Murder Most Foul – Part 1

Pic Courtesy - www.india.com

The latest murder of Sheena Bora has raised quite a furore in the minds of people, not because of the probable gruesome death of the victim, but more so because the murder was none other than her mother. Mothers in India and similar cultures have a much esteemed position and at times dramatically divine, as mothers are akin to creators, the beings that give birth to the child. This elevated the status of a mother, in a cultural sense, and thus the place of significance. It is this very elevation, which leads to shock and surprise, when we learn of such murders, which raise questions, as to how can a mother kill her child/children? How can the hands that rocked the cradle, end up throttling the life of her child? Melodrama apart, this definitely raises a very pertinent question on the current state of relationships and the complexities involved in some cases, like the present case of Sheena Bora.

Without going into the murky aspects, and the ever-growing web of complex-relationships of the dramatis personae of the case, I am personally quite intrigued by the motif of killing ones children. While this is a disturbing aspect from a social perspective, it is this that has caught my attention, leading me to see, if this is a modern phenomenon and if I could blame it on the modern degradation of familial structures, moral values and a growing lack of sensitivity, or did such crimes exist from time immemorial.

My hunting ground (pardon the ironical usage!) is mythology. Theorists and academicians will say that myths give messages of social or accepted behaviour or norms. Simplistically put, they lay down social and cultural norms. While at it, certain characteristics are reinforced metaphorically and extremes are highlighted to shock and thus bring out the enormity of the sin, which ends up being forbidden or unthinkable. Filicide or killing of one’s children is one of them.

Mythology abounds in examples of filicide, but it is important here to distinguish between sacrifices (often by the orders of gods) and murders (with or without a purpose).

In the case of the first one, parents, often fathers, are asked to offer their sons as an offering to gods leading to the ‘sacrifice’ of their sons. The case of Abraham and Isaac is the best example of this. This is primarily to test the devotion of the father to gods and in majority of the cases, the life of the son is awarded back or the pleased god appears just before the child is about to be sacrificed. Such cases are many and we will not call them acts of filicide here. We will also ignore cases of sacrificing ones children for a specific purpose without the gods asking for them, as they remain examples of sacrifices, like Jephthah sacrificing his daughter to Yahweh, from the Old Testament.

We will only focus on cases where children were killed by their parents, often for no fault of theirs and without the divine order.

A number of such myths exist in the Greek Mythology, chief among them being Medea, Procne and Tantalus. Procne and her husband Tereus lived happily with their five year old son Itys. Once Procne

Philomela and Procne

decided to invite her beautiful sister Philomela to live with them, and Tereus volunteered to bring her. On the way, Tereus falls in love with Philomela and ends up marrying her in an island under the pretext that her sister had died. When the truth was revealed to Philomela, she threatened to expose him. Fearing the inevitable, Tereus cuts her tongue and leaves her in an island and goes back to Procne, telling her that Philomela had died on the way. Soon with the turn of events, Procne learns the truth and in an act of retribution kills her son, saying that in him she could see his father. She then cuts pieces of her son and prepares supper from it and offers it to Tereus. Only after he consumes it, does she reveal the truth and escapes a raging father at her heels.

Tantalus is another similar example, except that he had no reason, whatsoever. Tantalus was a mortal son of Zeus but unlike other mortals, was a favourite with both the gods and Zeus. He was probably the only mortal, who was allowed to dine with the gods, especially the dinner-for-gods-only kind!

The feast of Tantalus. 1767. Hugues Taraval. French

Once to prove the gullibility and the foolishness of the gods, he invited them for dinner to his castle. He then cut his son Pelops to pieces and made a stew out of it and served to the gods. None of the gods had quite had the stew except for Demeter, who unmindfully chewed into what turned out to be the shoulder of Pelops. When she realised what had happened she alerted all the gods, who were now furious. Zeus punished him and sent him to the lowest region of the Underworld. (For more on this read The Crime and Punishment of Tantalus).

Finally, the murder considered to be most gruesome was by Medea. Medea had fallen in love with Jason (of the Argonauts fame) and helped him get the Golden Fleece much against the desire of her father. Later when they were escaping from a chasing father, she is supposed to have killed her brother, cut

Medea (about to murder her children)
by Eugène Ferdinand Victor Delacroix (1862)

him into pieces and scattered the parts all over, so that the distraught father got busy collecting the pieces for a respectable funeral for her son while Jason and Medea managed to escape. Yet further in the story, Jason falls in love with the princess of another city where they were seeking asylum and ends up marrying her. As an act of retribution for being ditched, Medea killed the princess and her own two sons, whom Jason loved deeply, leaving Jason all alone. (For more on this read Medea the Barbarian and Medea the Barbarian – Concluding Part ).

In all the three cases, the murder of the children, were not sacrifices; they were either an act of vanity or retribution, where the child was not at fault. All of them go down as gruesome acts of filicide and while literature has glorified Medea, the act of killing her children has always been condoned. There are many more such cases, like Cronos ‘eating’ all his sons, except Zeus, who later ends up killing his father. Besides these well known cases, there are other cases where fathers/mothers have killed their children by mistake, or in a fit of madness, often brought about by divine intervention, but we will not discuss them.

The Celtic myths too have some interesting references to filicide in the myth of Cath Maige Tuired, in which a man kills his son over the difference of opinion of medical method of curing the king who had lost his hand. The father was of the opinion that the king should have an artificial silver hand, while the son wanted to regenerate a hand magically from a tissue. The father was supposed to be so enraged with the superior medical skills of his son, that he struck him with a sword and killed him.

The Prose Edda of the Norse mythology also relates to many such cases of filicide and one of them is similar to that of Procne of the Greek mythology. In this Gudrun, avenges the death of her brothers by her husband by offering the hearts of their sons to the husband! The objective is to cause pain to her husband, leading to an heirless throne, an act which never went down well in the cultural milieu in which the story takes place. In yet another version of the same story, the murder is gruesome. Gudrun is 

supposed to have killed her sons, made goblets out of their skulls and fed their blood and hearts to her husband. Drinking from the skulls of enemy was a widely practised cultural act and thus went unnoticed by the husband, who is later killed by Gudrun and one of his nephews.

It is important to mention that the murder above and that by Procne earlier in Greek mythology, is seen more as an act of retribution, than filicide. The central theme is more to avenge an earlier act, than the murder of one’s own children. While this might seem an effort to overlook the crime, but the treatment of the acts is less important in the said narratives than what led to the crime. Besides the mothers who have avenged certain acts by killing their children, had to battle emotions before they committed the acts. Their love for their children was not less, though the need to seek revenge was greater, and in the case of Medea it was more out of being spurned or rejected by the one for whom, she had committed the crime of fratricide (killing ones brother) and more.

To be continued……………

Lecture on Gond Ramayani.

Conducting a lecture on Gond Ramayani 

At Artisans' Mumbai, Aug 14, 2015 -

In the backdrop of a Gond Painting

A Gond Folk song depicting the tragedy of their lives

Gurudakshina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Completion of 5 Years!

Thank You all!!

Keep Coming Back.....

Utkarsh Patel

Dasaratha’s Children

The Dasaratha Jataka  (DJ) is a version of Ramayana, which is quit distinct from the Valmiki version of the epic. It relates the story of King Dasaratha of Benares, his sons, Rama and Lakkhana, their sister, Sita, and half-brother, Bharata. There is no Shatrughna.

King Dasaratha has three children by his chief queen: Rama, Lakkhana and Sita. The chief queen dies and is superseded by a queen who bears a son called Bharata. At this the king is so pleased that he promises to grant her a wish. Soon the queen decides to check if the King was serious about his wish. When Bharata is seven, she asks that he be made king. Horrified, Dasaratha refuses. But the Queen persists. The King grew worried at thought that his queen was a treacherous woman, and if the children of his first wife, remained at the palace, she might cause them harm; maybe even murder. So he calls the three siblings and advises them to go into exile for their own safety. They should return when he died and take over the throne, he says.

Sita decides to accompany her brothers. The three settled in a hermitage in the Himalayas. Lakkhana and Sita decide they go about with the task of gathering food for the three of them, as Rama was the eldest. The soothsayers had predicted that the King would live for twelve more years. The soothsayers had predicted that the King would live for twelve more years. But King Dasaratha was so upset with the absence of his children that he died after nine years, not twelve.

On his death Bharata went with the army to fetch Rama back. They camped near the spot, and with just a few ministers entered the hermitage at a time when Lakkhana and Sita had gone into the jungle. Rama was sitting by the entrance, fearless and at ease, like a well set up golden image. Bharata went up and greeted him, stood to one side, and told him the news of the king. He and his ministers fell at Rama’s feet and wept.

Rama neither grieved nor wept; his senses were not even disturbed. When Bharata had wept and sat down, in the evening the other two arrived with roots and fruit. Rama thought, that Lakkhana and Sita were young and lacked his power of comprehension. If they were told of their father’s death, they might not be able to bear the grief and their hearts may burst. He decided that he would break the news to them gently.

He indicated to a pond and said, ‘You are late. Your punishment is to go into the water and stay there.’ They did so, and Rama said that Bharata had brought the sad news of the death of their father, King Dasaratha. At this they fainted. Twice more he tells them, twice more they faint. Then he took them out of the water. Once they were comforted, all of them wept again, except Rama.

Bharata then asked Rama why he is not grieving and Rama gives him the following explanation –

“When man can never keep a thing, though loudly he may cry,

Why should a wise intelligence torment itself thereby?

“The young in years, the older grown, the fool, and eke the wise,
For rich, for poor one end is sure: each man among them dies.

As sure as for the ripened fruit there comes the fear of fall,
So surely comes the fear of death to mortals one and all.

“Who in the morning light are seen by evening oft are gone,
And seen at evening time, is gone by morning many a one.

“If to a fool infatuate a blessing could accrue
When he torments himself with tears, the wise this same would do.

“By this tormenting of himself he waxes thin and pale;
This cannot bring the dead to life, and nothing tears avail.

“Even as a blazing house may be put out with water, so
The strong, the wise, the intelligent, who well the scriptures know,
Scatter their grief like cotton when the stormy winds do blow.

“One mortal dies—to kindred ties born is another straight:
Each creature’s bliss dependent is on ties associate.

“The strong man therefore, skilled in sacred text,
Keen-contemplating this world and the next,
Knowing their nature, not by any grief,
However great, in mind and heart is vext.

“So to my kindred I will give, them will I keep and feed,
All that remain I will maintain: such is the wise man’s deed.”

Rama explained the concept of ‘impermanence’ of things through the words.

After that Rama said that his exile had three more years to run, but gave Bharata his straw sandals to rule in his stead. Bharata returned with Lakkhana and Sita. The sandals were put on the throne when the ministers give judgment, and if the judgment was wrong they clapped together, if it was right they stayed quiet. After three years Rama returned home; he married Sita and ruled for sixteen thousand years. The whole point being made in this version is that Rama is the Bodhisattva, and as such gives an object lesson in controlling one’s feelings. From the Buddhist point of view the kernel is reached with the second verse, when Bharata asks: “Rama, by what power do you not grieve at what is grievous? You hear that father is dead but sorrow does not overcome you.” This is most unlike the Rama of the Ramayana, who faints at the news and then laments at length. He acts in accord with Hindu values. The author of the DJ is criticizing those values and saying, “Our idea of a hero is that he acts like this.”

This version however, does not proceed to take on the epic proportions that the Valmiki version does. There is no kidnapping and therefore no Ravana, Hanuman, et al.

TEXT SOURCE: The Dasaratha Jataka, Story number 461, Jataka Tales

LOCATION: Pan India

IMAGE SOURCE: Wikipedia

First Published in "Talking Myths Project" - Dasaratha's Children )