Does a just war justify unjust means or can an unjust war fought with just means be condoned?
This is the central question he explores - the moral dilemmas of Leadership, as seen through the lens of the Mahabharata and its various characters. He explores the challenges that the prominent characters face in the story and their pattern of responses.
The analysis of Yudhishtra's challenges was an eye-opener. Here was a man who doggedly pursued dharma and satya, and struggled all his life with questions about morality and duty as a Royal versus what he as an individual, outside of his role responsibilities, would have preferred.
Yet in general, people don't think very highly of Yudhishtra as a leader. He would not have made my list either. When i spoke to friends about this, i found the same response. Arjuna and Karna are the heroes, apart from Krishna. For some it was Abhimanyu. Not one named Yudhistra.
Maybe we hold his humanness against him. He is not a strong, surefooted leader who rarely betrays any doubt. He is full of questions about what is right and wrong. He is filled with remorse for telling a lie for the sake of victory. He does not abandon his brothers when the Yaksha kills them for their arrogance. Nor does he abandon the dog on his way to heaven. He is willing to question the system's sense of what was right and wrong based purely on roles and devoid of a personal context. Yet he does not have a grand or theatrical style as he goes about all this. He does it with a sense of propriety, restraint and dignity.
He accepts the inevitability of war and the realpolitiks behind Krishna's strategies. Yet the question of whether just ends justify unjust means never deserts him. For him means are as important as ends.
Maybe that unsettles us. He is too human to be a leader.
Maybe that is what we need more of today - human leaders.
3 comments:
Yes, we hold Yudi's humanness against him. Sad, but true. He is an enlightened man, but we want an infallible ideal. We believe it was unforgiveable for Yudi to have what we brand as a weakness for the die (as in singular of dice).
We juxtapose the so-called idealism in Ramayana over the very human attributes of those in Mahabharata.
Sure, we need human leaders. I suspect we already have them, but perhaps we also hold their humanness against them too?
Perhaps at some level, humanness is an attribute we are comfortable with only in ourselves, but not in others.
Stumbled upon your blog!
I think what you have articulated here is a very valid point.
But what do we define as "humanness"?
There is such a vast discrepancy between our duties and our morals.
I went to visit the videeshawaran koil in Mayaram this weekend.
On my way, I saw an accident; a man was severely injured. We had all the time to take him to the hospital in our jeep; my mom is a doctor. But we simply didn't.
My mom did not think it apt, but it took me all my control not to step out and help him. I was torn between my "moralS".
On one hand, going to "see" God was important; on the other, my conscience would haunt me till I helped him.
What's moral and "human"?
Can we define it?
Just thought of something else as I was pondering over this. Is this not also a question of people being in leadership positions vs being leaders? By being the eldest and part of a royal family he inherited a position that perhaps we was not suited for.
Post a Comment