Who is CGM??? Warrior or Slaughter? - Page 4

Originally posted by: deejagi

Hi she is not talking about his age but his relationship with Kauravas. He was their nephew that means their son

Originally posted by: Kaana

Abhay, I am sooo glad to see you here. Well, I am coming here myself after long but what more could be a treat than seeing you here. Now the greedy me is going to ask you all about CGM.

Kaana, I am equally (infact more) glad to see you here. I remember you every time i land on my profile page, because of your testimonial there. :)

As i said on my thread, i was about to quit writing in CN Forum, but then, your comeback has postponed that decision for sometime. I see, we have already started our old question - answer session on my thread. I have replied to your questions. Please check them when time permits.

Also, please bear with this long reply. Some lines may appear repetitive. But i want to clarify my thoughts clearly. So its stretched a bit too much.

Abhay, just a small view from my end. I kind of feel Chanakya was not away from dharma sastras.


Before i start the reply, I want to make a statement, please think about it.

> Chanakya follows dharma but NOT the dharma-sastras ; dharma-sastra is not limited to a single text. There are many texts. You have quoted a shloka from the Santi Parva of Mahabharata, below, which is only one of the texts. But, there are other sastras too, written by Manu etc. We should see what they have to say, and then argue / discuss / debate , in a balanced manner. I have always said Chanakya worked for establishing dharma but not by following the dharma-sastras. Please think.

I am quoting my old comment here which i made on page number - 2 initially, and then wrote the same to Jaya on page number 3 and will now write to you also.

"Despite whatever Chanakya says in Arthashastra ; the fact of the matter is - there are sufficient manuals written by Manu and many other contemporary thinkers / philosophers etc. which give a fine description of the war ethics of those times. If we are reading Chanakya, we have to read the others too and argue in a balanced manner.

Chanakya's is a special case & his writings can not be taken to generalize the tactics adopted by all the other kings. Also, we should remember that the writings of Chanakya are advisory in nature. It is not a niti sastra nor the dharma sastra to which all the kings or priestly class adhered by."

Perhaps the meaning of my lines was not clear, hence i will explain it below.


I would like to quote "mayAcAro mayayavartutavyah sAdvAcAro sadunavartitavyah'-meaning, one''s dealing should be according to the person one is dealing with. A man has to be paid in his own coin if he is an evil fellow and a good one has to treated in all goodness. This is the dharma for Kaliyug, where evil is all around. Unlike Satyayuga where there was virtues and goodness all around. One has to adapt to the yuga. In today''s context we cannot keep showing our other cheek to a person who slaps you. He would coolly slap the other cheek, at least half the population?

You have quoted a shloka. It is from the Santi Parva of the Mahabharata. The words were addressed to Yudhisthira. The correct and complete shloka is :

yasmin yatha vartate yo manushya: , tasmins tatha vartitavyam sa dharma: |
mayacaro mayaya badh-ittavya: , sadhvacara: sadhuma pratyupeya: ||

It means - "Religion and Morality teaches us to behave with others in the same way as they behave with us ; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons". To put it in short - "Tit for Tat".

There is no need to be good to a bad person. This is what you meant above. And i agree with it. Infact, in my comment on page - 1 , i have myself argued in a similar manner as you are doing here, by mentioning the case of Sri Krishna. When Arjuna asks Sri Krishna how can he attack his own kinsmen as attacking them was against the sastras. Then Sri Krishna tells him that in the battle field there is no kinsmen and no Brahman etc. Enemy is simply enemy. Please see page - 1.

BUT

Here i come to the next position which i adopted on page - 2, and the comment which i quoted in red color, above. We should also see what the other sastras tell us. After all, Mahabharata is not the only source to derive our inspiration. I have already said if we are reading one source we have argue, keeping in mind, the other source too.

Mayacaro principle from the Mahabharata is for Kaliyug, as you say, and it is fine. But, it would not be fair to not consider the other sources written in the Kaliyug, which also talk about war ethics, etc.

The Puranas are majorly penned down in the Kaliyug (in written form, from the earlier practice of transmitting through hearing). But, they won't agree with the Mayacaro principle.

And, even if they agree with the Mayacaro principle, we should try to find out, did our rulers actually practice the Mayacaro principle ? After all, writing is a different thing and following it is different.

I don't think Mayacaro was followed. Please turn to page - 2, and see my comment about what Megasthenese wrote about the "fair wars" in India, and what Senguttavan did to his prisoners, what Krishnadeva Raya practiced - all keeping in line with the sastras.



I have immense regards for Yudhistira, but that would blind my eyes to reality. In my view he did not deal with Laura case they should have been. He was showing only goodness all through and they were only taking advantage. That is why Lord Krishna had to step in and bring the correction. MayAcAro quote is the basis of all Krishna''s acts. If this concept is understood, Krushna''s all trucks would fall in perspective. He even tried to get Bheeshma and Karna out pointing out what is the right thing to do - they were just sticking to the rule book. That is why dharma is subtle. It needs to applied judiciously.


To strengthen your point of view i quote -

In the Rig Veda, Lord Indra is not held guilty for killing a person by deceit because that person was himself a deceit. Lord Indra is praised as sinless " tvam mayabhir anavadya mayinam vrtam ardaya: I " It means : "O, sinless Indra ! you have killed Vrtra, by deceit, who was himself deceitful".


Lets take the example of Pitamah Bheeshma.

Case - 1 :

In the Udyog Parva of Mahabharata, Pitamaha Bheeshma says the following shloka to Sri Parashurama :

yo yatha vartate yasmin tasminn evam pravartayan |
nadharmam samavanpnoti na casreyas ca vindati ||

It means : "There is no violation of religion (means it is not immoral) in treating the other person in the same way as he/she treats you; nor does one's benefit thereby suffer."

The above lines imply that Pitamah knows completely that dharma is subtle. He knows there is no water tight chamber into which dharma restricts us. But read the below mentioned statement.


Case - 2 :

In the Santi Parva of the Mahabharata, Pitamah Bheeshma says to Yudhisthira, the following shloka: "

karma kaitaid asadhumm asadlm sadhuna jayet |
dharmena nidhanam sreyo na jaya: papakarmana ||

It means - " the evil actions of evil-doers should be counteracted by saintly actions ; because, even if death follows as a result of dharmic conduct, that is better than the victory which follows from a sinful action."

Point number 2 is from the Santi Parva of Mahabharata. Just like the Mayacaro principle is from the Santi Parva. But both are contradictory.

Unfortunately, most of the kings of those times, seem to follow the Case number 2.

Let us keep us in place of the person in those times and think. How / What does any person, trying to decipher the code of war decide after reading the above 2 clauses of the same text ? What should a person follow ? Should a person follow the example of Lord Indra from Rig Veda or should the person follow the Santi Parva incident or the Udyog Parva incident mentioned above ?

Then, the second point is Mahabharata is not the only source from where the kings used to derive their inspiration. Vedas were there. Then there were war manuals by others like Manu etc. There are so many dharm-sutras to be looked into. There are Puranas, Upanishads and so many Smritis / shrutis from which the code was determined. We know only about Manu Smriti, but there are so many others too.

The message given by Lord Krishna in Gita is very rational and applies to present day conditions too. Hence, you or I can stick to it and say it to be the "right" approach towards dharma. We, being here, can conveniently say that Tit for Tat policy is the best, but we forget that we are analyzing something which was written 1000s of years ago. And should not apply the present standards of rationality here.

Following Lord Krishna's message is like following the principle of Natural justice. If you read his views from the perspective of a military historian (because i am seeing his views from the lens of military historians whom i read, not in context of a divine message) then it appears that he was following the Natural justice principle, and in some places the manipulation too.

You have also quoted the example of Prithviraj Chauhan. One of the reasons for his defeat against Ghori is too much adherence to the sastras. There is a book called "Fundamental Unity of India" by the celebrated historian of ancient India - R.K. Mookerjee. You will find all these things - dharma / dharmasastras, etc discussed there.

Perhaps he can explain better that following dharma does not means following the dharma-sastras.



That said, Chanakya practises this principle (MayAcAro. ..) in my view. Krishna has shown the path - the path of dharma in Kaliyug context. Actually C himself says this in this show, when CGM asks if it was right to do a particular thing. The greater good is held in mind and put before the conduct. To lie is a sin, but lying to save a life is not a sin. That why the context is important and held in mind.


Let us come back to the original point of discussion - Chanakya.

The principle of Mayacaro is as follows :

yasmin yatha vartate yo manushya: , tasmins tatha vartitavyam sa dharma: |
mayacaro mayaya badh-ittavya: , sadhvacara: sadhuma pratyupeya: ||

It means - "Religion and Morality teaches us to behave with others in the same way as they behave with us ; one must behave deceitfully towards deceitful persons, and in a saintly way towards saintly persons".

Mayacaro principle does not leave any scope for ambiguity or contextual evaluation. It is a very clear and objective assessment. It permits one to be deceitful towards a deceitful person. Does this gives anyone a permission to use deceit with a person who might not be deceitful ? No. The permission to use "unscruplous" means is only permitted against a immoral enemy.

But Chanakya won't hesitate to use "unscruplous" means even against a "moral" enemy if his his "scruplous" means fail to yield the desired result. As its said, according to Chanakya, the ends are important, and he was not toiling for selfish ends. He was working for the state - to build Bharatvarsha.

If we turn to Arthasastra. The Mayacaro principle will be rendered invalid and hence can not be used to explain actions of Chanakya. As you said - " According to Chanakya, greater good is held in mind and put before the conduct." This is true. But what is the definition of that "greater good" ? That greater good is "protection of state".

For Chanakya, everything boils down to just one thing - state and administration. He says : " Sukhasya mulam dharma: , dharmasya mulam artha: , arthasya mulam rajyam " which means "Righteousness is the root of happiness, wealth is the root of righteousness, state is the root of wealth". Even here dharma and state are related by him. And, in order to keep the state running, Chanakya prescribes "anything and everything".

For example : Chanakya permits assasination of a rival king when he goes to perform worship in a temple. Is this according to the Dharmasastras ? No. Killing in a temple is a sin according to the Agni Purana. { All these Puranas are penned down in the Kaliyug, and were widely followed.}

This violates the Mayacaro but it can be justified for the case of Chanakya. This is "dharma" for Chanakya. Its his obligation towards his state. According to Chanakya, he is simply doing what is in best interest of his state. Despite going against the dharma-sastras, he is following the dharma. Dharma IS subtle - as you say. Chanakya justifies everything like this only. His duty is towards his state and protecting the state is his dharma and for that he does not needs any dharmasastras. And for this reason only, Chanakya was criticized by Bana Bhatta who lived in the court of King Harshavardhana during the 7th century AD. And it is a severe criticism, because Bana Bhatta was a serious follower of dharmasastras and did not like the approach of Arthashastra.

Following Dharma does not (necessarily) means following the dharma sastras - is the crux of my reply.

That said, I am not stating that Chanakya is an embodiment of nobility ... my knowledge here is limited and his revenge is also a pointer.

This discussion is endless. There are many military historians, so many thinkers and philosophers and tonnes of material on ethics. But no conclusion on this topic, at least i am yet to arrive at any conclusion. My reply is according to my present status of reading. :)

Originally posted by: Kaana

Hey there, how have you been?

Nice to read a post from you. I missed you during Ashoka days but glad I missed the show later

I know I am writing on an old thread. But saw a post in your name and coukdb't help reading it Deejagi. And of course cab never keep my mouth shut so have to write too. I am back after a long time - maybe after Sid quit Ashoka. Though I should quit earlier Sid kept me going.

Yep, I did not like CGM removing the dupatta of Nandi. Evil me says not bcos of Nandi (so far I am not find of the portrayal). But I feel CGM is compromised here. A man who could hold his values even when abused by N about his manliness, ideally would not have done this. I don't know about real CGM, but the portrayal in the show is itself contradicted here. I am not sure it could be reasoned out anyway here- unless it's an overboard justification. I felt the same too- he should have knocked off the sword and slapped her hard so that he would have shut her mouth for sometime.

I am fine with the slaughter of the sons - who would also pose danger in future if left. Though I would have loved if they had shown them defeated and beheaded in the battle field. Be glad he didn't slaughter all soldiers and the public!!! But just thinking, did CGM tell Nand that hr woukd kill his sons jn front of his eyes causing him much pain?

And Abhay, this also a reason why I would argue that Chanakya sticks to dharnasastras.