The Disrobing of Draupadi in the great Sabha of the Kuru Kings has haunted generations in India for centuries. As it is well known, this clearly increased the entropy of adharma making a formal war between the Pandavas and Kauravas almost inevitable. Vidura was the first to foretell the impending tragedy in unequivocal terms apart from the all-knowing Sage Veda Vyasa and Lord Krishna. All the elders of Kuru dynasty knew this crystal clear that a great tragedy was imminent if not immediately but gradually. The great sages, scholars and common people of India have wondered and dwelled upon this episode and the subsequent tragedy - as a matter of fundamental importance to mankind in general and our civilization in particular.
What makes this tragedy unfathomable, enigmatic and undigestable is that the episode takes place under the observant eyes of the venerable Bheeshma, the great guru Dronacharya, the most wise Vidura, the devout Krupacharya and the King Dhritarashtra himself. Whats worse is that this happens under the watchful eyes of her husbands - the great Pandavas and Draupadi's own doting mother-in-law Kunti (Infact our feminists have not sufficiently considered the wonderful relationship between Draupadi and Kunti). Net-net the entire wisdom that was available in the Kuru Kingdom was present for action and yet something that they would all be ashamed of for the rest of their lives. The notable absentees in Sabha were Vyasa Maharshi and The Great Lord Krishna himself. Indians have never gotten over this that haunts them forever and constantly go back to this episode just as we look at a wound to check if that has healed itself or not. That would shall never heal - for it is meant as a warning for all future generations.
Some fundamental questions. 1) How is it that a dhaarmic tradition let this happen? 2) How can a set of exponents of dhaarmic path and revered for their dhaarmic orientations turn a Nelson's eye to such a dastardly act that could bring down a civilization. 3) Worse how can they continue to be revered either as heroes or as exponents of Dharma.
In this discussion let us leave our Dhritaraashtra, Duryodhana and Dushyasana. The last two were evidently and acknowledged evil. Duryodhana clearly says "I know what is Dharma but that is not in my nature, I know what is Adharma but I cannot retire from that". Dhritarashtra though was blind in his love for his son. Fundamentally, we hold Bheeshma, Drona, Kripacharya, Vidura and the Pandavas themselves responsible for their inaction and the tragedy. For if they could not, nobody else would have been able to.
Bheeshma
In this episode, the greatest disappointment is Bheeshma. Let us explore his essentials. He has taken a great vow that he will be a brahmachaari forever and never become the king just in order to make way for his father's second marriage to a young bride. He has worked hard to bring up his brothers, his brother's sons and then his brother's grandsons. His great sacrifice, ascetic life style is celebrated in Mahabharatha. Further, he is the great disciple of Parashurama, the greatest warrior of his time and an explonent of all shaastras and Dharma. He was reverred by the sages, feared by the Kshatriyas and was awe-inspiring for the entire masses for the way he led his life and conducted himself. How could he go wrong?
This is where Mahabharata is delivering a key message to mankind. The Indian Scholarly Tradition does not consider his great vow as an act as complementary to dharma. He took this vow to satisfy his own ego and his father's fascination - neither of them inherently dhaarmic. The act had no good of the state and society in mind - which is the principle responsibility of a King. It was to their luck that Satyavathi was a great lady and turned out to be a worthy Queen. Further, the state was deprived of the best possible King and to that extent contributed to adharma. When Satyavathi's sons died and the Kingdom required a King - he should have broken the vow. The Vow itself was not more important than the needs of the Kingdom - that was dharma. Instead he went the exceptional Niyoga way. Once again the Kingdom lost the opportunity to be served by a great King. Further, when he contributed to the tragedy of Amba - he should have accepted her request to marry her. That would have been Dharma. But yet again he took shelter under his egoistic and in itself a useless vow. Yet again he failed his in his dharma. He let his personal dharma overshadow the Universal dharma. In any conflict between the personal and the Universal Dharma, the ability to estimate which is greater good and lesser evil is a critical capability and at his most crucial juncture Bheeshma - The Great failed. Clearly, in this case, global dharma should have taken precedence but a deep ego within - in the form of attachment with his vow - came in the way of seeing this clearly.
The tragedy continued. When Dhritaraashtra was made King and his willful pursuing of adharma, he should have expressed himself very clearly. He could have distanced himself even if could not oppose formally (as per his own strict code of conduct). However, he thought that his vow to protect the simhaasana of Hastinapur was more important than stopping Dhritaraashtra and Duryodhana treading an adhaarmic path. Once again the personal dharma took precedence over the universal dharma succumbing to the games that ego plays.
The grand finale of that tragedy - the seeds of which were sown by Bheeshma's own egoistic acts - was the Disrobing of Draupadi. While a great adhaarmic act (inhuman and beyond) was playing itself - Bheeshma was busy calculating whether he had the right to intervene or not. In the end it was left to The Great Lord Krishna to intervene. He intervened without a hesitation and saved the day for the entire clan for he alone possessed the clarity for action. theoretical clarity is much different from the clarity to act.
Tradition views that Bheeshma failed in his dhaarmic journey. Tradition does not approve of Bheeshma's silence. However, it was not a criminal silence. It was a silence that was a result of ego creating confusion and that is the metaphor for all of us. It is also a metaphor for how great scholars can lose perspective, particularly those who are stickler for rules. Bheeshma was a great stickler for rules but he lost sight of the principle at a crucial juncture. He had entangled himself with a huge set of rules - all dhaarmic in their own context - and collapsed under the weight of those rules. When the context required a universal dhaarmic rule to be invoked he could not shift the context in his mind.
We can wonder that should even disrobing of a lady not bring enough clarity to act rather than struggle with rules. We have to remember that Mahabharata is a Kaavya - a great poetry - and is full of metaphors. It may have happened in exact somewhere but that is not the point. It may indeed have. But the striking metaphors are used to communicate a point effectively that serves mankind of tragedies that can befall us if we lose clarity. The point is we can tend to lose perspective even when such a ghastly act is happening if you overload yourself with a set of contextual rules and lose focus on the fundamental principles of dharma. And the metaphor is that this can happen to the greatest of great such as Bheeshma - so the lesser mortals such as we should be greatly cautious.
Some examples from our times can provide clarity. The destruction of tanks and lakes of Bangalore are a great example. Under the watchful eyes of law-abiding and conscientious society this has happened. The environmentalists have paid a lip service. The progress and development champions have turned a Nelson's eye. The Architects have opened their eyes only after the tragedy has played itself out in totality. Yet the tautalogy of Lakes and Tanks should be protected is a very simple reality. But we have let that convert into poisonous bodies just as the Kuru Sabha let Duryudhana, Shakuni, Karna and Dushyanasa disrobe Draupadi. While we express our anguish against Bheeshma and other stalwarts we must look inwards and empathize with them hoping that we gain the clarity of action. Let Bheeshma's great fall serve as an everyday reminder to mankind.
In my next blog post, I shall explain a similar tragedy - so typical of greek tragedies - of Guru Dronacharya.
What makes this tragedy unfathomable, enigmatic and undigestable is that the episode takes place under the observant eyes of the venerable Bheeshma, the great guru Dronacharya, the most wise Vidura, the devout Krupacharya and the King Dhritarashtra himself. Whats worse is that this happens under the watchful eyes of her husbands - the great Pandavas and Draupadi's own doting mother-in-law Kunti (Infact our feminists have not sufficiently considered the wonderful relationship between Draupadi and Kunti). Net-net the entire wisdom that was available in the Kuru Kingdom was present for action and yet something that they would all be ashamed of for the rest of their lives. The notable absentees in Sabha were Vyasa Maharshi and The Great Lord Krishna himself. Indians have never gotten over this that haunts them forever and constantly go back to this episode just as we look at a wound to check if that has healed itself or not. That would shall never heal - for it is meant as a warning for all future generations.
Some fundamental questions. 1) How is it that a dhaarmic tradition let this happen? 2) How can a set of exponents of dhaarmic path and revered for their dhaarmic orientations turn a Nelson's eye to such a dastardly act that could bring down a civilization. 3) Worse how can they continue to be revered either as heroes or as exponents of Dharma.
In this discussion let us leave our Dhritaraashtra, Duryodhana and Dushyasana. The last two were evidently and acknowledged evil. Duryodhana clearly says "I know what is Dharma but that is not in my nature, I know what is Adharma but I cannot retire from that". Dhritarashtra though was blind in his love for his son. Fundamentally, we hold Bheeshma, Drona, Kripacharya, Vidura and the Pandavas themselves responsible for their inaction and the tragedy. For if they could not, nobody else would have been able to.
Bheeshma
In this episode, the greatest disappointment is Bheeshma. Let us explore his essentials. He has taken a great vow that he will be a brahmachaari forever and never become the king just in order to make way for his father's second marriage to a young bride. He has worked hard to bring up his brothers, his brother's sons and then his brother's grandsons. His great sacrifice, ascetic life style is celebrated in Mahabharatha. Further, he is the great disciple of Parashurama, the greatest warrior of his time and an explonent of all shaastras and Dharma. He was reverred by the sages, feared by the Kshatriyas and was awe-inspiring for the entire masses for the way he led his life and conducted himself. How could he go wrong?
This is where Mahabharata is delivering a key message to mankind. The Indian Scholarly Tradition does not consider his great vow as an act as complementary to dharma. He took this vow to satisfy his own ego and his father's fascination - neither of them inherently dhaarmic. The act had no good of the state and society in mind - which is the principle responsibility of a King. It was to their luck that Satyavathi was a great lady and turned out to be a worthy Queen. Further, the state was deprived of the best possible King and to that extent contributed to adharma. When Satyavathi's sons died and the Kingdom required a King - he should have broken the vow. The Vow itself was not more important than the needs of the Kingdom - that was dharma. Instead he went the exceptional Niyoga way. Once again the Kingdom lost the opportunity to be served by a great King. Further, when he contributed to the tragedy of Amba - he should have accepted her request to marry her. That would have been Dharma. But yet again he took shelter under his egoistic and in itself a useless vow. Yet again he failed his in his dharma. He let his personal dharma overshadow the Universal dharma. In any conflict between the personal and the Universal Dharma, the ability to estimate which is greater good and lesser evil is a critical capability and at his most crucial juncture Bheeshma - The Great failed. Clearly, in this case, global dharma should have taken precedence but a deep ego within - in the form of attachment with his vow - came in the way of seeing this clearly.
The tragedy continued. When Dhritaraashtra was made King and his willful pursuing of adharma, he should have expressed himself very clearly. He could have distanced himself even if could not oppose formally (as per his own strict code of conduct). However, he thought that his vow to protect the simhaasana of Hastinapur was more important than stopping Dhritaraashtra and Duryodhana treading an adhaarmic path. Once again the personal dharma took precedence over the universal dharma succumbing to the games that ego plays.
The grand finale of that tragedy - the seeds of which were sown by Bheeshma's own egoistic acts - was the Disrobing of Draupadi. While a great adhaarmic act (inhuman and beyond) was playing itself - Bheeshma was busy calculating whether he had the right to intervene or not. In the end it was left to The Great Lord Krishna to intervene. He intervened without a hesitation and saved the day for the entire clan for he alone possessed the clarity for action. theoretical clarity is much different from the clarity to act.
Tradition views that Bheeshma failed in his dhaarmic journey. Tradition does not approve of Bheeshma's silence. However, it was not a criminal silence. It was a silence that was a result of ego creating confusion and that is the metaphor for all of us. It is also a metaphor for how great scholars can lose perspective, particularly those who are stickler for rules. Bheeshma was a great stickler for rules but he lost sight of the principle at a crucial juncture. He had entangled himself with a huge set of rules - all dhaarmic in their own context - and collapsed under the weight of those rules. When the context required a universal dhaarmic rule to be invoked he could not shift the context in his mind.
We can wonder that should even disrobing of a lady not bring enough clarity to act rather than struggle with rules. We have to remember that Mahabharata is a Kaavya - a great poetry - and is full of metaphors. It may have happened in exact somewhere but that is not the point. It may indeed have. But the striking metaphors are used to communicate a point effectively that serves mankind of tragedies that can befall us if we lose clarity. The point is we can tend to lose perspective even when such a ghastly act is happening if you overload yourself with a set of contextual rules and lose focus on the fundamental principles of dharma. And the metaphor is that this can happen to the greatest of great such as Bheeshma - so the lesser mortals such as we should be greatly cautious.
Some examples from our times can provide clarity. The destruction of tanks and lakes of Bangalore are a great example. Under the watchful eyes of law-abiding and conscientious society this has happened. The environmentalists have paid a lip service. The progress and development champions have turned a Nelson's eye. The Architects have opened their eyes only after the tragedy has played itself out in totality. Yet the tautalogy of Lakes and Tanks should be protected is a very simple reality. But we have let that convert into poisonous bodies just as the Kuru Sabha let Duryudhana, Shakuni, Karna and Dushyanasa disrobe Draupadi. While we express our anguish against Bheeshma and other stalwarts we must look inwards and empathize with them hoping that we gain the clarity of action. Let Bheeshma's great fall serve as an everyday reminder to mankind.
In my next blog post, I shall explain a similar tragedy - so typical of greek tragedies - of Guru Dronacharya.
No comments:
Post a Comment