5 reasons for this philosophical overdose this weekend instead of the farce and fiction that has been dominating the public discourse since last week.
Reason#1 – Reactions to the Indian Model of Economic Development
Reason# 2 – Contextual Morality which keeps popping up as the Indian way of justifying and rationalizing (Sandeep has a good post on this)
Reason#3 – Reactions to this blog’s criticism of Thackeray’s call for suicide squads
Reason# 4 – Reactions to this blog’s application of “Karna versus Vikarna” to characterize Manmohan Singh’s Legacy
Reason# 5 – The frequent tendency of the BJP, VHP to confuse Dharma with politico-religious goals e.g. State entitlements to religion, protecting religion through legislative instruments like Anti-Conversion Laws etc..
Let us begin this Dharma 101 by trying to understand the nature of Dharma.
What is Dharma ?
Dharma is about righteousness of actions. It is about righteousness which is universal and eternal i.e. it is invariant of time (when the action took place), place (where the action took place) and context (why the action took place).
Is Dharma relative or absolute ?
Because it is eternal and universal it is absolute and not relative.
Is Dharma the same as a set of do’s & donts codified in scripture by a religion ?
No it is not. Dharma is independent of faith or belief systems
How is Dharma different from religious do’s and donts ?
Dharma does not concern itself with “What” you do it only concerns itself with “How” you went about doing it. On the other hand religious do’s and donts concern themselves with “What” you do as well. Let us take an example to better understand this.
A religious belief system may hold Gambling as immoral. So in such a belief system the game of dice between the Pandavas and Kauravas would have been immoral to begin with. However Dharma is not concerned if Pandavas and Kauravas played a Game of Dice. It is only concern is if how that Game of Dice was played. Was the game governed by a set of rules ? Were those rules arrived at with consensus borne out of free will ? Once agreed to were those rules adhered to ? So the Adharma in the Game of Dice in Mahabharat was not the “what” the Game, but the “how” the Game was played – with loaded dice cast by proxy (Shakuni for Duryodhana).
Another example could be a religious belief system could hold Polyandry as immoral. Mahabharata’s Draupadi would be considered an immoral woman by that belief system. But Dharma views it differently. Draupadi’s Polyandry by itself is not of concern to Dharma. What is of concern is how that arrangement of Polyandry was arrived at and how it was conducted. So there was no Adharma in Draupadi’s Polyandry for it was arrived at by consensus between the Pandavas and Draupadi out of free will. That consensual agreement was based on the rule that Draupadi would be impartial in her love and duty towards all of the Pandavas. But then Draupadi was found guilty of Adharma in the end not because of the Polyandry but because she broke the rule on which the consensus of the Polyandry was based on, by being partial towards Arjuna and by not being truthful about that partiality.
So how is Dharma different from Contextual Morality ?
Contextual Morality as articulated by A.K. Ramanujan is really about trying to justify or rationalize something which is unrighteous by invoking the context in which that unrighteous act was committed. Let us take an example to better understand this.
Contextual Morality is basically like saying bribery is wrong but I am right in giving or taking a bribe to get a driver’s license because the process of getting it legally is cumbersome and fraught with pain. Similarly another example could be dowry is wrong but I am right in taking a dowry from my in-laws because its money that is for their daughter.
Some more recent examples of Contextual Morality are Bal Thackeray’s justification of suicide squads. Terrorism by Jihadists is wrong but my Suicide Terrorism is right because the Indian State has not been effective in fighting Terrorism.
Or more historically it is wrong to settle a contest based on factors other than merit or by discrimination but Reservations to my community are right because there were historical wrongs in the past.
So Contextual Morality is basically about acknowledging the difference between Dharma and Adharma but then seeking a one time waiver from Dharma on the grounds that my context is different and hence my Adharma in this context is moral.
Why do we see a lot of this kind of distortion of Dharma in the name of Contextual Morality ?
On some reflection this blogger has come to the conclusion that this is because unlike other faiths and belief systems which have strict doctrines with codified Do’s and Donts, in India there is no single overarching Hindu Doctrine of Do’s and Donts that everyone adheres to. So what you had in India was a sense of Universal Righteousness (Dharma) which addressed the “How” while leaving the “What” to be defined by whatever belief system each community, region evolved. So while Dharma was “Universal” the faith based Do’s and Donts were contextual.
Somewhere along the line as intellectual ferment set into the Indian Society Dharma started to be confused with the contextual Do’s and Donts to a degree that people started to justify Adharma with the contextual Do’s and Donts as the excuse.
The bottomline however is that the “what” of social customs, mores and values can be contextual but Dharma is always universal. One may seek justification for one’s actions on the basis of one’s social context (like Gujjar Reservations) but that does not make their actions Dharma. Those actions would still be Adharma.
What is the relation between Liberty, Freedom and Dharma ?
Since Dharma concerns itself with the “How” and not the “What”, it is not meaningful to talk of freedom and liberty in isolation. It is only meaningful to talk of freedom and liberty in the context of actions.
If the actions were righteous then there would be no sanction under Dharma for any restrictions on the freedom and liberty to undertake those actions. . This explains why Draupadi’s Polyandry was ok in the Mahabharata.
However if those same actions were unrighteous then they would be deemed Adharma. So any restrictions on freedom and liberty of such actions would have sanction. However Dharma would also apply to how such restrictions were applied asking if righteous means were employed to enforce such restrictions or not.
What is the relevance of Dharma as a political philosophy for the Right ?
It makes absolute sense for Dharma to be the basis for any political philosophy to the Right because it is about righteousness of actions that are time and place invariant and not about objectives and goals that are motivated by emotions and justified by context.
This is the fundamental difference between what those to the Left believe in and what those to the Right ought to believe in.
For example: While those to the Left concern themselves with Wealth and Poverty, to Dharma wealth and poverty by themselves are irrelevant since it focuses on the “How” and not on the “What”. So where the Left may see vice in Wealth and virtue in Poverty, Dharma makes no such moral distinction. Instead Dharma concerns itself purely with how the wealth was acquired and how the poverty was inflicted. Thus Dharma as a political philosophy for the Right would guide on the “how” of “wealth creation” and “poverty alleviation” and not on the morality of wealth or poverty.
So if Dharma guides only on the “How” where should the political Right go to determine the “what” of socio-economic choices/policies ?
Its the exact same thing like faith in ancient India. Since there was no overarching doctrine prescribed by Dharma it was left to local communities and regions to make those choices through means that were righteous e.g. social consensus or direct democracy.
Taking a leaf of the same, a political philosophy for the Right which is guided by Dharma should not be prescriptive on socio-economic choices e.g. acquisition of agricultural land for industries must be prohibited etc… Instead it should merely prescribe the means by which such socio-economic choices must be made to have sanction under Dharma?e.g. freedom of local communities to determine via direct democracy if their agricultural lands can be converted for use by industries.
Hence Offstumped’s Model of Economic Development for India is based on a philsophy for the Political Right with Dharma as the Guide.
Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva, Lok Sabha Polls 2008-2009, Uncategorized
I think your view reflects liberatarionism. I wish BJP leaders would read your blog and get some insight from you. Great post
Thanks karthik.
This is a brilliant exposition of dharma. I am reminded of the Bharatha Savithri of Vyasa where he says “Please get all your wealth and desires fulfilled by the medium of earth. Nobody listens to this dictum” Wealth is neither a crime nor poverty a virtue. The medium of earning it (prosperity or poverty) is what is relevant for passing a judgment.
This series of posts was a joy to read.
When you say eternal and universal, you are ignoring the fact that human beings evolved rather recently.
You use free will a lot in some arguments. How can we be sure that Draupadi really did it out of free will ? It is not something that is easily known. Society can exert pressure in subtle ways that you only have an illusion of free will.
yossarin, i can only envy your insight
Great post Yossarin..very illuminating after the posts on the farcial drama happening.
superb clarity.
Dear Y,
I think OFFSTUMPED missed something that took place last week in all thse bloody things of Congress + LEFT.
Homage to our Field Marshall SAM MANEKSHAW.
It is said that if SAM had been our Chief WE would have never lost China War.
I dont know much on this as I was NOT born at that time but will be grateful if our Older Reader of OFFSTUMP can send their view on this.
MY HUMBLE HOMAGE TO SAM
WHAT A SHAME……
Minister of State for Defence MM Pallam Raju was the lone Union Government representative at the state funeral of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw at Wellington, 85 km from Coimbatore. India has an inglorious tradition of forgetting its brave soldiers but in the case of the nation’s greatest war hero, the amnesia set in even before his body had been laid to rest.
Field Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, who led India’s famous military victory in the 1971 India-Pakistan war that resulted in the creation of Bangladesh, died in Military Hospital in Wellington, Tamil Nadu, late on Thursday. He was 94.
As a 17-gun salute boomed, Manekshaw was buried in a Parsi graveyard near the place where his wife lay buried. The last rites were performed as per Zoroastrian customs. His wife Silloo had died seven years back.
The iconic military personality was given the final salute and laid to rest with full military honours, but the apathy of India’s ruling establishment was pronounced on the occasion.
Sadly, the funeral of India’s most decorated soldier was skipped by the entire defence establishment, except the MOS. Defence Minister AK Antony was very much in Delhi on Friday, but he seemed more preoccupied with his duty as the Prime Minister’s pointsman to deal with UPA allies and the Left on the nuclear stand-off issue.
Air Chief Marshal Fali H Major and Navy Admiral Sureesh Mehta were also in the Capital on Friday. They walked in the footsteps of their boss and did not think it prudent to attend the funeral of the man who spent years of his life putting into shape India’s colossal defence structure, which they now preside over. Army Chief Deepak Kapoor was in Moscow and was represented by Vice-Chief Lt General ML Naidu at the funeral. But no senior Navy or Air Force official flew down to Wellington.
There are three private helipads in and around Wellington, which is located in the midst of the picturesque Ooty. Both private and military choppers are available at Coimbatore and they would have taken less than 30 minutes to land at Welligton.
If the top brass of the defence establishment did not take the trouble to pay the rightful homage to the Field Marshal, then the country’s political class was equally apathetic in respecting the departed soldier. The MOS of defence represented the defence establishment as well as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. No other Cabinet minister was present at the funeral.
The State Government’s response was equally sad. A lone Tamil Nadu Minister was present on the occasion.
The indifference with which the Government treated Manekshaw’s last rites has shocked former soldiers. “It is a sad reflection of the mindset of the Government, which is so preoccupied in pursuing the nuclear deal with the US that it has forgotten even the basic civility,” commented a retired Army officer.
The body of ‘Sam Bahadur’, as he was affectionately called, was kept at the Madras Regiment Centre parade grounds, Wellington, for about three hours from 11.15 am to enable the public to pay homage to the departed General.
The body was then placed inside a closed coffin in an open flower-bedecked military truck and brought to the graveyard, 21 km from Wellington. Public and media were not allowed inside the graveyard while the last rites were being performed as Manekshaw’s family members wanted the ceremony to be a private affair.
The Tamil Nadu Government had announced a day’s official mourning on Friday as a mark of respect to the country’s most celebrated Army chief.
Prashant – agree with you. My INI colleagues pragmatic and nitin have both posted eulogies to Sam Bahadur.
Good post.
Some questions:
What if the democratic opinion supports adharmic actions? For example, this could be due to demogougery of “popular” leaders or not enough courage to do the right thing or just taking an easy way out. This is where the quality of political leadership becomes very important. You cannot justify something adharmic based on just democratic opinion.
Why should anyone follow dharma? Will it always improve our well-being? (I am reminded of the story of satya Harischandra.)
If people are not convinced by this, it’d be very easy to lead them down whichever path is seen as improving their immediate well-being.
Good post Yossarin
The boundaries between Dharma and Contextual Morality are not all black and white though. In Mahabharata war Krishna himself persuaded Arjuna to kill Karna when he was ‘Without Ratha’.
All questions will be answered in Dharma 201 next week
Yossarin:
One of your best. If only Dharma is taught in school with the level of clarity you have brought in this blog…
How unfortunate that Dharma (“how”) is mixed up with religion (“what” – the “contextual morality”). This confusion itself is part of the “mayajaal” we live in.
It would be important to note though that Dharma (How) and Religion (What) & Contextual Morality (Why) need to find a common ground in real life. One would ask who should win in case of the conflict among the three.
Would an act of prostitution engaged in (by 2 consenting adults) with exhange of services for money be “dharmic” but “immoral” & yet “justifiable” if that is the only means available for the lady to feed her family? I would think not.
Thus, I am not sure that the disctinction between How (Dharma), What (Religion) and Why (contextual morality) can be compartmentalized so easily or that “Dharma” shoudl always win if it is at the expense of morality.
I do look forward to your elaboration next week. But again, fantastic and truly thought provoking.
BTW, do you know if any BJP national level leaders are actually reading this blog? Have any of them engaged with you or tried to consult with you?
A quick addition -
In my judgement, the “determination of whether an act is righteous” has both “how” and “why” components to it (without getting in to which one is more imortant).
This would make the terrorist act of killing innocent civilians “adharmic” while killing of soldiers by soldiers of another nation during a declared war would be “Dharmic” for soldiers on both sides.
Thus, while I would consider “Kaurawas” as “adharmic”, the foot solders (even on the side of Kaurawas) that obeyed the orders of their commanders and faught the war as havng lived by their “Dharma” of being a Kshatriya. Am I missing something?
I think prostitution should be legalized. Atleast it would be fair to all parties involved and will save 50% of the police time invested.
@Jujung
As far as I understand,, it should be decided by local communities whether they want prostitution to be legalized in their area or not. It cannot be blanket legalization across India.
Yossarin:
In your definition of Dharma, how do you define ‘righteous’? Does it spring from ethical considerations?
@ gujjuman,
It is a transaction between two consenting adults. On what basis will others interfere in this matter?
Dharma via Ayn Rand – is her crap really passing for Hindu dharma now? I hope not.
Wow what an article. I’ve been reading Offstumped for quite sometime. Though I felt the need to post a comment only now.
I always thought of dharma as a set of “natural laws”. Hence obviously they are eternal and universal. For instance, dharma dictates that “A person who doesn’t eat dies”. However there are “exceptions”. For example, a person suffering from typhoid might die if he eats solid food. So if you are trying to ensure a person’s well being, it would be adharmic to starve him when he is okay but it would also be adharmic to feed him when he has typhoid. In that sense, dharma is definitely CONTEXT DEPENDENT. And I agree with Y that dharma concerns with the “how” but I also think they are guided by the “what”. Remember the “religions” themselves were called dharmas e.g. sanatana dharma etc. So I think dharma, in some sense SUBSUMES how, what and why.
A little digression and maybe off topic. And following adharma get a whole scenario back to dharma is also fine as Krishna demonstrated. In this view, while I don’t agree with BT’s “suicide squads”, I think hitting camps across the border through “covert ops” is perfectly dharmic. And how else are you going to respond to terrorism? Chai-biskoot dialogues? Sealing the borders? Yeah right, they’ve worked amazingly well now, haven’t they?
I think a dharmic society will be very close to what the Founding Fathers envisioned for US of A. They were much more concerned for their country to be a Republic (strictly guided by principles derived from natural laws) rather than a demo-crazy (mob rule).
A brilliant exposition of the concept of Dharma. Simply excellent.
Yossarin,
Pretty good exposition of the concept of Dharma but the understanding isn’t entirely free from errors if I may humbly point out. I’d rather say there’s a fair amount of confusion.
This comment space doesn’t permit me to elaborate on the exact errors. Maybe in a separate post on my blog some day.
But good post nevertheless.
Sandeep – please do would be happy to hear your PoV before proceeding to Dharma 2.0
It is a transaction between two consenting adults. On what basis will others interfere in this matter?
Yes, the crazy libertarians – and their strange obsession with whores and drugs – the pinnacle of “freedom.”
jujung
“where” matters, because they operate and advertise. So local community should decide how they want to regulate it.
gujjuman,
yea when it involves minors (as in near schools for example) or how they advertize (no influence on minors).. not when it involves other adults
kaafir,
it’s the obsession of control freaks not libertarians
Yossarin,
The notion of dharma elaborated here sounds like a nice, workable philosophy. That may well be correct but a traditionalist Hindu like me will find it difficult to take it in confidence if it isn’t backed up with scriptural quotations or at least etymological considerations. So please consider quoting from scriptures – say as an appendix if you think it will put off your modern-minded readers. Thank you very much.
Another excellent post by Yossarin. I am eagerly waiting for the next post (along with Sandeep’s POV).
As a novice in the field of ethics, righteousness and religion I would like to learn a bit more about the Dharmic point of view (a few blogs are probably insufficient to discuss them). Yossarian can you help me out here (References please!!).
While on his morning walk, Prime Minister Gordon Brown falls over, has a heart attack and dies because the accident and emergency dept at his nearest hospital is too understaffed to treat him in time.
So his soul arrives in Heaven and he is met by Saint Peter at the Pearly Gates. ‘Welcome to Heaven,’ says Saint Peter, ‘Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a Socialist around these parts, so we’re not sure what to do with you.’
‘No problem, just let me in; I’m a good Christian; I’m a believer,’ says the PM.
‘I’d like to just let you in, but I have orders from God. He says that since the implementation of his new HEAVEN CHOICES policy, you have to spend one day in Hell and one day in Heaven. Then you must choose where you’ll live for eternity.’
‘But I’ve already made up my mind. I want to be in Heaven,’ replies Brown.
‘I’m sorry .. But we have our rules,’ Peter interjects. And, with that, St. Peter escorts him to a lift and he goes down, down, down …all the way to Hell.
The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a lush golf course.
The sun is shining in a cloudless sky. The temperature is a perfect 22C degrees. In the distance is a beautiful club-house. Standing in front of it is Harold Wilson and thousands of other Socialist luminaries who had helped him out over the years — John Smith, Michael Foot, Jim Callaghan, etc. The whole of the Labour Party leaders were there ..
Everyone laughing, happy, and casually but expensively dressed.
They run to greet him, to hug him and to reminisce about the good times they had getting rich at the expense of ’suckers and peasants.’
They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster and caviar. The Devil himself comes up to Brown with a frosty drink, ‘Have a tequila and relax, Gord!’
‘Uh, I can’t drink anymore, I took a pledge,’ says Brown, dejectedly.
‘This is Hell, son. You can drink and eat all you want and not worry and it just gets better from there!’
Brown takes the drink and finds himself liking the Devil, who he thinks is a really very friendly bloke who tells funny jokes like himself and pulls hilarious nasty pranks, kind of like the ones the Labour Party pulled with no referendum on the European Constitution and the master strokes with Education, Immigration, Tough on Crime promises.
They are having such a great time that, before he realises it, it’s time to go. Everyone gives him a big hug and waves as Brown steps on the lift and heads upward.
When the lift door reopens, he is in Heaven again and Saint Peter is waiting for him. ‘Now it’s time to visit Heaven,’ the old man says, opening the gate.
So for 24 hours Brown is made to hang out with a bunch of honest, good-natured people who enjoy each other’s company, talk about things other than money and treat each other decently. Not a nasty prank or short-arse joke among them. No fancy country clubs here and, while the food tastes great, it’s not caviar or lobster. And these people are all poor. He doesn’t see anybody he knows and he isn’t even treated like someone special!
‘Whoa,’ he says uncomfortably to himself. ‘Harold Wilson never prepared me for this!’
The day done, Saint Peter returns and says, ‘Well, you’ve spent a day in Hell and a day in Heaven. Now choose where you want to live for Eternity.’
With the ‘Deal or No Deal’ theme playing softly in the background, Brown reflects for a minute … Then answers: ‘Well, I would never have thought I’d say this — I mean, Heaven has been delightful and all — but I really think I belong in Hell with my friends.’
So Saint Peter escorts him to the lift and he goes down, down, down, all the way to Hell.
The doors of the lift open and he is in the middle of a barren scorched earth covered with garbage and toxic industrial wasteland, looking a bit like the eroded, rabbit and fox affected Australian outback, but worse and more desolate.
He is horrified to see all of his friends, dressed in rags and chained together, picking up the roadside rubbish and putting it into black plastic bags. They are groaning and moaning in pain, faces and hands black with grime.
The Devil comes over to Brown and puts an arm around his shoulder.’ I don’t understand,’ stammers a shocked Brown, ‘Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and a club-house and we ate lobster and caviar and drank tequila. We lazed around and had a great time.. Now there’s just a wasteland full of garbage and everybody looks miserable!’
The Devil looks at him, smiles slyly and purrs, ‘Yesterday we were campaigning; today you voted for us! ************************************
Above got from my friend in UK.
[...] promised to Yossarin, I hereby add, clarify, and (hope to) correct some items in Yossarin’s elucidation of Dharma. [...]
Where in Mahabharata Draupadi gives her consensus to polyandry? By all popular accounts consensus of neither Draupadi, nor Arjuna is sought. Yudhishthira shrewdly imposes polyandry on the hapless couple by the pretext of “mother’s will”.
Yossarin,
My take is up: http://www.sandeepweb.com/2008/07/07/dharma-101-a-critique/
Yo ho so here comes another Islamist Jihadi who has no knowledge of Mahabharta or any scriptures.
By the way as per him since POLYANDRY was imposed by HINDU Yudhishthira so the Desert faith HAD TO DO THE OPPOSITE, so “POLYGAMY” had to be imposed on Darul Islam on the PRETEXT OF HADITH.
Somewhat amused to see SeaLion’s response… I had expected more mature and erudite answer to my question than a knee-jerk reaction of seeing it from hindu-muslim angle.
My question however has nothing to do with Hinduism or Islam. It is asked in the context of the way Dharma is defined by the author. If the author asserts that Dharma has something to do with adhering to any contract drawn among free-willing and consenting individuals (Libertarian position as we call it), and Draupadi’s polyandry is dharmic, then one must show from the first sources that Draupadi has consented to such an arrangement out of her free will. If we fail to find Draupadi’s consent, then either her polyandry is not dharmic, or Dharma has nothing to do with libertarian position.
I hope I made my position clear.
Hi A.S,
If you were aware of MB, you would not have asked the question. Draupadi in her previous life seeks boon from Lord Shiva to have husband who is most dharmic,most powerful, greatest warrior, most handsome of men, and another attribute which I am not able to recollect now(greatest lover?).
Shivji then replies that it is impossible to have all of them in one man and promises to divide a single soul into 5 parts and create 5 humans (pandavas).
Interestingly Shivji stops her before she completes “patim dehi” for the sixth time and explains that a peerless generous man would be born but would not be her husband (Karan).
This entire thing is narrated by Veda Vyas before the marriage of Draupadi to Panchala King and convinces him for the marriage.
So it is perfectly Dharmic.
One more point
The agreement between Pandavas and Draupadi is that she would spend 1 year with each brother and no other brother would violate their privacy. Arjun breaks their privacy to fetch his weapons (to protect the cows of a Brahmin) and as punishment travels across India visiting holy places (in this journey he marries Chitrangada, Uloopi and Subhadra
).
The point is, they had a Dharmic framework and Dharmic rules and Dharmic justifications set clearly.
[...] those who checked in recently, it all started here with this 101 and the subsequent comments. Since the 101, Sandeep has published this [...]
Chanakya,
Thank you for the reply. Don’t you think that Krishna in Mahabharata possesses all the qualities listed by you. If this is true, then Shiva must have known that it is possible and he must be lying to Draupadi? If this is false then which quality do you think Krishna lacks?
Dharma as per you is based on means and Morality on the contextual end goals. But who decides the righteousness or the rules of the game? Since the opposite of ‘right (-eousness)’ is wrong, how can Dharma be absoulte? It can only be relative with a wide spectrum betwee the two opposit ends.
Even in Gita the means are based on the purpose of action. Let’s take an example–how one is killed in a war is the same but is justified only if the end-purpose is benign. In case of Mahabharata, it was a war of good over evil.
In my opinion, the only Absolute is the existence of indestructible God, everything else is relative.
VK
hi Anwar Shaikh,
simple. Draupadi was seeking *men*. at no point she was seeking union with Narayana. There is no contradiction in what Shivji has said. He was talking about *MEN* not divinity. Hence Sri Krishna is out of contention.
Chanakya,
I beg to disagree with you. Krishna is whole Mahabharata is depicted as a human being. Even though he is believed to be Lord Vishnu incarnate, in this avatar he is a “human” possessing human strengths and limitations. This is precisely why he is not immortal and unable to protect his whole clan from Gandhari’s curse. Thus your logic that Kishna is not a human being is not only incorrect, but also simplistic. It still does not refute my original objection that in the example of Krishna the human being, we find all the qualities desired by Draupadi is one man and so Lord Shiva must be lying.
This objection of mine is still a minor one compared to the problem we have at our hand, namely to find out whether Draupadi’s polyandry is dharmic when we equate dharma with the libertarian ideal of “honoring the contract drawn by consenting individuals”. Even if we consider your argument of inserting Lord Shiva’s boon to Draupadi, still one can have lot of objections before being convinced that is is dharmic. Allow me to list a few of them.
1. Draupadi remembers nothing of Shiva’s boon to her in her present life and does not consent to polyandry from the beginning. She leaves her father’s house as the wife of only Arjuna, and only after reaching Pandava’s abode, polyandry is thrust upon her in the guise of “mother’s will”. This does not seem to be a case of “freely consenting” individual but of a hapless lady being manipulated to fall to the lust of a powerful and inwardly corrupt individual (Yudhishtira).
2. Does Lord Shiva, after telling her that it is not possible for him to put all the qualities desired by her in one man, explicitly seeks her consent in an arrangement where a soul is divided into five parts and she accepts all five parts as her husbands. If not, then it is also like thrusting her into polyandry.
3. At a more practical level, can dharma be counted as a practical philosophy for people of our century whan previous births, divine intervention etc. play a part in its definition. Using such kind of devices one can justify almost any deed as dharmic.
To conclude, by all accounts I do not see Draupadi’s polyandry coming anywhere close to the libertarian ideal of consenting individuals. All I can see is a hapless woman being manipulated by the divine and powerful forces to accept as dharma whetever is thrust upon her. It comes close to the Kantian concept of doing one’s duty as it is defined by others.
A.S
MB is thousands of years old. And many persons have written commentary on it. I have not come across any reference in the primary source(MB) which indicates that it is forced decision on her or she was unhappy with that decision. So I simply do not buy *your* interpretation.
Also I do not accept your description of Lord Krishna. His divinity is pretty much recognized and acknowledged in many instances in MB.
Let me reverse the question and ask you. What is your proof that the decision was *forced* on an *unwilling* draupadi?? Perhaps a quote from primary source would be good.
[...] the 201, the first part can be found here. This part will focus on reader comments from 101. Also read Sandeep’s critique of [...]
Chanakya,
It is an old trick to assert something and then ask anybody skeptical about it to prove the opposite. I often encounter this when I argue about existence of God among the believers (If you are skeptical about existence of God, prove that God does not exist). You seem to employ the same trick here.
It is you who have made a claim (or at least agree with the claim) about Draupadi’s polyandry being dharmic, and so the burden of proof is onto you. I have neither asserted it being dharmic nor have I asserted it being non-dharmic, so I do not need to prove that Draupadi unwillingly entered into it. I have merely proposed one interpretation of the events. It is for you to prove that this interpretation does not stand the test of the facts (If facts could be interpreted in many ways, all interpretations are logically equally valid) and so invalid (and hence your original assertion is safe from the attack of this interpretation).
Regarding Krishna’s divinity, MB only asserts that God has taken human form, and so Krishna is still a human in MB. While I am still sticking to rational-logical framework in assessing the events in MB, by harping on Krishna’s divinity you seems to introduce an element of faith in the whole argument. I do not see any value in such an argument. (whether you believe that Krishna is God incarnate, whether all and sundry in MB claim it, or even if Krishna himself claim it, it does nothing to the FACT that he is a mortal human).
First of all I don’t agree with the simplistic definition of dharma by underscoring the “how” aspect, though it seeks to clear some myths that are prevelent currently. My disagreement is due to making it simple, I agree with concept though.
I would say Dharma as which “holds(remain unchanged) irrespective of any context(time, place, anything)”, but since such humans(including you and me) cannot think of anything without a context, they will have to bring out the meaning in reference of some context. (All words in our languages are just context. There is not a single word in our vocabulary which can be explained without a context)
So to us, it becomes “righteous duty in real world context which upholds that is natural.
To Anwar Sheikh.
As far as the character of Mahabharata are concerned, it is never told Krishna as a great follower of dharma. Instead Yudhistra and Aswathama are mentioned as possessing a very good understanding of dharma. Another character I remember is Rama in ramayana who knoweledge of dharma is most appreciated.
Though Krishna may be considered as uploader of dharma, all his actions don’t get dharmic sanctions. In the Mahabharata a lot of his actions are brought out clearly as adharmic and there you mentions about Ghandhari’s curse.
You questions about Draupadi become irrelevant if you consider the following facts;
1. You are bound in perpertuality not to believe a women deserving and desire to marry many powerful men.
2. Draupadi was the daughter of the most powerful king of the time Drupad, who defeated the whole of the Kuarava sena which included warriors like Bhism Pithamah, Karna. It was the 5 pandavas who actually captured Drupad alone at the behest of Dhronacharya, but returned his kingdom on Dhronacharya advice, and winning the hearts of Drupads.
To Chanakya and Anwar Sheikh,
I would also like bring your attention to another point. Although there is no dispute about the characters of epics, the narrators of the epics always bore a far greater objective that just telling a story or writing history. One of the most important purpose was to develop the understanding of the students / readers.
As a realistic approach, it is to be understood clearly that there haven’t been anyone with absolute power, though individuals at times would surely have yeilded enormous power. So all the concepts of incarnations etc, are to be better understood to make thing simple for a student to understand the real ideas the author want to convey, and not get unnecessary involved in questioning the very characters.
Anwar, if your questions are inspired by real quest of understanding, and which you yourself could not answer yourself by your study and a sincere meditation, you can expect a honest answer.
but if they are mired by sheer intent of insulting the concept of sanatana dharma (a corrupted version of which is known as hinduism), then you dont need an answer.
The simple reason for which is I don’t feel the need to defend hinduism, for hinduism has to perish to upload dharma. The earlier hinduism perishes, the earlier the whole world ends itself as other religions and nationalities cannot understand and accomodate each other, and only way to go is to end each other.
And this is very much required if the “dharma” is to upheld, a new day of brahma – kalpa.
[...] raise some interesting points were the Dharma Debates at Offstumped, Sandeep’s critique to Offstumped post on Dharma101, Sandeep’s articles on Contextual Morality, Part1, Part2, and Part3, and the one which I read [...]
@ Anwar Shaikh
Krishna is a great strategist, not necessarily a great warrior. Before the start of war, the question of Yadavas support arises. To solve the issue, Krishna offers the choice to Duryodhana, take Krishna, who’ll not fight, but guide (can’t remember why) or the Yadava Army. Even in stories of Krishna’s fights, the accuracy of his shot etc is not given great prominence vs that of say Arjuna. On the question of Dharma, Yudishtira is noted as being among the most Dharmic of men,
@ jujung
On dharma of prostitution, the question of whether a husband has taken consent of his wife to visit a prostitute arises. Even in case of bachelors, a man would have to reveal his prior visits to prostitutes to his would-be, if the question arises.
The main problem of Dharma is of self-righteousness, since it is entirely dependent upon both parties to be true to themselves. In the event of one party being udharmic, the other can take solace in the individualistic nature of dharma, but accepting this requires a deep faith in spiritual nature of dharma.
But in killing of Karna, Krishna is supposed to have convinced Arjuna that Dharma only protects one who has followed it, and since Karna is adharmic (can’t remember why) there is no sin in Arjuna killing Karna when he is unarmed.
Ooops, didn’t notice the dates of the postings. Sorry
[...] in Chapter 25 makes for some interesting reading as well as it relates to the modern day debate on Dharma and the ethics of “Self [...]