BROTHER, HUSBAND, KINSMEN, CONFLICT

Karma operates at the deepest level of our being. Therefore its working cannot be grasped without rigorous introspection and true empathy with another person’s condition. Nonetheless, all of us do pick up hints now and then, from ancient stories and from the life around us.

A famous story in the Bible has Cain asking God, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’

Cain was denying any responsibility for the well-being of his younger bother Abel and – by implication – for the well-being of other human beings. In fact the jealous Cain had killed Abel prior to this exchange with God, and therefore that question was also Cain’s attempt to cover up his horrendous crime. The story goes that, thereafter, Cain lived the life of a restless wanderer.

[Atheists amongst us may take ‘God’ to refer to the timeless, most precious truth which lies at the deepest core of our being. In that view, one would say that Cain was here attempting to repress his guilt and persuade himself that he was not responsible for his brother’s well-being. Or, in very simple language, Cain was here cheating none but himself.]

Something similar can happen today. Imagine that, in a neighbouring house, a man murders his brother and then runs away. But even as he runs away from the city, can the murderer run away from his own guilty self? Can he find peace of mind anywhere? Will he or his family ever be able to live a normal life?

Less dramatic versions of such a situation are common. Suppose A is in some legal trouble of his own making, and his brother B has to decide whether – or to what extent – he should extend help. After all, B has his own family to look after, and A is not exactly a virtuous, likeable person.

Depending on other specifics and constraints, B will decide whether or how much to help A. If B helps A from a sense of family responsibility, that is certainly a good deed on B’s part. But suppose that A curses under his breath and grumbles that the help is insufficient. Then, even while accepting help from his brother, A is adding to his own burden of negative Karma.

The point here is that both A and B are individually responsible for their actions, even as the two participate in an act involving them both. Material help is transferable, but the burden of Karma is not. B’s good deed cannot make A a better person; for that, A has no choice but to put in his own effort.

---

Valmiki, the great ancient Indian poet, was a dreaded dacoit in the earlier years of his life, supporting his family thereby. One day the renowned sage Narada chanced upon him and – we assume – judged in an instant that the dacoit was capable of greater things than dacoity. Narada gently asked the dacoit whether he thought his beloved family members would share in the inevitable payback of Karma that must follow all his cruel acts.

‘But of course they would! Am I not doing all this for them?’, the naïve dacoit replied confidently. The sage smiled, bade him well and went his way. At home, the dacoit’s clear-headed wife explained to him the facts of life, that he alone was morally responsible for his acts. While supporting the family was his duty, the family had no part in his choice of cruel means of earning livelihood.

Later, with further help from Narada, the dacoit understood that crucial point. He resolved to gain full insight into all such critical and universal moral issues, and went on to write the magnificent moral epic Ramayana. Over millennia, this epic has contributed immensely to Indian culture.

---

On the eve of the great battle of Mahabharata, warrior prince Arjuna had serious doubts about the morality of fighting his own kinsmen. In fact those kinsmen had, over many years, done huge injustice to Arjuna and his family. They had arrogantly challenged Arjuna and his brothers to fight for their fair share of the kingdom, leaving war as the only option. And yet Arjuna had grave doubts, because the army he saw arrayed in front of him was made up of his close kinsmen and also his respected teachers.

Through divine inspiration, Arjuna understood that it was his duty to fight the righteous war, even against close kinsmen arrayed on the opposite side. His side finally won the incredibly bloody war. But theirs was a Pyrrhic victory, since even the winning side lost a huge number of close relatives, kinsmen and allies in the war. Arjuna himself lost two dear sons.

Years later, Arjuna’s eldest brother Yudhisthir reached his final moment of reckoning, depicted in the epic poem as the final checkpoint on the road to heaven. It was Yudhisthir’s last wish to be allowed to take his beloved pet dog with him across the checkpoint. But his last wish was summarily denied. He had to proceed on his own. He alone was accountable for his life’s Karma; the dog would not be allowed to meddle in the process of judgement.

Yudhisthir and Arjuna were among the good guys in the story of Mahabharata. At critical junctures in life, they had been privy to divine guidance. Arjuna was a renowned archer, and his elder brother Yudhisthir was famous for his superb moral judgement. And yet, in spite of their many excellent qualities, the good guys too had to face the inevitable payback of Karma.

---

If the laws of Karma are eternal, then it is not a big change of topic to go from an ancient war to a recent one. A historian may count the lapse of three thousand years between the two wars, but Karma applies just the same to both – as indeed it does to all other conflicts of mankind.

We may recall that, in the last decade of the twentieth century, the western countries won a decisive victory in the five decade long Cold War against USSR. The sense of jubilation and hubris in the west was limitless. Western savants proclaimed – with unabashed arrogance – ‘the End of History’ and the dawn of a never-ending era of the so-called ‘liberal democracies’ which had won the Cold War.

However, the short period since then has seen huge – and totally unexpected – geopolitical changes. Capricious history has most definitely not ended. It has instead turned forcefully and irresistibly to entirely new directions. That ‘End of History’ claim of the 1990s now sounds like a comedy act.

Did the western savants of two decades ago have no insight into the inexorable working of historical Karma? Were they not capable of honest introspection and empathy? While crowing about their victory, did they underestimate – or perhaps even lose sight of – other players on the world stage? Can history ever end?

According to many analysts, not ‘History’ but something else is ending; namely, a 500 year long period of brutal colonization by western countries.

Naturally, questions arise. What kind of world order will prevail over the next hundred years? Are we seeing countries of the world jockeying for position in that new order? Does anybody has the answers?

[To be continued … ]