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 wonder who he is. God or human? A hero or villain? In the Mahabharat, Krishna is present as God himself;
he is the incarnation of Vishnu. The book seems to be clear about the divinity of his character.
But in the story, not all his actions match 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 the Pandavas’ victory in the war. Krishna didn’t fight
in the war using any weapon, but he was the brain behind the Pandavas’ war strategy and
played a key role in killing all the commanders-in-chief 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 largest 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 all his attempts to avoid war failed.
Once war was declared, he believed in winning the war at any cost.
He believed that the Pandavas’ 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 the epic, he is also a human, or God is not omnipotent (all-powerful). Actually, the 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 the 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 the 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
that 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.
