In the Daksha pastime, why do we blame Daksha alone and not consider that others also acted hastily or insensitively?

Podcast:

Question: Why blame Daksha? Doesn’t life always involve moral complexity, making it difficult to assign blame entirely to one person?

Answer: You’re right that life is generally full of moral complexity, and it’s rare to attribute 100% of the blame for a situation to a single individual. Daksha, in this narrative, is not presented as an inherently evil person or a demon. Yet, his actions, at least to some extent, were undeniably harsh, negative, and terrible in their consequences.

While it’s difficult to assign absolute blame, this doesn’t imply a universal 50/50 split in responsibility, or a 33/33/33 split if three parties are involved. Some individuals are clearly more culpable or responsible than others.

From an objective perspective, Daksha’s cold treatment and complete neglect of Sati, his own daughter, render him culpable. Even more critically, when he witnessed her preparing to end her life at his own sacrifice, he made no attempt to intervene or stop her. As the host and sponsor of the sacrifice, it was his event, his daughter, his home, and his ultimate responsibility to prevent such a tragedy. His failure to act in that moment is a serious problem.

In English, we distinguish between a “sin of omission” and a “sin of commission.”

• A sin of omission occurs when one fails to do something they are meant to do. For example, if police officers, despite frantic calls, remain bystanders during a riot instead of intervening, they could claim, “We didn’t do anything.” But by not doing anything, they allowed harm to occur, which is a significant dereliction of duty.
• A sin of commission occurs when one actively does something wrong. For instance, if police are bribed and become murderers instead of protectors, that’s a sin of commission.

While a sin of commission is generally considered more severe than a sin of omission, omitting one’s duty can also be profoundly serious. In Daksha’s case, he certainly committed sins of commission: he consciously arranged for Shiva to receive no portion of the sacrifice, which was a deliberate insult. More significantly, his sin of omission in neglecting Sati and remaining silent while she was ending her life was a grave lapse. Therefore, I do not believe blame can be apportioned equally here. Daksha bears significant culpability.

Did Sati not try to understand Daksha’s perspective? Sati did speak to Daksha, clearly stating her intention to end her life. Daksha’s lack of intervention at that critical moment is key. If he had intervened, would she have stopped? We cannot be certain, but the narrative suggests that if Daksha had shown any readiness to reconcile, if any form of reconciliation had seemed possible, Sati might have paused. The fact that Daksha remained utterly silent and negligent throughout this unfolding tragedy makes him profoundly culpable.