VYASA'S WONDER

“What is not found here will not be found anywhere

 else… What is found anywhere else can also be found here."    

- Veda Vyasa about Mahabharata

Reading the Mahabharata is a very unique experience. Everything you have ever read before dims a bit in front of the grandeur and complexity of the epic. Although it is generally seen as a Hindu myth, it is a misconception that Mahabharata can only be read and understood by people with prior knowledge of Hinduism. The truth is that religion is something you run into in the epic only if you are specifically looking for it. And the beauty of Mahabharata is as much (if not more) about its narrative as it is about the spirituality in it.

It is not very unusual to see people who've read the epic trying to tell its stories to anyone who is patient enough to listen. But that is not enough either. The characters in Mahabharata give you thoughtful days and sleepless nights for weeks. They taunt you and confuse you about what is right and what is wrong. You end up questioning the very basic notions of dharma and righteousness you have in your head. You forget who the villain is and who the hero is.

While it may seem clear enough that the Pandavas are the good guys and the Kauravas the villains, it really isn't a simple black and white canvas like that. When you think from the point of view of different characters in the epic, you may find it hard to blame them for the way they acted. Essentially speaking, there are hardly any characters in the epic who are painted in a single shade.

Another surprising thing is the difficulty for us readers to find a central character. But this is because of the brilliance of the story telling rather than it being a shortcoming. (Technically Vyasa Maharishi is the central figure as the author is also a character in the story. But he only appears sparingly and is usually with the air of an observer). You can assume any character as the central figure and try to understand Mahabharata from their view point. In fact, if we view the events in the epics with the eyes of a different character, the entire tone and hue of the narrative changes.  

Maybe that is the reason why there are so many re-tellings of Mahabharata by brilliant authors from varied POVs. M.T Vasudevan Nair’s Randam Oozham (Second-in-line) sees the epic as Bheema understands it. The lack of appreciation which people have for Bheema and him being forever over looked when it comes to important decisions, is beautifully brought out in the book by M.T. “Ini Njan Urangatte (Let me rest now) written by P.K Balakrishnan is another brilliant work where Karnan is the central character. The unsung hero of Mahabharata, the one who is always insulted in spite of him being a great warrior and a great Kshatriya, is beautifully portrayed in this work. “Palace of Illusions” written by Chitra Banerjee takes a bold feminist view of Mahabharata by re-telling the epic from Draupadi’s point of view. And if it is a general idea that you want of Mahabharata you can always opt for C Rajagopalachari’s “Mahabharata” or Devdutt Pattanaik’s “Jaya”.

The most famous excerpt from Mahabharata is, of course, the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna just before the commencement of the Kurukshetra war. This entire conversation, The Bhagavad Gita, is revered by many as the most important discourse of Hindu philosophy. The essence of all the four Vedas and their corresponding Upanishads is said to be conveyed through Gita. It is surprising that many of my Hindu friends are still unaware of the fact that Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It might not be far-fetched to say that Gita is also a composition which should be credited to Vyasa Maharishi.

When the westerners (read British) encountered Mahabharata for the first time, it was hard for them to accept the fact that an epic of such proportions could be written by an individual. There was an attempt to try and downplay the Magnum Opus of Vyasa Maharishi by claiming that Mahabharata was, in fact, a collection of works by many authors. However such a blatant lie couldn't be made to take root even with the infinite resources at the disposal of the Englishmen. Krishna-dvaipayana (Vyasa Maharishi’s real name; Vyasa means the one who scribed Vedas) is now undeniably recognized as the author of Mahabharata.

This post is actually an intro that went too far. What I really wanted to write was a character sketch about a few of my favorite characters in Mahabharata. But when I thought about it, it felt too rough to start off straight away with something like that. So I figured that it was imperative that I give a small introduction to the epic first. I guess I should leave my character sketch for another day now.

Before I stop, I need to make an appeal to everyone who is reading this. Read Mahabharata. As much as I appreciate the brilliant works of literature by all the foreign authors, none has affected me the way Mahabharata did. You will start to feel like every story you have ever read has a comparable narrative somewhere within Mahabharata. I have heard that the very purpose for Vyasa Maharishi to write the epic was to bring the idea of righteousness and dharma to the masses. After you read the epic, you will be filled with a lot of questions. Only after a focused introspection will you be able to get some closure. This is the greatest strength of the tale. It is shocking to see how the ideas he tried to bring forward centuries ago, remain relevant to this day.

Read Mahabharata. It will change the way you see the world forever.

ARROGANCE

Being out of India truly does take an Indian away from the pulse of the nation. At least that is the excuse I keep telling myself for being so late with this post.

The past few days have been a judicial roller-coaster for an average Indian citizen. First we all balked about how inefficient and slow our courts are. After that we celebrated how money and fame doesn't let anyone off the hook anymore in India. Then we all looked like fools when the afore-mentioned money and fame secured a bail in 2 days, when more than 60% of the ‘under-trials’ spend an average of 3 months in prison before getting a bail hearing. It looks like the Indian media-scape has been taken over by Salman Khan again.

When you remove all the fluff and foam surrounding the Salman Khan Case, what it basically boils down to is, simply speaking, Arrogance. The Arrogance that having a silver-screen quotation somehow places you above the common citizen. The Arrogance that any crime is passable here, if you can mask its evil with subsequent charity works and long drawn out court procedures. The Arrogance that no matter what you do, there will be a bunch of deluded fans to chant your name and die for you. The Arrogance that money and muscle power rides above everything else. The Arrogance that a homeless man’s life or death is less consequential than a superstar’s.

I don’t mean to point a finger at the criminal alone. The reaction of the celebrity club to the verdict gave us unique glimpses of this Arrogance, insensitivity and human stupidity. While a brunette bimbo tried to blame the government for drunk driving, another celebrity had the audacity to compare the homeless to street dogs. Maybe they think being homeless is a choice. This is a wake-up call to the mindless worshipers of these so-called stars as to what they really think of their fans. While some of the more experienced thugs were reluctant to openly support the non-deliberate murderer, the young-lings of Bollywood were less cautious and came in open support of Salman. But the reaction of this crowd was as expected. After all, birds of a feather flock together. What surprised me was how some of the common citizens reacted to the verdict.

The crowds who sympathized with the victims (three of whom are still alive) were almost negligible when compared to the sympathy wave the criminal enjoyed. (I am sure some of you are squirming at the use of the word criminal. But as far as I am concerned, the judiciary has seen through the web of deceptions cast by the star’s high profile legal team and found him guilty of the crime). Many have also forgotten the young man, PC Ravindra Patil, who lost his job, his honor and ultimately his life for his pivotal statement that convicted the ‘star’. I can only imagine the amount of courage it took for him to stick to his statement in spite of the pressures and threats he would have been subjected to.  

Social media platforms were flooded with messages sympathizing with the criminal and how his charitable activities should somehow absolve him of the crime he committed. There was a reported case of attempted suicide outside the court by a Salman fan. This ‘bhai-tard’ probably should have just slept on a pavement near one of the clubs frequented by the B-town boys. That would have been a more fitting way for him to rid the world of his genes. How the educated ‘Bhai-tards’ can continue supporting an irresponsibly drunk, animal killing, woman-hurting, law-abusing, spoilt scion of a powerful family is something beyond my understanding.

It is also interesting to observe that the ‘star’ decided to start being-human only after 2002. A pattern of criminal and anti-social tendencies which the actor was infamous for till then was somehow forgiven and forgotten by his fans. While charity in any form is to be appreciated, the sanctity of his transformation is questionable. It is more likely that the ‘star’ felt that to avoid prison, it was necessary to improve his PR angle rather than there being any genuine change in his outlook.

If he was truly a changed man, Salman would have accepted the lenient punishment dictated by the court. After all, first step to being human is to take responsibility for ones actions, in this case, the murder of another human being. The argument that a man with a net worth of 200 million dollars spent around 7 million on charity over a period of 13 years is laughable for two reasons. First reason is that you cannot expect to buy your way out of murder. We do not live in a world where past misdemeanors are mitigated by present monetary penances.  Jack London sums up the second reason best “A bone to the dog is not charity. Charity is the bone shared with the dog when you are just as hungry.”