Throughout the mahabharata the pandavas yielded the selves to the treachery and trickery of the kauravas which was supported and enabled (even if begrudgingly) by karna, bhishma, drona and kripacharya. That is the contextual background on which you must look at the mahabharata war. When duryodhana despite having the entire kaurava kingdom and tributes from minor and major kingdoms of the bharat varsha was not even willing to allow pandavas their 13 villages which they were content with, when they endured the laksha griha, the 12 year exile, the 1 year incognito exile, the insult and molestation of draupadi - all enabled by breaking of several rules of conduct by the kauravas, it was all fine, wasnt it? Remember that even during all that, krishna asked them to accept their fate and give peace a chance.
When peace no longer looked like an option, krishna finally advocated war. When trickery and immorality had been set as the tone of conduct, krishna asked the pandavas to unleash their own tricks (despite their own reservations against it).
The pandavas must be given credit for their having endured much over most of their lives just to foster peace and uphold their own dharma. If to uphold THE dharma, they had to wrestle in the mud and get dirty with the pigs, why does that suddenly make them unworthy of honour and the kauravas heroes?
In the ramayana, ravana was an honourable villain, a tragic hero if you will. One may feel sympathy at his death. The kauravas and duryodhna in particular were no oaragons of virtue. The standards of engagement with them cannot be held the same. Ravana may qualify for a warrior's death but the kauravas and the enablers deserve ignoble assassination.
Examining the manner of their death:
1. Bhishma chose not to fire 8n shikhandi recognising her as amba from a previous birth. But he was no woman in this birth; it was a surd then for bhishma not to attack him. Bhishma paid for his own confusion. Arjuna merely used it to his advantage. If he chose to fire at shikhandi, bhishma wuldnt really be wrong.
Also, bhishma had the boon t choose his own death, thus arjuna merely incapacitiated him, no more.
Again, by kidnapping amba in her previous birth, bhishma had not exactly upheld dharma himself.
2. Dronacharya's death: while what was said about ashwatthama's death may have been ambiguous, it wasnt false. Besides, a warrior should have had more mettle to continue the fight despite that news. Isnt that what arjuna did after hearing of abhimanyu's death? Also, when abhimanyu was butchered, where was drona upholding dharma? Why didnt he stop his students? Why was he a part of the mob? Where was honor then?
3. Karna's death? Karna died a far more honourable death than he gave abhimanyu! He wasnt butchered mercilessly by a blood thirsty mob. He had his virtues but then he wasnt exactly a saint. He set the tone for what was acceptable in war, he paid the price for it. While I too admire karna for a lot of his qualites and i do classify him as a tragic hero; his devotion to duryodana was nota virtue so much as it was to quench his ego. The only one who applied a salve on his ego was duryodhana who he let use him in the name of friendship to be able to continue to nurse his ego.
4. Duryodhana's death: everyone bemoans bhima hitting him below the belt. For all his below th belt skulldugery for practically all his life, he had it coming. Besides, let us no forget that he was on the battle field with an unfair advantage of his own: the resilience of his body provided by kunti's blessings. While dhritarashtra protected him from punishment all his life, kunti attempted to shield him towards the end. It wasnt for lack of reason that Suyodhan at birth had become Duryodhan (bad warrior) as he grew older. Duryodhan would have wn that fight even if he simply sat there with bhima sweating it out with his mace and upholding the rules of engagement. Now that is an unfair advantage! Why shouldnt bhima be allowed to then break the rules to effectively end the reign of tht scumbag?
It is easy to be politcally correct about the individual instances in the mahabharata war, but unfortunately, the mahabharata war was brewed by a context that saw the pandavas spend an entire life time of upholding the law only t suffer at the hands of injustice. Krishna shows us the way that if you stand by and let evil have its way, you are liable for punishment just as much as are karna, bhishma and dronacharya.
When peace no longer looked like an option, krishna finally advocated war. When trickery and immorality had been set as the tone of conduct, krishna asked the pandavas to unleash their own tricks (despite their own reservations against it).
The pandavas must be given credit for their having endured much over most of their lives just to foster peace and uphold their own dharma. If to uphold THE dharma, they had to wrestle in the mud and get dirty with the pigs, why does that suddenly make them unworthy of honour and the kauravas heroes?
In the ramayana, ravana was an honourable villain, a tragic hero if you will. One may feel sympathy at his death. The kauravas and duryodhna in particular were no oaragons of virtue. The standards of engagement with them cannot be held the same. Ravana may qualify for a warrior's death but the kauravas and the enablers deserve ignoble assassination.
Examining the manner of their death:
1. Bhishma chose not to fire 8n shikhandi recognising her as amba from a previous birth. But he was no woman in this birth; it was a surd then for bhishma not to attack him. Bhishma paid for his own confusion. Arjuna merely used it to his advantage. If he chose to fire at shikhandi, bhishma wuldnt really be wrong.
Also, bhishma had the boon t choose his own death, thus arjuna merely incapacitiated him, no more.
Again, by kidnapping amba in her previous birth, bhishma had not exactly upheld dharma himself.
2. Dronacharya's death: while what was said about ashwatthama's death may have been ambiguous, it wasnt false. Besides, a warrior should have had more mettle to continue the fight despite that news. Isnt that what arjuna did after hearing of abhimanyu's death? Also, when abhimanyu was butchered, where was drona upholding dharma? Why didnt he stop his students? Why was he a part of the mob? Where was honor then?
3. Karna's death? Karna died a far more honourable death than he gave abhimanyu! He wasnt butchered mercilessly by a blood thirsty mob. He had his virtues but then he wasnt exactly a saint. He set the tone for what was acceptable in war, he paid the price for it. While I too admire karna for a lot of his qualites and i do classify him as a tragic hero; his devotion to duryodana was nota virtue so much as it was to quench his ego. The only one who applied a salve on his ego was duryodhana who he let use him in the name of friendship to be able to continue to nurse his ego.
4. Duryodhana's death: everyone bemoans bhima hitting him below the belt. For all his below th belt skulldugery for practically all his life, he had it coming. Besides, let us no forget that he was on the battle field with an unfair advantage of his own: the resilience of his body provided by kunti's blessings. While dhritarashtra protected him from punishment all his life, kunti attempted to shield him towards the end. It wasnt for lack of reason that Suyodhan at birth had become Duryodhan (bad warrior) as he grew older. Duryodhan would have wn that fight even if he simply sat there with bhima sweating it out with his mace and upholding the rules of engagement. Now that is an unfair advantage! Why shouldnt bhima be allowed to then break the rules to effectively end the reign of tht scumbag?
It is easy to be politcally correct about the individual instances in the mahabharata war, but unfortunately, the mahabharata war was brewed by a context that saw the pandavas spend an entire life time of upholding the law only t suffer at the hands of injustice. Krishna shows us the way that if you stand by and let evil have its way, you are liable for punishment just as much as are karna, bhishma and dronacharya.
No comments:
Post a Comment