Emulate whom - Rama or Krishna?

A short post on the eve of Krishna JanmAshtami.

Of the two iconic characters of India, both incarnations of the Lord, which one should we try to emulate?

In answering this question, it is important to consider the context - the yugas during which the Lord incarnated.

During the Rama avatara, the Krita Yuga was still largely dhaarmic. Rama explicitly did the right things (we, even today, have no doubt that his actions we the right things to do), except perhaps the episodes of seemingly doubting Sita and of eliminating Vaali from a hidden perch. So, it is easy for Indian parents to push their son to be like Rama, devoted to his father and mother, to his kingdom and his people, to dharma, etc (and daughters to be like Sita, too!).

On the other hand, during the Krishna avatara, the Dwapara Yuga was still mostly dhaarmic but there were injustices against individuals and the people, the rule of tyrants and the like. In this context, Krishna's actions reflect the need to act street smart for the cause of the people and of upholding dharma. There are several episodes where Krishna finds loopholes to outwit the tyrants, especially during the 18-day Mahabharata war.

Given that Kali Yuga is worse off than Dwapara in dharma, Krishna should be the right model for us to emulate. Emulate Rama, whenever possible, of course!

The "Good or Bad" series: Ashwatthama

Image: netra-creative-vision.blogspot.com

Ashwatthama should be an easy call. The son of Dronacharya, Ashwatthama develops enmity towards the Pandavas and loyalty to Duryodhana (not unlike Karna) and commits several wrongs that seem to me to be unparalleled in the Mahabharata.

Ashwatthama is considered a partial avatara (amsha) of Shiva..

When Ashwatthama is still a child, Dronacharya is insulted by King Drupada (father of Draupadi) when he goes to ask for a cow to feed milk to his son. It is only after this incident that Kripacharya offers him a position as a teacher to the Pandavas and Kauravas. There perhaps was some anger in Ashwatthama towards Drupada (and hence Draupadi) due to this slight.

Ashwatthama's real enmity towards the Pandavas starts when they kill Dronacharya on the battlefield due to a 'lie' by Yudhishtira. When Drona is told by many that Ashwatthama is dead (not entirely untrue, because an elephant by the same name had died), he refuses to believe anybody but Yudhishtira. Yudhishtira confirms the death of the elephant, but Krishna blows his conch to blot out Yudhisthira's reference to the elephant. Drona, on hearing this, drops his weapons, and sits down in meditation on the battlefield. Seizing the opportunity, the Pandavas (Arjuna?) finish him off. Surely this must have angered Ashwatthama enough to commit all the atrocities he eventually does at the end of the war.

As a side note, it is interesting that there are several warriors in the Mahabharata that are considered unbeatable at one point or another. Bhishma is the first, whom even Parashurama is unable to beat (the Amba story), and he is only taken out when Shikhandhi is used to make him drop his weapons. The second is Arjuna, although his case is slightly weak, given that he is protected against Karna once or twice. Drona is deemed unbeatable in the Mahabharata war (although he is beaten by Arjuna in the Virata parva battle), and hence the Pandavas resort to trickery to take him out. Bhimasena is of course invincible and he routs most of the key bad characters in the entire Mahabharata.

Towards the end of the war, Ashwatthama resorts to killing several warriors in the Pandava camp including the sons of the Draupadi/Pandavas (mistakenly assuming that they were the Pandavas themselves) in stealth at night, not becoming of even a lowly soldier let alone a top warrior in an army.  

Ashwatthama also directs his brahmAstra at the womb of Uttara (daughter of king Virata, wife of Abhimanyu) to finish off the as-yet unborn Parikshit, since he would be the last of the Kuru clan. Krishna uses his chakra to protect the child and mother, but only ends up reviving the child after a still-birth.

Lastly, Duryodhana, in his death bed, requests Ashwatthama to have a child with his wife Banumati, so that that child can be the ruler of Hastinapura. While Ashwatthama does not actually oblige, he neither accepts not refuses to Duryodhana, not a good quality for someone who should immediately know the right Dharma.

On the last item, Vyasa himself sires Pandu and Dhritarashtra (with Ambika and Ambalika) to keep the Kuru clan alive. Is that considered Dharma because he is a rishi and God Himself? Or is it because Vyasa is a son of Satyavati (the fisherman's daughter who is married to Shantanu) and he is obeying his mother's command and acting on behalf of his now-dead younger brother Vichitravirya? In this case, the continuation of the clan is for the good of humanity, perhaps, while not so in the case of Duryodhana? 

The "Good or Bad" series: Karna Part 1

(image courtesy dollsofindia.com)

Karna is one of the most controversial characters in the Mahabharata. Karna evokes a lot of sentiments -admiration, hate, pity, "underdog", etc. Many interpretations of the Mahabharata actually side with his side of the story.

Movies like Mani Ratnam's Dalapathi (Rajnikanth, Mammooty) also mirror such interpretations where Rajni is depicted as the cast-away child by an unwed young girl, is a victim of circumstances, becomes a part of Mammooty's group (a criminal ring leader cum do-gooder).

Looking at Karna strictly through the prism of Dharma (or good/bad), I must conclude that he was bad. He sure does some heroic things, so there is definitely the urge to paint him in the grey, as someone who was the victim of circumstances, etc. However, one must resist that since in the Mahabharata, all the characters (neglecting minor transgressions) are either plain good or bad. If nothing else, my general rule of thumb is "if you took the side of Krishna in the war, you were good", "if you took the side of Duryodhana, you were bad" (Balarama who did not participate is a different story, more on him later). Lets us for now, of course, ignore the aspect of avatar or amsha, and focus just on the particular character in the Mahabharata. i.e., when I classify Karna as "bad", I don't necessarily extend that to Surya, whose avatar/amsha is Karna (likewise for Ashwatthama, etc).

Karna joins the side of Duryodhana at a time when the latter's evil ways may not necessarily have been apparent. So, while one may excuse that, especially since Karna's ego is boosted (he is made king of Agna), Karna sticks on as a friend for gratitude, and actively aids him in his evil deeds.

(image courtesy hinduyuva.org)

During the game of dice, when Draupadi is gambled away by Yudhishtira, Duryodhana asks that she be brought into the court. Some of the elders protest, but they are not able to resist Duryodhana because he is the king-in-waiting, and they are beholden to him. Dharma goes out the door. When Duhsshasana tries to molest her, Karna does not merely stay silent with shame (like Bhishma, etc.) but actually spurs him on and abuses Draupadi. This one incident is enough to classify him as bad. A kshatriya worth his salt never shows his might against women or children, only protects; whoever it might be. For that matter, this kind of behaviour is considered hooliganism today, let along in dwapara yuga during Krishna's time! Only Vidura, as far as I know, registered his dissent to the disrobing, but was unable to do anything more. Even the Pandavas did nothing (more on this later).

There are several occasions when Karna is reminded of Dharma, including by Krishna. However, he is so blinded by his misplaced loyalty to Duryodhana that he is unable to listen to wise counsel.

Getting the Pandavas' uninteresting grandparents out of the way...

My intro post was about the start of the Mahabharata, with Devavrata becoming Bhishma. This is in continuation...

Probably the most uninteresting characters in the Mahabharata were Bhishma's step brothers  - Chitrangadha and Vichitravirya.

Chitrangadha, the elder of the two becomes the king of the Kurus when Shantanu is gone. He soon dies childless, and the still very young Vichitravirya ascends to the throne with Bhishma ruling on his behalf. I'm guessing that Bhishma is already quite old by this time (say 50 or so), but probably still young given the lifespans in those times.

Bhishma hears of the king of Kashi announcing a swayamvara for his daughters - Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika. Since Vichitravirya is too young, Bhishma decides on go to the swayamvara on his behalf. But... he has other plans for the swayamvara itself. There probably are different varieties of swayamvara, including contests (like the one Arjuna wins at Draupadi's swayamvara), and others where the princess chooses one herself. Irrespective of the mode of the swayamvara, there appears to have been a rule that any suitor prince can kidnap the princess and challenge the rest of the princes to battle. If the kidnapper wins, he gets to marry the princess. Not sure what happens if he loses. I suppose he would be considered disqualified, and the swayamvara would continue as before. Or, maybe the prince that wins against the kidnapper prince is considered the winner of the swayamvara.

Since Bhishma is at this swayamvara on Vichitravirya's behalf, he decides to take the kidnap route. By the way, I read a quasi-history/indology article (or maybe it was a documentary) a while ago that places the Mahabharata, or at least parts of it in Central Asia, since the kidnapping of girls to marry them is apparently common there even now (?). I'm losing patience with  indology researchers who jump to conclusions based on what appears to be flimsy evidence. But I digress...

Bhishma kidnaps the three princesses, challenges the other assembled princes, and dashes off to Hastinapura. On the way, he is challenged by several of the other princes who lose easily. Even Shalya, himself a mighty warrior loses. Shalya is important in this episode because he and Amba have already taken a liking to each other, and Amba expects him to be her man at the end of the swayamvara.

On reaching Hastinapura, Amba reveals her interest in Shalya, and Bhishma lets her go. However, Shalya refuses to accept her because she was won by someone else. Amba now finds herself in a spot, and goes back to Bhishma to ask him to marry her. Bhishma refuses, saying he has already taking a vow to remain a bachelor for ever. Amba is now furious, because she has no options ("it's complicated"). She then requests Parashurama to fight Bhishma for her revenge, which Parashurama accepts.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Bhishma and Parashurama fight for 23 days, and is unable to fell Bhishma. Some versions of this story say that Bhishma decides to use an astra that Parashurama has no knowledge of, at which point the Gods and Parashurama's father rishi Jamadagni intervene and stop Bhishma and Parashurama, respectively.

I'm not sure why Parashurama, an avatara of Vishnu, who is all seeing-knowing, ends up in this situation, but that's a different matter. The Parashurama character deserves a dedicated post..

Anyway, once Parashurama declares that Bhishma is invincible in battle, Amba decides to take her fight to her next birth. She prays to Shiva, and obtains a boon that she will be born a man who would remember his past birth, and will also be the cause of Bhishma's death. Amba is hence reborn as Shikhandi (to Drupada, Draupadi's father), who fights on the side of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata war.

The story now shifts to the Mahabharata war, where knowing that Bhishma would not fight Shikhandi, the Pandavas plan for him to face Bhishma. The Pandavas do this based on Bhishma's suggestion when they seek his advice on defeating him. Even though Shikhandi is a man, I suppose the reason Bhishma would not fight him is that the true nature of Shikhandi is female. Some schools of thought hold that each soul is inherently male/female, and hence a mere accidental birth (for whatever reason) in the opposite sex would not change the inherent.


(image courtesy sbonlifensuch.wordpress.com)

There are only two episodes in the entire Mahabharata (that I am aware of) where Bhishma drops his weapons and welcomes death. Is this selfish behaviour or a character flaw as the commander of an army? Perhaps, but more on this question later.

The first incident is at the start (?) of the Mahabharata when Arjuna refuses to fight Bhishma. Krishna tells Arjuna that if he wouldn't fight Bhishma, then he would finish Bhishma off. On seeing Krishna rush towards him, Bhishma drops his weapons and welcomes death at the hands of the supreme being. This incident, of course, do not end in Bhishma's death because Arjuna stops Krishna and agrees to fight.

(image courtesy indianetzone.com)

The second incident is when Shikhandi (Amba!) is put by the Pandavas before Bhishma on the battlefield, and challenges him to a fight. Arjuna takes Shikhandi along in his chariot, and when Shikhandi challenges Bhishma, the latter drops his weapons.

This being the only chance to take Bhishma out, Arjuna puts arrows into Bhishma and lays him on the bed of arrows.

While it is Arjuna who fells Bhishma, it is Shikhandi who 'causes' his death, technically satisfying Shiva's boon while still giving Bhishma an honourable death at the hands of Arjuna. Arjuna brings Bhishma's mother Ganga to him, by shooting an arrow into the ground (baan-ganga) that creates a fountain of water for him to drink from. Bhishma also recites the Vishnu sahasranama on his death bed, singing Vishnu's praise. Bhishma, not wanting to die in Dakshinayana, postpones his death (boon from his father Shantanu) until the start of auspicious Uttarayana (just before sankaranthi/pongal).

The Intro

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana have always fascinated me, especially the former.

The range of characters, the presence of literally every divine being in the Hindu pantheon, the Lord Himself, history involving every part of Bharatavarsha, every tricky moral situation imaginable, the lead up to the decline of Bharatavarsha, the advent of Kali Yuga, and everything else that form the Mahabharata are so staggering and insightful that one can hardly ignore the epic.

(image courtesy hindugodwallpaper.com)

In the Ramayana, there can be no protagonist but Rama. There do exist versions or commentaries that might present Ravana as the hero, of course. With the Mahabharata, there are many claimants to the mantle of hero - including Yudhishtra, Arjuna, Karna, Bhishma, and probably some others. Still, in my mind the hero of the Mahabharata is clearly Krishna. There can be none other, even if some of the other characters appear more glamorous. More on this later.


There's one episode (and character) in the Mahabharata that moved me a lot. This episode also happens to be chronologically the start of the Mahabharata. The story of Kuru king Shantanu marrying Ganga and begetting Devavrata (later Bhishma) is arguably where it all begins. The story of Shantanu's marriage to Ganga itself is another post, but Shantanu lovestruck by a fisherwoman leads up to Devavrata becoming Bhishma.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Shantanu chances upon a fisherwoman Satyavati, is lovestruck, and goes to her parents to ask for her hand. The parents agree but upon condition that the son of Satyavati will become the king of Hastinapura, taking the Kuru lineage forward. Shantanu is shocked, is unable to do injustive to Devavrata his first-born, and returns in sorrow. Bhishma on seeing his father sad decides to investigate and finds out about his dilemma.

Several interesting questions arise. Was a Kuru king, one that had married Ganga previously, so out of control that he desired to marry someone again? Especially when his own son was of marriageable age? 

On the other hand, I appreciate him not forcing himself upon the fisherman's family. A king of his stature could have gotten away with abducting the girl and marrying her, or putting other pressure. He didn't do that, which is commendable. 

Lastly, why did the girl's parents want so much for giving away their daughter in marriage, that too to a king? Wouldn't any normal person be happy about marrying a king, especially one who is known to be a good king? Either they were not so keen on getting their daughter married to Shantanu (i.e., assumed Shantanu would laugh and go away), or they were really stupid, or they somehow knew that what they wanted would happen. A king during those times would not be able to bypass the first son to make someone else the crown price. Hence, if the fisherwoman's parents were aware of this, they might have expected that it would come down to Devavrata and were going in for a huge gamble. What if it never came down to Devavrata, and Shantanu forgot about their girl?

Devavrata goes to Satyavati's parents and asks for her hand for his father. The parents of course stick to their stand. Devavrata does not hesitate, but promises that Satyavati's son will be the future king. Even this does not convince the girl's parents who question whether his children will keep his word. At this point, Devavrata decides to do the unthinkable - he vows that he himself will never marry, so there will be only one thing to go by, his word. When Devavrata makes this promise, the Gods sprinkle him with flowers from the heavens, and proclaim him 'Bhishma'. On hearing this, Shantanu also grants Bhishma the boon that he would be able to decide the time of his death (this comes in handy when Bhishma prolongs his life on Arjuna's bed of arrows until the start of Uttarayana.)  

Several questions here. If Shantanu had powers to grant such boons, surely he was capable of bringing himself to forget the girl?


Bhishma's devotion to his father is exemplary. This is unparalleled, and Rama's story of taking Kaikeyi's word (on his father's wishes - going to the forest) is the only other such incident I am aware of.  


On the issue of trust, Satyavati's parents do not trust that Devavrata's children will honour his word, but trust him when he declares that he will never marry. I suppose that Devavrata's personality and conviction, his devotion to his father, and the Gods showering petals must have convinced them that his word was to be trusted.  

Just this one episode conveys so much about the institution of marriage, the consequences, greed, celibacy (never heard of any other kshatriya-sanyasi in our epics), devotion to parents, sacrifice, and keeping one's word.