At the very first it was the mother. As she was about to kiss the softness of her breasts, the mother smiled and turned into a fire-bird, leaving her lips burnt…pained. Crushing all the threads of womb trust they built together while she was inside her…floating, numb, half-born.
Then it was the butterfly…that poison-coloured one. When in the loneliest evenings she used to sit alone in the hyacinth garden behind her house…it was the butterfly who first made an attempt for a friendship. It was the butterfly who requested to sit on her burnt-blue lips…and assured her hope to kiss out the pain little by little. Naïve she allowed her poison-coloured friend to the deepest wound of hers, ignoring the fact that poison can never be a friend.
Then when the king banned the hyacinths for their cheerfulness…she wept for those hapless beings…wept with them. And made a secret alliance with the punished flowers to turn the whole kingdom a hyacinth-addict. Asked them to spread out their smell all over the tyrannical air of the kingdom during those silent hours of sleepless nights. But the king, she didn’t know how tricked the hyacinths to his side. He made them the state flowers, while snatching away the captivating scent of them. The hyacinths deceived her too.
Seeing the new found arrogance of the hyacinths, God whispered into her ears that He wants to make her the Queen of hyacinths. She was happy…as the kingdom of the “queens” resides in the hearts. At last she found a hope for liberation from her poison-pain. And was waiting eagerly for that moment when God with the help of his divine power would turn all her bluish body parts into the bluish petals of hyacinths. But when the moment arrived, He only stole the breasts of hers in exchange of two bouquets of hyacinths…making her an incomplete object of lust for infinity. God deceived her too.
I am, by nature a lyrical person! Find joy in lively colours, poetic words, sharing a trustful bond with fellow beings. So, now when I am trying to write about “treachery”, a whole lot of peculiar imageries, vocabs, ideas are coming into my mind! The sources are infinite as the history of mankind is embedded with treacherous acts- serious, non-serious, personal, political, criminal, moral. I would not say they are “disturbing”, making a fuss with my otherwise saintly mind. Rather, a thoughtful encounter with them is giving a soothing stimulus to it, which is fatigued by seamless absorption of light. Perhaps, sometimes a saint needs a dollop of sin to retain her sainthood intact.
I am not a saint.
……………………….
There was a bengali play in our 11th grade syllabus, named Siraj-ud-daula. It was on Siraj, the last independent Nawab of Bengal & his defeat in the Battle of Plassey as a result of a ‘political’ betray by his own commander right in the battle field. Historically, that betrayal was one of the most decisive one- changing the course of history in the Indian subcontinent. It is because of that defeat of Siraj, British East India Company solidified its political foot in Bengal and thereafter over the whole subcontinent. In that play, Siraj was portrayed as someone very polite, politically aware & responsible ruler who can discern the cunning nature of an imperial force and is eager to consolidate his associates to resist that. While Siraj, as a historical person was rather a snob, womaniser, spoilt prince. Such a person when inherits the crown, no matter how much politically right decision-maker he may be, the personal grudge from the surrounding remains active. Because personal is more than political in the sphere of treachery. It is strange…how strongly humans feel “hatred” for other humans that even the most intelligent minds just succumb to the path of personal vengeance instead of looking beyond. Which in a longer course of time affect the political, social, economical and other aspects of life of a large populace.
But doubt remains is it purely ‘personal’? If so, I want to know from which abyss of human mind does it spring. Is it purely a product of psychology or is there contribution of other factors as well? Hatred and jealousy are generally two prime driver of treachery we all know. And these two emotions apparently belong to the domain of human psychology. But what is the constituent elements of them?
I hate the Moor
Iago’s famous dialogue comes into my mind in this context. In Othello, the story starts with Iago declaring his hatred for Othello, his commander as he did appoint Cassio his lieutenant instead of him. And as the play progresses we see how this personal dissatisfaction turns into a hate so deep that destroys lives. Iago’s speeches are embedded with racial commentaries against Othello. Is it Race, which is a “socio-physical” construct that turns on Iago to do treacherous activity to Othello? Or is it a jealousy for a brave positive soul, (that Iago lacks) which is the prime motivator? Or is it a strive to prove that cunningness has more power as a psychological strategic tool than bravery? In Othello, the motive goes from personal-to-societal-to-psychological. So treachery as an act, perhaps derives not from a singularity. It is much more complex and dynamic.
As a treachery is generally not a spontaneous action, rather requires a thoroughly thought-out planned execution. A calculated planning to violate trust should process the mind in a way that it would not feel remorse or guilt for that action. Or it would…after the initial moments of satisfaction?
In Othello, in the ending when Iago is being questioned about the “reason” behind his deed, there is no sign of remorse in his attire or speech when he says-
“Demand me nothing: what you know, you know.
From this time forth I never will speak word.”
Is this silence a result of complete loss of moral sensibility when someone plans and carries out an act of deception over a period of time? Does a careful well-planned treacherous activity changes a person’s moral stance? Or rather only a mind lacking moral perception is capable of being a traitor?
Perhaps moral negation is not always directly proportional to treachery. There are other factors which can also be responsible for someone doing a treason. In Macbeth, the prime motive acting behind Macbeth doing the treachery against king Duncan is “ambition”. But as he attains his goal, unlike Iago he constantly suffers from moral agony. Is this because of the nobleness of his character or the drive of ambition has less strength than the weight of a socially-backed psychological hatred? Perhaps the strength of a deception, during or after the act varies emotion-to-emotion. As in the above two cases, where the destructive force of Iago’s jealousy & hatred appears to be more powerful in giving birth to a traitor’s mindset than the apparently constructive force of Macbeth’s ambition.
…………………..
Why do women do treachery?
It is strange when I am trying to imagine a deceptive woman, the shade of deception appears to be much more layered. The very nature of the human emotions- jealousy, hatred or ambition get contaminated by the hues of victimhood, survival, self-protection from social pressure or insecurity in women’s case.
In Mahabharata, there is an episode where Kunti, a young unmarried princess abandons her infant son because of the shame attached to giving birth to a child out-of-wedlock (it’s a strange symbolic story- as her pregnancy happened not in an usual way; rather it was the result of an adolescent curiosity with a magical boon given to her). For me, leaving a helpless child in the midst of this chaotic violent world is the absolute form of treachery. But in this case, the breaking of the “motherly” trust germinated not from self-interest rather from the fear of a woman of losing her social reputation. And the emotional pain the deceived one feels is also not immediate…rather it takes several years in this story when that infant son of Kunti grows up to be a brave heroic character Karna. After facing several humiliating events, he finally establishes himself to be a king & poses to be serious threat to the Pandavas (the legitimate sons of Kunti) in the battle of Kurukshetra. As a strategic move by Krishna, Kunti was sent to confront Karna & confess the real identity of him so that he get emotionally attached to the Pandavas and loses the warrior’s mindset. It is when the “pain” of being deceived is finally emerges to the surface. But the whole emotional interaction between the deceptive mother & deceived son reduces to be a mere war strategy- belonging to the very logical masculine domain of warfare.
There is another mythical story in Indian tradition where a woman does play a catalytic role in a treacherous plot. It is from Ramayana. Surpanakha, a demon princess falls in love with lord Rama and proposes him to marry her. But Rama rejects her since he is loyal to his wife, Sita and advises Surpanakha to ask to Lakhshmana, his brother. Lakhshmana also rejects her. A widow herself, she then attacks Sita out of jealousy. And to punish her for that Lakhshmana cut her nose. That makes her vengeful. To take revenge for her humiliation she plots with her brother Ravana to abduct Sita. This story of abduction of Sita by Ravana depicts a pure form of treachery, where the Indian ethics of hospitality “Atithi Devo Bhava” (The Guest is God) was exploited to deceive. But the whole event was backed by a woman’s experience of extreme humiliation.
The case of ambition-driven treachery becomes a version of a woman’s insecurity in a male-dominated world. A story about an ambitious-traitor woman comes into my mind. It is from Manashamangal, a medieval epic from undivided Bengal. Manasha, the snake goddess is a minor deity and struggles to establish herself on an important position. To fulfill her goal, she approaches Chand Saudagar, an eminent merchant and a staunch devotee of Lord Shiva (the prime masculine divine force)… demanding worship from him. But Chand not only refuses to worship her, even discards her deity status. Raged with insult, Manasha plots to destroy Chand by killing his seven sons on their wedding night by slipping into their bedroom in the form of a snake. Though the deity can not be tagged as a conventional traitor as she never starts deception building on trust from the very beginning. Rather in her case it is more as a strong urge for recognition and ambition. But her subsequent actions to take revenge is not direct but hidden and cunning like a treason.
Ambition is prime motivator in Lady Macbeth’s case also. Where she plays the role of an initiator in plotting and executing the murder of king Duncan- all in a deceptive way. But as the play progresses, she appears to be lacking the absolute callousness of a male traitor such as Iago…and suffers from madness. Comparing to her, the character of Medea has much more strength as a traitor.
While these are the stories where women doing perfidious activity simply out of insecurity, revenge or ambition…the story of Hidimba, a forest-dwelling demoness is rather about a tale of treason sprouted from love! So, Hidimba used to reside in the dense forest with her brother Hidimbo and would assist him in his cannibalistic activities by luring humans. It is in this arrangement, the Pandavas enter into the scene. On seeing the well-built Bhima, Hidimba instantly falls in love with him. And instead of luring him, she deceives her own brother to save Bhima & the other Pandavas. Some say, Hidimba’s deceptive deed to her own clan springs from a sense of moral righteousness. But I think it is purely the mischief-making of romantic cunningness of Love!
So, are women incapable of doing a pure psychopathic perfidious act, independent of any other external stimulus like victimisation, humiliation, insecurity, social stigma or even emotional attachment?
If so, such a poor fool wretched beings we are!
……………………
Along with trust, “ignorance” also plays an important functioning part in carrying out a treacherous act. While violating a trust needs a prior reciprocal emotional bond between the deceiver and the deceived…betrayal acted out on the basis of ignorance from the victim’s side is much more abrupt and leaves the deceived one more powerless in front of the deceiver. Ahalya’s story in Ramayana tells a strange happening of betrayal caused by ignorance. Ahalya, the wife of sage Gautama was very beautiful. Attracted by her beauty…Indra, the king of heaven wanted to seduce her. To fulfill his motive, he disguises himself as sage Gautama in his absence. Ahalya unaware of all these, unknowingly consents to Indra & thereby betrays her husband. This is a story of double betrayal where Indra betrays Ahalya by exploiting her ignorance…while from Ahalya’s side it is because of her ignorance she deceives her husband. Though for many, Ahalya consents to Indra wilfully despite of recognising his mistaken identity. I wonder from where this doubt arises…is it from the traditional misogynistic attitude or is it from our deep-rooted belief-system that the act of betrayal can never be innocent.
While ignorance can serve as an instrumental tool in many cases of treason, in many other cases knowledge can be used as a power to betray someone. The story of Samson & Delilah is a perfect example of the weaponisation of confidential knowledge to violate trust. Treachery through intimacy is the purest form of violation that has been occurred in the history of humanity. Intimacy not in the romantic sense only…between a man & a woman. But also general loving gestures between humans also turned out to be a vicious act before a deception. Imagine how lovingly Judas Iscariot would have kissed Jesus keeping his heinous heart hidden in the Garden of Gethsemane. Sometimes I feel curious why only Judas out of Jesus’s closest twelve disciples turned out to be a traitor? Bible describes Judas as the treasurer of Jesus’s group. While the other disciples- Peter, Andrew, James, John were uneducated fishermen…managing money probably required a reasoned mind and education to some extent. So was Judas’s treachery a natural reactionary result of the conflict between a rational mind vs complete faith? Did Judas deceive Jesus to testify his divinity? Because of a thinking mind’s incapability to submit to a persona purely acting upon Faith?
…………………….
“To violate” probably most suitably defines treachery in general. To crush an emotional bond, a deep trust or to distort normalcy in a relationship or stripping down one’s decency- have been the driving forces working behind a traitor’s psychology. Why in most cases this criminological killer’s attitude prevails in the acts of treason? Do people betray others only because of the thanatological force inherently present in human psychology? Can there never be a constructive approach behind an act of treachery? Even if it is done for a “good reason”, should it be called even a treason?
“Aśvatthāmā hatha iti gajaḥ”
(Ashvatthama is dead, the elephant)
It’s story of a famous episode of Kurukshetra war, where partial truth is used as a psychological warfare strategy in a genius way. So, when the savagery of the war was on peak, and no one was able to kill or defeat the royal preceptor Dronacharya…Krishna advised Judhisthira to utter this line. But in a way so that the part “Aśvatthāmā hatha”(Ashvatthama is dead) is uttered with a stress and the remaining part “iti gajaḥ”(the elephant) is pronounced loosely. Judhisthira executed the utterance accordingly and that hit its target successfully. Dronacharya heard only the well-stressed part…lost his will to fight and lay down his weapons believing that Ashvatthama, his only son was killed. While in reality it was an elephant named Ashvatthama was killed. Using this very emotionally vulnerable state of mind, another Warrior Dhrishtadyumna killed Drona. This strategic move to use partial truth proved to be a decisive turn in the battle of Kurukshetra, paving the way for victory of the Pandavas (the righteous ones).
This is a story I heard about when I was not even a teenager. Even at the very pristine stage of infancy, when one’s mind is yet to know to scheming tactics of adult life…the deception never occurred me hateful. After all I knew the Pandavas were fighting the battle for a just reason! So, may be when the idea of Justice is stapled with an act of treachery…the very nature of the emotive appeal get altered in a perceptor’s point-of-view.
And the traitor becomes a God!
………………….
Why am I less than you?
Perhaps it is this inferior self-esteem that drives a traitor to ruin his opponent in “secrecy”. The inferiority may be in status, power, ability, moral stance. But feeling inferior at the level of psychology gives birth to the most cold-blooded act of treachery. Where a traitor, no matter how much he tries cannot uplift himself to the level of his target. This is a case of pure envy! Envy for those dreamy twinkle of eyes…envy for that hearty smile…envy for that soulful happy presence.
But the saddest ones are those treacheries which germinate among the familial bond. Imagine how Joseph from The Book of Genesis would have felt when deceived and sold to slavery by his own brothers with whom he spent all his childhood evenings…playing cricket! Sharing pizzas! Scientists would call it the working of survival instincts, ingrained in our DNA. But what is the meaning of that survival while shedding off all feelings of cordiality?
And how can I forget the thing called Lust for Power! Power, not in the material sense only…Power over one’s emotions, Power to dictate the course of an event etc…perhaps all of them force a person to walk through the path of treachery. Especially when the opponent sits on a power-position and there is no other way to ruin him other than the creeping way of deception. Some would argue that what else one should do if he is dominated under a tyrannical ruler (it may be anyone from father to king) and can not find any other way to cut through the oppression? In that case, I want to know whether a treachery done by an oppressed should be called even a treachery…or should it be considered a mild yet effective form of revolt? When Vibhishana, the righteous brother of Ravana deceived his own brother & land to help Rama…was it only his moral rebellious calling against a tyrannical ruler? Or was there a little bit of Lust for Power also present?
A tiny bit of greed…for Power?
…………………
When treason is a necessity!
With the advent of modern state affairs, originated different forms of state-sponsored treachery such as “espionage”. Where relationships at the individual level are deceived for the sake of a larger aim such as security etc. But it is done not in the strict sense of Dharma or morality…rather the execution of deception derives from the necessity of running modern state affairs successfully.
The modern-day Sanjayas!
There is a character in Mahabharata, named Sanjaya who is gifted with Divya Drishti (divine vision) and narrates the events of Kurukshetra war to the blind king Dhritarashtra including the death of his hundred sons. What is interesting is that Sanjaya carries out his job with maintaining loyalty to both his king and truth. But I read a book named Parva which is a kind of deconstruction of Mahabharata, where the character of Sanjaya distorts truth according to the political landscape of the battleground. I found that more interesting as, if Sanjaya is imagined as the modern media-person, he is more likely to be a truth-distorter! It would be no wonder if Sanjaya uses his divine vision to produce a deceptive version of truth to us, the “blind” information consumers…Perhaps to topple a ruling govt or back up an aspiring govt. Or may be contaminate a country’s image in front of the whole world. It is where treason is being played to control our perception and opinion too.
It is a sad thing that I had to catch hold of the traitors mostly from the sphere of imagination. It is sad because the imaginary traitors are rather naïve I would say. They start as traitors from the very beginning itself! May be with some cunning phrases! So that from the very first appearance we get alert…of that dumb-looking specy guy…or may be of the deceptively innocent face hidden under those attractive curls! What else I could do! Facts tell only about “failed deception” or “versioned deception”! While the beauty of treason lies in its secrecy! When recognised only after the completion of the game!
And in those winking eyes glinted with mischief…that tell “listen! It was a treason!”
