Today is a historic day. The Ram Mandir has been inaugurated in Ayodhya.
In view of the Ram Mandir inauguration, the cricket commentator, sports producer and writer Joy Bhattacharya has made a post on Facebook, which I appear to have access to. Please read below.
[Joy B.] I appreciate the irony of using a story from the Mahabharata as an illustration for the point I want to make [...]
Its about the the 'Ashwathama hatha, iti gaja' story. As most of you remember, during the Battle of Kurukshetra, Drona who had taken over as the general of the Kauravas was unbeatable. And Krishna figured that the only was to get him was by trickery.
So he decided to tell him that his son, Ashwathama, was dead, a piece of news that would devastate him and cause him to lay down his arms. But Drona would not believe just anyone. The only one he would believe was Yudhishtira, who could never lie.
Krishna convinced Yudhishtira to tell the lie, and to salve his conscience, had an elephant named Ashwathama killed.
When the news of Ashwathama's death was spread, Drona would not believe anyone and went straight to Yudhishtira. And Yudhistira said, "Ashwathama Hatha, (and then sotto voce) Iti Gaja." Ashwathama is dead ..... the elephant.
Drona laid down his arms in grief, and Drishtadumnya, the Pandava general promptly decapitated him.
The one thing most of us don't remember is that till then Yudhishtira's chariot would always float a few inches above the ground due to his piety. The moment he uttered this sentence, his chariot touched the ground!
I believed that this land of Bhagat Singh, Tagore, Gandhi, Netaji and so many others always held that higher ground, a land that the likes of Mandela and Martin Luther King Jr looked towards for inspiration and guidance.
After today, we're firmly on terra firma.
My comments on this post are as below.
1. Portrayal of Historical Figures:
Joy Bhattacharya's post prominently features historical figures like Bhagat Singh, Tagore, Gandhi, and Netaji, portraying them as venerable individuals. However, opinions on these figures can be diverse, shaped by personal beliefs and interpretations of their historical roles. While some may view them as saints and symbols of inspiration, others might emphasize a more critical analysis, acknowledging their contributions while considering the complexities of their actions. This subjectivity highlights the multifaceted nature of historical interpretation, and it's essential to recognize that perspectives on these figures can vary widely. It is obviously important to keep in mind that the actions of Bhagat Singh could be reasonably viewed as murder vis-a-vis John Saunders and the actions of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose vis-a-vis working with the Axis as an act of treachery. While they may be all considered nationalists, one's nationalist mindset ought to be compatible with other legal and ethical considerations. In most legal systems today, whether common law or not, the actions of Bhagat Singh and Subhash Bose would be considered, respectively, homicide and treason. It can, by no means, be argued that these individuals were saints in any sense of the word. Are we to assume that just because they acted in the interest of nationalism, all of their actions are automatically ethically or legally justified? Je ne parviens pas à comprendre d’où pourrait venir l’argument de "la moralité supérieure". I am not able to understand where the "higher morality" argument could even come from.
2. Lack of Legal Analysis:
Despite posing what appears to be a legal question, Joy Bhattacharya's post is notably absent of a legal analysis. The focus on drawing parallels from the Mahabharata may provide literary and philosophical insights, but it leaves a gap in addressing the legal nuances of the issue at hand. A more comprehensive exploration of the legal aspects involved would contribute to a more well-rounded discussion, allowing for a deeper understanding of the implications and considerations relevant to the matter being examined. The matter of the Ram Mandir has been discussed for quite a long time in the Indian court system, and it is not as though nothing was offered to the IICF trust (the Indo-Islamic Cultural Foundation trust) in return for the Ram Mandir. In fact, around 40 percent of the donations received by the IICF trust were actually made by Hindus. It is not clear at all which specific individual or individuals could be said to be the "aggrieved party" in this case, given that people could always pray at another mosque, given that this is already a highly controversial topic which deserves to be put to rest and given that what is under dispute is just a few hectares of land. It must also be noted that property prices are expected to appreciate significantly in Ayodhya following the construction of the Ram Mandir (the value of the appreciation is likely to be in the millions (U.S. dollars, of course.)), and so one must also keep in mind the practical costs and benefits of various choices.
3. Debating the Ethical Framework of the Mahabharata:
The Mahabharata, as an ancient epic, presents a complex and ambiguous ethical framework. While Joy Bhattacharya uses the "Ashwathama hatha, iti gaja" story to make a point, it's essential to acknowledge that interpretations of the Mahabharata can vary widely. The epic's nuanced portrayal of characters and situations allows for diverse ethical analyses. Some may argue in favor of Krishna's strategic use of deception, while others might question the ethics of such tactics. Recognizing the ambiguity within the Mahabharata's ethical landscape encourages a more nuanced exploration of its moral dimensions. Furthermore, it really says very little when you are presenting what are really very morally ambiguous choices and actions as though there was some degree of certainty in terms of ethicality in any of those choices or actions. Où est la certitude, ici? Where is the certainty here?
4. Consensus and Influences on Public Opinion:
The post's apparent resonance with a wide audience and the emergence of a consensus on the matter might be indicative of broader cultural, social, or political influences. Public opinion can be shaped by various factors, including societal norms, media narratives, and prevailing sentiments. Understanding the contextual influences on collective viewpoints is crucial for appreciating the dynamics of public discourse. It's essential to recognize that widespread agreement may not necessarily reflect the objective truth but could be a product of shared experiences, narratives, and prevailing perspectives within a given community or society. It is odd that so many commenters on Joy Bhattacharya's Facebook Page seemed to agree with him. Indeed, the agreement seemed almost unanimous with few detractors.
5. Polarization in Indian Debates:
Beyond the specific points raised by Joy Bhattacharya, a deeper concern emerges—the polarization of debates in India into "For Modi/BJP" and "Against Modi/BJP" camps. This binary framing oversimplifies complex issues and stifles nuanced discussions. It reduces the discourse to a divisive binary, limiting the exploration of diverse perspectives and potential middle grounds.
Recognizing and challenging this polarization is crucial for fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to addressing the diverse challenges and opportunities that India faces. Encouraging open and constructive dialogue beyond rigid camps is essential for a thriving democratic discourse.