06.01.09
Bazaz, “Role of Gita”, Chap. 11
The next installment from Bazaz’ The Role of the Gita in Indian Thought.
Note: this is an exotic interpretation indeed, one that few Hindus will accept. But it is a challenge, and and a question, what are the facts?
11. The Bewildered Intellectual
IN the history of the world, wars have been fought with different aims, territorial acquisition being only one of them.
Sometimes the underlying cause of a clash between belligerents was struggle for the ascendancy of a particular class by the suppression of other classes in a society. Though Brahmin writers have with one voice declared the Mahabharata War to have been the result of high-handedness of the Kauravas in depriving the Pandavas of their rightful share in the kingdom, the real reason has to be sought in the different ideologies espoused by the Brahmins and the kshatriyas. It is true that the war was fought between two clans of the warrior caste and on either side were arrayed various kshatriya chiefs of northern India, but behind the scenes, pulling the wires, were the leaders of neo-Brahminism who were deeply concerned in the outcome of the war.
There is evidence that freedom-lovers and progressives were strongly opposed to the war which, they anticipated, would spell ruin but, having already weakened, their opposition was a cry in the wilderness. Farsighted kshatriyas too disliked bloodshed and carnage for mere acquisition of territory; the War, they feard, would end in annihilation of the cream of their society. Arjuna feebly represented their views. But the decisive voice whether or not the war should be fought was of the leaders of neo-Brahminism whose philosophy is elaborately developed by Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita. The Mahabharata War proved a turning point in the history of India. It ended the last hope of rescuing the Great Revolu¬tion brought about by the rationalist-materialist doctrines; it dealt the severest blow at progress and guaranteed the revival of Brahminism with its faith in transcendental power. In the titanic clash, the core of the progressive forces and the elite of the kshatriya class were destroyed; the country could never again rise to those heights of culture it had scaled in the days gone by. As opponents of the Vedas and patrons of heterodoxy brave kshatriyas were counted by the orthodox Brahmins as thorns in their side. So when prospects of internecine war between the two warrior clans of the Panda vas and the Kauravas brightened the Brahmins fished in the troubled waters. All kshatriya kings of North India, with the bare exception of the Kashmir raja, were involved in the war and this, the shrewed Brahmins must have calculated, would prove the most effective way of annihi¬lating the still-struggling revolutionary forces and thereby rendering neo-Brahminism an absolute and unchallengeable power. The dialogue between Arjuna and Sri Krishna which is contained in the Bhagavad Gita took place on the fateful occasion when the big armies were arrayed on either side of the battlefield ready to strike. By having chosen an appro¬priate time and venue for the holding of the dialogue, the author of the holy poem deliberately or unconsciously brought renown to it which has not been enjoyed by any other literary work, profane or sacred, produced before or after it in India.
Another master stroke of the author is in selection of the two characters who discussed the issues which were exercising the minds of intellectuals during the age when Buddhism was on decline and neo-Brahminism r~ising its head. The dialogue is not, as it would ordinarily have been, between a kshatriya and a Brahmin or between a Buddhist and non-Buddhist. Both Arjuna and Sri Krishna belong to different clans of the kshatriya the former, though not a convinced rationalist-materialist, is yet plagued by lingering scepticism and seems to entertain
hazy doubts about the usefulness of the changes that are taking place at the waning influence of Buddhism. Like thousands of other Hindu intellectuals, disturbing questions arise in his mind which need to be answered before he can fully reconcile himself to the change. Sri Krishna is a spirit¬ually defeated kshatriya who is completely converted to the faith of neo-Brahminism and is, indeed, presented as the staun¬chest protagonist of the creed. But, as explained earlier, Brahminism has not remained what it was in pre •Buddhist days. If it is to dominate the Indian society, Brahminism must under¬go furthe! modifications and without discarding its cardinal principles, present a complexion that may be acceptable to the wavering intellectuals like Arjuna. Sri Krishna has fully realised this position.
In the period of frustration, helplessness and disorder which followed the decline of Buddhism, morality was at a low ebb; human values like truthfulness, generosity, charity and pity were underrated, even fellow-feeling, affection for kinsmen and respect for elders were set at naught. Power, pelf and glory at any cost had become the life’s aim. Everywhere there was scramble for them. This was abhorrent to those who still cherished lofty ideals and entertained regard for moral princi¬ples taught by Buddhism. But to those bent upon squeezing revolutionary forces out of existence, nothing was sacred and no weapon objectionable for use to achieve selfish aims. If to gain an end one had to wade through rivers of blood, be it of one’s own kith and kin, the gruesome game had to be played and the ghastly drama enacted; a devotee at the shrine of neo-Brah¬minism should have no hesitation to be the actor. Only the callous and merciless deeds would have to be rationalised and philosophically explained as noble and sublime.
On the historic battlefield of Kuruksht>tra, when the armies ot the Pandavas commanded by Bhima with their allies on one side, and the forces of the Kauravas headed by Bhishma with their supporters on the other, were ready to cross swords, Prince Arjuna, addressing his charioteer, Sri Krishna, asked a vital question in simple, unvarnished language which gives a clue to his noble character and human intentions. “Seeing these my kinsmen, a Krishna, arrayed and eager to fight”, he
spoke in deep anguish, “my limbs fail and my mouth is parched, my body quivers and my hair stand on end, (my) gandiva (bow) slips from my hand, and my skin boils all over. I am not able to stand and my mind is whirling. I see adverse omens, 0 Keshava, I cannot foresee any advantage from slaying my kinsmen in the battle; I desire no victory, nor kingdom, nor pleasure. What is kingdom to us, what enjoyment or even life; for those for whose sake we desire kingdom, enjoyment and pleasures, they stand here in battle abandoning life and riches. “1
Continuing in the same strain Arjuna goes on to say:
“Among those arrayed on the battlefield are teachers, fathers, sons as well as grandfathers, brothers, mothers fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law an other rela¬tives. These I do not wish to kill, though my5 If slain, 0 Madhusudana, even for the sake of the kingship of the worlds, how then (can I want them killed) for gaining the earth? Slaying these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, 0 Janardana? Killing these desperadoes, sin will surely take hold of us. Therefore we should not kill the sons of Dhritarashtra, our relatives; for how can we be happy after killing our kinsmen, 0 Madhava ? Although these (sons of Dhritarashtra) with intelligence overpowered by greed, see no guilt in the destruction of a family, no crime in hostility towards friends, why should not we learn to turn away from such a sin, 0 Janardana, who see evil in the destruction of a family”?2
Explaining the latter part of Arjuna’s anguish, Dr. S. Radha¬krishnan comments: “They (the Kauravas) are striken blind by greed and have no understanding but we are guilty of the wrong. Even if we assume that they are guilty of selfish passion and greed, it is a wrong to slay them and it is a greater wrong because they who are blinded by passion are unconscious of the guilt they are committing, but our eyes are open and we see that it is a sin to slay.”3
The simple but impressive and moving statement of Arjuna describes natural and spontaneous reactions of a decent mind to the horrors of bloodshed, holocaust and war in general. Though a warrior-prince deprived of his legitimate inheritance, he abhorred violence and was reluctant to seek power and terri-
tory by slaying kinsmen, friends, relatives and multitudes of other innocent human beiogs. Is it worthwhile or any the least laudable to achieve power by such heinous means? he asks. There is neither sense nor reason behind it. The argument that the enemy (sons of King Dhritarashtra) are prepared to kill their kinsmen and other innocent warriors and have no qualms in doing so does not appeal to Arjuna as a defence for reacting in a similar savage manner. A man of culture should not submit to unreason like his uncivilized opponent and become guilty, he asserts. That way human misery cannot be ended. One who is intelligent and virtuous and knows what is morally right should follow the straight path irrespective of what the opposite party choses to do.
This method of formulating the issue confronting the kshatriyas shows that Arjuna was not fully convinced of the righteousness of neo- Brahmin philosophy and continued to labour, however slightly, under the influence of the Samkhya¬based Buddhism. Arjuna had raised the weighty point which must have been in the minds of innumerable intellectuals who were hesitant to accept neo-Brahminism, though they had lost faith in revolutionary Buddhism. Arjuna’s question has, as we shall see, echoed and re-echoed through the corridors of Indian history till the modern times without getting the right reply.
Had Arjuna confined his statement to the expression of human and rational reactions he had to the impending disaster, he would have left no room for Sri Krishna to inflict a moralis¬ing discourse on him. Arjuna’s position would have been unassailable and possibly other means than the war would have been adopted to seek a compromise between the Pandavas and the Kauravas to settle the territorial dispute. In that case, Arjuna would have come down in Indian history as a great humanist thinker. But his mind had already been poisoned by the ill-winds of counter-revolution. He betrayed a weak¬ness in his stand by expression of solicitude for Brahmin rituals when he carried the argument further by observing:
“In the destruction of the family the immemorial family traditions perish and in the perishing of traditions lawlessness overcomes the whole family. Owing to predominance of
lawlessness 0 Krishna, the women of the family become corrupt; when women are corrupted, 0 Varshneya, (Krishna) there ariseth caste confusion. This confusion draggeth to hell the slayers of the family and family (itself). For deprived of their offerings of rice balls and water the spirits of their ancestors fall. By such caste confusing misdeeds of the slayers of the family, the everlasting caste laws and family customs are destroyed. The abode of the men whose family customs are extinguished is everlastingly in hell. Therefore, alas, we are engaged in committing a great sin in endeavouring to kill our kindred from greed to kingship. If the sons of Dhritarashtra, weapon in hand, should slay me, unresisting unarmed, in the battle, that would be better for me.”4
From these words of agony it is clear that the mind of
Arjuna is not exercised so much by the distressino ,lJ.ought of shedding innocent blood as by corruption of caste, estruction of family customs, stoppage of liberation and rice balls to dead ancestors, and abolition of Vedic rituals in general which had been devalued in the Buddhist age but were revived by the rise of neo-Brahminism. Though Arjuna was pleading for preservation of human values like peace at any cost, non¬violence, nobility, forgiveness, generosity, unselfishness and unilateral liberalism, he felt, as a matter of fact, more distressed at the violation of Brahmin dogmas, traditions and rituals.
The divided mind became an unbearable burden and, over¬borne by grief, Arjuna, casting away his bow and arrow, sank down in his seat in the chariot. The Pandava Prince was over¬come by pity, his eyes were filled with tears and his mind was much depressed and troubled. The sharp-witted Sri Krishna lost nO time in seizing upon the mental perturbation of the Prince and without touching the cogent points raised by him tickled Arjuna’s vanity by addressing him thus: ‘Whence has this ignoble, infamous, heaven-closing dejection befallen you. Yield not to impotence, it does not befit you. Cast off this paltry faint-heartedness, 0 Parantapa (Arjuna), and stand up.”5
Sri Krishna’s gentle and affectionate admonition demorali¬sed the confused intellectual and exposed the fact of his having
been affected by the change of the time. Arjuna frankly admits his bewilderment:
“I do not know which for us is better, that we conquer them or they con~uer us. Those whom having slain, we should not care. to lIve, even these, the sons of Dhritarashtra, are arrayed agalllst us. My heart is weighed down with the weakness of pity. With my mind bewildered about my duty, I as~ thee. Tell me for certai.n which is better. I am thy pupIl; teach me, who am seeklllg refuge in thee. I do not see what will drive away this sorrow that withers up my senses, even I should attain rich and unrivalled kingdom or even the sovereignty of the gods.”6
The acuteness of Arjuna’s anguish born of the indecisiveness of his mind is tersely reported by Sanjaya, the recorder of the dialogue. He says; “Having thus addressed Hrishikesha (Krishna) the mighty Gudakesha (Arjuna) said to Govinda (Krishna) I will not fight and became silent.”7
On the one hand, Arjuna acknowledged Sri Krishna, the e:ponent of neo-Brahminism, as his guru and sought refuge in hIm, on the other, he tenaciously struck to the resolve of refrai¬ning from fighting the senseless war which he had made inde¬p~~dent1y guided by reason and a sense of human responsi¬bIltty. Comments Dr. Radhakrishnan; “Arjuna without w.aiting for the advice of the teacher, seems to have made up ?lS mind. While he asks the teacher to advice him, his mind IS not open. The task of the teacher becomes more difficult.”8
Did the teacher succeed in removing the mental confusion of his P?pil ~y relieving him of indecisiveness and by fully convertmg him to neo-Brahmin creed? We shall have closely to examine this point of vital significance in the following chapters. At the end of the dialogue Arjuna says his doubts have vanished but a critical study of the Gita would make one wonder if this is correct. For not only his volley of questions throughout the dialogue betray his persistent confusion, but at the end also, in a mood of utter resignation, he accepts to do as commanded by Sri Krishna and not as he would have