| Weigh with reason
The Roots of War
My thoughts today are prompted by the observation that a reader made on our last instalment with the caption Truth and Falsehood. When we were looking at Truth and Falsehood last week, we were considering the element that decides the quality of a statement. It cannot be denied that Truth has no substitute. But we saw that in critical situations, exemptions are made and there are times when falsehood is condoned. We saw the example of Sugriva whose misstatement was unintentional and not harmful in any manner. We also considered the denial of Vaidehi on her knowledge of the identity of Maruti.
 We also considered the peculiar circumstances that do not allow us to hold the truth of the statement of Dharmaputra, even though he did not utter a falsehood, because though the information given was true, it was not the one that was asked for. Acharya Drona wanted to know whether his son was alive or not. Of course, it is true that Lord Krishna masterminded the statement and sounded his conch at the right time so that the last word in the statement could not be heard. ‘Aswathama was killed, an elephant by that name.’
It is only natural that people get agitated when the balance is held against such a great soul as Yudhisthira and the reader who has expressed his view that Dharmaputra uttered that statement as insisted by the Lord, is right of course. But please keep in mind that the characters in the great epics are just men and women like any of us. They had the same kind of strengths and weaknesses as anyone of us. When each and every character is examined under the magnifying glass, one would realise that there is not a single character that is a hero one-hundred percent or a villain and villain alone, one-hundred percent. Every character had its own portion of forte and foible built into it. In fact, if one thinks it over, it is the broader and stronger portion of a sword that is known as forte and the sharp and relatively weaker portion which is known as foible. Both are parts of the same sword!
Why then is Dharmaputra and his brothers are celebrated? That is because they stuck to what is right in the most difficult circumstances in life and did not move away from that position, mostly. Mostly. ‘guNam naadi,’ said Valluvar. ‘Weigh the merits,’ kutramum naadi’ and look for flaws at the same time. ‘avatruL migai naadi,’ and balance between the two; judge for yourself which is comparatively more. ‘mikka koLal.’ And classify them as straight or crooked on the basis of that which is high. What we are doing is exactly that. We do look at the side that is popularly known and also at the side that is not so very well known, or glossed over.
I feel that this should be mentioned here and now. When I made that statement last week, I did not accuse Yudhisthira. Similarly, I did not underrate Karna when I related him with Sikhandi.
(See: Thus can I be killed) Angry voices were heard in private over that remark. Let this be known. It is my strong belief that every character in the epic has its own importance, its strengths and its weaknesses. In fact that it is built with the materials available on earth - and not out of it - is what makes the epic unique and makes us turn to it for drawing parallels to the events in our lives and look for inspiration, if not guidance. The wicked Duryodhana was not a person without good qualities and the son of Dharma, Yudhisthira was not without weaknesses. ‘nIdhith tharumanum sUdhil anbuLOn,’ observes Subramania Bharati, who was well versed in the original. ‘Even Dharma the wise has his love for the dice.’
 Karna, as I have been stressing time and again, is a peculiar mix of the extremes. The very best and also the basest. When I say that, I say so dispassionately. If he is known for his unhesitating charity, it is because Villi Bharatam in Tamil depicts him that way. Vyasa shows him undertaking a vow of charity just a year before the commencement of war. ‘Until the day I kill Arjuna,’ he vows in the Durbar of Duryodhana, ‘I will give away, to whoever it is, anything that is asked for from me.’ Therefore, as far as Mahabharata of Vyasa is concerned, the quality of liberal charity in Karna is, strictly speaking, not inborn as it is depicted in the Tamil version. I even had occasion to mention that Vyasa brands Karna as one among the ‘evil four’ ‘dhusta-chadhushtra’.
(See: A strange kind of
friendship)
The lie for his education, the falsehood that he uttered to his master is the first of all the errors - intended and unintended, innocent and not so innocent - that he committed. It so happened that during the last phase of his training, his guru Parasurama slept on his lap. A bee bore through his thigh and Karna bled. But he bore the pain and did not stir. The guru was woken up by the warmth of the liquid flowing from the wound.
‘You told me that you are a Brahmin,’ he looked at Karna with askance. ‘No. Only a Kshatriya can accept and bear pain of this kind. You cannot be a Brahmin,’ he accused, his anger against the race of Kshatriyas flared up from its embers in his heart. Parasurama seems to be right, if one takes into consideration that Rama was sleeping on the lap of Sita when Kakasura pecked at her breasts and she was bleeding, but did not stir, in order not to wake up her Lord.
‘I beg your pardon Sir,’ Karna pleaded and fell at the feet of his master. He explained his position. He was not a Brahmin of course, but he did not have any information about his birth that pointed to the fact that he was a Kshatriya.
Where does Karna stand now? We will continue.
Hari Krishnan
harikrishnan@vsnl.net
|
