Last week, I was reading an article “Bust the myth of good over evil”. The article concluded by saying “Indrajit, who was loyal to Ravana, the King of Lanka (in the Ramayana) is remembered even today and thousands of people carry his name, but Vibheeshana, who chose to follow the path of dharma in lieu of loyalty, had his name die out with him.”
Worse still, a response to this article came as follows, which said (among other things), “Neglect of the family is always considered evil. In conflict between family loyalty and societal righteousness, the former always scores.” Does it really work out this way? Let us examine Vibheeshana, the younger brother of Ravana in the Ramayana, whose name has unfortunately become synonymous with the epithet ‘traitor’.
Unlike what most people think, Vibheeshana was very much loyal and devoted to his elder brother. The difference was, when every other of Ravana’s counsellors were saying flattering words to him, it was Vibheeshana alone who chose to speak the truth and he sought to correct Ravana’s evil ways. Vibheeshana was loyal to his family, but he was even more loyal to his values and dharma. When he found that the two loyalties were in conflict with each other, he chose the path to which he had greater affinity. This is what any rational man does.
Vibheeshana had always been impressed by Lord Shri Rama’s ideas and principles, and found that they were much in common with his line of thinking. Therefore, it was natural that he joined forces with Lord Rama. This is in direct contrast to what most characters of the Mahabharata did.
When the Kurukshetra war was about to break out, Bheeshma and Drona chose to fight on Duryodhana’s side, even though they had no respect for his line of thinking. This is often quoted as an example of putting family loyalty over societal righteousness. But nowhere in the Mahabharata it is said that what Bheeshma and Drona did was right. The Mahabharata is a handbook of don’ts; therefore, in all balance of probability, what these two otherwise great people did was wrong.
Bheeshma, Drona, Dhritarashtra and Vidura knew Duryodhana’s way of error; but they were unable to do much to correct him, and Dhritarashtra [Duryodhana’s father] often acquiesced in whatever wrong he did. There is an ocean of difference between knowing what is right and doing what is right. When Lord Krishna advised Dhritarashtra to sacrifice Duryodhana in order to save the rest of his sons and the Kuru race, his advice was promptly turned down by quoting family ties and affection. Was the destruction of four million soldiers necessary for upholding ‘family loyalty’?
Much of the wrong that Duryodhana did was due to his faulty upbringing by his parents and other elders. That was the real treachery, as the prince was denied the right to grow up into a man who would love his cousins. Later, when Duryodhana begins to commit evil deeds, he does it with the confidence that Bheeshma and Drona would never abandon him. These two elders could have put their feet down and have said that Duryodhana alone was responsible for his acts; but they acted otherwise. Again, the prince was denied the right to be a good man. Later, commentators sought to cover this up under the codename of ‘family loyalty’.
Sometimes, people contrast Vibheeshana against Karna, who was unwavering in his friendship with Duryodhana. The comparison is scurrilous and unwarranted. Karna never had any natural affinity towards the Pandavas, possibly because of the way they insulted him when they first met him on the stadium of test. Later, Karna promises to Kunti that he will not kill anybody except Arjuna; but it is more due to his generous nature than any real affection for them.
No one can go back in time and change these events as they have occurred. We can only learn lessons from them. Instead of cowering under ‘family loyalty’, it is our paramount duty to correct our friends and relatives, if they ever go wrong. If we fail to do that, that is the real treachery and we are the real traitors. Every fellow man has a right to follow the path of good, and has a right to be led on the path of good. We must be loyal to our ethics, values, morals, dharma and most importantly, our inner conscience. Failure to be so would be a crime.
Worse still, a response to this article came as follows, which said (among other things), “Neglect of the family is always considered evil. In conflict between family loyalty and societal righteousness, the former always scores.” Does it really work out this way? Let us examine Vibheeshana, the younger brother of Ravana in the Ramayana, whose name has unfortunately become synonymous with the epithet ‘traitor’.
Unlike what most people think, Vibheeshana was very much loyal and devoted to his elder brother. The difference was, when every other of Ravana’s counsellors were saying flattering words to him, it was Vibheeshana alone who chose to speak the truth and he sought to correct Ravana’s evil ways. Vibheeshana was loyal to his family, but he was even more loyal to his values and dharma. When he found that the two loyalties were in conflict with each other, he chose the path to which he had greater affinity. This is what any rational man does.
Vibheeshana had always been impressed by Lord Shri Rama’s ideas and principles, and found that they were much in common with his line of thinking. Therefore, it was natural that he joined forces with Lord Rama. This is in direct contrast to what most characters of the Mahabharata did.
When the Kurukshetra war was about to break out, Bheeshma and Drona chose to fight on Duryodhana’s side, even though they had no respect for his line of thinking. This is often quoted as an example of putting family loyalty over societal righteousness. But nowhere in the Mahabharata it is said that what Bheeshma and Drona did was right. The Mahabharata is a handbook of don’ts; therefore, in all balance of probability, what these two otherwise great people did was wrong.
Bheeshma, Drona, Dhritarashtra and Vidura knew Duryodhana’s way of error; but they were unable to do much to correct him, and Dhritarashtra [Duryodhana’s father] often acquiesced in whatever wrong he did. There is an ocean of difference between knowing what is right and doing what is right. When Lord Krishna advised Dhritarashtra to sacrifice Duryodhana in order to save the rest of his sons and the Kuru race, his advice was promptly turned down by quoting family ties and affection. Was the destruction of four million soldiers necessary for upholding ‘family loyalty’?
Much of the wrong that Duryodhana did was due to his faulty upbringing by his parents and other elders. That was the real treachery, as the prince was denied the right to grow up into a man who would love his cousins. Later, when Duryodhana begins to commit evil deeds, he does it with the confidence that Bheeshma and Drona would never abandon him. These two elders could have put their feet down and have said that Duryodhana alone was responsible for his acts; but they acted otherwise. Again, the prince was denied the right to be a good man. Later, commentators sought to cover this up under the codename of ‘family loyalty’.
Sometimes, people contrast Vibheeshana against Karna, who was unwavering in his friendship with Duryodhana. The comparison is scurrilous and unwarranted. Karna never had any natural affinity towards the Pandavas, possibly because of the way they insulted him when they first met him on the stadium of test. Later, Karna promises to Kunti that he will not kill anybody except Arjuna; but it is more due to his generous nature than any real affection for them.
No one can go back in time and change these events as they have occurred. We can only learn lessons from them. Instead of cowering under ‘family loyalty’, it is our paramount duty to correct our friends and relatives, if they ever go wrong. If we fail to do that, that is the real treachery and we are the real traitors. Every fellow man has a right to follow the path of good, and has a right to be led on the path of good. We must be loyal to our ethics, values, morals, dharma and most importantly, our inner conscience. Failure to be so would be a crime.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment