Recap: "Difficulty of Being Good" by Gurucharan Das

Fun with books...  2018 started with few good reads like “Mind is your business” by Sadhguru, “One Indian Girl” &  “2 States” by Chetan Bhagat and “Krishna’s Secrets” by Devdutt Pattanaik. However the one that deserved a special mention and pen down is the one by Gurucharan Das titled “Difficulty of Being Good”

The piece of writing is the author’s superb exposition of the dilemmas inherent in one of the greatest epics of the world, ‘The Mahabharata’. The story of Mahabharata known to all of us and taught in our households since childhood, has so varied perspectives and connotations. The reading served its designed purpose of revitalizing the questioning spirit and raised more questions than had answers for. I will strongly recommend the book to readers who would like to engage with some serious piece of work and seek intellectual insights.

As I recapitulate from my reading ….

War of Mahabharata, greatest of the heroic wars in history, also referred to as the ‘Dharm Yudha’ meaning ‘Just war’, raises the basic question “Was the war really just?” Fought over the contentious claim of the two lineages of the same clan, the war had negatives and positives on both the sides of the battle. Kaurvas, the one to be more wrong from amongst the two, had great heroic stories to speak about, while Pandavas, more just from the two sides used a lot of wrong war tactics.  A closer examination of the subtle details of the war, leaves a lot of open ended questions and ambiguities. But I guess that’s the beauty of Indian philosophy, it describes and prescribes but avoids directing; it lets you question and investigate but avoids giving straight forward answers.

Kauravas, cousins of Pandavas from the same ancestors, deny Pandavas their rightful claim to the kingdom. Pandavas, after all failed attempts of reconciliation declare war and finally win the war. The whole epic is based on the narration of the same. Prima facie, Kauravas appear to be on the wrong side and Pandavas appear to be just and heroic. However, the closer look at the examples below, seem to question the prima facie observation, hence invigorating “What is Dharma”

1.       Bhisma pitamah; the great uncle of the two lineages; vowed celibacy in his childhood to yield his “putra-dharm”  and later stood magnificently on the side of Kauravas to serve his duty towards the throne. He had all the affection and love for Pandavas and he himself gave them the clue for his defeat in war. He told Pandavas,  that he vowed never to use weapons against women or anyone who was once a women; the fact was later used by Pandavas to deploy Shikhandi to defeat Bhishma. Had not for his own choice, he could never have been killed. Even after pandavas won the war and when yudhisthir was not ready to accept the throne, he was the once who convinced Yudhistir on the duties of a king. However this was the same Bhishma  who refused any action when Draupadi was being humiliated in court or when Duryodhan was deploying dirty gambling tactics.  Bhisma’s actions? just/unjust/ undecided?

2.       Karna; the greatest of the warriors, the son of Surya, stood loyal to his vow of not letting any Brahmin go empty handed, to the extent that he committed suicidal act of donating his ‘kavach’ and ‘kundal’, his astral protection. He was offered all the goodies by Krishna including the throne; as Karna being the eldest Kunti putra deserved the throne if Pandavas won the battle. However the firmness of his character is reflected in his denial of switching sides during war time. His loyalty to his friendship and to his family is commendable. He chose his foster charioteer parents over his royal mother Kunti and he chose his friend Duryodhan over his pandava brothers. However his revengeful attitude towards Draupadi, his morality when choosing the wrong side in the war, raises the same question, were his actions just/unjust/ undecided?

3.       Guru Drona; the greatest of the royal teachers, gave his life and loyalty to the kingdom. Teacher to both, the Pandavas and Kauravas, he fought against his own favorite disciple Arjuna. Fought with unparalleled bravery & valor, he caused immense destruction to the Pandavas. He only dropped his weapons when hearing of his son’s death and that too when the news was confirmed by Yudhistir, as it was known that Yudhistir never lied. His loyalty, bravery, affection & trust on his disciples commands so much respect but at the same time his silence on Draupadi’s s humiliation, his act of ruining Eklavya’s archery skills and his act of supporting the wrong Kauravas side, presents the same questions, were his actions just/unjust/ undecided?

4.       Pandavas brothers with Krishna on their side, prima facie appear rightful in their claim of kingdom and just when trying to avoid the war by all possible means.  However the tactics deployed during the war, are questionable, some of them are against the very own principles that Pandavas stood for. It is apparent that even after having Krishna on their side, they  could win the war only by acts of treachery as stated below:

• Shikhandi was deployed to contain Bhisma knowing that Bhisma would never use his weapons against anyone who is not a man

• Kirshna illusioned sunset and according to war rules, no weapons are used after sunset; Jayadrath, assuming that the sun has set,  relaxed and was eventually killed by Pandavas

• Yudhistir made Dhrone believe that Aswatthama (his son) was killed in war and this led to Dhrone’s defeat in war

• Karna was killed when he was mending his chariot wheel, against the basic rules of war. He was anyway made to give away his astral protection earlier by Indra (Arjuna’s father)

• Duryodhan was killed by attacking on his thigh, against rule of war not to attack below the hip

• Earlier in the court room when the Yudhisthir gambled and lost Draupadi, the same principles of morality and justness of a king and a husband are at stake

•   ‘Duty for duty’s sake” Doing duty for the sake of doing it without getting attached to the consequences (Krishna’s sermon for Arjun)

• Swa-dharma (personal duty) may have to be compromised for the sadharna –dharma (larger cause)  (Yudhistir’s personal duty of protecting clan to larger duty of protecting kingdom)

• Leave room and space for compromises in matters of state and politics, for that matter even family. But beyond limits, be ready to fight and pursue the just causes (Yudhistirs’ begul for war after serving exile and failed peace negotiations)

• Love and indulgence for family and children should not cross the dharma line, children should be protected and pampered only within just limits (Dhritrastra’s blind love for Duryodhan did not let him stop his son for indulging in war)

• Power of reason and power of questioning to be employed to come to conclusions. Even Krishna after giving his sermon to Arjun in magnificent avatar, told Arjun in the end, to decide the course for himself.

 All of the above acts of Pandavas are not compliant with valour or bravery and the same question crops, were the above actions just/unjust/undecided?

Pandavas won the war in the end but in retaliation, Jayadrath killed everyone on Pandavas sides including Draupadi’s five children. War was fought with good and bad deeds committed on both the sides but in the end it actually brought destruction to both the sides. None of the sides emerged the victor. Panadav too after couple of years left the kingdom to adopt vanprastha and on the wandering way died one by one.

 So can the whole epic be referred to as ‘Dharm Yudh’ or ‘Just war’?

Some of the teachings that can be attributed to the great epic:

  However, even the teachings above and some of the unsaid principles in the epic raises many open ended questions whose illustrations and answers will be contentious as always. Some of the teachings, which still baffles me are:

-          “Duty should be done for duty’s sake” (Nishkam karma), however whose duty is more important (Duty voiced by my conscience or duty voiced by society)

Example:  Yudhistir’s/Arjun’s inner voice of conscience not to kill kinsmen (duty voiced by conscience)  or king’s duty of fighting for its people/clan (duty towards society)

-          Everything is fair in love and war Or should a fight/war have employ fair means? Are the means important or as long as consequences are fine, means can be compromised?

Example : This question has been time and again employed, be it the historic Mahabharat or be it the freedom struggles all over the world. Even our own everyday bread and butter struggle raises the same question. While Gandhiji advocates that means are as important as consequences, leaders like Subhas/Bhagat Singh take the opposite view. Even Krishna’s tricks employed during the Mahabharat war, sends confused signals

-          What is right for me may not be right for the society/others, so should I stop desiring?

Example: Duryodhan’s desire for kingdom, Karna’s sought for Draupadi, Eklavya’s love for archery. The desires/love of these characters stand in the way of others. Even modern day survival raises same dilemma; crony capitalism, ardent nationalism, personal profiteering are all done at the expense of others, be it other individuals, societies, nations or even environment for that matter

-          Retributive justice vs distributive justice, should guilty be punished in proportion to the crime committed or should guilty be punished enough to set an example and restraint others from committing further crime. Example: Jayadratha’s avenge of killing every pandava kinsmen sleeping in tents, goes to the extent of distribution. Similarly Dhristrastra’s avenge to kill bhima in the end for killing his son, Duryodhana is an example of retributive justice. Countries across the world are still debating on the theory of punishment, should capital punishment be abolished, reformatory justice, societal justice and the like

-          What should be upheld and more sought for? Loyalty or righteousness?

Example:  Karna should be praised for his loyalty towards friend Duryodhana and his foster chariotter parents. Or should Karna be disowned for not being righteous in partnering with Pandava brothers? Same question goes for almost everyone on Kauravas side; Bhisma, Dhrona, Vidhur etc

-          Greatest of the questions- why do good people suffer? And how to reconcile this suffering in this world?

Example: People keep on suffering for being good, honest, loyal officers, workers keep on being harassed and troubled, innocents being cheated while dishonest means, short cuts seem to succeed. No wonder all the philosophical answers of being rewarded in the other world, attaining liberation etc are spoken but the question is more from a pragmatic aspect as to “why me” (me refers to good people thoughJ)

None of the above questions have easy answers and there are convincing points/arguments  to both sides of the debates. I believe, this is the invigorating spirit of the Indian philosophy to question the status-quo and derive the answer. What may be right for me, may not be right for you. Rather what may seem right to me today, may not be right for me tomorrow. As they say “you don’t bathe in the same river twice” or “Man is not what he is, he is what he is not”

So, celebrating these perspectives and questions, I conclude my write up with the author’s conclusion that “Dharma is subtle”. Mahabharat does teach us “Nishkam Karma” and gives certain prescriptions which can guide us to make choices, but the choice has to be ours.

“‘Come I may but go I must” and, “ Right I may be, but Act I must’ must be the motto of all of us as rational human beings!!