Karṇa and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Mahābhārata
Shrikant G Talageri
Recently there has been a spate of video interviews of a writer Ami
Ganatra who has written a book "The Mahābhārata Unravelled":
she has been featured in interviews on most prominent pro-Hindu sites on
youtube, including Sattology, Bharatvaarta, Vaad, Centre
for Indic Studies, The Cārvāka Podcast (which features many of my
own talks), PGurus, Swarajya, The Jaipur Dialogues, etc.
I have very great respect
for the writer and for the intentions of the writer, as I have for any and
every Hindu who decides to take the trouble to study our texts in detail in
order to counter the propaganda of anti-Hindu elements like leftists and
Christian missionaries.
But this is not blind respect which swallows any and every bit of propaganda
that pro-Hindu writers (I am one myself, and very strongly so, but an honest,
rational and objective one) may choose to manufacture from their side, based on
fundamentalist concepts, ideas and prejudices, which are not, and cannot
be defended as, mere reactions to anti-Hindu propaganda. Much of this present
spate of unraveling the Mahabharata seems to consist of just such an opposition
to criticism of the "heroes" of our ancient texts, with all such
criticism branded automatically as "leftist" propaganda. I do not
deny that leftists indeed represent the most powerful, well-funded and media-omnipotent
school of anti-Hindu propaganda, but I cannot support this swing to the
opposite end of the spectrum either.
I will not bother to go deeply (at least not in this article) into all
the aspects of such fundamentalist ("rightist" as opposed to "leftist")
defenses of our ancient "heroes" and criticisms of our ancient
"villains", but one particular aspect of this "Mahābhārata
Unraveling" truly gets my goat, and I devote this article to this
aspect: the demonization of Karṇa in sharp contrast to the glorification
of Yudhiṣṭhira. I feel very strongly on this subject, and I find it as
disgusting to insist that a true Hindu must consider Karṇa a villain and Yudhiṣṭhira
a hero, as it is to insist that a true Hindu must defend, justify or glorify
every anti-Hindu act of the BJP while condemning every neutral act of non-BJP
parties. If finding Karṇa to be a better person than Yudhiṣṭhira is a sign of
"leftism" and even "anti-Hinduism" according to anyone, so
be it. I totally reject such a disgusting and indefensible classification but
at the same time I would not bother to "defend" myself from anyone
who chooses to brand me a "leftist" or "anti-Hindu" or
anything else ("westernized" is an example of another such label) on
this ground. It is on the basis of such branding on this very
subject, and the consequent wave of sharp resentment and even vicious hatred
stirred up against me in a very prominent pro-Hindu internet discussion group,
that made me step out of active participation in discussions on that group last
year.
Of all the videos on this subject, I will concentrate mainly on the
following video, entitled "Debunking the myths around Karṇa",
which makes it clear that one of the main aims of this "unraveling"
seems to be to demonize or vilify the character of Karṇa; and in fact the pure
and unrelenting hatred that many "pro-Hindus" have for Karṇa
(demonstrated also in this video, and not justified by the fact that anti-Hindu
leftists glorify Karṇa) is shocking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Nge8qc7f_k
And in choosing to criticize Karṇa for everything, and to brand him as
the biggest villain in the Mahābhārata, it appears that these anti-Karṇa
writers show a lack of knowledge of ancient Indian texts (or a willingness to
ignore inconvenient parts) while apparently being experts on both the Epics.
For example, in the video, one of the things that the writer cites as proof of
Karṇa's unforgivable villainy is the following: "Karṇa is the one who
tells Draupadi that now that your husbands are slaves, and you have also been
lost, now select some other husband because now they are no more your husbands,
so select some other husband or go to the palace of the Kauravas and serve them".
Bad?
Yes, certainly very bad. But if this dialogue is to be used to demonize Karṇa,
what is to be said about the dialogue that, according to the Vālmīki Rāmāyaṇa,
is spoken by Rāma to Sītā when she is finally brought before him after he
defeats Rāvaṇa and coronates Vibhīṣaṇa:
"A suspicion has
arisen, however, with regard to thy conduct, and thy presence is as painful to
me as a lamp to one whose eye is diseased! Henceforth go where it best pleaseth
thee, I give thee leave, O Daughter of Janaka. O Lovely One, the ten regions are
at thy disposal; I can have nothing more to do with thee! What man of honour
would give rein to his passion so far as to permit himself to take back a woman
who has dwelt in the house of another? Thou hast been taken into Ravana's lap
and he has cast lustful glances on thee; how can I reclaim thee, I who boast of
belonging to an illustrious House? The end which I sought in re-conquering thee
has been gained; I no longer have any attachment for thee; go where thou
desirest! Turn to Lakshmana or Bharata, Shatrughna, Sugriva or the Titan
Bibishana, make thy choice, O Sita, as pleases thee best. Assuredly Ravana,
beholding thy ravishing and celestial beauty, will not have respected thy
person during the time that thou didst dwell in his abode."
It would be right to dismiss
all the weird dialogues in both the Epics (which were actually put down in
writing in Mauryan times, where the original data was submerged in a flood of
latter-day data, and the incidents, morals and dialogues are motivated
inventions of these very late writers who wanted to impose and
sanctify their own views and prejudices by attributing them to the heroes and
times of the Original Epics) as latter-day interpolations which can in no way
reflect on the actual characters and events of the Epic events at the time
those original events were actually taking place. However, you cannot be
selective and accept only those quotations which suit your vilification
campaign (which is exactly what leftists do in respect of Hindu texts).
Unfortunately,
in the zeal to vilify Karṇa, all the many very real wrongs suffered by him are
belittled or denied. And at the same time all the virtues assigned to him are
rejected altogether or given a negative twist. Just one example: the incident
where Karṇa gives up his divine kavaca-kuṇḍala (to Indra who comes in
the disguise of a poor brahmin and asks him for this kavaca-kuṇḍala,
which would otherwise have saved Karṇa from being killed in battle) in spite of
having been warned beforehand about Indra's nefarious intentions. This is
usually praised as a great deed of "dān-vīr" Karṇa who
is so generous that he never refuses anything to anyone, whatever the
consequences. I also do not consider this event as something to be praised
(more on this presently), but the writer chooses to treat this as showing
that to Karṇa his ego (in the form of his reputation as a "dān-vīr"
— which is a bit dubious since the text nowhere says that this private incident
is publicized by Karṇa) is more important than his commitment to help his
friend Duryodhana to win the war (and also apparently his desire to remain
alive). Also, he gets in return from Indra a divine weapon which he can use
just once to kill anyone he wants.
However,
the writer throughout insists that the central obsession of this maha-villain
Karṇa is to kill Arjuna, impelled by his relentless hatred and jealousy of
Arjuna, and it is this obsession which is the root cause of everything bad
in the Mahābhārata. If so, it does not gel with the fact that, as per the
story, Karṇa lays aside his over-riding obsession and gives up his chance to
kill Arjuna by using that divine weapon, at the behest of Duryodhana,
against Ghaṭotkaca.
I
will not go deeply into the book or the interviews, but will deal only with the
two following aspects:
I.
Karṇa vs. Yudhiṣṭhira.
II.
The "Virtues" Propagated in the Hindu Epics and Puranas.
I.
Karṇa vs. Yudhiṣṭhira
Karṇa
is indeed more sinned against than a sinner in the entire Epic. By which I do
not deny that he is also a sinner: the fact is, if we go by the data in the
Epic and Puranic stories, there is not a single person in these texts
who can be painted as fully white or fully black: all of them have black
deeds attributed to them as well as virtues.
The
writer deals at length with the persistent way in which Karṇa vents his
vindictive feelings towards Draupadi, and (even if we accept all the reasons he
is supposed to have for feeling vindictive towards her or to the Pāṇḍavas in
general, all of which are of course denied or belittled by the writer) nothing
can justify this vindictive behavior so far as it involves the misogynistic verbal
and physical humiliation, manhandling and disrobing of Draupadi. The fact is
that even a prostitute who has slept with a thousand people has the right to refuse
outright to sleep with the next (i.e. the 1001st) person if she does
not want to, and therefore Karṇa's behavior (in referring to her five husbands
as a proof of her being a prostitute and of justifying her being molested by
anyone else) is indeed indefensible and unforgivable.
But
does all this make him the prime villain in the whole Epic? My point is: does
this make him more of a villain than Yudhiṣṭhira, who is referred to in the
text (and by the writer as well) as a dharmarāja and praised as a model
of virtue?
Let
us start out with the fact of Draupadi having five husbands. Popular perception
(which the writer is supposed to be intending to correct as a whole in her
book) attributes this to the fact that this is because their mother Kunti, when
they bring Draupadi back with them and tell their mother (who is inside the
house and does not see them) that Arjuna has won a prize, she (without
ascertaining what the prize is) tells them to share it among them.
This
itself is rather weird: the natural thing would have been that when she saw
what the prize was she would take back her words and the whole thing would be
forgotten. The principle that once their mother has said something in ignorance
of the situation, they have to follow it to the t, whether they
want to (and their mother herself wants them to) or not, and whether it is
ethical or not, is something beyond logic, common sense and even precedence.
But rational discussion rarely
forms any part of these incidents. Once someone says something, it cannot
be changed! Human beings seem to be just mechanical robots rather than
rational thinking human beings with a capacity to salvage situations and
correct mistakes. Kunti, without seeing what prize Arjuna has won, tells him
"Share it with your brothers" so they are all forced to marry
Draupadi! When Kunti sees her mistake, she immediately takes it back, but
apparently once she has said it, she has said it, and there can be no
change! But, she hadn't said "All of you, marry her".
I wonder what they would have done if her words had been "Divide the
prize equally into five parts": would they have cut Draupadi into five
pieces?
[Actually,
this whole myth, and all the incidents in the text which follow from this myth,
are based on the hazy understanding, by later story-tellers who made additions
and interpolations in the Epics and Puranas, of the original meanings of
certain words. Draupadi is also called Pāñcālī because she is the daughter of
the king of Pāñcāla, but later redactors interpreted the name as pertaining to
the number pañca ("five"), and, from the fact that there were
five Pāṇḍavas, this somehow led to the myth of her being the wife of all five,
and to the manufacturing of stories based on this myth.
There
is a parallel to this in the name of Datta-Ātreya (Datta, son of Atri) being
interpreted in the context of the number tri/treya ("three") and the
manufacturing of the myth treating him as a combination of the Three Great Gods
of Hinduism].
But
the fact is that this popular perception is actually based on only half
the story given in the Mahābhārata: according to this story, Kunti
immediately realizes her mistake when she sees Draupadi, and she then appeals
to her dharmarāja son, Yudhiṣṭhira, to suggest a solution to the
"problem". Yudhiṣṭhira initially declares that since Arjuna has won
her, he alone should marry her.
But
then, as per the Mahābhārata text: "the Pandavas all cast their eyes
upon the princess of Panchala. And the princess of Panchala also looked at them
all. And casting their glances on the illustrious Draupadi, those princes
looked at one another. And, taking their seats, they began to think of Draupadi
alone. Indeed, after those princes of immeasurable energy had looked at
Draupadi, the god of Desire invaded their hearts and continued to crush all
their senses. As the ravishing beauty of Panchali who had been modeled by the
creator himself was superior to that of all other women on earth, it could
captivate the heart of every creature. And Yudhishthira, the son of Kunti,
beholding his younger brothers, understood what was passing in their minds. And
that bull among men, from fear of a division among the brothers, addressing all
of them, said: 'The auspicious Draupadi shall be the common wife of us all'".
What
kind of picture, if one accepts this story as fact, does this show of the character
and principles of the Pāṇḍavas in general and of Yudhiṣṭhira in particular?
But
there is this tendency among Hindu writers to try, even as they accept these
stories as facts, to whitewash or even to glorify such indefensible
stories. There was recently an article by a prominent Hindu writer in one of
the pro-Hindu online internet journals (I cannot recall the name of the writer,
article or journal at the moment) which actually cited this whole incident from
the Mahābhārata as a glowing example of the wisdom and pragmatism of Yudhiṣṭhira.
The total mindlessness and insincerity behind such writing (a conscious
attempt, as I pointed out earlier, to go the other or "rightist"
extreme to counter the bile and venom of anti-Hindu Leftists) is beyond my
comprehension at least: would people who find "wisdom" in this act of
Yudhiṣṭhira consider the eldest brother of their own son-in-law equally
"wise" if he decided to promote harmony among all his brothers by
suggesting just such a solution vis-à-vis their daughter? Or is it that
the Pāṇḍavas alone, in the whole world, were so sexually obsessed, or vulnerable
and susceptible (to put it mildly), that this special and unique solution,
meant only for them, became necessary in order to maintain their fraternal
unity?
But,
to return to the point at hand, the following are the relevant acts of Yudhiṣṭhira:
1.
He makes Draupadi marry all the five brothers (and for the above reason!).
2.
He stakes his brothers one by one, and finally his wife Draupadi, in a game of
dice which he could have easily avoided, against all advice, and then loses the
wager.
3.
He remains quiet and sits silently with downcast eyes as she is insulted,
reviled and physically manhandled and abused by the maha-villain Karṇa and the
other lesser villains in a public darbar.
4.
But when his brothers, whom he had already lost in dice and therefore had no
power over any more, want to intervene, he comes to life and firmly uses his
"authority" to restrain them and to allow Draupadi's continued
humiliation.
And
yet, Yudhiṣṭhira is a dharmarāja, and Karṇa is a maha-villain? Sorry,
but I strongly disagree with this: according to me, Yudhiṣṭhira is one of the
maha-villains of the Mahābhārata. Karṇa's sins, with or without the
"attenuating circumstances", are much less.
II.
The "Virtues" Propagated in the Hindu Epics and Puranas
And
now back to the incident of Karṇa and his "dān-vīr" act
in giving up his magical kavaca-kuṇḍala to Indra (appearing before him
in the form of a poor brahmin), in spite of knowing Indra's nefarious
intentions and being fully aware of the future consequences and repercussions
of his action.
While
this act is generally praised by analysts of the Mahābhārata, and in all
traditional accounts of the story, I do not find it all worthy of praise for a
very fundamental reason: it is because this story is part of a huge
repertoire of stories in our Epics, Puranas and other popular lore, which are
unique only to Hindu texts, literature and lore, among all the major
religions of the world, and which, in my opinion, have been the root
cause of the continuing downfall of Hinduism vis-à-vis its enemies by
inculcating in the Hindu psyche the idea of self-destructivism and compulsive defeatism,
and capitulation to the machinations of its enemies and ill-wishers, as a
positive and praiseworthy virtue.
There
are three kinds of teachings in the religious texts in the matter of
justice/injustice in behaviour towards others:
1.
The texts of all religions preach that one should fight against
injustice towards oneself. The Abrahamic evangelist religions, Christianity and
Islam, as well as Hinduism and almost all other religions and sects in this
world preach this. We find quotations expressing such sentiments, and stories
illustrating such principles, in most religious texts. The exceptions, in
all religions, are the cases where the perpetrators of such injustice are
the authorities (including the Gods, priests, prophets and holy men, and rulers
and leaders) of these religions, or certain special categories (such as the
males in the family or clan), who are supposed to be given special rights to
perpetrate injustice which must be borne quietly by the other believers or
practitioners of the religion.
2.
Likewise, the texts of all religions, strange though this may sound, teach
followers to commit injustice on others (on women, animals, slaves or
lower classes of people, enemies or conquered people, etc., etc.), or at
least illustrate, through stories, great acts of injustice which are
perpetrated by the heroes (religious or otherwise) of the texts on others,
which are glorified or at the very least not treated as in any way condemnable.
The
Bible and Qoran (and other Christian-Muslim religious texts) are overflowing
with such preachings, teachings and stories. Likewise our Hindu texts, and the
texts of other religions, also abound in such preachings, teachings and
stories.
There
are however two big differences between the two expansionist
Abrahamic religions on the one hand, and Hinduism in particular (as well as all
other religions) on the other:
2a)
These preachings, teachings and stories are fundamental to the
former two religions but only peripheral and incidental
to Hinduism (where the centrality and finality of religious texts is not as
sacrosanct as in Christianity and Islam).
Nevertheless,
they are there in Hinduism, and have been presented by many Hindu
researchers, including for example Dr. Ambedkar, as well as of course by
anti-Hindu leftists (who find the molehills of injustice in Hinduism more massive
than the mountains of injustice in the Christian and Muslim religions — if,
that is, they are even willing to accept that there is injustice at all in
Christianity and Islam). The first section of this article above shows one such
example (in the acts of Yudhiṣṭhira): there are countless more.
But
these (whether in Christianity or Islam or Hinduism) are not the subject
of this section. Nevertheless I will
only say at this point that Hindus who think they are showing their Hindutva by
denying, whitewashing or glorifying these wrong aspects in Hinduism are like
the woman whose small daughter is being repeatedly raped by her husband, and
who keeps quiet or tries to hide or play down the facts and thinks that by
doing so she is showing her concern for family integrity and loyalty and for
the reputation of her family.
2b)
Further, the main distinguishing factor between Christianity and Islam on the
one hand and Hinduism (and other religions) on the other, is that the two
former religions divide humanity into two classes: the believers (in the
particular religion, Christianity or Islam) and the unbelievers
(among whom the two religions incidentally also include, each, the followers of
the other religion of the two). So these texts blatantly teach, preach, and
illustrate through stories, that it is perfectly all right, and even in
many cases desirable and even compulsory, to commit gross injustice on the followers of other religions, and on co-religionists
who break religious dictates, rules and taboos. Voice of India books,
and any number of researchers within those religions themselves, have studied
and presented all this in very great detail. So such perpetration of injustice
against people who follow different beliefs is not a part of Hindu texts
(although some individual ancient writers did make occasional, and completely
unfruitful, attempts to introduce such intolerance in the texts: e.g. in the
Rāmāyaṇa, Ayodhyā Kāṇḍa, 109).
3.
But then we come to this third aspect found only in Hinduism and in
no other religion — at least, certainly not in Christianity and Islam,
which are the two religions which matter in our discussion as they are the ones
which constantly place themselves in a strongly adversarial position towards
Hinduism.
Hinduism
is the only religion in the world which has a massive repertoire of stories
which preach, or illustrate as great virtues, abject submission to the
machinations of openly or very obviously hostile and ill-intentioned people or
enemy forces, or which preach foolish morals or inhibitions which lead to
defeat and self-destruction. Christian and Islamic narratives and
illustrative stories, either in their texts or in their history, never
preach or illustrate such self-destructive
"morals" or "principles" as "saintly virtues".
It is only Hindu texts which teach its followers to glorify
people who submit to gross injustice from inimical and ill-intentioned people in
the name of "dharma". The example of Karṇa giving up his kavaca-kuṇḍala
to Indra in spite of having been warned beforehand about Indra's nefarious
intentions is not an isolated one: the list is a long one, from the heroes of
the Ramayana and Mahabharata to countless holy men in the Epics and Puranas
(Paraśurāma who kills his mother to follow his father's command, Cilaya who is
cooked and given to guests who demand him as their lunch, Ekalavya who cuts his
finger as "guru-dakṣiṇā" on Droṇa's demand, Anusūyā who disrobes herself because her rishi guests
demand it — the list is endless). Modern Hindus have learnt this lesson so well
that they are willing to accept any principle as "dharma" which
teaches them to submit to injustice. This lesson has been learnt so well that
it is today the prime principle of Indian virtue and saintliness propagated in
traditionalistic films and serials: see my blog article "Justice in
Sohrab Modi's 1939 film 'Pukar'":
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2019/09/justice-in-sohrab-modis-1939-film-pukar.html
And
so it is very easy for Hindu-haters to convince Hindus that the Bhagavadgitā, whose
very context is that Krishna is telling Arjuna not to submit to injustice and
to war even against his blood-relatives for the sake of justice,
actually preaches ahimsa, non-action and submission to injustice. And to teach
us the "difference" and even the opposition between Hinduism and
Hindutva!
For
this, see my blog article "Hinduism vs. Hindutva: Oxism vs. Oxatva":
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2020/04/hinduism-vs-hindutva-oxism-vs-oxatva.html
There was a wave of sharp resentment against me in the Hindu
discussion site when I made all these points: anyone who holds anything in our
texts and traditions as responsible for any bad behavior in our present Hindu
society is "anti-Hindu", "leftist", or "westernized",
and even "influenced
by Protestant ideology",
or else a prey to "simplistic understanding"!
But this is a self-destructive attitude: if we do not accept that
there are many things in our own texts and traditions which are responsible for
the very bad condition of Hindu society today, we will never be able to correct
those faults and win our way to victory or even to security. I find it incomprehensible
that people (pro-Hindu people) can believe that to be true Hindus we should
hold that recognizing Justice is something that only Left Liberals (or people
steeped in western education) are capable of and that to be truly Hindu we must
support Injustice!
It is time we learnt to enjoy the rich and
unparalleled lore present in our ancient texts in the right way: be proud of this rich lore
and rich literature which has absolutely no parallel anywhere else in the
world. But don't adopt the self-destructive "morals" of the
characters glorified in these texts as the ideal way for us to behave.
Remember, no
other religious text of any other religion teaches its followers to suffer
injustice from their enemies.
Either treat these stories merely as a rich repertoire of our
traditional lore and a great part of our matchless culture, or, if we want to
learn lessons from them, then learn the right lessons: for example,
instead of defending or whitewashing Droṇācārya or treating Ekalavya as a saint
or a model of virtue, we should recognize that Droṇācārya's act was the act of
an establishment villain and Ekalavya's response that of a sentimental fool.
We will ultimately be destroyed because of some of these
very "Dharmic" "principles" embodied in our texts, which
are enforcing the slave/masochist mentality in Hindus today and which are
making us the spittoon and punching-bag of the world.
But Hindus like to clutch at the very chains which bind them, and to
lose battles and wars by following and glorifying wrong principles rather than
to win the battles and wars by following the right principles which are also
very much there in our texts and philosophies.
[I know I will alienate more readers by pointing out that it is this
numbing of our intelligence and viveka-buddhi which is also responsible
for the way in which political parties playing the "Hindu card"
before elections, and being more anti-Hindu after elections than those playing
the "secular card", still continue to be treated as our bulwark
against anti-Hindu forces. Hindus have learnt to apply labels and then stick to
those labels forever regardless of whether or not the labels prove to be
justified. Frankly, I
am really not too keen on forcing the truth down anyone's unwilling throat. And
now, after long and bitter experiences in seeing the futility of trying to make
people see sense, I am not even interested in trying to do it. Hindus are
deliberately and knowingly hurtling to their destruction, and I now realize
that I can do nothing about it.
However, I
can and will continue to speak the truth, and if Hindus are determined to
be destroyed, then nothing can save us].
APPENDIX
added 14-10-2021:
VASUDHAIVA
KUṬUMBAKAM
As I pointed
out, there is a massive fund of such stories in the Hindu texts, which teach us
to treat submission to injustice or adherence to foolish morals or slogans as
virtuousness to be treated as ideal and to be emulated.
But then it
depends upon how we look at these stories. Do the stories actually teach
us to treat the foolish actions and slogans as virtuous? Or were they
originally intended to teach us how not to behave, but
misinterpretation of such stories became a tradition and led to the wrong
attitude of treating them as virtues?
One such
slogan will illustrate the correct way to interpret these foolish actions and
slogans: the slogan "Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam": "the world
is one family". This is found in the Mahopaniṣad VI.71-73: "For
those who live magnanimously, the whole world is a family" (udāracaritānāṁ
tu vasudhaiva kuṭumbakam).
This is
regularly cited as a sign of the broad-mindedness of Hinduism — at least when
it comes to telling Hindus what their texts tell them to believe and
therefore how they should behave: although in evaluating Hinduism as a
religion, it is the "divisiveness" of the caste-system that is cited!
The wikipedia
entry on "Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam" tells us that this "is
considered the most important value in the Indian society", and even
informs us that "Dr N. Radhakrishnan, former director of the
Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti, believes that the Gandhian vision of holistic
development and respect for all forms of life; nonviolent conflict resolution
embedded in the acceptance of nonviolence both as a creed and strategy; were an
extension of the ancient Indian concept of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.[" and "India's
Prime Minister Narendra Modi used this phrase in a speech at World Culture
Festival, organized by Art of Living, adding that 'Indian culture is very rich
and has inculcated each one of us with great values, we are the people who have
come from Aham Brahmasmi to Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam'". In 2007, Pranab
Mukherji, then Union Minister for External Affairs (and later President of
India), informed the Rajya Sabha on 5th December that "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam is our foreign
policy".
But there are ancient Indian texts which tells us how to behave wisely,
and incidentally also how to interpret "saintly" slogans (and
therefore I would say also "saintly" actions) in our texts, or
rather how not to misinterpret them as models in practical life:
the Hitopadeśa and the Pancatantra. Both these texts contain
stories illustrating the foolishness of the slogan "Vasudhaiva Kuṭumbakam" if applied
in practical affairs although it is perfectly all right as a principle of
abstract philosophy. The stories in both these texts illustrate the foolishness
and suicidal, self-destructive result of taking such slogans as models to be
followed.
I will not bother to repeat these stories here: they are easily
available in the original and in translations of the two texts: in the Hitopadeśa
(the story of Kṣudrabuddhī the foolish jackal and Subuddhī the
wise crow) and in the Pancatantra (the story of the four brahmin
friends, three of whom were well-versed in all the texts, but extremely
foolish, and the fourth one who was wise).
APPENDIX Added 18-11-2021: The Story of Raja Harischandra:
I had put up the above article on my blog on 13-10-2021, and that should
have been the end of it. But today I happened to see this video on youtube,
"The Story of Raja Harischandra", and (although of course I
knew the story well since childhood) found in it, and in the way in which it is
described in the video, so wonderful an example of the sick and perverted ideas
of "virtue" preached in our Epics and Puranas, that I had to add it
as an appendix to my article:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_O7BGXo3c
Even at the risk of facing hostile reactions
from my "Hindu" readers, I ask them to think carefully and ask
themselves whether this story depicts a virtuous king who should be held up as
an ideal of some kind of "virtuousness", or whether it depicts a
mentally retarded imbecile or a dangerously deluded maniac, who should have
been put into a lunatic asylum (if they existed at that time) for the rest of
his life. I feel it is the latter; and if the reader feels it is the
former, and that the Harischandra of this story is an ideal of some kind to be
emulated or admired, then I think my article stands vindicated as an
indictment of the real reason (i.e. the mental deformity caused in Hindu
society by the Epic-Puranic stories glorifying perverted "virtues"
held up as ideals) why Hindu society has been at the receiving end of gross
injustice and persecution, and why even the Gods cannot save it from total
destruction.
