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.