Generous Karna

The generosity of Karna is narrated in all version of Mahabharat and is described in great details with tragic consequences, especially, when Lord Indra comes to take the armour and his earrings, just before Karna’s fight with Arjun. But this story, titled as ‘Data Karna’ or Karna the Giver or Generous, written somewhere around 1475, takes it a lot farther to prove his generosity.

According to the Odiya Mahabharat, Arjun was assured by Krishna that at the opportune moment, they would be able to get the armour through Indra. To prove his point, Krishna decided to put Karna through a test. According to Krishna, he would ask Karna to kill his son and serve him as a curry, and if he could do that, then getting the armour would not be very tough.

             Putra marina bhojana deba mote yebe |

             Kabaca kundala niscaye deba Indra ||

             If he kills his son and gives him to me to eat

            Then he will certainly give his armour and earrings to Indra.

Krishna then assumed the form of a Brahmin and went to Karna’s palace. There he was hosted with all the due respect and was asked what would he like for food. Krishna responded by saying that he would prefer meat, and that too human flesh. Karna, was uncomfortable, but agreed to serve and asked as to how many people he would have to kill for this. To this Krishna said that he would have to kill only one person and that too his own son. When Karna protested, Krishna in the form of the Brahmin proceeded to leave.

Karna’s son, Bisikeshana, who was listening to this conversation, ran up to the Brahmin and brought him back. He then urged Karna to do what was asked, as he didn’t want his father to refuse to a Brahmin. Karna wondered if this Brahmin was some demonic enemy of his, but there was no way of finding it out. Karna struck off the head of his son, and soon the body was given to Karna’s wife, Tulasa to cook into a curry. Special instructions were given by the Brahmin for cooking – the body was to be cut into seven pieces, spiced well and made into a curry. Tulasa did as told to her, but hid the head away. When the food was served, Krishna asked for the head, and insisted that the head be chopped in front of him and cooked.

Once the grisly meal was ready and served, Krishna insisted that Karna and his wife partake the meal with him. Reluctantly, they sat with Krishna, but Karna noted an additional space next to Krishna. When asked, Krishna said, it was for Bisikeshana, and asked his mother to call out the name of her son three times. No sooner had the name been uttered the third time, Bisikeshana came running into the room, in his full regalia. Karna immediately realised that this was a test for him.

The Brahmin then assumed the four-armed form of Lord Vishnu and Karna and his wife paid their respects to Krishna.

This story has been found in many a version in Eastern India, with slight variations, be it in Assam, Bengal or even Odisha during the later centuries.

First appeared in the Talking Myths Project - Generous Karna

Gurudakshina

Have you ever wondered why there are different rules for different people? A recent article in the newspaper said, that the rich and powerful go unpunished or get bails in days (or hours in certain cases), and the poor languish in jails for years without trials. Why are there different rules for different people, one for the poor and one for the rich and powerful?

The answer to it probably lies in an interesting episode in the Odiya Mahabharata which in a way highlights this aspect.

Rishi Sandipani was the guru of Lord Krishna and Balarama. As per the rules of the times, Krishna and Balarama used to stay at the ashram of the sage. Once the sage had gone to bathe in the rivers, and lost his son in a huge wave. They could not even retrieve the body of the child. This loss had brought immense sadness to the sage and his wife, as they had already lost sons earlier, and this was their last child alive. The sage and his wife decided to end their lives as there was no desire to live.

Krishna and Balarama were very intelligent as students. Everything needed to be taught only once. They had finished their education and it was soon time for them to leave. But seeing the guru distraught due to the loss of their son, they decided to stay on for some more time, though there was nothing more for them to learn.

However, it was soon time to leave. Krishna approached the sage and offered guru-dakshina (his fees) before leaving. The sage desired nothing as he craved for no wealth, as there was none to inherit it. When Krishna insisted, since an education that has not been paid for was of no use, the sages wife said, that if he must, then he should bring their son back to life. While this was not quite possible and against the norm, Krishna did not say anything, though he felt that the sage lost an opportunity to seek moksha for himself.

Krishna approached the god of the seas, Varuna who told Krishna that the child was not with him, but at Yamaloka. Popular versions say, that the child was killed by the demon, Shankhasura (conch demon), who had made his home in a conch named the panchajanya. Krishna took the panchajanya, and blew it in the presence of Yama and sought the release of the sage’s son. Yama gives in and Krishna returns with the sage’s son, and since then Krishna is said to have retained his conch, the panchajanya.

The Odiya version however differs here slightly. On learning from Varuna about the child being in Yamaloka, Krishna approached Yama. When Yama sees Krishna, he asks him for the reason of his visit, and that too when he was an avatara. The inmates of the Yamaloka who were undergoing torture and pain, felt a great relief by the presence of Krishna. The dialogue between Krishna and Yama is interesting.

Krishna reprimands Yama for taking the lives of children, when they have committed no crimes, the logic being that they have not even had time or the maturity to commit crimes or sins. Children were not sinners, so ending their lives, was unfair. To this Yama said, that children did not die early because of their sins; they died because of the sins of their parents, especially the sexual transgressions of their parents. That was the law of the mankind. Strangely people never blamed themselves and would blame destiny and Yama for such tragedies. Interestingly, Yama then accuses Krishna, of the same! He then tells Krishna, that it is strange that the rules of the humans was seemingly not followed by the Lord himself, as he was seen indulging in the most irresponsible sexual dalliances with many and that too in what seemed to be in a casual manner. Yama continued, that if avatars (and great lives) like him indulged in such activities, what examples would they be setting on ordinary mortals?

While Yama was correct in his argument, the devotee in the author of this version gives the following explanation. Krishna is supposed to have said, that if that was the logic of early deaths of children, then let from that day all children born out of any union with him not be seen as the children of sexual transgression. While he accepted that he was guilty of improper sexual unions with many, let them not be seen as sexual misdemeanours and the women not be seen as violators. While Yama could continue his justice all over the world, he should leave his offspring untouched. Yama did not argue (and accepted the words), giving birth to a well-known Odiya proverb – “bada lokanku uttara nahi” – there is no answer to the great men; to further paraphrase – the powerful are above the law!!

Krishna however returns with the child of the sage and hands him over to the sage who was very happy, though he realised that his student had done something against the norms of nature and what seemed to be a lurking doubt in his mind, was a surety now. The sage realised that the student was none other than Narayan himself. The sage also realised his mistake of not seeking his moksha, the ultimate goal of all lives. The author of the Odiya version ends very beautifully by saying, that the sage must have realised that when the defining moment comes, it is always the nara who fails the Narayana, never the other way round!

Rishi Sandipani’s ashram is said to be situated in the modern city if Ujjain, MP, India, and is a place of reverence for many believers.

Based on the English translation of the Odiya Mahabharat by Shri B. N. Patnaik.

Navagunjara

Mythology is replete with interesting mythical creatures, some like Kamdhenu, Garuda, Narasimha, Hanuman, or the Greek Centaur and the Egyptian Sphinx to the dangerous ones like Gorgons or the Greae or even the chimera. The one thing common to all of them is that they have been extremely awe-inspiring and at times creative to the last bit.

Many of the above are known to us as our basic knowledge of mythology or have been part of childhood fiction. However, I came across one such interesting creature, which finds a mention only in the Oriya version of the epic Mahabharata, by Adikavi Sarala Dasa. He has created an excellent example of an enigma of a creature, known as Navagunjara, which finds artistic expression in the local paintings better known as Pata-chitra and the Ganjifa playing cards. But first the creature.

During the exile of the Pandavas, once Arjuna was performing penance in the hills of Manibhadra. When Krishna came to know about it, he decided to test Arjuna as it had been a long time since he had met Arjuna. Krishna assumed the form of the Navagunjara, an animal composed of nine different animals. The Navagunara had the head of a rooster, and stood on three feet, each of which was of an elephant, a tiger and the deer or a horse. The fourth limb was a raised human arm carrying a lotus. The creature further had the neck of a peacock the hump of a camel (which incidentally also was in the shape of a linga), the waist of a lion, and the tail was a serpent.

(Courtesy - Rare Book Society  of India *)

When Krishna in the form of the Navagunjara presented himself in front of Arujuna, he was both terrified and baffled. He picked up his bow and arrow to shoot the creature, but paused for a moment trying to understand the creature. How could such a creature exist? Just what could it be? It was at this stage that he understood that this must be none other than Krishna testing him. He immediately bowed his head and sought his blessings.

One wonders what this could be all about. Is it about the ability of Krishna to assume an unexplainable form? Or is it about the limitless creativity of the Creator? As mentioned earlier, this episode is found in no other version of Mahabharata, except in the version by Sarala Dasa. The author’s creativity is full of symbolism and metaphors. Many have compared this with the virata-swaroop of Krishna, except that this one is a baffling form, which is not explained or probably left unexplained.

The Navagunjara is seen as the unfathomable possibility of nature and at times its incomprehensible aspects. The creative manifestation of god and the capability to evoke a sense of awe is unimaginable. The form also implies that not all aspects of god can be understood, no matter how knowledgeable one is, like Arjuna, who was very close to Krishna. Human mind or brain has limitations and some things are beyond the scope of human understanding. While Arjuna was amazed at his own inability to explain the existence of such a creature, his picking up the bow without giving it a thought is an example of human reaction, when there is no prior knowledge of such situations.

While the episode does not have any major bearing

Neela-chakra

on the narrative by itself, it was pregnant with symbols and created a deep impact on the belief system of the locals. Besides being a prominent aspect of Oriya art, as mentioned earlier, it finds a place in the form of a sculpture on the famous Lord Jagannath Temple walls in Puri, Orissa, besides the eight of them crafted on the Neela-chakra or the disc above the temple.

Needless to say, that among all the mythical creatures that I have come across, I find this the most enigmatic. Another such creature that comes to my mind is the Sharabha form of Lord Shiva, though not as creative or metaphorical as Navagunjara.

*Image source - The Metropolitan Museum of Art with Prashanth Nair

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

Knowledge Transfer – Lessons from Mythology

Many organisations that I come across seem to have one problem (amongst many) in common and that is Knowledge Transfer (KT). People don’t want to share knowledge and at times people don’t find the existing knowledge worth taking (typical of the Gen X, who have just passed out of elitist colleges), or people not being able to collate and ‘hand-over’ a clearly articulated body of knowledge.

KT is the transfer of knowledge, expertise, skills and capabilities. Is KT a new subject on the horizon or is it just a new phenomenon due to insecurity of the modern day workplaces? KT in its basic form has existed from time immemorial in the form of Gurukuls, and then schools and colleges of present day. Teachers have taught and passed their knowledge to students, some of who have added to the body of work and passed it down to others in the subsequent generations.

Organisations too have seen such transfers earlier. Be they in the form of an Associate, an Apprentice, or just a junior who goes on to learn the tricks of the trade and take on the mantle one fine morning. Sons have been natural heirs, but others too have been honoured with the knowledge and have moved on to start on their own.

But transferring knowledge in an organisation is not as easy as it is in schools and colleges or small set-ups. In a modern-day knowledge based organisations, knowledge is critical. Besides managing knowledge which is in the minds of its employees, transferring the same on their leaving is a critical aspect where many seen to fail, and in many cases, the organisations are not even aware of the failure.

So how does KT become effective and a viable practise for organisations? How do they ensure that nothing is lost or at least substantial is retained before an employee leaves or retires?

KT is effective when the receiver is aware that there is knowledge worth accepting. When the leader is held in awe because of the knowledge, then the transfer is effective. In the epic Ramayan, Ravan was an able administrator. His rule was a golden period for his kingdom (which figuratively was referred to as sone-ki-Lanka, or the land of the gold). When Ravan was on his death-bed, he passed his knowledge of able administration to Ram, which in future came to be referred as Ramrajya. Ram who had dealt the deadly blow to his enemy, accorded Ravan the position of a Guru, and sat down to hear the words of wisdom from the dying asura-King. Knowledge should never die with the person who either created it or mastered it.

In the epic Mahabharat, Vidur has been shown sharing his knowledge of administration frequently with the Pandavs, which is also known as Vidur-niti. This is never done with the Kauravas, since they were never found receptive. Bhishma too promises not to die till he has imparted his knowledge of ethics, morals and values to Yudhishtir and the same was meticulously done from his bed of arrows after the tenth day of the war of Kurukshetra.

Knowledge Transfer is effective, when it is done by the person who is acknowledged to be in a superior position because of the knowledge. His elevated position is because he has some skill, knowledge in his possession. This is akin to the typical guru-shishya parampara where people have gone to acquire the said art or skill. It could be similar to Dronacharya, as a teacher who is willing to pass his skills to all the students in return of some favour, or Parashuram who is willing to pass down his knowledge to Karna in return of no favour.

Knowledge transfer is very effective when it comes in the form of need-of-the-hour. Krishna in his epochal Gita had transferred a huge body of knowledge at the right time to Arjun, which enabled him to fight the war of Kurukshetra. This knowledge till date is translated, interpreted and taught in different ways and the relevance of which seems to be reinvented with changing times.

Knowledge transfer is meaningful, when we know that the said knowledge emanates from reliable sources. The Vedas, Upanishads, etc. are all troves of knowledge which have been recorded for use. Some say, they were passed on by gods through seers for future use, while some say these are learning of the past recorded for generations to come. Even the epic Mahabharat is supposed to have been dictated by Vyas, but written by Ganesha – where is the reason to doubt such an epic which has been written by a god with his own piece of tooth?

Finally what makes KT most effective is the method of the transfer. Many a times, if it is passed down as tomes of knowledge, it is ineffective. Let me tell you a story here. Once upon a time there lived a king who had three sons and according to the king all his sons were idiots and he wondered how could he ever leave the throne to any one of them, when none of them were worth anything? His worry was solved by a person, who promised to educate his sons and make them worthy of the throne. This man focused on the wisdom of the scriptures rather than the scriptures itself. He created stories which would teach a lesson or a moral and make the learning more interesting, instead of didactic or moralistic. Soon the Princes were a Kings delight and each one of them was eligible to occupy the throne! This man was none other than the famous Vishnu Sharma and what he wrote for the princes is known to all of us Panchatantra! The Panchatantra or the five treatise cover all aspects of management, personal life and the cunning that one needs to have to face life.

Just as lessons are easy to impart, but not-so-easy to understand, so is the case with Knowledge Transfer. It is easy to speak about it, even easier to lay down

Courtesy Dilbert.com

the processes that govern the transfer, but very complex to execute. The biggest impediment to the process is the fear of redundancy. In an ever increasing competitive environment, ones knowledge is perceived as ones asset acquired over a long period of time and to pass it down as a process does not settle well with an individual who is feeling insecure in the first place. Needless to say, that the same cannot be done overnight too, after all KT is not a case of divine revelation!

KT needs to be part of an organisational process from day one. Every process or step in an organisation should aid the Knowledge accumulation leading to its dissemination. It has to be a top-down approach. A Bhishma needs to be visible to the system who is willing to share his knowledge or a leader like Ram needs to be seen in all humility willing to accept knowledge from even his enemy.

The day, sharing knowledge becomes a part of an organisations DNA, Knowledge Transfer will be seamless and as normal as any other regular process of the organisation!

Samba – son of Krishna

Krishna was the proverbial large tree, under which no other tree could grow or thrive. A well known father, whose son/s were not so well known. Though Krishna’s sons were not very well known, Samba was an exception as he had a small role to play in the epic Mahabharata and a larger role in the ultimate decimation of the Yadava community.

Samba was the son of Krishna and his wife, Jambavati (Read http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2014/06/one-tale-and-two-wives-of-krishna.html ). Samba was very handsome like his father, but notorious. Though many felt that Samba resembled Krishna, Krishna however felt that Samba was like Lord Shiva and in every respect.

It is said that Lord Krishna had a desire for a son, but no ordinary son. He wanted a son like Lord Shiva. To appease Lord Shiva, he meditated for years to seek his blessings. When Shiva was pleased with his meditation, Krishna sought to be blessed with a son like Shiva himself. Krishna wanted a son who had the destructive powers of Shiva as he could foresee the decline of the Yadava’s who would be needed to be eliminated in future.

 Pic Courtesy - Wikipedia

Soon Jambavati gave birth to a son, who was named Samba, after the name of Lord Shiva. Samba grew up to be a handsome boy, b ut was notorious for pranks and was also extremely frivolous. One of his well-known pranks is said to have led to the ultimate decimation of the Yadava community. According to this, once some sages were taking rest under a tree. Samba dressed up as a pregnant woman, along with his friends, went to the sages to seek their blessings. When the friends asked the sages as what would the pregnant ‘woman’ give birth to, the sages were angry. They cursed that whatever came out of the belly of the ‘woman’ would lead to the ultimate end of the entire community. Samba was carrying an iron pestle under his dress.

The boys were worried about the curse and they approached King Ugrasena, father of Kamsa, who was reinstated as the King of Mathura after Krishna killed Kamsa. The king was ashamed of the acts of the boys and suggested that they ground the iron pestle and throw away the powder in the sea. The powder however, washed ashore the coast of Dwarka which was covered by bamboo trees. It is said that these were the same iron-like bamboo sticks which were used by the Yadava’s when a fight broke out amongst themselves, after nearly thirty years of the war of Kurukshetra.

A single piece of the iron which could not be grounded was found inside a fish by a fisherman, who sold it to an ironsmith, which was later made into the tip of an arrow. It was this arrow, which killed Krishna, the last of the Yadavas.

However, this is not the only claim to fame, or ill-fame, of Samba. Duryodhan had a beautiful daughter, by the name of Lakshmana. When she was of age, many Kings desired that she be married to their sons. Duryodhan decided to hold a swayamvar for his daughter and invited all the princes for the event. Samba secretly desired Lakshmana, though she did not fancy Samba. When Samba realised that on her own Lakshmana would never marry him, he forcibly abducted Lakshmana from the swayamvar. The Kauravas and the court of Hastinapur were up in arms on the kidnapping of Lakshmana, all the more since they knew that Lakshamana was not inclined towards Samba.

Under the leadership of Karna, an army was sent to get Lakshmana and Samba back. Samba, though alone fought bravely till Karna and others, destroyed his chariot and weapons. They brought both of them back and imprisoned Samba. Narada related the whole incident to the Yadavas, who were angry for imprisoning Samba. Balarama, the elder brother of Krishna decided to go and get Samba back.

Balarama took an army to Hastinapur, but camped outside the city and sent a message to Duryodhan that he wanted to meet them. Duryodhan was pleased and he along with Bhishma, Drona, etc. went to meet Balarama. During the meeting Balarama expressed his dislike for the way Samba was imprisoned, and that the least he would have expected that they be made aware of what had happened. However, he was willing to forget and forgive, provided they freed Samba and his wife Lakshmana.

Duryodhan and others were angry at the tone and by the sense of superiority, with no mention of Samba’s act of kidnapping. Soon there was a war of words, with both sides flaring at the incident. Balarama was so angry that he took his plough and struck the ground of Hastinapur and with all the force started to drag the city to be drowned in the Ganga. Seeing the earth shaking and tremors destroying the city, they brought Samba and Lakshmana to Balarama and apologised for their behaviour. Duryodhan arranged for a grand wedding of his daughter with Samba and soon all was forgotten.

Pic Courtesy - Brooklyn Museum

According to another tale, at one point of time, Krishna was so angry with Samba for not listening to anybody, that he cursed him with the debilitating disease of leprosy. Samba began suffering and his mother Jambavati, could bear no more. She urged Krishna to do something to lessen his pain and relieve him of the disease. Krishna then asked Samba to pray to the Sun and then take a dip in the river Chandrabhaga (near Konarak temple, Odisha) to cure himself. But by then Samba had become too weak to move by himself. On pleading by Jambavati, Krishna took Samba to the river and gave him a dip in the river, which cured Samba of the disease.

Till date, mothers in Odisha, observe Samba-dashami (10th day of the Sukla Paksha or waxing phase of moon in Paush month of the local calendar, which falls in the months of Dec-Jan). Mothers observe special rituals and worship the Sun god on this day for the well-being of their children. As a part of the ritual, the legend of ‘Samba Dasami Brata Katha’ or the story of Samba is read aloud. Till some time back, a dip in the river (now reduced to a trickle), was considered to be a sure cure for leprosy.

What is interesting that though the story does not find any significant mention in the epics, there exists a ritual in Odisha which centres around the son of Krishna. Also, one hardly finds mention about Krsihna’ sons, and needless to mention that none of them were as illustrious as the father – isn’t that something that can be seen even in modern times?