And a king was born...

The Rajasuya yajna was performed in the ancient times by worthy kings to ensure their rule extended over all lands and eradication of any unscrupulous kings.
Rajasuya literally means to give birth to an emperor.Yudhisthira was a reluctant leader, he thought from so many different angles, hoping he'd hurt no one. But as the ruler he was forced to act against his nature and create violence.

He had to see from a broader perspective
which involves politics, diplomacy and elimination of adharma with discipline.

Krishna was the one who encouraged Yudhisthira to do his duty even though Yudhisthira preferred living peacefully but then who would have run the country? A good person's reluctance, allows bad people to lead. And they certainly cause greater pain to a larger number of people, so good people are forced to eliminate bad leaders. It is a painful exercise, but less violent. When a good leader withdraws, fearing reaction and complication, he allows greater violence and complications and for a  larger number of people. He cannot justify his non-involvement in helping establish proper governance by saying, "I will not be involved in violence”. But the reality is, if one has the power to minimize violence but doesn't use it, he ends up maximizing th violence.
The purpose of Rajasuya is to give birth to a king. What kind of king, has to be decided by Dharmik people. Certainly adharama will resist, and pushing back that resistance requires violence. Resistance means they were unlawful aggressiveness without a proper leader.Adharmik people are not satisfied with less, they want to grab everyone’s resources. So, they have to be stopped. Giving them a free rein, thinking, 'let them have what they want, else it will create violence'" is wrong premise. It is like a tigress sucking human blood, she does not become peaceful but creates greater damage till she is tamed or terminated. Therefore Krishna had to find a king who could govern with proper  understanding. And so he made Yudhisthira the king of kings.

We cannot stop violence, we have to make a choice. Which one do we prefer- Personal peace at the cost of uninhabited violence, or some violence towards the unjust for peace of the entire society?

Modernity v/s Traditionalism

It is very interesting to see how people became opinionated about choosing.

The modern outlook tells us the leadership in bygone ages was by succession, power passed from the great-grandfather to grand father, to father to son, to grand son and great grand son and so on. It also tells us that the choice was limited and that few families had a monopoly. Potential people from other families were suppressed, and were not allowed to grow. There was no free speech, no newspapers to judge neutrally. Citizens had no voice; the king was beyond law.

This observation sounds very reasonable and historical .

Modern history also tells us that the present rule is transparent and that democracy gives everyone a chance to rise, from rags to riches, illiterate to educated, citizen to minister. It prides itself on uplifting everyone: men, women and those who belong to the  third sex too.

Again this appears to be a completely logical, fair, and practical model.

The propagators of modernity should give the traditionalists a chance to explain why it functioned the way it functioned. Is it right on the part of modernity to give such a strongly judgmental verdict? It does not constitute scientific logical reasoning.

Moreover modernism has no authority and right to judge traditionalism from its limited perspective.

Modernity itself would never submit to being analyzed. Modernity itself has studied, analyzed and assimilated traditionalisms. Can tradition judge modernity? If not, where is the space for critical analysis and free speech?

The Indian system of leadership was not like the western monarchy. One has to study the methodology depicted in Indian knowledge systems.

We come across a striking illustration of free speech. King Vena was an unjust, tyrannical ruler. His subordinates and educators tried to advise him but he turned a deaf ear to them. When his atrocities become intolerable he was killed by the citizens and new king was selected. 

Sumanthra was Dasarath's chariot driver, but had the power to reprimand Queen Kaikeyi for her insistence on sending Lord Rama to the forest. 

Bhishma himself strongly advocated that a cruel king ought to be removed by the subjects.

Sanjay the ordinary secretary of the powerful Dhrithrasthra would give strongly worded warnings to his king, but he was never harmed or removed from his post.

Dushyanta adopted a qualified person and chose him as a successor over his inefficient sons.

Dhrithrasthra was advised to do so for his new-born son, who gave all indications of being a destructive force. 

Ravana was dislodged from his throne by mighty Rama for his arrogance.

Coming back to our so-called free world,
do our news papers really give fair news? Is there a place for honest speech?

Even if it does exist, will it ever get the same amount of media and sponsors as corrupt speech gets?

One has to be really honest at least within, if not without, to judge and decide for themselves.

Of course, every system has its good and bad sides, but the best system can only be judged by those who are really transparent within and look from Dharma's  perspective which is universal, secular and unbiased. But do we have the eyes, the inner ones to be able to actually 'see'?

Voting the Mahabharta way

An animal's dead body has to be removed or it starts to stink. The stench spreads all over and destroys one’s   comfort. But unfortunately we keep waiting for some one to come and do the needful. It so hapens that another dead body is added and the obnoxious smell increases. This becomes a pattern of life for ordinary people. The crime is not the stench, but the fact that there is such a degree of indifference to it, that it become part of our lives.

In governance too, there are many useless elements. They are incapable of doing anything, but we make a habit of living with this phenomena. We hope it will go away, but it only adds to the original stink, and then it starts becoming part of our life. Finally we believe there is no hope for change. 

In the Mahabharata, Bhismadeva tells Yudhisthira that it is the duty of the subject to respect the king as a representation of God in this world. But he also says, if the kings starts stinking and creates a stench of bad governance he should be dislodged by severe punishment. In fact the statement is very strong;  “A mad dog which is creating danger to people has to be killed by casting  stones.”   

Cast your vote to remove any stinking corpses and find some one who is close to Bhisma's ideal.

Looking for most ideal leader

Looking for most ideal leader?  Then you'll have to keep dreaming forever.

Chanakya observes, "A leader is like a honey collector for the king; a honey collector may lick his hand after collecting and storing the honey in the jar, that is tolerable, but if he empties the entire jar for himself then that is big scandal."

Unfortunately people see their leaders only giving them their hand to lick and keeping the entire jar for themselves. This is called corruption of the highest order. If we keep hoping and praying that one day there will be a leader whose hand will remain dry and clean even after he collects honey, then we are in an unreal, fantasy world.

Imperfect human beings cannot give us complete freedom from corruption, but if they can minimize it and allow the honey of human resources to be distributed in amongst their citizens, then he is a good leader.

Find a such a leader who values dharma and fears adharma, and is willing to walk towards maximizing honey distribution and minimizing his own over-consumption. Fortunately or unfortunately, neither do we have an ideal leader like Yudhisthira nor such a nasty one like Duryodhana. We do have some who worship Duryodhana and some who admire Yudhisthira. Choose those who admire Yudhishtira and follow his path. And shun those who are Duryodhana’s fans.

The choice of creating either honey-lickers or jar-devourers lies in our hands.

Principally speaking

Indrajit's loyalty to Ravana was based on personal relationship, since Ravana was his father; it was not based on principles. On the other hand Laxmana’s relationship with Rama was there from the brotherhood point of view, but more so on the basis of his character. Dasaratha Maharaja was weak in admonishing his favorite wife for sending Rama to forest. At that time, Laxmana while respecting Dashrath as a father opposed his action and was willing to stand by Rama and punish Dasharath Maharaja. It was conflict of having to choose between one's father or the principle of justice, which Indrajit was not able to do. He did not care; he endorsed Ravana’s  crime towards Sita.

When we have to choose between loyalty to a person or loyalty to a certain core principle, it is not a easy decision. Seldom do we see a political party having the guts and honesty to critically analyze their leaders. It is mostly a "yes" to everything what their leaders say, like Indrajit. Such political parties have to come down, because of their own crimes, just like Ravana and his party was washed off along with all his loyalists.

choose that group and leaders who have the concept of dialogue, and not a monologue. The worst are the silent observers, and the false flatters of their incapable leaders.

Free dependence

Gandhari and Sugriva are two characters in the scriptures, who were very devoted to dharma, but at some point of time they kind of became angry with Krsna and Rama respectively.

Gandhari was angry with Krishna because of the intense suffering caused by the death of her children, even though in one sense she was equally responsible for her children’s fate.

Sugriva was floating in  an ocean of gratification after long forced austerity, like a fasting man becomes overwhelmed by variety of food. He forgot his commitment to Rama, and became angry with Laxmana who came to remind him of his promise to Lord Rama.

Wherever the king or  administrator creates too much luxury or too much suffering then people will be self absorbed and forget to become independent thinkers.

Unfortunately, the modern world provides two extremes, too much misery or too much pleasure, both of which  make people forget and dull their intellectual ability.  

This is in turn is exploited by shrewd politicians who continue to keep people swinging with this pendulum. But if care and concern is there, then the pain becomes bearable without losing one’s power of discrimination.  Therefore Dharma has to be the foundation of our Artha (gain) and kama (gratification), so that we can experience Moksa (continued freedom).
We need leaders who can free their followers from the leaders themselves,not culturally but intellectually; making them interdependent instead of over-dependant.

Mobbing v/s mobilizing

Ravana created a mob around him which was willing to die for him but without any tangible reason.

Rama created inspiration due to which the intelligent monkey chiefs were willing to be led by Rama but they never became mindless herds of cattle. Thus they could achieve many things on their own, Nala and Nila created the Bridge, Sushena revived the sick, Hanumana brought back vital medicinal herbs, Vibhisana guided, Sugriva fought and all of them survived.

The mob leader, Ravana, pushed everyone in the abyss of death, including his brother Kumbhakarna, his favorite son Indrajit and all his ministers.

Where the leaders of the country create a mob, they ruin everyone including themselves, like Ravana. But if leaders mobilize like Lord Rama then it has legacy of a strong future with able leaders. 

Find such people, be empowered by them, follow them but do not sell your wisdom

Tapping true potential.

None of the monkeys were able to decide who would jump across the ocean to find Sita’s whereabouts.  Eventually Jambhavana saw Hanuman sitting in the corner without speaking.  Jambhavana decided to approach him and remind him of his potential. Sure enough, Hanumana, from being frozen in the corner flew across the mighty ocean and eventually gave the message of hope, to Sita And subsequently made Sri Rama very happy with the news that Sita had been found.

All praise went to Hanumana, was it an injustice to Jambhavana?

Mothers, teachers, ministers and selfless facilitators, are like Jambhavana. Only such selfless personalities can create the mighty Hanumana. If these very people compete with and try to pull down the potential Hanumana, there will be no Hanumana and Jambhavanas; we will only have mobs. A mob is a multi-headed monster without a brain or any discriminatory power.

Satyam Eva

Numerically Kurus were stronger than the Pandavas during the battle of Kurukshetra. According to democratic calculations the Pandavas had no chance of winning even with Krishna  on their side, Hanuman on their flag, and the great chariot given to Arjuna by the fire god. 

But Sanjay  confidently told Dhritharasthra, "Your sons have no chance, because Truth is on the other side, and wherever there is  truth; victory, morality, prosperity and stability is guaranteed." This  was a pre-poll analysis by Sanjay and it was spot on.

Victory ought to be viewed not from one perspective or a limited time zone, rather from wholesome perspective.Therefore the Upanishadas say, SATYAM EVA HI JAYATE,  Not simply truth will prevail, but truth certainly prevails.  

What is that wholesomeness, is it only power? Rather it is a wheel of four, Satisfaction in doing once own duty(Dharma), Intellectual, sensual, emotional gain(Artha), Fulfillment of one's desire without disturbance of dharma(Kama) and all of them together leads to continued freedom not only in other worlds but also in this world.(Moksa)

Such a person is bound to be victorious. One must follow the example of such personalities.

The Chinese visitor and Chanakya.

Once a Chinese visitor came to Pataliputra looking for Chanakya. He could not find him near the King's palace. He was told go to the outskirts of Pataliputra. Reaching the outskirts of the city, he came to one humble dwelling in a remote place. On knocking the door, he was invited in.  The visitor inquired, "where is the dwelling of Chanakya?" The  person there said, “I am Chankaya, the minister of Chandra gupta”. The visitor then realized the true opulence of Pataliputra.

He is known to have said,  "When the minister stays in a simple dwelling, the subject enjoys good housing, and when the minister lavishes on his stay, then the subject will be bereft of dwelling, and go astray."

Bhismadeva talks about the character of ministers in Anushashana parva. One of the most important qualities he mentions, is "sauchah."  Sauchah is not simply being clean externally, it indicates integrity and transparency. 

Did any one see the palace of Chhtrapati Shivaji, Rana pratap or Krsnadevaraya? None of the palaces of Kings before the colonial influence are existing,  because they did not have costly palaces. They focused on roads, forts, water and food resources.  The Maharaja’s palaces that we see, are recent ones influenced by external refines of the British rulers of their times. The dominated kings made a great display of luxury, and hence they hardly took part in the freedom struggle.

Too much of luxury makes one very self-centric, and less empathetic towards others.

Surpanakha and news

Surpankha approched Rama as she wanted to enjoy him. She went to the extent of trying to kill Sita, so that she could have Rama all to herself. When she was forced to flee by Laxmana, she went to Ravana and twisted the whole tale.  She said,  "I was amazed to see the beautiful Sita with two skinny forest dwellers and I wanted to bring her to you for your pleasure alone, because you are the only one who deserves her. And just see what they have done to me for being a selfless servant of yours. Please do something about this, and get your hands on Sita and be happy."

In fact Shurpanakha had told Rama that, Sita was skinny and useless, and she would unable to satisfy him, and only she, Shurpanakha could fulfill all his desires. She contorted the story to use for her selfish motives.

Does it ring any bells? When we read and see the bearers of truth and upholders of free speech, the journalists, paying foul with the real story, and fooling the public, it is very unfortunate.  This only creates havoc, like Shurpankha. She sowed the seed to destroy the prosperity of Lanka and destroy hundreds and thousands of soldiers.  Similarly falsity will kill integrity and cause mayhem in public life.

Find some honest reporters and follow them to understand true politics.

 Be aware of the Surpankha like reports, which can sow the seed of destruction of our discriminative intelligence.

  Falsity soars high and eventually crashes with a thud. Truth moves slowly and surely to its destination of reality and transparency.