Krishna
In India I re-read Mrityunjay just to see if I liked it. I had read it when I was in school and and thought it was a decent read. But this time I found it overbearing. Though there was Krishna again. There is something supremely mersmerizing about that one character.
In Mahabharat, he comes across as a person whom everyone gives a lot of importance. Though no one talks about why? As a warrior, he did overpower and destroy Kans. But then many kings of Mahabharat age could claim to more valour. Also, Krishna had to suffer the indignity of moving to Dwarka to save his people from Jarasandh and then had to use Bhim to kill Jarasandh. And there was Shishupal he killed. But that description is very hazy and doesnot attest to his valour.
He comes across as a very able diplomat and astute politician though. Many of his actions throughout Mahabharat, and many of his words during the final war are very carefully calculated to induce some precise feeling and actions in others. Throughout he pushes Pandav's towards becoming kings of the strongest kingdom. First, he lobbies for land from Kurus, almost as if to split their kingdom and then assists Pandavs to build it into Indraprastha. But Indraprastha never was treated as the state amongst states. That regard was yet reserved for Hastinapur. And Pandavs anyways lost it the moment Krishna left them to their own devices. Time and again, we see Krishna use his able diplomacy for Pandavas. But why did he care about Pandavs getting the helm of Hastinapur so much? Especially, when Pandav do not really come across as very ambitious people.
Was he the 'king maker'? A person who aspired to set a few valiant but not very politically astute princes at the helm of the most powerful kingdom? And so he exploited the fuzzy heriditary of the Kuru and Pandav princes and eventually depose the Kuru princes? Somehow, that one character of whom Mahabharat, too, seems to be wary of revealing much is very very intriguing.
In Mahabharat, he comes across as a person whom everyone gives a lot of importance. Though no one talks about why? As a warrior, he did overpower and destroy Kans. But then many kings of Mahabharat age could claim to more valour. Also, Krishna had to suffer the indignity of moving to Dwarka to save his people from Jarasandh and then had to use Bhim to kill Jarasandh. And there was Shishupal he killed. But that description is very hazy and doesnot attest to his valour.
He comes across as a very able diplomat and astute politician though. Many of his actions throughout Mahabharat, and many of his words during the final war are very carefully calculated to induce some precise feeling and actions in others. Throughout he pushes Pandav's towards becoming kings of the strongest kingdom. First, he lobbies for land from Kurus, almost as if to split their kingdom and then assists Pandavs to build it into Indraprastha. But Indraprastha never was treated as the state amongst states. That regard was yet reserved for Hastinapur. And Pandavs anyways lost it the moment Krishna left them to their own devices. Time and again, we see Krishna use his able diplomacy for Pandavas. But why did he care about Pandavs getting the helm of Hastinapur so much? Especially, when Pandav do not really come across as very ambitious people.
Was he the 'king maker'? A person who aspired to set a few valiant but not very politically astute princes at the helm of the most powerful kingdom? And so he exploited the fuzzy heriditary of the Kuru and Pandav princes and eventually depose the Kuru princes? Somehow, that one character of whom Mahabharat, too, seems to be wary of revealing much is very very intriguing.
Comments
I am not sure if you have read Yuganta by Iravati Karve, but if you haven't, you should. She says a lot of the same things about Krishna that you do—so much so that I am fairly sure that you have read the book!
U said u had first read it in school!! Back then I never went beyond "R.R." & "B.B." :D
I probably was fluenced by Yuganta for this entry. But what really bugged me was Janmashtami. Why don't they talk about the valor or intellect or smarts of our "gods" instead of dwelling on children tales of natkhat kanhaiya? I mean those tales were for kids, grow up!
I agree with you about the Mahabharata and about how "gods" as well.
OK, kidding...They (Radiant-Reader & Bal-bharati) were our English-texts in school till Std-V. Snehal skipped reading them & merrily copied notes from my books just before the exams ;)
On a more serious note... 'bout "Gods"... It's one interesting topic! The more I try to know about them, often clinically, the more i realize that they were 'born' out of awe, respect, mystery or fear. Awe of the wealth of knowledge that someone possessed, fear of the power that one had or respect of one's capabilities. They were people/kings/king-makers/beasts with extra-ordinary abilities & intelligence.
Then came the saints/poets/biographers who further propagated their ideas that brought these 'Gods' within the reach & grasp of common people. They might have made up stories to get their points across & maybe their intentions were right, or stories must have been born in transfer from mouth to ear with the human tendency to exaggerate. But often these 'stories' assumed greater importance than the 'lessons'. 'Acts' & rituals assumed more importance than actions.
Towers of men participate in dahi-handis, but fewer study the teachings of the Gita. Hoards of people take a holy dip in the Ganges, but fewer practice hygiene. Crowds set out for the Amarnath-yatra but fewer learn to exercise controlled-aggression. Thousands fast but fewer restrain. Many donate, but fewer share.
What further hurts & complicates is fanaticism, rituals & intolerance, especially in India where any road-side stone with vermilion sprinkled upon it assumes the value, stature & the role of a deity!