There are four possibilities:
- To get the kingdom of Hastinapura and become kings.
- To take revenge for Draupadi's insult.
- To uproot adharma from society and establish dharma.
- They had no clue and were doing only what Krishna told them to.
Lets examine each of these one by one.
Yes, Pandavas did eventually win the war of Kurukshetra and became kings. Technically only Yudhisthira became king, but he always treated his brothers with equal respect. But did they really wanted to become kings so desperately? Not really. Yudhisthira is known to be quite a recluse and would have been happier to retire to the forest. Bheema only wanted to take revenge for Draupadi's insult and never showed any kingly intentions. Arjuna is the perfect cool dude (seriously!) and is happy with his Gandiva (bow), his queens and his best friend, Krishna. Nakul-Sahadeva are anyways not playing any serious role in the story. So, there does not seem to be any strong evidence for the first option to be true.
Taking revenge for Draupadi's insult was certainly a much more stronger feeling with the Pandavas (bottom four) as compared to becoming kings. But for that also, there was no need to fight a war. Bheema or Arjuna could have just killed Duryodhana and other Kauravas involved in the heinous act. There was no need for such a large scale massacre in this case. Actually, there might have been no need of killing Kauravas too. Had the Pandavas and Kauravas known that Karna was son of Kunti, the whole scenario would have totally changed. Duryodhana knew that Bhishma and Drona were supporters of Pandavas and his faith was only on Karna. Only Karna could save Kauravas in the event of a serious face-off with Pandavas. Now if it became known that Karna was himself eldest brother of Pandavas, the matter might have ended there itself. Why Krishna hid this from Pandavas is not at all clear! And in my opinion, Karna would have proved to be a much more worthy king than Yudhisthira.
The third one is actually the most widespread belief. Establishment of dharma or righteousness is considered to be the primary reason for the Kurukshetra war. But is this really true? Among the Pandavas, Yudhisthira seems to be the only one who understands dharma in some depth. Rest four have other great qualities, but knowledge of dharma is certainly not one of them. And Yudhisthira's notion of dharma is about forgiveness. Fighting such a gory battle to establish dharma would have certainly not made much sense to Yudhisthira. In the 1st chapter of the Gita, even Arjuna strongly shows his willingness to give up the war and become a begging mendicant. Though we may say it was out of weakness resulting from fear or attachment, here again we don't see any signs of Arjuna believing that this war will establish dharma. Bheema was of course only thinking of killing Kauravas. So, the Pandavas were certainly not fighting to defend any dharma. Also, did dharma eventually get established after the war? Mahabharata says that, after winning the war, Pandavas ruled Hastinapura for about 36 years after which Parikshit (Arjuna's grandson) became the king. And it is during Parikshit's tenure that Kali Yuga started which is considered to be a time when adharma is at its peak. So, even if we believe that Pandavas ruled their kingdom in adherence to dharma, how long did the kingdom experience righteousness? Just a few decades. Is this really a long enough time to justify such a ghastly war where even most of the soldiers died? Now one may say that Pandavas could not have seen the oncoming Kali Yuga. True, very true! But if we believe that Pandavas fought the war to protect dharma, their back-breaking efforts were really in vain!
Now we come to the last option : Krishna. He is certainly the most interesting and most complex character in the whole of Mahabharata. If Krishna was not present on Pandava's side, they would have never fought the war. This is very clear from just the 1st chapter of the Gita. The only hope for the Pandavas was Arjuna. No one else could face warriors like Bhishma, Drona and Karna. And in the beginning of the war itself, he gives up his Gandiva and experiences an emotional breakdown. We could ascribe this to fear or attachment or both, but the fact remains that he had quite strongly decided to give up the fight. If not for Krishna, no one else could have convinced him to change his decision. Now one may argue that after listening to Gita, Arjuna clearly understood the notion of dharma and thats why decided to fight the war. But thats just not true. Arjuna understood nothing much. After the war, he asks Krishna to explain the whole thing again to which Krishna accuses Arjuna of being of a really low intellect. And Arjuna also does not show any transformation of character after the war which would be an obvious consequence of having clearly understood such deep philosophical ideas. And most importantly, it is not even clear if the entire Gita (as we know it today) was really spoken on the battlefield. Many scholars (including Vivakananda) believe that Krishna must have spoken a few verses to get Arjuna to fight and the current version of the Gita is a later interpolation. I too believe this to be true for various reasons. So, Krishna seems to be the only reason for the Kurukshetra war taking place. Now why Krishna wanted such a gory war is not at all clear! Krishna was certainly not a bad or greedy person. He is one of the most compassionate and knowledgable person in the whole of Mahabharata.
As per Mahabharata itself, Krishna is so powerful that he could have easily killed the Kauravas and finished the matter in few seconds. But what he instead did is to take a vow that he will not use any weapons in the war and will only play the role of Arjuna's charioteer. Strange indeed! The one who caused the war decided not to fight it at all! He even gave away his entire army to Kauravas!! If you have an answer, please post it in the comments below. But please note that I am looking for practically acceptable reasons and not mystical ones.
Kushalji, though it is true that the Pandavas under Yudhisthira epitomized dharma and it was possible to establish dharma rajya only under Yudhisthira and not under Duryodhana to whom dharma or righteousness had no value, the fact remains that the cause of the battle of Kurukshetra was not to establish dharma rajya, nor to get the kingdom of Hastinapur, or to take revenge for Draupadi’s insult, or because Krishna wanted it, but because of Duryodhana’s refusal to give back the kingdom of Indraprastha that was due to Pandavas in terms of the agreement. The Pandavas after having suffered 13 years’ exile were legitimately entitled to get back what was due to them.
ReplyDeleteYour conclusion that the war happened because Krishna wished it overlooks Krishna’s offer of truce as a messenger of Yudhisthira. He of his own proposed that the Pandavas would be happy with only 5 villages, foregoing their claim on Indraprastha, let alone Hastinapur. While Bhishma, Drona, Kripa, Vidura and even Dhritarashtra, along with the sages like Vedavyasa, Parasurama, Kanva etc. endorsed the proposal of Krishna heartily, it was Duryodhana at the counsel of Sakuni who declared that without a battle he would not part with the land of the size of the top of a needle. His obduracy was the immediate cause of the war.
The above view would find support from Mahabharata itself if you read Krishna’s proposal to Dhritarashtra carefully and the Pandavas’ advice to Krishna before he proceeded to Hastinapur as Yudhisthira’s messenger. Even Bhima advised him to do everything possible to avert the battle.
It is true that the sages and the learned Kshatriya leaders like Bhishma were conscious about the super-natural power of Krishna to the extent of deifying him as the incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The contra view also prevailed simultaneously, as Duryodhana, Sakuni, Sisupala, Jarasandha etc. considered him as nothing more than a magician. Gandhari belonged to the former school who, like you Kushalji, held Krishna responsible for the Kurukshetra war as she thought that it was within his power to avert the war if he so wished. Therefore, she cursed Krishna. Krishna’s response to Gandhari is quite pertinent and provides an answer to your poser as well. His reply was that it was Gandhari who was responsible for the waywardness of his children, notably Duryodhana, that led to the war eventually. If instead of using blindfold, she had kept her eyes open, her children could be saved from the evil influence of Sakuni and would not have gone astray. Gandhari appreciated the truth of what Krishna said and was in tears.
In fine, it was Duryodhana who was responsible for the Kurukshetra war and not Krishna who tried his best to avoid it. Once it was inevitable, it was but natural and logical for him to inspire Arjuna to get into the right mode instead of withdrawal mode, not befitting a warrior. To think that Krishna’s efforts to buy peace were sham and pretension and that the battle happened because Krishna willed it, would amount to re-writing Mahabharata.
Thanks for comments, Asishji!
ReplyDeleteI am certainly not giving any escape route to Duryodhana. What he did was deplorable and led to a war like situation. All that I am saying is that Krishna had enough power to just kill Duryodhana thereby ending the matter in few seconds. There does not seem any reason for such a huge massacre. Here, Chanakya's example comes to mind. He also played a central role in establishing Chandragupta as the king of Magadha but did not massacre any army for doing so. He just intelligently poisoned the previous king (Dhana Nanda) who was known to be cruel and greedy. Why didn't Krishna do a similar thing?
You are surely aware that Krishna as the messenger of Yudhisthira asked for permission of Dhritarashtra to imprison Duryadhana for defying his father's wish to give away 5 villages to pandavas, as proposed by Krishna. Even though Vedavyasa, Vidura & other elders in the court agreed in principle, Dhritarashtra expressed his helplessness.
ReplyDeleteSlaughtering Duryadhana clandestinely was condemnable by the prevailing standard. Challenging Duryadhana to open battle would have meant a big battle between the Kauravas and the Vrishnis without any direct provocation. it is to be understood that Duryadhana had the backing of Karna, Bhishma and Drona in any battle, even while he was in the wrong. If Dhritarashtra was firm in his direction, the problem would have been resolved, as Bhishma & Drona would have abided by Dhritarashtra's direction and not Duryadhana's. It was the blind affection of Dhritarashtra and obduracy of Duryadhana that caused the battle. The Pandavas were virtually left with the option of
either the battle or continued exile. It was Hobson's choice for them, not thrust by Krishna or any other factor such as Draupadi's insult, Bhima's oath, or establishment of Dharma Rajya.
Asishji, there are lot of things Krishna did and made Pandavas do which were condemnable by prevailing standards. Killing Duryodhana clandestinely would have been the least of them.
DeleteBy the way, the theory that Dhana Nanda was poisoned to death by Chanakya and that no battle was fought between Chandragupta & Dhana Nanda is historically not correct. The fact is that Chandragupta raised an army with the help of Chanakya and fought with Dhana Nanda in guerilla style. Dhana Nada was defeated primarily owing to the strategy of Chanakya and betrayal of his lieutenants. It is not known exactly what happened to Dhana Nanda after he was defeated. According to some, he was executed, while some other source tells us that he was exiled. Clandestine killing even of the worst enemy was a clear taboo for the kshatriyas. Krishna never encouraged anyone to do it. Drona knowing that Dhristadyumna was born from a yajna to kill him trained him in archery. It was Duryadhana alone who attempted to kill Bhima and other Pandavas clandestinely & stealthily, & he was ever looked down upon for that.
DeleteYes, there are different versions of Dhana Nanda's death and we can't be sure which one is true. But the point is that no large scale massacre is necessarily needed to dethrone one king. And there were lot of things Pandavas did that are clear taboo for kshatriyas. If breaking one law can save lives of lakhs of innocent people, I don't see any reason not to accept it. Also, by doing this one tabooed act, Pandavas could have saved themselves from doing the other long list of tabooed acts.
DeleteTaboos are only those acts which are proscribed by prevailing laws or Manu's code, to be precise. According to Manu's code as in present time, all is fair when you are at war. Thus during a declared war, even Kshatriyas were permitted to adopt means which are strictly not moral. This finds mention in Kautilya's Arthashastra. The code of conduct settled by Bhishma in the beginning of the battle was first violated by the Kauravas when 7 Atirathas and Maharathas fought Abhimanyu alone, even while he was without weapons. Thereafter, both sides violated the agreed code frequently. However, such violation of the mutually agreed code was not violative of Manu's laws which were abiding for the Kshatriyas. According to that, as part of strategy during the war, one is permitted to resort to falsehood. Thus, neither the Kauravas nor the Pandavas can be faulted on this account when the battle of Kurukshetra was on.
DeleteKrishna doesn't seem to have absolute respect for prevailing laws or Manu's code. One can perhaps say that Yudhisthira would have never agreed to killing Duryodhana clandestinely. And other Pandavas would not have done anything without Yudhisthira's consent. If Bheema didn't have so much respect for his elder brother, even clandestine means might not have been necessary. He could have killed Duryodhana out in the open much before the war started. Perhaps the most important lesson from Mahabharata is that stubborn adherence to laws and too much respect for elders can lead to dangerous circumstances. But yes, no regard to these can also lead to total chaos and dysfunctional society. One should definitely adhere to laws and rules under normal circumstances. But abnormal times call for abnormal solutions and one should be flexible enough to accept this.
DeleteIt was constant effort of Duryodhana to get the Pandavas killed while in exile. But he with all his resources & might did not succeed. Thus the thought of getting Duryodhana killed clandestinely, while he was well protected was just unthinkable, apart from being extremely unthinkable act on a Kshatriya's part. Besides, it wd have been instantly known as nothing was secret to sages like Vedavyasa.
DeleteHowever much contempt you may have for Krishna, undoubtedly he was rated as the greatest soul around by no less a person than Vedavyasa, Bhisma, Parasurama, Markandeya, Kanva etc. It was inconceivable by Krishna of gita fame to even think of such heinous plot. It was much more honourable for him to ask for permission of Dhritarashtra to imprison Duryodhana for defying the wishes of the king, which no messenger in known history has ever dared to ask for. You are aware that Duryodhana on the other hand plotted to imprison Krishna and how he came out of the palace.
I certainly don't have any contempt for Krishna. Just that I don't think he was a 'perfect God' as he is usually made out to be. I am just trying to understand his intentions from a purely human perspective.
DeleteI also don't think any human (sage or not) can know everything instantly. Even saints like Ramakrishna and Vivekananda have never claimed such omniscience.
The following 2 events will give you fairly good insight into the psyche of Yudhisthira & his brothers, when they, during their exile, got perfectly licit opportunities to eliminate Duryodhana, and yet they refrained from doing so. The 1st such instance was when Duryodhana with his brothers and wives got imprisoned by Chitrasena, the Gandharva king, for reason of trespassing into his domain. Karna being severely injured escaped from the battlefield. When Duryodhana's defeated army men informed Yudhisthira about their master's predicament, Bhima was elated, but at Yudhisthira's command both Bhima & Arjuna fought Chitrasena and rescued Duryodhana etc. The 2nd event was when Duryodhana with his full armed contingent intruded into the territory of Virata and his entire force was got immobilized by the weapon of Arjuna. These were two golden opportunities for the Pandavas to eliminate Duryodhana. But they did not. Had Yudhisthira & his brothers been like Duryodhana they would have surely availed of those opportunities without any blemish. But then the whole script would have been totally different.
DeleteAs for Krishna, he never interfered with the freedom of choice of any individual, even for his own people such as Kritavarma, who was permitted to join the army of Duryodhana and fight the Pandavas. Thus even Vrishnis were divided in their allegiance, & Krishna allowed that. That was the beauty of Krishna character. In regard to Arjuna, Krishna reasoned out as to why he shd fight the battle instead of withdrawing, & did not try to brow-beat him into doing something which he did not want to. It was only after Arjuna absolutely surrendered to Krishna, the latter started guiding him on the battlefield and also thereafter. Before that, they were best of friends on equal terms.
Thanks for sharing the stories! Availing of opportunities to eliminate Duryodhana might have been a very good decision, purely from the point of view of the lakhs of lives that could have been saved. Now, of course, one can give counter arguments too. This discussion is end-less.
DeleteWhen the war begins, Krishna is 100% convinced that fighting the war is the best and also the only acceptable option for the Pandavas. There is no element of doubt in him. This is clear from his verses in the Gita. The only question is : Does Krishna force Arjuna to accept this view? Of course, not. But Krishna makes it very very clear that not fighting the war would amount to cowardice. And Arjuna could never ever tolerate being called a coward. Now Arjuna was not really an intellectual who could argue with Krishna. He was just a warrior. So, Arjuna could choose to be stubborn and deny listening to anything Krishna says or accept his views. But being stubborn was not an option given the amount of respect and love Arjuna had for Krishna. And when Arjuna chose Krishna to be his charioteer over his Narayani Sena, half the surrender had already been made. So now if a person to whom Arjuna had already surrendered partially is making such a convincing argument, what option does he have except to accept fighting the war?
Even after all the arguments in Gita, if Arjuna stubbornly insisted on giving up the fight, I am not sure if Krishna would have let the matter end there. On facing Bhishma, Arjuna was unable to raise his Gandiva and shoot arrows. At this, Krishna decided to break his vow of not raising weapons in the war and was about to kill Bhishma. This shook Arjuna to the core and he finally resumed the fight.
Alternatives in human life are indeed far too many and it's quite exciting to speculate. I can only say that your speculation is logical. Among the Kshatriyas, intellect of Bhishma and Yudhithira alone has been projected in Mahabharata, apart from the supreme intellect of Krishna. From the intelligent & sharp questions in Gita, it can be logically inferred that Arjuna also had an intellectual mind, though not of the level of Bhishma & Yudhisthira.
DeleteBhishma surely had a great mind and so did Vidura. But I am actually not so sure about Yudhisthira and Arjuna.
DeleteArjuna seems to have asked interesting philosophical questions only just before war began. Never before and never after. Thats very very strange. The only conclusion I can draw is that most of the questions mentioned in the Gita were actually not asked by Arjuna and are a later interpolation.
Yudhisthira seems to have more of bookish knowledge and, as far as I know, doesn't display any great depth of understanding. He doesn't even seem to display much manliness that a king must. I actually find it very strange that ancient Indians discovered such deep knowledge of the mind but when it came to societal rules, the king was simply the eldest son. No evaluation of capabilities, no importance to merit. Just age. One may say that this was to avoid conflict, but did conflicts really get avoided?
Primogeniture was subject to the capability of the eldest son. As for example, Santanu, father of Bhishma, was the 3rd & the youngest son. Puru was the 5th & the youngest son of his father Yayati. There were many exceptions.
DeleteAs for Yudhisthira's intellect, it was put to test many times in Mahabharata, & each time he came out with flying colours, saving the life of his brothers on one occasion and saving Bhima on another. There was always an application of mind on his part, whether we agree with his decision or not. He was decisive, though a conformist & conventional in thinking. So was Bhishma. Vidura was pragmatic & practical, righteous with far sight, & outspoken as well. He can surely be called intellectual. As for Arjuna, his questions to Krishna are suggestive of application of mind and quick mental processing of Krishna's answers to his previous question. Each poser of Arjuna was relevant.
As to the question whether present day Gita was largely interpolated, we have no clear answer. However, the fact remains that yogic communication cannot be measured on a normal time scale, as such communication may often be mental & much faster than oral communications, like it was aptly demonstrated by Ramana Maharshi in Tamil Nadu. Krishna clearly stated that he was absorbed in Yoga while he communicated to Arjuna and Arjuna was receptive to his explanations just as the disciples and visitors to Ramana Maharshi have testified to reception of mental communications from the Maharshi. This is just one of the possibilities which cannot be ruled out.
Be that as it may, we have to judge a character based on available literature, and not by rejecting part or portion of it just because it does not agree with our perception of the character. There must be some solid research to justify such rejection.
"Primogeniture was subject to the capability of the eldest son. As for example, Santanu, father of Bhishma, was the 3rd & the youngest son. Puru was the 5th & the youngest son of his father Yayati. There were many exceptions."
DeleteIts true that there were exceptions, but I don't see any formal process of choosing the king taking place. Younger sons seem to be chosen mainly when the elder ones had some serious lacunae (like Pandu was chosen since Dhritarashtra was blind). In the case of Pandavas, there would have been a tough contest between Yudhisthira and Arjuna, had such a decision making process been in place. And I tend to think that Arjuna would have won the contest. Or if Krishna would have been kind enough to reveal that Karna was their eldest brother, the choice of king would have become much easier.
"Be that as it may, we have to judge a character based on available literature, and not by rejecting part or portion of it just because it does not agree with our perception of the character. There must be some solid research to justify such rejection."
Yes, proper research in our scriptures is very much needed. But such research is not easy since the only reference point we have is Mahabharata itself. There are no other proper historical accounts of those times written by others. So, the only tool we have is self-consistency. An incident or an act committed or words said by a character must make sense in the context of other acts committed and other words said by that same person or about that person in other parts of the story. If a person is shown to be weak in the whole story except one very brief moment where s/he shows exceptional courage and bravery, there is no option but to doubt the authenticity of that particular act.
"Younger sons seem to be chosen mainly when the elder ones had some serious lacunae (like Pandu was chosen since Dhritarashtra was blind). In the case of Pandavas, there would have been a tough contest between Yudhisthira and Arjuna, had such a decision making process been in place"
DeleteThe accepted criterion for choosing a king was not bravery alone, but more importantly sense of righteousness, and by the latter standard, Yudhisthira towered over any other brother & cousin. Karna who was constantly burning in single minded jealousy against Arjuna was certainly not fit to be a king. In bravery also, he failed the test as he did not hesitate to leave the battlefield whenever in danger, leaving Duryodhana in lurch.
"An incident or an act committed or words said by a character must make sense in the context of other acts committed and other words said by that same person or about that person in other parts of the story."
Are we ourselves consistent in our behaviour? Don't we take principled stand at times & overlook such stand at some other time? Don't we condemn bribery & yet at times don't mind paying bribe for our selfish end? Don't we show heroism when opponents are not strong enough & surrender against stronger opponents? The real good criterion to decide whether a particular verse or verses are interpolated is to consider whether the verses in question are qualitatively consistent with the quality of the composition in general and also whether the same are factually consistent.
At the end I must compliment you for commendable application & analytical mind. The questions raised by you are quite pertinent & merit in depth study, if not research.
Thanks for the appreciation, Asishji!
DeleteIts very true that we are also sometimes inconsistent in our behaviour. But such inconsistencies are usually not very extreme. Exceptions happen only in the case of people who are either totally deluded (eg. Duryodhana) or purposefully trying to delude others (eg. Shakuni). So, if we find an extreme case of inconsistency in a character who is otherwise reasonably consistent, there is a valid reason for doubt. I hope future research is able to shed more light on this.