I have been hearing this statement that Mahabharata war was a result of woman's fury and all the blame has been shifted on Draupadi. My views on it has been completely orthogonal, so what better day to write about it than Durgashtami on Navaratri which celebrates shakthi.
My love for the book is because it is too human, neither black nor white but shades of grey. Also Best thing about these scriptures is that it is completely available for anyone to add one's own perception and write a view about it, taking that liberty, my views are completely based on the books I have read and insights on topic from various sources, including a wonderful book on "krishnavatara" by K M Munshi. I have learnt that any piece of history has be to read contextually, keeping in mind the socio-economic conditions of the time, I have been inspired by scholarly writings of
aravind sharma.
Now coming to the topic, Instead of defending why it is not because of draupadi that Mahabharata war was fought, I shall try to do a character analysis of major characters. Let me start with the good old Bhishma.
Bhishma : One of the best example of spineless theorist who never thought beyond his own greatness, No matter how much he has been praised, his whole life was one mistake after the other, He was one person who had the authority and choice to make things better. After taking the terrible vow to never get married or take the throne to get his father shantanu marry satyavati, even when he knew that both the sons of sathyavati chirangada(dead in a battle)and vichitra virya(diseased) were not fit to propogate the line, Instead of marrying on sathyavathi's advice who pleads with him to take back his vow he takes his own promise higher than the greater good which a king, thus defying his own words which he much later tells in the shantiparva explaining the characteristics of a king to Yudhistira. Later when satyavathi calls for krishna dvaiyampayana ( Later known as vyasa, son of satyavathi and parashara), he though a sage shows great vision and agrees to beget children to vichitra virya's wives by niyoga( A then prevalent norm). Unfortunately both the son's born of them are again blind(dhritarashtra) and diseased( pandu known as the pale one). Bhishma again Instead of taking the throne which would have benefited the greater good, gets them wives and hands over the kingdom to Pandu. But then diseased pandu renounces the kingdom and takes vanaprastha with whom kunti and madri plan to take company, Bhishma is not seen in the picture there. Then again the next generation race starts with son's of pandu and dhritarashtra. Although the impartiality of Bhishma is commendable in brining up the both the kids and showering love to pandu's kids of fatherly love after pandu is dead, he does nothing to reduce the rivalry between the jealous kaurava's with pandavas. Even later it was only Vidura who saved the pandavas and kunti when duryodhana hatched a plan to kill them in wax palace. Let me skip the rest and move to court of draupadi's vastrapaharana, The actual scenario is not very clear and changes with the mahabharata versions, but then taking only the human aspect, Bhishma being one of the oldest could have chided and his words would have worked on Dhritarastra, But he decided to keep mum with his head low, he did not even have the courage or wisdom of Gandhari to stand for what is right. As though this was not enough, later when krishna Inspite of 13 years of exile of pandavas comes to court make peace by giving pandavas their share, duryodhana insults him and sends back then again Bhishma was the one who could have held peace, Why does it is not clear. Later even when Mahabharata was decided to be fought he fights on the kaurava's claiming his vow to Hastinapura or throne, At his grand old age after taking no action all those years he could have chosen not to participate but again he does not stand by common good. If he kauravas had no support from Bhishma or Drona they would not have gone for war. So I see a major wrong in Bhishma's part in all of it.
Dhritarashtra : A typical example of how blind love for son with lack of judgement can destroy a clan. Every child is like diamonds which can be etched into something beautiful and ornate or it is as worthless as charcoal its base component, Had Dhritarastra chided duryodhana's jealousy at an early age and atleast stood for sharing the kingdom with his brother's son's, he would have not have to see the days with all his son's dead. But who know's what was in his mind.
Kunti: Her character is a mix of grey, at one point she stands for strength to have taken all the burden's of bringing up the children as a single mother, and at another shows magnanimous character in brining up madri's sons nakula and sahadeva as her own, It's not just that she also shows vision in getting Bhima married to Hidimba to survive in forest after kaurava's plan to kill them in wax palace, or in getting married draupadi to all her post-marital son's to maintain the unity (although there are many stories about he mistake assuming it was a fruit, I think it was something genuine and we have to see that in those societal conditions polyandry was common in the hill tribe where she had gone with pandu).Only mistake of kunti I see is wrt karna, Again in society where it was acceptable for a woman to have children before marriage and perfectly normal for them to be legitimate after marriage why did she do this with karna is something not understandable.But well if karna had been treated as the eldest then again I wouldn't say the war would not have been fought, as duryodhana would have added karna to jealousy list as well.
Yudhistra : I seriously don't understand why he is called Dharmaraj, One of the biggest impractical fool who showed his foolishness time and again , had Bhima or Arjuna were the eldest all this saga would probably never have happened. He never did anything on his own, even the Indraprastha was hard work of arjuna and Bhima on krishna's guidance, When it was not his own he did not have any right to agree on the game of dice offered by Duryodhana after the rajasuya, even if he had agreed he could have set his own limits and given up, instead of holding onto his false prestige and gambling his own wife. Where was the theoretical wisdom he lectures on in the yaksha prashne ? when he was playing the game of dice ? All his life he only shows personal ambition and weakness.
Draupadi : Also known yagnaseni, Her character is too human, more on the impulsive side may be, but very true to herself, Powerhouse of strength, wonder if she got that strength from krishna. In the whole Mahabharata I think she might be one who has suffered the most, Firstly put to an awkward situation of polyandry, then hardships and insults, only to lose all her sons in the war to be brutally killed. There are few things about her which are not clear, especially one where people accuse that she and Bhima laughs at duryodhana at Indraprastha in palace built by Maya where he thinks clear crystal as water and carefully passes only to fall off in water where it appeared like land with lotus. If you ask me laughing would be a normal tendency, which even me and you would do, but then there are few additions which tells that she also tells "son of a blind is blind too", an Insult which triggers duryodhana to call for a game of dice which ultimately results in war. But might have been added later to justify why it all started. But then again in the hall where she was dragged to after she was pledged by yudhistra in the game of dice, she shows the strength of her character by asking a question whether he pledged her before he pledged himself or afterwards, Incase he has pledged himself as a slave before he then had no right to pledge her, Holding to logic in the criticality of situation is commendable to me, but then again she is put down by the so called intellectuals in the sabha, but seeing her rage gandhari speaks up and convinces dhritarashtra to free her and give her boons, using which she frees her husband and gets back the kingdom, but then again yudhistra loses it, Using the word stupidity is too soft for yudhistra's behavior. It is then draupadi vows to destroy the kauravas, a rage which is only natural, Atleast Bhima had the spine to stand by her vow, else what an irony to have 5 husbands and not one to stand by in the need of the hour.
Karna : I somehow have stopped feeling bad for karna, may be he was put down, may be he was supported by duryodhana in the need of the hour, but the consciousness of right and wrong should come before pride/ego, many a times he admits that duryodhana was wrong, but does not stand against him, a friend who does not have the courage to tell you the truth about your wrongdoings/shortcomings is not worth having. Also I agree any human would have reacted the way he did when kunti tells him that he is the eldest of the pandavas and he could turn the side and join them he turns her back, When it is all but natural when krishna goes to talk to him about it, he could have thought rationally, both the kauravas and pandavas would have accepted him as the heir, it would have been worked out the best for the whole clan, but then again he shows the vulnerability of human emotions of an uncontrolled mind, only to not fight in the war for first ten days only because Bhishma insulted him. Where was the same friendship to duryodhana then ?
Duryodhana : I have covered most of his character through others, If not for his jealousy and headfastedness he could have realmed hastinapur and let pandavas live at peace in Indraprashta.
In this whole story, if you ask me to pick someone who truly wanted peace and always worked towards the best of the society putting his/her own personal interest at bay, one person who had his head on shoulders, it is none other than krishna, A statesman, A philosopher, A friend , A guide... I could go on and on.A search for historical krishna by NS Rajaram truly captures essence of him.
So in this complex story, with a lot of perspectives involved, just shifting the blame on one character (draupadi) for the whole of Mahabharata war is truly not justified. Who know if any single event in the above mentioned passage would have change we might have had a totally different history, Nevertheless most important thing about this whole saga is what do we learn from this? I am still in the process :-).
Posts
