03-09-2005, 03:38 AM
Parasuram's reply
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi sunil:
By all means, we should keep theological considerations out of our review of the Mahabharata in these discussions. Those, in any case, are not central to the conflict the epic covers (any conflict would have sufficed to lay out the Bhagvad gita).
So let us discuss and analyse the hows and whys that led to Kurukshetra. What led the Bharat confederacy, so successfully established by Dushyant's son Bharat, to that horrendous civil war? On the face of it, it was a matter of succession between the sons of Dhritrashtra, the blind regent, and the heirs in waiting, the sons of Pandu. But it was much more than that. Duryodhan was not in the least interested in maintaining a unified confederacy. He was all for letting its parts go their own ways. In this he was encouraged and, indeed, tutored by his uncle, Shakuni of Gandhar, as well as Jayadrath of Sindh (both of whom wanted to be free of Hastinapur). And also by Karna, whom he appointed King of Anga in the east. This movement to dissolve the confederacy is what was the underlying cause of war. I have always emphasized and maintained that there exists a remarkable parallel with India's partition in 1947. So it is very instructive to examine the epic in context of India/pakistan/BD dynamics. The other nearest modern parallel is the American civil war (state's rights).
It is important to examine at what point in the epic did the drive to war overtake all other options. In the begining, Yudhishter was quite willing to have a shared (alternating or rotating) kingship with the Kaurvas. But Duryodhan rejected that - leading to the game of dice, and to Yudhisher losing his inheritence (due to Shakuni). That loss was only temporary (13 years), yet there were already rumbles of war among Yudhishter's allies. (There are parallels here for India, 1937-46). Krishna, ofcourse, is a key person in all this (Krishna, king of the Yadav clan, not Krishna, God's avatar, which, imo, began and ended with the Bhagava Gita). Krishna councelled against war after the gambling loss, but not after the end of that 13 year exile period. It is important to remember that for 12 out of those 13 years the Pandav princes were very much politically active. They maintained the confederacy even under the aging Dhritrashtra (though effectively under Duryodhan). It was when Duryodhan refused to give the Padavas anything after their exile that war became inevitable. Yudhister was willing to settle for 5 villages, under Duryodhan's kingship (recall Gandhi: "Jawaharlal, let Jinnah be the PM", also, Cabnet mission plan, Simla, 1946). But Duryodhan said No, knowing that those 5 villages would reincarnate the entire Bharat federation under the Pandavas. Apeasment did not work then. It does not work now.
Well, without going on about it, I think we need to look at various defing moments in the Mahabharat to get a sense of how the drive to war was born, sustained and enveloped Bharat of that time. I would be glad to contribute my perspective, and hope that this discussion will lead us to some useful insights into current conflict management for India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Hi sunil:
By all means, we should keep theological considerations out of our review of the Mahabharata in these discussions. Those, in any case, are not central to the conflict the epic covers (any conflict would have sufficed to lay out the Bhagvad gita).
So let us discuss and analyse the hows and whys that led to Kurukshetra. What led the Bharat confederacy, so successfully established by Dushyant's son Bharat, to that horrendous civil war? On the face of it, it was a matter of succession between the sons of Dhritrashtra, the blind regent, and the heirs in waiting, the sons of Pandu. But it was much more than that. Duryodhan was not in the least interested in maintaining a unified confederacy. He was all for letting its parts go their own ways. In this he was encouraged and, indeed, tutored by his uncle, Shakuni of Gandhar, as well as Jayadrath of Sindh (both of whom wanted to be free of Hastinapur). And also by Karna, whom he appointed King of Anga in the east. This movement to dissolve the confederacy is what was the underlying cause of war. I have always emphasized and maintained that there exists a remarkable parallel with India's partition in 1947. So it is very instructive to examine the epic in context of India/pakistan/BD dynamics. The other nearest modern parallel is the American civil war (state's rights).
It is important to examine at what point in the epic did the drive to war overtake all other options. In the begining, Yudhishter was quite willing to have a shared (alternating or rotating) kingship with the Kaurvas. But Duryodhan rejected that - leading to the game of dice, and to Yudhisher losing his inheritence (due to Shakuni). That loss was only temporary (13 years), yet there were already rumbles of war among Yudhishter's allies. (There are parallels here for India, 1937-46). Krishna, ofcourse, is a key person in all this (Krishna, king of the Yadav clan, not Krishna, God's avatar, which, imo, began and ended with the Bhagava Gita). Krishna councelled against war after the gambling loss, but not after the end of that 13 year exile period. It is important to remember that for 12 out of those 13 years the Pandav princes were very much politically active. They maintained the confederacy even under the aging Dhritrashtra (though effectively under Duryodhan). It was when Duryodhan refused to give the Padavas anything after their exile that war became inevitable. Yudhister was willing to settle for 5 villages, under Duryodhan's kingship (recall Gandhi: "Jawaharlal, let Jinnah be the PM", also, Cabnet mission plan, Simla, 1946). But Duryodhan said No, knowing that those 5 villages would reincarnate the entire Bharat federation under the Pandavas. Apeasment did not work then. It does not work now.
Well, without going on about it, I think we need to look at various defing moments in the Mahabharat to get a sense of how the drive to war was born, sustained and enveloped Bharat of that time. I would be glad to contribute my perspective, and hope that this discussion will lead us to some useful insights into current conflict management for India.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->