The Enigmatic Character of Dhritarashtra

The Mahabharata, one of the greatest epic tales from ancient India, offers a vast array of characters, each with their own complexities, motivations, and enigmas. Among them, Dhritarashtra, the blind king of Hastinapura, stands out as a figure of profound tragedy and mystery. His life, filled with contradictions, moral dilemmas and profound tragedies, offers deep insights into the human condition and the complexities of dharma (duty/righteousness). As the blind king of Hastinapura, his reign and decisions significantly influence the course of the epic’s events.

Early Life and Ascension to the Throne

Dhritarashtra was born to Vichitravirya’s wife Ambika and Vyasa, the sage. A bad omen marked his birth: his mother, Ambika, closed her eyes out of fear when Vyasa approached her, resulting in Dhritarashtra being born blind. This blindness would symbolize not only his physical state but also his moral and spiritual vision throughout his life.

Despite his blindness, Dhritarashtra was a formidable individual, endowed with immense physical strength and intellect. However, his blindness was perceived as a significant disadvantage for a king, and hence, his younger brother Pandu was chosen to rule Hastinapura. The sidelining of Dhritarashtra in favour of Pandu set the stage for future conflicts and his deep-seated sense of insecurity and resentment.

The Enigma of Blindness

Dhritarashtra’s blindness is both a physical condition and a metaphorical theme running throughout his life. While it limits his ability to perceive the world directly, it also symbolizes his moral and emotional blindness. Despite being well-versed in the shastras (scriptures) and having the guidance of wise counsellors like Vidura and Bhishma, Dhritarashtra often fails to see the impending dangers and injustices happening around him, particularly those perpetrated by his own sons.

Marriage and Family Dynamics

When Dhritarashtra was old enough to marry, Bhishma asked King Subala of Gandhar for his daughter Gandhari’s hand in marriage. Subala, though hesitant about a blind son-in-law, agreed due to the prestige and the fear of Bhishma’s power. Gandhari unwillingly submitted to the will of her father, and to live with a husband who is blind.

Gandhari, in a gesture of solidarity and empathy, blindfolded herself for life to share her husband’s darkness. This act of sacrifice and loyalty added a complex layer to their relationship. Gandhari’s decision, motivated by duty and devotion, led to a shared experience of symbolic blindness for both her and her husband.

Pandu’s Shadow and the Rise of Envy

Dhritarashtra, the eldest son of King Vichitravirya, is denied the throne because of his blindness. The crown passes to his younger brother Pandu, despite Dhritarashtra being the rightful heir. This denial sows the seeds of resentment in Dhritarashtra’s heart. He feels cheated of his birthright, a feeling that festers and fuels his ambition for power.

Prosperity and righteousness marked Pandu’s reign. He fathers the Pandavas, who are hailed for their valour and virtue. Dhritarashtra, fathers the Kauravas, who are impulsive and power-hungry. This disparity breeds envy in Dhritarashtra. He sees the Pandavas as a threat to his lineage and a constant reminder of his denied kingship.

The Birth of the Kauravas

The birth of the Kauravas, particularly the eldest son Duryodhana, is a crucial turning point in Dhritarashtra’s life. Duryodhana’s birth was unusual and unsettling, with strange signs like donkeys braying and jackals howling, but Dhritarashtra ignored them. Despite these warnings and the wise counsel of Vidura, who suggested that Duryodhana should be abandoned for the greater good, Dhritarashtra’s blind love for his son prevents him from taking decisive action. This decision sets the stage for the future conflicts and tragedies. Even though married before his younger brother Pandu, Duryodhana; his eldest son was born after Yudhishthira, the eldest son of Pandu, who becomes the natural successor for the kingdom.

The Enigma of Fatherhood

Dhritarashtra’s relationship with his sons was complex. He passionately loves them but fails to guide them properly. He condones their misdeeds, particularly Duryodhana’s jealousy towards the Pandavas. This inaction stems from his own insecurities and fear of losing control. He becomes a silent enabler, setting the stage for the inevitable conflict. Dhritarashtra’s indulgence of Duryodhana’s whims and his failure to reprimand him for his wrongdoings illustrate his moral blindness and lack of effective leadership.

The Blind King: Symbolism and Reality

Dhritarashtra’s blindness serves as a powerful symbol throughout the Mahabharata. His inability to see the world physically parallels his moral and ethical blindness. Despite his wisdom and occasional insights, he frequently failed to act justly or decisively when it mattered most. This duality of being wise yet impotent highlights one of the central enigmas of his character.

As a king, his inability to assert authority independently marked Dhritarashtra’s reign. His decisions were heavily influenced by his ambitious and unscrupulous Brother-in-Law, Shakuni, and his aggressive son, Duryodhana. This reliance on others for guidance and decision-making further exemplifies his inner conflicts and weaknesses.

Dhritarashtra is one person who could have avoided the war, had he followed the advice of elders in the Sabha such and Bhishma, Drona and Kripa and Vidura, his half-brother and Chief Minister. His inaction finally led to the total annihilation of the Kauravas and their allies. However, he has also contributed immensely to the world at large through his participation in some of the vital events and discussions that gave us great teachings and knowledge, such as Bhagavad Gita, Vidura Niti and Sanat Sujatheeyam.

The Internal Struggle: Duty vs. Desire

Dhritarashtra is caught in a constant battle between his duty as a king and his desire to see his sons on the throne. He knows the Kauravas are wrong in their pursuit of power through deceit. Yet, his love for them clouds his judgment. This internal conflict paralyzes him, making him a reluctant participant in the brewing war.

The Dice Game and Draupadi’s Disrobing

One of the most critical episodes in the Mahabharata involving Dhritarashtra is the infamous game of dice. Encouraged by Duryodhana and Shakuni, the game was orchestrated to dispossess the Pandavas of their kingdom and wealth. Despite knowing the moral and ethical implications, Dhritarashtra allowed the game to proceed, driven by his blind love for his sons and his inability to assert his moral authority.

The humiliation of Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas, in the court of Hastinapura during the dice game is one of the most harrowing scenes in the epic. Dhritarashtra’s passive role during this event, where he neither stops the injustice nor adequately addresses it afterward, underscores his moral blindness and his failure as a ruler and a protector of dharma.

The War of Kurukshetra

The culmination of Dhritarashtra’s failures as a king and father is the Kurukshetra War, a monumental conflict between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. Throughout the lead-up to the war, Dhritarashtra vacillates between his attachment to his sons and his understanding of the righteousness of the Pandavas’ cause. Despite many opportunities to make peace, his inability to act decisively contributes to the war’s outbreak. The war results in the near-total annihilation of his lineage, a tragic outcome that he had the power to prevent but was unable to due to his indecisiveness and moral blindness. His dialogues with Sanjaya, who narrates the events of the battlefield, reflect his deep internal turmoil and his awareness of the inevitable destruction that his decisions had wrought.

The Aftermath and Final Days

After the devastating war, Dhritarashtra’s life is marked by profound grief and regret. The loss of all his sons, especially Duryodhana, plunges him into deep sorrow. His conversations with the surviving Pandavas, especially Yudhishthira, are filled with remorse and a longing for redemption. These moments offer a glimpse into his internal turmoil and the heavy burden of his failures as a king and father. Despite his past mistakes, Dhritarashtra’s eventual acceptance of his fate and his withdrawal to the forest for penance with Gandhari show a desire for atonement and inner peace.

The Duality of Dhritarashtra: Strength and Weakness

Dhritarashtra’s character is a study in duality and contradiction. He possessed immense physical strength yet was physically blind; he had profound wisdom yet lacked the moral courage to act upon it. His life was a constant struggle between his duties as a king and his affections as a father. These contradictions make Dhritarashtra one of the most complex and tragic figures in the Mahabharata.

Dhritarashtra’s Legacy

Dhritarashtra’s legacy is one of tragedy and caution. His life serves as a poignant reminder of the consequences of moral and emotional blindness. His story is a complex tapestry of love, loyalty, duty, and failure. It underscores the importance of righteous leadership, the dangers of unchecked ambition, and the profound impact of parental influence on one’s progeny.

Affection vs. Duty:

Dhritarashtra’s deep affection for his sons, especially Duryodhana, often clouded his judgment. His inability to discipline his sons and curb their destructive ambitions ultimately led to the downfall of the Kuru dynasty. His love for his family was his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.

Wisdom vs. Action:

Despite his profound understanding of dharma and the consequences of adharma (unrighteousness), Dhritarashtra often failed to act. His wisdom was not matched by his ability to make just decisions or take decisive actions, leading to catastrophic results for his kingdom and family.

Conclusion

The character of Dhritarashtra in the Mahabharata is a study in contrasts and complexities. His life is a series of enigmas, from his birth and blindness to his reign and ultimate downfall. Through his story, the Mahabharata explores themes of power, responsibility, morality, and the human condition. Dhritarashtra’s tragic flaws and the catastrophic consequences of his decisions provide timeless lessons on the importance of vision – both literal and metaphorical – in leadership and life.

Dhritarashtra remains an enigma. Is he a victim of circumstance or an architect of his own downfall? Is he a man consumed by ambition or a father blinded by love? The Mahabharata offers no easy answers. It leaves the reader to grapple with the complexities.

/0 Comments/by

Enigmas in the life of Bhishma – The Enigma of Legacy

Bhishma’s legacy is a rich tapestry woven with threads of both admirable qualities and questionable choices. Is he a paragon of duty, a tragic figure bound by vows, or a flawed warrior who prioritized loyalty over justice? The Mahabharata offers no simple answers. Bhishma’s character compels readers to grapple with the complexities of morality in a world fraught with conflicting obligations. Perhaps the true enigma lies not in finding a single answer, but in appreciating the multifaceted nature of Bhishma’s character. He embodies the internal struggles of a man caught between duty and righteousness.  His story serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us that unwavering adherence to vows, without moral discernment, can lead to disastrous consequences.

Unmatched Warrior Prowess: Bhishma is revered as one of the greatest warriors of his time, possessing unparalleled martial skills, strategic prowess, and valour on the battlefield. His feats in combat, including his ability to single-handedly hold off entire armies, are legendary and continue to be celebrated in Hindu mythology.

Steadfast Adherence to Principles: Bhishma is known for his unwavering commitment to principles of duty, honour, and sacrifice. He upholds his vows with utmost dedication, including his vow of lifelong celibacy and his pledge to serve whoever sits on the throne of Hastinapura. Bhishma’s steadfastness in upholding his principles, even at great personal cost, serves as an example of moral integrity and resolve.

Loyalty to the Kuru Dynasty: Throughout his life, Bhishma remains loyal to the Kuru dynasty, particularly to his father King Shantanu and later to his nephews, the Kauravas and Pandavas. His loyalty to the throne of Hastinapura, despite his personal misgivings about the actions of certain members of the royal family, reflects his sense of duty and commitment to his lineage.

Spiritual Wisdom and Teachings: besides his martial prowess, Bhishma is revered for his wisdom and teachings on various aspects of life, morality, and governance. His conversations with Yudhishthira, the eldest of the Pandavas, on subjects such as dharma (duty/righteousness) and kingship impart valuable lessons that continue to resonate with readers and scholars of Hindu philosophy.

Symbol of Sacrifice: Bhishma’s sacrifice, both literal and symbolic, embodies the concept of selflessness and sacrifice for the greater good. His willingness to endure suffering for the sake of his principles and obligations inspires reverence and admiration.

Passing Down the Vishnu Sahasra Nama – Before his death, Bhishma imparted the Vishnu Sahasra Nama (a thousand names of Lord Vishnu) to Yudhishthira, the eldest Pandava. His wisdom and devotion continue to inspire generations of Hindus.

However, Bhishma’s legacy remains shrouded in ambiguity. He is revered as a warrior of unmatched prowess, yet his loyalty to a flawed dynasty casts a shadow. Is Bhishma a hero for his unwavering loyalty and adherence to duty, or a pawn trapped by his own vows? Let us analyse the enigma of his legacy.

Flawed Allegiance: Bhishma’s unwavering loyalty to the throne, even to a corrupt king, led him to fight against the righteous Pandavas. This blind loyalty to a flawed system is seen by some as a weakness.

Silent Observer: Despite his immense power, Bhishma remained silent during the humiliation of Draupadi. This raises questions about his commitment to upholding justice beyond his oath.

Limited Action: Bhishma’s adherence to his vows, particularly his vow of lifelong celibacy and his refusal to ascend the throne himself, also raises questions about the limits of duty and personal agency. While his commitment to his principles is admirable, some may argue that Bhishma’s rigid adherence to his vows ultimately limited his ability to act in ways that could have prevented or mitigated the tragedy of the Kurukshetra War.

Actions as Commander-in-Chief of Kaurava Army—On appointing as General, Bhishma said “With the power of my weapons, I can destroy this universe consisting of gods, Asuras, Rakshasas, and human beings, but I will not kill the sons of Pandu. However, I will kill ten thousand warriors every day. One another condition for me to accept the position is that either I will fight first or Karna as he boasts a lot and compares himself with me.” This led to Karna withdrawing from the battle, the only warrior who could have defeated Arjuna and won the war for Duryodhana. Bhishma, while explaining the army and mighty warriors on both the sides, praises the powers of the Pandavas and their generals while belittling some of the dominant warriors on the Kaurava side. This led to high demotivation on the Kaurava side. He also advised Yudhishthira how to defeat him, which was totally unethical.

Tragic Figure: tragedy and internal conflict also marked Bhishma’s legacy. Despite his noble intentions, his role in perpetuating the succession crisis within the Kuru dynasty and his participation in the Kurukshetra War, which leads to immense loss of life and suffering, weigh heavily on his conscience. Bhishma’s inability to prevent the escalation of conflict and his eventual demise on the battlefield contribute to the tragic dimension of his character.

Krishna – Krishna was Bhishma’s idol, his God. Yet he fought against him. Bhishma fought against Dharma and his beloved Pandavas.

Ultimately, Bhishma’s character serves as a reminder of the complexities of human nature and the moral dilemmas inherent in navigating conflicting duties and principles. Whether he is viewed as a hero or a pawn depends on one’s interpretation of his actions and the values they represent.

The complexities of morality in a world fraught with conflicting obligations arise from the intricate nature of ethical decision-making in a diverse and interconnected society. Here are several key aspects that highlight these complexities:

Multiple Ethical Frameworks – Different cultures, religions, and philosophies offer varying ethical frameworks, leading to conflicting moral imperatives:

  • Deontological Ethics: Focuses on duty and adherence to rules. Actions are deemed right or wrong based on their adherence to rules, regardless of the outcomes.
  • Consequentialism: Judges actions by their outcomes. The right action is the one that produces the best overall consequences.
  • Virtue Ethics: Emphasizes the character of the moral agent rather than specific actions. Moral decisions are based on what a virtuous person would do.
  • Religious Ethics: Moral principles derived from religious doctrines can sometimes conflict with secular ethical principles.

Role Conflicts – Individuals often play multiple roles in society, each with its own set of obligations

  • Professional vs. Personal Ethics: Professionals may face dilemmas where their duties to their employer or client’s conflict with their personal moral beliefs.
  • Parental vs. Civic Duties: Parents might struggle to balance their responsibilities to their children with obligations to their community or society at large.
  • Conflicting Loyalties: Situations where loyalty to a friend or family member conflicts with ethical obligations to a broader group or principle.

Moral Dilemmas – Scenarios where any available action will violate some ethical principle, creating a no-win situation:

  • Trolley Problem: Choosing to sacrifice one person to save many others, raising questions about the morality of actively causing harm versus allowing harm to occur.
  • Whistleblowing: Deciding whether to expose unethical practices at the cost of personal and professional repercussions.

Globalization and Cultural Diversity – As the world becomes more interconnected, moral agents must navigate a landscape of diverse cultural norms and values:

  • Cultural Relativism: The belief that morality is culture specific can conflict with universalist ethical perspectives that hold some moral principles as universally valid.
  • Human Rights vs. Cultural Practices: Balancing respect for cultural traditions with the advocacy for universal human rights can lead to ethical conflicts.

Technological and Scientific Advancements – New technologies and scientific discoveries pose novel ethical questions:

  • Privacy vs. Security: The ethical implications of surveillance technologies that enhance security but invade personal privacy.
  • Biotechnology: Moral questions surrounding genetic engineering, cloning, and AI development.
  • Digital Ethics: Issues like data ownership, AI decision-making biases, and digital inclusion.

Environmental Ethics – Balancing human development with environmental stewardship involves conflicting obligations to current and future generations:

  • Economic Growth vs. Sustainability: The need for economic development can conflict with environmental conservation efforts.
  • Resource Allocation: Ethical dilemmas in the distribution of limited natural resources between nations and populations.

Economic and Social Justice – Addressing inequalities and ensuring fair treatment for all involves navigating competing interests and values:

  • Wealth Distribution: Balancing the rights of property owners with the need to address poverty and economic disparity.
  • Affirmative Action: The conflict between promoting diversity and ensuring merit-based selection processes.

Moral Luck and Responsibility – The concept that factors beyond one’s control can influence moral responsibility complicates ethical judgments:

  • Circumstantial Luck: The ethical implications of decisions made under duress or in extreme situations.
  • Constitutive Luck: How one’s upbringing, genetics, and environment impact their moral character and decision-making.

Conclusion

Navigating morality in a world with conflicting obligations requires a nuanced understanding of various ethical principles, sensitivity to cultural diversity, and the ability to weigh competing values and interests. It involves continuous reflection, dialogue, and sometimes compromise to find balanced solutions to complex moral problems. This intricate interplay of factors makes ethical decision-making a deeply challenging yet fundamentally important aspect of human life.

The legacy of a CEO of a large corporation encompasses the long-term impact and influence of their leadership on the company, its stakeholders, and often the broader industry. Key elements that define the legacy of a CEO are Financial Performance, Effective control of costs and operational efficiencies, Innovation and Strategic Vision, Introduction of groundbreaking products or services, Market Expansion, Technological Advancements, Implementation of systems and processes that enhance productivity and quality, Fostering a positive, inclusive, and productive workplace culture, Talent Management, Commitment to high ethical standards and corporate governance, Building and maintaining a strong, positive brand reputation, Enhancing customer satisfaction and loyalty through exceptional service and product quality, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Active participation in and support for community and social causes, Ensuring adherence to laws and regulations, minimizing legal risks, Sustainability of Success and Building and maintaining trust and confidence among shareholders and investors.

A CEO’s legacy can be negatively impacted by a range of factors, from financial missteps and strategic errors to cultural issues and ethical lapses. Effective leadership requires a balanced approach, focusing on sustainable growth, ethical practices, and strong stakeholder relationships to avoid these pitfalls.

/0 Comments/by

Enigmas in the life of Bhishma – The Enigma of Loyalty

In the epic Mahabharata, one character stands out for his unwavering dedication and loyalty to the Kuru kingdom: Bhishma. Renowned for his unparalleled prowess in battle and his unyielding commitment to his word, Bhishma is often hailed as the epitome of loyalty and duty. However, upon closer examination, Bhishma’s loyalty to the Kuru kingdom reveals a complex tapestry of conflicting loyalties, moral dilemmas, and personal sacrifices.

Bhishma, born as Devavrata, was the son of King Shantanu and the river goddess Ganga. From a young age, he displayed exceptional valour and wisdom, earning the admiration of all who knew him. When his father fell in love with Satyavati, Devavrata vowed never to ascend the throne himself, ensuring that Satyavati’s sons would inherit the kingdom unchallenged. This selfless act of renunciation established Bhishma’s reputation as a paragon of loyalty to the Kuru dynasty. Throughout his life, Bhishma remained steadfast in his allegiance to the Kuru kingdom, serving under successive generations of kings with unwavering dedication. As the granduncle of the Pandavas and Kauravas, he plays a pivotal role in their upbringing, imparting invaluable lessons in warfare, governance, and morality. However, Bhishma’s interpretation of duty and loyalty that invites scrutiny. While he remains steadfast in his allegiance to the Kuru dynasty, his actions are not always aligned with conventional notions of righteousness.

The Vow of Celibacy – Central to Bhishma’s character is his oath of celibacy, taken to ensure the ascension of his father’s union with Satyavati and her progeny to the throne of Hastinapura. This vow, born out of his love and respect for his father, binds him to a life of renunciation, denying him the joys of marital bliss and fatherhood. While his commitment to this vow is unwavering, it also serves as a barrier to his personal ambitions and desires, shaping his actions in both subtle and profound ways. This is also against the tenets of Hinduism where a son is supposed to help his father follow the Ashrama dharma to attain Moksha but drawn him back to Grihasthasram at 70 years.

Adharmas against Pandavas – His decision not to intervene in the intensifying strife between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, despite his moral and ethical reservations about Duryodhana’s deeds, prompts reflection on the boundaries of allegiance in the presence of wrongdoing. Bhishma’s silence and inaction throughout Duryodhana’s various attempts, such as the poisoning and drowning of Bhima or the scheme to eliminate the Pandavas and Kunti in the lac house in Varanavat, various other events leading to the Kurukshetra war, underscore his choice not to wield his moral and positional influence to intervene.

Silence during Draupadi’s Disrobing – Perhaps one of the most morally contentious moments in the Mahabharata is Bhishma’s silence during Draupadi’s disrobing in the Kaurava court. As a respected elder and the grandsire of both the Pandavas and the Kauravas, Bhishma’s inaction in the face of Draupadi’s humiliation raises profound questions about the limits of loyalty and duty. While he may have been bound by his allegiance to the Kuru dynasty and his obligation to maintain order and stability in the kingdom, his failure to speak out against this grave injustice exposes the moral compromises he makes in service of his duty.

Participation in the Kurukshetra War– Bhishma’s role in the Kurukshetra war, where he fights on the side of the Kauravas despite his personal affection for the Pandavas, further exemplifies the conflict between loyalty and morality. While he may feel duty-bound to honour his oath of allegiance to the Kuru dynasty and support the legitimate heirs to the throne, his participation in a war that pits cousins against each other raises ethical questions about the righteousness of his cause. Despite his prowess as a warrior and his unwavering commitment to his duty as a soldier, Bhishma’s actions in the war are tinged with moral ambiguity and ethical dilemmas.

In conclusion, Bhishma’s character in the Mahabharata embodies the complex interplay between loyalty and duty on one hand, and morality and ethics on the other. His actions throughout the epic illustrate the challenges of navigating conflicting principles in the pursuit of righteousness and honour. While his unwavering commitment to duty and loyalty earns him admiration and respect, his moral compromises and ethical dilemmas serve as a poignant reminder of the complexities of human nature and the timeless struggle to balance competing values in the face of adversity.

When loyalty blinds an individual towards corrupt, immoral, and unethical practices of people in positions of authority, it can have far-reaching and damaging consequences, both for the individual and for society. Here are some of the potential outcomes:

Perpetuation of Corruption: By turning a blind eye to corrupt practices, individuals inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of corruption within the system. Their silence and complicity allow those in positions of authority to continue abusing their power for personal gain, undermining the integrity and trustworthiness of institutions.

Erosion of Moral Integrity: Loyalty to authorities who engage in unethical behaviour can erode an individual’s own moral integrity. Over time, they may become desensitized to wrongdoing and compromise their own ethical principles in order to maintain their loyalty and allegiance. This erosion of moral values not only affects their personal conduct but also diminishes their ability to recognize and resist unethical behaviour in others.

Betrayal of Trust: When individuals in positions of authority abuse their power for personal gain, they betray the trust placed in them by the public or by their subordinates. Those who remain loyal to such individuals despite their wrongdoing contribute to the erosion of trust in institutions and undermine the social fabric that holds communities together.

Normalization of Unethical Behaviour: Loyalty towards corrupt authority figures can lead to the normalization of unethical behaviour within organizations or societies. When individuals witness others being rewarded or promoted for engaging in misconduct, they may come to believe that such behaviour is acceptable or even expected, further perpetuating a culture of corruption and moral decay.

Undermining Justice and Accountability: By shielding corrupt individuals from accountability and consequences, blind loyalty impedes efforts to uphold justice and promote transparency within society. Without accountability mechanisms in place, corrupt practices go unchecked, allowing those in power to act with impunity and escape punishment for their wrongdoing.

Stifling Progress and Innovation: In environments where loyalty to authority figures takes precedence over ethical considerations, dissent and critical thinking may be suppressed. This stifles creativity, innovation, and constructive criticism, hindering progress and perpetuating a status quo that is detrimental to the well-being of society.

Damage to Reputation: Associating yourself with a corrupt leader ultimately damages your own reputation.

Personal Moral Conflict: Ignoring wrongdoing creates internal dissonance. Deep down, you may know the actions are wrong, leading to guilt, shame, and a sense of powerlessness.

In essence, when loyalty blinds individuals to the corrupt, immoral, and unethical practices of those in positions of authority, it perpetuates a cycle of dysfunction and decay that undermines the fabric of society. It is essential for individuals to maintain a critical and ethical mindset, even in the face of loyalty to authority, in order to uphold principles of justice, integrity, and accountability.

In summary, loyalty can be a noble virtue, but it must coexist with critical thinking, ethical awareness, and a commitment to justice. When loyalty becomes a blindfold, it obscures our ability to discern right from wrong, perpetuating harmful practices. As responsible individuals, we must strike a balance between loyalty and integrity.

/0 Comments/by

Enigmas in the life of Bhishma – Respect for women

In the Anusasana Parva, Bhishma imparts wisdom to Yudhishthira, drawing from the teachings of Daksha Prajapati. He emphasizes the importance of showing reverence, kindness, and all forms of pleasant treatment to the bride upon marriage. Male family members, like fathers, brothers, and in-laws, should treat her with respect and give her presents. Such gestures, he explains, lead to significant happiness and benefits. Bhishma emphasizes the importance of worshipping and showing affection to women, arguing that where women are respected, even the gods are happy. Conversely, neglecting women renders all endeavours fruitless. If women in a household suffer because of mistreatment, it brings about the downfall of the family. Bhishma warns that homes disregarding women face destruction, losing their splendour, growth, and prosperity. He believes women deserve honor and worship as they represent wealth and success, so those who desire prosperity should show them respect.

Bhishma knows the rules and practices of treating women, yet he violates the same when it comes to protecting the daughter-in-law of the house for which the entire clan has paid very heavily. If he had acted with justice and morality in mind, we might have avoided the fierce battle that was fought on that account later on.

Here are three major episodes when Bhishma did not show respect to women that had serious consequences in his life.

Amba Abduction – When Vichitravirya, Bhishma’s half-brother, reached adulthood, Bhishma assumed the responsibility of arranging his marriage. He clandestinely attended the Swayamvara of the king of Kashi’s daughters and abducted all three princesses. In the ensuing conflict with the assembled suitors, Bhishma emerged victorious. However, his actions wreaked havoc in Amba’s life, as she was already devoted to King Salva. Vichitravirya declined to marry her because of her prior affections, and Salva rejected her because Bhishma had taken her. Despite Amba’s pleas, Bhishma, bound by his vow of celibacy, refused to wed her. Even her appeal to Parasuram for justice proved futile. Eventually, unable to find a resolution, Amba tragically immolated herself. Vichitravirya’s untimely death and lack of children led to challenges for Ambika and Ambalika. Thus, an uninvited guest at the Swayamvara of the Kasi Princes wrecked their lives. Amba, having blessed by Lord Siva, takes birth as Shikhandini in her next life and becomes the cause of Bhishma’s death in the Mahabharata war.

According to Hindu epics, eight different types of marriages include Brahma Vivaha (solemnized with rituals and parental consent), Daiva Vivaha (marriage where the bride is given away as a sacrifice), Arsha Vivaha (marriage through the exchange of gifts), Prajapatya Vivaha (simple marriage with vows), and Asura Vivaha (marriage through bride price or coercion), Gandharva Vivaha (love marriage based on mutual consent), Rakshasa Vivaha, is a marriage by abduction, and Paishacha Vivaha, where the groom seduces or intoxicates the bride and then has physical relations with her without her consent. The first four are approved and recommended and the last four, not recommended. By abducting the princes for his brother, Bhishma committed a severe offence in their lives.

Gandhari – is the daughter of King Subala of Gandhara, known for her piety, beauty and devotion. She was married to blind Dhritarashtra, as arranged by Bhishma. The family was unhappy with such an alliance, as Dhritarashtra would never be the king due his blindness. But the fear of Bhishma and Kuru kingdom forced them for consent. The price Hastinapura pays is that Shakuni becomes a permanent resident, infesting the palace and spinning the web of intrigue that destroys the dynasty.

Disrobing of Draupadi – The Draupadi disrobing incident is one of the most harrowing and pivotal events in the Indian epic Mahabharata, symbolizing the height of moral degradation and injustice. During the game of dice,Yudhishthira gambled away his kingdom, wealth, his brothers, himself and Draupadi, to the Kauravas, and lost everything. Duryodhana, the eldest Kaurava prince, incited by his jealousy and desire for vengeance, ordered Draupadi to be brought to the assembly hall where the gambling was taking place.

As Draupadi is dragged into the court, she vehemently protested against the injustice of her being staked in the game, arguing that a wife cannot be gambled away by her husband, who himself had lost his freedom in the game. Despite her protests and appeals to the elders present, including Bhishma and Drona, Draupadi was disrobed in public by Dushasana, Duryodhana’s brother. This incident symbolizes the degradation of societal norms and values, the abuse of power, and the plight of women in a patriarchal society. Draupadi’s humiliation became a pivotal moment in the Mahabharata, leading to the eventual war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas.

A society that does not respect women suffers from many detrimental consequences that affect its social, economic, and cultural fabric. Here are some significant impacts:

Gender Inequality: Lack of respect for women perpetuates gender inequality, where women are denied equal rights, opportunities, and access to resources compared to men. This inequality undermines the principles of justice and fairness within society.

Violence Against Women: Disrespect towards women often contributes to higher rates of violence against them, including domestic violence, sexual assault, harassment, and trafficking. Such violence not only harms individual women but also undermines their sense of safety and security within society.

Underrepresentation in Decision-Making: When women are not respected, their voices are often marginalized, leading to their underrepresentation in decision-making processes at various levels, including politics, business, and community leadership. This lack of representation limits diverse perspectives and hampers the development of inclusive policies and solutions.

Economic Disadvantage: Women’s lack of respect can translate into economic disadvantages, including lower wages, limited job opportunities, and barriers to accessing credit and property rights. This perpetuates cycles of poverty and hinders the overall economic development of society.

Health Impacts: Disrespect towards women can have significant health impacts, including limited access to healthcare services, higher rates of maternal mortality, and poor reproductive health outcomes. Discrimination and stigma may also deter women from seeking medical care when needed.

Interpersonal Relationships: Lack of respect for women can erode trust and mutual respect within interpersonal relationships, including within families and communities. This can lead to strained relationships, breakdowns in communication, and increased conflict.

Cultural and Social Stagnation: Societies that do not respect women often perpetuate harmful cultural norms and practices that restrict women’s freedom, autonomy, and participation in public life. This stagnation stifles social progress and innovation, as diverse perspectives and talents are not fully utilized or valued.

In summary, a society that cannot respect women not only violates their human rights but also undermines its own potential for progress, prosperity, and social cohesion. Respect for women is essential for building a more equitable, inclusive, and sustainable society for all.

/0 Comments/by

Enigmas in the life of Bhishma–Enigma of Oath

Bhishma’s life is marked by extraordinary vow of lifelong celibacy and renunciation of the throne, taken to secure his father, King Shantanu’s, marriage to Satyavati, a fisherwoman. This vow not only exemplifies Bhishma’s selflessness but also sets the stage for the complex dynastic struggles that follow. The enigma lies in Bhishma’s extreme sacrifice for his father’s happiness, juxtaposed against the long-term implications of his actions, leading to a power vacuum and succession crisis in the Kuru dynasty. His vow is a testament to his loyalty and integrity, yet it inadvertently sows the seeds of future conflicts that would engulf the entire dynasty.

Devavrata earned the name Bhishma by undertaking the ‘bhishan pratigya’, a vow of celibacy and unwavering service to whoever ascended the throne of his father, Hastinapur. This oath stemmed from an incident where his father, King Shantanu, desired to marry Satyavati, a fisherwoman, but faced opposition from her father, who believed that Shantanu’s existing son, Devavrata, would be the rightful heir. To soothe Satyavati’s father, Devavrata pledged to never claim the throne, implying that any child born to Shantanu and Satyavati would inherit it. However, Satyavati’s father countered that even Devavrata’s offspring might stake a claim. To fulfil his father’s wishes, Devavrata took the solemn vow, sacrificing his position as crown prince and renouncing the pleasures of intimacy. This act earned him recognition among the gods, and his father granted him the boon of Ichha Mrityu, the ability to control his own death, though not immortality.

Throughout his life, Bhishma remained steadfast in his vow and became a renowned warrior, scholar, and diplomat. He served as the regent of Hastinapura and was an advisor to several generations of Kuru kings. He played a significant role in the upbringing of the Kuru princes, especially the Pandavas and the Kauravas, ensuring they received proper training and guidance.

Let us analyse the situation. Shantanu was 66 years old when Gangadevi returned Devavrata to his father, trained in scriptures, political science and other branches of Shastra, warfare and various Astras and sastras. His strength and energy were extraordinary. Shantanu took his mighty and handsome son and returned to his capital and installed him as his heir apparent. The prince, by his behaviours, soon gratified his father, the other members of the Paurava race and all the subjects of the kingdom. King Shantanu lived happily with that son of his for the next four years when one day he fell in love with the fisherwomen. Shantanu was 70 years old and Devavrata was close to 30 years and the Satyavati would have been in her early twenties. The King became very sad but could not accept the terms of the girl’s father as he has already appointed Devavrata as the heir apparent and Yuvaraja.

One day, Devavrata approaching his distressed father and said, everything is fine in your kingdom and why are you so sad? I wish to know the problem so that I can find a remedy. Thus addressed by his son, Shantanu answered, ‘It’s true that my heart aches and I will share the reason with you.’ You are my only son and only heir to this large kingdom. The constant battles and conquests fill me with dread, for your fate hangs by a thread and the survival of our race rests on your shoulders. Although I have no desire to remarry, I pray that our dynasty will endure forever. The wise say that he that has one son has no son. That indeed is the cause of my melancholy.

Did the King show hypocrisy? At seventy, he should have been preparing for Vanaprastha instead of returning to Grihasthasram once more. To ensure the continuation of the dynasty, his son, nearing thirty and eligible for marriage, should have been married. However, Shantanu doesn’t even feign shock or try to convince him to reconsider his vow. Instead, he hastily accepts the bride, granting his son the questionable boon of death-at-will.

But what the son did? Relinquishing the Throne and to remain celibate throughout life. Was he forced to do it by the king, directly or indirectly? Was he happy to get a new name (Bhishma) and a blessing of Ichha Mrityu (death at desire)? Let us analyse his action in little detail.

Devavrata possessed wisdom, knowledge, administrative skills, and prowess in warfare, making him well-suited to rule as an excellent king. However, his excessive devotion and willingness to sacrifice for his father’s happiness deprived the people of Hastinapur of his capable leadership. He made this sacrifice to fulfill his aging father’s desires. As a prince, Devavrata took it upon himself to determine the succession of the throne, disregarding the fact that kingship is a position of public trust, not private property, to be inherited.

The question arises: Did Devavrata fulfil his rightful duty as a son? Is it a son’s responsibility to guide his father through life’s proper phases? Instead of aiding his father in transitioning to the next stage, Devavrata’s actions drew him back into the responsibilities of Grihasthasram once more, reminiscent of what Puru did to his father, Yayati. It’s the vow itself that reveals Bhishma’s narrower dharma. His sole concern seems to please his father, who is a victim of concupiscence in old age. The crown prince doesn’t spare a thought for the kingdom’s future, nor does he consult the ministers; he plunges straight into a dramatic gesture. Self-denial for a higher purpose is noble, but self-denial for the lust of an aging father?

A thorough examination of the situation reveals that Bhishma never forgave his father for compelling him to take the oath of renouncing the throne and embracing lifelong celibacy. It becomes increasingly evident over time that Bhishma effectively governed the kingdom from the moment he returned from heaven until his demise. Initially as crown prince, and later as regent, he assumed control. Both Chitrangada and Vichitravirya, when installed as kings, were not yet of age, thus Bhishma continued to rule. However, both of them died prematurely and childless. Until Dhritarashtra and Pandu were prepared to assume leadership, Bhishma governed once more. Dhritarashtra, because of his blindness, was ineligible for kingship, so his younger brother Pandu took the throne. Pandu proved to be a capable and vigorous ruler, expanding the Kuru kingdom through conquests. Despite his successes, Pandu met his demise tragically during a hunting expedition, leaving Kunti, his first wife, to raise their five children through the Niyoga method. Once again, a power vacuum emerged, with Dhritarashtra serving as a symbolic king, while Bhishma ruled. This pattern persisted until the kingdom became divided, with Duryodhana managing affairs and preventing Bhishma from interfering. Subsequently, the great Mahabharata war ensued, resulting in the demise of all involved. In my view, Bhishma’s sacrifice loses some of its lustre, as he never relinquished control over the kingdom, always exerting authority as he saw fit. Some even suggest that certain circumstances were manipulated to eliminate capable rulers, guaranteeing that no one would threaten Bhishma’s authority.

In his single-minded attachment to his vow, Bhishma ruthlessly destroys the lives of Amba and Gandhari with no compunction. He will not accept his responsibility for Amba’s predicament, which leads to her suicide. Nor does he hesitate, for the sake of Hastinapura, in pressurizing the king of Gandhara to marry his daughter to the blind Dhritarashtra. In later life, Bhishma watches the dynasty crumble, as one by one Satyavati, Ambika and Ambalika depart to the forest so as not to witness the suicide of the race. For him, the four stages of life prescribed by the scriptures do not exist. He is frozen in an eternal brahmacharya, subscribing to a dharma that is as sterile as his celibacy.

/0 Comments/by

Enigmas in the life of Bhishma–Protector of Dharma

Bhishma, also known as Bhishma Pitamah or Ganga Putra Bhishma, is one of the most revered and complex characters in Mahabharata. He was born Devavrata, as the son of King Shantanu of Hastinapura and the river goddess Ganga. Having trained under most eminent teachers like Vasishta, Brihaspathi, Shukracharya, Sanal Kumar, and Parasuram, Bhishma is often seen as a paragon of righteousness, committed to upholding dharma in all aspects of life. Bhishma’s unwavering sense of honour, integrity, and his unwavering devotion to duty and righteousness are well-known. He always strove to uphold dharma (righteousness) and maintain the ethical standards expected of a noble warrior. As the head of the Kuru dynasty, he dedicated his life to the kingdom’s well-being, ensuring its stability and harmony. His teachings emphasize the importance of upholding moral values and fulfilling one’s duties, even in the face of adversity.

Dilemmas and Moral Conflicts

Despite his commitment to Dharma, Bhishma faced many moral dilemmas and conflicts throughout his life. His allegiance to the throne of Hastinapura often clashed with his sense of righteousness, leading to moments of internal struggle and doubt. Bhishma’s inability to prevent the injustices perpetrated by the Kauravas, particularly during Draupadi’s disrobing in the Kuru court, is a central example of this conflict.

Vow of Celibacy: Bhishma’s most notable vow was his lifelong celibacy, which he undertook to fulfil his father’s desire to marry Satyavati. This vow earned him the epithet “Bhishma,” which means “terrible” or “fearsome.” The terrible oath taken by Devavrata that he will abdicate his claim to the throne and will remain Naishtika Brahmachari (Celibate throughout life) has completely changed the course of history and ended finally in the extermination of all Kshatriya kings from the face of earth. Without that oath, the Kuru dynasty would have remained unblemished and whole, avoiding the need for such a large-scale human sacrifice. Let’s analyse the course of events to determine if his decision was correct and if he embodied dharma, a quality he was renowned for in history.

As per scriptures, achieving ‘moksha’ entails entering the Vanaprastha ashram around the age of fifty. However, King Shantanu, already seventy, plans to marry at this late stage. This raises questions about how well people are following the religious guidelines for different stages of life. Devavrata, as the king’s son, delivers his father from the hell known as ‘Put’. By facilitating his father’s late-stage marriage, Devavrata commits great adharma towards him in his pursuit of moksha. King Shantanu is known for his complete surrender to the desires of the women he loves, often accepting any conditions they impose. He readily accepted Ganga’s condition not to interfere with her actions or speak unkindly to her, resulting in the loss of seven children from that marriage. Despite this, he fails to learn from his experiences and desires to marry another woman under even more severe and impractical conditions. Did he expect his son to surpass Puru, who sacrificed his youth for his father, Yayati?

Devavrata did one-step better. He not only gave up his right to the kingdom but on an indication from Dasharaja, the father of Satyavati, took the fierce oath that he would remain Naishtika brahmachari throughout his life. While Dasharaja and King Shantanu were delighted, the consequences of that terrible oath were to be felt in the most disastrous ways after three generations.

Division of the Kingdom – Upon learning of the survival of the Pandavas from the inferno at the lac palace and their subsequent marriage to the illustrious daughter of King Drupada, Duryodhana grew restless and resumed plotting to eliminate them. However, Dhritarashtra refrained from endorsing any schemes and instead sought counsel from Bhishma. Bhishma’s verdict was unequivocal: “The Pandavas are as dear to me as Prince Duryodhana and all other members of the Kuru lineage. I strongly oppose any conflict with them. It is only fitting to conclude a treaty with these noble heroes and allocate them half of the kingdom, which rightfully belongs to the Kuru dynasty. If the sons of Pandu cannot claim their rightful share, how can it be rightfully yours? The Pandavas, being virtuous and united, deserve half of the kingdom. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interest to peacefully grant them their rightful portion.”

Why did Bhishma advocate for such a decision? What prompted the necessity to partition the kingdom, which rightfully belonged solely to the Pandavas? If we look to history for guidance, the son of a king typically succeeds as the next monarch. Since Pandu held the throne, the kingdom rightfully belonged to Yudhishthira. Dhritarashtra could never ascend to kingship due to his physical disability but ruled as regent. This was a customary approach to succession, tracing back to the first Emperor Yayati. Yayati had five sons from two wives: Devayani bore Yadu and Turvasu, while Sharmishtha bore Druhyu, Anu, and Puru. According to tradition, Yadu, being the eldest, should have inherited the throne, yet Yayati bestowed it upon Puru, as he was the only one willing to sacrifice his youth to fulfil his father’s desires. The Kaurava dynasty descends from Puru, not Yadu. Likewise, Shantanu, Bhishma’s father, assumed kingship despite being the youngest son of King Pratipa. Devapi, the elder son, suffered from leprosy and was thus ineligible for kingship, while the second son migrated to his maternal uncle’s kingdom and became ruler there. Hence, if Bhishma had unequivocally declared from the outset that Dhritarashtra’s offspring would not be entitled to the throne, none of the ensuing drama would have unfolded, and peace could have prevailed. However, he allowed the ambiguity to persist indefinitely, perhaps to retain power until his demise.

The Dice game – The game of dice served as the catalyst for the Mahabharata war. If there was one individual with the authority to avert this conflict, it was Bhishma. Despite being fully aware of the impending disaster, he remained silent and passively observe the unfolding events. While Dhritarashtra’s deep affection for his son may have led him to consent to the game, Bhishma held a unique position of moral authority as the grandfather who had willingly renounced the throne for his father. Unlike Drona and Kripa, who were bound by their roles as the king’s employees and refrained from intervening unless prompted, Bhishma had the autonomy to speak out. A single word from him could have persuaded Dhritarashtra to halt the game. However, Bhishma tactfully chose not to assert his influence, ultimately failing to shoulder the responsibility and exercise his authority when it was most imperative. He could have intervened, establishing rules, limiting the wager, and stopping the game before Yudhishthira lost his brothers. He could have definitely stopped when Yudhishthira was forced to pawn their wife Draupadi. But he remained a spectator with nothing to lose. Why?

Disrobing of Draupadi – was one of the most shameful incidents in Mahabharata and the stigma of that will ever stick to the elders in the assembly, particularly the one with moral and positional authority, Bhishma. He kept watching the evolving scene with indifference, forgetting that one of the princes was insulting the daughter in law of the house in front of elders and outsiders. Why did he not act before things turned ugly? When questioned by Draupadi about the legality of Yudhishthira pawning her when he himself was a slave, what did Bhishma answer – ‘morality is subtle. I therefore am unable to duly decide at this point that you have put. On the one hand, one that has no wealth cannot stake the wealth belonging to others, while on the other hand wives are always under the orders and at the disposal of their lords. Only Vidura and Vikarna had the courage to question the game and the position of Draupadi, while everyone else kept quiet.

Participation in the war–Bhishma’s involvement in the Kurukshetra war stands out as a compelling portrayal of his complex character. Tied by his allegiance to the throne, he joins the Kauravas in battle, fully cognizant of their unjust deeds and the righteous cause of the Pandavas. Bhishma’s formidable presence on the battlefield, despite his inner conflicts, highlights the tragic outcome of his lifelong commitments. The paradox lies in witnessing a virtuous individual, driven by duty and loyalty, compelled to oppose what he recognizes as morally right. Had Bhishma remained absent from the war, like Balarama and Vidura, that example might have been followed by the others like Dronacharya and Kripacharya. In the absence of these three valiant and respected warriors, the war would have been much less destructive and probably there would have been no war at all. Probably it was due to the towering personalities like Bhishma, that many other people supported Kauravas.

In Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna says, “Whatsoever a great man does, the same is done by others as well. Whatever standard he sets, the world follows”. When men in power and authority fail to support righteousness through their actions or inactions, several negative consequences can arise:

Erosion of Trust: Trust is the foundation of any functioning society. When those in power fail to act in a just and fair manner, it undermines the trust that people have in their leaders and institutions. Citizens may become sceptical of government actions and lose confidence in the legitimacy of the political system.

Social Unrest: Injustice and corruption often breed resentment and anger among the population, particularly those who are marginalized or oppressed. This can lead to social unrest, protests, and even violent conflicts as people demand accountability and change.

Normalization of Unethical Behaviour: When leaders engage in unethical behaviour without facing consequences, it sends a message that such actions are acceptable or even expected. This normalization of unethical conduct can permeate through society, leading to a culture where dishonesty, corruption, and exploitation become commonplace.

Diminished Moral Compass: Leaders serve as role models, and their actions set the tone for societal values and standards. When those in power fail to uphold righteousness, it can lead to a gradual erosion of moral principles within society. People may become desensitized to unethical behaviour and lose sight of the importance of integrity and justice.

Undermining of Institutions: Institutions such as the judiciary, law enforcement, and regulatory agencies play a crucial role in upholding justice and fairness. However, when leaders manipulate or undermine these institutions for personal gain or political expediency, it weakens the rule of law and undermines public confidence in the justice system.

Long-Term Consequences: The failure to support righteousness can have lasting effects on the stability, prosperity, and overall well-being of a nation. It can lead to economic stagnation, social polarization, and a loss of faith in democratic processes. Ultimately, it jeopardizes the future of the society and undermines its ability to thrive and progress.

In summary, when individuals in positions of power and authority neglect their duty to support righteousness, it not only undermines the principles of justice and fairness but also threatens the very fabric of society. It is essential for leaders to prioritize ethical conduct and uphold moral values to ensure the well-being and stability of the communities they serve.

/0 Comments/by

Enigmas in the life of Bhishma – Enigma of inaction

Bhishma, the grand sire of the Kuru clan in the Mahabharata, is a complex and multifaceted character. Renowned for his unwavering loyalty, unparalleled strength, and adherence to dharma (righteous duty), he remains an enigma due to his puzzling inaction on critical junctures in Mahabharata. This article delves into Bhishma’s vow and the instances where his inaction allowed the Kauravas to perpetrate injustice, raising questions about his interpretation of dharma.

The Binding Vow: A Moral Conundrum

Bhishma’s life was shaped by a pivotal vow. To appease his father, King Shantanu, he renounced the throne and took a vow of celibacy, ensuring his half-brother, Satyavati’s, sons could inherit the throne. This vow, while demonstrating immense filial piety, created a complex situation. Bhishma, though the rightful heir, bound himself to serve whoever sat on the Hastinapur throne, regardless of their actions. In moments of crisis, Bhishma found himself torn between these conflicting duties. His inaction during critical junctures of the Mahabharata, such as the Draupadi’s humiliation or the Kurukshetra war, symbolizes the struggle between duty, morality, and personal principles. His dilemma serves as a timeless reminder of the complexities inherent in navigating moral choices and the consequences of adhering strictly to one’s principles, even at the expense of personal relationships and societal expectations.

Death of Chitrangada – After Shantanu had ascended to heaven, Bhishma installed Chitrangada on the throne, who was a great warrior and conquered the world. Seeing that he could vanquish men, Asuras and the very gods, his namesake, the powerful king of the Gandharva, approached him for an encounter. Between that Gandharva and the Kuru King, both equally powerful, there occurred on the field of Kurukshetra a fierce combat, which lasted full three years on the banks of the Sarasvati. In that terrible encounter, the Gandharva, who had greater prowess or strategic deception, slew the Kuru Prince.

Bhishma is the foremost of all warriors with celestial weapons and undefeatable even by his own Guru Lord Parasurama.  Yet he did not come to the rescue of his half-brother even though the war lasted full three years. Why? What was Bhishma doing all those days? What was his motive?  When Bhishma ’s younger brother is engaged in a fierce battle for three long years, isn’t it the responsibility of his elder brother to go in search of him? Did the king’s mother, Satyavati request Bhishma for help and what was his reaction? These very serious questions needed answers to really understand the motive of not assisting Chitrangada during that critical period.

Death of Vichitravirya – Even though Vichitravirya was virtuous and self-disciplined, soon became lustful after his marriage to Ambika and Ambalika. And the prince spent seven years uninterruptedly in the company of his wives. He was attacked while yet in the prime of youth, with phthisis (Tuberculosis). But in spite of treatments by the best doctors the Kuru prince died, very young.

Was it not the responsibility of Bhishma to guide his younger brother about morality and practices and help him to lead a moderate life? Why did he permit the only survivor of the Kuru dynasty to waste his life away and die at a young age? Was it intentional and taking revenge on his father and step mother? So that he can continue to rule the kingdom for even longer period??

Inaction against Tyrants – During Bhishma’s time in the Mahabharata, several kings are portrayed as tyrants or rulers who engaged in oppressive and unjust practices such as Jarasandha, Sisupala, Kamsa, Bhagadatta, Paundra, etc. Yet unconquerable and powerful Bhishma never raised a finger against them and silently permitted such atrocities.

Pandu’s vanavas – He did not make any attempt to persuade Pandu not to leave Hastinapura nor keep track of the welfare of Pandu and his two queens in the Himalayan wilds.  It is as if having the blind Dhritarashtra as the figurehead, with the actual reins of government in his own hands, was very much to his liking. After all, it is Bhishma alone who carries in his veins the blood of Shantanu and is the last royal Kuru. That is why he is irrevocably chained to the throne of Hastinapura, for better or worse.

Attempt to Kill Bhima -. Fuelled by jealousy and hatred towards Bhima’s immense strength Duryodhana sought to eliminate him. Duryodhana, with the help of his uncle Shakuni (known for his cunning), laced Bhima’s food with poison. Unaware of the treachery, Bhima consumed the poisoned dish. Bhima, feeling the effects of the poison, became drowsy and lay down to rest. Seeing Bhima unconscious, Duryodhana believing the poison had worked, tied Bhima with ropes and threw him into the river Ganges. Bhima, due to his inherent strength and resilience, not only survived the poison but also encountered the Nagas (snake people) dwelling in the river. The Nagas, recognizing Bhima’s potential, not only treated him but also blessed him with increased strength and immunity to snake venom. This event further strengthened Bhima, setting the stage for his future prowess as a warrior. On reporting this matters to the elders in the family, particularly Bhishma, no action was taken against Duryodhana which boldened him further.

Varanavat – Duryodhana was deeply distressed when many citizens favoured Yudhishthira as the crown prince. Seeking counsel from his trusted advisors—Karna, Shakuni, and Dushasana—he plotted to eliminate the Pandavas and their mother. Approaching his father, King Dhritarashtra, he expressed his concerns, highlighting the potential exclusion of his own lineage from the royal succession if Pandu’s descendants continued to rule. Manipulating his father’s fears for the future of his children, Duryodhana persuaded him to send the Pandavas to Varanavat under the guise of attending a festival, secretly intending their demise. Despite knowing Duryodhana’s sinister intentions, Dhritarashtra yielded to familial pressure, relying on the silent complicity of elders like Bhishma. Meanwhile, Duryodhana orchestrated a lethal scheme with his aide Purochana, constructing a seemingly innocuous house of lac intended to be set ablaze with the sleeping Pandavas inside.

However, Vidura, astutely grasping the danger, discreetly warned Yudhishthira, facilitating their escape through an underground tunnel. Bhishma, privy to Duryodhana’s malevolent machinations, chose not to punish him, raising questions about his motivations.

Dice Game – During the infamous dice game, Bhishma’s inaction is conspicuous, especially considering his esteemed position as the patriarch of the Kuru dynasty and his role as one of the most respected elders in the kingdom. As the game progressed and Yudhishthira kept losing, Bhishma remained a passive observer, failing to intervene or question the unfairness or manipulation of the game by Shakuni. Despite his knowledge of dharma (righteous duty), Bhishma did not speak up to halt the game or ensure fairness for the Pandavas.

Draupadi’s disrobing – Bhishma’s inaction during Draupadi’s disrobing at the Kuru court is a poignant example of his failure to uphold justice and righteousness despite his esteemed position as the patriarch of the Kuru dynasty. As one of the most respected figures in the Kuru court, Bhishma had a responsibility to uphold moral values and protect the vulnerable, yet he chose to remain passive in the face of grave injustice. Bhishma’s inaction underscores a failure to fulfil his duty as an elder and guardian of dharma (righteousness). His silence not only allowed Draupadi’s dignity to be violated but also contributed to the deepening animosity between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, ultimately leading to the catastrophic events of the Kurukshetra war.

Kurukshetra War – Bhishma was highly respected and revered as one of the wisest and most virtuous individuals of his time. His moral authority and influence could have been instrumental in mediating peace between the Pandavas and the Kauravas, facilitating a peaceful resolution to their disputes and avoiding war. He could have used his influence to counsel Dhritarashtra against supporting Duryodhana’s aggressive policies and advocating for a peaceful resolution instead. Bhishma’s decision to fight on the Kaurava side, despite his reservations, strengthened their position.  Refusing to participate in the war, like Balarama and Vidura could have significantly weakened the Kauravas and forced them to reconsider their stance. This would also motivate Drona and Kripa to abstain from participating in the war. In summary, Bhishma’s inaction during the preparation for the Kurukshetra war underscores the complexities of his character and the moral dilemmas faced by individuals in positions of power and authority. His reluctance to take decisive action contributed to the tragic outcome of the war, highlighting the consequences of remaining passive in the face of injustice.

During the war – Bhishma’s inaction during the Kurukshetra war is a pivotal aspect of the Mahabharata, reflecting his complex character, moral dilemmas, and conflicted loyalties. Despite being the commander-in-chief of the Kaurava army and possessing formidable martial prowess, Bhishma’s actions on the battlefield were marked by restraint and hesitation. He was torn between his duty to the throne of Hastinapura and his affection for the Pandavas, particularly Arjuna. He declared that he would not kill the Pandavas but would kill 10,000 soldiers of the Pandavas every day and without Pandavas’s defeat, the war will never end.

The narrative of Bhishma continues to spark discussions and contemplation. While his steadfast loyalty and dedication to his vow are commendable, his failure to act in the presence of blatant injustice prompts inquiries into the genuine essence of dharma. The Mahabharata implies that rigid adherence to vows or existing structures should not compromise the courage to confront authority and ensure fairness. Bhishma’s tale underscores the necessity of interpreting dharma in a flexible manner—one that permits standing against injustice, even when it conflicts with personal allegiances.

Inaction in the face of injustice, whether on a personal or societal level, can have profound and far-reaching consequences:

Perpetuation of Injustice: When individuals or institutions fail to take action against injustice, it often allows the unjust behaviour to continue unchecked. Inaction can signal to perpetrators that their actions are permissible, leading to the perpetuation of oppression, discrimination, or abuse.

Loss of Trust and Confidence: Inaction erodes trust and confidence in individuals and institutions responsible for upholding justice and morality. When people witness inaction in response to injustice, they may lose faith in the ability of authorities or leaders to address societal problems effectively.

Normalization of Wrongdoing: Inaction can contribute to the normalization of wrongdoing within society. When injustices go unaddressed, they become accepted as part of the status quo, making it increasingly difficult to challenge or rectify them in the future.

Escalation of Conflict: In situations where injustices lead to grievances and resentment, continued inaction can escalate tensions and conflicts. Unresolved injustices may fuel feelings of anger, frustration, and desire for retaliation, potentially leading to further violence or unrest.

Psychological Harm: Inaction in the face of personal injustice can have severe psychological effects on individuals. It may lead to feelings of helplessness, betrayal, and despair, exacerbating mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and trauma.

Loss of Moral Integrity: Failure to act in the presence of injustice can undermine one’s moral integrity and ethical principles. It raises questions about one’s commitment to justice, fairness, and human rights, tarnishing their reputation and credibility.

Missed Opportunities for Positive Change: Inaction represents a missed opportunity to effect positive change and promote a more just and equitable society. By choosing not to intervene, individuals and institutions forego the chance to make a meaningful difference and contribute to the betterment of their community.

Overall, the consequences of inaction in the face of injustice are multifaceted and detrimental, impacting individuals, communities, and societies at large. It underscores the importance of taking a stand against injustice and actively working towards creating a more just and compassionate world.

/0 Comments/by

Bhishma: A Tale of Duty, Sacrifice, and Immortality – A Colossus of Contradictions

In the vast tapestry of Indian mythology and epic literature, few characters shine as brightly as Bhishma, the legendary figure from the Mahabharata. His life story is one of unwavering devotion to duty, sacrifice, and the pursuit of righteousness. Born into the illustrious lineage of the Kuru dynasty, Bhishma’s journey traverses the realms of love, loyalty, and ultimately, transcendence. Bhishma is the central character in Mahabharata who witnessed all the events from the beginning since the rule of the Shantanu until the end of Mahabharata war when finally, Yudhishthira became the ruler of Hastinapura. That is witnessing the events of four generations. This article delves into the enigmas surrounding Bhishma’s character and behaviour, exploring the nuances that make him a figure of both reverence and perplexity.

Legend – King Mahabhisa after his death attained Vishnu Loka. Once he went to visit Brahma at Satya Loka. At that time, Gangadevi was also present in Brahma’s assembly. In that pious atmosphere, a gentle breeze began to blow and Gangadevi’s clothes were slightly deranged. Just at that moment, Mahabhisa took a stealthy glance at her and she returned that glance. Brahma who got very angry on this inappropriate behaviour and cursed both of them to be born as human beings. Gangadevi begged pardon, Brahma lifted the curse and blessed her that the Astavasus would come to the earth to be born as her sons, and that afterwards she could come back to Heaven. Gangadevi was later born as a mortal woman in the world under the name Ganga and she spent her days in the forests near the Ganga River valleys.

Astavasus are Elemental Gods, who were born to Dharma and Vasu, the daughter of Daksha. Some scriptures also have a version that they were the children of Kashyap and Aditi. Once, when they were traveling with their wives, they happened to reach Vasishtha’s hermitage. One of the wives liked Vasishtha ’s cow Nandini, and to please her, her husband carried it away along with its calf. Vasishtha, on returning to the ashram found that Nandini is missing and used his divine vision to locate it. Having realised what had happened, he cursed the vasus to be born as humans. The vasus repented and apologised to Vasishtha, who having considered said that the seven vasus who were not guilty would spend a negligible time in human form, but Dyu, who took the cow, would definitely remain as human for a very long time. As per Mahabharata, it was Dyu who later born as Bhishma.

When the vasus were contemplating the curse, Ganga approached them. They requested her to take a human form, marry a king, become their mother when they took the human form, and throw them into the river as soon as they were born. Ganga agreed, except that she will have to leave one son to the king both to fulfil Sage Vasishtha’s curse that Dyu will stay for a long time as well as to ensure her association with the King is not fruitless. Vasus agreed and went away.

In those days, the ruler of the lunar dynasty was a king named Pratipa. Having no children, he went to the bank of the river Ganga and performed severe austerities. Gangadevi who was moving about in the forests nearby, saw the King deeply absorbed in his tapas. She approached him and sat on his right thigh. She wanted the King to be her husband. He explained to her that the right thigh is the proper seat of a daughter-in-law and so she would become his son’s wife in due course. In course of time, Pratipa had a son, Shantanu. When Shantanu grew up into a young man, one day he went for a hunt to the Ganga-valley and there he met Gangadevi. He fell in love with her at first sight and courted her. Gangadevi agreed to become his wife on condition that he should never question her actions or say anything to displease her and if he ever violated that condition, she would leave him. Infatuated by the heavenly beauty of the damsel, the king readily accepted the condition and they became man and wife.

King Shantanu became exceedingly gratified with Ganga’s conduct, beauty, magnanimity, and attention to his comforts. And the king, while thus enjoying himself with his wife, had seven children born to him but were thrown into the river by Ganga as soon as they were born. Though not happy with her cruel act, the king dares not question for fear of her leaving him. But when the eighth child was born, and when his wife as before was about to throw it into the river, the king with a sorrowful expression requested her not to do such a heinous crime and spare the child. His wife said “I shall not destroy this child of yours. But according to our agreement, the period of my stay with you is at an end”. I am Ganga, lived with you so long for accomplishing the purposes of the eight illustrious Vasus had to assume human forms due to curse from Sage Vasishtha. There is no woman on earth except one like me, a celestial of human form, to become their mother. You, having become the father of the eight Vasus, have acquired great blessings and merit. It was also agreed between myself and the Vasus that I should free them from their human forms as soon as they would be born. I am taking the eighth Vasu with me now and will return to you once his studies are completed. Thus, was born Devavrata, result of three curses. Father and Mother cursed by Brahma and self by Rishi Vasishta.

Ganga took her son Devavrata to different realms, where he was brought up and trained by many eminent sages. Brihaspati, the preceptor of the Devas taught Devavrata the duties of kings and other Shastras, Shukracharya, the preceptor of the Asuras taught him political science and other branches of knowledge, Vasishta, taught the Vedas and the Vedangas and Sanat kumara, the eldest son of Lord Brahma taught Devavrata the mental and spiritual sciences. Parasurama, trained Bhishma in warfare and Lord Indra bestowed Devavrata with celestial weapons. Thus, commanded by Ganga, Shantanu took his mighty and handsome son and returned to his capital and installed his son as his heir-apparent. The prince by his behaviours soon gratified his father, the other members of the Paurava race and all the subjects of the kingdom. King Shantanu lived happily with that son of his.

Four years had thus passed away, when the king one day went into the woods on the bank of the Yamuna perceived a sweet scent coming from an unknown direction. Driven by the desire of ascertaining the cause, looked around and found a black-eyed maiden of celestial beauty, the daughter of a fisherman. The king addressing her, said, ‘Who are you and whose daughter? What are you doing here?  She answered; I am the daughter of the chief of the fishermen. At his command, I am engaged in rowing passengers across this river in my boat.’  Shantanu, seeing that maiden of celestial beauty, amiableness, and such fragrance, desired her for his wife. The King immediately visited her father and solicited his consent for the marriage. But the chief of the fishermen replied to the monarch, saying, ‘O king, it is a great fortune that the King of the Kuru Empire is asking for my daughter in marriage. However, if you desire to obtain this beautiful maiden as your wife, I request you to give me a pledge that the son born of this maiden shall be installed by you as your successor. Since Devavrata is already installed as Yuvaraja and heir to the kingdom, the king with his heart afflicted by desire returned to Hastinapura, thinking all the way of the fisherman’s daughter. Having returned home, the monarch passed his time in sorrowful meditation. One day, Devavrata approached his distressed father and said, everything is fine in your kingdom and why are you so sad? Absorbed in your own thoughts, you do not speak much and look pale and emaciated. I wish to know the problem so that I can find a remedy. Thus, addressed by his son, Shantanu answered, ‘it is true that I am sad and I will tell you the reason. You are my only son and only heir to this large kingdom. Since you are always engaged in war and conquering kingdoms and destiny is very fragile, I am afraid of your life and what will happen to our race if anything ever happens to you.  Though I do not desire to marry again, I only pray that our dynasty may be perpetuated forever. The wise say that he that has one son has no son. That indeed is the cause of my melancholy. When Devavrata came to know about this, he took initiative and himself went to the father of Satyavati. He promised the father of Satyavati that the son of Shantanu and Satyavati will become the king after Shantanu. Even this did not satisfy Satyavati’s father and he expressed fear that may be Devavrata’s sons will demand kingdom. At this Devavrata took vow that he will not marry and so nullified any possibility of conflict in future.  This vow of remaining celibate throughout the life was considered a terrible vow and so he came to be called as Bhisma, meaning the terrible. The name Bhishma was conferred on him by his father and also blessed him with ‘Ichha Mrityu’ (death on desire only).

Bhishma’s life as a mentor and regent to successive Kuru kings is a testament to his unwavering commitment to duty and his profound sense of responsibility towards the kingdom of Hastinapura.  Bhishma’s mentoring began with the upbringing and education of Satyavati’s sons, Chitrangada and Vichitravirya. After their untimely deaths, he took on the responsibility of ensuring the stability and prosperity of Hastinapura by serving as regent until a suitable heir could be found. During this period, Bhishma provided wise counsel, maintained law and order, and upheld the honour and dignity of the Kuru dynasty. One of the most significant aspects of Bhishma’s role as a mentor and regent was his guidance of the next generation of Kuru princes, including the Pandavas and Kauravas. He played a crucial role in their upbringing and education, imparting invaluable lessons on morality, duty, and statecraft. Bhishma’s teachings laid the foundation for their future roles as leaders and rulers. Despite his advanced age, Bhishma remained actively involved in the affairs of the kingdom, offering counsel and support to the reigning monarchs. His vast knowledge of history, politics, and warfare made him an indispensable advisor, and his unwavering integrity earned him the trust and respect of all who sought his guidance. Throughout his tenure as mentor and regent, Bhishma remained steadfast in his commitment to upholding dharma and ensuring the welfare of Hastinapura. His selfless service and dedication to duty set a shining example for future generations, inspiring reverence and admiration for centuries to come.

The Dilemma of Kurukshetra – The conflict between the Pandavas and Kauravas, Bhishma’s nephews, presented him with a moral dilemma. Bound by his oath to serve the Kuru throne, he sided with the Kauravas despite knowing the righteousness of the Pandavas’ claim. This decision ultimately tarnished his image as a just warrior. Though Bhishma fought valiantly on the battlefield, his arrows aimed to disable rather than kill. He knew the righteousness of the Pandavas’ cause and perhaps even hoped to nudge the Kauravas towards a truce. However, his loyalty to the throne remained unshaken, creating a tragic conflict within him.

The Fall of the Mighty Bhishma – Bhishma’s death was as complex as his life. Shikhandi, born as Amba in a previous life, donned women’s clothes on the battlefield. Bhishma, bound by his vow of not harming women, refused to fight. This created an opening for Arjuna, the mighty Pandava archer, to shower Bhishma with arrows, creating a bed of arrows for him to lie upon. Lying on this bed of arrows for days, Bhishma imparted valuable life lessons to Yudhishthira, the eldest Pandava. He waited for the arrival of Uttarayana, the auspicious northward movement of the sun, a time considered ideal for attaining liberation. Finally, after 58 days, Bhishma breathed his last, leaving behind a legacy of immense strength, unwavering duty, and a life forever bound by complex choices.

Sharing Wisdom:  Bhishma used these extra days to share valuable knowledge and counsel with Yudhishthira, the eldest Pandava, and other warriors. This included insights into statecraft, warfare, and dharma (righteous conduct). Bhishma taught that a righteous government is the root of all national and individual virtue. The extent of Bhishma’s greatness is manifest in his wisdom and saintly life, which relate to the highest principles of existence.

Symbolic Significance: The death on a bed of arrows is symbolic on multiple levels:

The Price of Duty: It showcases the painful consequences of unwavering loyalty. Bhishma’s refusal to break his vow, even against his better judgment, led to a slow and agonizing death.

The Duality of Bhishma: Bhishma lies on the arrows – a warrior’s weapon becomes his deathbed. This represents the duality of his life – a powerful warrior entangled in moral dilemmas.

The Power of Choice: Though fatally wounded, Bhishma retains control over his death, highlighting the significance of his chosen time.

Bhishma’s death serves as a potent reminder that even the most powerful warriors are ultimately mortals. It’s a testament to his strength, resilience, and his unwavering adherence to his principles, even in the face of excruciating pain.

At times, the greatness of a person can be gauged from the kind of people who assemble at his deathbed. By that standard Bhishma indeed was a person much respected not only by the kings on earth, but also gods and rishis. On his final day, King Yudhishthira, at the head of his brothers, addressed Bhishma, ‘I am Yudhishthira, Salutations to you, O son of the river Ganga! With me here are preceptors of all branches of learning, Brahmanas, Ritwiks, all my brothers, king Dhritarashtra, as also Vasudeva of great prowess.

Pulastya once said to Bhishma, “You of excellent vows, I have been much gratified with your humility, self-control, truth and morality”. That is Bhishma in short. In his last days before ascended to heaven, he recited to Yudhishthira the famous hymn to Vishnu, the Vishnu Sahasra Nama.

Bhishma’s life in the Mahabharata is a testament to the challenges of upholding principles in difficult times. He embodies the ideals of righteousness and selflessness, securing his place as a legend in Indian mythology. Yet, Bhishma’s character is also riddled with complexities. His unwavering loyalty to the throne forced him into a moral conflict, fighting against the Pandavas despite knowing their cause was just. Bhishma’s story grapples with timeless questions – loyalty versus duty, personal desires versus societal expectations, and the fleeting nature of power compared to the constant pursuit of ethical leadership. The Mahabharata, through Bhishma’s journey, offers valuable lessons on navigating the intricacies of dharma (righteousness). These lessons remain relevant even today. Bhishma’s legacy extends far beyond his mortal life. He continues to inspire reflection on the importance of duty, sacrifice, and the pursuit of righteousness in a world of constant change. His struggle between duty and personal conviction resonates even in the modern era, prompting us to question the limits of obedience and the importance of challenging tradition when necessary.

/0 Comments/by