I’m writing this post, inspired by a whatsapp argument I had
with my bunch of friends. I wanted to pen my thoughts independent of an
argument cause its easier to be carried away by the heat of the argument and
one might misquote or misinterpret one’s understanding of a subject as grey as
the Mahabharata.
The main issue of contention was that the idea of Kauravas
vs the Pandavas, and how the whole of Mahabharatha was biased towards
glorifying the Pandavas. My friends also opined that Pandavas had no legal
right over the throne of Kuru vamsha. I
would like to clarify that Pandavas never staked claim to the throne of
Hastinapur, being valid and rightful Princes of the Kuru vamsha they sought
rightful co-existence with the Kauravas. The only rightful character in the
whole of Mahabharata after Shantanu who had all the qualities of a King but
choose to forego the same over a promise he had made to his father and
step-mother Bhishma was supposed to take care of both Dritharastra’s and also
Pandu’s sons. The contention and issue of legal heir arises when Yudhisthira or
Dharmaraja was hailed the crown prince of the state by the heads of the Kuru
family especially by Bhishma, ideally things should have been fine since
Yudhisthira looked at the Kauravas as his own brothers. But it was human on the
part of Duryodhana to despise the
decision of Bhishma and rest of the elders.
Duryodhana’s ego got him the throne of Hastinapur, but since the safety
and existence of pandavas was in question a small part of the Kuru dynasty was
awarded to them as a fiefdom.
It was for this piece
of land that the Pandavas fought for as it was taken away from them in a rigged
game of gamble, knowing Dharmaraja’s craving for the game.
I have listed below a few points that aims to paint a few
things in Black and white amidst the grey backdrop of the Bharatha.
Pandavas
·
Able and Just kshatriya’s never sought to harm
their cousins or elders.
·
Fought and competed against cousins and other
princes when required.
·
Never disobeyed their elders or dharma.
Kauravas
·
Brazen ego about being the sons of the ruler.
·
Tried to get rid of the pandavas multiple times,
the lacware house and food poisoning instance were just a few examples.
·
Jealous of the Pandavas, looked to snatch even
the fiefdom of the Pandavas.
·
Sought valor and skills of Karna, befriended
Karna for the sole reason that he could stand against Arjuna.
·
Forced the Elders and Court men to heed to the whims of Duryodhana.
Krishna
·
Never took sides, unlike the popular belief.
·
He was at the side of the people who sought him.
·
Unlike the pandavas, the Kauravas didn’t seek
Dharma/lord. Their objective was to harm and bring disrepute to the pandavas,
more than self-development.
While the notion is to believe that Pandavas won because of
having Krishna by their side, but the tatva or true reason for their victory is
they had a motive and clear objective in the War, they had to defend their
existence as Kshatriyas, unlike the kauravas whose objective was solely
centered on denying or defying the Pandavas a decent existence.
Lot more to talk of and too many opinions to accommodate, but
I would conclude saying -- Although a Grayscale story for plain reading, the
Mahabharatha has clearly touched on all possible human emotions and actions,
and has a defined message that One’s life must be driven by the ethos and not
by the egos. While yudhisthira stood and
thought for the well-being of his brothers along with the kaurava cousins,
duryodhana’s thoughts were wholy centred on his supremacy over others, even while he
was the ruler he forgot his dharma of being the Protector of his subjects, and
faltered into the thought of destroying Pandavas thereby attracting destruction
upon himself, and all those who assisted or adhered to his whims.
" Sought valor and skills of Karna, befriended Karna for the sole reason that he could stand against Arjuna. ". This is your perspective. It is this kind of perspectives people have towards Duryodhana. He is no white but people always tend to paint him black which is not true.
ReplyDeleteAlthough betting everything including his wife was wrong thing to do. Why is their never a perspective or an opinion of anyone that Yudhistira was wrong in doing it. People blame here also the kauravas accusing them of luring Yudhistira. Why is it that there is not a single black thought about Pandavas?? They clearly were not whole white.
My opinion is Mahabharatha is not presented with a neutral bias, probably because the Pandavas eventually won. Its always presented to make it look like Pandavas were the good ones and kauravas bad. I have no problem with the eventual winners being Pandavas and Kauravas losing but according to me Pandavas did as many mistakes too and eventually only won because of Krishna (almighty) being on their side.
Cheers,
Sri!!!
Hi, had thought of replying on this, but somehow forgot to do so all this while.
ReplyDeleteWell here I am, triggering a new argument/perspective. The idea that pandavas have not been presented with negative perspective is not true, and the fact that the mistakes committed by the Pandavas was not to harm others, and by succumbing to individual weaknesses does reflect on them, Arjuna seeking complete and singleton mastery of the skill of Archery, and in turn seeking to end Ekalavya's dream through Drona is indeed a negative quality, but he did not seek ekalavya's thumb, he sought Drona to keep up his promise.
They won because almighty sided with them, but then why did almighty side with them?? They did suffer and pay for their mistakes, but they never tried to kill their kin, albeit in the final war, but Duryodhana did. You differed to the perspective that he befriended Karna so that he could stand against Arjuna, and yes that is true, at least from the narrative of the Mahabharatha, he did recognize karna as a skillful warrior, but his motive indeed was to answer.
The point I was making about Mahabharath, was that though there is no single character with all White or All Black qualities, but in the End a few win the war and god's support, because their path of action was not driven by the Ego. They submitted to the Dharma, where Duryodhana did not, he submitted to his rights as ruler, ego and will.
"Mahabharatha is not presented with a neutral bias, probably because the Pandavas eventually won", I completely agree to this point.:)
ReplyDelete