Shakti aur Kshama – And the Lost Nuance

Image Credit: Source unknown, received on Whatsapp

I. THE POEM

It was around 35 years ago, when I was in class 7, that I came across the poem Shakti aur Kshama (शक्ति और क्षमा) written by the matchless Ramdhari Singh ‘Dinkar’. While none of my friends apparently made much of it, I somehow felt to have gained through it some unfathomable power. Some of the verses in the poem were so strong, so hard-hitting that they seemed to blast through my heart to my innermost being. How ponderous each word! How forceful each syllable! The poet had so artistically woven the sounds and meanings together that the message was received with a sense of awe and it seemed to cast a spell on me. Besides, our teacher – ‘Ghosh Ma’am’, the stern and majestic Mita Ghosh, who radiated an aura of rare self-assurance – explained it to us with a good mix of philosophy and persuasion, well enough for a 12-year old to not only appreciate the principle expounded by the poem but to internalize it so thoroughly as to carry it for a lifetime as a deep part of his personality.

The poem starts with an exhortation – even provocation – to Yudhishthira (or the Pandava-s in general) to shed unnecessary pacifism which had proven futile in winning over Suyodhana [1] and that their forbearance and humility were being construed by the Kaurava-s as cowardice. The poem soon erupts into the famous word-inferno:

क्षमा शोभती उस भुजंग को जिसके पास गरल हो ।

उसको क्या जो दंतहीन विषरहित विनीत सरल हो ॥

Magnanimity befits the serpent armed that is with deadly venom;

Of what consequence one that is toothless, harmless, docile and artless!

The metaphor asserts that it is the possession of power to harm – and readiness to wield it – and others’ perception of it – that affords any meaningfulness to one’s forbearance. This is the poet’s central message (let’s call it the Shakti-Kshama principle) which it hammers in variously through this poetic onslaught.

Next, it goes on to cite an episode from Goswami Tulasidasa’s Ramacharitamanasa (रामचरितमानस), when Rama along with his army was faced with the insurmountable challenge of crossing the ocean, on the way to Lanka, where the Rakshasa king Ravana had held Sita in captivity. For three days on end, Rama sat at the shore, praying to the Sagara [2] for a passage to Lanka; but in vain. Patience finally gave way and an infuriated Rama armed his bow with a burning arrow – Dinkar pens this untranslatably beautifully:

उत्तर में जब एक नाद भी उठा नहीं सागर से ।

उठी अधीर धधक पौरुष की आग राम के शर से ॥

As not a whisper echoed from the Sagara in response

Flared up from the arrow of Rama flames of valour in fury

This extreme act of Rama forced the Sagara into absolute surrender. The essence of this episode is also captured succinctly in Tulasidasa’s famous adage: “bhaya binu hoi na preeti”

बिनय न मानत जलधि जड़ गए तीन दिन बीति ।

बोले राम सकोप तब भय बिनु होइ न प्रीति ॥

The foolish Sagara having failed to relent even after three days had passed

Uttered thus a furious Rama: There can be no love without fear!

The poem ends with its impressive denouement:

सच पूछो तो शर में ही बसती है दीप्ति विनय की ।

सन्धि-वचन संपूज्य उसी का जिसमें शक्ति विजय की ॥

सहनशीलता क्षमा दया को तभी पूजता जग है ।

बल का दर्प चमकता उसके पीछे जब जगमग है ॥

Indeed it is in the blade of the sword that humility shines

A call for ceasefire becomes him alone who wields the power to triumph

The world respects patience and magnanimity and mercy

Only when backed they are by the blinding effulgence of power

In summary, it is power that is respected; without hard power, the softer human virtues hold no real meaning [3]. Clearly, Dinkar has penned a poem that can rouse the dead. A rare work of veera rasa [4] in modern Indian literature!

The poem is palpably popular among many of those that identify themselves as Dharmika-s [5] and many of them can be seen acknowledging and admiring its verses on the social media. Similar to me, many seem to have been deeply impressed by the stirring words of Dinkar.

II. THE LOST NUANCE

A significant mass of people, albeit a small minority overall, seem to understand the Shakti-Kshama principle, either as a result of this poem or otherwise. As discussed earlier, the principle has been brought out assertively in the Ramacharitamanasa too, and thus has Dharmika attestation. In my experience, those that appreciate it are passionately supportive of it and cite one or both of “bhaya binu hoi na preeti” and “kshama shobhati usa bhujanga ko…” with a deep confidence of its validity. I have been one such person for the last 35-odd years since when I came to learn of it. I must have cited these lines to many – impressively – with similar confidence. It is rather recently, that I was painfully made aware of a related blind spot I have been carrying for decades, owing to a fine nuance that I think is missed by most of the admirers of the principle.

The Modi Connection

Here’s what happened. A few years ago, in the course of a TV interview [6] Prime Minister Narendra Modi was posed with a question related to this principle. As I was confident that a seasoned politician like PM Modi would know the Shakti-Kshama principle – both pragmatic and moral – all too well, I was excited at the prospect of hearing his response to this direct question. Somehow I was sure that he would jump at the opportunity and wax eloquent about how it is imperative to assume power and wield it, in order to achieve one’s goals. Modi, I thought, would fervently echo Dinkar, with the authority of his own experience and equally forcefully, albeit perhaps not so poetically. He would grab the opportunity with both hands and use his mastery with words to drill home this important principle, I had assumed. It may be perhaps that the interviewer themselves had similar expectations, which might have motivated this question in the first place.

To my astonishment, Modi did not take the bait but digressed to a totally different aspect of the principle, one which I had read and heard numerously but somehow ignored as insignificant or too obvious. Modi said to the effect (not verbatim): “Exactly! So you see, the use of power must be maryadit (मर्यादित) – principled, disciplined and restrained – and be only the last resort.” In his terse reply he kept insisting how it is important not to misuse power. Not once did he emphasise the Shakti-Kshama principle per se!

The rest of the interview was lost on me; I was too unhinged with Modi’s response to pay attention. It is not that what Modi said was new to me; I had always known it. After all, the poem clearly says that Rama tried to cajole the Sagara through prayers and paeans for three consecutive days. I had also read it scores of times in the Ramacharitamanasa. However I never dwelled on it, ignoring it as some trivial accessory to the central principle of use of force. What Modi said brought it suddenly to the centre stage. What I had ignored as some peripheral detail was, according to Modi, as central as the principle itself. What I had been cherishing for over 35 years and been preaching to many as some sort of revelation was itself suddenly wanting and incomplete. Was it also incorrect?

I was compelled to revisit the whole premise and investigate afresh. At the end, my new understanding gave me as much joy as I had been deriving from the original one, which was not only not contradicted now, but was also made richer and more complete. Let us review the original episode in the Ramacharitamanasa to understand.

The episode in the Ramacharitamanasa

In the Sundarkanda of the Ramacharitamanasa, when Vibhishana has joined hands with Rama and Rama has coronated him as King of Lanka (even before the war had started,) Rama asks him how the problem of crossing the ocean should be addressed. Vibhishana replies that while Rama is capable of drying up millions of oceans, he should, in the interest of propriety, pray to the Sagara (who also happens to be an ancestor of Rama’s) to help. Rama concurs and, resorting to fate, decides to engage in supplication to the Sagara.

What is notable here is the position that Lakshmana takes to Rama’s decision and Rama’s response:

मंत्र न यह लछिमन मन भावा।

राम बचन सुनि अति दुख पावा॥

नाथ दैव कर कवन भरोसा।

सोषिअ सिंधु करिअ मन रोसा॥

कादर मन कहुँ एक अधारा।

दैव दैव आलसी पुकारा॥

This suggestion, however, failed to impress Lakshmana; he was greatly

pained to hear Rama’s words. “Sir, how can one trust [the vagaries of] fate? Invoke wrath and dry up the ocean! It is the cowardly that take recourse to fate and the indolent that place excessive faith in it.”

सुनत बिहसि बोले रघुबीरा।

ऐसेहिं करब धरहु मन धीरा॥

अस कहि प्रभु अनुजहि समुझाई।

सिंधु समीप गए रघुराई॥

Hearing this, laughed the Hero of the Raghus and said, “That is exactly

what we shall do. Have patience!” Explaining thus to his younger brother,

the Raghu King approached the ocean (in order to pray.)

Lakshmana’s words here are telling. He almost ends up calling Rama, whom he otherwise invariably sees as an object of worship, both cowardly and lazy. What caused such an extreme reaction from Lakshmana? What caused such offence to his sensibilities?

Notably, both Rama and Lakshmana appreciate the Shakti-Kshama principle, but it is not this similarity between the two protagonists but the difference that is interesting. Lakshmana prefers to immediately batter the Sagara into submission, without first exploring the option of cooperation [7]. Rama on the other hand, while mindful of the likelihood of an eventual recourse to violence, prefers to first give peace a chance. He would not like to kill in the womb, if you will, the possibility – even if only theoretical – of collaboration and would prefer to favourably extend the benefit of the doubt to the adversary. Lakshmana is driven by instinct and impulse; Rama prefers deliberation and restraint. This concept is traditionally understood as maryada (मर्यादा), and Rama is aptly celebrated as Maryada Purushottama (मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम) – one perfected in maryada.

As an aside, even Krishna – the next avatara after Rama – exercises the same maryada when he visits Dhritrashtra’s court in Hastinapur, in a last-ditch effort to prevent the grand war of Mahabharata. When Yudhishthira had suggested the futility of the effort, Krishna had cited similar reasoning: despite the near inevitability of the war in the backdrop of Duryodhana’s arrogant obstinacy, the option of peace must be exhausted before the catastrophic war is waged. The selfsame eventual Parthasarthi [8], who delivered the Bhagvadgita in order to rouse the cowardice-afflicted Arjuna into mercilessly slaying his own kinsmen and gurujana [9], had started out originally playing the role of the Shantidoota [10], out of adherence to maryada.

Maryada – literally, limit or boundary – is the demarcation between Dharma and adharma. It is maryada that determines the right time, place, conditions, etc., for an action to be considered Dhrama-compliant. The very action that would be considered punya [11] when performed within maryada, may be deemed as papa [12] if it transgresses maryada. Maryada is inhered by central Dharmika concepts like tyaga [13] and vairagya [14]. The importance of maryada within the Dharma worldview can simply not be exaggerated.

The nature of the blind spot

It is curious how frivolously maryada is ignored by most of those that are able to appreciate this Shakti-Kshama principle. What is so central to the Dharmika ethos cannot normally be dismissed so casually. This blind spot is generated by one’s own natural tendencies based on guna [15] (गुण). The problem is also insidious: most of us are unaware of this lacking on our parts, since the principle of maryada is known to all. However it is not its cursory knowledge, but its deep appreciation and its application in practice that is lacking. This blind spot is thus perpetuated.

The tamasika [16] reader will simply not be able to appreciate Dinkar’s poem, as it calls for adversarial engagement and action, contrary to their innate nature of inertia and cowardice. (Our subconscious is usually trained to suppress signals contrary to our nature.) The rajasika [17] will be immediately roused by the Shakti-Kshama principle as it appeals to their tendency towards action, power, fame, etc. The sattvika [18] shall be able to appreciate it as instantly as the rajasika, but interestingly, unlike the rajasika, they will also be equally sensitive to the maryada aspect of it.

Remarkably, to the casual eye, the difference between the attitude of the sattvika and that of the tamasika may not be readily obvious, since neither may choose to wield power. However the attitudes are poles apart: the one does not take recourse to violence out of lethargy, cowardice, ignorance and other tamasika traits, while the other does not act on account of maryada, strategy, viveka [19] (विवेक), etc. Swami Vivekananda would often point out such confusion between the two extremes: “You must always bear in mind that the extremes look very much alike. If a very low vibration of ether is taken as darkness, an intermediate state as light, very high vibration will be darkness again.”

As a corollary, the rajasika will almost invariably be frustrated by the apparent inaction of the sattvika, confusing it to be of the tamasika (cowardly) persuasion – akin exactly to Lakshmana’s frustration at Rama’s restrained and measured action. It is this very blind spot that prevents the rajasika from readily understanding the sattvika’s motivation. The rajasika, in actual fact, use the criminality of the adversary as license to let loose their own rajasika instincts of impulsive action, tyranny, greed, hatred, egoism, schadenfreude, etc. rather than base their response on some sound Dharmika judgment. The sattvika suffer from no such affliction and can thus contemplate a calm, meticulous, clinical, effective and pragmatic plan instead.

III SHAKTI AUR KSHAMA 2.0

Shakti aur Kshama has imparted an important message and has been an inspiration to multiple generations, especially the youth. It has elevated many from the base tamasika level, with its forceful combination of logic and aesthetics. I have been personally grateful for its role in my life. However, for many of its admirers, an important nuance is lost in its message, mainly out of their own inadequacy. I recently thought therefore that it is time for its next variant, one that extends its message to bring out and accentuate the lost nuance. That someone should pen a Shakti aur Kshama 2.0, so to speak, which not only reinforces its brilliant message but develops it further and deals with the finer complexities involved. Such a poem would serve to help those like me, who were elevated from the tamasika level by Dinkar, but who were stuck at the rajasika level and elevate them further to the sattvika level, sensitised to maryada and other sattvika considerations.

While I am not a poet and despite my gross poetic ineptitude, I have made an attempt to write such a poem: अन्ध-बिन्दु – शक्ति और क्षमा 2.0 (Andha-Bindu – Shakti aur Kshama 2.0.)

I hope it will be of service to some.

---

[1] Literally, one who is easily defeated in a war; a belittling variant of Duryodhana (literally, invincible) – name of the eldest of the Kaurava brothers [2] The ocean regarded as a personified being [3] Hard power and the softer human virtues may metaphorically be seen as the qualities of the Sun and the Moon respectively. The moonshine is tender, mild and pleasant and thus dear to all, while the Sun’s scorching heat is agonizing and uncharitable, and is thus universally loathed. However, the pleasantness of the moonlight is predicated on the harshness of the solar heat; without the latter, the former is effectively inexistent. Moonshine, bereft of the Sun’s scorching effulgence, is, as the idiom goes, vyomapushpa (व्योमपुष्प) – a flower in the sky, an impossibility, a something that simply does not exist, except perhaps in fancy. Similarly, the softer human virtues, while delightful and agreeable, in the absence of hard power, are nothing more than a mirage, a wishful dream. [4] Literary genre evocative of heroism and valiance [5] These are, broadly speaking, those that sympathise with and hold as ideal the ancient Indic culture and civilization and who believe and assert that Dharma is the defining principle of the ancient nation of Bharat, of which the modern Indian state is just the latest version. These have also been loosely referred to as the “Right-wing Hindus” in the media. [6] I have been unable to locate this interview despite my best attempts. Rather than delay finalising this essay, I decided to admit this personal failing and go ahead. I would be grateful if any of the readers is able to direct me to the interview being referred to here and I shall also be keen to add the quote. My narration related to this interview is by memory and so is prone to inaccuracy. It is to be noted, however, that while it would have added to the richness and detail of the article, the message being given is as valid in the absence of the quotation as it would be in its provision. The principles contained herein are not subject to the fact of the interview, just like the laws of gravity have been holding as diligently, despite no evidence of the dropped-apple-hit-Newton-on-the-head fable or in case it is proved false at a later date.

[7] Interestingly, on this score, Lakshmana is on the same side as Ravana, as both disagree with Rama’s stand. (Ravana, too, upon learning Rama’s decision of appeasing the Sagara, bursts into laughter and ridicules his inadequate “power and intelligence”.) This is not a trivial observation: one must be anchored to the Dharma side of maryada; once it is transgressed, there is no stopping one from drifting afar into adharma. [8] Literally, Charioteer of Partha – another name for Arjuna. As charioteer, Krishna played Arjuna’s mentor and the de facto director of Arjuna’s heroic feats in the battlefield. [9] One’s guru-s, family elders and other venerable acquaintances [10] Literally, Ambassador of Peace. [11] One’s action that is aligned with Dharma [12] One’s action that is contrary to Dharma [13] Selfless renunciation [14] Freedom from attachment to objects of the phenomenal world [15] According to one of the central doctrines of Dharma, the whole of the phenomenal world is based on three guna-s or three components that exhaustively make up everything in the world: sattva (सत्त्व), rajas (रजस्) and tamas (तमस्). Tamas is characterized chiefly by darkness, ignorance, harm and lethargy; Rajas is characterized by actionfulness, excitement and power; and the third guna, sattva, is characterized by balance, calm and harmony. It is the interplay of these three guna-s in varying measures that gives rise to the infinite diversity manifest in the phenomenal world. According to the dominance of one of the three guna-s, a person may be broadly categorised as tamasika (तामसिक), rajasika (राजसिक), or sattvika (सात्त्विक), respective adjectival terms for the three guna-s. [16] See note 15 above. [17] See note 15 above. [18] See note 15 above. [19] Dharma-based discriminative judgment