Institutions Must Shed Pride of Absolute Administrative Power >>>>> Twenty-Second Friday Evening Meeting: Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 Institutions Must Shed Pride of 

Absolute Administrative Power

Twenty-Second Friday Evening Meeting

Press Club Hyderabad, (July 10, 2026)

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

On July 10, 2026, the unique ‘Friday Evening Meetings’ at the Press Club Hyderabad successfully marked their 22^nd consecutive gathering. Continuing a rich tradition of joint learning and spontaneous discussions with experts across diverse fields, these weekend get-togethers steadfastly uphold their core concept: ‘Meet, Reflect, Document, and Continue.’ With no prefixed agenda, these informal sessions have steadily evolved into platforms of excellence. As like-minded journalist friends gathered in the Press Club's AC room for this uninterrupted 22^nd meeting, they had the distinct privilege of welcoming three distinguished guests.

            The guests included Ponnala Lakshmaiah, an 82+ years former Minister and ‘Person with Difference,’ who demonstrated his inimitable memory, precision, flexibility, expressivity, and comprehension. Alongside him were Dr Parakala Prabhakar, a political economist, public intellectual, author, and Honorary Member of the Press Club, and Vijay Oddiraju, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Volante Technologies, a major global provider of cloud payments and financial messaging solutions. First-time participant P Kaladhar Rao, an Associate Member of the Club, also joined the conversation.

Given such an esteemed circle, it goes without saying that the dialogue naturally turned to a critical question: ‘Is democracy in peril?’ Rather than offering a simple conclusion, this query served as a direct invitation to examine recent institutional shifts: specifically, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls and the establishment of the High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes, through the strict lens of constitutional democracy.

The conversation instantly shifted to Dr Parakala’s sharing of the ‘Status Report on SIR in Telangana as on July 7, 2026,’ which was followed by an enthralling collective analysis, deliberation, and discussion among all participants. Far from a mere statistical update, this report captures a critical exercise in constitutional democracy: the preparation and verification of electoral rolls. Because democracy depends on the foundational principle that every eligible adult citizen has a vote backed by a genuine elector, any revision of these rolls naturally demands both appreciation and objective scrutiny.

A quick look at the report by the participants indicates that Telangana has approximately 3.38 crore electors. While 3.16 crore Enumeration Forms (EFs) have been distributed, representing 93.50% outreach coverage, indicating that, only 33.11 lakh forms have been digitized, amounting to a mere 9.79% administrative completion. These contrasting percentages tell two entirely different stories. Confusing outreach with final completion would be analytically incorrect.

The report’s most encouraging aspect is the physical distribution of forms, where a rate exceeding 93% demonstrates substantial administrative mobilization. In about six districts, distribution approaches complete coverage. If accurate, this performance suggests that the field machinery, including Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and district election officials, has been highly active, successfully reaching the vast majority of households.

Administratively, this distribution data is no small achievement. However, a strict distinction must be maintained between distribution and verification. Delivering a form to a voter is merely the beginning. The true democratic test lies in ensuring that the form is correctly filled, collected, verified, digitized, and acted upon according to law. Therefore, impressive distribution statistics alone cannot establish the success of the entire exercise.

The statewide ten percent digitization rate invites closer examination. This clear lag behind field distribution suggests several possibilities: forms must first be received, scrutinized, and manually processed, while large metropolitan districts likely face delays from sheer volume. However, the district wise variations are striking, showing that some areas have already transitioned from mere distribution into substantial data processing.

However, administrative complexity cannot permanently justify these delays. Urban voters form a significant portion of the electorate; if metropolitan digitization remains slow, public confidence may weaken. Election management depends heavily on the visible appearance of fairness. In a constitutional democracy, public trust increases only when impressive distribution numbers are accompanied by equally detailed procedural explanations.

Notwithstanding all this, if genuine voters encounter unnecessary hurdles, excessive documentation, poor communication, or arbitrary exclusions, this exercise could inadvertently weaken democracy. Democracies are judged by both the accuracy of electoral rolls and the inclusiveness of the process. Striking a balance between these two competing objectives: accuracy and inclusiveness, remains the central democratic challenge highlighted in this report.

Political reactions to these reports are inevitable. While ruling parties highlight impressive administrative outreach, opposition parties will question the coverage of vulnerable groups: including migrants, tenants, tribal populations, students, senior citizens, and economically weaker sections. Ultimately, civil society plays the most critical role. Universities, legal experts, journalists, and former civil servants must independently monitor whether this entire process strictly adheres to constitutional principles.

Ultimately, democracy is strengthened neither by inflated claims of administrative perfection nor by generalized allegations of institutional failure. It thrives when every eligible citizen can confidently state that their vote is secure and the process protecting their franchise is transparent, impartial, and fair. The participants of the Friday Evening Meeting firmly concluded that this report should not be viewed as a final verdict on the Special Intensive Revision, but as an important progress marker that simply requires a better presentation.

            As the electoral roll discussion concluded, Dr Parakala introduced another burning topic to the Friday Evening Meeting participants: the constitution of a High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes (HLCDC). Chaired by Retired Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naik, this committee was established via the Gazette of India Extraordinary Notification dated May 26, 2026, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Foreigners-I Division).

 The participants briefly deliberated on the notification, noting its significant constitutional, administrative, and political implications. Viewed objectively, the document begins with the premise that demographic changes in certain regions of India are not driven merely by normal fertility or mortality trends. Instead, it explicitly blames external factors, citing illegal immigration, irregular population mobility, and administrative laxity.

The notification notes that these demographic changes are spreading beyond border districts into urban centres, industrial corridors, tribal regions, and socially sensitive areas. Consequently, this shift impacts governance, public service delivery, resource distribution, and social cohesion. To address this, the Committee is entrusted with studying the causes, extent, and consequences of these changes to recommend legal, administrative, and policy measures. This mandate makes its Terms of Reference particularly noteworthy.

The Committee’s mandate extends beyond studying demographic changes to examining illegal immigration and identifying resulting structural shifts in religious or social communities. Crucially, it is tasked with recommending mechanisms for the identification, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants, strengthening border management, enhancing Union-State coordination, and proposing a permanent institutional framework.

The participants initially observed that from a national security standpoint, every sovereign nation possesses both the right and the obligation to know who resides within its territory. If substantial, illegal immigration can impact border security, welfare distribution, electoral integrity, employment opportunities, land ownership patterns, and law enforcement. Periodic demographic studies are therefore neither unusual nor inherently undemocratic; indeed, most mature democracies maintain robust systems to identify citizens, regulate migration, and remove individuals residing illegally.

A careful review of the notification shows that it emphasises scientific study over immediate executive action. Comprising retired judges, senior civil servants, and subject experts, the Committee represents an attempt to ground policy in institutional examination rather than political rhetoric. Furthermore, its mandate extends beyond security concerns to vital governance issues like public services, infrastructure planning, and resource allocation: areas where accurate population data remain indispensable for schools, hospitals, housing, transportation, and fiscal planning.

While appreciating the intention, the Friday Evening Meeting participants and distinguished guests: led by Dr Parakala and Ponnala, observed that the notification’s language repeatedly associates demographic change with illegal immigration. While illegal immigration may contribute in certain regions, demographic change is a far more complex phenomenon driven by fertility transitions, urbanisation, internal migration, economic opportunities, educational attainment, and ageing populations. Over-emphasising a single factor could produce incomplete conclusions.

Another major concern is the notification's focus on analysing demographic changes ‘at the level of religious or social communities.’ While such analysis can be statistically legitimate for resource planning, presenting or interpreting it without strict safeguards risks reinforcing divisive communal narratives. It can create false perceptions that certain communities are inherently suspect; therefore, democracies require extraordinary care whenever state actions intersect directly with religion or ethnicity.

The recommendation regarding identification, detention, and deportation demands strict constitutional safeguards. Meeting participants noted that under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, every person, not just every citizen, is entitled to equality before the law and due process. Administrative efficiency must never substitute for legally established procedures, as mistaken identification or bureaucratic errors can lead to irreversible human consequences.

The proposed permanent institutional mechanism also raises critical questions regarding federalism. While immigration falls under Union jurisdiction, its local consequences are borne directly by the States. Effective implementation therefore requires genuine Centre-State cooperation rather than unilateral executive action. Furthermore, participants noted a key concern: how this demographic and immigration mandate directly intersects with the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) debate.

The participants pondered several critical points regarding these intersecting exercises. They questioned whether electoral roll revisions might be used as immigration determination exercises, or if broad demographic studies might substitute for individual legal adjudication regarding citizenship. They emphasized the need for credible evidence before asserting that non-citizens have been enrolled as electors, arguing that electoral purity must be maintained through procedures consistent with law and natural justice.

Ultimately, treating entire populations as presumptively suspect or imposing disproportionate documentation upon genuine citizens risks undermining constitutional equality and democratic legitimacy. The Friday Evening Meeting participants reached a consensus that the ultimate challenge will be to reconcile two equally vital constitutional values: safeguarding the integrity of citizenship while simultaneously protecting the rights of individual citizens.

Taken together, the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Telangana and the Gazette Notification on the High-Level Committee on Demographic Changes reveal a distinct structural duality. They suggest that the Union Government is addressing broad demographic concerns through one institutional mechanism, while the Election Commission independently executes electoral roll verifications through another.

Beyond legal provisions, constitutional doctrines, and administrative mechanisms lies a deeper concern that frequently surface in democratic societies during periods of institutional transition. At this regular Friday Evening Weekly Interaction at the Press Club, distinguished political economist Dr Parakala Prabhakar posed a fundamental question that left the gathering in reflective silence: ‘Is democracy itself in peril? Could a day come when we may no longer be able to sit together in a Press Club like this and freely discuss public affairs?’

This question was not intended to predict the future, but rather to remind participants that democracy is sustained by a broader ecosystem of freedoms. Beyond mere elections and laws, it relies on the freedom to assemble, deliberate, dissent, and engage in informed public debate without fear. Ultimately, the true measure of a constitutional democracy lies in its ability to simultaneously protect institutional integrity and citizen liberty. When either element is compromised, the entire democratic framework becomes less resilient.

The enduring challenge before India is not to choose between national security and civil liberty, or electoral purity and individual rights, but to ensure that each strengthens the other. This balance represents the constitutional equilibrium envisioned by the framers of the Republic and the democratic aspiration that must guide its future. Ultimately, Dr Parakala Prabhakar’s remarks, followed by the consensus approach of the participants, did not seek to pronounce final conclusions.

Instead, they raised questions that merit deep democratic reflection. If the power to determine whether a name remains on the electoral roll rests with executive agencies without adequate transparency, independent scrutiny, or effective appellate safeguards, the citizen's constitutional right to vote faces significant vulnerabilities. While preparing electoral rolls remains the constitutional responsibility of the Election Commission, the entire process must inspire public confidence. Inclusion or exclusion must be governed strictly by established law, verifiable evidence, and due process rather than administrative discretion or perception.

Equally pertinent is whether assertions regarding large numbers of foreign nationals on electoral rolls are backed by a transparent public mechanism. Public trust requires clear disclosure on how many such names have actually been identified and deleted, the legal basis applied, the procedures followed, and the specific opportunities provided for those affected to be heard. In a constitutional democracy, such transparency is not merely desirable; it is entirely indispensable for maintaining institutional trust.

These questions naturally lead to a broader consideration surrounding the Special Intensive Revision. The fundamental distinction lies in whether the exercise remains solely focused on improving electoral roll purity, or if implementation deficiencies could inadvertently exclude genuine electors. An administrative process designed to strengthen democratic frameworks must be carefully managed to ensure it does not, even unintentionally, result in the disenfranchisement of lawful citizens.

The credibility of the process ultimately depends not only upon its objectives but also upon the fairness, transparency, and constitutional safeguards governing its execution. It was against this backdrop that another critical thought emerged during the discussion. If sections of society sincerely believe their democratic rights are being curtailed, a constitutional democracy dictates that such concerns cannot be expressed through confrontation or violence. Instead, they must be addressed through established legal frameworks and peaceful public dialogue.

India's history offers a highly enduring tradition in the principle embodied by Mahatma Gandhi's Dandi March: peaceful, disciplined, non-violent public action rooted in truth, constitutionalism, and moral persuasion. Democratic disagreement acquires its true institutional legitimacy only when it remains firmly within the framework of law, constructive dialogue, and peaceful civic participation. Regardless of the issue under debate, these time-tested methods invariably strengthen a constitutional democracy rather than weaken it.

Democracy is judged not by the absence of disagreement, but by the fairness with which that disagreement is accommodated. Electoral integrity, national security, demographic governance, and citizenship are all entirely legitimate concerns of a constitutional State. Crucially, a citizen's rights to equality, due process, free expression, and peaceful dissent are equally legitimate.

India's constitutional genius lies not in choosing between competing interests, but in harmonising them. Institutions earn vital public confidence only when they function with transparency, strict accountability, and complete independence. Simultaneously, citizens strengthen the democratic framework by remaining vigilant, informed, and fundamentally peaceful. If these twin responsibilities are faithfully discharged, democracy need not be viewed as in peril; instead, it will invariably emerge stronger from every constitutional test.

A broad consensus was reached to represent these concerns to the decision-making hierarchy, advocating for citizen-friendly procedures, realistic timelines, and a robust Permanent Residence Certificate framework. Safeguarding the voting rights of every eligible adult citizen in this manner will ultimately renew the enduring covenant of trust between citizens and institutions.

The Twenty-Second Friday Evening Meeting concluded with a verse from Bummera Potanna’ Andhra Maha Bhagavatam that calls for shedding ego and pride for divine grace. The excerpt from the Vamana Charitra emphasizes abandoning eight forms of pride: ‘Wealth (Vitta), Age (Vayo), Beauty (Roopa), Knowledge (Vidya), Power (Bala), Authority, Karma, and Birth,’ to achieve inner purity. Participants linked this to modern democracy, arguing that institutions, like individuals, must discard the excessive pride of absolute administrative power and transparency to earn public trust.

SEVENTH, EIGHTH, and NINTH alternative JOBS >>>> Professions, Checkered Career, and Lessons-12 : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 SEVENTH, EIGHTH, and NINTH alternative JOBS

Professions, Checkered Career, and Lessons-12

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao (July 9, 2026)

In 2004 when Dr YS Rajashekhar Reddy headed the Congress Party Government as Chief Minister, he took a conscientious decision, to remove from government payrolls all those who were appointed on contract basis by his predecessor Chandrababu Naidu, suspecting that they were done as favors, irrespective of merits and demerits. Though in my contractual appointment there was no role of Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu as such, and it was purely an administrative decision of HRD Institute Director General PVRK Prasad, I too had to leave the job.

I was just 56 years old (Retirement age as per Government rules was 58), and when was forced to relinquish the job with a monthly salary of Rs 23,000/- and also was asked to vacate the accommodation in HRD campus, neither I had a pension to get, nor savings, nor own house. And not even a remote chance to get a job. Added to this I had debts of about Rs 10 lakhs borrowed from friends. However, my son Aditya and his family were with us, and he was working comparatively in a good position. That gave us confidence for survival, and thanks to him soon we moved to a small flat bought by him in 2004 October-November.

Despite my serious trials for getting back my job in MCR HRD Institute through my contacts, and in the process meeting Chief Minister Dr YA Rajshekhar Reddy, Chief Secretary Mohan Kanda, Finance Minister, and Chairman MCR HRD Managing Committee etc. all were known to me personally, nothing resulted to secure mu lost, because something BEST was stored for me in future and God destined me for that, about which as human being I did not realize that my efforts were futile. These developments were also learning lessons that, one should sail with the changing times, people, and circumstances. When it comes to an adverse decision merit would never be counted.

Meanwhile, I associated for some time with the Centre for Good Governance, working almost on a daily-wage basis, yet with compensation that was both fair and reassuring. Alongside, I undertook ghost-writing assignments for a Minister, remunerated on an article-to-article basis, which allowed me to continue contributing intellectually and creatively, that life had taught me. For a few months, I served as Regional Director of the Centre for Media Studies (CMS), followed by an association with the Andhra Pradesh Press Academy, where I was involved in training journalists on the Right to Information Act, drawing only a nominal salary but deriving deep professional satisfaction.

My CGG assignment was due to Dr Prasanna Kumar (PK) Mohanty, who as its Director General, recognized my expertise in aspects of Right to Information, and enabled me to take up training programs for various groups in the state. Later he also gave me an assignment to draft a module on it for training journalists, and Devulapalli Amar, the then Chairman AP Press Academy had taken it forward, with the funding support from CGG. Amar gave me a monthly honorarium, almost equal to my last drawn salary in MCR HRD Institute. Simultaneously, I was also given a placement in Center for Media Studies by its Chairman Dr N Bhaskar Rao, as its Regional Director, where the nature of job was to monitor the daily news and analyze them. All the three assignments taught me a lot.

Couple of words about the three who stood by my side during this lull: Dr PK Mohanty, an officer of Indian Administrative Service (1979 batch), later served as the Chief Secretary to Government of the Erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, a post held by him after becoming Secretary to Government of India. Devulapalli Amar has been a senior journalist, state and national level journalists’ union leader serving in key higher positions. Dr N Bhaskar Rao is a pioneer of social research in India and an eminent mass communication expert with 60 years of distinguished background. He is founder Chairman the independent research think tank, Centre for Media Studies (CMS).

{{From my Forthcoming Book

PROFESSIONS, CHECKERED CAREER, AND LESSONS

(From Librarian to CPRO to CM KCR)

A Journey from Khangi School to Center for Excellence}}

 

SATYA ABOVE ALL >>> THE NIGHT THAT CHANGED AYODHYA FOREVER >>> Simplified and faithful rendering of the Adi Kavya-30 : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 SATYA ABOVE ALL

THE NIGHT THAT CHANGED AYODHYA FOREVER

Simplified and faithful rendering of 

The Adi Kavya-30

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

The Ayodhya Kanda opens not merely as a continuation of events narrated in the Bala Kanda, but as a profound inward turning of Valmiki’s thought. After the joyous preparations for Rama’s coronation, destiny itself seems to intervene through human agency. Manthara’s words, Kaikeyi’s resolve, and Dasharatha’s anguish together shape one of the most decisive moral moments in the Adi Kavyam. As rendered in classical Sanskrit by Maharshi Valmiki and with equal devotional depth in grammatical Telugu by the modern saint-poet Vavilikolanu Subba Ravu, this episode reminds us that behind every human action there operates a larger, unseen design.

Even today, when events in our lives suddenly overturn our best-laid plans, we are compelled to ask whether fate, choice, or duty is guiding us. Rama’s impending exile is not an accident of palace politics; it is the very path through which the purpose of his incarnation unfolds. When Kaikeyi demanded the two boons, Dasharatha was shattered. In anguish and disbelief, he addressed her as a cruel and sinful woman and questioned whether she had entered the Ikshvaku dynasty only to destroy it.

On what grounds, he asked, could he command Rama, his life-breath, to go into exile for fourteen years? He declared that he was prepared to abandon Kausalya, to part from Sumitra, even to give up his own life for Kaikeyi, but that living even a moment without Rama was impossible. Rama, he cried, was not merely his son but his very existence. The depth of Dasharatha’s despair reflects the timeless truth that parental love often transcends reason, law, and even self-preservation.

Continuing his plea, Dasharatha said that he would fall at her feet with folded hands if only she would allow him to live. If she wished to test his affection for Bharata, he insisted, there were countless other ways. This cruel scheme, he declared, could not have arisen from her own heart; someone else must have poisoned her mind. Dark days, he lamented, were descending upon the Ikshvaku race because of her. To him, Bharata and Rama were equal, without the slightest distinction.

How, he asked in agony, could Rama, so tender, so noble, survive fourteen years in the forests? Here Valmiki subtly shows how favoritism is absent in Dasharatha, yet destiny forces him into an impossible moral conflict. As he pleaded, Dasharatha began extolling Rama’s virtues, such as, his compassion, his restraint, his unwavering righteousness. He made it clear that Rama’s exile would surely bring about his own death. And if that happened, he asked Kaikeyi, what further sin would she plan against those dear to him? Would she plunge the dynasty into chaos under the pretext of protection?

Dasharatha declared that if Bharata himself agreed to Rama’s exile, Bharata should not perform his funeral rites. Rama, he said, had never uttered a cruel word, never harmed anyone, and had always worked for her welfare. The tragedy deepens when virtue itself becomes the cause of suffering, reminding us that righteousness does not always shield one from pain.

Yet Kaikeyi repeated her demands, louder and more resolute, invoking the boons Dasharatha had once granted. Anger and despair overtook the king. For a moment, he lost composure and addressed her harshly, reminding her that after long childlessness he had begotten Rama, a son of incomparable greatness. How, then, could he abandon such a one? Recounting Rama’s valor, wisdom, self-control, patience, and lotus-like eyes, Dasharatha asked again how it was possible to send him to the dreadful Dandaka Forest. In moments of extreme crisis, even the strongest minds oscillate between reason and raw emotion.

Seeing her husband collapsed on the ground, fainting repeatedly from grief, Kaikeyi spoke without compassion. She reminded him of his sworn promise and accused him of attempting to escape it through lamentation. She warned him that dying as a breaker of vows would be sinful and unworthy of a king. Why, she asked, should she renounce the boons he himself had given? Rising with determination, she urged him to reflect on dharma, whether keeping a promise was righteous or breaking it. All the virtuous, she argued, upheld truth as the highest dharma.

Kaikeyi insisted that, she was not asking him to commit adharma, but only to fulfill his own word. Kaikeyi’s reasoning, though harsh, reflects a dangerous logic still seen today, where legal or verbal correctness is pursued without compassion or context. Invoking ancient exemplars, Kaikeyi spoke of King Sibi, who sacrificed his own flesh to keep his word, and of King Alarka, known for his piety and devotion, as detailed in Puranic stories, and who gave away his eyes in charity. Even the ocean, she argued, does not transgress its limits, though it possesses immense power. Truth, she proclaimed, is Brahman itself; truth is the foundation of all dharma, all Vedas, and liberation itself.

If Dasharatha had even a trace of moral discernment, Kaikeyi said, he must fulfill her boons. Otherwise, he should openly declare that dharma meant nothing to him. She forced him to choose between dharma and Rama, and warned him not to seek escape through cleverness. Finally, she demanded that Rama be sent to the forest that very day, threatening to take her own life at his feet if he failed to comply. This stark confrontation shows how absolute interpretations of virtue can become instruments of coercion.

Dasharatha was plunged into turmoil. Bound by the noose of truth, he felt trapped like a bull caught between the yoke and the cart. To send Rama to exile meant death to himself. To refuse meant the destruction of truth. Choosing what he believed to be the lesser evil, Dasharatha turned away from Kaikeyi and declared that he renounced both her and her son Bharata. These words were not spoken in rage or as a threat, but as a solemn pronouncement born of anguish. When moral dilemmas allow no painless choice, even righteous decisions leave deep scars.

This utterance, the text suggests, functions almost as a curse. Scriptures permit the abandonment of a wife who persistently obstructs dharma, speaks harshly, and causes unbearable distress. Yet, was Kaikeyi truly guilty of all these faults? She had received the boons legitimately, with her husband’s consent, and demanded only what was promised. Thus, the situation invites debate. Another interpretation holds that Kaikeyi violated her Swadharma as a wife by placing ambition and resentment above her husband’s welfare.

A wife, says the Sastra, is one in whom the husband finds contentment. Where the husband is pleased, even the gods rejoice. Valmiki deliberately leaves space for reflection, urging readers not to judge hastily but to examine motive, context, and consequence. According to this view, Kaikeyi failed the ideals of Pativrata Dharma. Fidelity is not merely physical but moral and emotional alignment with one’s spouse. By obstructing Dasharatha’s dharma and causing him unbearable suffering, she forfeited that ideal. She also disrupted the natural order by preventing the rightful coronation of the eldest, most virtuous son.

Scriptures declare that when the eldest son is righteous, sovereignty belongs to him, and younger brothers must regard him as a father. Kaikeyi’s actions, driven by desire for power and rivalry, thus violated familial, social, and dynastic norms. Even so, the boons remained binding on Dasharatha. Here lies the central paradox of the episode: a promise made in righteousness leads to unrighteous consequences.

As night gave way to dawn, Dasharatha spoke again to Kaikeyi. Soon, he said, ministers and priests would arrive to conduct Rama’s coronation. He would not survive to see that moment. If he died, Rama alone must perform his final rites and lead him to the higher worlds. Since Kaikeyi had obstructed Rama’s coronation, neither she nor Bharata should offer him the funeral libations. He could not bear to witness the grief of the people, who had eagerly awaited Rama’s anointing. The sorrow of a ruler here merges with the sorrow of an entire nation, reminding us that leadership decisions ripple far beyond palace walls.

Kaikeyi, however, feared that events might slip from her control. Dawn had broken, the stars had faded, and the moon had set. She worried that the coronation might proceed despite her efforts. Accusing Dasharatha of speaking like a delirious patient, she urged him to act immediately. He must summon Rama, send him to the forest, and install Bharata as king, thereby fulfilling his duty and granting her pride and security. Impatience and insecurity often harden the heart, silencing any lingering compassion.

Dasharatha, wounded beyond measure, reflected aloud that he was not violating dharma willingly but was compelled by his bond to truth. His intellect, he lamented, had deserted him. Overcome by helplessness, he asked to see Rama. This raises a critical question: was Dasharatha truly bound by dharma, or by truth alone? As a householder and a king, abandoning a blameless eldest son was not sanctioned by dharma. As a ruler, punishing the innocent was forbidden.

Thus, strictly speaking, he was not dharma-bound. Rather, he was bound by Satya, the truth of his given word. Valmiki here distinguishes sharply between moral law and moral integrity. The boons had been granted not in passion or weakness, but as a debt of gratitude when Kaikeyi had saved his life in battle. To break that promise would make Dasharatha ungrateful and untruthful, setting a dangerous precedent for the entire kingdom. A king’s conduct, after all, shapes the conduct of his people. If the ruler himself violated truth, how could he punish dishonesty in others?

Even at the cost of his life and happiness, Dasharatha felt compelled to uphold truth for the sake of society. This is leadership at its most tragic and most instructive. Kaikeyi countered that what Dasharatha considered adharma was, in her view, dharma, for truth surpassed all else. Truth, she argued, was the highest of all virtues, the very head among limbs of dharma. Without truth, dharma is lifeless. Thus, Dasharatha’s claim of being dharma-bound was not entirely false. In this nuanced debate between truth and righteousness, Valmiki does not offer easy answers. Instead, he invites every generation to wrestle with the tension between ethical ideals when they collide.

With the first light of dawn, Sage Vasiṣṭha, having completed his morning rites in the Sarayu, entered Ayodhya with his disciples, bearing the sacred materials for the coronation. On the way, he met the Minister Sumantra and instructed him to inform the king of his arrival. He described about the holy waters, the golden vessels, the seeds, fragrant substances, jewels, cows, sacred animals, and all that was prepared for Rama’s anointing. Unaware of the tragedy unfolding within the palace, Sumantra proceeded to Dasharatha. The contrast between outer celebration and inner devastation heightens the pathos of the scene.

Approaching the king as usual, Sumantra spoke cheerfully, urging him to rise for the auspicious ceremonies. The night had passed, the sun had risen, and all preparations for Rama’s coronation were complete. Sage Vasiṣṭha and the Brahmins awaited his command. Dasharatha, however, lay crushed beneath the weight of his vow, unable to respond. Thus ends a night that forever altered the destiny of Ayodhya and set in motion the events that would define the Ramayana itself. This is the precise moment where Valmiki’s inner philosophy truly turns, moving from royal idealism to the deeper testing of dharma through suffering.

This chapter stands as the moral axis of the epic. From this crucible of truth and suffering emerge Rama’s obedience, Sita’s steadfastness, Lakshmana’s devotion, Bharata’s renunciation, and the long exile that transforms personal sorrow into universal dharma. For modern readers, the parents, leaders, and children alike, this episode asks an enduring question: when values collide, what will we choose to uphold, and at what cost?

>>>Photographs courtesy Rama Bhakta Vijaya Raghava Dasu

{{From my Published Book ‘Simplified and Faithful Rendering of the Adi Kavya’

Valmiki Ramayana: The Greatest Epic (Bala and Ayodhya Kandas)}}

(This Book is free of cost for all those who are interested to read the English Version of Valmiki Ramayana, provided they collect it from me in person preferably. Mobile: 8008137012)

PRECIOUS HOURS WITH JUSTICE B SUDERSHAN REDDY >>>>> A Conversation on Constitutional Law, Societal Justice, and Citizen Awareness : Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

 PRECIOUS HOURS WITH 

JUSTICE B SUDERSHAN REDDY

A Conversation on Constitutional Law,

Societal Justice, and Citizen Awareness

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao 

(July 6, 2026), Hyderabad

When constitutional safeguards meet grassroots reality, meaningful public discourse is born. A vibrant democracy relies entirely on an informed citizenry capable of questioning administrative complexities, driven by political policy decisions to protect its most sacred right: the vote. Inspired by this democratic spirit, a few like-minded friends decided to converge today to dissect ongoing policy issues, judicial frameworks, and voter rights.

Spending two precious hours extending from forenoon to afternoon, I had the fortune of engaging with Justice B Sudershan Reddy, former Supreme Court Judge; Mallepally Laxmaiah, prominent journalist and activist; Amar Devulapalli, Editor of Mana Telangana; Kondubhatla Ramachandra Murthy, veteran journalist; and Dr Aitharaju Bharat Babu, a Dentist and avid reader. Our informal Hyderabad meet-up transformed into an enriching, deeply intellectually stimulating session.

The venue was the Jubilee Hills Residence of Justice Sudershan Reddy, where the rest of us called on him. Naturally, our conversation Centred around Current Affairs, focusing deeply on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). We debated its pros and cons, alongside its necessary and unnecessary evils. We explored how a few Conscientious Individuals must initiate possible rectifications through a strictly Nonconfrontational Approach, seeking ways and means to secure and ensure the Voting Right of every adult citizen: the legal power to vote without discrimination, which remains the foundational Constitutional Right.

Towards this, our conversation arrived at a consensus to make a firm request to the Appointed Authorities for the provision and issuance of a ‘Permanent Residence Certificate’: if not for all purposes, at least for obtaining the Right to Vote. This measure would safeguard computer illiterates and partial literates from facing insurmountable hurdles in proving their locus standi while filling out the cumbersome proformas distributed by BLOs, who themselves remain largely ignorant of a foolproof process. Meanwhile, we collectively felt that an urgent request must also be submitted for extending the SIR timeline.

The Karnataka Example was also debated. Their Cabinet demanded a transparent, evidence-based electoral roll revision, insisting that the ECI review the SIR framework, extend submission timelines, and publish software logic before implementation. To prevent mass Disenfranchisement, they require physical verification before voter deletion, protection for marginalized groups, and public disclosure of data to prevent opaque, algorithmic errors. Our conversation strongly favoured a similar, proactive action in Telangana, urging a formal request to Appointed Authorities to halt the potential Subversion of Voter Rights.

Amidst the current SIR-dominated environment, an ironic reality prevails: nobody truly knows what is what, what will be what, who will retain their vote, or who will be quietly erased by an algorithm. To cut through this bureaucratic fog, we reached a consensus to mobilize more like-minded Conscientious Individuals. This Team Work aims to secure a positive response from Appointed Authorities for a Permanent Residence Certificate, extended timelines, and a simplified procedure to Ensure the Voting Right of every Adult Citizen.

Amar and I then presented our books to Justice Sudershan Reddy. I would remiss not to mention his immense simplicity, modesty, and affection. He graciously accompanied us down the lift and stood by until we entered our vehicles, a gesture my friends deeply appreciated. A Great Person Indeed!

An appeal to like-minded friends to actively associate with, and strengthen this team. This is a vital step forward in preserving, protecting, and defending the constitutional right of every adult to franchise. Voting reflects the ultimate ‘Letter and Spirit Observed’ equality: the one place where all citizens are truly equal, standing side-by-side in the same queue. Let SIR be streamlined as citizen friendly in tune with 'Choice and Voice of Voter.' Join us!

కర్తవ్యబోధ చేసిన భగవానుని గీత >>>>> (18 రోజుల కురుక్షేత్ర మహాభారత సంగ్రామ విశేషాలు-2) : వనం జ్వాలా నరసింహారావు

 కర్తవ్యబోధ చేసిన భగవానుని గీత

(18 రోజుల కురుక్షేత్ర మహాభారత సంగ్రామ విశేషాలు-2)

వనం జ్వాలా నరసింహారావు 

(భక్తి పత్రిక, జులై నెల 2026)

(కురుక్షేత్రంలో తొలిరోజు కురుపాండవ సేనలు ఒకరి ఎదురుగా మరొకరు మొహరించారు. యుద్ధ ప్రారంభ సూచనగా శంఖనాదాలు చేశారు. ధర్మరాజు పెద్దలందరి ఆశీస్సులు తీసుకున్నారు. ఆర్జునుడిని విషాదయోగం ఆవరించింది. దానినుంచి తేరుకోవడానికి ధర్మక్షేత్రమైన కురుక్షేత్ర మధ్యంలో శ్రీకృష్ణ భగవానుడు గీతోపదేశం చేశాడు. దానిని విన్న అర్జునుడు యుద్ధానికి సన్నద్ధుడయ్యాడు. ఇంకా తొలిరోజు యుద్ధంలో అనేక విశేషాలున్నాయి) - సంపాదకుడు, భక్తి పత్రిక 

పాండవ సర్వసేనాధిపతైన ధృష్టద్యుమ్నుడు, దేదీప్యమానంగా వెలుగొందుతూ, ముందుండి పాండవ సైన్యాన్ని నడిపిస్తున్నాడు. భీష్ముడు నరవ్యూహం పన్నాడు. పాండవుల, శ్రీకృష్ణుడి సూచన మేరకు, నరవ్యూహం కంటే అపురూపమైన ‘అచల’ వ్యూహాన్ని ధృష్టద్యుమ్నుడు పన్నాడు. ఆ వ్యూహంలో యుద్ధం చేయడానికి అభిమన్యుడు, పాండవ కుమారులు, నకుల సహదేవులు, భీమసేనుడు, విరాటుడు, ద్రుపదుడు నిలిచారు. వ్యూహం మధ్య భాగంలో ధర్మరాజు రథం మీద కూచున్నాడు. ముందు భాగంలో అర్జునుడి రక్షణలో శిఖండి భీష్ముడికి ఎదురుబొదురుగా నిలిచాడు. వెనుక భాగంలో మగధ దేశానికి చెందిన సహదేవుడు, ధృష్టకేతుడు నిలిచారు.

         ఇరుపక్షాల సేనలు పరస్పరం ఎదుర్కుంటూ భయంకరంగా ప్రకాశించారు. శ్రీకృష్ణుడు పాంచజన్యం అనే శంఖాన్నీ, అర్జునుడు దేవదత్తం అనే శంఖాన్నీ పూరించారు. ఇంతలో, ధర్మరాజు ఉన్నట్లుండి తన కవచాన్ని తీసేసి, ఆయుధాలతో పాటు రథం మీద పెట్టి, రథం దిగి, మౌనవ్రతం పూని, భీష్ముడున్న చోటుకు వెళ్లడం చూశారు అతడి తమ్ములు, శ్రీకృష్ణుడు, సాత్యకి మొదలైనవారు. కారణం తెలుసుకోవడానికి వారంతా ఆయన్ను అనుసరించారు. వారి ప్రశ్నలకు జవాబు చెప్పకుండా నిరాయుధుడై, భీష్ముడిని సమీపించిన ధర్మరాజు పితామహుడైన భీష్ముడి దగ్గరికి పోయి అతడి పాదాలకు నమస్కారం చేశాడు.

         ధర్మజునికి ఆశీస్సులు

         యుద్ధం చేయడానికి భీష్ముడి అనుమతి, ఆశీర్వాదం కావాలని కోరాడు ధర్మరాజు. అలాగే అని, ఆయన శత్రువులను జయిస్తాడని, ఆయనేదైనా వరం కోరుకుంటే ఇస్తానని అన్నాడు భీష్ముడు ధర్మరాజుతో. భీష్ముడిని యుద్ధంలో గెలిచే ఉపాయం చెప్పమని అడిగాడు ధర్మరాజు. ఆయుధం పక్కకు పెట్టితే తప్ప తనను జయించడం దేవతలకు కూడా సాధ్యం కాదన్నాడు భీష్ముడు. ధర్మరాజు ఆ తరువాత, ద్రోణుడు, కృపుడు, శల్యుడు వున్న చోటుకు వెళ్లి వారి పాదాలకు నమస్కారం చేసి, తాను వారితో యుద్ధం చేయడానికి అనుమతి, ఆశీర్వాదం కావాలని కోరాడు.

ధర్మం ఎక్కడ వుంటుందో అక్కడ శ్రీకృష్ణుడు వుంటాడని, శ్రీకృష్ణుడు ఎక్కడ వుంటే అక్కడ విజయం సిద్ధిస్తుందని అన్నాడు ద్రోణాచార్యుడు. చేతిలో ఆయుధం ఉన్నంతవరకు తనను ఎవరూ చంపలేరన్నాడు. తనకు కీడుమాట వినిపిస్తేనే శస్త్ర సన్యాసం చేస్తానన్నాడు. యుద్ధంలో ధర్మరాజు గెలవాలని కృపాచార్యుడు, శల్యుడు దీవించారు. వారందరి దగ్గర సెలవు తీసుకుని ధర్మరాజు మరలి తన స్థానానికి వెళ్లాడు. ధర్మరాజు అలా అందరి పెద్దల అనుమతి, ఆశీర్వాదం తీసుకుని మరలి వస్తున్న సమయంలోనే, తానున్నంతవరకు యుద్ధానికి రాకుండా భీష్ముడు నిషేధించిన కర్ణుడు, యుద్ధరంగానికి రావడం చూసిన శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అతడి దగ్గరికి వెళ్లి మర్యాదగా పలకరించాడు.

భీష్ముడిమీద కోపంతో కర్ణుడు యుద్ధంలో పాల్గొనడం లేదని తెలిసిందని, కాబట్టి భీష్ముడు మరణించే వరకు అతడు పాండవ పక్షంలో చేరి యుద్ధం చేయమని, అలా చేసి భీష్ముడి మీద పగతీర్చుకోమని సరదాగా మాట్లాడాడు. ఇది ఒక విధంగా శ్రీకృష్ణుడి రాజనీతి చతురతకు చక్కటి ఉదాహరణ. కార్యసాధనకు సామ, దాన, భేద, దండోపాయాలు అవసరమని అంటారు. జవాబుగా కర్ణుడు తాను దుర్యోధనుడికి ఏనాడో తన ప్రాణం సమర్పించానని, వేరే పక్షంలో చేయడం న్యాయం కాదని స్పష్టం చేశాడు. స్వామిభక్తికి ఇది చక్కటి ఉదాహరణ.

ధర్మరాజు మళ్లీ కవచం ధరించి యుద్ధానికి సన్నద్ధుడయ్యే ముందు ఒక పిలుపిచ్చాడు కౌరవ పక్షంలో వున్నవారికి. అటు నుండి ఎవరైనా వచ్చి పాండవ పక్షంలో చేరితే వారిని హృదయపూర్వకంగా స్వాగతిస్తానని అనగానే ధృతరాష్ట్రుడి కొడుకు యుయుత్సుడు వచ్చి చేరాడు. కౌరవ సేనాపతైన భీష్ముడు సింహనాదం చేసి శంఖం వూదాడు. మిగిలిన రాజులు కూడా అలా చేయగానే ఆకాశం యుద్ధవాద్యాల ధ్వనితో నిండిపోయింది. అప్పుడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడు పాంచజన్యాన్ని, అర్జునుడు దేవదత్తాన్ని, ధర్మరాజు అనంతవిజయాన్ని పూరించారు. భీమ, నకుల సహదేవ, ద్రుపద, విరాట, సాత్యకి, ధృష్టద్యుమ్నుడు, శిఖండి మొదలైనవారు తమ శంఖాలను పూరించారు.

యుద్ధభూమిలో గీతోపదేశం

సరిగ్గా ఆ సమయంలో, యుద్ధం ఇక ఆరంభించాల్సి వుండగా, అర్జునుడు గాండీవాన్ని ధరించి, అల్లెతాటిని మోగించి, బాణాలు చేత్తో తీసుకుని, శ్రీకృష్ణుడితో, తానిప్పుడు ఎవరితో యుద్ధం చేయాలో నిర్ణయించుకోవాలని, కాబట్టి రథాన్ని యుద్ధం మధ్యలోకి తీసుకుపొమ్మని అన్నాడు. అర్జునుడు కోరినట్లే రథాన్ని రెండు సేనల మధ్య నిలిపాడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడు. బంధు మిత్రులను చూసిన అర్జునుడు దుఃఖానికి లోనయ్యాడు. తన గాండీవం జారిపోతున్నదని,  ఈ క్రౌర్యానికి తాను ఒడిగట్టలేనని, ఇంతమంది చచ్చిపోయాక కలిగే సౌఖ్యాలు ఏపాటివని శ్రీకృష్ణుడితో అన్నాడు.

         తాతలను, మామలను, కొడుకులను, తండ్రులను, సహోదరులను, గురువులను, స్నేహితులను, స్వార్ధ బుద్ధితో సంహరించి పొందే రాజ్యసుఖాలు రక్తంతో తడిసినట్టివి. అవేం సంతోషం కలిగిస్తాయి? ఎలాంటి కీర్తిని తెచ్చిపెట్ట గలవు? ఏ అభ్యున్నతిని చేకూర్చగలవని అన్నాడు. యుద్ధమార్గం తాను అంగీకరించ లేనన్నాడు అర్జునుడు. ఇంతటి పాపం చేయడానికి పూనుకోవడమా? రాజ్యం మీద ఆశతో బంధువులను చంపుకోవడమా? అని అర్జునుడు పలుకుతూ రథం మీద తన చేతిని ఆసరాగా చేసుకుని కూలబడి కూచున్నాడు. దీన్నే అర్జున విషాదయోగం అని అంటారు. దీని పర్యవసానమే భగవద్గీత ఉపదేశం. అప్పుడు ఆర్జునుడిని చూసి శ్రీకృష్ణుడు గీతోపదేశం చేయడం ఆరంభించాడు.

         అర్జునుడికి ఇలాంటి ఆలోచన తగదని, మనస్సులోని తక్కువ భావాన్ని విడిచిపెట్టి గొప్పవాడివి కమ్మని, యుద్ధానికి లెమ్మని హెచ్చరించాడు. అర్జునుడు అలాగే విషాద తన్మయత్వంతో రథం మీద కూలబడి కూచుని శ్రీకృష్ణుడికి జవాబిచ్చాడు. తాను భీష్మ, ద్రోణులలాంటి బంధుమిత్రులను చంపడం పరాక్రమం కాదని, కాబట్టి యుద్ధం చెయ్యలేనని అన్నాడు. తాను ధర్మం తెలియని మూఢుడినని, తనకు జ్ఞానోపదేశం చేసి కర్తవ్యం తెలియచేయాలని అర్జునుడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడిని వేడుకున్నాడు. ఏ మాత్రం దుఃఖించదగని వారికోసం అర్జునుడు దుఃఖిస్తున్నాడని, వున్నవారికి, విధివశం వల్ల తప్పనిసరిగా చనిపోయినవారికి దుఃఖించాల్సిన అవసరం లేదని, మనసు ఉజ్వలమైన వివేకంతో కూడినదైతే దుఃఖాలన్నీ నశిస్తాయని శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అన్నాడు.

         ‘మానవదేహం బాల్యం, యౌవనం, వార్థక్యం అనే అవస్థలు పొందినట్లుగా, చినిగిపోయిన పాతబట్టలు విడిచి కొత్త బట్టలు ధరించినట్లు, ఆత్మ ఒక దేహాన్ని విడిచి మరొక దేహాన్ని పొందుతుంది. ఆత్మ దేహాంతరగమనం వల్ల నశించదు. నశించేది శరీరం మాత్రమే. ఆత్మకు పుట్టుక, చావు అనేవి లేవు. ఆయుధాలు శరీరానికే తప్ప ఆత్మకు హానిచేయలేవు. ఆత్మ (పురుషుడు) బాధించేవాడు కాదు. బాధను పొందేవాడూ కాదు. ఆత్మకు అభావం లేదు. ఆత్మ శాశ్వతం. శరీరం నశించేది. దానికి అస్తిత్వం లేదు. ఈ కారణం వల్ల ఎవరూ శోకించాల్సిన అవసరం లేదు. చావుపుట్టుకలు సహజ పరిణామం అని సరిపెట్టుకోవాలి.’ ఆత్ముడు నశిస్తాడు అని అనేవాడు, ఆత్ముడు నశింపచేస్తాడు అని అనేవాడు, ఇద్దరూ అవివేకులే! అని శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అర్జునుడికి తత్త్వజ్ఞానోపదేశం చేశాడు.

‘ఆత్మ నశించదు. ఎవరినీ నాశనం చేయదు. పురుషుడు, ఆత్మ అంటే నేనే! వేరొకడు కాదు. పురుషోత్తమత్త్వం అభివ్యక్తం కావడానికి ఆత్మత్వస్ఫూర్తి వుంటుంది. అదే సర్వక్రియలకూ పూనుకుంటుంది’ ఆత్మకు బాధింపబడడం లేదని, బాధించడమూ లేదని వివరించాడు. అర్జునుడి అహంకార, మమకారాలను తొలగించాడు. అర్జునుడు యుద్ధానికి చేయాల్సిన స్వకర్మావలంబనం వదలరాదని తెలియచేసే మాటలను చెప్పాడు. క్షత్రియులకు ముఖ్య కర్తవ్యం యుద్ధమని, దానివల్ల స్వర్గం లభిస్తుందని, లేచి యుద్ధం చెయ్యమని బోధించాడు. ఇంక ఇలా అంటాడు: ఫలితాల పట్ల మమకారం విడిచి కర్తవ్యాలను నిర్వహించాలి. ఫలితాలు, జయాపజయాలు భగవదర్పితం చేయాలి. తత్త్వజ్ఞానం లభిస్తే ఇక కర్మ నాశనం తానంతట అదే కలుగుతుంది. ఇలా ఎన్నో విధాలుగా శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అర్జునుడికి జ్ఞానోపదేశం చేశాడు.

విశ్వరూప సందర్శనయోగం

         శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అర్జునుడు అడిగిన ప్రశ్నలకు సరైన సమాధానాలు చెప్పి, అతడి అనుమానాలన్నిటినీ పోగొట్టాడు. అర్జునుడు లేచి నిలుచుని, శ్రీకృష్ణుడితో, ఆయన అందించిన సందేశం, చేసిన ఉపదేశం మిక్కిలి రహస్యమైనదని, తనమీద ఎంతో దయ వున్నది కాబట్టే ఇలాంటి ఆత్మజ్ఞానం తనకు కలిగించాడని, ఆయన చెప్పిన ఆధ్యాత్మికతత్త్వం వినడం వల్ల తన భ్రమ తొలగిందని, యోగీశ్వరులు చూడడానికి తహతహలాడే ఆయన రూపం తనకు దర్శింపచేయమని ప్రార్థించాడు. వెంటనే శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అర్జునుడికి దివ్యదృష్టి ప్రసాదించి తన విశ్వరూపాన్ని ప్రదర్శించగా, అర్జునుడు దానిని సందర్శించాడు.

ఆ విశ్వరూపం వర్ణనాతీతం. సర్వ ప్రపంచంతో కూడిన, సమస్త సృష్టికి మూలకారణమైన, భూమ్యాకాశ దిక్కులన్నీ కలిగిన, దేదీప్యమానంగా వెలుగొందిన, ఆ విశ్వరూపాన్ని కాంచిన అర్జునుడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడిని పరిపరివిధాల స్తుతించాడు. తన దిగ్భ్రాంతిని వ్యక్తం చేస్తూ, అసలాయన ఎవరో చెప్పమని వేడుకున్నాడు. జవాబుగా, తాను లోకాలన్నిటినీ నాశనం చేసే యముడిని సుమా! అన్నాడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడు. కురుక్షేత్ర సంగ్రామ రంగంలో జనసందోహాన్ని సంహరించడానికి ఉద్యుక్తుడనయ్యానని, అర్జునుడు తాను చంపుతున్నట్లు భ్రమలో పడనక్కర లేదని, భీష్మద్రోణులంతా అవశ్యం చావాల్సినవారేనని, తాను చంపే వీరందరినీ అర్జునుడే చంపినట్లుగా భావించి విజయం కైకొని రాజ్యం ఏలుకొమ్మని అన్నాడు.

అర్జునుడు నిమిత్తమాత్రుడే అని, లేచి యుద్ధం చెయ్యమని ఆదేశించాడు. ఆ మాటలు విన్న అర్జునుడు వణకుతూ చేతులు జోడించి శ్రీకృష్ణుడికి నమస్కారం చేశాడు. తాను ఎక్కువసేపు ఆయన విశ్వరూపం చూడలేనని, శాంత స్వరూపం ధరించమని వేడుకున్నాడు. సామాన్యులు దర్శించలేని తన విశ్వరూపాన్ని అర్జునుడికి మాత్రమే చూపానని అంటూ వెనుకటి ఆకారాన్ని ధరించాడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడు. అర్జునుడికి రహస్యమైన జ్ఞానాన్ని అందించానని, అతడా సందేశాన్ని అవగాహన చేసుకుని, తనకు నచ్చిన రీతిలో ప్రవర్తించమని చెప్పాడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడు అర్జునుడికి.

ఇప్పుడు చెప్పినదానికంటే గొప్ప రహస్యం చెప్తానని అంటూ, ధర్మాలు ఎన్నో వున్నప్పటికీ, వాటికి ఎన్నో ప్రత్యామ్నాయాలు వున్నప్పటికీ, వాటన్నిటి కంటే రక్షించేవాడు తానే అని నమ్మి తన శరణు పొందమని, అలా చేస్తే పాపాలన్నీ పోగొట్టి సంతోషం చేకూరుస్తానని చెప్పాడు. శ్రీకృష్ణుడి మీద తనకు పరిపూర్ణ భక్తి విశ్వాసం కలిగాయని, అన్ని అనుమానాలు తొలగిపోయాయని, ఆయన విశ్వరూప సందర్శనం వల్ల తన జ్ఞానం దృఢ౦గా పాదుకున్నదని, ఇక ఆయన చెప్పినట్లుగా నడచుకుంటానని అన్నాడు అర్జునుడు. ఇలా అంటూ అర్జునుడు శ్రీకృష్ణుడికి భక్తితో సాష్టాంగనమస్కారం చేసి, గాండీవం ధరించి నిలిచాడు. భీష్ముడి మొదటి రోజు యుద్ధం ప్రారంభం అయింది. 

తొలిరోజు యుద్ధం

         అర్జున విషాదయోగం, శ్రీకృష్ణుడి విశ్వరూప ప్రదర్శన, అర్జునుడికి తత్త్వజ్ఞానోపదేశం, ఫలితంగా జ్ఞానోదయం అనంతరం, కౌరవ సేనాధిపతిగా భీష్ముడు కదనరంగంలో ముందున్నాడు. పాండవులు భీముడిని ముందుంచుకుని భీష్ముడు నడుస్తున్న చోటుకు దగ్గరిగా తమ సైన్యాలను తరలించారు. భీముడు విజృంభించడంతో దుశ్శాసనుడితో సహా దుర్యోధనుడి ఎనిమిదిమంది తమ్ములు ఆయన్ని ఎదిరించారు. నకులుడు, సహదేవుడు, ధృష్టద్యుమ్నుడు, అభిమన్యుడు, ద్రౌపది కుమారులు విజృంభించారు. ఆవిధంగా యుద్ధం ప్రారంభం కాగానే పాండవుల పక్షాన భీముడు, కౌరవుల పక్షాన దుశ్శాసనుడు ముందుగా దూసుకు వచ్చారు. పాండవ, కౌరవ సేనలు భీకరంగా పోరాడాయి.

         అదే సమయంలో అర్జునుడికి, భీష్ముడికి మధ్య భీకరమైన పోరాటం జరిగింది. సాత్యకి, కృతవర్మతో తలపడ్డాడు. అభిమన్యుడు, బృహద్బలుడిని ఎదుర్కున్నాడు. భీమసేనుడి మీద భీష్ముడు కోపించాడు. విలువిద్యలో ఆరితేరిన ధనుష్కుడైన భీష్ముడిని, భీముడు గదతో కాకుండా ధనుస్సు పూని సమ యుద్ధం చేయడం ఒక విశేషం. సహదేవుడికి, దుర్ముఖుడికి మధ్య యుద్ధం జరిగింది. ధర్మరాజు, సాక్షాత్తూ నకులసహదేవుల మేనమామైన శల్యుడిని ఎదుర్కున్నాడు. పాండవ సేనాపతైన ధృష్టద్యుమ్నుడు ద్రోణుడిని తాకాడు. మగధ దేశాధిపతైన సహదేవుడు, భూరిశ్రవుడితో యుద్ధం చేశాడు. ధృష్టకేతుడు కురువృద్ధుడైన బాహ్లికుడిని తలపడ్డాడు. అలంబసుడికి, ఘతోత్కచుడికి భీకరమైన రాక్షస పోరు జరిగింది. శిఖండి అశ్వత్థామను ఎదిరించాడు. భగదత్తుడు, విరాటుడి మీద విజృంభించాడు. కేకయరాజైన బృహత్ క్షత్రవిభుడు, కృపుడు ఒకరినొకరు ఎదుర్కొన్నారు. జయద్రథుడికి, ద్రుపదుడికి తీవ్రంగా పోరు జరిగింది. వికర్ణుడు, యుధామన్యుడు తలపడ్డారు.

శకునిని, ధర్మరాజు తనయుడు ప్రతివింధ్యుడు ఎదుర్కోగా, కాంభోజరాజు భీముడి కొడుకైన శ్రుతసోముడితో తలపడ్డాడు. ఉలూచి-అర్జునుడి కొడుకు ఇరావంతుడు ధృతరాష్ట్రుడి కొడుకైన శ్రుతాయువును ఎదుర్కొన్నాడు. విందుడు, అనువిందుడు కుంతిభోజుడిని, అతడి కొడుకు పురజిత్తును ఎదుర్కొన్నారు. దీర్ఘబాహుడు ఉత్తరుడి మీదికి విజృంభించాడు. నకులుడి కొడుకు శతానీకుడు ఉలూకుడిని ఎదుర్కొన్నాడు. మరొకవైపు భీష్ముడు యుద్ధం చేస్తుంటే పాండవుల సేనలు తల్లడిల్లిపోయాయి. ఆ సమయంలో అభిమన్యుడు కౌరవ సేనను ఎదుర్కొన్నాడు. శల్యుడిని, కృతవర్మను, వివింశతిని, కృపుడిని చీకాకు పరచి, భీష్ముడి మీదకు విజృంభించాడు. భీష్మాదులంతా కలిసి అభిమన్యుడిని ఎదుర్కొన్నారు. అయినా అతడు చలించలేదు.

ఒకానొక సమయంలో అభిమన్యుడి బాణాలకు భీష్ముడి జెండా విరిగి నేలమీద పడిపోయింది. ఆ కార్యాన్ని సాధించి అభిమన్యుడు వీరవిహారం చేసేటప్పుడు భీముడు అతడికి తోడుగా వచ్చి, భీష్ముడిని ఎదిరించాడు. శల్యుడిని సొమ్మసిల్ల చేశాడు. అభిమన్యుడికి, భీముడికి బాసటగా సాత్యకి, ధృష్టద్యుమ్నుడు, కేకయరాజులు, విరాటరాజు చేరారు. భీష్ముడి వీరోచిత పోరాటం కొనసాగింది. ఉత్తరుడు శల్యుడిని ఎదుర్కొని విరథుడిని చేయగా, శల్యుడు శక్తి ఆయుధంతో ఉత్తరుడిని చంపాడు. ఉత్తరుడి సోదరుడు శంఖుడు శల్యుడిని ఎదిరించాడు. భీష్ముడు శంఖుడిని అడ్డుకోగానే, అర్జునుడు రథాన్ని అటువైపు మళ్లించాడు. భీష్మార్జునులు ఒకరిమీద ఒకరు విజృంభించారు. శల్యుడు, శంఖుడి గుర్రాలను నేలమీద పడగొట్టాడు.

యుద్ధం కొనసాగుతుండగా, భీష్ముడు విజృంభించగా, ఆ అద్భుత పరాక్రమానికి పాండవులు ఆశ్చర్యపోయారు. భీష్ముడి బలపరాక్రమాలకు దుర్యోధనాదులు సంతోషించారు. ఈ విధంగా కౌరవపాండవ సేనల్లోని గొప్ప వీరులు ఒకరితో ఒకరు తలపడగా యుద్ధం భీకరంగా సాగింది. యుద్ధం ఆ విధంగా దాదాపు మధ్యాహ్న సమయం వరకు సాగింది. ఆ తరువాత భీష్ముడు భయంకరుడై విజృంభించి, పాండవ సేనను పలురకాలుగా చికాకు పరిచాడు. వారిని తాకి, వారు పన్నిన వ్యూహాలను చెదరిపోయేట్లు రణక్రీడ సలిపాడు. ఇంతలో సూర్యుడు అస్తమించాడు. చీకట్లు వ్యాపించాయి. యుద్ద్ధం ఆపుచేసి ఇరుపక్షాల సేనలు ఆవాసాలకు వెళ్లిపోయారు.