Posted:
These are my musings on Krishna's counsel to Draupadi in the episode following the Vastraharan:
1) I agreed with Krishna asking Draupadi to give up her fury to have some peace of mind and not be angry over spilt milk. Only with a calm mind can one one have clarity in his/her thoughts and plan one's next move.
2) But I have my own doubts with Krishna asking Draupadi to convert her personal miseries into a struggle for the greater good of all-the fight against adharma. Here Krishna has already taken the stance that a war is necessary to wipe out all the adharmic kings from the face of the earth and revealed that to be his mission. So war, as soon as it gets divine sanction, becomes necessary for the emancipation of mankind.
3) While all of this makes for a good religious doctrine with the almighty aiding the 'good' with their fight against 'evil', I would like to ask a question here: In reality are the 'good' and 'evil' sides so easily distinguishable? Isn't the Mahabharata all about grey characters? Is war, which all agree should be the last resort, really the solution to all that is plaguing humanity? Doesn't the epic itself haunt us with these very questions?
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.
Disclaimer: Please note that I am not sympathising with Duryodhan neither am I implying that he was on the 'good' side. I am doubting the very fact of who decides which is the 'good' side and which is the 'evil' side in the greater scheme of things. I wholeheartedly sympathise with the cause of the Pandavas, and feel that they are totally justified in avenging the wrongs done to them and demanding their rights. What I am ultimately questioning is people's belief that the Kurukshetra war was, merely because of divine sanction, an altruistic attempt from the good side and a victory for mankind. (which in my opinion is not entirely true).
Not trying to offend anybody's religious sentiments.
EDIT: Some are mistaking the point I'm trying to make in this post. Perhaps I have not been clear enough above. I am aware that the war was fought for justice where the Pandavas fought for their rights that were denied to them even after completing the required term of exile. I am in no way disputing this. All I'm saying is why extrapolate it into a war for 'cleansing the earth of evil' or 'reducing the earth's burden' as is often claimed? What greater good was the death of Duryodhan going to achieve? (apart from justice to the Pandavas that is).The war was a result of a personal feud and not in the interest of mankind in the wider scheme of things, was it?
Health and Fitness
