LAZY NOTES (IN LOCKDOWN)

III

BHIMA'S OATH

In Sarala Mahabharata, Kunti and Yudhisthira thought of Bhima as dusta. It would be grossly unfair to translate “dusta” as wicked, in the given context. Wicked, he was certainly not. When he was a child, he was naughty and sometimes for fun, he would tease and torment his Kaurava cousins. He was totally devoted to his mother and his brothers and no one had done for them more than him to make their life a bit easier when they spent years in the forest. With him around, they were safe. After his wedding, whenever Draupadi needed his help, he did not disappoint her.

He was totally committed to Yudhisthira and obeyed him but did not hesitate to denounce him, when he found his action insufferable. He was deeply devoted to Krishna. Unlike Yudhisthira and Arjuna, he obeyed him unquestioningly. In Sarala Mahabharata, Krishna was the only one who feared but it was not out of fear that he obeyed him. He did not understand Krishna, neither did he ever try, but readily did what he asked him to do. His relation with the Avataa was not based on jnana (knowledge) but on bhakti (devotion) of a kind. He had surrendered to him but it was not a conscious act of his; neither was he conscious of it. Through his characters, the bhakta (devotee) poet Sarala explores the many forms of relationship between nara and Narayana.

Krishna thought of him as dusta as well, as someone who was thoughtless and was inclined by nature to be violent. No one thought he was vicious and sinful. That he certainly was not. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that he was virtuous. It was merely that full of energy, he was impatient and impetuous and could be excited easily. When provoked, he could be really wild and very destructive.

Now, despite all their suffering caused by the Kauravas and despite the oaths that he had taken during Draupadi’s humiliation in the Kaurava court, when the time came to decide on a conclusive war with the Kauravas, he was unenthusiastic.  He did not want a fratricidal war. He felt it was wrong. He told Krishna that he would be content if Duryodhana gave him one village for his subsistence. Krishna had to provoke him to give up that attitude and think in terms of war. Inciting him wasn’t difficult. Yudhisthira, Arjuna and Nakula also did not want war if Duryodhana gave them what they wanted: Yudhisthira wanted one village for himself and his brothers, Arjun, one village for himself and Nakula, two, one for himself and one for his brother, Sahadeva. Krishna did not try to incite any of them, the way he did to Bhima. He knew who to incite. This episode shows why it would be justified to call Bhima essentially virtuous and at the same time, why Krishna thought he was dusta in the above sense of the word.

In the war, he redeemed his oaths: he killed all the Kaurava brothers who were fighting against the Pandavas and tore off Dussasana’s arm and washed Draupadi’ hair with his blood. Still wild with rage and going beyond his oath, he tore open his chest and drank his blood. Later he must have felt guilty or at least embarrassed about it. After the war, when Gandhari asked him how he could drink the blood of the warrior he had defeated, Bhima said that fearing condemnation, he did not drink the blood; he just touched it with his lip.

Incidentally, when Bhima hit Duryodhana’s thighs and felled him, he didn’t redeem any oath. In Sarala Mahabharata, Duryodhana hadn’t suggested to Draupadi to sit on his lap and Bhima hadn’t taken an oath to break his thighs. Clueless about how to tame Duryodhana when they were fighting, Bhima looked at Krishna for help, the way he had done during his fight with Jarasandha. Like then, Krishna had come to his help. He had indicated to him that he had to hit Duryodhana on his thigh.

In the “Mahabharata” world, be it the world of Vyasa Mahabharata or of Sarala Mahabharata, taking revenge was considered to be the moral duty of a kshatriya at least. Bhima had fulfilled his oath. He had done his sacred duty. Of course, in Sarala Mahabharata, he went beyond his oath, as mentioned above, when he tore apart Dussasana’s breast and drank his blood. Arguably, this event satisfied the requirement of the narrative at that stage. We will return to this part of the episode in a future note.

Nobody in Sarala Mahabharata ever said that the oath itself was terribly, terribly wrong. It was an oath that dreadfully dehumanized the utterer and his target both. None said that the utterance itself was a degrading act – a papa (sin).

 

LAZY NOTES (IN LOCKDOWN)

II

ARJUNA'S REVENGE

In the episode of “The Mango of Truth” (see the post on June 9, 2005 in this blog), Arjuna had told Krishna this truth, among others, about himself in the presence of his brothers, Draupadi, sage Vyasa and the imposter Gauramukha: he would never target an enemy who was fleeing from the battle (sangrame shatru pithidele sahasra na marai – in the battle – enemy – if turns his back – arrows – not – shoot = if the enemy turns his back on the battle, I do not hit him with my arrows). When the mother, who is going for her bath, tells her child to protect the butter from the crow till her return, she does not mean that he could allow a pigeon or a cat to eat it. Likewise, Arjuna’s declaration is not to be taken literally. What he said would cover situations like the enemy being without weapons or for some other reason, not being in a position to defend himself, having surrendered to him, etc.  Now, he didn’t say this to Krishna on that occasion but a reader of Sarala Mahabharata knows that this virtuous warrior would not attack unless he is attacked. He had refused to start a battle at least twice. In the Kurukshetra battlefield, when Krishna asked him to attack Bhishma and start the war, he had told him that he would respond only after he was attacked. Later, when he faced the army of the mlecha king Mayasura and Krishna asked him to attack them, he told him the same thing: he would wait for them to attack him and would fight with them only then.   

Now think of what he did when he came face to face with Jayadratha the day after Abhimanyu’s death. He had taken a vow that he would consign himself to the fire if he failed to kill Jayadratha by evening that day and avenge the killing of his son. Jayadratha was so well-protected in the battlefield that he could not penetrate through the layers of his defence before it became dark. Arjuna requested Duryodhana to light the funeral fire. The fire was lit and Arjuna was readying himself to enter it when Sakuni asked Jayadratha to come out of his protective ring and witness the event and he came out.

The sun suddenly appeared, as unknown to every mortal, Krishna withdrew his divine chakra, Sudarshana which had covered the sun.  Duryodhana asked his brother-in-law to flee from the battlefield and save himself. He ran for his life and Arjuna and Krishna abandoned their chariot and chased him. With one arrow, Arjuna cut off his bow and destroyed his quiver. Jayadratha stood unarmed and defenceless.  

Jayadratha begged for mercy. “Save me, O Partha,” he said, “You are known to be the noble warrior, who spares his enemy when he abandons fighting and surrenders to him. I have surrendered.  I am your servant from now on. Save me. Save me”. Arjuna felt sad. Jayadratha was his brother-in-law. “There is no merit in killing one’s relations, O Krishna, said Arjuna. “Those who kill their kin for their selfish gains, head to narka (hell). Why did we start this fratricidal war, O Keshava?”, said Arjuna in grief.

Krishna told him that the man was vile and insincere. If he spared the vile wretch, he would mercilessly kill his brothers and he would not be there to save them, having entered the fire for failing to redeem his promise. Besides, he was the killer of his son and not avenging one’s son’s killing was a grievous sin. One would suffer in narka for that. “Jayadratha is doomed,” the Avatara told him. “I have saved him for you, O Partha”, said Krishna, “if you don’t kill him, someone else will; if no one does, then I will”. In this assertion, one hears the echo of Krishna’s words in Srimad Bhagavad Gita – Bhishma, Drona and the others were already dead, killed by Him, had said He, in His Viwarupa Form. He, Sabyasachi was to be only a nimitta.    

That last sentence has a narrative purpose; it brings Abhimanyu again into the discourse in a different way.  This was Krishna’s strategy to provoke Arjuna – to keep reminding him of Abhimanyu so that his mind would be filled with the image of his dead son and he would forget for that moment his warrior-dharma. He succeeded. How Jayadratha was killed, let that remain for another note. From another perspective, in the Bhagavad Gita, it was the Essence of the Avatara Krishna in His Supreme manifestation who was speaking to Arjuna; here it was the Avatara speaking. The Avatara has human relations; his Essence has none.

In Sarala Mahabharata, no one blamed Arjuna for the death of Jayadratha. The Kauravas blamed Krishna – on suspicion. If impossible things happened, Krishna must be the reason, they thought. Who didn't! As for Arjuna, it never occurred to him during the many years he lived after his brother-in-law’s death, that he had compromised with his warrior-dharma.