Contd.....
Me, My Guru
Just ignore a mad man and drunkard’s words and continue to lead the life the usual way.
Result : if one man said, there is a possibility of many saying it in future. That means he would be king of subjects who didn’t ‘respect and trust’ its king. Don’t see this from today’s politicians’ point of view for whom it is always “Me first, me first” and whose only motto is “I should have my seat (post) at any cost”.
We are talking about a man whole life agenda was to live by ‘Dharma’ and not as he pleased. Even otherwise, in those days most of the just and kind kings would adhere to this policy of respecting their subjects’ wishes. So this conflict! King is one who has his subjects’ respect and trust and so it was imperative to win their trust at all cost to rule for their welfare.
Option B: Kill ‘the man’ who uttered such sinful and wrong words and thereby hush up the whole affair.
Reason against it: He was no Muslim invader or a Hitler. He was not a bloody dictator. There is difference between acts of a dictation and a just king.
Option C: Leave with Sita to the forest entrusting Bharata the Kingdom since he has experience of already managing the affairs for the past 14 years.
Reason against it: People would say “Look at this family which doesn’t know to fulfill its duty and word at all! How can we trust Bharata who did not rule us all these years as our king? He acted only as a proxy. How can we trust him who is afraid of taking any responsibility?
Ikshwaku dynasty was the one known to keep up ‘its’ word. Now, that reputation would no longer hold good as both Rama and Bharata (who took over kingdom again from Rama) have gone back from their words.
This aspect has to be understood culturally. You can’t respect this from western or Arabic mindset which believes in colonization, annexation at all costs – for whom possession is all that matters in life!
Me, My Guru
He weighed his
decision and it’s implication completely before arriving at a decision.
Option A:-
Just ignore a mad man and drunkard’s words and continue to lead the life the usual way.
Result : if one man said, there is a possibility of many saying it in future. That means he would be king of subjects who didn’t ‘respect and trust’ its king. Don’t see this from today’s politicians’ point of view for whom it is always “Me first, me first” and whose only motto is “I should have my seat (post) at any cost”.
We are talking about a man whole life agenda was to live by ‘Dharma’ and not as he pleased. Even otherwise, in those days most of the just and kind kings would adhere to this policy of respecting their subjects’ wishes. So this conflict! King is one who has his subjects’ respect and trust and so it was imperative to win their trust at all cost to rule for their welfare.
Option B: Kill ‘the man’ who uttered such sinful and wrong words and thereby hush up the whole affair.
Reason against it: He was no Muslim invader or a Hitler. He was not a bloody dictator. There is difference between acts of a dictation and a just king.
Option C: Leave with Sita to the forest entrusting Bharata the Kingdom since he has experience of already managing the affairs for the past 14 years.
Reason against it: People would say “Look at this family which doesn’t know to fulfill its duty and word at all! How can we trust Bharata who did not rule us all these years as our king? He acted only as a proxy. How can we trust him who is afraid of taking any responsibility?
Ikshwaku dynasty was the one known to keep up ‘its’ word. Now, that reputation would no longer hold good as both Rama and Bharata (who took over kingdom again from Rama) have gone back from their words.
This aspect has to be understood culturally. You can’t respect this from western or Arabic mindset which believes in colonization, annexation at all costs – for whom possession is all that matters in life!
Contd.....
No comments:
Post a Comment