summon Arjuna for help on such occasions? No, she does
not. She summons Bhima. Therefore, did Arjuna exist at all? Or were there simply two
original Pandava brothers—one powerful and strong, and the other weak and
useless in physical terms. Incidentally, the eighteen-parva classification is
clearly something that was done much later. The 100-parva classification seems to be
older.
The Mahabharata is much more real than
the Ramayana. And, therefore, much more fascinating. Every conceivable human emotion
figures in it, which is the reason why it is possible to identify with it even
today. The text itself states that what is not found in the Mahabharata, will not be
found anywhere else. Unlike the Ramayana, India is littered with real places that
have identifications with the Mahabharata. (Ayodhya or Lanka or Chitrakuta are
identifications that are less certain.) Kurukshetra, Hastinapura, Indraprastha,
Karnal, Mathura, Dvaraka, Gurgaon, Girivraja are real places: the list is endless.
In all kinds of unlikely places, one comes across temples erected by the Pandavas
when they were exiled to the forest. In some of these places, archaeological
excavations have substantiated the stories. The war for regional supremacy in the
Ganga–Yamuna belt is also a plausible one. The Vrishnis and theShurasenas (the Yadavas) are isolated, they have no clear
alliance (before the Pandavas) with the powerful Kurus. There is the powerful
Magadha kingdom under Jarasandha and Jarasandha had made life difficult for the
Yadavas. He chased them away from Mathura to Dvaraka. Shishupala of the Chedi
kingdom doesn’t like Krishna and the Yadavas either. Through Kunti,
Krishna has a matrimonial alliance with the Pandavas. Through Subhadra, the Yadavas
have another matrimonial alliance with the Pandavas. Through another matrimonial
alliance, the Pandavas obtain Drupada of Panchala as an ally. In the course of the
royal sacrifice, Shishupala and Jarasandha are eliminated. Finally, there is yet
another matrimonial alliance with Virata of the Matsya kingdom, through Abhimanyu.
When the two sides face each other on the field of battle, they are more than evenly
matched. Other than the Yadavas, the Pandavas have Panchala, Kashi, Magadha, Matsya
and Chedi on their side. The Kouravas have Pragjyotisha, Anga, Kekaya, Sindhu,
Avanti, Gandhara, Shalva, Bahlika and Kamboja as allies. At the end of the war, all
these kings are slain and the entire geographical expanse comes under the control of
the Pandavas and the Yadavas. Only Kripacharya, Ashvatthama and Kritavarma survive
on the Kourava side.
Reading the Mahabharata, one forms the
impression that it is based on some real incidents. That does not mean that a war on
the scale that is described took place. Or that miraculous weapons and chariots were
the norm. But there is such a lot of trivia, unconnected with the main story, that
their inclusion seems to serve no purpose unless they were true depictions. For
instance, what does the physical description of Kripa’s sister and
Drona’s wife, Kripi, have to do with the main story? It is also more real
than the Ramayana because nothing, especially the treatment of human emotions and
behaviour, exists in black and white. Everything is in shades of grey. The Uttara
Kanda of the Ramayana is believed to have been a later interpolation. If one
excludes the Uttara Kanda, we generally know what is good. We know who is good. We
know what is bad. We know who is bad. The Ramayana is like a clichéd
Bollywood film. This is never the case with the Mahabharata. However, a
qualification is necessary. Most of us are aware of the Mahabharata story because we
have read someversion or the other, typically an abridged one.
Every abridged version simplifies and condenses, distills out the core story. And in
doing that, it tends to paint things in black and white, fitting everything into