3 ms·

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 watche

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

srean 12y ago
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 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.
- ubasu 12y ago
  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.

srean 12y ago

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 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.

ubasu 12y ago
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.