Mar 27, 2023
Mar 27, 2023
Continued from Bheeshma the Terrible
To go by the interpolated story of the disrobing of Draupadi in the Mahabharata, there were many persons present in the assembly who could have intervened decisively on her behalf. Except for Vidura and Vikarna, two not very powerful figures there who did intervene at least in words on her behalf, the others who felt for her were all afraid of speaking out on her behalf, not to say anything about doing something. These included mighty warriors like Bheeshma, Drona, Ashwatthama and Kripa, and all five of Draupadi’s own husbands. I do not think it was fear of the physical might of Duryodhana that cowed them down – they were fearless men in the battlefield and an encounter with weapons is something that thrilled them all, excepting perhaps Yudhishthira. What made them keep quiet was confusion regarding dharma. In some corner of their minds they felt what was going on was fine. What was being done to Draupadi there was monstrous and ugly, but Duryodhana had the right to do it because Yudhishthira had staked her in the dice game and lost her and therefore she was his slave and tradition and customs gave the master the right to do what he liked with his slave – he could sell her if he so wished, gift her to someone else, have sex with her, give her for sex to another, make her do whatever he wished, do with her whatever he desired, including denuding her and parading her naked in an assembly.
So what was to be decided was the question that Draupadi had raised:
Was she a slave or not? If she was, even if not because Yudhishthira had staked her but by the fact that she was the wife of men who had become slaves and everything that belonged to the slave belonged to the master and in that sense she belonged to Duryodhana and was his property and he could do what he liked with his property, then he had the right to do what he liked with her, including denuding her and parading her naked.
Na dharmasaukshmyat subhage vivektum shaknomi te prashnam imam – “when I examine the situation, oh beautiful one, I am not able to arrive at a clear answer to your question because dharma is very subtle”. This is what Bheeshma tells Draupadi finally responding to her question whether she has been won in the dice game or not – jitam va ajitam va mam manyadhve sarvabhoomipah: “what do the kings present here consider – that I have been won, or that I have not been won?”. A little later he repeats:
Uktavanasmi kalyani dharmasya parama gatih
Loke na shakyate jnatum api vijnair mahatmabhih…
Na vivektum cha te prashnam imam shaknomi nishchayat
Sookshmatvad gahanatvad cha karyasya asya cha gauravat
“I have already told you, auspicious one, the path of dharma is subtle indeed. Even great men with immense knowledge find it difficult to comprehend it… I am not able to arrive at a definite conclusion about your question – because the matter is subtle, deep and of enormous import.”
The essence of dharma is difficult to comprehend; hidden is the path of dharma. Dharma is too subtle and in this case he is not sure what is right and what is wrong.
That is what Bheeshma says.
And that is what ties him down.
Bheeshma is looking at the whole situation from the perspective of Duryodhana’s ownership rights and from whether Duryodhana owns Drauapdi now or not. He does not see the woman in distress standing before him, he does not see the bride of the family being so unforgivably humiliated before them all. Nor do Drona or Kripa or Ashwatthama see this. The four Pandavas feel their dharma does not allow them to act against their eldest brother and that eldest brother feels more or less the same as Bheeshma and Drona feel.
Krishna has no such hesitations, no such wrangling goes on within his heart. He sees the situation clearly from his higher moral standpoint. Here is a woman in distress, she needs his help, he is capable of rendering that help and he helps her. Whether Yudhishthira had a right to stake her, whether she is a slave and other questions like that are immaterial to him. He rises above such petty questions and sees with unerring clarity the human situation there and intervenes decisively showing how he can effortlessly rise to levels of higher morality when the occasion demands.
There is a beautiful encounter between Krishna and Bheeshma in the middle of the Mahabharata war. This happens in the later half of the ninth day of the war. Bheeshma is in a furious battle mood, at his very best as a warrior. Warriors are falling dead all around him in heaps, as are horses and elephants. Banners fall from flagstaffs in their hundreds, broken chariots form mounds around where he is battling. Bheeshma is no less than a fierce forest fire. Unable to stand his ferocity, the Pandava army screams and runs helter-skelter. Such is the terror and confusion, says the Mahabharata, that fathers start killing sons, sons fathers, and friends, friends. Maddened by dismay and dread, the army has lost its mind. Krishna tells Arjuna time has come to put an end to this – Bheeshma should be killed, and he should do that immediately and fulfill his earlier promise. Arjuna looks at Krishna and then he looks at Bheeshma once again – the grandfather in whose lap he had played as a child. Once, he remembers, seated in Bheeshma’s lap, he had called him father and Bheeshma had corrected him – no, he was his grandfather . Arjuna goes into the vishada, melancholy, that he had gone into at the opening of the war, from which Krishna had brought him out through the teachings of the Gita. “Tell me, Krishna,” he says, “killing those who should not be killed and attaining a land [rajya] that would be worse than hell, and living a life of suffering in the jungle – of these two, which is better?”
He then reluctantly asks Krishna to take his chariot to where Bheeshma is. The two engage in a battle – fierce no doubt, but Krishna can see clearly that Arjuna’s heart is not in the battle, whereas Bheeshma, in spite of all his love for his favourite grandson, is merciless in his attack. Bheeshma’s attack grows more and more fierce by the minute, wounding both Arjuna and Krishna all over, bathing them in blood. As Krishna sees the Pandava army perishing all around and realizes that Arjuna is not going to strike back with all his heart, he realizes time has come to break his promise and act on his own. Leaving Arjuna in the chariot, he leaps down from it and still holding his whip in his hand and roaring like an enraged lion, rushes towards Bheeshma to kill him with his bear arms. The earth quakes as Krishna’s wrath-filled steps fall on it. Cries rise up from a thousand terrified throats –
“Bheeshma is finished, Bheeshma is finished.”
Bheeshma sees Krishna approaching him like a whirlwind, murder in his eyes. “Come, come Krishna, and put and an end to my life today,” he says, readying his bow for battle. “I am honoured, Krishna, as never before; it’s like all the three worlds showering blessings on me. Come and finish me, Krishna.” Arjuna jumps down from his chariot and runs after Krishna, and it is only after a furious struggle with him that he succeeds in stopping him by holding on to his legs from behind and clinging on to them. Krishna’s fury does not abate even after Arjuna reminds him repeatedly of his vow of not fighting in the battle. Arjuna tells Krishna that world would call him a betrayer of his own word if he did not stop, a common liar. And then Arjuna vows not to spare Bheeshma, to kill him. He vows to do so by all his merits, by the weapons that are sacred to him as a warrior and by his truth. And it is only then that he is able to lead Krishna back to their chariot.
Here again we see Krishna breaking his word. He has vowed not to fight and yet he rushes towards Bheeshma in battle fury, ready to slay him. Once again proving that unlike Bheeshma, he would break his word if the occasion demands of it – so long as his goal is the good of the world, Krishna does not mind committing that sin. Arjuna specifically reminds Krishna here – the people would accuse him of breaking his word, of being a hypocrite, a liar and a betrayer. But Krishna does not mind that, at least does not mind it enough to stop him from doing what he thinks is right. Once again, he does not allow his morals to stand in the way of his doing what is right.
Two other incidents that prove the transformational nature of Krishna’s leadership need to be mentioned. As we saw earlier, one of the things that a transformational leader does is to raise his followers into plains of higher morality even as the leader himself rises to those levels.
Towards the end of the great war, a moment comes when Arjuna has to choose between conventional morality and higher morality. The wheels of Karna’s chariot are stuck in mud wet with the blood of warriors and the chariot wouldn’t move. Karna jumps down from the chariot and tries to pull up the stuck wheel, requesting Arjuna not to attack him while he was down. The conventions of war said that Karna could not be attacked under such conditions. Let to himself, Arjuna would not have attacked him. But Krishna knows this opportunity to slay one of the most formidable warriors of the enemy army, the most formidable one alive by then, should not be missed – and Krishna asks Arjuna to shoot Karna dead. He tells him the man who is now asking for justice and fair treatment, for dharma, has no right to do so, for this is the man who stood with Duryodhana as his mainstay in all his unrighteous acts, the man who not only stood by and watched when Draupadi was being humiliated publicly in the dice hall, the man who ordered her final humiliation. Arjuna obeys Krishna. By ordering Arjuna to kill Karna, what Krishna does is to help Arjuna see the situation from the perspective of higher morality and give up the stance conventional morality would force him to take. Krishna raises Arjuna to the level of higher moral values here.
Krishna does the same thing during what has become one of the most important incidents in the Mahabharata. Arjuna’s inner conflict and the grief rising from that, about which he talks at great length in the first chapter of the Bhagavad Gita and in the beginning of the second chapter, is a result of his inability to see things from a higher moral plane. The entire message of the Gita is addressed to help Arjuna look at the war and his duty in it from the perspectives of Krishna’s vision – the higher values based on lokasangraha. Here too Krishna functions as a supremely competent transformational leader. And in doing so, he gives us what has become one of our greatest national treasures, the book that has guided our actions through millennia, one of humanity’s most cherished scriptures: the Gita, Krishna’s book of transcendental action, the flowering of his transformational wisdom.
It is interesting to ask oneself why Bheeshma, the highly competent prince, fails repeatedly to provide transformational leadership to his people where Krishna so effortlessly succeeds in doing so. The answer is that Krishna is what he himself describes in the second chapter of the Gita as a sthitaprajna – a man whose consciousness is steadily rooted in the higher. Whereas Bheeshma is a man trapped in his own self-image.
Greek mythology tells us the story of Echo and Narcissus, which Ovid narrates so beautifully in his Metamorphosis. Narcissus was a wild man who lived in the jungle hunting, living the life of a creature of the jungle. He knew no hungers other than that of the stomach. Echo sees this youth handsome beyond description and instantly loses her heart to him. But it was not in her power to address him, for a curse of Juno had reduced her to mere last words – echoes. One day Narcissus calls for his friends who had been separated from him and it is Echo who answers him – she had been following him around in the mountains and caves. However, when she appears before him, stretching her arms out to him in love, he pushes her away, shocked and horrified, for he knew not what love for a woman was. Hurt, her heart still aching with love for him, Echo moves away from him, to spend her time among the lonely mountain cliffs and caves. Gradually she wastes away and becomes just a voice – the echo.
The story takes slightly different turns at this stage. One version of it says that Echo cursed Narcissus that he too would pine away for a beloved and meet with his end, his love unrequited. Another says that it was another nymph whom he rejected that prayed that he would one day know what it was to love and feel the agony of unrequited love, and that the furies heard her prayer and granted it.
One day Narcissus is bent over a lonely fountain to drink water, he sees his image in the clear water and at that moment Echo’s curse takes effect. All on a sudden he feels the awakening of love within his heart – for the beauty he sees in the water. He bends down to kiss his beloved, stretches his arms out in his need to gather her in them, but at his touch the water is disturbed and the image disappears. He stays there agonized until the water calms down again and when he sees the image again, he stretches his arms out again, only to see his beloved disappear again at his touch.
The story tells us Narcissus stayed at the fountain till he fell down emaciated and died there, his love unrequited. The water nymphs and the nymphs of the forest and mountains mourned for him, along with Echo, and prepared a funeral for him. But when they looked for his body, it had disappeared and all they could see was a beautiful flower, purple inside, surrounded by white petals: – the narcissus.
Narcissism in modern psychology stands for self-love, especially destructive, self-consuming self-love. In his early youth young Devavrata took two vows, which transformed him into Bheeshma the terrible. Bheeshma liked his new image very much – he fell in love with it. It was a very honourable image, a glorious image: the martyr, the self-sacrificer, the man of unshakeable vows, the incorruptible man of total integrity. Bheeshma became allured by this self-image, enticed by it. He had turned his back to life and life, Echo, had cursed him in her turn – he was now the accursed Narcissus, bewitched by his own self-image, panging all his life for his own reflection in water, his self-image created by the oaths.
A narcissist cannot be a great leader of men, cannot transform people, cannot touch them.
Bheeshma, in spite of all his several great virtues, fails not because he is incompetent but because he is a man trapped in his own self-image, in conventional morality, trapped within himself. The patriarch of the Bharatas lives an astonishingly long life and comes into contact with several generations of people: Satyavati, Vyasa’s mother, belongs to his own generation. Satyavati’s children, Vyasa, Chitrangada and Vichitraveerya belong to the next generation. Dhritarashtra and Pandu, along with Vidura, belong to the third generation and their children who battle it out in Kurukshetra, the Dhartarashtras or Kauravas and the Pandavas, belong to the fourth. Abhimanyu and other Pandava and Kaurava children belong to a fifth generation. What is shocking is that while all these generations admire and revere Bheeshma immensely, Bheeshma himself has no positive influence on any of these generations. He fails to touch any of them, to transform them into greater beings.
Krishna, the supreme transformational leader, the sthitaprajna, transforms whoever he touches throughout his life.
Rising above conventional morality to levels of higher morality, raising his followers to these levels – this is not the only quality of a transformational leader. A transformational leader has wisdom, has a vision, has the ability to communicate that vision, has the courage to act out that vision, has the ability to identify with his followers and to address their true needs. He creates trust in his followers, has the power to motivate them, is proactive, has immense energy, purpose, total commitment, passion, courage and a powerful presence. At a personal level, he is kind, compassionate, shows understanding and acceptance, and has the power to laugh in the middle of calamities. He is gentle and firm and has the humility of, as the Tibetan Shambhala tradition puts it, the Himalayan tiger – the proud humility of a person who is himself, has no pretensions, does not wear masks.
Krishna, the supreme transformational leader, is all this – and much more.
The philosophy Krishna teaches, the philosophy Krishna practices in his own life, is a dangerous one though. It could mean that the end justifies the means. And to say that is to say something frightening in its implications, its possible interpretations and applications. In the hands of the evil, the philosophy could be disastrous – as the world has seen again and again, is seeing right now. For what is a great end for one, in his preoccupation with his selfishness, in his greed and avarice, in his egotistic self-absorption, in his search for personal glory, maybe misery for another, maybe grief, death and devastation for another.
The only perspective from which the end can justify the means is when your goals are set by a truly noble heart: a heart that wishes ill for nobody, that loves the world as much as it loves itself, and is willing to sacrifice itself at the altar of the good of the other, at the greater common weal. It is only then that we rise to the level of higher values – otherwise what we do is immorality, plain and simple.
Based on a lecture given by the author to senior management students at XLRI, Jamshedpur. The article analyses the saying “Don’t let your sense of morals get in the way of your doing what’s right” in the light of Krishna’s leadership ethos in the Mahabharata, and also Krishna as a transformational leader in the light of this statement. It does this by comparing and contrasting Krishna and Bheeshma as leaders. All translations from the Sanskrit are by the author and are based on the version of the Mahabharata published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur.
More by : Satya Chaitanya
|Epics have always been interpreted too literally. Gambling game is a metaphor for staking all. Draupadi could not have been molested because haran is related to divine not snatching of clothes. Gross body mind have always been metaphorically referred to as clothes for the soul. Even Mirabai bhajan is about colouring her chunari. She sings ' shyam piya mori rang de chunariya'. There are records of Kauravas doing tapas, Karna being chakravarti. Calling an Arya tapasvi a villian would be oxymoron.|
|I do agree with Pradip Bhattacharya ji (5/07/2011) that the title of this paper should be changed as it does not even mention what it says in the heading. How it is prooved that the story is an interpolation. Hoever, I admire the way Satya ji has used the matter and its theme for the students of management to teach that “Don’t let your sense of morals get in the way of your doing what’s right”.|
|the title of this paper should be changed as it does not even mention what it says in the heading.|
|There are several problems with this analysis. In the first place, the Rg Vedic Hymn to Krishi a.k.a 'the Gambler's lament' mentions the fate of the loyal wife who may be stripped of her clothing by the winner of the game. Thus, the stripping of Draupadi has a natural association with the theme of gambling and is not an interpolation. Perhaps, the author is thinking of the popular version where Lord Krishna performs a miracle of lengthening her saree endlessly. |
The subtlety in Dharma that arises is that in a country whose King permits the enslavement of women- whether by reason of their being pledged in a gambling contest or in some other way- then Righteousness holds that the King himself should be subject to the same rule. However, in this case the King has not observed his own duty of care to his wife. Should she suffer for her husband's crime?
At the time of Yuddhishtra's Vishada, the point is made that the most difficult aspect of Dharma is its teaching re. dependants and loved ones. In the end Yuddhistra's vishada (and Bhima's dilemma- which is that he should regard his elder brother as lacking mental competency due to addiction and hence massacre the enemy himself without involving his elder brother.) is resolved by
1) his learning from a meat vendor that parents themselves may be worshipped as God and that neither rituals nor social hierarchy are meaningful. This shows that if Draupati had consented to be dishonoured considering this to be her duty to her husband considered as God then far from being stained, she would achieve the highest purity and moksha. However, since Yuddhishtra himself felt humiliated by his loss- since he himself did not understand and accept that if some must be slaves then the fairest way to establish who should take that role is by tossing a dice. Rawls theory of Justice depends on risk-aversion. 'minimise maximum loss' , on the basis of choices re. Social Contract made behind a 'veil of ignorance'. In other words, the imperfect grasp of Dharma by the husband/King is reflected in his wife's protest. Bhishma is right. This is a subtle area of Dharma.
2) Yuddhithtra learning, from the story of Nala, the secret of probabilistic Game theory from which is derived what we call the notion of Evolutionary Stable Strategies as well as the sort of subject we study under the rubric of mechanism design, balanced games and so on. This is indeed subtle stuff which both Economists and Political Scientists need to learn and understand. It is the only basis of rational discourse and positive sum games.
Yuddhishtra, not Krishna, is the leader here. How can Krishna be a leader? He is God, not a Manager. Krishna sacrifices himself for the sake of Humanity, because such is the all compassionate vatsalya and Grace of the Godhead who is equally concerned with humble folk as with Great Kings.
Mhb discusses karma and dharma and the education of the Just King as well as the conditions Spiritual preceptors must fulfil to be worthy of expounding Theistic religion.
A leader is not one who has all the power nor one who gets all the profit for himself alone. Rather he fulfils a Game theoretic role such that games are 'balanced' and thus have non empty core and positive sum games begin to arise.
It is tempting to say that Bhishma and Duryodhana represent thymotic, Iron Age, chivalry which considered Justice to be a form of patronage, whereas Yuddhishtra is a transitional figure representing the move to deontological ethics which faciliated the great increase in wealth arising out of the development of commerce and Civil Society.
In that sense, perhaps, we may call him a 'transformational leader'. Krishna, on the other hand, was an avatar of God- arising out of compassion and not some curse- who had a specific 'hit list', i.e a well defined mission. Still, since our Lord is always tenderly affectionate towards us and will always rescue us from Vishada, if we let him, the MhB abounds in dramatic situations and heart-rending poetry.
However, neither Bhishma nor Krishna had any business giving leadership (that was not the purpose of their respective incarnations) and that is why they both signally failed in that respect. After all, what need had Krishna to recite the whole Gita to Arjun? He could just have said- 'look here, neither Bhishma nor Drona can be killed. They will protect the warriors on their side. All you have to do is protect your own men by attacking and harrying the other side. You don't have to kill them, just wear them down. The boxer Muhammad Ali called this 'rope-a-dope'. In war you don't have to score an outright victory. Just destroy the morale of the other side by showing superior stamina and fighting spirit. Once Duryodhana's own allies became convinced he couldn't win, they would start pressurising him to come to a compromise.
In reading a work of art one must recognise that some characters with superior gifts are introduced not for the purpose of doing all that needs to be done themselves but because they act as a foil for heroes who are on a more human scale.
Still, by looking at the personalities of Field Marshals and the sort of strategy they used on different days of the Kurukshetra battle insights- analysable by Game theory- can be gleaned. Different circumstances, different odds, demand different types of leaders- at least at the tactical level. Strategic univocity, if conceivable at all, would be a product of a very deep theory of the game.