Wednesday 13 October 2021

Karṇa and Yudhiṣṭhira in the Mahābhārata

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.

 

 

 

24 comments:

  1. Shrikantmaam, this trend of blind glorification (motivated by jingoism) on the one hand, and blind criticism (motivated by irrational hatred) is a major problem for us Hindus, as you have rightly pointed out (although I would like to apply this assessment to other societies as well). It's comical but sad to see how these people defend the indefensible, possibly motivated subconsciously by the logical fallacy that if something about a work of literature (or any intellectual creation, for that matter) is problematic, that necessarily implies that the whole of that thing is problematic.

    That said, this also could apply to religions. It is true, as devout Christians and Muslims like to say, that both these religions have managed to satisfy the religious needs of many people over the centuries (both these religions do have occult dimensions), but it is also equally true that the blood-soaked history of both of them was directly inspired by their respective theologies.

    As for the Mahabharata, it is indeed true that no character in it is fully black or fully white, but assessments like 'X is overall good/bad' can still be made, IMO. What makes this epic fascinating (for me at least) is that through its characterization of people as different shades of grey, it encourages us to embrace life as it is, with all its complexities, and navigate our way through it. In other words, it is an epic that encourages wholeness, as opposed to the movement towards rejecting this world and seeking refuge in theories of Utopia (in the case of the Abrahamic religions and their secular offshoots like Marxism or neoliberal capitalism or the religion of Progress ), or in striving for some sort of perfection after leaving this world (concept of moksha).

    As for BJP and its de-facto anti-Hindu attitude, no arguments there. The BJP fan base has called people who question the paradigm of limitless economic growth and progress (irrespective of the field in question) for its own sake as anti-national and whatnot, even though it is a fact that economic growth beyond a certain threshold (which has long been exceeded) is fundamentally anti-ecology, and progress (which actually simply means continued movement in the same direction, and not some movement in the direction of some arbitrary and vague sense of betterment, variables not defined) is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U people work in tech job ride in expensive cars use AC during summer and heater in winter go to foreign trip during vocation.
      But when it comes to economic development oh no no it will affect the ecology ,climate etc etc .zin the name of protecting nature u people want a poor to remain poor they shall not reap the fruits of devlopement.if u people care so much about climate stop living in city go to s village and survive on fruits .
      You people only want status quo u don't want economic development because it distrub the social structure.
      Be it BJP, be it congress or anyone u people will say samething

      Delete
    2. "Unknown", your economic views (which unsurprisingly always cite the poor to justify exploitationist pro-rich policies) are not unknown anymore after your above comment.

      Incidentally, if your above comment was also addressed to me, I do not have or travel by car, do not have AC or a "heater" in my room, and do not even have a passport (let alone enjoy foreign trips). But I have a feeling all this applies to you yourself.

      Delete
    3. No the above comment is not mentioned to you though.
      There is diffrence between pro rich and pro wealth creation .
      India have pro poor policy for a long period of time which haven't led to decrease in poverty is it
      But iam not here to discuss economics with u as it is not your field of expertise.

      Delete
    4. @Unknown:

      I do not use an AC (whether it's summer or October), nor do I go on 'foreign trips' during vacation. For me, ecology is at the heart of Hinduism, and no person, irrespective of his stance on other issues concerning Hinduism can be truly Hindu if he/she does not realise this, and try to cut his/her personal consumption to that which is enough to satisfy needs, and not wants.

      As for your comment about those people who live a high-consumption lifestyle but talk about ecology when it comes to 'economic development', it is indeed unfortunate that such hypocritical people exist, and that they have hijacked environmental advocacy/activism to suit their own agenda ('I love the Earth but not enough to stop driving my SUV'), but their hypocrisy and agenda-driven stance by itself does not negate the fact that economic development beyond a point starts hurting the biogeochemical cycles that sustain our lives. The statement 'economic growth/development beyond a point is anti-ecology' is a fact, irrespective of whether this is said by a person like Michel Danino, or a 'climate activist' like Disha Ravi (who is a perfect example of the type of people you have criticised).

      Finally, coming to the question of whether economic development is actually pro-poor or not, you can come up with any amount of gobbledygook to justify your party and dear leader, but the fact is that under your beloved PM, the top 1% of this country went from owning 58% to 79% of the wealth in the country, and this, under a period of supposed 'economic development'. Also, there are a lot of cases where 'economic development' has directly impacted the poor, like in the case of Coca-Cola's plant in Tamil Nadu, which depleted and poisoned local water tables, thus leading to problems like diseases, deaths and impoverishment of the local population and their migrations to already overburdened cities. But of course, no action was taken, as doing anything would hurt Coca-Cola's sales figures, their stock market performance, and thus would be bad for 'economic development'.

      Delete
    5. Ha ha BJP is too socialist and too hindu for my taste .
      People like u see every issue from a political lens .
      For me people are important not some stone age religion like Hinduism .
      Humans are playing with ecology and environment and changing it for their convenience from the day they evolved from apes we gave destroyed many species and ecology even before we had a concept of economy.
      We can come above environmental issue via technology .
      In a country which is so low in every growth parameter people here talk about environment.
      Remind me of a Cartoon by RK Narayan of a thin barking dog and a fat content dog.
      But as I said u people just want status quo because your pro poor policy was not still able to bring people out of poverty .
      And no amount of your updesh can change that .

      Delete
    6. @Unknown

      Based on your statements about how humans have been 'playing around with ecology and environment' (do you know how that ended after the 'playing around' crossed a threshold?), and how 'we can come above environmental issue via technology', and the rest, I can see that your knowledge of ecological history is pathetic to say the least. Go read up on the subject, and then we can continue debating on this topic.

      As for 'people are important not some stone age religion like Hinduism', it's interesting to see you voice concerns about 'people' but support policies which benefit the top 1% at everybody else's expense. Regarding Hinduism, regardless of whether it is a 'stone age religion' or a 'modern 21st century religion' (so much for the progressive jibes), all I'll say is this: Hinduism satisfied, satisfies, and will continue to satisfy, the religious and spiritual needs of millions of people. The fulminations of rationalist pseudoskeptics and professionally angry atheists like yourself can do little to change that.

      Delete
  2. Iam amazed that a rational person like u are trying to find logic in myths and fairytales ofcourse chracters like kunti,yudhishthira etc didn't think logically because they are chracters of a story and story is set by the author.
    And your argument that this verse is added in later time .
    How can one day which verse is added when one day the original scripture has all the bad verse and good verses are added later or vice versa.
    These books were written by bronze age men we can't compare them to standards of modernity they write what is acceptable in their time .
    The problem is we still want to stick to books written by these men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please take the trouble to read the comment that you have written above. Does it have any relation to the article or does it even make any sense by itself?

      Delete
    2. Well the first comment is not made for u to begin it is for the first commenter.

      Delete
  3. Excellent analysis, a very matured write-up.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We see such misrepresentations of our traditional people for rig veda. The asuras and dasa are said to he Dravidians the Aryans conquer though we know that the asura and dasa refer to the Iranian peoplw.

    ReplyDelete
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRuSrJXs5-Q

    Here is a video on horse domestication that is recently published. I read you article on horse and chariot but I still want your opinion on it. I post it here as it is most recent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. We could see that people think horse is old as 1500 bce but we know we have older presence of equus cabillus, or other equus species.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's so frustrating to find that there is a comment on a new article, but that it has no connection at all with the subject of that article.
      Anyway, here is my reply, not connected to this video, but one which I gave to someone who sent me a pdf of the relevant paper:

      "I see that this new article on the domestication of the horse is being noted everywhere (Koenraad, Kushal mehra, Kalyanaraman) and it would be interesting to discuss it. But it does not in any way contradict me. It completely rejects the horse being taken from the Steppes to Europe, but seems to endorse the horse (and the chariot) being brought from the Steppes to South Asia. But it continues to fail to prove this movement from the Steppes into South Asia, or even any direct connection between the horse and the chariot, and only repeats the old standard unproven theory that they were brought into India from outside without any new data for this.

      In fact, by saying "This reveals that modern domestic horses ultimately replaced almost all other local populations as they expanded rapidly across Eurasia from about 2000 BC" it not only fits in with my point that the PIEs in the NWIndia-to-Central-Asia belt were acquainted with horses as such (whether from Botai or Uzbekistan) which may have been replaced with Steppes horses later on after 2000 BCE. As the Mitanni evidence shows that even the New Rigveda in its beginnings goes back beyond 2000 BCE, and that the Old Rigveda (centered around Haryana) many centuries even before 2500 BCE, this origin of horses (which I have shown were a rare and foreign animal in the Old Rigveda) is irrelevant to the AIT-OIT debate.

      Further is the Sanauli chariot really derived from chariots of Sintashta as claimed by the paper (which is surely only about horse DNA)?

      Delete
  7. Very insightful article. Yes diminishing of Karna's nobility and minimization of Yudhishtira errors is untenable. However your point that other religions "never preach or illustrate such self-destructive "morals" or "principles" as "saintly virtues" needs clarification. The entire Christian religion is based upon Jesus Christ basically giving himself up knowingly into the hands of his enemies who he knew planned to murder him. Countless Christain martyrs emulated Christ and were martyred. "Turn the other cheek" is a core teaching of Christ.

    So clearly Christianity has self sacrifice and welcoming death at the hands of ones enemies at its very roots. Its no exaggeration to say that there would be no Christianity without Jesus's willingness to accept his crucifixion. The religion began with that event and spread rapidly based upon the martyrdom of many early Christians.

    So clearly this 'moral' of 'self destruction' is much more applicable to Christianity than any other religion.

    Hinduism indeed has several incidents of such 'self destruction' yet they are far outweighed by countless tales of self determined heroic champions of justice and clearly defined morality plays highlighting the unequivocal duty of one and all to confront Adharma.

    So the question is how is it that a religion rooted in the willing martyrdom and willing crucifixion of its God and many of its early members led to the near total conquest of the planet?

    Yet the Hindus with countless heroes and legends of the restoration of Dharma thru the force of arms and the death of millions at the hands of various Avatars and Dharmic Champions are basically being posited as self defeating cowards?

    Seems paradoxical.

    IMHO Lila 'Divine Play' is the missing ingredient that explains the alleged 'self destructive' behavior of the Vedic heroes. They were required to behave in such a manner in order to fulfill their roles in the overall Divine Play desired by God.

    And again, rather than cowardice, the followers of Sanatan Dharma have an inbuilt humility and recognition that not a blade of grass moves without the will of the Lord.

    Also the firm belief in the laws of action and reaction is at the core of the Dharmic ideal. Thus when suffering comes, the Sanatani recognizes it as the Law of Karma at work. It is accepted as proper balancing and in fact a cleansing of Paap based on past mistakes.

    Is this concept taken too far? I say Yes! This is especially true when it comes the abuse and torture of others.

    Its fine to accept one's individual abuse as having been earned, yet it is against Dharma to allow others to suffer. In fact the suffering of others is a wake up call and one is Dharmically required to do whatever is in their power to end such suffering.

    So I apologize if I misread/misunderstood your conclusion. But it seems that the real issue is the overall Hindu community's ambivalence towards the ongoing cultural genocide against its people and traditions. This type of 'Mahatma Gandhi' type of misreading of Dharma and acceptance of injustice as some kind of noble ideal is definitely disastrous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A martyr in Christianity is simply a person who dies or is killed for his testimony to Christianity. It is an essential part of the foundation of organized Christianity to emphasize the need to be prepared to even die to prove one's allegiance to the organized Christian religion. Similarly there are religious "martyrs" in Islam who die fighting for Islam. Christ being crucified is nowhere illustrated or treated as an example of how Christians should behave in the face of their religious enemies: it is simply the foundation story of Christian dogma.

      On the other hand, the Puranic Hindu stories do not have to do with allegiance to or faith in any organized religion. They are simply stories telling us (or assumed to be telling us) to treat as virtues the submission to the intentions, demands and actions of people who are ill-treating, abusing or exploiting us even when aware of their inimical intentions. There is no comparison.

      Islam also tells us that when a Muslim commits charity, even his left hand should not know what his right hand is doing. As a general principle, this is exemplary. But no Muslim misunderstands this to mean that he should do charity to non-Muslims, much less to enemies of Islam or to one's general enemies.

      Likewise the adage of offering the other cheek when slapped on one cheek also has no practical sense in the theology or history of Christianity: it is merely a homily (defined, see Wikipedia, as "a religious discourse which is intended primarily for spiritual edification rather than doctrinal instruction"). But the stories in the Puranas have their echoes in every Indian film and serial and in the behavior of Hindus towards the enemies of Hinduism.

      Delete
  8. Shrikantji, excellent article. Would like to see more of these analyzing and placing in perspective our puranic stories. Need to bring them from the divine realm where they are stuck into the psychological and mundane where they will be of more use.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Shrikantmaam, I guess this is the problem with our society - either we have blind and total vilification of our Hindu heritage, or we go to the other extreme and come up with theories that try to deny even those negatives that really happened. Very few people actually take the position of 'yes, there were negatives in our society, just like every other human society in the past and present (and also the future), but it wasn't a hellhole either'.

    I have a question, though - given that Hindu kings have traditionally practiced Machiavellian forms of statecraft and diplomacy against each other, as A.L.Basham had commented (I don't remember the exact words he used), how tenable is the theory that the Islamic invasions did the damage they did partly because of the 'habit of learning suicidal morals and virtues from Puranas/Epics and taking them seriously'? Of course, in the later centuries, this could very well have been true - the severe damage done to the Hindu intellectual traditions by the invasions caused Hindu society to retreat into a shell, with its only education being Epics/Puranas. So it's not surprising that Gandhism and other delusional nonsense like the 'philosophy' of the Bhakti movement developed in these later times (with Chhatrapati Shivaji being one of the very few exceptions). I personally think that your analysis is tenable for the Islamic era as well as those succeeding it, but as for the pre-Islamic times, I'm somewhat skeptical about the applicability of this theory.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The whole discussion is stupid pop psychology.

    If stories in the Puranas made Hindus foolish, this is an explanation that first takes as a fact that Hindus are foolish and then seeks an explanation which is found in stories in the Puranas.

    In the same manner, if "Hindus are violent" was a fact to be explained then the explanation is obvious - in every bhajan and stotra the deity is praised as the killer of some or other asura; no wonder "Hindus are violent". I would say that these are sung way more often than anybody reads stories out of the Puranas, so obviously they have a deeper influence on Hindus.

    If you assert that Hindus are pacifist, and not violent, you have to answer why the Puranic stories make them pacifist and their daily prayers do not make them violent, why the difference?




    ReplyDelete
  11. Let me give just two examples - please forgive errors in transliteration -

    Vasudeva sutam devam, Kamsa Chanur mardanam,
    Devaki paramanandam Krishnam vande Jagatgurum.

    "Kamsa Chanur mardanam" is an aspect of the Jagatguru Krishna.

    Ramachandra kripalu bhajamana.....daitya vansh nikandanam

    Destroyer of the daitya/danava vansh.

    Next, pop pyschology will have to assert that "conditioned by Puranic stories, Hindus ignore the warrior-aspect of the deities that they praise daily".

    This is all very idiotic. The Hindu traditions themselves have a much more sophisticated understand of psychology within which an explanation of the condition of current Hindus can be sought. Not this "it is written in some book, and that is why Hindus are like this or that".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get really tired when people pick up one point from my article or writings in general, ignore the rest of the article and writings, and make "idiotic" "pop" comments. I have pointed out in this very article (if you have the time to read anything before rising up to do battle) that all religions (including Hinduism) teach us to fight against injustice to ourselves and in fact even to commit injustice on others. But only Hindu texts teach us to submit ourselves to enemies even after being aware of their motives and the consequences. You can point out every single kind of attitude in Hindu texts, but then many or most of them are also found in Christian and Muslim texts. But this one attitude is peculiar to Hinduism. And Hindus are the only ones to have this attitude as a "virtue".

      You write: "The Hindu traditions themselves have a much more sophisticated understand of psychology within which an explanation of the condition of current Hindus can be sought. Not this "it is written in some book, and that is why Hindus are like this or that"."

      Of course, the Hindu tradition itself, not in the philosophical books but in the more practical books (Panchatantra and Hitopadesha) tell us how we should understand these philosophical ideas and not take them too literally in our practice. I have mentioned that also in my article, but of course you were in too much of a hurry to use abusive words like "pop" and "idiotic" to bother to read all that. Hindus in general are also in too much of a hurry to read these books, and choose to model themselves on the self-destructive virtuous attitudes illustrated in the Puranic stories. Why they choose to follow these Puranic stories rather than the practical advice of wisdom books and the warrior aspects of our gods is a question that you should answer with the help of the masterful non-pop psychology in which you claim to be an expert. That they do follow them is a fact.

      Delete
  12. Hello sir, I'm 20 years old and thank you so much for this article as even I got the sense that she is anti Karna propogandist. Sir in a conversation with lord Krishna, karna very clearly tells lord Krishna that he regretted his actions towards the Pandavas and draupadi. Would you give him credit for this? Also can you please tell only one real wrong he actually suffered? Thanks in advance sir.

    ReplyDelete