Bagavad Gita

 Gandhari chose to blindfold herself because her husband was blind. Why did she marry him in the first place?

Bhishma played a significant role in this. He was acutely aware of the need to continue the Kuru dynasty though he had sacrificed his claim and chose bachelorhood to foreclose future claims from his descendants. Bhishma wanted to ensure that Dhritharashtra would have a male progeny. He set about solving this problem in a scientific way. Define the goal, constraints and alternatives and arrive at an optimal solution.

Bhishma worked out his problem as follows:

 Objective: to find a life partner for Dhritharashtra.

Constraints: 1) She must be a princess.

2)She must not know his blindness before marriage

3) She must deliver a male progeny without fail.

The constraints were daunting. Bhishma did not give up. He came up with a solution that satisfied all the constraints. After considering many princesses, he zeroed in on Gandhari in a way any problem-solver would admire.

Gandhari was a princess of a kingdom called Gandhar. It was a place in present day Afghanistan. Every place has a unique feature. The feature may not be praiseworthy. Afghanistan was and is a place where women do not enjoy equal freedom with men. Those were the days when, in other parts of Bharat, women chose their husbands through Swayamwara. Elopement was not unknown. (Rukmini and Krishna.) How to ensure that the would-be wife would not know the groom's blindness? Afghanistan provided the answer.

Gandhari was a stoic lady who discovered her husband's blindness only after marriage. The epic brings out all human qualities. We may not admire all qualities. But knowing about them is educative. How to satisfy the third constraint? This is where Bhishma's knowledge stood out. He knew that Gandhari had obtained a boon from Lord Shiva that she would beget 100 sons. Bhishma was confident that this was enough of a guarantee to ensure continuation of the Kuru dynasty.

Gandhari was totally devoted to her husband. This gave her enormous spiritual powers. Whoever she looked at with affection would become enormously powerful. She wanted to have one look at her eldest son, Duryodana. Krishna knew this and arranged for this exceptional meet between mother and son. He also made sure that Duryodana had a large loinscloth when the fleeting meeting took place. The consequence was that Duryodana became very strong ; his body could withstand any attack in warfare; his thighs were covered and so his thighs became his Achilles heel. This was exploited by Krishna and he advised the Pandavas at the right time how to get rid of Duryodana.

Bagavad Gita (contd)

 In the sixth verse, Duryodana completes his enumeration of warriors on the Pandava side. He ends with reference to "Draupadi's" five sons. Just like the first reference namely 'Saatyaki', this last one also is significant. The mention of 'Saatyaki' was supposed to kindle hatred for Arjuna in Drona's mind. Reference to Draupadi's sons is the outcome of Duryodana's obsessive thought about her. It is an exposure of his revengeful thought.

Duryodana was insulted by Draupadi on an earlier occasion. (This is supposed by some to be a later day addition to Mahabharata and not in the original. The original itself is too voluminous for our comprehension!)

Duryodana was visiting the place of Pandavas. The assembly hall was astoundingly resplendent. As Duryodana was taking in its luxury, he mistook a lake of water for crystal floor, slipped and got wet. Bhima saw this and laughed aloud. Draupadi was not there. But Duryodana imagined she was there and that she also made fun of him. He took it as an insult. (Some of us have a need to feel insulted.) Duryodana wanted to avenge this insult. What better way than to kill her sons! So he specifically mentioned their names so that Drona would remember to do away with them. During the war, Aswatthama, Drona's son, killed them while they were asleep.

In life, we come across many imaginary situations perceived as insults misleading us to adharmic acts.

Bagavad Gita (contd)

Sanjaya continues to inform Dhritharashtra what  Duryodana is haranguing / pleading with Drona. Duryodana is intent on defeating the Pandava forces by hook or by crook. He has not realised that for every hook of his, Krishna has a more effective hook. He is under the delusion that he is up against Arjuna. The fact is that he is pitted against Krishna, the invincible. Earlier we discussed the metaphorical interpretation of Sanjaya's ability to see what is invisible to others. There is also an episode to continue the non-metaphorical narrative.

Vyasa offers to provide his son, Dhritharashtra the Divya Dhrishti (Divine Vision) to enable him to see what is happening in the battlefield. The son spontaneously rejects the offer but requests that it be provided to Sanjaya. Why is it that the blind Dhritharashtra does not want to see the battle? If he was confident about his son's victory, he would have seized the divine opportunity. Did something tell him that things would not go his son's way? The father's scepticism was matched by the son's anxiety. Yet, they would continue the war. Such is the misleading power of greed and spite.

Could Vyasa not persuade his son to advise his son to give up the suicidal path? There is a clue available in the literal meaning of the word , Vyasa. Vyasa means 'classifier' or 'divider' or analyst. He classified the Vedas in to 4 parts and thus earned the name Veda Vyasa. For good decisions, one has to analyse and then synthesise to arrive at an optimal solution. Vyasa could only analyse and then leave the decision to the other party.

Vyasa is gifted with Divya Dhrishti permanently. (He is also immortal, a Chiranjeevi.) He could also provide this gift to others, but for only a limited time. Is it not ironic that a person endowed with such a grand vision fathered a son who was born blind? (This gives rise to a Tamil proverb, "A teacher's son is a fool",)

Divya Dhristi can also see what is happening in people's minds, the present and also the past events. Thus Vyasa was able to bring before him the past events so that he could chronicle them correctly.

Dhritharashtra's wife, Gandhari, blindfolded herself after her marriage as she did not want to witness what her husband could not see. If Dhritharashtra had accepted the Divine Vision, Gandhari would have removed her blindfold and she too would have been told about the carnage involving the deaths of their sons, then and there. Did the husband want to protect the wife from this worst tragedy that could ever visit a mother?

Bagavad Gita (contd.)

 Why did Duryodana mention the name of Drupada's son while addressing Drona? This is a lesson in the art of advocacy! Duryodana wanted to arouse the base instincts of hostility in Drona's mind. What is a more effective tool for this than to invite attention to past enmity? Drona and Drupada were once classmates and thick friends. The friendship was so strong that Drupada promised Drona that he would give one half of his kingdom to Drona in future. Drona forgot all this till an occasion arose. Drona was satisfied with a penurious life. His son, Aswatthama was a friend of Duryodana; they were playmates too. One day, Duryodana told Aswatthama that he liked milk which he drank every day. Aswatthama had not seen milk till then and so he asked his parents to give him milk. Love for one's children changes the direction of many lives. Drona was now caught in this spiral. He remembered Drupada's promise. He went to Drupada who was now king. When Drona reminded Drupada his assurance, Drupada was upset. "We are not equals now and therefore we are not friends now. A king that I am cannot share his wealth with a commoner that you are. Don't live in the past." Thus Drupada repudiated his own promise. Had Drona asked for milk or for a cow, Drupada would have readily obliged. But the eagerness to satisfy one's child's desire blinds some people to reality. Drona returned home disappointed. Later on, Drona avenged Drupada's letdown by capturing his kingdom through Arjuna and went on to ensure his death in the Kurukshetra battle. Drona's animosity to Drupada was leveraged by Duryodana to remind him of the past when reference was made to Dhrishtadumna, Drupada's son. Duryodana was an intelligent administrator but bitterness towards cousins and resultant greed (or was it vice versa?) caused his downfall.

Bhima and Arjuna are among the Pandavas. There is no surprise they are in the battle field. Duryodana names Yuyudhana alias Saatyaki first; this is with a view to poison Drona's mind a little more. Yuyudhana was in Krishna's forces. As Krishna had agreed, he must be in the Kaurava army. But he is not. Why? Has Krishna violated his own word? No. There is a rule that a disciple should not fight one's guru. Yuyudhana  was trained in warfare by Arjuna. So there was nothing wrong in his supporting Arjuna. Here we find one dharmic principle (fulfilment of Krishna's promise) in contradiction to another (disciple standing by the guru). There are many such tradeoffs in Mahabharata. The subtle way in which such quandaries are resolved in this epic makes interesting reading. Duryodana seems to tell Drona, "Your disciple Arjuna is battling you; contrarily Arjuna's disciple is with him. You are wronged." This is to create malice and hatred in Drona's mind against Arjuna.

There is a saying that there is nothing that happens in the world that is not in the Mahabharata.

Bagavad Gita

 Sarvam SriKrishnarpanam!

There is a metaphorical explanation for a blind person asking his aide to tell him what happens in a place that the latter also does not see. Sanjaya means a person who has conquered himself / his senses. So if we are self-controlled, we can do what normal people cannot.

The meanings of most verses are recondite and multiple. One can dig as much as one has either patience or interest for. Time and temperament to understand will be the constraints. Sometimes reading a couple or more verses together will be more meaningful. For example, the second verse and the third make a unified pair.

Prima-facie, the third verse reads like a bland statement from Duryodana to Drona. If we relate this statement to some past events, more meanings emerge. After Krishna's mediation efforts ended, Krishna was taking rest, pretending to be asleep. Duryodana goes to Krishna to probe his mind and seats himself near Krishna's face. Arjuna comes later and stands near Krishna's feet. One person's hubris and the other's humility are demonstrated by these acts. Krishna 'wakes up' and looks at Arjuna first and enquires what he wants. Duryodana interrupts and tells Krishna that he came first and therefore he is entitled to be heard first. Krishna now poses a question to Duryodana. "Now that the war is certain, do you want me or my armed forces with you?" This appears to be a no-brainer to Duryodana who settles for the armed forces. This is why Krishna unhesitatingly came on the Pandava side. Now back to Duryodana's bland statement. This betrays envy, taunt, anger and trepidation. Drona was the Acharya to both Pandavas and Kauravas. His favourite student was Arjuna. Duryodana calls the Pandava army mighty. Actually it was much smaller than his own because Krishna's forces were with him as he had already arranged with Krishna. Despite his superiority in numbers, Duryodana develops cold feet and becomes fearful. This is what happens when one is unjust. Duryodana taunts Drona pointing out his partiality towards Arjuna. Duryodana is envious that Drona had perhaps taught better skills to Arjuna against whom he has to fight. So Duryodana refers to 'your wise disciple'.

The Hindu and China

 The Hindu published a full-page advertisement on behalf of the People's Republic of China on October 1st. Questions were raised in the social media about the propriety of the newspaper (Indian?) sporting this advertisement when China had started border clashes with us. The newspaper calls this as a vicious campaign against itself. 'Vicious' according to Merriam -Webster dictionary means 'dangerously aggressive', 'marked by violence or ferocity', 'malicious, spiteful', 'having the quality of immorality', 'defective, faulty' and 'impure, noxious'. We do not know what The Hindu means.

The Hindu has now responded to the 'vicious' campaign adopting what it calls 'a rational view'. The newspaper has justified the publication on the following grounds: 

1) It was clearly marked as an advertisement. (So what? The so-called vicious campaigners recognised this as an advertisement only)

2) It was from a neighbouring nation-state, with whom India has excellent diplomatic relations. (This is a breathtaking justification. I feel too paralysed to respond.)

3) Can we use the Galwan valley exchanges, where the PM himself is yet to name the aggressor, to deny advertising space to an embassy to celebrate its foundation day? (The newspaper ought to know who is the aggressor. Does The Hindu think India is the aggressor? If the PM had named China as the aggressor, would the Sinophiliac newspaper have refused to carry the ad? Does The Hindu want many more of our soldiers to be killed by China before stopping such advertisements?

4) We have trade relations with China. (Trade with China cannot stop abruptly. So continuing trade with China does not mean the newspaper must advertise for China.)

China has violated our sovereignty. Similarly, it has border disputes with many neighbours. If the newspaper is unaware of this, it is moribund. China has done injustice to the entire world by exporting the Wuhan virus. By associating with China, The Hindu is complicit in China's anti-world activities.

9So what?)

'Constitutional' protests

 The Chief Justice of India, while hearing the petition regarding farmers' protests, has observed that protests are constitutional as long as they do not endanger lives and damage property. This is a simplistic and controversial observation. This amounts to legalising gheraos and bandhs. 

Police has no authority to prevent constitutional activities. If a group of people blocks a road (minor or major road makes no difference) and if this activity is certified as constitutional by the highest judicial functionary in the country, how can the innocent public exercise its right to free movement? Does the CJI say that we have a constitutional right to inconvenience others in whatever way we want provided we desist from hitting them or damaging their property?

It appears that the anarchist forces are succeeding in perverting the course of justice. Farmer unions have welcomed various observations made by the court as a moral victory for them. In that case, they must be happy about the suggestions of the Supreme Court. They have also claimed that setting up new panels as suggested by the court will not resolve concerns. Are they happy that the issue will not be resolved?

The Supreme Court is losing its direction because of lobbying by the media. For example, The Hindu today carries an article by Mr.Harish Khare containing direct attacks on the Supreme Court and indirect attack on Modi. (Attacks on Modi and disparaging statements on institutions like courts are an essential requirement for publication of an article in the newspaper.)

Khare argues that 'judges are not in the business of soothing and smoothing.' What is the sin committed by the Supreme Court to warrant this argument? The author is annoyed that the court has shown politeness in dealing with the central government. While passing an order on Central Vista inauguration, the court had said, "We thought we were dealing with a prudent litigant and deference will be shown.... We have shown deference to you and expected that you will act in a prudent manner. The same deference should be shown to the court and there should be no demolition or construction." This is a polite way of warning the government to know its limits. But Khare is aghast that the court is polite towards the government. He calls this 'a protocol of deference' that is 'baffling and inexplicable.'

Deference means respect and politeness. In a democracy, institutions like courts and the government are not expected to deal with one another impolitely or disrespectfully. Anarchists are desperate to create misunderstanding and animosity among institutions.

Khare is unaware that firmness can be exercised politely. Such writers only endeavour to browbeat the judiciary into submission to their extraneous and heinous agenda of causing unrest in the country. He accuses the High Courts of being 'plainly unsympathetic to those who have had reason to critique and protest the Citizenship (Amendment) Act'. Do we see the cat out of the bag now? 

Harish Khare concludes his intimidation of the judiciary arguing that in the absence of 'countervailing judicial constraints' on the government, the 'kisans are manning the barricades at the Sindhu border' !

There is no wonder that the CJI is bullied enough to make the observation mentioned in the first paragraph.

Role of opposition in a democracy

 Democracy is a fragile political system that can be nurtured and sustained only if the parties both in government and the opposition play their roles responsibly. Otherwise democracy will degenerate in to dictatorship or anarchy.

It is the duty of the government to act in accordance with the Constitution. It is only to be expected that the policies of the ruling party and the opposition parties are different. They are not Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Therefore, many steps taken by the government will not be agreeable to the opposition, though they are perfectly legal. In such cases, the opposition can express its views but does not have the right to torpedo the government moves.

The opposition can also contest the government action legally. Adoption of demonstrations to create nuisance, inconvenience and traffic snarls are blatantly anti-democratic.

It is unfortunate that almost all opposition parties in our country now or earlier have misunderstood or misinterpreted their role. For example Ms.Kanimozhi, an M.P. from Tamil Nadu has argued in the Madras High Court that accusing the Chief Minister of corruption amounts to discharge of her duty as an elected representative of the people! In her view, this accusation cannot be a cause for a criminal defamation case. The honourable M.P. has not produced any evidence of corruption before the court and has gone on to add that she has said only Edappadi in her speech which is the subject matter of the criminal case and that this is not necessarily a reference to the Chief Minister Edappadi K.Palaniswami. This is a disingenuous argument that cuts little ice.

If the opposition thinks that its function is only to criticise and deactivate the government on an ongoing basis, there cannot be anything but inertia in the country's economy. This will only lead to widening the distance between the voters and the opposition. This is what seems to be happening in our country as the results of many recent elections show. Opposition's acts need to be such as to regain the confidence of the voters. If the acts only betray bitterness towards the party in power, they will only ensure a longer term in power for the ruling party.

mRNA

 mRNA (messenger RNA) is a molecule of RNA that is read by a ribosome while forming a protein. Its history is interesting and it epitomises the significance of global efforts. mRNA is now in the news because Pfizer - BioNTech and Moderna have developed mRNA-based  vaccines against COVID-19.

Existence of mRNA was conceptualised / visualised by Jacques Monod, a French biochemist and Francois Jacob, a French biologist. Later it was discovered by Sydney Brenner, a South African biologist.

An Hungarian biochemist, Katalin Kariko,  revolutionised the understanding of mRNA by speculating on its various uses. She even suggested its utility in vaccine development. She was far ahead of her times. Her views were not taken seriously by other scientists. (Her daughter, Susan Francia won Olympic Gold Medal twice in rowing.)

The Turkish couple, Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci, set up the biotech company, BioNTech in Germany and developed the vaccine against COVID-19. The vaccine is marketed by Pfizer, an American pharma company. It is manufactured in Puurs, Belgium.

The first regulatory approval was given in the U.K.

Interfaith Marriage

 Interfaith alliance is a perennial hot potato. There is a lot of controversy of late about marriages between persons of different religions. In particular, Hindu brides marrying Muslim bridegrooms are attracting suspicious notice by some state governments as a device for forcible conversions.

Religious conversions are not prohibited by law. But forcible conversions are unlawful. The argument against the government intervention is that these conversions are of persons who are adults and as such involve legitimate exercise of freedom of conscience. 

There is a lot of truth in the statement that love is blind. It requires an inordinate amount of rational jingoism to claim otherwise. Love is an emotion. There is nothing wrong about emotion. In fact, in the absence of emotions, life will be an unbearable drudgery. However, it is illicit to exploit emotions as a religious tool for conversion.

Love is a strong emotion that prods an individual to do even untypical acts. A person in love is prone to perform some acts which the person would not do otherwise. It would be unlawful to take advantage of this emotion to convert a person's religion. At the same time, it would amount to denial of fundamental right if a person is forced not to marry a person of his or her choice. 

So, what is the way out? It may be legislated that interfaith marriages need to be performed only under the Special Marriage Act. This would legitimise the marriage and also obviate the need for conversion. Under the Muslim personal law, marriage with a non-Muslim is in most cases a nullity.

HDFC Bank

 HDFC Bank is arguably one of the most respected banks in India. Its digital facilities have recently been plagued by frequent outages. (In digitals, even one outage is deemed frequent.) The customers have reasons to be dissatisfied. Its reputation is so robust that the banking regulator, RBI, would think twice before reprimanding it.

On December 2nd, RBI imposed some curbs on extension of digital services by the bank. For instance, the bank is prohibited to issue any new credit card. These curbs will be removed after the failures are rectified. The bank's Board has been advised to examine these lapses and fix accountability. A real reputational loss for HDFC Bank.

What is stated above is bad enough; on top of this, the assurance given to its customers is baffling. The bank has informed the exchanges, "The  Bank  has  been  taking  conscious,  concrete  steps  to  remedy  the  recent  outages  on  its  digital  banking  channels  and  assures  its  customers  that  it  expects  the  current  supervisory  actions  will  have  no  impact  on  its  existing  credit  cards,  digital  banking channels and existing operations."

In brief, the bank 'expects' that its customers will not be adversely impacted. This is not an assurance. This is only a statement conveying expectation. One really expects this bank to communicate more responsibly.

This amateurish response may be because HDFC Bank is not used to being in a tight corner. This is a real test for the new MD.

More (Less?) on COVID-19

 The more the information that we get about COVID-19, the less we seem to know about it. This is strange, but this is what makes the disease very challenging.

Any disease can be fully defined or understood only if there are unambiguous details about its symptoms, prevention and cure. There are people who imagine they have a disease though they do not have any symptoms and clinically they are disease-free. We call them hypochondriacs. Asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 (as the virus causing COVID-19 is called) may be called the reverse hypochondriacs. They deny the existence of COVID-19 in their case, but doctors assert they are diseased.

The whole world seems to be cheering the sighting of vaccines with 90 -plus % efficacy. This is despite Merck, a large pharma company that has been a pioneer in introduction of many vaccines, throwing cold water on the cheering billions. Merck wonders how it is possible to engineer a vaccine against a virus whose behaviour remains largely enigmatic now. Merck ought to know!

Pfizer and Moderna have designed a gene-modifying m-RNA based vaccine. The long term effects of GM products are mostly unknown. Vaccines are to be administered to the entire global population. Is  humanity becoming a global guinea pig?

About the cure, the less said the better. EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation), repurposed medicine and immunity boosters are bandied about as if we have caught the virus by the scruff of its neck. The virus continues to hold us as its hostage.