Demonization is alien to Indian thought. Demonization is actually preparing the ground for justifying the most heinous acts against the designated ‘demon’ and totally violating the widely accepted concept of a rule based dharmayuddha. It is no wonder that the so-called “war on terror” that demonizes various peoples is totally alien to everything that makes us Indian, says S Raghavan.
In the best-selling mystery-thriller novel by the American author, Dan Brown, called “Angels & Demons”, a Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon tries to stop the Illumaniti, a legendary secret society, from destroying the Vatican City. It is a typical plot, sensationally presented no doubt, about the eternal conflict between angels and demons, between good and evil. When this novel was made into a movie, the conflict looked even more sensational on the celluloid screen. But can humanity be differentiated into Angels and Demons as easily as we differentiate day and night, life and death? Is there something called pure good and pure evil?
Demonization is alien to Indian thought. Demonization is actually preparing the ground for justifying the most heinous acts against the designated ‘demon’ and totally violating the widely accepted concept of a rule based dharmayuddha. It is no wonder that the so-called “war on terror” that demonizes various peoples is totally alien to everything that makes us Indian, says S Raghavan.
In the best-selling mystery-thriller novel by the American author, Dan Brown, called “Angels & Demons”, a Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon tries to stop the Illumaniti, a legendary secret society, from destroying the Vatican City. It is a typical plot, sensationally presented no doubt, about the eternal conflict between angels and demons, between good and evil. When this novel was made into a movie, the conflict looked even more sensational on the celluloid screen. But can humanity be differentiated into Angels and Demons as easily as we differentiate day and night, life and death? Is there something called pure good and pure evil?
For an Indian, who has inherited values from his or her forefathers, handed over from generation to generation over the millennia, good and evil are relative terms, one of which cannot exist without the other. What is termed as good depends upon the existence of what we call evil, and evil exists only in relation to good. Being interdependent values they cannot be separated. If we try to make evil stand by itself as entirely separate from good, we can no longer recognize it as evil. Probably, according to Indian philosophers, the difference between good and evil is not one of kind, but of degree.
For example, in that great Indian epic—the Mahabharata, the Kurukshetra where the great war was fought is declared a dharmakshetra and the ensuing 18 day war as dharma yuddha not because the evil Kauravas representing adharma are faced with the noble Pandavas representing dharma, as is commonly understood. It is called dharmakshetra because the rules of engagement of war are said to have been followed in this epic war.
No doubt there are many instances where both sides violate various rules of engagement. A pack of Kauravas ambush a lone Abhimanyu, Arjuna kills an unarmed Karna, the Pandavas play a trick on Drona regarding the death of his son Ashvatthaama; and Bhima gives a fatal illegal blow to Duryodhana below the waist, in the final gadaayuddha. But then the violators have to face the consequences. The chronicler Vyasa just records it. After all, Mahabharata is called itihaasa: this happened.
The Kauravas led by Duryodhana suffer defeat and destruction because they went against an important principle of statecraft called coexistence or ‘live and let live’. Duryodhana’s weaknesses like lack of control over hate and jealousy lead him not to accept the offer of coexistence that Pandavas had made through Krishna’s diplomacy. Such a principle which was in the interest of humanity was rejected. He preferred to be the unchallenged sole ruler, an absolute monarch and did not let Pandavas live independently even in five villages.
Unalloyed heroes and villains do not exist in the real world and hence they do not exist in Mahabharata. Vyaasa is not a hagiographer but an honest chronicler. Perhaps modern historiography has a lot to learn from him.
For example, Duryodhana’s virtue of valuing friendship above all else is hailed. The example given is that of his friendship with Karna. The moment Duryodhana recognised Karna’s merits he embraced him crossing the Varna barrier (Karna was supposed to be a sutaputra, a shoodra) and declared him a Kshatriya and his own equal by making him the King of the region of Anga. Duryodhana was loyal to this friendship till the end and in fact when Karna is killed in the war he mourns for him even more than at the death of his own brothers. At the same time his hatred of Pandavas and his jealousy are immense and beyond his control. According to the epic that is what led to his down fall, since one should control one’s senses and win over the six weaknesses: lust, anger, arrogance, jealousy, greed and infatuation for a fulfilled life.
Nothing is permanently good or evil. People are not classified as saints and sinners, followers of God or Satan (who incidentally does not exist in Indian thought). At birth no one is good or evil. External circumstances may force an individual into evil ways, but it is up to the individual to make the right choice.
According to Rg Veda, sin is conceived as a defilement clinging externally to somebody which can be expiated with external means. The concept of good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, Rju and Vrijan, is essentially external in nature. That is why Indians tend to avoid categorising someone as absolutely good or absolutely evil. Only when an individual has lived his entire life in virtue and breathed his last, when it is no longer possible for him to stray from this virtuous path, can he be called a good person.
But what about expiation? Does a wrong doer redeem himself or is his fate sealed? Despite a common understanding of Indian culture as ‘fatalistic’ Indian world outlook and darshan is full of discussion of the dialectic between fate and individual human effort or individual choice. What is considered fate is actually the forces that one individual or even the whole human kind cannot control. These are the objective laws of nature and society, what Engels called ‘necessity’. (“freedom is the recognition of necessity”-F Engels). For example, Duryodhana violated the law that for social harmony there should be coexistence or diversity just as it is expressed in nature too. After that a devastating existential war became inevitable.
To reiterate, Indian thought does not consider anyone an eternal sinner. It is possible for him to make amends and turn a new leaf. Kedar Nath Tiwari argues in his book, “Classical Indian ethical thought”, that the Indian scriptures say that man can expiate his sin through the attainment of knowledge. This emphasis on knowledge is often noted in the Brahmanas such as
“He who has this knowledge conquers all directions”.
In verses such as
“He who has knowledge becomes a light among his own people”.
The emphasis of Upanishads on knowledge for the attainment of the highest good is marked.
The story of Prajapati is very enlightening in this respect. According to the story based on the Vedas, there was a great saint called Kasyapa Prajapathi. The Devas, Asuras as well as men were his children. He one day called them and told them, “The time has come for you to learn from me. But for that you should get prepared”. Preparation meant studying books, learning from teachers, and discussing with peers.
Once they were prepared, Prajapati called the Devas and told them, “Da” and asked them, did you understand? They replied, “Yes, sir we have understood.” The Devas understood Da as meaning Daama that is to exercise control over oneself. Prajapati repeated the exercise with the Asuras with the same word. But the Asuras understood, “Da” as Daana , which meant charity. When Prajapati did the same to humans, they interpreted Da as Dayaa which meant Mercy.
Prajapati recognised that Devas, Asuras and humans had both strengths and weaknesses in them. He taught whatever they needed to overcome their shortcomings. Since they had come prepared to learn, the words meant different things to each of them. The Devas needed self-control and humility of pride, the powerful Asuras needed to become charitable and the men needed to be merciful.
The moral of the story seemed to be that good and evil exists everywhere. One can overcome this evil by learning to address what causes that evil. This is true for individuals and nations.
My son was grappling with an essay on “Villains – Traditional and Modern”. He had many villains lined up for his essay – Othello’s Iago, Prof Moriarty, the archenemy of Sherlock Holmes, Lex Luthor of Superman fame, Batman’s nemesis Joker, and so on. You might have guessed by now that he is studying in a ‘cool’ English medium school and naturally even his examples would be Anglo-American! But when I mentioned to him about the villains from Indian epics he was struck. The villains in Indian epics were good and bad, compassionate and cruel, humble and arrogant, all at the same time. Even more of a problem – the heroes in Indian epics were also two-faced!
Take Ravana, the most well-known demon-king, for example. Valmiki describes him as the greatest devotee of Shiva. According to many folk versions of the epic such as Ram-kathas and Ram-kiritis, Ravana is believed to have composed the Rudra Stotra in praise of Shiva. He designed the lute known as Rudra-Vina using one of his ten heads as the lute’s gourd, one of his arms as the beam and his nerves as the strings! The image of Ravana carrying Mount Kailash, with Shiva’s family on top, is an integral part of Shiva temple art.
He is an even bigger hero in the South. It is not uncommon to see folk forms in the Tamil countryside that celebrate Ravana as a hero and Rama as the villain who treated women unfairly. In the Tamil version of the Ramayana, the Kamba Ramayanam, Ravana is highly venerated as a Vedic scholar, a connoisseur of music, a warrior, and an epitome of everything moral. In fact, a vedic scholar told me that Ravana created a mnemonic to remember the Vedic shlokas and it is used to this day by students of Vedas! In short, Ravana is a tragic hero, not a villain. While Rama questioned Sita’s chastity leading to her agnipariksha, Ravana is seen as the man who never violated her although he abducted her and took her away to his kingdom in Lanka. The beheading of Tadaka, the killing of Shambhooka—a shoodra who was engaged in Tapasya, the banishing of Sita, the killing of Vali, are considered as instances of Rama’s own wrong doings.
Here is a story by Devdutt Patnaik2 that somewhat tries to interpret this struggle between good and evil in a more enlightened way. The story goes that after firing the fatal arrow on the battlefield of Lanka, Ram told his brother, Lakshman, “Go to Ravana quickly before he dies and request him to share whatever knowledge he can. A brute he may be, but he is also a great scholar.” The obedient Lakshman rushed across the battlefield to Ravana’s side and whispered in his ears, “Demon-king, do not let your knowledge die with you. Share it with us and wash away your sins.” Ravana responded by simply turning away. An angry Lakshman went back to Ram, “He is as arrogant as he always was, too proud to share anything.” Ram comforted his brother and asked him softly, “Where did you stand while asking Ravana for knowledge?” “Next to his head so that I hear what he had to say clearly.” Ram smiled, placed his bow on the ground and walked to where Ravana lay. Lakshman watched in astonishment as his brother knelt at Ravana’s feet. With palms joined, with extreme humility, Ram said, “Lord of Lanka, you abducted my wife, a terrible crime for which I have been forced to punish you. Now, you are no more my enemy. I bow to you and request you to share your wisdom with me. Please do that for if you die without doing so, all your wisdom will be lost forever to the world.” To Lakshman’s surprise, Ravana opened his eyes and raised his arms to salute Ram, “If only I had more time as your teacher than as your enemy. Standing at my feet as a student should, unlike your rude younger brother, make you a worthy recipient of my knowledge. I have very little time so I cannot share much but let me tell you one important lesson I have learnt in my life. Things that are bad for you seduce you easily; you run towards them impatiently. But things that are actually good for you, fail to attract you; you shun them creatively, finding powerful excuses to justify your procrastination. That is why I was impatient to abduct Sita but avoided meeting you”.
This beautiful story gives an excellent perspective on good and evil. The demon-king is full of wisdom. And the man-god wants to benefit from it! In Indian culture, which not only “tolerates” diversity but celebrates it, there are very few binary answers. Every conclusion and judgement—which in itself is very rare—has to be qualified with context and many caveats that are full of relativisim. Certainty that can lead to absolutism is looked at with suspicion and tentativeness is more the norm. The parable of our search for truth (understanding reality) as the attempt of blind men trying to understand and describe the elephant is a very humbling one for anyone who thinks he has got it all!
Fundamentally the Indian mind sees change as a fundamental characteristic of the world around us and tries to grapple with it. It reacts to change, motion and development all around us. It reacts mostly with wonder and at times it tentatively theorises through phenomenological models.
The same applies to ‘judging’ a person. After all Indian theory of human nature (svabhaava) does not start with the binary theory of good and evil but with an empirical observation of coexistence of three broad characteristics (guna) namely satva, rajas and tamas in all individuals. It observes that proportion of these three gunas can change and manifest itself differently at different phases of the dynamic of the life of the individual. There is inheritance and ‘nature’ as well as modification by the environment (sanga—satsanga and dussanga) or ‘nurture’.
Does a realistic conception of good and evil exist only in ancient Indian texts? Does it have relevance in the modern world? D D Kosambi, the famous historian, mathematician, Indologist, used to say that in reconstructing the past India had a tremendous advantage in that even today cultural survivals from the ancient past exist all over the country. I would say that this is true of ancient Indian thought also. A modern Indian would not easily subscribe to the view, as various presidents of USA have propounded at various times, that there is an “axis of evil” which has to be eliminated by the civilized world in the interests of “our way of life” no matter what it costs.
Why go so far? Similar attempts at unalloyed demonization have been made by various organs of Indian state at various times regarding whoever they were trying to suppress unjustly or even physically eliminate within India or outside our borders
This practice of demonisation has led to wars of aggression and wars against “terrorists and fundamentalists” and the killings of innocent people—the most unjust and unjustifiable of all wars, while painting the act as dharmayuddha, carried out under the most extraordinary conditions of fighting pure evil. An Indian who has been taught to be self-critical would not subscribe to this self-righteous, absolutist approach. An Indian is constantly reminded since childhood that when one is pointing a finger at others, the remaining fingers are pointing back at oneself.
Criticism and self-criticism are ingrained in the Indian ethos. Demonization is alien to Indian thought. Demonization is not just a difference in philosophical approach but actually preparing the ground for justifying the most heinous acts against the designated ‘demon’ and totally violating the widely accepted concept of a rule based dharmayuddha. It is no wonder that the so-called “war on terror” that demonizes various peoples is totally alien to everything that makes us Indian.
By S. Raghavan