.jpg)
In the Hindu epic of Mahabarata, the story of Eklavya is what depicts the human equality of today, especially in Indian society.
Eklavya is the son of a tribesman chief with a burning desire to learn archery from Dronacharya, the Brahmin martial arts guru who is the master for the royals Pandavas and Kauravas.
When Eklavya approaches Dronacharya in a bid to learn archery from the Brahmin cognizant, he was spurned by the guru because of his inferior caste, reasoning that it would offend the royal princes who are his students if a boy from a low caste train alongside them, that it is not dharmic.
Refusing to be discouraged by the rejection of the master Dronacharya, Eklavya shaped a statue in the image of Dronacharya and began practicing archery all by himself, having taken the statue of Dronacharya as his conscious guru.
One day, when one of the Pandava's brothers and pet student of Dronacharya, Arjuna was riding his horse in a jungle, a dog disturbed him by keeping on barking at him.
Arjuna rises arches his arrow to kill the dog when a salvo of arrows preempted Arjuna's arch, the arrows, sewing the dog's mouth shut. (animal cruelty)
The arrows were shot by none other than the tribesman's chief's son, Eklavya. Amazed at the astounding skill of the hunter, Arjuna asks him who taught him such mind blowing skill and Eklavya says that Dronacharya is his guru.
Arjuna is known as the best archer and disenchanted by Eklavya's claim that Dronacharya is his guru and the fact that Eklavya's archery skill surpassed that of his, Arjuna goes to Dronacharya and questions him regarding the matter.
Dronacharya remembers Eklavya and goes with Arjuna to meet him in the woods and they find the hunter practicing archery before a statue resembling Dronacharya.
A delighted Eklavya welcomes Dronacharya warmly and pays respects to him. After thinking for a moment, Dronacharya demands guru dakshina also known as honorarium (the tradition of repaying one's teacher or guru after a period of study or the completion of formal education and the repayment is not exclusively monetary) from Eklavya. The guru dakshina Dronacharya asks for is the right thumb of Eklavya. Without hesitation, Eklavya severs the appendage and presents it to Dronacharya.
Naturally, without the thumb, Eklavya loses the ability to employ archery.
An aghast Arjuna asks Dronacharya why did he did what he did. Dronacharya explains that it is not dharmic for a person of a low caste to have such expertise for he will misuse it and damage the greater good of the world and that only Arjuna should be the greatest archer that ever lived, in line with his princely caste and nobility. Arjuna smiles at Dronacharya, contented.
The message the story above conveys is that people of low caste, no matter how talented, should not stand out in their expertise for they have a fickle mind and that they will use the dexterity for vile, demonic, self serving purposes.
Now let's see another story:
When the time came for Pandavas and Kauravas to present guru dakshina to their master Dronacharya, the sage told his students to capture the kingdom of Panchala due to an old feud with Drupada, the king of Panchala and make Drupada kneel at Drona's feet as guru dhakshina.
When Dronacharya was young and poor, he studied together with the wealthy Panchala prince Drupada in an ashram. The two became good friends. One day, when Drona lamented on how would he eke a living out after leaving the ashram, Drupada assures him that he need not worry because when Drupada becomes king, he would give Drona half of his kingdom.
Time passed and in due time, both Dronacharya and Drupada went their separate ways. Drona gets married and bears a son. He was so poor that he couldn't afford milk to feed his child. Kripi, Drona's wife urges Drona to go see Drupada. If not half the kingdom, his old friend would at least give him several cows.
Drona although hesitant at first, agrees to set out to visit the king Panchal. Drupada, who is now attached to the kingdom insults the feebly dressed Drona, despite remembering his promise to give Drona half of his kingdom years ago. Drupada scorned that only equals can be friends and since Drona is obviously of a different class, they could not be friends.
And then, Drona becomes the teacher of the Hastinapur princes and was richly rewarded but still, Drona harbors grudge with Drupada and vows to get even.
The Kauravas failed to capture Drupada but the Pandavas were successful, fulfilling their guru dakshina. Arjuna brought a defeated Drupada to Dronacharya and Dronacharya reminded Drupada of the promise he made when they were friends and returned half the kingdom of Panchala to Drupada.
Embittered and humiliated, it was Drupada's turn to seek revenge, wanting to have a son to kill Dronacharya. He begots Dhristadyumma, a son, and Draupadi, a daughter from a yajna (a sacrificial fire) and Dhristadyumma beheads Dronacharya in the Kurukshetra war.
The characters in the story above belong to upper castes, namely, Brahmin and Khsyatriya. Are their intentions noble? Are seeking revenge, having destructive thoughts and forgetting promises virtuous?
Being good or bad is not reserved in social status, in this case, the caste system. It contains in a psyche of a person. Character and conduct are not determined by caste. So are intelligence and aptitude.
In the story of Eklavya, even though he is more adept at archery than a royal prince, his talent is not appreciated but was destroyed in a a most cruel way so that a happened-to-be-royal-at-birth and perhaps even a demigod, considering Lord Indra sired Arjuna, would remain on top regardless of him being deserving or not.
The caste system is created for some people to lord on others and expounds that all men are born unequal.
You know what? We originate from Africa. And that makes us all Africans. And that makes us equals.
Don't forget to share with your friends and colleagues
You can leave your comments below, in the Comment Section. We like to have a healthy debate here. Please avoid profanity, personal attacks and rouse racial and religious sensitivity. The views of the commentators are not shared by Both Coin. The bottomline is, comment sensibly with relevance to the article.
