the
mould of good and bad. The Kouravas are bad. The Pandavas are good. And good
eventually triumphs. The unabridged Mahabharata is anything but that. It is much
more nuanced. Duryodhana isn’t invariably bad. He is referred to as
Suyodhana as well, and not just by his father. History is always written from the
point of view of the victors. While the Mahabharata is generally laudatory towards
the Pandavas, there are several places where the text has a pro-Kourava stance.
There are several places where the text has an anti-Krishna stance. That’s
yet another reason why one should read an unabridged version, so as not to miss out
on these nuances. Take the simple point about inheritance of the kingdom.
Dhritarashtra was blind. Consequently, the king was Pandu. On Pandu’s
death, who should inherit the kingdom? Yudhishthira was the eldest among the
brothers. (Actually, Karna was, though it didn’t become known until
later.) We thus tend to assume that the kingdom was Yudhishthira’s by
right, because he was the eldest. (The division of the kingdom into two, Hastinapura
and Indraprastha, is a separate matter.) But such primogeniture was not universally
clear. A case can also be established for Duryodhana, because he was
Dhritarashtra’s son. If primogeniture was the rule, the eldest son of the
Pandavas was Ghatotkacha, not Abhimanyu. Before both were killed, Ghatotkacha should
have had a claim to the throne. However, there is no such suggestion anywhere. The
argument that Ghatotkacha was the son of a rakshasa or demon will not wash. He never
exhibited any demonic qualities and was a dutiful and loving son. Karna saved up a
weapon for Arjuna and this was eventually used to kill Ghatotkacha. At that time, we
have the unseemly sight of Krishna dancing around in glee at Ghatotkacha being
killed.
In the Mahabharata, because it is
nuanced, we never quite know what is good and what is bad, who is good and who is
bad. Yes, there are degrees along a continuum. But there are no watertight and neat
compartments. The four objectives of human existence are dharma, artha, kama and
moksha. Etymologically, dharma isthat which upholds. If one
goes by the Bhagavad Gita, pursuit of these four are also transient diversions.
Because the fundamental objective is to transcend these four, even moksha. Within
these four, the Mahabharata is about a conflict of dharma. Dharma has been reduced
to
varnashrama
dharma, according to the four classes (
varna
s) and
four stages of life (
ashrama
s). However, these are collective
interpretations of dharma, in the sense that a Kshatriya in the
garhasthya
(householder) stage has certain duties. Dharma in the Mahabharata is individual too.
Given an identical situation, a Kshatriya in the garhasthya stage might adopt a
course of action that is different from that adopted by another Kshatriya in the
garhasthya stage, and who is to judge what is wrong and what is right? Bhishma
adopted a life of celibacy. So did Arjuna, for a limited period. In that stage of
celibacy, both were approached by women who had fallen in love with them. And if
those desires were not satisfied, the respective women would face difficulties, even
death. Bhishma spurned the advance, but Arjuna accepted it. The conflict over dharma
is not only the law versus morality conflict made famous by Krishna and Arjuna in
the Bhagavad Gita. It pervades the Mahabharata, in terms of a conflict over two
different notions of dharma. Having collectively married Droupadi, the Pandavas have
agreed that when one of them is closeted with Droupadi, the other four will not
intrude. And if there is such an instance of intrusion, they will go into
self-exile. Along comes a Brahmana whose cattle have been stolen by thieves.
Arjuna’s weapons are in the room where Droupadi and Yudhishthira are.
Which is the higher dharma? Providing succour to the Brahmana or adhering