Duryodhanization Read online

  NISHANT UPPAL

  DURYODHANIZATION

  Are Villains Born, Made, or Made up?

  PENGUIN BOOKS

  CONTENTS

  Preface

  Introduction

  I The Usual Suspects: Personality Traits Responsible for Villainous Behaviour

  1 Machiavellianism

  2 Narcissism

  3 Psychopathy

  4 Neuroticism

  5 Everyday Sadists

  II The Kurus: Personality Assessments of Common Lineage

  1 The Dyde: Satyavati and Shantanu

  2 Ambika and Ambalika: The Reluctant Wives and Mothers

  III Kauravas: DNA Preservers

  1 The Dyad: Gandhari and Dhritrashtra

  2 Duryodhana: A Judgemental Assessment

  IV Pandavas: Positive Counterparts

  1 Pandu: A Brief and Uninfluential Life

  2 Kunti: An Inconsistent DNA to Pandavas

  3 Pandavas: Evil Actions and Connivances

  4 Draupadi: A Critical Catalyst to Duryodhanization

  V Some Vague Inductive Reasoning and Generalizations

  Conclusion

  Notes

  Follow Penguin

  Copyright

  To

  Sukhdeep (Papa), Vihaan and Kabir (sons)

  PREFACE

  A reader quick, keen and leery

  Did wonder, ponder and query

  When results clean and tight

  Fit predictions just right

  If the data preceded the theory

  —Anonymous

  It gives me immense pleasure to introduce this book, Duryodhanization, to my esteemed readers. This book attempts to explain the process involved in the making of a villain. It uses Duryodhana, a popular villain from the epic Mahabharata, as the central character to understand the process. Thus, the title: Duryodhanization. Although there are several famous villains in the world, in literature, and in the Mahabharata itself, the character of Duryodhana is especially intriguing. Thousands of versions of the Mahabharata, as well as books focusing on some of its characters, have been written over the centuries. None of them show Duryodhana in a positive light. The Bhagavad Gita from the Mahabharata, clearly states that every individual has daivi (good) and asuri (bad) qualities. However, there is nothing positive about Duryodhana’s character in the Mahabharata. And this epic is considered to be the longest poem ever written, with over two lakh lines and eighteen lakh words. This is surprising and worth exploring further.

  Following is a brief, chapter-wise description of the book. This is for the reader to understand the premise, purpose and conception of the book.

  Chapter one introduces the concept of the making of a villain. I use multiple theoretical lenses to decipher whether villains are born, nurtured or merely made up. I use theories from a range of academic disciplines, such as psychology, genetic sciences, sociology, economics, etymology, history and management, to get a clearer understanding of the central concept of the book. Seminal research work, historical and modern, has been considered while exploring the process of Duryodhanization.

  Chapter two defines some commonly acknowledged psychological dispositions. These include Machiavellianism narcissism, neuroticism, psychopathy and sadism, which make a villain a negative character or person. It also hypothesizes that these traits can be genetically transmitted and are contagious. I again use theories from various disciplines to support my arguments.

  In chapter three we explore our central character, Duryodhana. I use various scientifically valid methodologies to analyse his actions as presented in the Mahabharata. I further map those actions along with the five negative dispositions described in the previous chapter.

  Sub-sections one, two and three in this chapter look at Duryodhana’s family tree, examining the possibilities of genetic transmission of the five negative dispositions into Duryodhana. For this, I analyse the actions of Duryodhana’s ancestors and map them along the negative dispositions mentioned above. And here, we find some remarkable linkages between the two. It clearly establishes how genetics influenced Duryodhana’s behaviour throughout his life.

  While it is clear that genetics played a significant role in determining Duryodhana’s character, there are other possible explanations. In chapter four, I examine the behaviour of other important characters in the Mahabharata, such as the Pandava brothers and Draupadi. I list several actions of the Pandavas that are very similar to Duryodhana’s. However, they are treated differently in the epic, and thereafter by other readers and writers. While it seems unfair, the various explanations and justifications of the war between good and evil are what make the epic so interesting.

  Chapter five explores the possibilities of generalizing of the concept of Duryodhanization. I choose characters, living and dead, and juxtapose them with the findings of the book. I have chosen these characters with utmost care to avoid hurting the sentiments of any community.

  Finally, in the last chapter I conclude my theories and arguments. Only here do I allow my personal views on the subject to come forth.

  I believe this book will appeal to the curiosity of those who wish to scientifically understand the characterization of heroes or villains, be it in mythology, history, behavioural sciences, or real life. It also has teachings for businesses, academia and policy organizations, as the book presents an unusual method of character assessment. I hope it will provide stimulus for further research and literature.

  Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my peers and editors, especially Radhika and Indrani who reviewed and worked tirelessly towards the current edition. I would like to acknowledge my research associate, Ananya, for her inputs. I am thankful to my friends—Badri, Neha, Negi, and Gautam. I am grateful to my mom, Shivani Uppal, who continuously encouraged me to take up this project. I am also thankful to Deepti, my beloved wife, for her immense support. I am grateful to various members of IIM Lucknow, especially Professor Ajit Prasad who provided motivation to complete the work. Without their contributions this project would not have been possible.

  INTRODUCTION

  Son: ‘Do ostriches bury their heads in the sand when they’re scared or threatened?’

  Father: ‘No, it’s an optical illusion! Ostriches are the largest living birds, but their heads are pretty small. If you see them picking at the ground from a distance, it may look like their heads are buried in the ground. Nonetheless, they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, the bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!’

  Son: ‘Oh! This means the ostrich creates an optical illusion, possibly intentionally, that makes the viewer seem as if it is hiding its head in the sand. Wow, that’s an ostrich paradox!’

  According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a character is defined as villainous if his or her actions or motives are considered evil towards other individuals, nations, societies, environments or the universe as a whole. The essence of this book lies in the etymological and colloquial development and popular establishment of this definition.

  Although today the term villain is used only in a pejorative sense, originally it defined entirely different phenomena and characters. The etymological development of the term villain follows this order: villa-villanus-vilain (or vilein)-villain. The first two terms of the sequence villa and villanus descend from Latin, and mean country mansion and farmland bound to the soil of that mansion, respectively. Subsequently, the French term vilain refers to a person of less-knightly attributes. One who was usually employed as a peasant, slave or farm hand.

  In the Middle Ages, the French aristocracy was mostly dominated by men. In order to safeguard and monopolize their women, they
propagated the physically laborious vilains as impolite and unchivalrous. They used various vehicles such as literature and executive gatherings to alter the meaning. The etymological development or deterioration of the term villain continued as various other pejorative meanings, such as despicable, shameful, morally corrupt, knave, scoundrel, boor and, finally, criminal, were added to it.

  The process of degradation of a phenomenon is not unique to the science of etymology.1 Scholars of sociology and cultural anthropology have acknowledged such degradations at a macro social level. For example, the degradation of the Vaishyas and the Shudras through the complex process of verticalization of the Indian caste system through the Middle Ages and thereafter. In a study of the Hindu varna system, Kavoori (2002) highlighted that over 700 years ago, a gradual deterioration came about in the status of the Vaishyas and the Shudras. These communities lost their equal status and acquired lower ranks than the other two varnas, the Brahmana and the Kshatriya. The study suggests that the varna system was originally horizontal in nature with a scientific division of labour and professions. It is believed that the advent of the Aryans in India and their influence over scholarly works and literature, such as the Manusmriti, is mainly responsible for the verticalization of the varna system. Manusmriti, a book that has been condemned for centuries, regulated the ideals of administration, social behaviour and the canons of justice. This established the supremacy of the Brahmanas and the Kshatriyas over the Vaishyas and the Shudras. Gandhi sincerely hated the practice of untouchability, the worst form of vertical varna system. He supported the conventional varna system, saying that, ‘some (people) believe that I (Gandhi) am destroying varna ashrama. On the contrary I believe that I am trying to cleanse it of impurities and so reveal its true form’ (Collected Works, 1921, vol. 20).

  Some developed countries use the same mechanism of systematic defamation and degradation while viewing less-developed nations. Only the vehicles of defamation and degradation may differ contextually. Cinema is among the most dramatic vehicles popularly used for this purpose. Lee (2007) undertook a study highlighting the brutal use of cinema, specifically in James Bond 007 movies to illustrate the dark side of North Korea. She analysed a total of fifteen newspaper articles about the movie 007 Die Another Day. They included Western (e.g. New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times), and Eastern publications (e.g. Korean Herald, Good Day News, and Metro). These articles were published between December 2002 and February 2003. The data of the study showed how the movie, with a total revenue of $432 million and a worldwide viewership, contributed to building a maligned image of a country. Some articles highlighted the fact that the movie put North Korea in ‘the axis of evil’ and was a ‘deliberate and premeditated act of mocking at and insulting the Korean nation’. In reaction to this, the Korean nationals boycotted the movie due to its ‘distorted depiction of North Korea’. A limited boycott stood against a worldwide acceptance of the movie. Dodds (2005) asserted that some viewers found the movie very realistic and felt threatened by the North Korean villain in the film and thereafter in reality. It is evident that motion pictures, such as the James Bond 007 series, propagate American hegemony by popularizing different negative aspects of the international environment (Shin and Namkung, 2008).

  There are several other vehicles that are used, consciously or unconsciously, with the purpose of building a bleak image of foreign nations. The notorious American-Iraq war was based solely on this image. It is now public information that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq’s possession, which was the primary cause behind America’s attack on Iraq. Several scholars, such as Kull and associates (2003) and Cirincione and associates (2004), now postulate that the reason for the failure of intelligence was more deliberate and less of a casual mistake. Kull et al. (2003) write the following in their article:

  From the outset, the Bush administration was faced with unique challenges in its efforts to legitimate its decision to go to war. Because the war was not prompted by an overt act against the United States or its interests, and was not approved by UN Security Council, the Bush administration argued that the war was necessary on the basis of a potential threat. Because the evidence for this threat was not fully manifest, the Bush administration led the public to believe that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and providing substantial support to the al-Qaeda terrorist groups.

  Robert Jervis (2010) in his article ‘Why Intelligence Fails: Lessons from the Iranian Revolution and the Iraq War’ talks about the precursor to a substandard decision, such as the American attack on Iraq, and the subsequent use of media to build a negative image of the country as justification for faulty actions. He says that this sometimes results from inefficient intelligence. It can be argued that critical deficiencies in intelligence occur because of analytical failure. Analysts either fail to articulate their assumptions, or don’t subject these assumptions to appropriate scrutiny, or consider rival hypotheses based on evidence, test arguments by offering predictions, consider negative and positive evidence when evaluating assertions and seek information that might disconfirm their existing point of view. Once the intelligence agencies have confirmed a hypothesis, such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, decision makers are compelled to react, even in the face of extremely fallible consensus.

  Similarly, sometimes a whole era carries a negative image. Even though the process and factors behind the negative image may differ, for example, the Dark Ages of Europe. The term ‘Dark Ages’ refers to the time in Europe between the fall of Rome in 476 CE and the beginning of the Renaissance in the fourteenth century. Historians consider it to be a period of sharp demographic, intellectual and economic decline. But were the Dark Ages completely dark? Or was the idea of darkness a deliberately built perception?

  Some historians have established signs of immense light during the Dark Ages. These signs are scarce but significant. In his book European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, Ernst Robert Curtius presents strong evidence of significant improvements seen during the Dark Ages. Dante Alighieri (1265–1312), the famous literary icon, was born during this time. He contributed immensely to literature with his two famous compositions, Comedia and Boccaccio. Dante also challenged the use of Latin in literature for it limited its access to affluent and educated audiences only. He later went on to promote the use of the vernacular in literature. Jean Gimpel in his book The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages, highlights the environmental concerns of industries during that period and the subsequent use of alternative energy sources such as wind and water. There are several other intellectual accomplishments and scientific discoveries that took place during the Dark Ages. These have been ignored or overpowered by scholarly contributions that selectively highlight the achievements of the eras pre and post Dark Ages.

  The four examples above—the term villain, the Indian caste system, national image and a historical period—differ in their parameters for analysis. Yet they all suffered conscious and systematic degradation of meaning and image in some aspects. Villain is a word that has suffered etymological deterioration. The Vaishyas and the Shudras in the Indian caste system systematically lost their equal stature to the Brahman and the Kshatriya classes. Similarly, while some countries such as Iraq or North Korea were subject to deliberate attempts of defamation by developed nations, the bright sides of the Dark Ages in Europe remain unacknowledged.

  Parochialism, ethnocentrism and orientalism are well-established theories that may explain the process of systematic deterioration in various phenomena. All three theories primarily originate from the concept of ‘deliberate ignorance of truth’. Though these theories differ in their scope, they beautifully unearth the process by which deteriorated images turn into knowledge and subsequently into truth.

  Parochialism is based on ignorance of others’ ways. Parochialism in knowledge occurs when scholars develop theories within a limited context and, consciously or unconsciously, i
gnore other models, research and values. Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) postulated three kinds of knowledge-based parochialism: contextual, quantitative and qualitative. Following is the process of contextual parochialism (American in this case) in the words of Boyacigiller and Adler:

  First, scholars produce and disseminate the majority of organizational science research within the United States. Second, the scope and primary orientation of most theories is American; however, such theories are presented as if they were universally applicable. For example, researchers conduct studies on the job satisfaction of American men and yet use the results to develop and substantiate overall theories on job satisfaction. A few scholars then test these US job satisfaction theories to see if they apply abroad.

  Because the dominant nationality of various theories is American, it always leads to and constructs knowledge domains. For example, researchers from other countries are bound to refer to the theories published in top American journals. The essence of scholarly innovation lies in the falsification2 of existing theories. Illogical as it seems, internationalized theories are also now a subdivision of domestic US knowledge. They are merely posed as having a ‘universal perspective’.

  Qualitative parochialism emerges from issues associated with the ‘difficulties of breaking the American-based, logical empiricist mold’. Boyacigiller and Adler (1991) accurately say:

  Given that few international articles have been published and that articles published in foreign journals are of suspect quality by many American editorial boards, international researchers are hard pressed to ‘ritualistically affirm group membership’. That is, to cite a sufficient number of relevant articles published in leading American journals to pass the test of ‘building on prior research’.

  Therefore, research methods are painfully driving knowledge production rather than addressing the problems and needs of managers, policymakers and students.