Information is a crazy thing. On the surface it promotes thinking, the basis of humanity. But there comes a tripping point where instead of opening new gateways for ideas, information shuts down thoughts. I spent the entire day indulging myself in ideas of right and wrong, action and consequences, life and death. Now after seven-eight hours, I have been left dumbfounded.
According to a recently popular mythologist, "dharma" is about the protection of the meek and not about doing "what is right". The main purpose of this article is questioning what he kept preaching. "Justice" is an Judaeo-Christian concept and "dharma" has nothing to do with justice.
The way he builds his arguments is of course similar to that of any other great orator of the day. They speak of the obvious things so repeatedly that you end up thinking, "It's so obvious. How did I miss the point?" At the beginning, any new interesting idea acts like a drug. We are drawn to these choices of words. But then slowly, as you listen more and more, the questions begin to form. Yes, it is agreeable to a certain extent that "dharma" as presented in the Mahabharata is about protecting the meek "by" the mighty. So the "adharmic" mighty has to fall, in order to make way for the "dharmic" mighty who does not propagandize the idea that "Might rules the day", but that power and weakness should maintain a symbiotic relationship. Hence there is a Kingmaker and a King.
But the question is, who gives the "dharmic" mighty the power to dictate how we should think? For all we know, the new King goes on to annex states to his kingdom after he wins the great war, and all in the presence of the Kingmaker, the self proclaimed flag-bearer of the concept that dharma is about the mighty taking care of the meek. Why does the King go on with this annexation if he is truly mighty? Shouldn't dharma dictate him then just to protect weaker Kings, when the assistance is required? Or is dharma all about meek becoming the mighty?
So what happens when you become the mighty? Where does dharma go?
Coming to think of it, Dronacharya's death is not so simple. It probably should not be interpreted as an angry reaction of a mid-level player. Just think of it : All the Pandavas are there, Krishna is present and yet Dhristadyumna kills Drona! Yeah right, Krishna has taken Gandhi's way out and the Pandavas can't really get their hands soaked with the blood of their guru. Doesn't it seem all too familiar? Is it that different from a state sponsored execution? Saddam was not killed by the US president in person, the Bolshevik leaders did not pull the trigger on the Romanovs, neither did Hastings pull the noose on Nandakumar's neck. There was always someone else to pull the trigger, someone else who believed in the new / to-become mighty's cause.
Now think of the Drona episode again. I am just saying, "if" it was a very thought-out execution and not the "Nahi...guruji!" one we are presented with on TV screens, then probably dharma and adharma is all about Might, itself.
On the other hand, if we do assume that dharma is about justice, then who has the right to justify? The one who passes the sentence, is Justice.
Take a pause. Read the last sentence again.
The next time when you hear the term "Chief Justice", pause. Think. This one phrase embodies Power, Myth, Texts and what these three things always want from you. Submission.
So my question remains. What is dharma? Do we need it at all? If the mighty and the meek are just dots on an epochal circle, shouldn't we strive to reach as deep down within ourselves as possible? I do not know what dharma is about. But I surely do not think it is about the meek usurping the mighty. I agree, it is not always about doing the "right" thing but something much deeper. My confused thoughts are only disturbing me at the moment. I will then end with the most dominant feeling that I have presently.
The responsibility of Power is probably to subjugate itself and may be that's where dharma lies.
According to a recently popular mythologist, "dharma" is about the protection of the meek and not about doing "what is right". The main purpose of this article is questioning what he kept preaching. "Justice" is an Judaeo-Christian concept and "dharma" has nothing to do with justice.
The way he builds his arguments is of course similar to that of any other great orator of the day. They speak of the obvious things so repeatedly that you end up thinking, "It's so obvious. How did I miss the point?" At the beginning, any new interesting idea acts like a drug. We are drawn to these choices of words. But then slowly, as you listen more and more, the questions begin to form. Yes, it is agreeable to a certain extent that "dharma" as presented in the Mahabharata is about protecting the meek "by" the mighty. So the "adharmic" mighty has to fall, in order to make way for the "dharmic" mighty who does not propagandize the idea that "Might rules the day", but that power and weakness should maintain a symbiotic relationship. Hence there is a Kingmaker and a King.
But the question is, who gives the "dharmic" mighty the power to dictate how we should think? For all we know, the new King goes on to annex states to his kingdom after he wins the great war, and all in the presence of the Kingmaker, the self proclaimed flag-bearer of the concept that dharma is about the mighty taking care of the meek. Why does the King go on with this annexation if he is truly mighty? Shouldn't dharma dictate him then just to protect weaker Kings, when the assistance is required? Or is dharma all about meek becoming the mighty?
So what happens when you become the mighty? Where does dharma go?
Coming to think of it, Dronacharya's death is not so simple. It probably should not be interpreted as an angry reaction of a mid-level player. Just think of it : All the Pandavas are there, Krishna is present and yet Dhristadyumna kills Drona! Yeah right, Krishna has taken Gandhi's way out and the Pandavas can't really get their hands soaked with the blood of their guru. Doesn't it seem all too familiar? Is it that different from a state sponsored execution? Saddam was not killed by the US president in person, the Bolshevik leaders did not pull the trigger on the Romanovs, neither did Hastings pull the noose on Nandakumar's neck. There was always someone else to pull the trigger, someone else who believed in the new / to-become mighty's cause.
Now think of the Drona episode again. I am just saying, "if" it was a very thought-out execution and not the "Nahi...guruji!" one we are presented with on TV screens, then probably dharma and adharma is all about Might, itself.
On the other hand, if we do assume that dharma is about justice, then who has the right to justify? The one who passes the sentence, is Justice.
Take a pause. Read the last sentence again.
The next time when you hear the term "Chief Justice", pause. Think. This one phrase embodies Power, Myth, Texts and what these three things always want from you. Submission.
So my question remains. What is dharma? Do we need it at all? If the mighty and the meek are just dots on an epochal circle, shouldn't we strive to reach as deep down within ourselves as possible? I do not know what dharma is about. But I surely do not think it is about the meek usurping the mighty. I agree, it is not always about doing the "right" thing but something much deeper. My confused thoughts are only disturbing me at the moment. I will then end with the most dominant feeling that I have presently.
The responsibility of Power is probably to subjugate itself and may be that's where dharma lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment