Janamashtami - For the Love of God

First published in the August, 2016 issue of "Shubh-Yatra", the in-house publication of Air India 
http://shubh-yatra.in/for-the-love-of-god/

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

Krishna and Karna Meeting

On the occasion of Janamashtami, the birthday of Lord Krishna, I would like to take up an aspect from the epic Mahabharata, for which he has been much maligned.

This refers to the meeting between Lord Krishna and Karna prior to the war of Kurukshetra, where Lord Krishna reveals to Karna his parentage. Many have questioned the timing of this act, since it was just before the war and have accused him of trying to ‘buy’ the support of Karna. Was this not an emotional blackmail, which would have weakened him just when he needed to be strong? Was this not an act of extreme selfishness, especially when Karna was the greatest adversary of Krishna’s protégé, Arjun? Also, was it ethical to lure him with Kingship and all that was Pandavas to be his (surreptitiously speaking, Draupadi too)?

To understand this act in perspective, it is important to understand the background. Lord Krishna was always against the war as he was well aware of the quantum of destruction of human lives. He had made all efforts to avoid a war, much to the disagreement of many who see him as a God.

Right at the beginning, when the war was first proposed in the city of Virata, it was Krishna who had advised against it. When Arjuna came to seek his participation in the battle, he wowed not to take up arms in the battle and that he would not fight. But even that did not stop the war. All who have done justice to the epic would vouch for his earnest effort to stall the war. Seeing no alternative, he proceeded to Hastinapur hoping that he would be able to broker peace by meeting the seniors of the Kuru clan there. The meeting was not fruitful; rather it was quite acrimonious when Duryodhan ordered that the ‘cowherd’ be arrested. Thus this last effort too was wasted.

Krishna never doubted the ability and the sincerity of Karna. One would also agree that Karna was a major strength of Duryodhana. If Karna’s assistance was not forthcoming, Duryodhana would never be so forceful for the war. If he felt that Karna was with his enemies, he could have refrained from the war and that was Krishna’s major objective of trying to stall the war. The offer to Karna to defect and all that was offered to him was not to ‘buy-him’ but to make the last–ditch effort to stop the massive destruction which only he could foresee.

Needless to say, that this was in the interest of all. First, it was in the welfare of Karna, as he would become the King and would also be in the right company which he so deserved. Second, this would benefit Duryodhana too as in the event of a war; there was a distinct possibility that he would not only lose his kingdom, but his kith and kin too. Third it would also give Kunti a chance to accept Karna her first born and allow some legitimacy to the much-insulted Karna on his parentage. It was in the interest of the Pandava’s too as with the avoidance of war, the Pandava’s would be absolved of the barbarous war and slaughtering of their kin. This single act of revealing to Karna his identity was an act of supreme righteousness and goodness as the advice would save innumerable human lives.

Was this a selfish act on the part of Krishna? It is pertinent to mention here that if Krishna’s intentions were malicious, then he could have revealed Karna’s parentage in public. If he didn’t achieve his prime objective of stopping the war, at least he would have had him broken in public. It could have created some rift between him and Duryodhana and Krishna would still have benefitted. But he did nothing of that sort. Krishna gave the brave his due and did not compromise with his sense of privacy right till the end of the epic.

It is important to see certain things in the right perspective, though it is quite interesting to see things tangentially. Tangential vision creates for juicy controversy and gossip. But an educated and matured mind should see things in the right perspective, especially since we are talking of an important character in Mahabharata. Detractors and sceptics abound in this world and there are a many. But readers of this Blog are encouraged to see things the way they are and ought to be.

Anybody disagreeing can write to me with their views, as debate is the foundation of a matured society, as against outright criticism.

Happy Janamashtami to one and all, believers and non-believers!!

Earlier articles on Janamashtami -

This is Utkarsh Speaking: Arjuna's Dilemma
This is Utkarsh Speaking: Krishna