Krishna: Man or God? (Part I)

Arguably Krishna is the most complex character from the epic Mahabharat. I have been fascinated by the complexity of Krishna’s character since my college days. He is a multidimensional character; one can see all shades of human nature in this single character. There are many characters in Mahabharat who display one or two traits of human nature brilliantly, but in Krishna's character, one can see everything, all in one, that's why people often think who is he? God or human? A hero or villain? In Mahabharat Krishna is present as God himself, he is the incarnation of Vishnu, book seems to be clear about the divinity of his character. But in the story, not all his actions match with his character of God. In fact, to many, his character may seem to have a dual personality, one who preaches the highest morality and another who doesn't hesitate to use the dirtiest tricks to win the war or kill the opponent. His presence was essential for Pandava’s victory in the war. Krishna didn’t fight in war using any weapon but he was the brain behind Pnadava’s war strategy and played a key role in killing all the commanders-in-chiefs of the Kuru army. Despite all his faults and mistakes almost all the characters in the Mahabharat admire him. His popularity has grown over time even after people know all these contradictions about him. Krishna is one of the most popular Gods in India; maybe he has the most number of followers among all Gods in India.

Krishna tried his best to avoid war, he even made a very generous offer to Duryodhan on behalf of Yudhishthir (to give him just five villages instead of half of the kingdom). He tried very hard to convince Duryodhan that war was not good for both sides but he failed. Once his all attempts to avoid war failed.  Once war was declared, he believed in winning the war at any cost. He believed that Pandava’s cause was right and the only thing that mattered to him was their victory. It’s not unusual for a hero to win the battle using cunning ways there are many examples in history, but we don’t expect this type of behavior from God. If God is all-powerful and all knowledgeable then why can't he fight the war by fair means? That means in epic he is also a human or God is not omnipotent (all-powerful). Actually, Mahabharat shows us many instances where it challenges the concept of an omnipotent God. 

During the war, we see an altogether different side of Krishna, his darker side is exposed during crucial moments of war. He wanted Pandavas to win and was ready to pay any price for that. He has to use all his charm, power, and intelligence from the first day of war itself. First, he has to use his power as a God to convince Arjun to fight the war. He has to reveal his divine nature to Arjun to convince him that whatever he is saying is the right thing (Bhagavad Gita was delivered in this process).  He is also seen as an opportunist who teaches an honest man (Yudhisthir) to tell a lie (about the death of Ashwathnama), the only lie he told in his all life. He even advises hesitant Arjun to strike down Karna, when Karna was in a helpless and defenseless state. Because of these acts as the war progresses and the Kuru army’s commanders fall one by one, we somehow begin to sympathize with Kauravas. Even Duryodhan before dying on the battlefield lists Krishna’s many misdeeds during the war and accuses him of not fighting fairly. People might think that the end result of his actions justified the means he used, but I don't think Krishna thought like that. After winning the war, Krishna who is cheerful throughout the epic becomes serious and gives a very sobering message to the victorious Pandavas, he says that the Kauravas were great warriors and they could not have defeated them in a fair fight, that is why he had to use magic and deceit on their behalf. It seems that the epic’s morality is subordinate to Krishna, the God.  

Many Critics and intellectuals have studied his character in very much detail but these books are not very popular in the general public as they put you in a very uncomfortable position. Krishna's role in Mahabharat forces us to confront a moral dilemma. It puts us in a difficult situation, where it’s difficult to differentiate between good and bad. Both sides in war engage in good, bad, and even ugly deeds and there is greatness on both sides. Krishna's character is also like that, it contains shades of all characters in the epic. Krishna is Karna, Arjun, Yudhisthir, Bhishma, Shakuni, and Drona all in one. One must accept all sides of Krishna, no matter how contrasting they are. But people divided his personality into many pieces, took the piece that they liked or were comfortable with, and neglected all other aspects. Some only accepted him as an adorable child, some were happy with his raas leelas, some took his image as a lover, some wanted only his Bhagavad Gita, and some saw him as a villain and criticized him for his actions during the war. Many bhakti movements only accept him in portions and present only a one-dimensional image of him. They glorify only certain aspects of Krishna's personality and keep mum or give some vague explanations about other aspects which they are not comfortable with. As I said, one can find whatever they want in his personality, so all these movements have taken bits and pieces of his personality and used them to propagate their own philosophies. I feel this is a great tragedy that people never tried to accept and understand him totally.

Thanks for reading and please share your comments.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)