Can the end justify the means?

Being brought up in a middle class family, I have always been taught lessons in ethics and moral conduct. I grew up listening to stories of Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Rani Lakshmi Bai and other great heros epitome of morality. Having received high values, I married into another high valued family. My wife complements my quest and struggle to infuse our values into our kids.

Last night the whole family was watching Mahabharata and we saw how Duryodhana finally dies when Ashwathama kills the sons of Pandavas and shows him the blood stained weapons. Draupadi sees the horrific incident of her sons being killed at the hands of Ashwathama and realized the curse of Gandhari coming true. Tonight, we shall be looking at how Aswathama invokes the Brahmastra to kill Abhimanyu's unborn kids. Looking at the entire set of events we were discussing why so much of massacre? Why Krishna allowed so much of bloodshed? Why was he partial towards Pandavas – was it just his relation with Kunti that kept him on their side?

Interestingly, I was listening to BusinessSutra on YouTube featuring Dr Devdutta Pattnaik and Menaka Doshi where the question was – "Can the end justify the means?"

Looking at Mahabharata, let's revisit the question. In the end of the Mahabharata war, all the kauravas and their supporters are killed. They are viewed as the villains through out and have done despicable crimes towards mankind. Their death doesn't fills our heart with sorry but gives us happiness. At the same time, all the sons of Pandavas are also killed. Pandavas are destined to lead a great kingdom but remain heirless. Finally, Arjun's grandson Parikshit takes the crown after the Pandavas leave for their ascent to the heaven. Krishna is cursed by Gandhari to lose all his family and people in a civil war. Krishna is destined to die at the hands of a hunter in an unknown forest. So what was the end of Mahabharata? Who won? What means are we talking of to have been justified in this whole process?

Let's look at the reason for the war – an unfulfilled contract. Kauravas and Pandavas had agreed that when the Pandavas would return from their 13 years of exile they shall be given their kingdom back. Duryodhana refused to acknowledge that Pandavas had fulfilled their part. He kept arguing on technicalities. To make peace, Krishna even offered him to give away five villages to Pandavas and he still denied. When pushed to the corner, Duryodhana showed his true colors – his intentions of not being true to any code of conduct. If the peace had prevailed or Kauravas would have won, Duryodhana would become the king of Hastinapur and the entire mankind would have suffered much more. Krishna favored Pandavas to prevent this injustice from happening. So, while we were discussing about Krishna's partiality, we overlooked his intentions. Thus forgot the context within which the end was being perceived.

The epic story of Mahabharata, does not ends with the war. It has many more stories to tell. And each story, makes us think about the context and the intentions. The context changes the perspective involved. It also changes the rules and the requirements for every situation. Mahabharata helps us to identify such contexts and broaden our minds through such contradicting stories.

"Can end justify the means" – is based on the assumption that if the rules are followed, good would happen! But the rules change with context. Be careful, when you hear such large boasts or debates.