Comment by srean | Hacker News Reader

Comment by srean | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 2. Doniger says that the war was "lawless", but the Mahabharata war was an attempt at a "just" war, as understood in its contemporary context. Deviations from just behaviour are noted and held up as examples of unjust behaviour.

I dont think you are being fair here. Yes you correctly observe that deviations were noted. But it really is in the lines of recognition of horror that by the end of 18 days almost every single edict of a 'just' war had been ground to the dust with Krishna himself instigating / provoking many such acts, bending laws of nature so that those he favors come out unscathed even if the opponents reaction was justified. Several times had it not been for Krishna's divine intervention, the opponents would have prevailed. If I were to count all the violations I would soon lose track, they accumulate a momentum of a relentless avalanche, both sides participating in equal measure, culminating in a night attack on women and children.

So "rules of fair engagement be damned" is certainly not a mischaracterization of what transpired. Yepp! laws were there and agreed upon [0], but once things got rolling they mattered little in the execution.

Deceit, violation of rules and gaming the system, ruled supreme in _every_freaking_single_ contest among the (significant) warriors. Rarely was a contest won solely by mastery of weapons.

So I am unfortunately forced to file this under "some guy on the internet bristling at the thought of a non-hindu commenting on hindu text". I honestly fail to see what is so anti-Hindu in the article.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War#Rules_of_engage...

> Doniger's use of the Abrahamic term "Doomsday" is loaded,

what is your point here, seems a desperate act of clutching at straws.

This! You are my hero for putting it so eloquently and clearly in no uncertain terms!

I was deeply confused and disturbed, as a growing up child, when I watched the grand old Bheeshma getting riddled with arrows that Arjuna fired from behind Shikhandi in Mahabharata serial. And then there was Krishna egging him on. I tried my best but there was no way I could reconcile with "Pandavas + Krishna" being just with Bheeshma getting killed in such a brutal manner. For those who don't know; Bheeshma is a central figure in Mahabharata, who lives through the entire period (more or less) and greatly suffers as a result. In the end he dies a brutal death.

When I grew up I did read Bhagawadgeeta, various interpretations of it. It vaguely made sense; that everyone on Kaurava's side had accumulated bad karmas so they needed to be punished and so on. But still there was some void, all the justifications advanced for war seemed eerily familiar to that of Iraq war. It was at this point that I started reading Ambedkar's literature and all of a sudden lot of things made sense. Be it Karma theory to justify lower casts, violence on minority and a bunch of other atrocities; or the institution of "war is justified IF....".

Now, I just treat Mahabharatha, and Bhagawadgeeta in particular, as one of the most brilliantly devised propaganda tools ever. It has served and continues to serve its purpose of brainwashing generations after generations of Hindu population; and probably a few other religions as well.

There's a reason Budhism, which originated in India is taught as a footnote in Indian schools. Its philosophy is more or less opposite of Hinduism and is very appealing, logical. If taught right it can have lasting impact on young minds, but no, all you have is Mahabharatha, Ramayana, Bhagawadgeeta and such.

Edit: Hidimba -> Shikhandi

Thanks that you liked my comment. Minor correction, its Shikhandi and she / he had valid grudge against Bhishma. I rather not tell that story lest I hog this entire thread but you can read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikhandi

Human shield you say, been done and at the suggestion of Krishna.

(sorry HN'ers, I am admittedly bit of a Maharabharat fanboy, please grin and bear)

Bhishma knew about the story so it was sort of self inflicted penance. This is what I find just marvelous about the Mahabharat no one can take a moral high ground. There is no holier than though stand to adopt and every single person got served, Krishna included.

EDIT

I would also take the opportunity to state that ubasu and tn13 are not wrong (framework of laws did exist and both sides did agree to follow them but when push came to shove ...), just that they are scrutinizing every word and projecting too much on the choice of words. The piece could have been worded better, written better but I dont see any evidence of bad faith or bad intentions in the article.

It is the subtext that is anti-Hindu here (i.e. you have to read between the lines). Doniger seems to be forwarding the narrative that Hindus are violent Others, driven by their holy text. This is similar to the established(?) narrative that Muslims are terrorists, being motivated by the Quran, never mind that it is not true. You may say that it is only my interpretation here, but this sort of narrative-building is all too common - in the past, the word "savages" would have been used.

Words are the tools of Doniger's trade. It is extremely unlikely that her choice of words is inadvertent.

The war had laws. That few were broken does not mean the war was lawless. The rules of engagement in the Wikipedia article is a mere summary. The original critical edition of Mahabharata published by BORI has even more details. For example how the wounded had to be moved and what is to be done with dead bodies of men and animals etc. The laws mattered and were followed.

Wendy's summary of Mahabharata was as merely "lawless war" is thus completely false.

Hi tn13 I agree with every bit of what you said except the last bit, I think you are over scrutinizing. A situation where I break the law whenever it is advantageous for me to break them is pretty 'lawless' to me.

A murderer is still a murderer even if there are thousands of people he / she did not murder. Whether something is lawful or lawless matters only when it flies against convenience / dominance (much like free speech). The laws might, in such a situation, exist on paper but in practice that is not how things got executed.

So if the execution of the war was being described, it would not be an unfair adjective to use. More so because the fact that all fair use rules were dropped plays an important narrative role in the epic. The reader is supposed to shudder that this happened, it is a deliberate plot point, if you will, to show the fall from grace of humanity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com