Nice article. Thanks for sharing. Best Boopathi
On 11/1/16, Boopathi P <[email protected]> wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Karthi Govarthanan <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 19:30:18 +0530 > Subject: Indian Mythology Has a Problem With Disability- The Wire Article. > To: "uday. ganesh01" <[email protected]>, sivaramanvvs > <[email protected]>, pathisamy <[email protected]> > > Indian Mythology Has a Problem With Disability > > BY MARTAND JHA ON 31/10/2016 > > Mythology has taught us to enable discrimination against disabled people, > portraying them negatively and telling us that they deserve it because of > sins committed in past lives. > > Sanjaya meets Dhritarashtra as his envoy for peace negotiations. Credit: > Wikimedia Commons > > It is said that one can find every aspect of life in the holy > text Mahabharata and if one doesn’t find it there, then chances are little > that one will find it elsewhere. But while it is true that > the Mahabharatacontains elements of philosophy, life, war, intellect, > passion, jealousy and treachery, one element is not discussed as it should > have been: disability. The character associated with it is Dhritarashtra, > who is negatively portrayed throughout the text. In fact, many believe that > he is to blame for the epic battle between the cousins (Pandavas and > Kauravas) because he adamantly insisted that his son, Duryodhana, should be > king after him, instead of the more worthy Yudhisthira. > > Since very few people in India have actually read theMahabharata, the don’t > know about the character of Dhritarashtra before he became king – an aspect > that has been cautiously kept hidden. Both Dhritarashtra and his > step-brother Pandu had a very cordial relationship. Pandu, being the > younger brother, held Dhritarashtra in very high-esteem – and it was > reciprocated. > > Both were disciples of the great Bhishma, their uncle who was also looking > after the administration of the kingdom since there was no king on the > throne at the time. Bhishma himself couldn’t take the throne because of a > vow he had made earlier in his life. Since Dhritarashtra was older, he was > trained to be a king, while the younger brother, Pandu, was trained as a > warrior and lead the army and become thesenapati. Bhishma trained the > brothers so the kingdom could go into safe hands. > > Bhishma’s idea was sage, because Dhritarashtra was visually impaired from > birth and thus couldn’t fight wars. He was trained in administration, > management, decision-making, delivering justice – all very important > aspects of being a king, while the aspect of war was left to Pandu, who > could militarily assist his older brother. As a team, they could have > achieved wonders. > > But when Dhritarashtra was being crowned, Vidur, the young prime minister, > who was also taught by Bhishma, objected to him becoming king. How can a > blind man sit on the throne of a king, he had argued. How could the kingdom > be a great empire if the king is blind? How could important decisions be > made on the battlefield if the king is sitting safe in the capital? > > Nobody said anything to Vidur’s questions because a king with a disability > was unprecedented. As a result, Dhritarashtra had to step down; his > disability was taken as his inability. Denied his rightful place, this > became a turning point for Dhritarashtra and guided the person he was to > become. > > After a short period of time though, Dhritarashtra was made the king > because Pandu left his throne and eventually died. It was only out of > compulsion that Dhritarashtra was accepted as king. Had he been made king > the first time around, he wouldn’t have been made as conscious about his > ‘disability’. Now, he was a ‘sloppy second’, someone’s ‘reject’ and he knew > this very clearly. Now the question is, when Dhritarashtra sat on the > throne, was the Kaurava empire anything short of a mighty empire? Was the > administration poor, were people unhappy, was justice not delivered? The > answer is no, because Dhritarashtra had people like Bhishma around him, > along with Vidur, who took care of the intricacies of administration. > > All the wrongs began to emerge later, when his son Duryodhana was born. > Dhirtarastra wanted him to be king after him, even though Duryodhana was > unworthy, simply because he wanted to ‘undo’ the injustice done to him. He > wanted to ensure that his son wouldn’t be a ‘sloppy second’ like him and > that’s why his son was raised believing the throne was his birthright. > > Nobody is born bad but it’s society which ‘makes’ or ‘breaks’ an > individual. Our society just saw the bad person Dhritarashtra became, but > turned a blind eye to what led him there. Since he was disabled, people who > have historically discriminated against differently-abled people were > further encouraged to justify their attitude towards differently-abled > people. > > One may wonder what mythology has to do in this context. Indian society is > deeply affected by our mythology and its characters. The illiterate know > about these stories. The impact of our mythology is such that people > identify with the characters and inculcate values drawn from them into > their own lives. The depiction and characterisation of disabled people in > Indian mythology is extremely negative and people have used the stories to > justify their discriminatory attitude against differently-abled people. > > The case of Dhritarashtra is not just about a disabled person has been > depicted in poor light. If one looks at the Ramayana, the character of > Manthara has also been demonised to a great extent. In fact, she has > largely been blamed for sending Rama on exile for 14 years. Manthara was > the maid of the queen, Kaikeyi, and is seen as instrumental in convincing > the queen to ask Dasharatha to grant her the two boons that he had promised > her a long time ago. Under Manthara’s influence, Kaikeyi asked the king to > make his son Bharat the next king of Ayodhaya instead of Rama. > However, some folktales point out how Manthara didn’t have anything to gain > by sending Ram to exile. Instead, she suffered heavy public scrutiny that > linked her character to her orthopaedic disability, because of which she > couldn’t stand erect. > > Mostly, our mythological texts have shown disabled people either as > powerful, cunning and mischievous characters or as beggars in a state of > extreme pain and poverty. Also, disability and mocking disability is > justified in the name of sins carried from their previous births. Rarely > can one encounter disabled characters in a positive light. One such > character was Ashtavakra, who was physically disabled since birth. Born in > a Brahmin family, he mastered the Vedasand other holy scriptures at an > early age. He was mocked by the intellectuals in King Janaka’s court on > account of his disability, where he had gone to participate in a > shastrartha(philosophical debate). > > Ultimately, he defeated his mockers and earned a lot of praise from > everyone. But this story from the Chandogya Upanishad sets a dangerous > precedent, if observed carefully. The subtext is that if you are > intellectually capable, your physical disability doesn’t matter. Then, if a > disabled person is not an intellectual, does it gives others the right to > mock his or her disability? The moral seems to be that a disabled person > has to be extraordinary to earn basic respect, a phenomenon that continues > today. > > The time has come to ask tough questions, to point out the wrong messages > which have been disseminated by these texts and to re-interpret these texts > in the light of the present day situations so that differently-abled people > are not judged by the wrong morals of our mythological texts that relegate > disability and disabled people to negativity. > > In "Rights" > Categories: Rights > > Tagged as: Chandogya Upanishad,disability > rights, Mahabharata,mythology, Pandavas and Kauravas,Ramayana. > > The Wire is published by the Foundation for Independent Journalism, a > not-for-profit company registered under Section 8. > > The Wire’s journalism is partly fundedby the Independent and Public > Spirited Media Foundation. > > > > -- > Regards > Boopathi P > PhD research scholar, > department of English Literature, > School of literary studies, > EFL University. > Hyderabad-500007 > India. > Mobile: +91-9843693951 > -- Regards Boopathi P PhD research scholar, department of English Literature, School of literary studies, EFL University. Hyderabad-500007 India. Mobile: +91-9843693951 Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
