Yuganta - Irawati Karwe

Yuganta: Ashwatthama, Drona, Karna, and Krishna

These three chapters of Yuganta revolve around three key themes: the eternal ends vs. means debate, “paradharmo bhayavah”, and the concept of dharma Do the means adopted, however underhanded they may be, justify the end goal they bring about?  Who decides if the “end” being pursued is “right” or “noble”?  Character explored: Krishna 

Ends vs. means



“Paradharmo bhayavah” and smriti  

Concept of “dharma” or righteousness

“It is far better to perform one’s natural prescribed duty, though tinged with faults, than to perform another’s prescribed duty, though perfectly. In fact, it is preferable to die in the discharge of one’s duty, than to follow the path of another, which is fraught with danger” Questions of “who am I” and “what is my place?” – forgetting sense of duty Characters explored: Ashwatthama, Drona, Karna, and Arjuna

One’s dharma is to work for the greater good of the society and not just care about one’s personal standing in the society  Character explored: Karna 

2

The four characters explored, particularly when humanised as in Yuganta, have a multitude of personality traits – positive and questionable – that inspire their leadership styles Krishna

Karna

Drona & Ashwatthama

● Skilled strategist: crucial hand in overall strategy and the defeats of each of the characters ● Fair and just: provides Duryodhana and Arjuna the “choice” between him and army ● Conception of “dharma”: convinced of the “righteousness” of the cause with adherence to one’s duty paramount

● Loyalty: despite knowing about his lineage through Krishna, stayed loyal to Duryodhana - but promise to Kunti is questionable ● Generosity: known widely as a giver of alms - but unquestioned adherence to this ideal leads to his downfall (“kavach kundal” and promise to Kunti)

● “Paradharmo bhayavah”: defecting from the path of a Brahmin to perform other duties ● Abandonment of duty in the face of personal loss: Drona surrendered on the battlefield and began meditating, whilst Ashwatthama enacted the war’s preeminent act of gross misconduct 3

While Krishna’s leadership skill and influence is evident despite functioning without a post, the three other characters serve as commanders but still display a lack of initiative Karna ● Rash with actions and remarks: Responsible for initiating the “cheerharan”; challenging a younger Arjuna ● Failure to lead by example: Fled when attacked by the Gandharvas; incident in Virata ● “Headstrong, misplaced kindness, runs away from battle, makes mistakes in judgement”

Ashwatthama

Drona

● Driven by vengeance and exhibited cowardice: Assumed command and slaughtered innocent people on the final day ● Lack of perspective: Failed to abide by the value system he had to adhere to, and betrayed a conflict between the duties of a Brahmin and a Kshatriya

● Party to acts beneath his stature: Decision to side with the Kauravas; failure to act during the “cheerharan”; killing of Abhimanyu; excessively ager to prove himself as general ● Lack of forgiveness, serenity, self-control: Revenge on Drupada was self-serving and excessive; treatment of Eklavya was manifestly unfair 4

Krishna, even when stripped of the godliness as in Yuganta, can be instructively and favourably compared with other great leaders such as Chanakya and Lincoln 

Chanakya’s tactics to make Rakshasa swear fealty to Chandragupta, Krishna’s strategy to defeat each major character in the war, and Lincoln’s suspension of basic civil liberties in the conduct of his campaign



Chanakya is convinced that Chandragupta is the appropriate heir to the kingdom and is the best “agent” for the furtherance of his goals, Krishna is steadfast in his belief that a warrior’s duty on the battlefield is secondary to familial loyalty or devotion to teachers, and Lincoln was prepared to go to any extent to save the Union



Krishna and Chanakya are not “leaders” in a classic sense – Krishna is well regarded by the Pandavas who defer to him frequently for his wisdom and counsel, whilst Chanakya is “only” the advisor to the king Lincoln, on the other hand, is front and centre of the battle and is “cloaked in immense power” – but contrast with Jackson, his successor, in the same post

Ends vs. means

A fierce belief in the “righteousness” of their cause

Comparative styles of leadership – by post and by design



5

The central lessons of the Mahabharata are timeless, and the three questions for thought are intended to provoke debate on the contentious issues herein 1

Does the pursuance of underhanded means undermine the righteousness of the resultant end?

2

Should one let loyalty to a cause or a leader overpower one’s sense of righteousness? Whilst undoubtedly a virtue, is loyalty a necessary trait for a leader?

3

In a modern sense, is the primacy of adherence to duty overstated? If following your duty results in you siding with “evil”, is it not better to take the “other path”? 6