Judgement is absence of empathy
Welcome to part II of this curious case series on Bhishma
We discussed in the previous blog that oath which Bhishma took does not look the real
problem. After all, let's not forget that the war happened between the great grandchildren of Bhisma i.e 3 generations later => his oath did serve the purpose for the timeline which he might have anticipated while taking the oath!
Thinking about the real problem, the answer according to me is the "time" it took Hastinapur to get the just and stable rule Bhishma wanted and the fact that Bhishma was no ordinary mortal. Rather, arguably the most powerful warriors of his times, one who withstood even Lord Parshurama in one-on-one battle! No surprises that Hastinapur was safe from invasions during his time. Pandu was short-lived, Dhritrashtra was blind, Drona joined Hastinapur later, Pandavas/Kauravas grew up as warriors much later. For a significant period of time, the security of the kingdom was primarily dependent on Bhishma amidst presence of formidable foes like Kansa, Jarasandh among others. But there is always so much to discuss in Mahabharata that this point seldom gets any attention and hence Bhishma is seldom credited for keeping Hastinapur secure from all possible external invasions in his lifetime.
As per the oath, with his own surrender to the King, his powers too got surrendered and
hence his enormous powers couldn't be put to best use for the larger good of mankind.
What Devvrata desired for his kingdom, that came far much later than he could have
imagined while taking the oath and the worst part, it came in the fashion which no one
could ever have predicted. Much before Kauravas and Pandavas were born, many other
things went haywire. Heir-less death of Vichitravirya, Dhritrashtra being born blind etc are
such things which neither one can anticipate nor can one do future planning keeping such
gloomy things in mind.
Further, no one can foresee character like Shakuni to encounter who outwitted likes of Bhishma and Vidur to rattle the cages of Hastinapur. Bhishma, or anyone for that matter coming from illustrious lineage of king Bharat, and himself son of none other than Goddess Ganga may never have anticipated his grandchildren to go berserk in mutual hatred to the point of attempting something like vastra-haran of none other than their own sister-in-law!
Why only Bhishma, would any young person while taking any oath, imagine and take into account such a horrendous possibility that one day his coming generations can gamble and disrobe their own women that too right in the palace, in a family gathering and in broad daylight!? If a person starts taking into consideration such horrific possibilities for every futuristic action, what would world call him? A fore thinker or a lunatic overthinker!? Would the world accept him and would he be able to live a normal life? Even today's purely commercialized insurance agencies won't frighten their prospective clients of such unfortunate possibilities while selling their policies. So, is Bhishma's case that of cruel
unpredictability of time!?
As things took shape with the course of time, he ended up living much longer than expected by any standard. He outlived his own oath and that's where lies the serious trouble in my understanding. The oath he took seems to be fine, but possibly had an expiry.
Things tend to expire with time and hence possibly the oath too. What seems to have gone
wrong was the decision to not break it even when time demanded it and even when the
oath violated its very own purpose. His oath and subsequent "no matter what" submission
to the seated King seemingly demanded a serious reconsideration after it had already
served its purpose well for a substantial period of time and especially when very things
started happening, to avoid which he took the oath in the first place!
Is this predicament of Bhishama's oath violating its own purpose, the case of the mythical
creature Ouroboros(serpent eating its own tail)? Possibly..
Interestingly, that's exactly where one of the aspects of Lord Krishna comes into picture very radiantly. He ran away from the battle field and took the name of "Ran-chor", he almost broke his vow of not wielding weapon in Mahabharata war and charged upon Bhishma, he plotted for death of Drona in the war and did many other things which were out of prescribed norms and could malign one's name. Krishna had no second thoughts about his name being maligned for larger good. He had zero friction in making decisions whether personal glory mattered more or larger good.
If Bhishma is to be criticized, I believe it's not for taking the oath but may be for not breaking it even when time demanded. Easier said than done, do mortals have the luxury to break their word citing "larger good" since definitions are relative after all? Karna too faced this dilemma. It might look like breaking vow could be a way but often vows turn out a one-way entry for mortals wherein an unbroken vow is all what they are left with. It's circumstantial and ever debatable. Would a mortal think to break the tradition set by none other than Lord Rama's lineage that "pran jaye par vachan na jaye"? Can anybody else other than the next avatar of Lord himself break his own norms?? To me, that's a million dollar question!
Ultimately, time stands taller than anybody else and it looks likely that time also took the toll on Bhishma's mind as things progressed in his lifetime. May be, the mortal mind has a limit to endure also keeping in mind the worldly comforts he never had for whatever reasons. Is his curious case also the one about the downside if not having a good life- partner? Sad case of being in the crowd yet being alone? Or is Bhishma's case simply that a mortal would certainly falter when pressure exceeds a threshold? Maybe patience too has its expiry!
So what’s the conclusion? Let’s continue in part III. Stay tuned!
Comments
Post a Comment