We’re in the midst of witnessing an important discussion and deliberation that is going on at the Viraata Desha courtroom, wherein Bhagawan Krishna, Balarama, Saatyaki, etc. have assembled to deliberate upon Yudishtra’s future course of action. Now that the thirteen-year-period of the “Vana-Vaasam” and “Agnyaata-Vaasam” is over, how should Yudishtra approach Duryodhana? Should he approach through peace or through war, to stake claim for his Indraprastha kingdom? Bhagawan Krishna, as usual, gives a diplomatic answer by saying that He is ready for both means! However, Balarama contradicts Bhagawan Krishna by saying that peace is the only option because Yudishtra too is at fault of accepting the invitation to play the gambling game, which is against the “Raaja-Dharma”. Saatyaki fumes and contradicts Balarama’s view point and the discussion gets deeper and more interesting! In our yesterday’s episode, we had also witnessed why Balarama is often seen taking sides towards Duryodhana. We’ve seen that Balarama is the “Guru” of Duryodhana in the “Gadhaa-Yuddham” and this is something that prevents Balarama from taking a perspective favouring “Dharma”.
Moving on further thus, Saatyaki continues: “Oh Balarama! You’re squarely putting the blame on Yudishtra for taking part in the gambling game, aren’t you? Now think for a moment – When the invitation was sent by King Dhritarashtra, what did Yudishtra say? Did he say straightaway that he is interested to take part? No! Yudishtra first accepted the fact that even though he likes playing the gambling game, he doesn’t know the nuances as to how to play it. Initially thus, Yudishtra declined the offer. But however, since Vidura repeatedly invited him by saying that it is the king’s invitation and cannot be denied, Yudishtra stood by the “Dharma” of honouring the king’s invitation. How can this be considered as a fault on Yudishtra’s side? Moreover, did Yudishtra know that the game had an agenda behind it? He was completely kept in the dark till the last minute, isn’t it? Who’s fault is it now? Moreover, even in the courtroom, when Duryodhana had a proxy in Sahuni to play the gamble on behalf of him, who came forward to help Yudishtra to help him out, even though everyone knew that Yudishtra doesn’t know the nuances of winning the game? Isn’t it unfair that one plays with a proxy and the other is left alone to defend himself? Moreover, of all these factors, if the game is planned based on the agenda of abducting the kingdom, and if Yudishtra is totally unaware of it and if he is cheated blatantly, who is at fault? When “Adharma” is blatantly displayed in broad limelight for everyone to see by Duryodhana and Sahuni, why are you blaming Yudishtra for it? Why don’t you blame even an iota of this on Duryodhana? Who convinced King Dhritarashtra for the gambling game? It was grossly Duryodhana isn’t it? Moreover, even if Duryodhana tried to convince King Dhritatashtra, where did the brains of King Dhritarashtra go? Doesn’t King Dhritarashtra have the experience to analyze what his son is doing? Doesn’t he know that playing the gambling game in the centre of the courtroom is gross “Adharma” in public display? Now it is proved that both the father and son are acting against “Dharma” and what right do they have to put the blame on Yudishtra? Moreover, will King Dhritarashtra obey whatever his son says without putting a thought into it? Has King Dhritarashtra become a slave of Duryodhana? Doesn’t he have brains of his own to take neutral decisions pertaining to “Dharma”? If he’s not able to do so, who is at fault? Yudishtra? Hence, oh Balarama! I fail to understand this argument of yours which is grossly supporting Duryodhana’s cause!”
As Saatyaki fumes thus, there are a few important leadership lessons for us to learn as well in this accord. Let us look at those in the next episode! Stay tuned! 🙂
The Indian Dharma 