In the last two blogs, we discussed in detail about things which took centre-stage in Bhishma's life. Coming to conclusion, Bhishma's life was a roller coaster ride and like a painful oxymoron of being the most powerful yet being the most hapless one. He took commands from masters he may not have liked and executed things which he personally might never agree to. He unwillingly fought from Kaurava's side in the Mahabharata battle and even in the battle, he could not do complete justice neither with the warrior inside him nor for the side he fought for. He fought only to prevent Kaurava's defeat and never to kill Pandavas and win the war for Kauravas. Another pity for a warrior of his stature. At this point his condition looks seriously pitiable...nowhere to go! He endured and endured before getting killed by his own great grandson Arjuna and died a death which also had an element of ploy in it.
Bhishma's life was a perennial tug of war between his heart and his duty as he almost never had the luxury of having both at the same place. He was mercilessly split between the two and couldn't do complete justice to either of the two. His wrong doings whether intentional or unintentional are vehemently spoken. Roles he played in the lives of Amba, Ambika, Ambalika, Gandhaari and Draupadi is something always talked about but amidst all of this, he took his calls, he did whatever he could do which at times is conveniently skipped. In the fully blown Kurukshetra war, he could have posed a threat to Pandavas life with his might (lest Krishna would do some trick) but point to note is he didn't even attempt and rather showed the way of his own death. As per KM Ganguly's translation, he could have defeated Parashurama in their 1-1 battle but heavens told him not to do so and he obliged out of respect. We can keep debating forever what he could have done or what he should not have done but essentially, its "grey". If not white, then not as black either! Disrobing of Draupadi was a scar on the whole the then present male fraternity but the biggest blotch came on Bhishma and Dhritarashtra as they were senior-most and king respectively. At one point, the whole episode looks like the point of inflection conspired by destiny to make a very loud and clear call that it was time to rewrite the rules. As a matter of chance and destiny, being the senior most and arguably the most powerful of them all, Bhishma apparently became the biggest villian. As I mentioned in part II of the blog, it was time to rewrite the rules and probably none other than Lord himself could have done it as unchallenged. Is Bhishma's case the other extreme of "pran jaye par vachan na jaye"? The precedence of keeping up one's word which was set by none other than Lord Vishnu as Rama, who else in the entire Hindu pantheon of Gods could have challenged it better than another equivalent or higher incarnation of Lord Vishnu himself? Would society accept if anybody else dare to do so? Least likely...rather the person would most likely be labelled as
incapable of upholding ideals set by Lord Rama and could be outcasted. At times, a lot of it all seems like God's play. Lord Ram became hero by setting a norm, Lord Krishna became another hero by challenging those norms but Bhishma became villian by following that norm to an extreme! So is Bhishma's case just that of a toad?
Coming to war, does it sound fair to blame one or few individuals for something which Lord Krishna
himself couldn’t stop despite trying for peace? During disrobing of Draupadi, whether the men
should have rebelled and taken their arms to stop the act has been always debated, but one
thing is obvious that Dhritrashtra-Duryodahan was a hopeless pair. Neither any of the learned
council could convince them against disrobing nor Lord Krishna as messenger of peace could
convince them for peace. This looks like the classic archetype of the famous saying
“vinash kale viprit buddhi” that when a person is doomed, no one can put sense into his head.
Same was the case with Ravana. Many of his close ones like Mandodari, Vibhishana, Kumbhakarna
and even Meghnada during his final moments advised Ravana for peace but to no avail.
Is the whole Mahabharat the case that man may yearn for whatever he wants, but ultimately
destiny would have its own plans? Or is it just another case of undeniable cycle of rise and fall?
If the great Indian civilization as a whole can witness decline, what chance did Hastinapur
or the great Kuru lineage stand to have possibly averted its fall? Did Lord Krishna's own
lineage not witness its fall? The fall of Yadavas is equally pitiable if not more!
Of all his sufferings, how much Bhishma deserved and how much was part of the larger
picture of destiny is another never ending debate. For a moment, if we consider the story of
his previous birth's curse for cow theft as one of the 8 Vasu's, then he was anyways destined
to live a mortal life enduring massive hardships. Is his case simply that of misfortune multiplied
manifold?
Nonetheless, Bhisma was surely a tall figure. A warrior who ended up fighting for the lost
cause but a best in class warrior indeed! At one point it feels tad unfair to make comments
and pass harsh judgements. In the end to say the least, his case is the most curious of
them all and not as simple as it looks to criticize as just like onion, there are layers one
after the other to the whole narrative. As per my understanding, especially in the context of
narratives like Mahabharata it's more about learning lessons and not being judgmental.
Passing judgements after-all may not be the mark of the wise, but rather of those who neither
can understand things comprehensively nor have the patience to keep mum! PERIOD
By the way, can learning be derived without drawing judgements? May be the next curious
case for me to explore and to be honest, that's the whole idea of me writing these blogs.
Finding answers.......and finding questions! In the mean time, enjoy this question :)
(Links to earlier parts - Part I,Part II)
Comments
Post a Comment