At the battlefield of Kurukshetra, on the day one just before the war was about to begin, Arjuna was at a situation of perplex and in dilemma, he was not ready to fight with his cousins and many other relatives whom he knew for ages, citing some quite obvious reasons of not fighting and killing so many innocent people just for a mere piece of land, of which some had nothing to do with it. He wanted to circumvent the mass-killing of innocent people at the war. The consequences of every action that one takes and he goes on to say. On the basis of consequences of every action, I would like to bring up the analogy of Indian Nobel laureate Mr. Amartya Sen frames Theory of Consequentialism.
He set forth that one must contemplate axing Arjuna to fight, Shri Krishna instilled in him what Mr.Amartya Sen refers to as ‘consequence-independent judgments’. He goes on to ask if this was this fair on the part of Shri Krishna.
I must say that at the outset I am not sure Arjun's reluctance to fight had anything to do with the Theory of Consequentialism. His reluctance to fight was due to a state of dejection, coexisting with a predominance of tamas (meaning lethargy and darkness), and this is considered to be detrimental to one's spiritual and psychological well-being. Instead of considering this as a reaction in the field of morality, one needs to consider this refusal to fight as a psychological reaction on Arjuna's part, which Shri Krishna had to cure through the process of counseling.
In order to be able to make the right moral decision, one must have the right psychological balance which is the first and foremost thing. It is needless to say, all this was a consequential calculation on the part of Shri Krishna. While Arjuna was confusing compassion with cowardice, the dialogue between the two (which is better known as Bhagavad Gita) was to make him recognize the same. Shri Krishna was against weakness and cowardice and not love for one's fellow man. Apart from Arjuna's need to go back to the required state of his mind, from where he could grow psychologically, ethically and spiritually, it seems that once he had come to the battlefield with his responsibility to give leadership to a vast army as a General, it may be quite questionable whether he could relinquish his commitment all of a sudden, at the very last moment. Lord Krishna wanted him to fight for the establishment of justice. When maintenance of justice was the principle involved, it was imperative on a kshatriya (the warrior) to resort to appropriate means, including taking up arms.
Once again I would borrow Mr. Amartya Sen’s term (i.e. establishment of justice) consequence any less, what do you think about it? 
Let me provoke your thinktank with a question which you might better relate to. Would taking up arms by our Government against a huge (or rather ever-increasing) group of terrorists be seen as spilling of blood, even when we know that some of them have been our brothers till some time back? Would we have said the same thing about General Sam Manekshaw if he had declined to fight the Pakistani army, just before the battle stating he did not want to spill the blood of innocent people who once used to be his own countrymen, his own brothers? Then why these double standards when it comes to judging mythical heroes?
The battle of Kurukshetra was no ordinary war for a mere piece of land. It was a war for the establishment of justice for which Pandav stood to fight. All rules and norms of civilized behavior had been broken, all diplomatic efforts had been explored, each and every possible effort to avoid the war had been reported to. The war itself was a consequence of immense greed and selfishness and a series of misdeeds towards the mankind at large. The war was the last option and there was no option of going back to the discussion table (as the term which is popularly used in corporate jargon). The only choice one had was to have just war then or an evil war later. With so much at stake, was it not right on Lord Krishna’s part to instill in Arjuna a sense of duty that dictated that there must not be any slackness in the actions performed in anticipation of the results?
Subroneel Saha is high in life. He enjoys life and believes to savour everything by doing along the path with passion, which he considers to be the most important part of the experience. He is a prolific writer on history, mythology, sacred lore, legends, folklore, fables and parables, and for challenging willful misinterpretations of ancient Indian and world scriptures, stories, symbols, and rituals. He intents to break the dogma and show the intentional part of every myth and the story.
Comments
Post a Comment