This knowledge I have taught
is more arcane than any mystery-
consider it completely
then act as you choose.
Towards the end of the Gita, this is what Krishna told Arjuna. That defines Krishna for me. And to see Gurcharan Das, grudgingly admire him in ‘The Difficulty of Being Good’ (of course he is not ready to accept him as God with a capital G), it indeed put me off.
To tell you the truth, even before I started reading the book, I was hugely biased.
1) My father vehemently supports Krishna, who like Mr. Das’ father believes that what he mentioned as Krishna’s guile was actually Krishna’s leela. Unfortunately, I couldn’t be completely inured from his argument.
2) Granted that almost no one is perfect in this epic, no amount of cogently argued cases in favor of Duryodhayan is ever gonna change my originally held opinion. And my originally held opinion is – he is a villain.
And I think I wasn’t the only one who was biased. Mr. Das quotes Marxist D.D. Kosambi describing Gita as the ‘700 fratricidal verses’. Quoting V.S. Sukthankar, Krishna is described as follows, ‘cynic, who preaches the highest morality and stoops to practice the lowest tricks… An opportunist who teaches a god fearing man to tell a lie (Yudhisthir), the only lie he told in all his life! [He is a] charlatan who…advises a hesitating archer (Arjuna) to strike down a foe who is defenseless and crying for mercy.’
I do know that quoting someone doesn’t actually mean he is writing off Krishna as a playful, whimsical God who sometimes indulges in the baser instincts, stooping lower than “righteous” human beings. But while reading the book, I did catch a somewhat negative attitude of the writer towards Krishna. Throughout the book, Mr. Das refutes Krishna’s philosophy, criticizes his deeds and in a way, tars him with the same brush as the likes of Duryodhana, Karna (according to him, Duryodhana is nobler than Krishna could ever be).
Why then would the author of this book, gloss over Duryodhana’s misdeeds and mention them in passing. Duryodhana indeed made the life of Pandavas, hell. He applied every vile trick in the book to get rid of Pandavas, the rigged game of dice being just one of them. Yet you whine his being killed deceitfully. I could not understand Duryodhana’s or Karna’s cry for dharma to be followed. Neither could I understand why they felt wronged. They themselves wouldn’t follow morality, yet they want everyone else to uphold dharma. For me, in this case, the end justified the means.
Anyways, it was a war. If Duryodhana had won, however noble you would have thought his conduct during war was, what do you think would have happened to Draupadi? Sorry, I don’t think either Karna or Duryodhana would have upheld Dharma then.
If the “guileless idealist” in Yudhisthir had his way, then of course Pandavas would not have won. But one must behave morally (ends do not justify the means)!
I do not whine that why should we be good when the world isn’t reciprocating in kind? But I do whine about the fact that why each and every character in Mahabharata (including Mr. Das) demands and expects Pandavas to upheld dharma (most of the time they did) when they themselves wouldn’t follow it.
If Drona considered Pandavas’ claim to the throne as rightful, then why in the first place he wasn’t on their side. Of course he believed it his dharma to support the ruling party and stem down opposition. Yet Mr. Das mentions that dharma is not only about following a set of rules but also following your conscience. It is more so about being an empathizing do-gooder, which Drona, unfortunately, wasn’t. Yet he expected Yudhisthir to be upright and truthful during the war just before his death.
I am by no means justifying the way he was killed, but if you are a pragmatist, then why you would expect and demand your opponent to be guilelessly moral and complain if he isn’t.
And though Pandavas’ claim to the throne was dubious, they created Indraprastha for God’s sake. They transformed an arid desert into a bustling, sprawling and prosperous land. That makes Indraprastha theirs. Once you send the rulers of the land by cheating them in a rigged game of dice (I couldn’t understand, why in the book, Mr. Das chose to defend Shakuni? What sort of argument is this that though he told Duryodhana that he would employ deceit while playing, there was no description in Mahabharata he actually did. This is the same argument Arundhati Roy is using to defend Afzal Guru and fellow terrorists.), Pandavas did follow the harsh conditions of exile imposed on them. So once they return and start demanding their land back, this doesn’t make their claim dubious. They were not demanding Hastinapur, they were demanding Indraprastha.
And nor do I consider Yudhisthir as the epitome of goodness. First of all he chose to participate in the game of dice (“reluctantly”, though willingly), he lost it. He staked his brothers, wife, he lost them. Inspite of it being all his fault, his brothers and wife do go along with him to the exile and they never ever blame it down on him, yet when they feel frustrated about their fate, he lectures them on morality! I hate him not for his being a peaceful, empathetic king; I hate him because he is a bit of hypocrite.
At the end of the book, Mr. Das feels anrishamsya (empathy, the ability to weep with all creatures) is true dharma. Good. He is an altruist. And this is how he interpreted the book. Of course Mahabharata in this case, does believe altruism to be a great virtue. So I am not railing against Mr. Das.
But I simply believe in ahimsa (‘not hurting others’) and do not want to progress to anrishamsya. Yet at this point I do feel a need to mention that (a hypothetical situation mentioned in the book) if Bhima squishes the gouty toe of Duryodhana, and when Duryodhana pleads to Bhima to place himself in his shoes and feel the pain, it would have been to Bhima’s sense of ahimsa to which he would have pleaded, not anrishamsya. So Mr. Das’ logic in this case in flawed. He could appeal people to be non-violent from this example, he could not demand altruism. I am not going to spend my life working for the cause of some random human-being. My own belly is empty. I am going to fill it first keeping in mind all my desires, needs and wants. I would try to help few of my fellow human-beings, but only those I care for. I am not supporting Ramlinga Raju here. A king, a public servant, a businessman (of a publicly-owned company only) should not show nepotism or favoritism. Right now, I am none of them – so I would indulge in favoritism.
What I have tried interpreting from Ayn Rand’s work (unfortunately I am a mediocre reader) is that one is responsible for oneself. One must advance his own cause. I want to advance mine (not hurting others, though of course if it were a race, then I would try to win and would not care if you felt hurt on losing). So if goodness means altruism, it would be extremely difficult for me to be good, so much so that I wouldn’t care less to be good at all.
Alienman 