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.