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

Abhimanyu’s Death

Yesterday, we read about the death of Abhimanyu which seemed to be part of the war-strategy of Lord Krishna. Did he seem like a villain who was out to eliminate the young Pandava princes and get them to sacrifice each of them and leave the Kuru clan with no survivor (except Abhimanyu’s unborn son, Parikshit)?

Not exactly! Yes Abhimanyu was killed as a part of a plan, but a plan which was way beyond the battlefields of Kurukshetra.

Before it was time for Vishnu to take the mortal birth of Krishna, each of the gods were expected to contribute towards the massive destruction that was expected on earth, i.e. in the war of Kurukshetra (as they say, everything is destined). Many sources say, that the Pandavas, who were the sons of gods, were actually the representatives of the said gods (like Yudhishtir represented Dharma, Bhima represented Vayu and Arjuna represented Indra, etc.). As a part of this design, Abhimanyu was the reincarnation of Chandra, the Moon-god’s son, Varchas.

As an arrangement, Chandra did not want to part with his son for too long and so had agreed to part with him only for sixteen years and also wanted his son to be known as a hero. This was known to Krishna, and thus he is supposed to have ensured that Abhimanyu died a heroic death at the young age of sixteen and leave the world and go back to his father, Chandra.

The fact that the death of Abhimanyu was the turning point in the war has been well accepted by one and all. The death of his favourite son, from Subhadra, made Arjuna cry for blood and bring out the warrior in him.

This should be seen as the utilisation of a useful piece of information for a larger cause – a great skill to possess in the field of strategy. The vows of Draupadi, the hardships they had to undergo, the treachery and the unfairness meted out to them, besides Krishna’s rendition of Gita had not quite had the desired effect on Arjuna that was needed in the kind of battle that was being fought. Abhimanyu could have been eliminated as any other death in the battlefield, but the way he got killed, roused the passions and anger in a relatively cold Arjuna who was not fighting to his potential and was avoiding all the seniors of the Kaurava army. His death changed the whole attitude of Arjuna and there was no looking back thereafter.

Many scholars have also opined that this could have also been done to serve as a lesson to one and all that half knowledge is dangerous and that wars have to be fought through a combination of strategy and bravery, not just the latter.

So can we still blame Krishna for the death of Abhimanyu, or should we see as a masterstroke in the master plan?

Death of Young Pandava Princes – Part of war Strategy (?)

Let me tell you three stories from Mahabharata, which shows Lord Krishna’s strategic moves during the war of Kurukshetra, all having a common theme.

First the stories.

Story # 1 –

In spite of all that Krishna had to tell Arjuna in the form of Gita, Arjuna still developed weak-knees when it came to attacking/fighting seniors like Bhisma and Drona. In the war, there were no seniors and no brothers, all were adversaries, was something Krishna was not able to instil in Arjuna. Krishna noticed how, Arjuna would avoid fighting Bhishma and Drona and somewhere lacked the ‘killer-instinct’. This was noticed by Drona and understood Arjuna’s predicament since Drona had been Arjuna’s teacher and understood him well. So he made a plan to strike the Pandavas knowing well that Arjuna wouldn’t attack him. He planned that Arjuna would be made to chase and fight the massive Narayani army of Krishna (which was fighting on behalf of the Kauravas), while they collectively attacked the other Pandavas elsewhere. Once, Arjuna was busy fighting the Narayani army single-handedly, Yudhishtir was getting surrounded by all the stalwarts of the Kuarava army, in what was known as the chakravyuh, or an entrapment. Breaching it and coming out of it unscathed was an art which needed a skill that many did not have. Arjuna’s sixteen year old son, Abhimanyu, knew how to breach it, as he had heard his father tell his mother about it when he was in her womb, but did not know how to come out of it, as his mother had fallen asleep, by the time Arjuna reached the breaching part and seeing Subhadra asleep, he stopped there.

Abhimanyu agreed to breach the chakravyuh and Yudhishtir promised to rescue him once he was in. As decided, Abhimanyu managed to breach the entrapment and release Yudhishtir, but once out, the entrapment surrounded Abhimanyu and the brave lad was killed by all the Kaurava seniors as Yudhishtir could not breach the chakravyuh. Many say, that though Arjuna was fighting elsewhere, Krishna was aware of this and he allowed this to happen. Why? Because of an effect that Krishna wanted out of Arjuna. The death of Abhimanyu enraged Arjuna so much that he lost all semblance of war-rules and went on a rampage the next day. Krishna had managed to light the fire, needed in a warrior, but Arjuna had lost his son in the war.

Story # 2 –

Just before the, the war of Kurukshetra began, Lord Indra under the instructions of Lord Krishna, came in the form of an ascetic and asked for two of the most precious thing from Karna, at a time, which Karna had reserved for doing acts of charity. This was the Kavacha, or the armour that he was born with and which also made him invincible. Seeing him dripping with blood as he cut off the armour which was part of his body, Indra was moved and gave him a spear, which would kill any one person he wanted to, and nothing, no craft nor magic could come in the way. Karna had kept the spear for his arch enemy, Arjuna. When Krishna came to know about this, he decided to unleash Bhima’s giant son, Ghatothkach on the Kaurava army, who ended up inflicting heavy casualty on the Kaurava army. With every step, he would kill thousands of soldiers and crush horses and elephants under his feet. With no option left, Duryodhan pleaded that Karna use his spear to stop the heavy destruction that the Kaurava army were facing and Karna had to give in and hurl the spear, killing Ghatothkach, but leaving Karna with less chances of killing his enemy, Arjuna.

Thus Krishna managed to save the life of Arjuna, but got Bhima’s son killed.

Story # 3 –

I will not delve into the details of the final story, as this has been discussed at length in my earlier articles. This pertains to the story of Barbareek (http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2012/02/barbareek-aka-khatu-shyam-baba.html) and Iravan (http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2012/03/iravan-south-indian-barbareek.html ). Both the characters were directly related to the Pandavas and were asked by Krishna to sacrifice themselves for the success of the Pandavas, which they did.

Conclusion –

So what are we to make out of these acts by Krishna? 

Sons of the Pandavas, being made to die young, to save the lives of their fathers or to ensure the success of the Pandavas? 

Was this fair on the part of Krishna who was also the master strategist in the war of Kurukshetra? 

Was this inevitable or was there some other way out? 

Or can we ascribe this to the age-old adage – “All’s fair in (love &) war”.

You tell me…..

Karna and his karma

In a couple of previous article we read about how ones present life was affected due to the acts of one’s past life, w.r.t. Dhritarashtra and Gandhari from the epic Mahabharata. Our epics are full of examples of Karmic destiny, especially Mahabharata. Nearly all characters have been subject to this, including Lord Krishna.

However, Karna was one character in Mahabharata whose tragedy had nothing to do with his past life (or so it seems as nothing has been found in any texts). His tragedy is due to his being good, yes; all that goes wrong with him is because he wanted to be of help to someone. Let’s see how.

It is said that Karna was training under the great ascetic-warrior, Parashuram (who was also an avatar of Lord Vishnu). Karna had told him the truth that he was raised by a charioteer and did not know his caste. Once, Parashuram went off to sleep with his head on Karna’s lap. A blood-sucking insect bit Karna on his thigh. It pained Karna, but he did not move, lest it woke up his Guru. When Parashuram came to know about it, he was shocked that someone could bear so much pain in spite of all the blood that had been lost. According to him, only a Kshatriya could have it in him to bear such pain and Parshuram hated Kshatriyas. This enraged Parashuram so much that he cursed him that, all that he had learnt from him would go in vain, as he would never be able to use it, especially when he needed the most.

Isn’t this tragic? Karna was honest enough to say what he did as he had no clue about his parentage and by not moving after the insect bite, he was only allowing his Guru a peaceful nap. Was this fair?

Another legend says that long ago, Karna saw a young girl crying as she had spilt milk on the ground. To stop her from crying, Karna is supposed to have taken soil from the ground where milk was spilt and squeezed out the milk so that the child could have it. This angered Bhoo-devi (Earth-deity) and she is supposed to have cursed Karna that it would be the same soil that would one day, hold him to his death, as he had squeezed out milk from her soil.

During the war of Kurukshetra in Mahabharata, at a very strategic point, the wheel of Karna’s chariot was stuck in the soil and no efforts would get it out of the soil. He got down the chariot to do so physically, as he had forgotten the magic formula taught to him by Parashuram to release a wheel if stuck on the ground, is when he gets hit by Arjuna. His end was brought by the act of kindness that he had shown to his guru and the crying girl.

This make one feel that Karna’s tragedy had nothing to do with his karma, but was some sort of a conspiracy to make sure that he suffers. The following story also lends credence to the same theory.

Karna’s charioteer was Shalya, the King of Madra. Shalya was the maternal uncle of the younger Pandavas, i.e. Nakula and Sahadeva. When Kings and regions were aligning themselves for the great war of Kurukshetra, Shalya left for the battlefield. On his way, he was pleased to see that arrangements were made for his army and was impressed at the thoughtfulness of the Pandavas. Later he learnt that he had been duped into accepting the hospitality, from the Kauravas, due to which he had to fight on behalf of the Kauravas. To humiliate him further, Duryodhan asked Shalya to be the charioteer of Karna, the arch-enemy of the Pandavas. On Krishna’s advice, Shalya would continuously praise Arjuna during the battle, to de-motivate and distract Karna.

Also, when anything goes wrong with a chariot, it is the responsibility of the charioteer to alight from the chariot and repair it. When Karna’s chariot got stuck on the ground, Karna is supposed to have asked Shalya to do so, but Shalya refused to alight as he was a King and it was below his dignity to such things, besides the fact that he did not know how to get the wheel out of the ground. It was only when Shalya refused to do anything, did Karna have to alight, disarming himself, which made him vulnerable to Arjuna’s attack.

All this lends credence to the theory of conspiracy. Where is karmic destiny here? Karna had been wronged from the time he was born to an unwed mother, Kunti. All through the epic he had been insulted about his lack of knowledge of his parentage, when two of the most important characters of the epic, Kunti and Krishna were actually aware of it but had opted to keep quiet. He is apprised of the truth at a wrong moment in the epic and that too as an effort to buy his support. At the end, he dies a heroic death. It is said that the day he was killed, the war came to an early end for that day, as all the charioteers from both the sides mourned his death, as he was raised by a charioteer.

Could the author of the epic have decided to create a tragic character and thus such characterisation? Or was it the ideal example of a good guy on the wrong side?

Whatever, be the case, Karna’s tragedy had nothing to do with his karma.

Gandhari’s Hundred Sons

One of my readers sent me the following after reading “Gandhari and her Karma ” dated June 25, 2012, –

“Hi Utkarsh………, had a question too. Gandhari had 100 sons, as we all know it takes 9 months for incubating a baby (unless they had machines for the same at that time) and if she had 1 baby at a time, by the time the 100th would be born the first one would be 75! So how old was Gandhari during the war? Or did she give birth to all 100 at the same time? In which case, biologically, it would be difficult for all 100 to survive. What do you think?”

An interesting question and often asked by many. How can someone have 100 sons together or even one after another? Could it be that she had many combinations of twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc. many times over?

Mythology is replete with instances which are known as supra-normal births (beyond the range of normal or scientifically explainable), where births have taken place from fire, any body fluids, like tears and sweat, or from body parts like thigh, etc. This is essentially done, to connote a sense of ‘difference’ on the said character and also to hint that the character is destined to do in-human acts or feats. This was the then author’s way of assigning an importance to the character in reference. We will not get into such instances as all heroes in mythology have had ‘different’ births, like Krishna, Jesus, Hercules, Rama, Ganapati, to name just a few. Mahabharat is full of supra-normal births, be it Dronacharya, Kripacharya, Draupadi and her brother, and of course, Gandhari’s hundred sons.

The birth of Gandhari’s hundred sons, in brief – After Gandhari had conceived it was close to two years and she had not delivered. When she heard the news of Kunti’s children being born in the jungles, she was frustrated and angry and in her state of rage, she started beating her stomach. Soon she delivered a mass of flesh. Vyas had once blessed her with a hundred sons (a common blessing in those days) and when she saw the mass of flesh, he was called. He immediately instructed her to assemble a hundred jars with ghee (oil) in it. Gandhari at this stage expressed her desire to have a daughter too. As soon as the jars were assembled, Vyas divided the ball of flesh into a hundred and one parts and distributed each into the jars. He asked her to cover them and leave them, and soon she was the mother of hundred sons and one daughter.

Many later day thinkers hint at the concept which is better known to us today as ‘in-vitro fertilisation’. Today we know of such methods of IVF and cloning whereby births can be ‘made’ through artificial methods. I am by no means saying that Vyasa was a gynecologist and nor am I saying that people then had knowledge of such modern methods of reproduction. It could just be the figment of a creative writer’s imagination who had imagined a possibility, without going into the intricacies of the method. Also, don’t forget what is said at the beginning of the epic Mahabharata – “What is found herein may also be found elsewhere; What is not found herein does not exist.”

Another theory says that there weren’t a hundred sons, but just two, i.e. Duryodhan and Dushsshan. This gains ground as in the entire epic; these were the only two whose names had cropped up time and again (though later, we have heard of Vikarna, the Kaurava who was against the war). Also, the pregnancy lasting for two years lends credence to this theory. People of antiquity had never quite been able to explain the concept of twins (You can read more about twins in mythology in my earlier series "Twins – A case of peaceful co-existence. " dated May 1, 2011). The two-year pregnancy could have been put in to explain the birth of twins.

Another version is that the evil of Duryodhan was equal to that of hundred people; a concept similar to that of Ravana’s ten heads which implied his immense intelligence and knowledge. Mythology, like fiction also thrives on hyperbole and on a more simplistic note, this could be just that.

Another version takes the help of etymology (the study of the origin of words). Duryodhan means one who is difficult to fight, (‘duh’ – difficult & ‘yodh’ – to fight) representing ego & Dushasana means difficult to control. Representing ‘huge ego’ and ‘lack of control’ as a hundred only gave a sense of proportion to the immense trouble that the duo could unleash.

A philosophic explanation is as follows – Dhritarashtra represented blind mind and Gandhari represented blind intellect following the blind mind. Together they breed unfulfilled desires, dreams and ambitions, all unleashed on what stood for reason and law (dharma). The result of such a clash could only be a war of epic proportions!

The sheer beauty of what the authors of antiquity wrote is brought out by such representations, which to a rationalist mind might seem ridiculous and jest-worthy! Modern thinking should be used to understand the deeper meanings in the myths and not to look down and make fun of what was written way back, when ‘science’ was not a subject. I guess this is what education is all about!

I hope I have been able to answer my readers query!!

Gandhari and her Karma

In a previous article - Dhritarashtra of Modern Times (dated June 12, 2012), we read about the karmic destiny of Dhritarashtra. How it was destiny that made him blind and made him endure the death of a hundred sons. Mahabharata has numerous such examples which give similar reasons for ones suffering in the present life.

From Dhritarashtra, let’s move on to Gandhari. Why was she destined to live a life of blindness, when she was not naturally blind and why did she have to endure such tragedy?

Dhritarashtra and Gandhari

Gandhari was the daughter of Gandhar, the modern day Kandahar, in Afghanistan. She tied a cloth on her eyes when she came to know that her would-be husband was born blind and vowed never to see what he couldn’t. Many say that she made a mistake and if she had not done this, she would have been a great help to her blind husband, and the course of Mahabharata would have been different. Gandhari’s logic however, was that she did not want to seem superior in any way from her husband and make him feel small, and this act of hers had made her his equal. Some even say that she did this as a silent protest to the high-handed behaviour of Bhishma, who despite Dhirtarashtra’s disability had nearly forced the King of Gandhar to agree to the alliance. In the modern world, her act could be questioned, but in Mhabharata, she was hailed as an ideal woman.

Her blindfold is supposed to have given her an inner view to the world around her and though she missed a lot, she never lost ‘sight’ of the fact that the Pandavas were not treated justly. On many occasions she is known to have advised her husband and chastised her son Duryodhan. At the end of the war of Kurukshetra, she is supposed to have asked Lord Krishna, whom she blamed for the war and the death of her hundred sons, especially Duryodhan, as to what had been the reason for such a tragic life.

According to Lord Krishna, long back, while cooking rice, she had poured hot water of the boiled rice on the ground outside her kitchen. This hot water killed all the hundred eggs laid by an insect. This act of hers had earned the wrath of the mother insect who is supposed to have cursed her that she too would have to endure the deaths of her sons, as she had. (In many villages women are advised not to pour hot water from the rice on the ground; they should pour it after it has cooled down or mix cold water before draining it off!). According another local rendition of Mahabharata from the East, she was cursed by the mother turtle whose eggs, Gandhari had once crushed one by one.

The above is a classic case of karmic destiny which has been illustrated time and again through various characters of Mahabharata. Rather, it seems to be an underlying theme of Mahabharata. This might have been done by the authors of the times to ensure that one takes care of one’s actions in the present life. Even if this is done out of a fear for the results in the next life, one will ensure that he or she does little or no harm. How would one react to ones shortcomings in this life? Well, one school of thought would feel that if the karmic theory is to be subscribed to, then people would stop making efforts to change the hardship and simply live with it. Contrary to this, one can say that one would accept it as destiny and not be unnecessarily self-critical. Accept and move on to face the new challenges that have been in store!

I guess this theory of Karmic destiny is a case of glass half full!

There are a number of such characters in Mahabharata, who were what they were, due to the theory of karma. All but one, who was a tragic character for no theory of karma.

We will discuss this character next time! Keep reading….

Dhritarashtra of Modern Times

Ms. Kiran Bedi has compared our Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh with Dhritarashtra of Mahabharata. [Ms. Bedi tweeted – “PMO clears PM. Did Dhritarashtra in Mahabharata not support Kauravas even after they attempted to disrobe Draupadi? Indian genes/culture? Or?”]

Dhritarashtra was the blind king of Hastinapur who was put on the throne after his younger brother, Pandu, had to go to the forest to atone for his sins and his subsequent death. He was also the father of the hundred Kauravas.

Is the comparison valid? Let’s see.

• Dhritarashtra was blind and thus could not see; our PM is not blind (at least physically), but he still cannot see; else he would have done something about all the wrongs that are happening in his PM-dom.
• Dhritarashtra was blind to the aspirations of (his son) Duryodhan and despite knowing about the wrongs done by him, said nothing. Our PM was also well aware of the wrongdoings of some of his ministers (thankfully not his sons), take Raja for instance, but allowed him to continue, till the ant became an elephant, and it could not be hidden under the carpet.
• Dhritarashtra did not say anything when Draupadi was being disrobed in public in the court just as our PM is keeping mum when the country is being robbed off its pride and being abused by many known to him.
• Dhritarashtra did not have any friends who could guide him, but had many who would mislead him. PM too has no friends who can guide him, but is surrounded by allies who actually misguide him and have their way, as and when required. This lack of ‘good and true’ friends has been the bane of both Dhritarashtra and the PM.

Some differences though –

• Dhritarashtra did have some voices of sanity which used to try to dissuade him from following the wrong path, like Vidura, PM has none. There is not a single guide in his cabinet whose sane voice he can follow.
• Dhritarashtra always aspired to be the King, in spite of his disability, i.e. his blindness, but our PM is a reluctant politician, who knew well about his disability, i.e. lack of knowledge of politics, but went on to take the position of leadership. Needless to say, that both have proven to be poor leaders.

To conclude, let me tell you a small story which many might not know. 

At the end of the war of Kurukshetra and on the death of his hundred sons, Dhritarashtra asked Lord Krishna as to why was he destined for such a tragic life, of blindness and bereavement of hundred sons during his life time? Lord Krishna asked him to close his eyes and Dhritarashtra saw, that in his previous life, he was a tyrant king. Once he was passing by the sea and saw a swan surrounded by a hundred cygnets (baby swans). On a moment of sadistic pleasure, he ordered that the eyes of the swan be gorged out and all the cygnets be killed. This cruelty had led him to be blind in this birth and was made to bear the death of his hundred sons, just as he had done to the swan. Dhritarashtra realised that this was his karma and none were to be blamed for this.

Dhritarashtra’s behaviour was due to his karma, but what is the cause of your behaviour Mr. PM?

The Unwanted Girl Child

Distraught mother of Baby Ameena

First it was Baby Falak and now Baby Ameena, all in the heart of the metros of India. Thousands of girls are killed every day in what is made to appear as natural deaths, but these two names have shocked the nation recently due to the way the babies were battered. Many more don’t even get to see the light of the day, in what is better known as female-infanticide.

Why is there such a dire need for a male child? Is it because girls are expenses personified in a poor man’s world? Or is it because a girl does not carry on the name of the father?

Is it at all necessary to find reasons as to why people kill the girl child, except for the fact that this is done by inhuman and uncaring blot of a human being, who is misguided in his thinking and bestial (with due apologies to the animals!) to say the least?

Isn’t it ironic that such things should happen in a country where a girl is referred to as Goddess Lakshmi (goddess of wealth) and where the worship of Mother Goddess is prevalent in every nook and corner of the country? A country that celebrates the nine-day Navratri festival which heralds the arrival of the daughter to her parental home should see spates of men killing their infant goddesses is a shame in itself.

Has this a precedence of sorts, though we have seen many cultural practices, or malpractices to be precise? None that I know of; though I don’t claim myself to be someone who knows a lot on such issues. But it has now become a practice to rummage in the past, however, the same is not to justify the happening, but could help understand the age of such customs and its prevalence as a thought-process.

I am reminded of a tale from the epic Mahabharata. This pertains to the birth of Satyavati. Let me begin from the start! Once upon a time, King Uparichara was on a hunting expedition and while resting under a tree, the thought of his wife got him excited and this led to the ejection of his reproductive fluids. The king wrapped this body-fluid as it was an auspicious period when such fluids were not to be wasted and gave it to a parrot to take it to his wife. The parrot was attacked on its way by a falcon and the leaf fell into a river and the fluid was swallowed by a fish. This fist was actually an apsara who was cursed by Lord Brahma to be a fish till she gave birth to human children. Sometime later the fist was caught by the fishermen and they found a boy and a girl when they cut open the fish. The head of the fishermen took the babies to the King of the land, who was none other than King Uparichara himself. The King decided to keep the boy and gave the girl the head of the fishermen! This girl was brought up as Satyavati who later went on to marry King Shantanu and was responsible for Bhishma’s vow. She was also the mother of Sage Vyasa, the author of the epic Mahabharata, and grand-mother of the Pandavas and Kauravas.

In this tale, there is a very clear case of rejection of the girl child, though the rejection has not been discussed in details. The King accepted the boy, who then grew up to be the king of the region and founded the region of Matsya, but the girl was left to be brought up by the head of the fisher-folk. Could this discrimination be the reason for Satyavati’s condition that her sons be rightful heir to the royal throne? Till her presence in the epic, she does take a number of strange steps which bring out her contempt for the men in the epic, but that is a  topic for another day.

To reiterate, the above is not being related to the present day killings of infants. The above was just a case of an unwanted child. However, we do have other instances where an abandoned girl child was given all the love and care a child would need. The case of Sita in the epic Ramayana is a good example. She was found by King Janak in the fields and took her as her daughter. Or the case of the birth of Draupadi who got an equal status along with her brother Dhrishtadyumna, both of who were born out of fire to King Drupada.

Mythology is a mirror of the past and a thought-process of what went through the minds of the people then. Even there, when there was a difference in the status of a woman, such acts of bestiality cannot be found. I think that the modern man is more archaic than the men of the past and no explanation or justification is enough for such cruel methods of eliminating girl child for a boy. To say that poverty drives one to do so, is probably just an excuse for ones inherent desire for a boy child. Hypocrisy and such acts of bestiality should be condoned and punished in the severest way possible.

Social ostracism should be an obvious by-product.

Iravan – the South Indian Barbareek

In the last two articles, we read about Barbareek, aka Khatu Shyam Baba, a North Indian deity prevalent in parts of Rajasthan and adjacent areas. Today we will read about a similar myth from the South India. Please note the striking similarities.

This is the myth of Iravan which is prevalent in Tamil Nadu and the nearby areas.

Iravan was the son of Arjuna and Uloopi, the Naga princess. During the 13 year exile for the Pandavas, one year was spent by Arjuna as a penance and during this year he is supposed to have travelled far and wide. This was actually done for him to forge alliances and acquire weapons and powers. It was during this one year that, he visited what is present day North-East of India. There he came across Uloopi and they get married. However, the relationship was a very brief one as Arjuna had to move on soon after his marriage. Iravan was born out of this brief relationship. However, Arjuna gets to see his son only prior to the war of Kurukshetra and asks him to join the war, which the brave Iravan agrees to.

There are no major reasons or events leading to his sacrifice, except for the fact that he was a brave warrior and the principle of offering sacrifice prior to the war. There are different versions of the sacrifice in the case of Iravan. Some say that he offered to be sacrificed on the 18^th day of the battle to Ma Kali. The more prevalent belief is that he was sacrificed at the beginning of the war. However he was rewarded by a couple of boons for the heroic deed. One was that his head would witness the entire battle from a hilltop. The other boon was that since he wanted to die a heroic death, he wanted to be mourned by a widow after his death.

Ritual enactment of lamenting the
death of Iravan by eunuchs

Having agreed to the boon, there was one problem. No woman wanted to marry him and be his wife for a night as he was to die the very next day. Seeing this Krishna decides to take his previous form of Mohini, the enchantress, gets married to Iravan and spends the night with him. Later in the morning, after his death, Mohini mourns the death of Iravan like a widow. There are different versions to this aspect, in different parts of the state and its neighbourhood with some eliminating the episode of Mohini’s mourning completely. Even to this day, in a ritual enactment of the mourning, many transvestites and eunuchs enact the ritual mourning by crying, beating their chests and breaking bangles on the day of the said sacrifice of Iravan. In some Krishna temples, he is decked in a white saree for a day, to mark the day as the day of widowhood.

What is interesting to note is that more than worship or a religious following, Iravan is a very popular folklore and a common theme or subject of folk theaters and plays. This myth could just have been woven to lend divinity to Iravan the folk hero by associating him with Arjuna and Lord Krishna of the epic Mahabharata. His face makes for very colourful masks and is a great hit with the locals in the rural areas. He is also referred to as the god of the transvestites and the eunuchs who are locally referred to as Ali’s also referred to as Aravani (that of Iravan).

In some of the plays which dramatizes the whole episode of Iravan, he is compared with the likes of Puru and Bhishma who are known to have sacrificed for their fathers, Yayati and Shantanu respectively. Iravan’s sacrifice of his life for the victory of his father is seen as bigger than that of Puru who gave up his youth for his father Yayati and Bhishma who gave up the throne and matrimony for his father, Shantanu.

Though there are similarities with that of Barbareek, there are some prominent differences, besides the parentage of the two.

First and foremost, the heroic allusions are missing in the case of Iravan, though the same does find mention in the dramatic enactments of Iravan. Nowhere is there reference of his infallible arrows and his participation in the war having a pre-condition.

Second, Lord Krishna does not have the role of testing Iravan; rather here he is central to being part of the sacrifice. He does suggest the sacrifice, but he does not make it obligatory as a word given for charity as done in the case of Barbareek. Thus in this myth, Krishna actually comes out as a savior who bails out Iravan with his last wish.

Third, the association with the transgender and transvestites is a bit of an enigma. How this practice of Iravan being a god for the community and the ritual enactment of mourning by them came about is unknown. However, one can theory could be that the marriage could not be said to be consummated as ultimately Mohini was a male and the relationship was thus not normal. Also, except for the mourning by the widow of Iravan, there wasn’t anything of a marriage as he was still deprived of a coital bliss, something that the community is deprived of too. The identification of the Ali’s state with that of Iravan and thus the lament is quite understandable. (If there are any other theories, then please feel free to forward the same to the Blog..).

During this period a number of fertility rites are also performed. One of them is that prior to the ceremony, a goat is killed and the blood of the goat is smeared with cooked rice and the same is offered to idols of Iravan. It is believed that this rice eaten by women can help them conceive. The presence of such rituals actually bears testimony to some ancient practice (even tribal practive) which has got assimilated with the popular epic. The strong folk-connotation also refers to some folklore associated with a popular folktale.

An interesting myth, but localized as per the region.

It is said that there are similar characters in other parts of India like Bundelkhand, Orissa and Himachal Pradesh. There is a popular version of Iravan in Java too, but that’s for another day!

Barbareek aka Khatu Shyam Baba - Part 2

Yesterday we discussed the myth of Barbareek aka Khatu Shyam Baba. There are some small aspects of the same which are also quite interesting. Let us go through them.

One small aspect of the myth is that post the battle of Kurukshetra, the Pandavas started arguing amongst them as to who was responsible for the victory. After much argument, Krishna, suggested that they ask the head of Barbareek as he had had a ring-side view of the entire battle. On asking, Barbareek said that it was Lord Krishna who was responsible for the victory as during the entire battle his game-plan and his suggestions were crucial to the outcome of the whole battle. From the height of the hilltop, all he could see was Lord Krishna’s sudarshan-chakra simply killing all the enemies and Draupadi in the form of Ma Kali simply lapping up the blood of all the enemies, not allowing a single drop to fall on the ground. To dig deeper in this aspect, one can see two very strong suggestions. One is the supremacy of Lord Krishna and the other is the prevalence of the cult of Mother Goddess. It is said that the practice of offering a sacrifice before the battle was to appease Ma Kali, who has always been associated with sacrifices and such aspects. Finally, this also has traces of the myth of Raktabija (http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2011/11/raktabija-demon.html ) where Goddess Kali does not allow the drop of the demon to fall on the ground to avoid the multiplication of the demon from the drops of his blood. In oral tradition of mythology, such mixing up of myths is only human, is one guess. The other could be a harmonious co-existence of different cults at a given time.

We have read earlier that when Krishna disguised as a Brahmin tested Barbareek’s power of the arrows, the arrow hovered around his foot, which had hidden a leaf. Another version says that the arrow actually pierced his foot and had made it a vulnerable zone. Another version says that Lord Krishna had got a boon from Sage Durvasa (the sage known more for his curses than boons!) that his entire body would be immune to weapons except his foot. Later we have read about the death of Lord Krishna by being struck by an arrow of a hunter in his foot which he had mistaken to be the face of a deer. This aspect of the myth is similar to the famous Greek myth of Achilles and his vulnerable spot, his heel. Achilles was a brave hero in the Greek mythology who was invincible except for his vulnerable spot, his heel. He meets his end, by being struck by a poisonous arrow in his heel. Quite a few similarities, I guess!

A Painting depicting the sacrifice of
Barbareek

Finally the justification of Lord Krishna asking for the sacrifice! According to one version, once Lord Brahma and other gods approached Lord Vishnu to complain to him about the evil on earth and how wickedness was all over and innocent people were not being allowed to live in peace. They urged Lord Vishnu to do something to eradicate this evil. Hearing this, a Yaksha spoke out of turn and said that for these kind of acts, he himself was enough and it did not quite require the help of Lord Vishnu. Lord Brahma was insulted at his impudence and cursed him that whenever he reached a stage of eliminating all evil on earth, Lord Vishnu would end up killing him first. Barbareek was the same Yaksha in the later birth and Krishna was only doing what was pre-destined! This is an interesting aspect of myth-making. On the face of it, it seemed that Lord Krishna had been unfair to a brave hero and got him eliminated. He would have supported the Pandavas and would ensure the victory of the Pandavas. Some skeptics would say that Krishna did so to avoid all credit going to Barbareek if it so happened and thus got him eliminated, even when he was related to the Pandavas and was going to fight from their right side. Some of these thoughts are of modern-day thinking.

Epics are never like a once-written novel, where all instances are sequential. In the oral tradition, many aspects get inserted based on the orator, his preference and his biases as well as that of his audience. It is highly probable that this aspect of the Yaksha has been an afterthought when the hero of the story (Lord Krishna) begins to be misunderstood especially for his seeking the head of Barbareek. This could be an individual’s perception or a common notion. This aspect also highlights the process or the rationale of myth-making.

Next time we will read about a similar myth, prevalent in South India.

Keep reading....

Barbareek aka Khatu Shyam Baba

Every time I visit Delhi, I seem to get introduced to some aspect of mythology. Last time I came across a temple of Maharaja Agrasen(http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2011/10/maharaja-agrasen.html ). During my recent visit, I was introduced to another very important deity by the name of Khatu Shyam Baba. Spoke to some and read a bit and the following are the details of the same and the details are quite interesting and intriguing. As they say, let’s start at the very beginning.

The myth is from the epic Mahabharata.

According to this legend, Barbareek was the grandson of Ghatotgacha, who was the son of Bhima. Barbareek was a brave warrior and had learnt the art of warfare from his mother from the childhood. He had impressed Lord Shiva and had earned three never-failing arrows (teen baan) as a boon and a bow from Lord Agni, with the help of which he would never lose in any battle. The war of Kurukshetra was inevitable and Barbareek was keen to see and if possible participate in the war. He sought permission from his mother to go to Kurukshetra. While leaving he asked his mother that if required then which side should he join and his mother is supposed to have told him to join the weaker side.

On his way to Kurukshetra, he is supposed to have met Lord Krishna who recognized him and decided to test his capabilities. Krishna disguised himself as a Brahmin and made fun of him that he was going to a great battle with just three arrows. Barbareek said that for any battle just one arrow was enough which would return to his quiver after achieving the objective. He went on to explain that the first arrow was to mark all that needed to be destroyed, the second was to mark all that needed to be saved and on releasing the third, it would destroy all that had been marked to be destroyed and the same would then return to his quiver. Krishna was keen to see this and so he challenged him to prove it by tying all the leaves of the peepul tree under which they were standing. Barbareek accepted the challenge and shot one arrow with the specific instructions to tie all the leaves of the tree. What he had not seen was that Krishna had plucked one leaf from the tree and hidden it under his foot.

The arrow immediately tied all the leaves of the tree and then hovered around the foot of Krishna to seek out the leaf under his foot. Seeing this Barbareek said that there could be a leaf under his foot and if he did not lift his foot, then the arrow would have to mark his foot itself. The infallible nature of the arrows worries Krishna, since even if the targets were hidden far from human sight, the arrow would still seek out the targets and destroy them. During the war, if he wanted to save the Pandavas, Barbareek’s arrows could still seek them out and kill them, if such scenario did arise.

Krishna then asked him as to who would be support in the war of Kurukshetra. Barbareek mentioned that according to his mother’s instructions he would join the weaker side and in the war of Kurukshetra and since it was well known that the army of the Kauravas was much larger than that of the Pandavas, he would join the Pandavas. Krishna then probes him further and asks him that what would be the consequence of such act. Barbareek mentions that obviously the Pandavas would win.

Krishna then goes on explain him the actual consequence of his word given to him mother. The moment he decided to join the Pandavas, the Kauravas would become the weaker side since he could never be defeated. If he then decided to support the Kauravas, then the Pandavas would become the weaker side and this way, all would be destroyed leaving just him. This leaves Barbareek in a state of dilemma. So he asked the Brahmin to help him. Krishna then said that would he do some charity as required by him as a Brahmin which Barbareek agreed. Krishna then said that a before every battle, they had to sacrifice a brave warrior to Ma Kali and according to him, he was the bravest of all Kshatriyas alive, so he needed his head.

This left Barbareek in a state of shock and he soon realized that the Brahmin was no ordinary Brahmin, so he asked him to disclose who he was. Krishna appeared to him in his form and Barbareek soon understood it all. As a true Kshatriya, he agreed to keep his word and offered himself to be sacrificed, but he did have a condition. The condition was that he had left his home with a singular desire to witness the epic battle, so could Lord Krishna use some of his divinity to grant him that ability. So it is said that after the sacrifice, Barbareek’s head was installed atop a hilltop from where he witnessed the entire battle and thus he is also referred to as ‘Barbareek – the silent witness’.

After the battle of Kurukshetra, it is said that the head was immersed in the nearby river by Lord Krishna and blessed him that in the times of Kaliyuga, he would be referred by his own name – thus Barbareek is referred to as Shyam Baba. Later during the advent of Kaliyuga, the head was found buried in the village of Khatu, in present day Rajasthan. It is said that once a cow reached the spot where the head was buried and soon, her udders started oozing milk all by itself. When the villagers dug the place, they found the head there. Later a temple was build there, and from then onwards he is referred to as Khatu Shyam Baba.

In the present times, there stands a beautiful marble temple in Khatu and many smaller shrines have come up in the entire Northern parts of the country. In the main temple, the idol is just a head and nothing else. People have a lot of faith in his ability to heal or solve problems and the deity has a huge following, something similar to that of Shirdi Sai Baba in the Western parts of country.

This is an interesting aspect of faith. For any aspect of divinity an association with the epics or Puranas is a must. Barbareek is a relatively lesser known character but a hero nevertheless and the whole aspect has been woven very well. A few things that the myth might bring into attention –

1.   The myth signifies the prevalence of human sacrifice and the belief in it. Krishna asking for the sacrifice also lends credence to the fact that this was an accepted norm and there was no qualm about it. The myth might have also been added to make a hero of a brave warrior who might have been an unknown soldier who willingly (or even unwillingly) agreed to be sacrificed.

2.   Another aspect is the nature of the arrow. The ability to identify the target and return to its source sounds very similar to the modern day missiles which are meant to identify programed targets. I am not implying that the people of the times had the knowhow of such weapons, but this myth is testimony to the fact that such weapons had been thought about then, however fantastic it seems today.

Finally before I conclude, please note that this myth is from the Northern parts of India. A similar myth is available in the South India too. But before we touch on that myth, there are some small bits w.r.t. the myth of Barbareek. We will touch upon them next.