Originally posted by: Ashwini_D
4) If I am not wrong, even the epic has some evidence stating that the war did more harm than good. If I look at the epic, leaving aside all religious and divine elements, Krishna becomes just another character like the others. As soon as we bring down Krishna from this divine pedestal, the entire perspective of looking at the epic and the war changes. The war becomes a personal strife between two set of cousins, one fighting for their rights to the throne, which were unfairly taken away from them by the other side. So isn't the war what it is: a personal war? And not a war for the greater good? It is only Krishna's Godhood, which is a matter of faith, that lends credibility to the latter, which in my opinion is no credibility at all. We should not accept things, just because they have been sanctioned by religion.
Even when we include Krishna as God in the situation, no one was painted black and white in MB, specially during war.
Infact it repeatedly seeks to show how such a war makes savages out of most decent fellow.
It shows how everyone broke the moral ethical code over and over again from both sides.
After Dhristadyumna fell Drona, the pandava camp broke into bitter quarrel among each other over the ethics of the entire process, with the ever united brothers pandavas , bheem and yudi siding against arjun , Dhristadyumn against satyaki.
The whole Kurukhestra war just shows us the message that war is not an answer to the problem, It begets more problem. But sometimes it is unavoidable.
Now if we do not assume Krishna to be God but the genius politicial mastermind that he was ( which I do very often while analysing MB, its really interesting), still the MB war was not just cousins fighting against cousins.
First off, the demand to return their half of Kingdom( IP) from the Pandavas were valid. It was their hard work that turned the barren land into IP, and they were tricked to give it up. Even so they waited patiently as per the terms and then only formally lodge a complaint. When the opponents did not bulge did they go for war.
Krishna himself played the messenger between two sides, going as far as only demanding 5 villages from Kauravas.
But there is only to an extent you can compromise.
If you do more, you will only end up being oppressed more.
And History is full of such evidence.
At some point, people will rise up and revolt and resist.
You are right though, no body fought the war for selfless motivation. Even krishna, who sacrificed his family and fellow yadavas had this ambition to create a unified India, which was not possible the usual way in the bitter feuding country, separated into small countries.
War has always been needed to join lands in peace. Human Nature does not like to share , unless some greater, stronger personality overcomes it.
That aside there are always personal scores to settle in any war (Even the world wars alliances were forged based on personal scores and less on any principle).
Satyaki and Bhoorishrava for example revived old animosity.
So did bhagdutt when he joined the side against Krishna.
But the whole war, no one actually utters for greater Good word.
There is no such thing as greater good.
If MB wanted to preach how awesomely white pandavas and how awesomely black kauravas are, all pandava children would not be killed.
MB war , with Krishna as God or not , rather explains why a war should not be fought, why we should not be so much greedy, why we should stop ourselves asking for revenge, personal glory, money after a certain point.
But it is not like human kind ever listens.
MB war can be called the zeroth world war.
And after that we already had 2 full fledged world war, which were also fought "For Greater Good" as preached from war manifesto.
Edited by LeadNitrate - 11 years ago
Hindi TV Shows
Advocate Anjali Awasthi
Noyontara
Kumkum Bhagya
