Mythology in the court? We object, your honour

[1]

Author Image:

Some 10 months back right wing activists were up in arms against the Supreme Court for citing the example of the relationship of Lord Krishna with his consort Radha to corroborate its judgement on live-in relationships saying that the observation hurt the sentiments of billions of Hindus.
Cut to 2011, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of four persons for stripping a tribal woman and parading her naked in a Maharashtra village, describing the incident as “shameful, shocking and outrageous”. But this time the great archer-guru Dronacharya from the Mahabharata had to bear the brunt of the Supreme Court’s creative streak, with the apex court terming his action in seeking the right thumb of tribal Eklavya as guru dakshina as shameful. But is the parallel drawn here appropriate when the present case is not even remotely connected to the episode mentioned?
Author and mythologist Ashok Banker says that justice in retrospect is always a problem, but to draw a parallel to the real suffering of a tribal woman as they did here is wrong. “I’ve always felt strongly about the US and Europe needing to make financial reparations for centuries of slavery and until that happens, their entire economic growth could be considered tainted and exploitative. So, I can sympathise with the Apex Court wanting to punish Dronacharya guilty for showing bias against a low caste. But I feel each case must stand on its own merits. There are enough real crimes and injustices being committed daily against backward Hindus and minorities to trouble ourselves with the pages of itihas,” he says.
Author Namita Gokhale says it is always dangerous to treat mythology as prescriptive analogy. Indian myth is fluid with multiple versions and interpretations and it could set confusing precedents to quote out of context.
Anjana Bisht, a KPO executive, too feels that the SC should concentrate on the subject on the table and apply legal mind rather than dig up history. She adds, “The context in which the punishment was given to Eklavya was totally different. The society during those times was also different. It needed different codes to bring order.”
But others feel that since everyone has a right to look at an incident from various angles coupled with a proper explanation, judges too have strong reasoning behind any reference. “The SC statement stresses on the point of exploitation of tribals, which is welcome. Also it doesn’t understate the dedication of Eklavya and his trust and sacrifice for his guru. So, why make a hue and cry over a harmless mention?” says Manas Joshi, a film fest organiser.
“With all due respect to the court and being a member of the Bar, I feel the reference drawn here is inappropriate. I am not saying that drawing references to cases is wrong in any way. Time and again judges have shown their inclination towards the great scriptures. After all it is about judicial creativity. Had I been the judge I too might have mentioned an episode from the epics, but it would have been strictly related to the case,” says lawyer Arjun Natarajan.