Drawing Parallels between Agamemnon and Mahabharata
2014
Cultures of the world are like pearls threaded through a string. Each pearl is unique, but the cord that connects the pearls is worn around a single neck. Greek tragedies and Indian mythologies might not have a common ethos, but both comprise of individuals with common emotions, and societies with similar structures. Through the Greek tragedy Agamemnon, written by Aeschylus, and the epic Mahabharata, written by Ved Vyas, arise the concepts of complexity of relationships, power, fate, and free will. In Mahabharata, the influence of the way free will was utilised was more on fate, as compared to Agamemnon, in which the existence of free will can be questioned, as prophecies generally are accurate.
Atreus and Thyestes were brothers, but since Thyestes and Atreus’ wife were discovered having sexual relations with each other, Atreus killed all the sons of Thyestes, and unscrupulously fed them to Thyestes as a meal. As a result of this, Thyestes cursed his brother, and the generations that would come after him. According to a prophecy, only an offspring from incest could avenge Thyestes, and so, Aegisthus was born as a son of Thyestes and his daughter Pelopia. Aegisthus got involved with Clytaemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon, Atreus’ son, and planned and executed the murder of Agamemnon, just after he came victorious from the Trojan War. Thereafter, Aegisthus took over Agamemnon’s throne, with Clytaemnestra as queen, until Orestes, one of the sons of Agamemnon and Clytaemnestra, came to murder them, and reclaim the throne. The power that comes along with the throne is what people seek, and this greed for power acts like salt on a wound, for any previously existing destructive ego. This is what instigated the war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas in Mahabharata. Pandu and Dhritarashtra, having a common father, were half-brothers. Since Dhritarashtra was blind, the kingdom of Hastinapur was given to Pandu. When Pandu was cursed to die as soon as he has sexual relations with anyone, it was confirmed that there would be no heir to the throne after him, so the power to rule as a king was given to Dhritarashtra, and Pandu went to the forest with Kunti, his wife. Dhritarashtra blindly loved Duryodhana, the eldest of the Kauravas, his hundred sons with Gandhari, and so he was disappointed to know that the sons of Pandu were born. Due to a boon that Kunti received, these sons were all born from gods, with three of them being the sons of Kunti, and two of them being sons of Madri, with whom the boon was shared. These sons known as the Pandavas came back to Hastinapur, and Yudhishtira, the eldest of the Pandavas was elder to Duryodhan. Being the rightful heir to the throne, Yudhishthira was made the king of Hastinapur by Dhritarashtra, unwillingly. Then, Duryodhan was determined to take revenge from the Pandavas. Meanwhile, Gandhari’s brother Shakuni was also planning revenge, with the help of Duryodhan’s weaknesses and insecurities that were a result of his wrath towards the Pandavas. Shakuni and all the men of Gandhara, to where he belonged, were imprisoned in Hastinapur, after the latter one conquered the former one. In the dungeon, the food supplied to the hundred captives was just sufficient enough for one person, and so, all the food was given to Shakuni, who was expected to live to take revenge from the entire kingdom of Hastinapur. Another reason for Shakuni’s anger was that Bhishma fixed Gandhari’s marriage with a blind king, and also a king who ruled over the land he despised. It was this negativity that started to link up the chains of dharma, karma, and the fate of the Pandavas and the Kauravas.
Through Greek tragedies, one can see that they also do immensely believe in the concept of karma, and know that there could be disastrous repercussions of not keeping the gods impressed. Many Greeks do what they believe is right, as they fear the gods. Through sacrifices, and libations, efforts are made to gain relief from suffering. In this respect, these two Greek and Indian texts unite, but there is a fundamental difference in the path that is taken to achieve this unity, which makes this unity irrelevant.
In Greek tragedies like Agamemnon, prophecies play a crucial role, as they limit, or obliterate the possibility of one being able to decide one’s own fate. So, karma depends on fate, rather that fate depending on karma. It is evident that from the perspective of the mortal, life is in control, as he or she is oblivious to the plans of the immortal gods. Aegisthus, who felt that he had immense power and wit, as he could kill a great warrior like Agamemnon, did not know that this power was meant to be his, from the time he was not even conceived by Polypia. He was born of incest, only to satisfy a prophecy. He was born to take revenge from Atreus’ family. Could Aegisthus have changed his thoughts or actions, and not killed Agamemnon? Did he have a choice? Clytaemnestra, who got involved with Aegisthus, and even planned the murder of her own husband, and so she lost her life at the hands of her son Orestes. Even in this case, there are questions that come up. Since Agamemnon was not a loyal husband, and was known to have had sexual relationships with other women, and was informed to Clytaemnestra of being the one to give away Iphigenia, their daughter, as a sacrifice, then was Clytaemnestra wrong in doing what she did? Also, Aegisthus was born through incest, and so the prophecy had to come true. So, was it in Agamemnon’s control to have not upset Clytaemnestra, and was Clytaemnestra’s weakness due to her daughter’s death, and her will to plan Agamemnon’s murder, all not inevitable? As seen in many Greek tragedies and epics, even if one’s life is not completely the result of a prophecy, one is always interacting with those in such situations, or with the families whose doom is prophesised. In Hindu texts, specifically like the Mahabharata, the only prophecies that are present are about the progression of the four Yugas, Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dvapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga. Prophecies do not exist on the individual level, so the control over the way of life of a person by a higher power, or a god, is notably lesser than it is in Greek texts. In Mahabharata too, there were no prophecies that decided the course of any life. Depending on the amount of righteousness or blasphemy, one could receive a boon or a curse, or would go to heaven or hell. Also, as all the characters in Mahabharata go to heaven and hell both, there exists in India, the concept of evil and good both being present in each person. Shakuni is most commonly portrayed as a negative character in Mahabharata, due to his cunningness shown during the dice game, and before it, when he constantly pollutes Duryodhan’s mind and gives him hopes of being able to prove to be more powerful than the Pandavas. Shakuni is also considered to be sharp enough to take complete advantage of the vulnerability of Duryodhan’s senses that intuited nothing, and perceived only negativity from the Pandavas. The uncle is able to stay extremely close to Duryodhan, due to his kinship with him, and is able to exploit Duryodhan to his benefit. A similar situation occurred in Agamemnon, where Aegisthus, to take revenge, needed a person closely related to Agamemnon, and one who was susceptible to manipulation, and so Clytaemnestra became part of the plan. It cannot be said that Aegisthus and Shakuni were subjected to common situations, but their motives and the emotions that drove them were the same. Shakuni and Aegisthus both believed that they were justified to act the way they did, but in Aegisthus’ case, he was destined to be the cause of the death of Agamemnon, due to the prophecy, but Shakuni, whose life was not barricaded by the act of augury, had a choice to not play with minds and be the cause of numerous deaths. This karma for Shakuni was consistent with his dharma of fulfilling the cause for which he was kept alive, at the cost of his other family members’ lives. So did he act wrongly? Similarly, was Duryodhan wrong in getting tempted by Shakuni to do what he doubted to be unrighteous? Yudhishthira also got tempted to play the dice game, even though he knew that he always lost. In death, everyone got back whatever they deserved, based on their karma.
The actions of even a single person have consequences on the entire family, including all the generations that succeed. In the case of Agamemnon, due to unethical behaviour of Atreus and Thyestes, the price had to be paid by the two sons Agamemnon and Aegisthus, by Clytaemnestra, and even by the Argives, who had to see the death of their ruler on a jubilant occasion of having won the Trojan War, and the rise of a king who had excessive pride, and was not fit to rule. Aegisthus had an obsession for the throne, and it multiplied with the want for revenge. Due to deaths, there were more deaths, and murders were avenged through murders. Be it mortals or immortals, in Greek tragedies and mythologies, and Indian mythologies, everyone acts on emotions. In Mahabharata too, the war affected the lives of the people of all generations in Hastinapur, from Bhishma to the Pandavas and the Kauravas, and also to the women of the house like Draupadi, Gandhari and Kunti. Everyone suffered, but all this misery was created, and its root lies in the uncontrollable ego of a brother, the self-inflicted blindness of Duryodhan, Dhritarashtra, Gandhari, and Yudhishthira, the wrath of Draupadi against the Kauravas and Yudhishthira, and the secret plans of revenge of Shakuni, Kauravas’ uncle. The past always came back to the present to ruin it, and it is not rare to see it happen even today. Wars continue to be fought due to racial discrimination, and cultural and religious differences. Discussing the debates present for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Pradip Dutta, in ‘Historic Trauma and the Politics of the Present in India’ writes that the present needs to represent a reality that is different from the past, without either the comforts of amnesia or the repetition of traumatic memorialisation.[1] The Trojan War, the murders in Argos, and the war of Mahabharata would have never occurred if the sufferings of the past would not have been remembered and recited repeatedly.
The quest for power, and the desire to avenge the injustice done to previous generations of the family or nation, is common in every society even today, and so these texts are still relevant. The broad perspectives on life might be different in Greek and Indian texts, but the way individuals deal with situations is alike.
References
1. Datta, Pradip. "Historic Trauma and the Politics of the Present in India.”interventions 7.3 (2005): 320.
