Recently, I read a column by Aakar Patel. He raised a great question in the context of his blog. Why Hindus don't worship Brahma although He is the creator of the universe. Of the trinity, we care more for Vishnu and Shiva, and Brahma comes to us almost as an afterthought. This is counter-intuitive considering Shiva's ultimate goal is to bring down the whole show. Well, Aakar is not entirely correct in saying that we don't worship Brahma (see here), but his observation is very valid and so is the point he tried to make.
Another character comes to mind who shares a similar fate as Brahma. A great character with great deeds, but relegated to semi-oblivion. Consider Yudhisthira. We don't really care for Yudhisthira although he is known as Dharmaraja. He never uttered a word of lie in his life, except for a brief deception and half-lie during the battle Kurukshetra. He stuck to Satya (truth) even if it meant hardship, loss of family, loss of power and loss of wealth. He was ready to forsake his entry to Heaven for his companion dog. He demonstrated great understanding of finer points of life and Dharma when tested by Yaksha. He was not too bad as a warrior either - although not in the same league as Arjuna or Karna. The only weakness he had was his love for the game of dice.
Despite all his greatness, Yudhisthira did not find a place in our collective psyche. Why is that? Is it because we don't like the idea of being inconvenienced by strict adherence to truth (Satya and Dharma)? That does not seem to be the case. Rama has penetrated our religious consciousness like no other. In some parts of the country you greet others with the words "Ram Ram". Now, Rama gave up his throne (for fourteen years) to keep not his, but his father's promise. So, in terms of being inconvenienced, he is at per with Yudhisthira, if not worse. Still Rama finds a place in our mind.
Perhaps the character of Yudhisthira is too simple, too inflexible, and little insipid. Once set on a course, he keeps on going even if it means a ruinous fate for himself and more importantly, his family members. (Do we get a whiff of George W. Bush?) Another aspect of Yudhishthira's character is his passiveness and apparent lack of action. He always reacted to situations; and reacted with his notion of Satya and Dharma. But never created a situation. On the other hand Krishna of Mahabharata is flexible to the point of being almost devious. Krishna did not hesitate to tilt the balance in favor of people he favored, namely the Pandavas; and he is the object of utter devotion of millions.
Flexibility is a hallmark of Hinduism. Flexibility provided the much-needed resilience against centuries of aggression of and dominance by foreign powers. Because of the flexibility, the Hindus have been able to maintain the continuity of tradition and religion. Is that why we favor Krishna who shows us that life is not always fair and definition of fairness in one's action can be moderated by the realities of the external world?
