The Bizarre Tale of Oghavati

At the onset, let me mention that this myth is trifle disturbing. This tale is told by Bhishma while he was on the bed of arrows, to Yudhishtir, during the war at Kurukshetra, in the Anushasan Parva, of Mahabharata.

Oghavati, a princess was married to a learned sage, Sudarsana. Sudarsana had vowed to conquer death without leaving the path of a householder. He continued to lead a family life, while maintaining his vow. As a part of his vow, he told his wife, Oghavati, that it was their prime duty to be of service to any guest, whosoever came to their cottage, at whatever time and whatever be his need or request. If that meant that she had to offer herself to him, then so be it!

Death, who heard this, kept following Sudarsana wherever he went, hoping to find a loophole in his vow. One day, when Sudarsana was out collecting firewood, a Brahmin guest came to the cottage and sought to be welcomed as a true householder would do. Oghavati welcomed him and offered him water and comfort. She then asked if he needed anything more. The guest replied that he wanted her and as part of the tradition, she should not object to it. Oghavati, tried to offer other alternatives to keep her virtue, but the guest was determined that nothing but her would suffice. It was at this moment, that Oghavati remembered her husband’s words, and reluctantly gave in. Both the guest and Oghavati went to bed together.

Just when the guest had finished making love, Sudarsana arrived and called for Oghavati, but Oghavati was too ashamed to respond to him as she felt that she was defiled and not worthy of her husband, as she was touched by another man. After repeated calling for his wife, the guest from inside the cottage replied that he was a guest and his wife was catering to his bodily needs and that he would have to wait.

Death who was stalking Sudarsana found his chance of the vow being broken and at the slightest tinge of anger or jealousy; it would club him to death. But Sudarsana, without any tinge of jealousy replied that he would wait till they were done and he also hoped that he had enjoyed the act. He also mentioned that he was glad that he was of some help and service to the Brahman guest.

Just then a gush of wind came from the cottage and he heard a voice saying that the guest was none other than the Lord Dharma and that he had arrived to test him and being pleased with him, Sudarsana had conquered death (Dharma being same as Yama/Death). He further proclaimed that Oghavati was one of the most chaste woman on earth and was protected by the virtues and qualities of devotion to her husband. From then onwards, half of her would remain with Sudarsana and the other half would flow as a river, named after her, Oghavati (sometime mentioned as the river Sarasvati), which would help people purify them of their sins.

I did mention at the onset that this was a trifle disturbing as a myth. If we try to unravel the reason of this myth, then one can broadly surmise that a guest is an important person and that he or she should be looked after, as gods sometimes take the form of guests. This goes well with the concept of Atithi devo bhava. So far so good. But there are deeper connotations. To prove that god could take the form of a guest and so the guest should be taken care of, there could have been a rather different myth and not necessarily like the one above.

While Dr. S. Dange had dissected this myth very differently as a study of human-morph, the union of river and fire, etc., ¹ for me, the myth raises many an uncomfortable question. Whose test was it, Sudarsana’s or Oghavati’s? By Oghavati reluctantly offering herself to the guest, how did Sudarsana benefit (conquering of death)? Was this perpetuated by a certain class of people to benefit them, as and when they visit someone’s place?

If all myths have a social cause and the way it was told to Yudhishtir, raises some more questions - Was this myth told to Yudhishtir to extol the virtues of Dharma (who also happened to be Yudhishtir’s father)? Was it told to justify the fame of the river Oghavati that bathing in it could rid one of one’s sins, like they do with many other rivers? Did it imply that the sacrifices of a wife could lead to virtues for the husband? Or simply put, did it hint at a case for sex hospitality?

The last seems to be an issue which has a number of cases in Mahabharata, the other being the case of Kunti. Kunti was left to serve Sage Durvasas for a year and she was told that no request, whatsoever, of the sage should be turned down. She was rewarded with an incantation to call for any god when she wanted to. Why would a learned sage give such a ‘blessing’ to a virgin girl? Wasn’t it out of place, even if we see it as a need of the narrative later?

Many have said that the tale of Oghavati directly and that of Kunti indirectly hinted at the presence of sex hospitality in the society, which probably suited a certain class of people and extolling virtues could only make their demands more acceptable, even if there was reluctance. Not to be overlooked is the fact that in both the cases, the guests were Brahmins.

Mahabharat raises many questions, and quite often uncomfortable ones. Not all have answers. The authors of such epics probably wanted people at different times to discuss them and arrive at their own answers, suiting the milieu, if it does at all!

¹ Myths from Mahabharat, By Dr. S. Dange

Right to Snoop

The recent revelations by Edward Snowden that Big

Brother (read USA) has been snooping into mails, etc. of people across the world has sparked off a debate and outrage across the world. Do we as individuals and as a nation have the Right to Privacy? Can anybody, irrespective of the power they wield, snoop in on anybody? Should this be deplored as a breach of privacy or for the larger cause of flushing out terrorism, be endured?

Not negating an individual’s Right to Privacy, the basic debate leads to the question – can anyone be snooping into your life and learn your secrets, even if they do not threaten the nation or breach any law, both personal and national?

I draw my inspiration from mythology and seek answers in them. Let us analyse some of the characters and incidents that have raised the question of Privacy.

Kunti from the epic Mahabharata was amongst the most private of all the characters of Mb. Her life was shrouded with private moments that she could never share with anybody. Her secret of having a son, prior to her marriage weighs heavy on her throughout the epic and right till the end, when she has to reveal the secret only to benefit those from who she had hidden it all her life. Many scholars feel that had Kunti revealed the secret much before she actually did, the course of the Epic would have been different. None of us could vouch for the positive outcome of it, but then, Kunti had simply exercised her right to privacy, till she felt the need to reveal, and that too herself.

In Greek Mythology, Zeus was full of secrets; however, his secrets were all of an amorous nature and all to be kept away from his wife, Hera. Zeus, despite the fact that Hera was jealous of his extra-marital affairs, never gave up his habit of courting goddesses, nymphs and mortals, and keeping all of them secrets. But unfortunately, in many a case it was the partner, who had to bear the brunt of Hera’s anger or jealousy, if she ever found out, which wasn’t too often. Zeus guarded his privacy very well, very often by foul means, but manage he did!

Revelation of secrets has always led to action, and sometimes drastic actions. At times, they change the course of destiny and at times they lead to the fall of high and mighty. Let us look at an example where the revealing of a secret leads to the fall of the mighty. During the final war in Ramayan, Ravan was invincible and no amount of Ram’s right intentions could kill Ravan. Only Vibhishan knew that Ravan could be killed only by shooting an arrow at his navel. Had this secret been not revealed to Ram at the right time, the outcome of the epic Ramayana could just have been different. In case of Ravan, he had not guarded his secret well and had to pay the price with his life.

Sometimes, the revelation of secrets has led to funny incidents too. According to a Greek Myth, Midas (of the golden touch fame) was once asked to judge a musical competition amongst a group of gods. Though, Midas was honest in his judgement, he judged wrong, and as a punishment, Apollo, gave him the ears of an ass, which also stood for his stupid musical sense. Midas was quite ashamed of this and would usually hide the long ears under a cap. Though he managed to hide them from all, he could not do so from his barber. He had sworn his barber on oath, not to reveal this to anybody ever. But it was too much of a secret for him to withhold. So the barber dug a hole in the ground and whispered in it Midas’s secret and covered it back. During spring, reeds grew up there and during a light breeze, when it stirred the reeds, the reeds whispered the hidden truth to one and all. Along with the secret, it also sent a message to all that never arbitrate between gods and if one still has to, then side with the powerful one!

Going back to the basic question, should snooping, however harmless, be allowed by anybody, unless the person being snooped on has dubious credentials? Should a nation at large have rights superseding an individual’s right, even where there is no threat perception from the alleged target?

There is never the right answer to questions like these. There will be ifs and buts and exceptions to any rule. Modern times are more complicated than mythical times. The gods and goddesses didn’t have WikiLeaks and Phone tapping or Snowden in their times. In mythical times, a whistleblower could be killed, but today, you would have the Human Rights team after your life, for taking the life of a whistle-blower! And in more recent times, an enemy nation could offer asylum to the fugitive whistle-blower!

The mythical times didn’t have processes which were either democratic, theocratic or autocratic – they simply did what they thought was right, as they knew that the modern day mythologist would find some symbolism in it and justify their acts! But the mortals of today, take care – don’t speak and don’t do anything in private that you can’t do in public – but I can sense some exceptions here too!

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

Mother’s Day

Today is Mother’s Day. But why only today, isn’t everyday some mother’s day, if not every mother’s day? Everyday someone (or ‘somemany’) becomes a mother and the ones already mothers, continue to be one. So why celebrate only today? Well without going too much into it, this is the day the Greeting Cards and Gift shop companies, besides the childcare product manufacturers and many others formed a cartel to fleece all children! Now, now let’s not be such a cynic! What are a few thousand rupees for the woman who gave you more than her life, besides the blood sweat and copious tears for you? Apologies to the entire mother-dom!!

World over people celebrate this one day and make it a point to call their mothers or send them flowers and chocolates, if not some token gift. We do have Father’s day too, but the heavy emotion is missing in that. Have you wondered why? Do fathers contribute any less in the child’s well-being? Before some women hurls a stiletto at me let me clarify that this is not a mothers vs. father’s debate! It was one innocent question which came to my child-like mind. Mommy!!

Nargis in Mother India

Our culture is extremely sympathetic towards mothers and is considered to be an act of sacrilege if one faults a mother. That is exactly how we still remember the depiction of yesteryear actress Nargis in Mother India, one who toils, strives and sacrifices, all for the sake of her children. We remember the stoic Nirupa Roy and the homelySulochana of the celluloid world. That image might have undergone a sea change now, but the imagery is nothing short of legendary.

The situation was no different in our Mythology too. Mothers in our mythology too were the sacrificing sufferers who lived first for their husbands and then for their children and nothing beyond. Except for an occasional brush with fame, their roles were always tragic. Kunti from the epic Mahabaharata is one such mother who epitomizes this image. First she was given a boon of having children whenever she wanted, which itself was out of place. Why would someone give such a boon to an unmarried underage girl? Even if we allow it to pass for poetic justice, she gets married to a person who could not procreate. She ‘gives birth’ to three sons and is soon a widow, with five sons! She goes through the ordeal that her sons go through along with a secret of begetting a son out of a wedlock, which hits her when she least wants it. A mute spectator and a sufferer in all the wrongs heaped by section of the society against who she could not say a word, but suffer in silence. Her moment of glory was never to come. A life of nothing but tragedy.

Similar characters abound in the same epic. Be it Satyavati, Gandhari or Uttara, Abhimanyu’s wife whose only role was to deliver her dead husbands son, the only heir after the war of Kurukshetra. Elsewhere, also we find mothers who have only to shed copious tears for their sons or husbands.

Ramayana too has similar characters. Sita is a symbol of a woman wronged by one and all. Sita is a shadow of her husband who won her as a trophy in a contest, victim of palace intrigue, gets kidnapped for the actions of her husband and brother-in-law and then becomes the cause of a war. Later her chastity is questioned by first her husband and then the subjects of Ayodhya and again banished to give birth and take care of her children all alone. When the children are old enough, the father takes them away and her contribution over. At the end, Sita is left with no choice, but self-burial!

Why has there been so much of stereotyping of mothers in our culture? The celluloid image of mothers has been inherited from our mythology and perpetuated by poems and songs over the years, in all the regions and languages of our country. Does this reflect the inherent second citizenship of the women folk in our milieu? Is referring to all goddesses as Mother just an act of lip-service or an act of minority-appeasement, (to use a contemporary jargon)? The trials and tribulations of mother is raised to an altar of ‘motherhood’ and then sung praises of this singular honour bestowed by nature on women. The women of today need not be the Mother Earth of yesterday. She does not have to go thru the rigours of the earth to beget new life. Let motherhood truly be a cherished moment for each woman in our country in the truest sense of the word, and not just as a single act of fulfillment in her life

On this Mother’s day, besides doing our little bit (calls, visits, gifts, whatever) let us resolve and spread the word, to allow all would-be mothers to retain their would-be child, whatever it be. Let the mother decide! This might be the best gift to all the Mothers of our country, and probably the only solution to female-infanticide!