Kurukshetra War: A personal war of justice?(was revenge earlier) - Page 2

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

Your post reminds me of a passage in 'Yuganta' where Karve argues why Krishna thinks Jarasandh needs to be killed. According to her, Jarasandh broke the code of conduct for the kshatriya community in Aryavarta, by imprisoning 100 kings with view to offer them for sacrifice in a ritual. The law governing the kshatriyas was that even though a certain king subjugated another and obtained supremacy over him, the subjugated king, if not killed in war, would be reinstated on the throne and allowed to rule, but he would have to pay tribute and allegiance to the victorious king. Jarasandh, instead violates this rule, and descends into anarchy. But I also like the way in which Krishna brings about his death with minimal collateral damage.

The same cannot be said of the Kurukshetra war, however.

The Mahabharat war happened because Lord Krishna wanted to extinguish all the proud and arrogant Kings of the Earth. It was not only the Kauravas who died. Remember, everyone on the Pandavas' side died also, except for them. Both sides suffered heavy losses, because that was the purpose of Lord Krishna's incarnation. We simply cannot discount his divine purpose, because then the Mahabharat loses its meaning. There was a purpose to everything that happened, to everyone's death. It was all Lord Krishna's doing. The Pandavas mere merely instruments in his greater plan.

Originally posted by: LeadNitrate

Even when not God, this killing of jarasandh shows what a brilliant tactician he was.

krishna had a personal score to settle with Jarasandh too.

As we know, after Kans was killed, Jarasandh , kans's father in law invaed mathura 17 times and razed the city 18th time, when krishna had to beat a tactical retreat to regroup.

And aside from Karna, no one yet had taken over jarasandh. Krishna was not aligned with karna.

He knew Bheem's strength was the only other hope for him.

Aside from the code breaking, oppression, this was one more reason why Krishna orchestrated Jarasandh Vadh. it rid him and his clan of a powerful enemy as well.

Another brilliant tactician who is often ignored and turned into a caricature is Shakuni.
He was cunning, sly, smart and also wise.

It must be noted he gave good council to Duri but Duryodhan was too set in his way and too whiney to listen to it. He had refused to organise dyut sabha . He had advised Duryodhan not to lose himself in jealousy. The pandavas worked hard to get what they had.

But Duryodhan was mad with jealousy.

That is why matyarsya or dissatisfaction at other's advance is counted as one of the Shararipu ( six deadly sins) in Indian belief system as well.

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

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. I'm a theist myself.

when Krishan asked Draupadi to forgive Duryodhan, he was not asking her not to seek justice, but advising her not to burn in vengeance. one has to struggle and fight for justice, an individual seeking only revenge never gain the satisfaction once vengeance is achieved. but burns up in revenge. Krishan was concerned for Draupadi soul, he wanted her to not forcus on only her own plight, but to consider the other women who undergo the same horrors, but are unable to do anything about it. but she Darupadi as a goddess among women, the empress has the capability to stand up for them, and sooth their pain with her compassion and empathy.

Krishan spoke very simply, that if Duryodhan and his kin, could so daringly, insult and disgrace an empress without even the slightest regret or fear of the consequences. how much more badly would he treat the common women of the kingdom

the Kurukshetra war no matter what was bound to happen, but only due to Duryodhan's pride. he has no intention of giving back Indraprasta to the pandavs, he refuses to accept that what he did and make do was wrong, in his mind putting all the blame on the elders like Bheeshma, Dhrona, and vidhur. Repeating oven and over that he has no fear of the curse bestowed on him, by Draupadi and the pandavs. but he taunted Bheeshma and dhrona that they will suffer the curse for their dhram.

Duryodhan never once regret his horrendous deeds, never once did he ever question if what he did was wrong or right. the Pandavs were his brothers, but never once did he ever consider them as brothers. he only hated and envied them.

the pandavs gave duryodhan every opportunity to be content with all he had, they took a barren wasteland, and built a kingdom there, but duryodhan envy wanted that too. they kuru princes were the epitome of evil, pride, greed, envy, stubbornness, bullheadedness, sloth, lust. there was not an ounce of compassion and empathy or respect for others in them. Their deeds, so blasphemous that both man and god saw it as evil.

and i dont think Krishna on his divine Pedestal needed to state who was right and who was wrong.

the Kuravas deeds and the pandvas deeds, put the ones who were right very clear. the pandavs never took anything that belonged to the kauravas, yudistra even gave up the thrown of hastinapur so the both sides could live in peace. but here too they were duped, they had suffered every injustice quietly. not even demanding an explanation or making an accusation.

once again the take the road to suffering, only making a promise to get back what was theirs when they returned., even if they have to go for war.

silently suffering injustice and tyranny is a greater sin then going to war against that injustice and tyranny.

Whenever a rule or a king becomes destructive to the naturals law, which make all man equal and have the right to life, freedom and happiness. Then it is the right and duty of those who have the capability to alter, abolish and throw off such kingdoms and kings, such rules and institutes. And lay the foundations of principles that will reestablish the fundamental law of nature and society (dharm staphna) so that society can progress and strive without fear of tyranny and injustice.

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

I agree. Fight against injustice cannot be termed as revenge alone. I should change my choice of word in the title of the post and call it a war for justice. A war for personal justice.

@gupta.aditi.20 and @merrydock:

The way i see it there are two ways to look at this

1)Being ordained by god to lessen the weight of earth
This is how vyasa explains it to Dhritrastra when Dhritrashtra was grieving the death of his sons vyasa says that Vishnu ji had promised mother eath to lessen her burden and he had told her this will be done through dhtritrahstra's eldest son Duryodhan hence this was all god's plan to fulfill his promise to earth.And Duryodhan was infact a portion of kali who came into this world to destroy it as part of god's plan and his brother's also turned evil because it was destiny..Basically duryodhan turning evil and everything else was ordained by god to fulfill his promise to earth.Of you look at this it was no war but just god's plan and human beings were behaving the way they were meant to to fulfill god's plan or promise.In any one wants to read this story below is the link

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m11/m11008.htm

2)War for justice

war to get IP back that was taken away from them unfairly and for several other wrongs done against pandavas by kauravas.Now if we view war from this POV the we have to see who was happy after this war.Were pandavas for whose justice this war was fought happy after the war.The answer is no

Below is an entire asection of yudhishtir's lamentation of the war how he feels guilty that for duryodhan;s misdeed so many people were slaughtered

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a007.htm

even draupadi and kunti are very sad for having lost all their sons and grandsons.in stri parva draupadi says what will she do of this kingdom having lost all her sons

so the very people who were seeking justice through this war are not happy at end of the war

Now if i have to choose between above two options i will go with the second one .Since option number one absolves everyone form any human right or wrong since its all god's plan.Now going by the second option its definitely war for justice but people seeking justice themselves had to face grave consequences of the war yes while panadavas wanting justice is the right thing there could have been other ways to get justice without the loss of so many innocent lives

the war should have only been between pandavas and kauravas without involving other aryavrata nations.HP would have fought for kauravas and panchal for pandavas no other nation should have gotten involved then the death and loss of innocent lives would have been much lesser.I mean this is actually a question i have never understood why other nations did get involved they should have just kept out of it and not chosen not to fight the war

or better would have been Bhima should have challenged Duryodhan and Dusashan to for a duel and killed them fulfilling his oath and avenging Draupadi and Arjuna should have challenged Karna for a duel

Originally posted by: bheegi

Dharmaputra Yudhishthira' is a derogatory epithet in Bengal.

Originally posted by: bheegi

Peace, not war When the Kurukshetra War comes to an end, it becomes clear that the theme of the Mahabharata is not war but peace. We have been so mesmerized by the heroic and valorous deeds at Kurukshetra, recounted in the battle books of the epic, that it is only during the sorrowful bath of tears' of the widows of Hastinapura that we begin to confront the other side of war.73 Yudhishthira is left with a hollow sense of victory. It is for this reason that Anandavardhana, the ninth century Kashmiri commentator, concluded that the aesthetic mood evoked by the Mahabharata is not heroic', as one would expect from a war epic, but one of shanta"calm resignation, leading to nirveda, the end of desire.74 Revolted by the violence against all human feeling, remorseful Yudhishthira becomes a disillusioned pessimist.

The kshatriya commanders at Kurukshetra, like their counterparts in Greece, killed most of the men of military age. They were tough-minded and cruel in the cold execution of their soldierly duty. Yudhishthira concludes that there is something terribly wrong with this kshatriya duty, and expresses deep loathing for the warrior ethic of heroism. Once that ethic is stripped of its romance and the embellishments of the sutas, bards', human nakedness is revealed in all its fearful and murderous selfishness. Draupadi and his Pandava brothers may be able to shrug their shoulders and hide behind the thought that after all, this is what war is like', but Yudhishthira cannot excuse the slaughter at Kurukshetra as a necessity of war'.

Yudhishthira also expresses remorse and he too repents. The irony is that many Indians have a low opinion of him. Dharmaputra Yudhishthira' is a derogatory epithet in Bengal. While Arjuna is a brave and valiant warrior, remorseful Yudhishthira is considered weak and indecisive.77 The contempt for Yudhishthira tells us something about our contemporary society. What we need is more remorse, not less, but it is somehow considered unmanly in most modern societies. Yudhishthira's remorse and his hypnotic attraction for ahimsa posed uncomfortable questions for my dharma education.

The Mahabharata believes that purushakara, human initiative', matters. Despite the many occasions when its characters feel frustrated before the weight of circumstances, and despite blaming their feeling of impotence on daiva, fate', moral autonomy shines

through in the epic. Because they have some freedom to choose they can be praised when they pursue dharma or blamed when they follow adharma. Yudhishthira in the end chooses not to become a non-violent' hermit like Jajali. He elects to become a just king, who he knows will have to resort to non-violent danda, punishment', in the pursuit of justice. When the epic's characters make free choices, they become responsible for their decisions. At the moment of making a decision they become conscious of their freedom, and it is this perception of autonomy that gives them the ability to lead authentic moral lives.79 Yudhishthira reflected and he showed the courage to choose between two kinds of lives. He made this choice identifying with all human beings, and this led him to the heart of dharma.

Das, Gurcharan (2010-09-03). The Difficulty of Being Good:On the Subtle Art of Dharma (Kindle Locations 4680-4687). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

What I gather from this and also after reading Jaya- that MB in reality if victory over self- over one's own insecurities, fears, demons etc. The kurukshetra war is just a means to get to the real victory over self that only Yudi actually accomplished in the end. Do we really need a war to reach there? I'm not sure.