Happenings in Bangalore on new year 2017 - a perspective

I am appalled at the recent incidents in Bangalore and New Delhi – where the mob took a new meaning for celebration and enjoyment. I am at a loss of words for the direction we are all headed. It has been apathy of the women or the females to be at the receiving end when the male tries to show his superiority. I heard something similar or even more derogatory sometime earlier – “What happened to us”.

Interestingly I had been pondering over this situation since late December 2016 when I read Amrita Pritam’s Pinjar. I happened to watch Chandraprakash Dwivedi’s movie Pinjar as well. The transformation from Puro to Hamida was enough for me to understand the cruelties that the females withered for the alpha male. However, what we easily forgot was the transformation of the same Hamida into a tigress when another girl – “Lajo” was kidnapped in similar circumstances. Hamida or Puro made sure that Lajo does not goes through the same scenarios like her. Even when Puro chooses to lead her life as Hamid, she would not let any Lajo to undergo the similar transformations as herself.

This to me is a great of Women Empowerment. In Pinjar the great turn in Puro was brought out by Rashid Lala – the guy who abducted her. In modern families 99% of time the role is played by the husband.

Here’s a message for both the females and the males – Suffering / exertion of one’s power over the other has been a natural truth. Domination and castigation of the other sex is more common when the alpha male tries to steer its head up. Per the vedic understanding, the female form represents the physical aspects and hence the atrocities are mainly hurled at the physical abilities.

Many modern-day efforts are geared towards justice when the atrocities towards the female have happened. Consider a NGO or what the term qualifies them – “Naari Mukti Morcha”. Whether modern or mideaval, there has been a great emphasis from time to time about the contributions made by women to society, science and art The need today, is for the organization to raise an awareness about the completeness the female form provides. The need is for the alpha male to realize that he is alpha because there is a female to acknowledge the same. The need is for the “Naari Mukti Morcha” not from the claws of the male form but from the confines the form defines for itself.

The dharma is to understand this very instinct of the human being and control it. Whether it’s the male or the female oppressing each other would deprive us of development of an important aspect of mind. This is exactly what Vyasa agonized in his last few verses of Mahabharata.

I wish we understand our part and do the needful. The female is not weak, nor are males any superior. The males have not been endowed differently than the female. The nature has called for coexistence. And coexistence doesn’t come at a price of one. Let’s promise to ourselves to stop this brutality of sexes and work towards a congenial world for everyone to coexist – probably thrive.

Vyasa's agony - Continued

In my previous article - "Vyasa's agony", we saw that even at the end of a great epic, a great composition, the composer himself is not happy and is frustrated.

Why is this happening? We saw a few arguments in my last post. Let's try to probe further.

Think, when you take up a daunting task or any challenge. And then you work hard and take the efforts to the completion of the task. How do you feel? Satisfied? Happy to have completed the challenge?

But in the case of Mahabharata, Vyasa is neither happy nor satisfied. A composer, having composed a great verse is still not satisfied - and has something more to tell? What could it be?

The answer lies in the name of the composition itself - "Jaya". The composition was cleverly named as Jaya or the victory, without signifying over what or over whom. Almost every story within the great epic, depicts the clash of ideologies within the minds of the characters. Shouldn't it be safe to assume, that the story is about one's victory over self?

It is said, that the Mahabharata takes the teachings from the Veda's to a next level. One of the central ideas of the Vedas is that the "Dharma" or the principle of life is to overcome one's inherent inclination towards the animal instincts. As we saw that the first incarnation of Vishnu is suggested to be the “Matsya Avatar” or the fish. The fish signifies the food chain wherein the larger fish eats the smaller fish for itself to grow or sustain. At the same time, the growth of fish signifies the ever-growing lust for property. Vishnu tries to tell Manu through this story that there is no concept of a property or belonging in nature. It is but natural that the things will continue to grow and take their own course with or without your intervention. Thus, the law of the jungle is the law of the nature – no concept of property and law of survival. However, the human mind or the creation is superior to the rest of the creation. It can think and empathize with the others. It has the capability to understand its own needs and the needs of the others. The “Dharma” thus is the understanding of your own and others’ needs and act accordingly. The “dharma” as described in the Vedas teaches the humans to empathize about others and take appropriate steps. The Mahabharata text is seen to be blatantly violating this very principle. The Pandavas burn a forest to develop their own capital. The Kauravas snatch the kingdom from Pandavas using every possible trick, and later refuse to give away even the small bit of land. Kansa took his own father as prisoner to become the king. Drupada refused to relent to his friend Drona’s needs and called upon a bloody war.

All throughout the text Mahabharata is filled with stories wherein a simple act of caring for others could have avoided the war situation. The war termed as the war for principles or the truth or “Dharma Yudh” left both sides with losses – Kauravas lost everything, and Pandavas lost their sons. If only they could overcome their thirst for property and care for other’s needs, both the sides would have survived and flourished.

Possibly this is what Vyasa wants to tell us when he lifts his hands and cries that no one wishes to listen to him when he suggests how to live as per dharma! Today, many households refuse to keep Mahabharata in the homes and many households prohibit reading the complete text. They believe it may cause issues like separation in the family. However, I believe we are missing the very point that Vyasa wanted to emphasize – “Empathize” – follow the dharma, by caring for others.

I wish to create a world which can meet Vyasa can be proud of and can reduce his agony a little bit. Would you agree?

Saanp (साँप)

साँप, तुम सभ्य तो हुए नही,

नगर मे बसना भी तुम्हे नही आया|

एक बात पूछूँ? उत्तर दोगे?

कहाँ से सीखा डसना? विष कहाँ पाया?

- आग्येय 

कविवर अज्ञेय आधुनिक कलाकार के मर्मज्ञ एवं दार्शनिक कवि हैं। सांप कविता के आधार पर उन्होंने शहरों में रहने वाले कृतघ्न जनों को बड़े तीक्ष्ण ढंग से व्यंग किया है। सांप एक ऐसा जीव है, जिसे मानवीय व्यवस्था के अनुरूप सभ्य नहीं कहा जा सकता और ना ही नगरीय व्यवस्था के अनुरूप वह रह ही सकता है, फिर कवि को आश्चर्य होता है कि, वह ना तो सभ्य है और ना ही शहर में रहना उसे आता है किंतु उसका एक गुण है कि वह डसता है और ऐसा विष वमन करता है जैसे नगरों में सभ्य कहलाने वाले कृतघ्न लोग करते हैं। अतः कवि सांप को संबोधित करते हुए कहता है कि यह तो बताओ कि तुमने यह डसने की कला कहां से सीखी जबकि तुम वास्तव में नगर के निवासी नहीं हो। वास्तव में आज के परिपेक्ष्य में 'आदमी-आदमी को डस रहा है और सांप बगल में हंस रहा है'। अज्ञेय जी द्वारा रचित सांप मुक्तक काव्य नगरों में रहने वाले सभ्य कहलाने वाले व्यक्तियों पर एक तीखा व्यंग्य है। नगर में अनेक ऐसे व्यक्ति हैं जो दिखने में तो सभ्य लगते हैं किंतु उनके दंत(व्यवहार) सांप से भी अधिक विषैले होते हैं। कवि का विचार है कि सभ्य समाज में अनेक ऐसे लोग हैं जो सर्प से भी अधिक विषधारी हैं, और वे समाज में ऐसा विष फैलाते हैं जिसका कोई इलाज नहीं है। सांप वास्तव में सभ्य नहीं है और ना ही नगरवासी किंतु नगर में सभ्य जनों की भांति डसना जानता है, इस पर कवि को आश्चर्य होता है। प्रस्तुत मुक्तक नगर में रहने वाले सभ्य जनों को वास्तव में कृतघ्न होने के प्रति इशारा करना कवि का उद्देश्य है, और मानव मात्र को डसने वाले मनुष्य पर एकमात्र सांप के माध्यम से यह कविता व्यंग है।

I remember having studied this poem in the 8th grade Hindi text book. I loved the poem as it was the smallest to remember! I never cared to understand it then. However, now that I do understand the meaning and the timelessness of this poem, I do realize that this is such a hard satire on the mankind.

For my non-hind reading or speaking friends - 

The poet "Agyeya" is making a satirical reflection on the ungrateful, spiteful people living in the urban dream through the means of a snake. A snake is neither domesticated nor urban, hence can never be called a civilize being. Yet, it has its own quality of biting others and spitting venom - just like ungrateful beings do to others. The poet asks the snake that where did you learn such an act of spitting venom and biting others, when you have never lived in a civil society or have been into a city? As per poet, there are much more dangerous creatures in the society that call themselves civilized, yet are full of poison that is even more hurtful than a snake's venom. These people disguise themselves as learned, wealthy, kind or whatever, but do not give a moment to think about others. 

Don't you agree with the poet in his analysis?

Vyasa's agony

 ऊर्ध्वबाहुर विरौम्य एष न च कश चिच छृणॊति मे
     धर्माद अर्थश च कामश च स किमर्थं न सेव्यते
 न जातु कामान न भयान न लॊभाद; धर्मं तयजेज जीवितस्यापि हेतॊः
     नित्यॊ धर्मः सुखदुःखे तव अनित्ये; जीवॊ नित्यॊ हेतुर अस्य तव अनित्यः

These are the verses from original text of Mahabharata from the chapter 18. These are verses 49-50. In these verses Ved Vyasa, who is deemed as the author of the epic and possibly the great grandfather of the entire event, cries out loud throwing his arms up in the sky. He says - "With uplifted arms I am crying aloud but nobody hears me. From Righteousness is Wealth as also Pleasure. Why should not Righteousness, therefore, be courted? For the sake neither of pleasure, nor of fear, nor of cupidity should any one cast off Righteousness. Indeed, for the sake of even life one should not cast off Righteousness. Righteousness is eternal. Pleasure and Pain are not eternal. Jiva is eternal. The cause, however, of Jiva’s being invested with a body is not so." - transliteration taken from http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m18/m18005.htm.

Mahabharata is a text that has shaped the Indian philosophy and understanding for a very long time. The great epic moves from one story to the other exemplifying the role of various emotions and one's actions. It moves around the characters as they engulf themselves in the internal battle of duty, righteousness, pleasure and result of the actions they perform. It is well known to many characters in the epic as to they suffer for their own deeds and their actions do have reactions. Yet, no one tries to do what is right? The problem is "right" from which perspective? Mahabharata as an epic, opens a plethora of perspectives for us to look at its own characters.

The characters in the epic probably did not understood their own future. They did not even understood the full picture. But we as readers do. When Vyasa composed the epic, he named it "Jaya" meaning victory. He purposefully omitted the question "over whom?". The epic hints at one's victory over themselves. Only when we can learn from the lives of the characters in the epic and imbibe the true meaning, shall we be able to achieve "Jaya". But, who has the patience?

Mahabharata is not kept in many households. It is prohibited from bringing into homes and even reading from start to finish. People believe it may cause disagreements and quarrels in the household. Little do they realize that the book is full of learning for a household. Every character in the book is displayed to led a family life and participate in the procreation of the nature.

When Vyas completes his great epic, he wonders in dismay as to when shall people listen to him? He has been telling everyone to be righteous, be compassionate towards others. This is the only way that shall help everyone survive. Yet no one listens! Better still, no one listens even now......

Vyasa in his attempt to throw his hands in the air and trying to tell the path to everyone is portraying an image of a teacher or a preacher who has a message from the God himself. Ain't that a messenger? Ain't that is what followed in many other religions across the world? The issue in this approach is that of a compliance. When a preacher or messenger tells you a way, the followers must adhere to the path , else they shall digress. The hindu philosophy, however, takes a different approach of an ocean. The ocean is full of knowledge and riches. It is unto the seekers to find what they want in the ocean, using whatever way they want. Probably because compliance is hard to follow!

Sri Krishna told Arjuna the lessons of Gita and explained to him the path to lead a life. Even then we find it hard to live by the lessons from Gita. Compliance is definitely hard, even when the path is shown by God himself. 

Did Yudhisthira tell a lie?

Long time back I wrote a small article on the topic of Ashwathama’s death – “Ashwathama is dead”.  Ashwathama was the son of Dronacharya – the teacher of Kauravas and Pandavas. Dronacharya could only be defeated when Yudhishthira confirmed the death of Ashwathama.

It is said the Yudhishthira was embodiment of the Dharmaraja himself and was known for his principles. It is said that his compliance to principles and rules was so impeccable that his chariot would always be levitated above the ground by about 4 inches. This was an extraordinary feat, only available to gods themselves. However, the moment Yudhishthira replied to Drona affirming the death of Ashwathama, his chariot dipped by 2 inches. Though Yudhisthira’s affirmation was truthful, it was not complete truth for Drona. Yudhishthira’s character was forever marred by this affirmation.

Dronacharya in his young days was a good friend with a young prince who later became a great king – Drupada of Panchal. When they grew up, their situations changed – Drupada inherited the kingdom while Drona resorted to teaching and gathering alms by begging. Drona went to Drupada and reminded him of the promises made in the childhood days and demanded half the kingdom. His demand was considered audacious and was laughed at in the court. A hurt Drona then went on to become the teacher in the Hastinapur court where he taught the Kuru princes. As a teacher he was expected to report on all his pupils to his patron – Bhishma and Dhritarashtra. He was expected to utilize corrective measures to make sure that the princes were learning properly and adhering to the principles. Even at the time of the Mahabharata war, Drona aligned himself to Kauravas due to his love for his own son and also because he was a salaried employee of the court.

Many years later, when the questions arose on Yudhishthira’s character, Sri Krishna came to his rescue. Sri Krishna explained that Drona had forever worked in situations that favored himself. He had been blindsided by his love for his son. Drona demanded the kingdom to provide for his son. Drona served in Hastinapur as he wanted to provide for his son. Drona refused Eklavya, because he wanted to be a teacher only for Kuru princes. Drona refused to teach Karna for his low birth. Drona aligned himself with Kauravas, because Ashwathama was a friend to Duryodhana. Every time, when the choice presented itself to Drona, he always chose what benefitted him and his son. Based on all this, Sri Krishna decreed that Drona had lost his right to listen the truth. Hence it was his fault and not Yudhishthira’s.

How is this story relevant to us? We live in a world that is driven by information. Information that is collected by us through many sources. And then we analyze the same for ourselves and then relay the information with our own flavor attached to it. At times, we form opinions that are stronger than the information itself and bias our judgement. We all play the role of an influencer for at least someone in our own life – parents, children, spouses or siblings are the easiest examples. With the increasing popularity and the ease of resource, the social media is proving to be the largest behemoth in the field of information dissemination. I would urge everyone to be cautious while assimilating all that the social media has to offer. Use it wisely, else you too may lose the very right to listen the truth.