Have you ever liked a villain more than the hero? Who and why?
Who is the hero and who is the villain? It all depends on the perspective. Everyone has traits of both; sometimes the hero is dominant, and sometimes the villain.
I read it somewhere and really liked the analogy. According to Hindu scriptures, there are four yugas(ages): Satyuga, Tretayuga, Dwaparyuga, and Kaliyuga (the current yuga). If we consider the hero as God and the villain as a demon, in Satyuga, the hero used to live in heaven and the villain under the ground; then came Tretayuga, where both started living on the earth but poles apart; Dvapara yuga brought them even closer, and they started living in the same city; and finally in Kaliyuga, they came together and live in a human body. So we are both hero and villain.
A villain has enough reasons to do what he does, and he believes in it. Maybe it’s wrong for society, but not for him. For instance, Pan Singh Tomar, who was a dacoit, was wanted by the government. If you read his story, you’ll learn he was an ex-military officer and national-level athlete who also represented India at the Asian Games before becoming a rebel. His reasoning was justified; he had to take the law into his own hands when our system turned its back on him. His land dispute got so ugly that he had no choice but to handle it himself.
Who is the villain in this case: Pan Singh, the system, or the people who were troubling his family for a piece of land?
Let’s talk about the great Hindu epic Mahabharata. Duryodhana, portrayed as the ultimate villain, wasn’t that bad at all. In fact, the Pandavas, known for their good deeds, were equally corrupt. Yudhishtir, the eldest of the Pandavas, was a gambler who lost his property, servants, brothers, and even his wife, Draupadi, in gambling. Who gambles away his wife? What kind of hero was he?
On the other hand, Duryodhana had every reason to hate the Pandavas: first, they were not the legitimate children of Pandu, the deceased elder brother of Dritarashtra, Duryodhana’s father and current king. Even if they were, the kingdom should have passed to the current king’s son, as per the traditions of that time (even today, that’s how it is, which is called nepotism).
Pandavas spent their childhood in the forests and ashrams, and then one day they appeared in the kingdom, talking about their share. Who will entertain that? Just think of your cousin brothers who you just heard about coming to your door one day and asking for a share of your property.
The Pandavas were so good that they married a single woman, as if women were scarce at the time. How right was that? I totally agree; kingship should be based on merit, and the Pandavas were way ahead of the Kauravas in that regard. But where in the world does this happen? Nepotism is rooted in human culture; a father passes down his wealth and property to his son or daughter, whether he is worthy of it or not.
I don’t endorse Duryodhana’s or Pan Singh’s actions, but I understand why they did what they did. There is no hero or villain; it’s just us reacting to the situation. Someone else’s perspective decides whether we’re a hero or a villain, but everyone is a hero to themselves.
If Duryodhana had won, would history have called him a hero? What does that say about how we write stories?
Happy Reading! Keep Traveling!!!
