Like Polonius in Hamlet, Dhritarashtra
gives pious advice, counseling his son to be just and virtuous, but he is
silently pleased with Duryodhana's plan to trap Yudhishthira in the
dice game. "It is the father who fails his son, and not the other way
around. Dhritarashtra's envy slips out at unguarded moments. Bhima cannot
forget the unrestrained rejoicing on the blind father's face as Yudhishthira
keeps losing at each throw of the dice, the hypocrite's mask falls.
Such hidden, hypocritical envy has often been
considered more dangerous than Duryodhana's more open and honest feelings. The
ancient Greeks realised that the very fact that one is successful and
prosperous is a good reason for one to be envied. They thought man to be
naturally envious - envy being part of his character and disposition. So, they
were open about it. Since envy could not be suppressed, the Greeks devised a
way to deal with it by ostracizing successful people, especially popular
politicians. Aristides the just was shunned, according to Plutarch, because he
was too good. "I am fed up with hearing him being called too virtuous ',
an Athenian is said to have remarked. They exiled their statesman Themistocles
for living lavishly and putting on superior airs. Ostracism mean having to go away
for ten years in order to give time for envy 'to cool off'. Socrates might have
been put to death for the same reason - 'envy for his great integrity and
virtue'.
Advani resembles the modern Dhritarashtra, who
has displayed his envy and now portrays reconciled calm. His hidden hypocrisy
is more dangerous than Digvijay (Duryodhana) Singh's more open and frank
feelings. Advani could not contain his feelings and saw his mask peel off when
he had commented on Modi's Independence day speech. It is natural for him
to be envious, but envy cannot be contained generally when accompanied by
hatred. Advani's hatred is deep and accompanied by his yet, unfulfilled dream
of leading this country. The Greek way of Ostracizing might not be
meaningful to him keeping in mind his age, not too sure of him post a decade.
The Greeks were not alone in driving out
outstanding statesmen and generals. Winston Churchil, the popular wartime
premier, was defeated in the 1945 elections. Many conservatives interpreted his
defeat as the result of envy and resentment, and a fear that he might acquire
too much power or become too popular. De Gaulle suffered a similar fate in
1946. Similar could be the fate of Modi, if this internal "envy"
syndrome is not factored and seriously dealt with. While we all know the
political fortitude of Modi, the internal syndrome should be diplomatically
nipped off, before it turns gangrenous. This of course is not good for Modi and
the BJP but more importantly this will lead to Khangress gaining and depredation
of the nation for yet another term.
If the Greeks institutionalised how to deal with
envy through ostracism, Advani can resort to the Indian way. Indians coped with
it by renouncing it, and hope for compensation in another world. Even before
the Buddha, the 'Renouncer' had become a perennial hero in India. A number of
very successful Indians who worried constantly that things might be going too
well. They feared that their good fortune would not last and soon there would
be a reversal. For this reason, many parents in India place a small black dot
on a child's face to ward off retaliation by the envious.
Digvijay Singh akin to Khangress is not
ashamed of his envy because it is part of a larger and consistent egoistic
philosophical outlook. When he is feeling low, filled with hatred for BJP and
specifically Modi, words of Advani are like balm that comforts him. Digvijay
Singh feels that his duty is to win it for madam at all costs. A smart person
like diggy, pursues power and uses it to extract as much as possible from the
weak. If he does not do that he leaves himself vulnerable to attack from an
enemy. Worth recalling Duryodhana's words here. "A khastriya's duty to
prevail, great kind. Whether by virtuous means or not.. Oh
Bull among Bharatas, he should go out like a charioteer and whip every corner
of the earth into submission. Discontent is the root of success; this is why i
desire it. Only the person who reaches for the heights, noble lord, becomes the
ultimate leader. (Sonia Gandhi).
Their envy goads them to act against the arch
rival, Modi. No means are too foul for they have to win at any cost. Like
Tharasymachus in Plato's Republic, Khangress sees morality as
a veiled way to protect the interests of the powerful. As they see it, what
people call 'Dharma" is really a clever way of advancing those
interests.
Khangress's view of the world is by no means
unique. Conquerors and rulers throughout history have espoused it. It is called
'realism' or 'realpolitik' by students of international politics. In India, its
chief advocate was Kautilya, who wrote the classic treatise Arthashastra.
In the west, this viewpoint was made famous by Thomas Hobbes, the English
philosopher, who argued that if men do not conquer when they can, they only
reveal weakness and invite attack. "By a necessity of nature' (a phrase
Hobbes made popular) they conquer when they can. Hobbes translated Thucydides's classic history of the Peloponnesian war: 'They who have the odds of
power exact as much as they can and the weak yield to such conditions
as they can get...[men] will everywhere reign over those such as they be too
strong for...'
The Mahabharata is clearly embarrassed by Duryodhana's matsya nyaya, 'big-fish-eats-small-fish' view of the world, which is the Indian equivalent of the law of the jungle, a metaphor for the vicious and a synonym of Khangress. They see no being which lives in the world without violence. Creatures exist at one another's expense; the strong eat the weak. The mongoose eats mice, as the cat eats the mongoose; the dog devours the cat, your majesty, and wild beasts eat the dog. Manmohan Singh, their Grandfather, will employ this anarchic image of disorder in the natural world in order to justify danda, 'retributive justice', or 'retrospective taxing' and the rule of law and order, by a feeble but 'just' king.
Envy also supplies the psychological foundations
for our quest for justice, especially for equality. Advani needs to realise
that this 'equality' will not be possible as the people adore Modi & unfortunately
nothing can be done to command this love by seniority, its pure deservability
and ability. And this can take both good and bad forms. Freud wrote that our
desire for justice is the product of childhood envy of other children, which
makes one hunger for equal treatment and brings about a 'group spirit'. Advani
echoes Freud's theory, 'if one cannot be the favourite oneself, at all events
nobody else shall be the favorite.'
Envy is thus a leveller, and it levels
downwards. Instead of motivating one to better performance, as we are taught
to, envy prefers to see the other person fall. Advani is willing to see both
sides lose. Envy is collectively disadvantageous; the individual who envies
another is prepared to do things that make them both worse off, if only the
discrepancy between them is sufficiently reduced. The Mahabharata of 2014 is unfolding and it is for us to see the rising
Moditatva attain its natural
trajectory.
(Have done a deliberate mixing and a reasonable interchange of characters and their sides on the Mahabharata plot. This is done to keep the nature of the character in modern context, intact. This is inspired from many readings of Gurucharan Das,Media Crooks, Rajiv Malhotra, Subramanian Swamy, Freuds theory & Greek Philosophy)
**Mark Kurlansky, Nonviolence: The history of a dangerous idea, London: Johathan Cape, 2006
'Not taking life', III.199.27-29; 'Not causing pain', XII.269.5; 'Not causing Injury', XII.285.23.24. In the Laws of Manu, ahimsa connotes 'not having an aggressive attitude' (Manusmriti 11.223); 'not having an unstilled spirit', Patanjali Yoga sutra 2.30-31.
