|
|
|
 |
The following excerpt is from the section "The Importance of Processes and Responsibilities" in the chapter "Introduction" in "The Idea of Justice" by Amartya Sen.
Also see this.
"In the Indian epic Mahabharata, in the particular part of it called the Bhagvadagita (or Gita, for short), on the eve of the battle that is central episode of the epic, the invincible warrior, Arjuna, expresses his profound doubts about leading the fight which will result in so much killing. He is told by his adviser, Arjun, that he, Arjuna, must give priority to his duty, that is, to fight, irrespective of the consequences. That famous debate is often interpreted as one about deontology versus consequentialism, with Krishna, the deontologist, urging Krishna to do his duty, while Arjuna, the alleged consequentialist, worries about terrible consequences of the war.
Krishna's hallowing of the demands of duty is meant to win the argument, at least as seen in the religious perspective. Indeed, the Bhagvadgita has become a treatise of great theological importance in Hindu philosophy, focusing particularly on the 'removal' of Arjuna's doubts. Krishna's moral position has also been eloquently endorsed by many philosophical and literary commentators across the world. In the Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot summarizes Krishna's view in the form of an admonishment: 'And do not think of the fruit of the action./Fare forward.' Eliot explains, so that we do not miss the point: 'Not fare well,/But fare forward, voyageurs'. I have argued elsewhere (in the The Argumentative Indian) that if we leave the narrow confines of the end of the debate in the part of the Mahabharata that is called Bhagavadgita, and look at the earlier sections of Gita in which Arjuna presents his argument, or look at Mahabharata as a whole, the limitations of Krishna's perspective are also quite evident. Indeed after the total desolation of the land following the successful end of the 'just war', towards the end of Mahabharata, with funeral pyres burning in unison and women weeping about the death of their loved ones, it is hard to be convinced that Arjuna's broader perspective was decisively vanquished by Krishna. There may remain a powerful case for 'faring well' and not just 'forward'."
|
Initial draft proof-read and corrected with help from Bibhas Mondal. The errors, if any, may be on account of subsequent modifications and are all attributable to the author.
| |
|