The Third Sex - 3

A number of myths abound in the region of Becharaji, which is associated with the eunuchs; prominent among them are that of the myths of Arjuna and Sikhandi of Mahabharata. Let us go through them briefly.

                                          

The Myth of Arjuna

After the 12 years of exile, as per the rule, the Pandavas and their wife, Draupadi had to spend an additional year in exile but incognito without detection. At this time, a long pending curse on Arjuna came of help. Arjuna in an earlier episode in Mahabharata was cursed for refusing the amorous advances of by Urvashi. She had cursed him to become a ‘kliba’, one of the third sex. For the thirteenth year, this was the best disguise for Arjuna.

It is said that before the Pandavas proceeded towards the kingdom of Virata, Arjuna is supposed to have visited Bahurcharaji. It is here that he hides his weapons and becomes what is known as a ‘Brihannala’, a professional dancer and musician trained by “gandharvas” or celestial beings. He transforms himself into a ‘kliba’ at Bahucharaji, before proceeding for the Kingdom of Virata. Before he left for Virata’s kingdom, Arujuna is supposed to have hidden his weapons in a thorny tree called the Sami tree in nearby Dedana village. As a part of the ritual, on every Dasherra day this tree is worshipped, and the ritual is known as ‘Sami-pujan’. It is said that this tree remains green all-round the year and does not either increase or decrease in its size.

Virata was a kingdom ruled by the Matsya king by the name Virata. Its capital was Virata Nagari, modern Bairat in the Jaipur district of Rajasthan.

The Myth of Sikhandi

An artist's impression of Sikhandi

The story of Sikhandi is well known and we will not delve in the myth which binds together some of the main characters of Mahabharata, viz. Bhishmapitamah, Princess Amba, King Salya, etc. What is of significance here is that Shikhandi was the son of King Drupad and was Princess Amba in his previous birth.

As per the local lore, Sikhandi was not a man in the sense of having masculinity. So Sikhandi is supposed to be moving around in despair to attain masculinity to take part in the famous war of Kurukshetra, as he had to fulfil his wow of killing Bhishma. When after all the efforts failed, he was dejected and came to Bahucharaji. The lore goes on to say that in this region stayed a Yaksha by the name of Mangal. When the Yaksha saw Sikhandi, who was miserable and crying and pitiful, he asked her what was wrong. Sikhandi told him his story and how it was a desire to be a man and avenge the insult heaped onto him from his previous birth.

Hearing all this, the Yaksha took pity on Sikhandi and decided to trade genders with Sikhandi, till he achieves his imminent objective. The lore goes on with more twists and turns and adding to the already complicated issue, which we will omit here.

It is said that from that day onwards, this place gets its importance of a place where lost masculinity can be gained.

Though there is no empirical evidence to prove the veracity of either of the above mentioned episodes, but the popular local belief and the presence of the eunuchs in the region is enough to strengthen the belief system. Also the proximity of Virata and Panchala from Gujarat lends some credence to the association in some form or the other.

The fact that Lord Krishna had such an influence in the region and a follower of his in Arjun makes the myth highly believable for the local populace. It also gains currency in the fact that Mahabharata is an epic of India and the locale had a share of prominence in the great epic!

Arjuna's Dilemma

On this Janamashtami, Lord Krishna’s birthday, I would like to clear some dark clouds shrouding the name of Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna’s role in Mahabharata has been seen by many as that of a conspiring opportunist who takes advantage of situations and even goes against the rules, especially during the final war of Kurukshetra. In short, many have compared him to the modern-day politician. I will discuss one such act of his which has been criticised by many an intellectual.

Before the war of Kurukshetra began, Arjuna did not want to fight citing some quite obvious reasons of killing so many innocent people for a mere piece of land, of which some had nothing to do with it. He wanted to avoid the mass-killing. The Nobel laureate Mr. Amartya Sen in his Theory of Consequentialism propounds that one must weigh the consequences of every action that one takes and he goes on to say that by coaxing Arjuna to fight, Lord Krishna instilled in him what Mr. Sen refers as ‘consequence-independent judgments’. He goes on to ask if this was this fair on the part of Lord Krishna.

At the onset I am not sure Arjun’s reluctance to fight had anything to do with the Theory of Consequentialism. His reluctance to fight was due to state of dejection, coexisting with a predominance of tamas (meaning lethargy and darkness), and this is considered to be detrimental to ones spiritual and psychological well-being. Instead of considering this as a reaction in the field of morality, one needs to consider this refusal to fight as a psychological reaction on Arjuna's part, which Lord Krishna had to cure through the process of counselling.

In order to be able to make the right moral decision, one must have the right psychological balance first. All this, needless to say, was consequential calculation on the part of Lord Krishna. While Arjuna was confusing compassion with cowardice, the dialogue between the two (better known as Bhagvada Gita) was to make him recognise the same. Lord Krishna was against weakness and cowardice and not love for ones fellowmen. Apart from Arjuna's need to go back to the required state of his mind, from where he could grow psychologically, ethically and spiritually, it seems that once he had come to the battlefield with his responsibility to give leadership to a vast army as a General, it may be quite questionable whether he could relinquish his commitment all of a sudden, at the very last moment. Lord Krishna wanted him to fight for the establishment of justice. When maintenance of justice was the principle involved, it was imperative on a kshatriya (the warrior) to resort to appropriate means, including taking up of arms.  To borrow Mr. Sen’s term again, was this (i.e. establishment of justice) consequence any less?

Let me provoke with a question which one might relate to better. Would taking up arms by our Government against a huge (or rather ever-increasing) group of terrorists be seen as spilling of blood, even when we know that some of them have been our brothers till some time back? Would we have said the same thing about General Sam Maneckshaw if he had declined to fight the Pakistanis just before the battle stating he did not want to spill the blood of his own brothers? Then why this double standards when it comes to judging mythical heroes?

Kurukshetra was no ordinary war for a mere piece of land. It was a war for the establishment of justice. All norms of civilised behaviour had been broken, all diplomatic efforts had been explored and every possible effort to avoid the war had been resorted to. The war itself was a consequence of immense greed and selfishness and a series of misdeeds towards mankind in general. The war was the last option and there was no going back to the discussion table (as per our corporate jargon). The only choice one had was to have a just war then or an evil war later. With so much at stake, was it not right on Lord Krishna’s part to instil in Arjuna a sense of duty that dictated that there must not be any slackness in the actions performed in anticipation of the results?

You tell me!

Shakuni

Shakuni was considered to be the villain of Mahabharata. He instigated Duryodhan and constantly plotted against the Pandavas. But is this the whole truth? Did he do all this out of devotion to his sister’s clan or was there something else? Was he inherently evil as we know him and have seen in popular depiction, clad in black robes and wearing an evil look and an impish smile?

Shakuni as represented in Kathakali
Dance Form

Shakuni was the brother of Gandhari, the wife of the blind king Dhritarashtra of Hastinapur. Shakuni has also been referred to as the King of Gandhar, a region smaller than Hastinapur. It is said that Shakuni was angry and felt insulted when Bhishmapitamah brought the matrimonial proposal of the blind Dhritarashtra. In those days, refusing the proposal would have been suicidal for the region and they were left with no choice but to accept it. To add fuel to the fire, Gandhari, Shakuni’s sister, embraced darkness for life. Shakuni felt vindictive and decided to avenge the insult to Gandhar and his father, King Subala, by ruining the entire Kuru clan of Bhishmapitamah who was the proud guardian of the kingdom. But this he could not do by waging a war against them as Gandhar Pradesh was too small in comparison to Hastinapur. He decided to live with them and eat into the system and destroy it from within. Just as a rat destroys cloth, for the sake of destroying, not because it wants to eat it, Shakuni became the rat in Hastinapur and kept Duryodhan under his tutelage and kept fanning his ambitions and stoking the fire of jealousy and ambition alive in him, till the entire extended family was brought to a naught. This is the version according to Ved Vyasa or at least a popular explanation of Shakuni’s behavior.

There are some other versions to his evil. According to a version (which does not find space in Vyasa’s version), Gandhari’s stars foretold that she would be a widow as soon as she married, but if married again, her second husband would survive. So her father got her married to a goat and killed it soon after, which made her a ‘widow’ in technical terms. Later, when Dhritarashtra comes to know about this, he waged a battle against the kingdom of Gandhar and took King Subala, along with his 100 sons as prisoners. As prisoners all of them were given just a handful of rice to sustain. The King realized that this way all of them would meet their end soon. He then decided that all would sacrifice their portion for one of them to eat, who should live on to avenge this insult meted out on them. The son selected to carry on living was Shakuni. After his father and all the brothers had died one by one, Shakuni was released on the request of Gandhari and he then came over to Hastinapur and continue his task that his father and brothers had given him.

There is an interesting story on the selection of Shakuni to take the task forward. King Subala of Gandhar wanted an intelligent son to survive to avenge the insult, so to test them, he gave each one a bone and asked them to put a thread through it. None could do it, except Shakuni, who tied a thread to an ant who went through the bone to reach the other end, to eat a grain of rice which was tied to the other end of the bone!  One by one all the brothers died and so did his father and it is said that the dice that Shakuni carried with him was carved out of his father’s thigh bones. The dice constantly reminded him of the insult and his objective entrusted on him by his family.

In all the negative qualities associated with Shakuni, a very important quality of his has been overlooked. Shakuni was a very good judge of human nature and character. He knew well about Dhritarashtra’s lust for monarchy and his inability to hold on to it due to his lack of vision, both literally as well as figuratively. He was aware of his nephew, Duryodhan’s hatred for his cousins and his ambition to become the King and continued to fan the flame of hatred in his heart and mind. He was also aware of Yudhishtira’s weakness for gambling and knew that Yudhishtira would give in to the slightest provocation and that is what he ensured during the dice-game. He was also well aware of Krishna’s love and support for the Pandava’s and also recognized the fact that Krishna was the only match to his guile and intelligence in the Pandava camp, and ensured that all the wrong meted out to the Pandavas occurred in Krishna’s absence. One can see these examples as evil intentions, or as smart strategist who moved towards his personal objective in a slow, but steady pace.

Popular notion sees Shakuni as the villain, but was he really one? Wouldn’t any individual with slightest of self-respect feel insulted if a matrimonial proposal was sent for his daughter/sister from a person who is not only ineligible but also handicapped? Who would not feel insulted if such a proposal was given to them, just because it was not in their power to decline? Was this not exploitation of one’s superiority? Did Bhishmapitamah not know the inadequacies of Dhritarashtra, who though elder of the family was not eligible to be the King? Was the matrimonial alliance not being sought after more for physical and political reasons rather than simple matrimony? With all this and more, what else can a relatively weaker person do, if not act like a termite and eat into the system, to avenge his insult? This is exactly how rebels are created due to acts of insult, injury and oppression. The case of Shakuni was no different. In the light of such acts by the mighty stalwarts and guardians of Hastinapur, was Shakuni really a villain?  

Shakuni was later killed by Sahadev in the battle of Kurukshetra.

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.

Importance of Asking Questions - Part 1

How many times have we felt – If only I had asked? The common thing about men not asking for directions and landing into trouble, children not asking questions in the class leading to not-understanding problems, and women waiting for men to ‘pop’ the question, and Executives not asking during official briefings, is all so very well-known with all the due complications and trouble.

Just what happens if one doesn’t ask questions? Besides remaining ignorant, it could also lead to a lot of trouble. Mythology is witness to this. Let us see how the course of mythical destiny might have changed, if only basic questions were asked.

The most classical case that comes to mind is from the epic Mahabharata. Have you ever wondered, what would have happened if only Kunti had asked – “What have you brought?” when her sons told her – “Look Mother, what we got”, while referring to Draupadi? Wouldn’t Mahabharata have been slightly (or a lot?) different if she had asked the basic question instead of saying “Share amongst yourselves, whatever you brothers have got”? Many might opine that probably the Pandavas might not have been as united as they were, or Arjuna might not have got to marry other ladies, which were the much-needed political alliances. Or just about nothing much would have happened! But definitely, a very sticky issue could have been avoided and Draupadi would have been spared many a humiliation which we get to see in the course of the epic.

Let us take another example from the same epic, and that is the case of Shahadev. It is said that Sahadev knew everything, including the outcome of the dice game. But he could not say anything without being asked! It is said that when Sahadev came to know about his divine capability, he rushed to tell everybody about it. On the way he met a stranger who advised him against doing that if he wanted God on his side. He further advised him that he should answer only when asked something, and not before. Some say, that Sahadev knew that the stranger was none other than Lord Krishna who was God himself, and so he did not go against the advice. Some versions say that he was warned that if he said anything without being asked, then his head would split into two. Sahadev went on to author many of the occult sciences and is also considered to be a great astrologer, who knew it all.   During the entire Mahabharata, nobody ever asked him his opinion on anything, and thus having known everything, including the outcome of every event, he could not help. Wouldn’t the outcome of the epic be a lot different if only someone had asked him some basic questions? Probably, Yudhishtir would not have played dice and lost everything, or even if he played, Sahadev could have warned Yudhishtir about Shakuni’s evil designs. But then nobody asked him!

Tomorrow we will conclude this article with a few more examples......

Fast-unto-death aka Blackmail?

Does fasting unto death amount to Coercion, or blackmail?

This question has arisen in the recent ‘fast-unto-death’ undertaken by Anna Hazare. The discussion has been taken onto the level of ‘in-principle’. Many well-known opinion-makers and self-proclaimed societies conscience-keepers have said that ‘in-principle’ such acts are not correct. In a democracy this could be a deadly ‘weapon’ that could be misused and the government could be regularly blackmailed to give in to the civil societies demands.

What seems to have been overlooked is that this act is a non-violent weapon, if a weapon at all. Also, does the government not exist for the civil society or is it the other way round?

The issue of blackmail or coercion is a secondary issue. In my opinion the issue is at a different level. If we sideline the blackmail idea for a moment – then this is nothing but the classical issue of means and ends. To achieve a definite objective, we resort to certain means – the end justifies the means, in this case. The right methods need to be taken, whatever it results in being immaterial, is means dictating the end.

In the epic Mahabharata, Lord Krishna tells the Pandavas prior to the war of Kurukshetra that their focus should be on the end, which is the establishment of the rule of dharma. The war is just the means to achieve the objective. To achieve the ultimate end, which is so noble, if the means are not-so-noble, then so be it. Breaking or rather bending a few rules is not quite sacrilegious, as long as the end goal of establishing the law of dharma and establishing the rule of right over wrong is achieved.

The inevitable bloodbath during the war of Kurukshetra has to be seen in this regard. Enough crimes were committed – attempts to kill the Pandavas, depriving them of their right, dignity and livelihood, disrobing of Draupadi in public and many more such acts are to be seen as the overflowing of the cup of woes. Conciliatory efforts were made prior to the war and the option of peace was exhausted. War and the annihilation of the perpetrators of evil was inevitable and the need of the hour. Was there any other option?

Anna Hazare’s act of ‘blackmail’ needs to be seen in this light. Was there an option? Hadn’t we had enough? Has democracy not been taken for a royal ride? Can voting once in five years undo the wrongs of the last five years? For certain issues, is it worth the wait? Do the likes of Ms. Tagore and Mr. Bhatt, who have no meaningful claim to fame, have any better suggestion, besides telling us about the harmful effects of such acts on democracy? Even if Anna Hazare was wrong ‘in-principle’, was it not for the larger good of the society and a noble one at that? The nation rallied behind one man, as that seemed to be the only ray of hope in the grim horizon. If this man is guilty of blackmail and coercion, what would you term similar acts by the Father of the Nation about half a century back?

To borrow from a recent product commercial, I can only say, that if this act of blackmailing is a blot on the fabric of democracy, then yeh daag achha hai!

The Indo-Pak Match.

Yesterday was the India-Pakistan Cricket match which was nothing less than a war. The tension was all around and palpable – streets deserted, offices empty, all appointments cancelled, stadium tickets at unbelievable prices and some even willing to pledge their organs to get to see the match!

Is this sports?

The match was between two all-time arch-rivals, which wasworth the bucks that were at stake. What is it that makes the two nations such strong adversaries? Till a few decades back we were a single nation with a single objective and similar outlook. The colonial past can be blamed for the strife, but if more than six decades have not got us together, then probably nothing will. What makes this animosity so strange? Is there a parallel so similar?

A similar strife can be found in the Roman history, between Athens and Sparta. Athens and Sparta were both Greek cities and their people spoke a common language. Athens was a city of busy trade. Sparta was an armed camp where people were soldiers for the sake of being soldiers. The people of Athens loved to sit in the sun and discuss poetry or listen to the wise words of a philosopher. The Spartans, on the other hand, never wrote a single line that was considered literature, but they knew how to fight, they liked to fight, and they sacrificed all human emotions to their ideal of military preparedness. Athenian life was a creative wonderland. Spartan life was simple. The focus was on obedience and war.

Both the nations had lots to join hands for, but the friendship did not last as a sense of insecurity overtook each soon. This led to conflicts and battles and ironically, in their quest for power over Greece, the two city-states caused each other's demise.

Another very significant example can be the enmity between the Pandavas and the Kauravas in the famous epic Mahabharata. Both belonged to the same ancestors, with no differences whatsoever, but were at logger-heads on everything from sharing of parental emotions to sharing of titles and land. Nothing could get them together, except a war. The final battle left nothing to covet, except a huge burden of guilt and an emptiness which was regrettable.

Yesterday’s intense tension and the build-up during the last few days belied all the feeble attempts to shake hands both in the name of sports and culture that the two nations were supposedly making. Be it at the levels of leadership and bureaucracy or at the grounds level, the animosity seems to be irreversible.

At the end of it all, I simply hope that the end is not similar to the Greek example or the Mahabharata example. A rank optimist will tell you that it’s never too late to make a fresh beginning, and if I were to toe the same line, then I would repeat the same.

Let a game remain so and let us not transform a stadium into a battleground. Don’t use such platforms for expressing patriotic emotions, and don’t make such simple sporting events into a do-or-die event. Individual emotional burdens cannot be offloaded on the national cricket team.

Saying ‘tathastu’ or ‘inshallah’ is up to you!