Kyaw Win - The Arguing Mizzima Son

Oratory is not new to us Indians. If we say something in Varanasi, then no one can match the Indians. Of all the speeches delivered on the stage of the United Nations, Krishna Menon's marathon speech, which he delivered fifty years ago as the head of the Indian delegation, is the longest, the longest. It lasted for nine hours from start to finish, without stopping. No country, no delegation, no leader has ever delivered such a long and varied speech. Among those who have delivered such historic speeches, we Indians have set the record straight.

If we were to say that, our people would be a bit too talkative.

Indeed, this is not a new habit that has appeared yesterday. It is certainly an Indian tradition. Look at the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which Western scholars themselves compare with the Iliad and the Odyssey. These two great Sanskrit epics are not only longer, but also more beautiful and sublime than the best works of Homer. The Mahabharata alone is seven times longer than Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey combined. Our Ramayana and the Mahabharata are truly masterpieces of art that deserve to be called "great poems."

When I think of the sleepless nights of my youth when I first encountered these two great poems, I am still filled with joy. At that time, I was searching for wisdom that would stimulate the mind and beauty that would touch the heart. In these two great poems, I was completely satisfied with everything I wanted. In addition to the main story, both great poems are divided into many subplots, so I, the reader, could not be bored with reading them. Moreover, they are full of dialogues, forward and backward, and thoughts from other sides, so I could not think of anything. I think that by repeatedly diving into the disputes and counter-arguments filled with “sadness” and “sadness”, my mind and heart became more complete and beautiful.

Debates and their importance

The controversy I am referring to is not a “smeared” title, but a fundamental difference in values. Both sides have their own strong arguments. This idea can be found in a scene from the Bhagavad Gita, a part of the Mahabharata. The time period of the scene is the beginning of the Great War (Kuru War), the main story of the Mahabharata. The setting is the Gangetic plains. The two main characters, Ajna and Krishna, represent two opposing moral values. Krishna’s view that “a person should primarily fulfill his duty” and “It is a paradoxical struggle between the two views of the mind, which want to focus more on creating good and avoiding evil.

In the story, Ajna is a prince of the Pannava clan, who is as honorable as he is just. He is also the commander of the Pannava army. Their clan is invaded by the Kuru clan, and they have to fight a righteous war. One night, while watching the two armies that are about to fight each other on a hill, Prince Ajna thinks, “Well... tomorrow, our two armies will kill each other, will they cut each other to pieces? People will die here. There will be blood. There will be mountains of corpses... Is it right or wrong... For a “righteous uprising”, they are creating atrocities themselves... Is it true... Is it true... Is it true...?”

In contrast to Ajna's view, the one who stood up was Krishna, a charioteer in their Pannava army. In fact, Krishna was not a real human being. He was an incarnation of Vishnu. He addressed his commander Ajna as follows: "There should be no hesitation, sir. You are the trust of the Pallavas. Now that we Pannavas are being invaded by the Kurus, it is our duty to wage a righteous war. It is your duty. To perform one's duty without fear of the consequences is the highest value of a human being..."

Ultimately, the Bhagavad Gita won over Krishna's view. This view of Krishna is, in fact, an important starting point for Hindu philosophy. This view has been eloquently supported by philosophers and writers from all over the world. For example, Christopher Easworth and T. E. Illya. Easworth also translated the Bhagavad Gita into English. The 19th-century philosopher William Humboldt praised the Bhagavad Gita as “the most beautiful philosophical poem that has ever appeared in any language.” Similarly, T. S. Eliot’s “The Four Poets” echoes the same view of Krishna. Eliot used to “emphasize” this in his poetry… “O… traveler, do not hesitate… go forward…” etc.

As I have said, the arguments in the Mahabharata are not rigid and logical. They are not a harsh approach of “this is right, that is wrong.” They are subtle, profound, and difficult to separate. They are philosophical. Although Krishna’s view seems to have been overshadowed in the Bhagavad Gita, when we reach the end of the Mahabharata, Ajja’s view is revived. The end of the Mahabharata takes us back to the Ganges plains after the war. Here, there is no sound of swords, spears, or war drums. Even the sounds of shouting, screaming, and wailing have ceased. Only a profound silence has taken over. This silence is also tragic. Even in the tragedy, resentment also flows. Even in the resentment, a verse of curses begins to resonate without stopping. In parallel with Krishna’s “forward march,” Azjana’s “doubt” survives. Centuries later, the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy’s self-proclaimed hero, Prince Andrei, in his novel War and Peace, echoes Azjana’s doubt on the eve of the Battle of Austerlitz. “War is so meaningless…

Here, I would like to mention another great scientist of the 20th century. Robert Oppenheimer, the head of the American atomic bomb project during World War II. Like Oppenheimer in the Bhagavad Gita, Oppenheimer was inspired by the words of Krishna, “The Right Path,” and was instrumental in developing the weapon of mass destruction. However, on July 16, 1945, when he witnessed the first nuclear disaster caused by his own efforts, his views changed. “The thought of how I could survive the advent of a weapon of mass destruction tormented the great physicist for many sleepless nights.” Later, he himself said:

“As a scientist, I saw the sweetness of a science and tried to create it in practice. I never saw the consequences of success.., I started thinking about whether it should be or not. The world is not as simple as I thought...” He said. Sure. The doubt of the atom bomb will haunt the father of the atomic bomb like a ghost for the rest of his life. “In the case of killing so many human lives, “Can goodness really exist?” “Is the happiness of one side, the victory of one side, real happiness? Is it real victory..?”

In my opinion, the Mahabharata is still relevant and useful today. In today's world, the Krishna ethic of "doing one's duty" is still very much alive. Yet, the cost of "righteous causes" is still high, and the cost of capital is still staggering, and the doubt of the universe is still loud and clear. Just look at the modern world, which is filled with violence, wars, and epidemics. Or... just take a look at India's concerns, which are fraught with contradictions such as economic growth, nuclear confrontation, and regional peace. In contrast to Krishna's "forward" march, the "reflective" doubt of the universe is constantly warning us.

As I have said, the Bhagavad Gita is only a part of the Mahabharata. However, a single great poem does not say that it is the only truth... This is our Indian tradition. It is the natural instinct of our Indians to argue. This tradition and this instinct have left us a valuable lesson. We should not cling to something that was once considered true, something that was once considered true. Even if it was not considered true, even if it was once considered false, it is possible to consider it from another perspective (at least). In other words, we should approach everything from a perspective of certainty, rather than from a perspective of certainty.

Men and women, high and low caste, and the right to speak

There is one. “Is traditional Indian debate limited to a certain segment of the population… is it a privilege reserved for the upper class men?” There is indeed a point. It would be difficult to say here that all Indians have equal and free access to debate. Especially in a country like India, where caste, gender and class discrimination have traditionally existed, one cannot expect equality in everything. If the weaker sections are not allowed to participate, the social implications of traditional debates may be fully justified.

In my opinion, the culture of a society as complex as it is delicate cannot be grasped by a very general approach. Let us first trace the distinction between men and women. Generally speaking, it can be said that men lead intellectual debates. However, it cannot be said that women are completely excluded from political leadership and the pursuit of knowledge. If we look at contemporary Indian politics, this trend is clearly visible. Today, there are few women leaders at the national and regional levels of the major Indian political parties. If we look back at the period of national liberation movements, the participation of Indian women is much greater than in the Russian Revolution or the Chinese Revolution. The Iron Prime Minister of Britain