Physician, heal thyself!

Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (IIMA) is the 'go to place' for managerial wisdom. For more than half a century, this institute has been nurturing managerial talent through its flagship programme 'PGP' and various executive programmes. Founded by Vikram Sarabhai, the IIMA brand was bolstered by doyens like Ravi J.Mathai, Kamla Chaudhry and S.K.Bhattacharya. In its formative years, IIMA had technical collaboration with Harvard Business School, the Mecca of management.

One expects that an institute with such an enviable pedigree will not be found wanting when a decision is called for. The art of management can be summarised as decision-making and decision-implementation. IIMA is now avalanched not by an intractable problem but by a mundane issue that affects the safety of its residents.

The excellence of the professors and students in the Vastrapur campus is matched by the beauty and functionality of its architecture. This frontal elegance was the handiwork of a world-renowned architect, Louis Kahn. The exposed red bricks are at once a statement of fashion and function. The dormitories, library and other buildings, unfortunately, were not built strong enough to withstand the massive tremor that struck Gujarat in the year 2001.

The buildings developed cracks in various places; repairs were carried out in patches hoping that the famed architect's  masterpiece would not undergo any further strain. But the damage was regressive and in the recent past, the red bricks were coming apart. Being overly possessive about its architecture, the institute 'restored' the library and one dormitory by retaining the exterior and partially modifying the interior. The architect in charge of restoration gave a clean chit to its safety post-restoration (was it not to be expected?) An independent architect differed and warned about the buildings' inability to weather further shocks.

Any institution facing this literal existential crisis would have decided to reconstruct the dorms to ensure total safety of the students. But not IIMA, the institution that teaches the best of problem-solving strategies and tactics. It dithered like Arjuna in Kurukshetra. Unfortunately, there was no Krishna around to advise IIMA, "You are not the decaying body (building); you are the undying atman (managerial skills that you teach)"

Now the institute has started quivering. Earlier, it took the right decision to rebuild the dorms. All hell broke loose; Louis Kahn's family and assorted busybodies are warning against any damage to the original structure. Heritage / legacy is to be protected as long as it is economically viable and does not pose safety hazards. Heritage vs Safety ought to have been a no-brainer. Sadly, Homer has nodded and fallen a prey to indecision.

Politician Rajinikanth

 It is not necessary for one to be in politics to behave like a politician. Superstar Rajinikanth's behaviour proves this. He kept the state on tenterhooks anxious to know what he would announce on December 31st. But, a few days before the year came to an end, he made an announcement that satisfied, shocked, stunned or surprised people. 

Thalaivar who is often caricatured as superhuman has supported various parties in the past. Puratchi Thalaivi Jayalalithaa was his neighbour at Poes Garden. It should not surprise us if they had some common qualities. They had some contrary qualities also.

A capable politician makes us believe that he is what he claims to be. Rajini claimed to be a spiritualist who wanted to purify the muddy politics of Tamil Nadu. One political party was afraid he might actually do that. Another party hoped he would indeed do that. A third party was confused what the Rajini-inclusive polity would be like.

He suffered fluctuations in blood pressure while in Hyderabad and was admitted to hospital. (Did he entice BP to dance to his tunes?) His BP was stabilised; but the "Warning from God" (who else can warn the superstar?) forced him to decide to deny politics his entry.

Without entering politics, Rajini established his credentials as a super politician.

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'.