August 15th is about a month away. The day, 60 years ago,India won its Independence from the British. I sometimes wonder if we won or the British made the decision to leave because it was not economically profitable for their enterprise. During this time, my thoughts like most people, questions the idea of Truth, independence, freedom, patriotism, free speech, rights etc... Things that can be put in the box of ideology.
I have my beliefs. Some of which have been constant over time while others do change as I learn more about myself and of things around me. So every now and then I ask myself a question and try to answer it from the other side of what I believe. For instance, am I a patriot? The obvious answer is I believe I am. Why? Cause I like all things India, from Indian food, to clothing to legends, to epics, to the different languages, the different peoples, the sounds and the colours, the songs, the art, the strength of everyday people in the face of odds, the "ideals" of respect for elders, teachers and nature, the list is endless. Everything that is unique to India is something that gives me joy. So I am a patriot right?
Let's see the flip side of things. There's always been a war in some part of the world, ever since I could remember. So I wonder, if I had to choose between my family and my country which would I choose? If I were married to someone who has the same nationality as the "enemy" in a war that erupted later, what would I choose to do? If my best friend was from the enemy side of the border, what would I choose to do? If I had a dual citizenship and the two countries that I am a citizen of, are at war, what would I do? Tough ones. Guess that's the reason, most political philosophers would sell the idea of "Choosing Country above all" , tying all things of individual life to the Nationhood, that's probably why there is an oath of allegiance... but in dual citizenship it is really a toughie. There is one answer for all questions, an answer that is so easy to say but really difficult to practice- Be on the side of TRUTH.
It would seem cliche' but this was the essence of the Mahabharath (the Indian Epic). To choose what is right to do, to choose Truth. Now for the little background. If you look at the Mahabharath superficially, it would seem like Krishna was an outsider interfering in the affairs of the Kaurava/Pandava dynasty. But on closer examination, Krishna was related to the family. Krishna was Kunti's nephew. Krishna's Father, Vasudeva was the Cousin of Kunti, the pandava's Mother. Krishna was also Arjuna's Brother-in-law, as his sister Subadra was Arjuna's wife. In another Story, there is mention of Krishna and Draupadi (Pandava's wife) being siblings in a previous birth and both remembering this birth and relationship. On the other hand Bhishma Mahapita (literally translating to Great Father) was the Eldest in the clan. He had to do what was right, but he didn't, at least not right according to what was followed at the time. A person who was handicapped should not be king but He did allow Dridhrashtra, the blind one, to be king. The disrobing of Draupadi, the clan's eldest daughter-in-law (a position of great honour) at the Court in session was wrong, but Bhishma was quiet... they say "Mounam samata Laxanam" (being silent is being in agreement). When it reached a brink of war, he could intervened to stop it but didn't. Instead he preferred to do his duty as the King's loyalist than doing his duty as the Clan Elder. In spite of being the Eldest and well versed in all the scriptures, arts and crafts of politics, war, administration and governance, he did not do right, or choose the truth.
During the war of Kurukshetra, Krishna being related to the Pandavas more than the Kauravas, could have sided with the Pandavas but he didn't. He probably did not want to be unfair so he gave Duryodhana and Arjuna a choice... Krishna would not fight or use any weapon against either side but one could either have Krishna as his charioteer or Krishna's Huge Military to fight on their side. Duryodhana chose the Military and Arjuna chose Krishna for his charioteer. It would seem to us, modern day readers that Arjuna was a Fool to have made such a choice, but things were different in that era. In a battle, a charioteer's position was a place of great trust. A charioteer was friend, guide and philosopher for the occupant. S/he(yes, there were instances when a woman was the charioteer) would often be instrumental in strategy planning, as s/he was knowledgeable at war techniques and strategies. A charioteer was quite defenseless in a battle field, for he is exposed to the weapons first. S/he had to be skilled at navigating the horses through the enemy lines, good with reflexes, while being able to judge the opponents move, several moves ahead and courageous without the crutch of any weapon. The only defense was in protecting the Warrior in the chariot by keeping their wits about them and keeping the horses in control. So yes, the result of the Kurukshetra was that Pandava's won and the reason-Truth(Krishna is a divine therefore the TRUTH itself) was on their side.
In today's scenario, with all the media propaganda, with the deceptions that go on in everyday life, with no transparency in between those who govern and those governed, how do we know the Truth? How do we choose the Truth? If we don't know the Truth, how are we Free? Could we make and act in good judgment if we never knew the truth? I really wonder.
No comments:
Post a Comment