Mriduna Darunam Hanti: Translation of Mahabharata Verses

IPLE: Assignment 1 – Mriduna Darunam Hanti

Mriduna darunam hanti mriduna hanty adarunam
Nasaddhyam mriduna kinchid tasmad teevrataram mriduh.

(Mahabharata Vana 28.31)

The above verse from the Mahabharata may be translated in English to mean the following:

The soft destroys the hard, and the soft destroys what is not hard.
Nothing is impossible to softness and therefore softness is the hardest.

In essence, the verse means that aggression or cruelty can be conquered by softness, meekness or politeness. Also, if we are polite and meek, nothing is impossible to achieve. Thus, the verse aims to suggest that we can win over hatred through love and love and compassion is a far superior force than hatred and aggression.

History is replete with instances of politeness and non-violence winning over aggression and cruelty. The biggest example that comes to my mind is the Satyagraha movement by Gandhi. Satyagraha translated as "insistence on truth" (satya 'truth'; agraha 'insistence') or "soul force" or "truth force”, is a particular philosophy and practice within the broader overall category generally known as nonviolent resistance or civil resistance.1
Satyagraha, as a non-violent weapon, urges for the change in heart of the aggressor. During the Dandi march, Gandhi urged his followers to bear all violence meted out to them by the police and not to retaliate. It was in the face of such resistance, the military action in the then North West Frontier Province came to a thaw. The underlying concept of satyagraha is that as the satyagrahi bears the violence meted out to him with love and meekness, the aggressor is bound to pause and think.
Gandhi had used the weapon of Satyagraha during his struggle in South Africa. The fact that meekness can actually win over aggression is evident from the words of J.C Smuts, the opponent of Gandhi in South Africa. He wrote, “It was my fate to be the antagonist of a man for whom even then I had the highest respect. … He never forgot the human background of the situation, never lost his temper or succumbed to hate, and preserved his gentle humor even in the most trying situations. His manner and spirit even then, as well as later, contrasted markedly with the ruthless and brutal forcefulness which is the vogue in our day… I must frankly admit that his activities at that time were very trying to me" 2
It will not be preposterous to say that it was satyagraha which helped us win our Independence from the British Rule. The aggression of the British Raj had to bend to the meekness of the non-violent movement of Gandhi. In the end, satyagraha was a weapon which proved far more powerful than guns and bombs. Soft did turn out to be the hardest.
Another such example is the story of Jagai and Madhai. Nityananda was a vaishnava saint. He was a friend and disciple of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who is considered an incarnation of Krishna. Once, while he was chanting the name of Krishna on the streets, he was attacked by two ruffian brothers, Jagai and Madhai. Madhai went to the extent of throwing an earthen pot which cut the forehead of Nityananda. However, at this point, instead of cursing or retaliating, Nityananda uttered the now famous sentence, “Merechhish kolshir kana, tai bole ki prem debona" (Shall I stop giving you love because you have hit me with an earthen pot?). Further, when Chaitanya heard about the incidence and wanted kill the brothers with his divine Chakra out of anger, Nityanada stopped him and begged him to pardon the brothers. Chaitanya then embraced them with compassion. This discordant behavior of meeting with hate with love created wonder in the minds of the ruffians. This soft demeanor aroused new emotions in their minds. Simultaneously, sense of guilt was also aroused in them. The compassion shown to them finally converted them into ardent and most devoted followers of Chaitanya. Thus, again we see that aggression was won over by love and compassion.
If we look into present times, we also find several instances when we see the meek and humble winning over the aggressive. One such example is Sachin Tendulkar. In his entire career, he had been sledged a lot, and yet, he never retaliated. At least, not with his mouth. His bat always did the speaking, and he always remained humble even in the face of the most aggressive opponent. Both on and off the field, he had been provoked by the world. And yet, he never showed aggression or hateful behavior. Always the epitome of calmness, he kept his cool and won the world over with his humility and talent. A specific incidence that comes to my mind is the one involving South African fast bowler Dale Steyn. In this particular match, Steyn tried to instigate Sachin by abusing him. Sachin just smiled. When the next ball was bowled, Sachin, in his trademark style, just flicked the ball effortlessly for a boundary. In the end, the victory was Sachin’s.
Another incidence which I find a bit funny, yet endearing is the one involving Shashi Tharoor. When Narendra Modi described Sunanda Tharoor as Minister Shashi Tharoor’s Rs. 50 crore girlfriend, all that Tharoor did was to say she was far more precious to him than the so-called Rs. 50 crore of Modi’s imagination. Tharoor could have raked up the salacious tales floating around about Modi in Gujarat but chose to stay away from getting personal and I believe that Tharoor had the last laugh by making this choice.
The philosophy of treating hate with love also finds resonance in the teachings of Buddha. According to Buddha, “not by hate is hate destroyed, by love alone is hate destroyed.” In another occasion he says, “Ye monks, if robbers and murderers should sever your joints and ribs with a saw, he who fell into anger threat would not be fulfilling my commands.” Thus, we can see that even in Buddhism, we find the concept of love and softness triumphing over hatred and aggression.
However, now, I would like to question the very premise that I was building for so long. Can we be meek at all times? Or, the more important question is, should we be meek and humble at all times. Should we never retaliate? Should we never fight back? Is aggression really that bad? Can being meek and soft always help us emerge victorious? Personally, I doubt it. I believe that even though being meek is a virtue and we should inculcate that, however, at times, the situation does demand that we don the garb of aggression. It is essential for our existence that we do take up aggression. Let me explain my point with some instances and stories.
First, I would like to recount a story which I had heard from my father when I was a kid. It is the story of a hermit and a snake. Once a snake was causing a lot of havoc in a village. He was biting anyone and everyone who came along a particular path. Once, a hermit was passing along the path. The snake was almost about to attack when the hermit stopped it with his spell. He was about to curse the snake, when the snake begged for apology. The hermit said he will forgive the snake if it promises that it won’t bite any innocent human being. The snake agreed. The hermit left the village and went away. After a year, when the hermit returned to the village, he saw that a bunch of boys were teasing and beating a snake for fun. The hermit realized it was the same snake. He scolded the boys and shooed them away. He then asked the snake why he was not retaliating. The snake replied that since he had promised not to bite any human being, no one was scared of him and every village boy would tease him with sticks and even beat him up. It was then that the hermit told the snake that in order to survive, he should have at least pretended that he was going to bite the boys. That would have scared them and they wouln’t have dared to tease him. The snake did exactly the same the next time any boy came close and this prevented him from getting beaten up by the boys. Thus, from this story, we can infer that at times, aggression becomes necessary for survival.
Today, when I see our Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, I really wonder, should we really be so meek that even enemy nations exploit us? If someone attacks our sovereignty, should we not retaliate? Can we afford to stay meek and hope that the enemy will have a change of heart? Maybe not, because it may be too late and we may end up losing our sovereignty.
If we look into the scriptures, we find a lot of instances where aggression has been recommended. The Gita establishes the existence of aggression and violence as social needs for the preservation of the good and destruction of the wicked. (IV. 8) Similarly, Krishna tells Arjuna that for warriors, there is no ennobling duty than a fair fight. The Mahabharata, in the udyogaparva, also emphasizes the necessity of violence. Similarly, in Islam, fighting against injustice and suppression, that is Jihad, has been ordained as a religious duty.
Thus, what we need, in life, is controlled aggression. Yes, it is good to be meek and humble and it is a virtue that helps us win in most situation. But we need to be careful to ensure that our meekness and humility is not seen as our weakness. If we are able to showcase our humility and softness as our strength, like Gandhi did, we can work wonders. But, we should be careful that we don’t end up becoming the snake who was teased and beaten up by all and sundry just because its non-aggression was perceived as his weakness.
If we look at nature, we find that it is always a mix of softness and hardness, meekness and aggression, that helps organisms survive. One of the better examples would be of our parents. Invariably, in most families, one of the parents is the tough and hard taskmaster, while the other is the soft and caring one. However, it is the concerted action of both that helps them inculcate values and disciplines in a child.
When I introspect, I find that by nature I am a calm and polite person who believes in non-aggression. I would avoid fights and even in conflicts, I would prefer resolving them politely and calmly and not in an aggressive manner. However, often in my childhood, I had been bullied, as the class bullies knew that I would never retaliate. It was then that I realized that I needed to be like the snake, I needed to use my aggression as a shield, only to defend myself, while from within, I would always be the calm and polite person who would believe in being humble and meek.
In a nutshell, I believe that this verse of the Mahabharata teaches us a very important concept of how we should be calm in the face of aggression. It teaches us that we can conquer violence through love, we can win over aggression through meekness, that hate does not kill hate, but it is love that can win over hatred. In most spheres of life, this mantra can help us win, survive, prosper and achieve great feats. However, I personally believe that there is a caveat to it. We should not allow your meekness to be perceived as a weakness. For that, we need to have a bit of aggression within us. It may be referred to as controlled aggression, one that is important for us to ensure that our meekness is not seen as a weakness but our strength. If we can attain the balance between our humility and meekness and controlled aggression, we can really be successful in life and victorious in all wars of life. One who can attain the balance is truly a blessed person.