Krishna In Kurukshetra War

1231 Words5 Pages
Bankim highlights that the role of Krishna in Kurukshetra war is of crucial significance as the war of Kurukshetra and Bhagavad Gita (one of the most prominent philosophical and religious treatises of Hindu religion) presents the true nature of Krishna. The Krishna of Kurukshetra is not just another mythologized figure, but a historically real person, who was a great political figure and spiritual leader. For Bankim, the heroic figure of Krishna was necessary to meet the urgent needs of his compatriots and to instil a sense of responsibility and pride in the colonised Indians. This “original Krishna” according to Bankim, was not a symbol of sexuality, sensuality and emotionalism, who was more interested in love than war. He replaced the erotic…show more content…
The Bhagavad Gita begins with Arjuna’s hesitancy to act and ends with his readiness to fight. Bankim points out that it was due to Krishna’s advice that made Arjuna change his mind. Krishna reminds him that it was his duty to fight and take action when Arjuna wanted to back out of the fight, fearing that it would entail the death of Bhishma and the others. “The Mahabharata does not explicitly say this but what we find in it’s pages is that Krishna was only a human being, but probably, the wisest and the brightest human being of his time.” Bankimchandra, and several other nationalists, made use of Gita as an instrument to awaken people and incite them to fight against colonial rule. He argues in the Krishna Charitra that Karma is the primary means to acquire dharma. For Bankim, It was necessary to reform Krishna’s figure, completely transform it so that it could serve as an example of a much needed powerful historical figure, with his unique sense of wisdom and intelligence. In order to develop a strong militant race, it was necessary for Bankim to put forward before his compatriots the ideal man, the Krishna, a man action, the ingenious rationalist figure of serious philosophic thought who does not care about being the moral centre and longs to move forward and achieve supremacy. Bankim shows that Krishna had no problem with violence or war where it was the…show more content…
Tagore found Bankimchandra’s Krishna to be the “embodiment of theory”. Tagore admits that Bankimchandra is the very first person who attempted to establish the historicity of Krishna. He appreciates Bankim’s aim and his use of logic and rationality to find elements of historical truth in the otherwise mythified life of Krishna. However, he does find some faults in Bankim’s method of historiography as he could not ignore various gaps and errors in Bankim’s methods of historical research. He argues that Bankim has finished the task of sorting out the unhistorical elements but could not find time in collecting the real historical elements. Therefore, Tagore goes on to write that Bankim had to the work of both, demolition and construction and according to him, Bankim did successfully complete the work of destruction but he could not have time to attempt to
Open Document