becomes a point of conflict later in the epic; all life perishes in the fire, except those mentioned earlier, and yet it is not a crime.

While the myth of Agni’s hunger could be seen as a justification of the event, it also helped absolve Arjun and Krishna of the crime of mass-murder as they were doing it at the behest of a Brahmin! 

Banteay Srei Pics courtesy Wikipedia

Krishna – the deserter

All of us know how Lord Krishna stopped Arjun from fleeing the battlefield, just before the battle of Kurukshetra in the epic Mahabharata. A lesser known myth tells us of Krishna himself doing the same at one point of time, but with a difference.

After Krishna killed his uncle, Kansa, he installed Kansa’s father, King Ugrasen on the throne of Mathura as the King of the Yadavas. The killing of Kansa had upset Kansa’s father-in-law, the mighty and powerful, King of Magadh, Jarasandha, since two of his daughters were married to Kansa and were now widows. Both the daughters returned to Jarasandha and urged their father to avenge their plight.

Jarasandha decided to kill Krishna and laid siege on Mathura. The army of the Yadavas was no match to that of Jarasandha’s huge army, but the Yadavas managed to send them back under the able leadership of Krishna. Jarasandha is supposed to have attacked Mathura more than seventeen times, each time inflicting a huge blow to the Yadavas and the casualties kept mounting and soon the Yadavas had an army which was only name-sake.

It was then that Krishna decided to leave Mathura and got Lord Vishwakarma to build a new city for them. Vishwakarma made a walled-city called Dwarka, the city with gates, which was well fortified and safe on an island on the West. However, the Yadavas saw this eviction from Mathura as an act of weakness and protested. Krishna explained to them, that he was capable of killing Jarasandha, but his time had not come, and he would not do anything which was against destiny. Also, Jarasandha’s enmity was not with the Yadavas, but with him. Krishna felt that risking the lives of so many and inflicting casualties on the community was unfair. After a lot of deliberations, King Ugrasen agreed with Krishna’s views and they decided to shift.

Soon Jarasandha laid siege, and this time set the entire city of Mathura on fire. But Krishna and others had already slipped out of Mathura. This singular act of his, earned him the epithet of ‘Ranchod-rai’, one who flees from the battlefield, or the deserter. Time and again, Krishna has been taunted for this desertion and even called a coward in Mb, but many see this as an act of practical sense. Putting an entire community at risk for what was a personal enmity was unfair. Also, it is always better to fight an equal war and when one is ready. The Yadavas were not ready and were no match to the mighty army of Jarasandha. Balarama, the elder brother of Krishna had protested to this plan of desertion, but Krishna prevailed, much to the dislike of Balarama and many others.

Fighting in battles is not just an act of bravery, but also that of strategy. Jarasandha never attacked Dwarka which was well fortified, proves the point that Krishna’s decision was that of good war strategy, which in the long run led to no casualties and no bloodshed. His decision to take on Jarasandha later when he had able support of warriors worthy of Jarasandha, proved beneficial to the entire community.

A single epithet of the deserter did not reduce his importance, rather only enhanced it as a master-strategist with a practical sense rather than a misplaced sense of patriotism.

The critical difference of Krishna’s desertion and Arjun not wanting to fight the war of Kurukshetra, is that Arjun had developed cold feet and was having moral dilemma whereas Krishna’s desertion was part of war-strategy. You can read more on this in one of my earlier articles  Arjuna's Dilemma .

There exists a famous temple of Ranchod-rai in Dakor, Gujarat. The formation of the temple and the idol of the temple have its own rich mythology, which will be for some other day.

So did Krishna ever manage to eliminate Jarasandha? That too is for another day!!!

Conflict – Team Anna

A well desired effect has been the cause of much merry amongst a section of people whom we call politicians in India. The cause of the merry making is the effect of discord within Team Anna. Anna Hazare has been making statements denouncing Arvind Kejriwal’s steps to form a political outfit, much to the embarrassment of Kejriwal and his supporters. Media has been reporting every action of both

Has Anna lost the steam when provoked to come to the forefront and fight the elections? After all, to make a difference in a system, one has to be a part of the system, isn’t it?

Has Kejriwal developed political ambitions, now that he has seen crowds swell in the numerous agitations that he has been a part of and in some cases led by him? Is it his firm belief that he has to be a part of the system to make changes in the system or is it plain avarice for power, as mentioned by a few of his detractors?

Is there a conflict between the well known crusader Anna Hazare and the new face of the corruption movement, Arvind Kejriwal? In the conflict, who is at fault?

Let me tell you a small story from the epic Mahabharata.

During one of the exiles of the Pandavas, Arjun, set out all by himself. The main objective was to form alliances with different rulers for the future confrontation with his cousins, where he would need support. During once such visits, he visited the abode of Lord Indra (also his father) and enjoyed the joys of Amravati. Among all the apsara’s in Indra’s court, he kept staring at Urvashi which was observed by all including Urvashi, who seemed to be smitten by the good looks of Arjun. Later Urvashi, who could not control herself, came over to Arjun and expressed her desire to make love with him. Arjun looked shocked and expressed his inability to do so. He referred to her past relationship with Pururava, Arjun’s ancestor, by the virtue of which, Urvashi was his mother and that’s exactly why he was staring at her. (The myth of Urvashi and Pururava is another interesting myth, which we will discuss on some other day)

Urvashi was enraged and informed Arjun that this was outrageous and such norms did not apply to the gods, but Arjun could not agree with her proposal. This spurn by Arjun insulted Urvashi so much that she cursed him, that henceforth, Arjun would be incapable of making love to any woman, if not her. (Later, with the intervention of Lord Indra, the curse was reduced to being in this state for just a year, which Arjun used to his advantage during the last year of the thirteen year exile when the Pandavas had to live in a disguise.)

Here is an example of conflict, where both were right. According to Urvashi, she was not a mortal and such rules of mortals were not applicable to her and thus she found nothing wrong in the proposition which Arjun found indecent. Also, what was a case of momentary passion for Urvashi was an unthinkable incestuous relationship for Arjun. This shows that conflicts do not always take place only when one is right and the other is wrong. It can occur even when both are right, as in this case, though, one had to suffer.

In the case of Anna-Kejriwal conflict too, both seem to be right. Anna considers himself to be a crusader whose role is to bring issues out on the forefront and stir a movement, in what he feels is a civil society agitation. But Kejriwal feels that, times have changed and people have opined that to make changes in a system, one has to be in the system. Civil society agitations today are seen as mere opposition, wherein the opposition does not offer much in terms of an alternative solution. There is also the case of difference of opinion due to generation gap. Anna is a Gandhian who has lived all his life under the influence of the apostle of non-violence. Kejriwal is a product of modern India, who believes that good politics and good politicians (an oxymoron in the present times) is a must and all he is trying is to usher in a new era in a pathetically gloomy situation created by the present set of politicians who have formed a ‘coalition’ to loot the country, irrespective of political affiliations.

In such a scenario, just who is right is the not the issue, since both are. Difference of opinion needs to be respected in this case and both need to move on keeping in mind the greater good behind the cause, detractors notwithstanding! 

The above painting of Urvashi cursing Arjuna is courtesy Ramanarayanadatta Astri (Wikipedia)

Friendship Day

Last Sunday was Friendship Day and all day long I kept receiving messages on the essence of Friendship form many of my friends. The stores all around my place were selling friendship-bands, strings, rings – what have you? All this made me wonder, just what is a friend?

Aristotle has said that a friend is a single soul in two bodies. Where do we find such soul-mates these days? Were there earlier? All of us have grown up on the legends of Krishna-Sudama, so I will not repeat it. But what about other famous friends? We have read about the friendship of Duryodhan and Karna in Mahabharat. Karna, despite the knowledge of the Pandava’s being his younger brothers, does not desert his friend Duryodhan when he needed his help the most. A friend in need they say is a friend indeed. But could this not be seen as Karna’s indebtedness to Druyodhan’s favour done to him when the world was questioning his royalty?

What about another famous pair from Mahabharata – Krishna and Arjun? Weren’t they friends too? Krishna in Mahabharata portrays all the qualities that we ought to look for in a friend. According to George Herbert, “the best mirror is an old friend” and Krishna was an apt mirror to Arjun. Krishna was the one who showed Arjun who he was and what he ought to do, especially during his time of dilemma, a time when many of us look for friends. The Gita delivered by Krishna was profound knowledge to know oneself, and that is why even today, studying Gita is considered to be swadhyaya – ‘study of thy self’.

Finally a small Greek legend that epitomizes the concept of friendship. Damon and Pythias were two good friends and both were the followers of the famous philosopher Pythagoras. At one point of time, Pythias was accused of plotting against Dionysius I. Pythias was sentenced to death as a punishment for plotting against Dionysius. Pythias requested to visit his home before he was put to death, but Dionysius did not accept this request as he was sure Pythias would never return. Pythias suggested that he hold Damon in his place till he returned. The friendship was well known, so Dionysius accepted the request, but went on to suggest that if Pythias did not return within the stipulated time, then Damon would be executed in his place. Both agreed. To cut the story short, till the due date, Pythias did not return and as promised Damon was readied to be executed. As the executioner was about to execute Damon, Pythias turned up just at the nick of time. He then went on to explain that on his way back home, his ship had been attacked by the pirates and how he was thrown overboard and how he had to swim back to reach just on time to save his friend. Dionysius who heard it all was moved by the friendship and released both and even employed then as counsels in his court.

This legend has inspired many a modern version of remakes and adaptations which have been viewed over and over again as an example of friendship, just as we have modern adaptations of Krishna-Sudama. Today, friendships do not have such altruistic flavours, but, so what; there is no harm in reliving the old legends and myths with such glorious examples.

Here’s wishing all my readers a Happy Friendship Day, albeit belated!