Death by Deceit

On the occasion of Janamashtami, the birthday of Krishna, I would like to discuss an important allegation leveled against him in the epic Mahabharata. These views are not subjective opinion shrouded in devotion; rather, these are objective views of a rank rational, if there was one!

In the epic, Mahabharat (Mb), the deaths of Bhishma, Drona and Karna are all seen as acts of treachery by Krishna. The perception is that these deaths were unethical and against all norms of war and also the fact that none of the Pandava’s wanted to kill them under the said circumstances. They were made to resort to such unethical means at the behest of Krishna.

Was this fair? Was it moral? Was it ethical?

To put this in perspective, Mb was not about right or wrong or black and white, instead, it teaches that life is grey. Defining the grey is not easy because it is deeply rooted to the context. Every character has a shade of grey and that is what makes him or her closer to a human being. S/he was a combination of strengths and weaknesses and thus consequences.

While the said deaths are seen as injustices in the particular episode of the war, one should also see it along with the innumerable injustices meted out on the Pandavas that had taken place before the Kurukshetra, like the incident of lakshagraha, malpractices in the dice game leading to exile and that too with unfavourable conditions, Draupadi’s insult, not giving the Promised Land after 13 years, to mention some of them. The lives of the Pandavs had been spent more in jungles than the palace which was their rightful home. The war itself was not of equals – the Kauravas had a much bigger army, than that of the Pandavs. However, the deaths of the heroes were not to be seen as a tit-for-tat justice system.

In the ‘killing’ of the said ‘heroes’ there was no ill design. Such decisions were taken in what is better understood in management parlance as ethics of the emergency situation. Ethics of emergency situation implies ethical decisions which have be taken in dire emergencies. Emergency is better understood as crisis or an urgent situation. This ethics of the emergency situation in this case was keeping the greater good of society in view, and certainly not for personal gains. The deviation from the norm, was not really for any personal benefit here at all, including saving of lives. Krishna resorted to the ethics of the emergency situation in getting all of them eliminated (not killed) toward the greater good of humanity, through means that are questionable outside of the context. They were all, by the way, associated with an unjust cause, and had serious personal flaws in their characters.

Bhishma was myopic in his ‘serving the throne’. The focus on saving the throne was so strong that he could not see anything beyond it. He had a very myopic definition of his existence and a life whose virtues had serious ramifications, which in the larger interest were being misused by the perpetrators of evil. Drona was guided by first an initial enmity with Drupad and then the future of his son. Both were personal agendas, and he did not have any serious affinity for either the Kauravs or Pandavs. A teacher of his stature who had much in his power and capabilities was unfortunately driven by narrow considerations of life. Karna, a hero in the truest sense of the word, was a misplaced hero. His entire life was a quest for recognition, which made him fall slave to a person who had nothing right on his side. His need to repay debts was so strong that it became his sole objective of life.

Were any of these heroes fighting a war of ethics and morals and was their objective to fight a just war, when all in their hearts knew that the cause of the war itself was flawed? What significant efforts were made by each one of them to avoid or stop the war, especially when each one of them was in his own way strong and could have insisted on stopping the war, by just not willing to participate in the war?

Pandavs needed justice to regain all they had lost, after paying a heavy price for their mistakes and Krishna was guided here by the consideration of dharma which had been taken to a different dimension altogether. In the accepted interpretation, the ethics of the emergency situation notwithstanding, truth was by and large given an unconditional status. Krishna’s major motivation was to establish a sense of dharma and satya in the world to come. Did Krishna resort to indulging in ‘lies’ (as many call it) anywhere in the epic except in the specific case of Kurukshetra? Nowhere has Krishna advocated duty for the sake of duty, not without consequential consideration, though certainly without selfish motives. If efforts to establish dharma and satya were selfish motives then he surely had been selfish, lied and committed injustice. But ponder here – never has a lie been uttered anywhere. What was uttered was untruth. Lies are spoken with selfish motives, but an untruth need not have selfish motives.

Here I am reminded of an episode from American Civil War. When General Sherman had decided to burn down Atlanta, his Commander was shocked and wrote to him to stop it. The General is supposed to have told his Commander, “War is cruelty and you cannot refine it”. According to him a war has its own logic and momentum once it begins. It inevitably escalates, and you cannot blame the soldiers and generals for the killing, sometimes mindless. You can only blame those who started it.¹ Nothing could be different in Kurukshetra too!

A close look of the epic will reveal that an austere and an unforgiving streak of dharma appeared to run through the epic. If good people are not allowed to win by any means, and if they had to fight justly, then one must be prepared to face the fact that they might lose. There was no guarantee that truth and goodness would prevail in human history. The Pandavas then would have had to accept this and wait, for another day. The outcome of the entire world would have been so different if the most important thing then was to just fight fairly. Since they did not and fought the way they did, they failed in their individual dharma, but managed to uphold dharma at large.

Needless to say that they were punished too with none of them allowed to ‘live happily ever after’. Even Krishna and his community faced elimination and died a bitter death. A big price to pay on the part of the Pandava’s and Krishna for eliminating all that stood for wrong and erroneous and establish the rule of the right and just.

What do you think?

¹ – The Difficulty of Being Good – By Gurcharan Das

Image courtesy - http://www.stephen-knapp.com/krishna_print_onehundredsixtyseven.htm

Caste System

A recent TV show has brought back the discussion on Caste System. Since childhood (which was quite a long time back!), we have read about the ills of Caste system, but am surprised to see the same thing being discussed and I recently found myself teaching my child about the same. The discussion brought up many things, besides the issue that is caste pre-decided? Does one inherit a caste based on his birth? To rephrase it, is caste more of an accident than choice? Was this how it was envisaged in the first place? 

Well, as they say, let’s begin at the very beginning….

According to the Purusha sukta (Purusha sukta is a set of hymns from the Rig Veda which deals with the subject of Creation); every aspect of the universe was created from the cosmic Purusha, man. From his mouth, arms, thighs and feet were born the four varnas, or classes’ of people, viz. Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. The apparent objective of this class-based society was division of labour. The Brahmins were to take the responsibility of teaching (which also involved research and upholding the religious and related institutions). The Kshatriyas were to take care of all the people, govern and provide security to their subjects. The Vaishyas were entrusted with carrying on the responsibility of business, which was farming and cattle-rearing, besides doing all such acts that generated revenue. Finally, the Shudras were to provide services which could be in the form of providing labour. Division of labour is not an unheard subject; rather all societies (and organizations) work towards this.

So far so good….

The ills started to be visible, when domination of one led to discrimination with the other. Of all, the Shudra was the most oppressed and discrimination led to their isolation from the mainstream. The foremost issue that comes up, is – is caste pre-decided? What if the son of a Brahmin is brave and capable of fighting for an army? What if the son of a Vaishya is intelligent enough to become a teacher? What if the son of a Shudra is able to transcend his caste into any of the other professions? 

It is here that things have gone haywire. The caste system was purely for division of labour and if someone was good in another area, they were not stopped. There have been examples of such crossing of caste barriers which have gone down well with the-then powers-that-be and nobody has quite raised even an eyebrow. Let us see some examples –

Sage Vishwamitra – Vishwamitra was a Kshatriya ruler, Kaushika. Once King Kaushika stopped by the hermitage of Sage Vasishta, who ensured that the King and his army were treated to a lavish meal. Kaushika was surprised at the arrangements and enquired of the Sage about such arrangements. The sage told him about his calf, Nandini who had provided for everything needed for the meal, and that the calf was the daughter of Lord Indra’s cow, Kamdhenu. On learning this, the King asked for the calf as he could do more justice to its powers than a sage in a remote hermitage, and even agreed to pay a price for her. When the sage declined form parting with it, Kaushika tried to take it away by force. Sage Vasishta, then through his yogic powers waged a war with the army of the King and soon took the King as a prisoner. The sage pardoned Kaushika and let him go. Kaushika then learnt a lesson that power was not in physical strength or in an army, there was greater power in knowledge and from that day, he started his quest for this power in the form of penance. To cut a long story short, after many trials, he was accorded the title of Brahmarishi by none other than Sage Vasishta himself. An example of a Kshatriya becoming a sage and being accepted by the community.

Parashuram – Parashuram was not a Kshatriya, but all that we know of him has to do with wars and battles. His rage against the Kshatriya caste is well known and is said to have spent a lifetime in eliminating the Kshatriyas from the face of the earth. Whatever one knows about Parashuram, has got to be with his acts of warfare and his teaching the said skills to some of the well known characters of Mahabharata, like Bhishma, Drona and Karna. His association with axe as his weapon is also well know. 

Dronacharya – Dronacharya in the epic Mahabharata was born as a Brahmin. His youth was spent in poverty, but he trained under Parashuram, and was an expert in the arts of weapon and warfare. Later he goes on to become the military teacher for the Pandavas and Kauravas and was also a general during the war of Kurukshetra. A Brahmin, who was an expert in the art of war and weapons.

Finally, an example from History.

Chandragupta Maurya – Chandragupta was a Shudra, but went on to become the ruler of the Magadh Empire and he was brought in to rule, by none other than a Brahmin, Chanakya. Chanakya had to face strong criticism and opposition from the then clergy who opposed this move of his, but Chanakya argued and stood his ground. During one such argument, he is supposed to have said that the caste system, did not allow anyone to inherit ones caste based on ones birth, but it had more to do with one’s ability and capability. Chandragupta went on to become the founder of the Mauryan Empire and was also credited to be the first unifier of India and one of the finest Emperors that India has seen.

Detractors will say that the caste bias existed in the epics which I have quoted, and is visible when Dronacharya declines from teaching the likes of Karna and Eklavya saying that they couldn’t take training under him since they were not Kshatriyas. I would see this not as an issue of caste, but more as a case of favouritism. Arjuna was Drona’s favourite and he wanted him to be the best archer and that was the driving force behind not training the two. 

This brings us back to the issue of caste system as many of us know it. The ills of caste system and the exploitation started centuries back. This happened when the interpretation was changed from a logical division to the politics of division. The masters of interpretation became the twisters of many a fate. Once the practice of Sati had sanction in religious texts, but it did not find any place in a modern society. Human sacrifices and animal sacrifices have given way to symbolic sacrifices of vegetables. Many such aspects have been given a decent burial and we have moved on, without hurting anybody’s religious sentiments. 

Why can’t the same happen to the caste-system, which has outlived its time and relevance, if any?

Modern Day Dronacharyas

A recent news item of students who have secured more than 95% in their Board exams, not getting admission in ‘good’ colleges has set me thinking. A particular college even had a cut-off of 100% - just what is ‘cut-off at 100%’?

This and some other colleges sound like Dronacharya’s (of Mahabharata) school. Dronacharya used to teach only children of kings, the family of Bhishma to be precise. When an equally qualified, if not more, pupil like Eklavya tried to take ‘admission’ in Drona’s school, he was denied admission, however, fees was extracted out of him. Nobody questioned the faulty education system and the injustice meted out to a deserving student, by a well-known ‘head of an institution’, rather, an elitist institution. This was similar to rejecting a deserving student because the son(s) of the trustees or the governing body feel insecure of other students’ capabilities or the head of the institution’s loyalties lying elsewhere. Such biases are seen even today, except that the bosses have changed, and at times this is not done so openly.

Further down, when a qualified pupil, like Karna tried to appear for exams in what seemed to be an ‘open-exam’, he was disqualified from the same on the grounds of unknown caste of birth or lower caste to be precise. This is similar to someone who is inherently intelligent and qualified, but cannot produce his domicile certificate or other such credentials! This is exactly why many students leave their own states and go to other states or some deserving students decided to leave the country due to such inherent impediments in our Education system, like reservations for example.

How long will deserving students be deprived of good institutions? Are students who secure anything above 80% not supposed to be good in studies? Are the above-average students now becoming mediocre students, as certified by a few ‘academics’?  Are students who get 95% any less better than those who secure 98%? Just who decides such ‘cut-offs’ and who authorizes such people to occupy such seats of learning, who sow the seeds of discord and end up creating an education based caste-system?

Dronacharya himself jumped his caste by fighting the war of Kurkshetra, which was the domain of Kshatriyas, even though he was a Brahmin. But he deprived Eklavya and Karna on grounds of not-deserving of education for similar reasons, which were unethical. Dronacharya got away with such petty acts, but why are we letting the modern-day Drona’s get away with such academic bias? Why are we allowing them to create a rift between all deserving students, by making some feel more gifted than the others? The modern day Drona’s are creating new set of haves and have-nots amongst the academic-haves.

It would be a service done to the nation, if the Education Minister takes firm steps than just laughing the matter away. We know he would not get admission if he had to secure one today, but why not take steps to stop such a menace unleashed by the modern-day Drona’s? Stop them before they create a new unviable educational eco-system, where many deserving students will be made to perish.