This article includes further musings on specific characters of the Mahabharata and addresses the unwarranted criticism of the Pandavas which stems from a context-free reading of the great epic. I owe my expanded understanding of them to the author Ami Ganatra’s book ‘Mahabharata Unravelled’. In it, she presents the Itihas as it is, based on her comprehensive study of the original Sanskrit version while also sharing her interpretation of events. This last part is crucial as there are many modern-day fiction writers who share skewed depictions and present their version as being the original one.

• Unjustified criticism of the Pandavas:
  Of late, there has been much criticism of the Pandavas on the grounds that they behaved unethically and engaged in a great deal of deception to vanquish their foes during the war of Kurukshetra. Before criticising them, people would do well to place things in context and recall crucial events of the entire saga in a sequential manner. They seem to have forgotten the extent of Adharma committed by Duryodhana and the Kauravas in general. They were often motivated by malice, greed and envy and never took advantage of the many opportunities that life (and more specifically, the Pandavas) offered to redeem themselves. One couldn’t expect the Pandavas to continue tolerance forever, especially given that there was no walking back once multiple rules of ethics had been flouted. The disgraceful disrobing of Draupadi was only one amongst many of their array of sins and several lines had been crossed. It is under the light of the events leading up to the war and in this context that the acts committed DURING the war by the Pandavas must be understood. All measures at averting war and all forms of diplomacy had been resorted to by Yudhishthira. The blame for that and what later ensued lay squarely on Duryodhana’s shoulders. Krishna enumerates the series of sins committed by the Kauravas that stretched out from recent happenings during the Kurukshetra war to the distant past. From the unethical slaughter of young Abhimanyu by 6 warriors, to the refusal to comply with the conditions agreed to before 13 years of exile, to poisoning Bheema in their adolescence, and even going so far as to try to burn the Pandavas in the inflammable palace made of lac. The Pandavas were forced to resort to deception and flouting of the rules of the war since the Kauravas had left them with no other choice. It is not for nothing that this great battle has been called the DharmaYudha.It is taking their past wicked deeds into account that the deception practised on Drona prior to his slaying, the death of Karna when his wheel was stuck in the ground, the role of Shikhandi in Bheeshma’s defeat and finally, the striking of Duryodhana below his waist must be understood. Those who have indulged in wanton Adharma their whole lives cannot expect to be treated as per the laws of Dharma during their time of reckoning. They have no right to claim protection or to ask the righteous to adhere to it when dealing with them. This was what Shri Krishna repeated to both Karna and Duryodhana on their deathbed.
• Thoughts on specific characters:
  1. Karna: The book gives us a more comprehensive picture of Karna of whom, many speak glowingly while glossing over his vices and shortcomings. The following come to mind:
  *A tendency to constantly brag about his own prowess, military in particular. He had always longed to be considered Bharatvarsha’s most gifted combatant and warrior. No doubt he was an adept warrior but there were far more skilled ones who probably boasted only a fraction of the extent Karna did. Despite an overall good track record, his battle experiences with Bheema and Arjuna do not show him in a favourable light. There were multiple occasions where he was trounced by Arjuna which strangely seems to have had little effect on reducing his frequent boasts. A sensible warrior would recognise his limitations for what they are, admit his shortcomings (privately if not publicly) and ensure to not repeat past behaviour. Not Karna though. He never did learn how to keep his tongue under control. This got him in trouble on other occasions as well. He had never mastered the art of speaking only when required. His tendency to indulge in intemperate speech included behaviour such as constant quarrelling with and verbally abusing his allies (such as Drona, Bhishma and Shalya). Duryodhana for all his wickedness knew how to placate those whom he deemed to be interested in his welfare and self-interest. However, Karna seemed not to care and was a major cause of the division and distrust that existed amongst the warring Kauravas. His lack of restraint concerning speech came to the fore on yet another occasion. Although he had lost against Bhima on previous occasions, he managed to score one victory in the Kurukshetra war. Ideally, the victor would never verbally abuse the loser or indulge in insults and taunts. Karna failed to adhere to this code of conduct (as on other occasions) and was so overcome with glee by his victory that he called Bhima a glutton, impotent and other such invectives. This is despite the latter never taunting the former when he had defeated him in the past.
  *His role in the disrobing of Draupadi was truly disgraceful. He continually kept inciting Duryodhana to publicly humiliate her. He even went so far as to call her a prostitute by implying she deserved the epithet as she was married to 5 men. He later mocked her when he asked her to choose a husband amongst the Kauravas as she (like her husband) was now, apparently a ‘slave’. I’m surprised that those fiction writers who paint Karna in a positive light by projecting non-existent romantic dynamics between him and Draupadi have ignored his shocking misconduct. Still, others find his Adharmic behaviour to be excusable as Draupadi had supposedly insulted him in the past. However, there is doubt as to whether the verses uttered to him by Draupadi at her Swayamvara were an interpolation or not. I’m referring to her refusal to marry him because of his ‘Suta ‘ caste. While being publicly dismissed like this must have certainly stung, it did not justify his future behaviour.
  *Karna’s jealousy and envy of Arjuna right from the days of their schooling under Dronacharya had always been irrational and petty. Moreover, his role in the vile slaughter of the valiant Abhimanyu that involved 6 other warriors must also be recalled for what it is i.e. a flagrant breaching of war ethics which is Adharmic to the core.
  *Much has been made of Karna’s supposedly great friendship with Duryodhana. And yet for all that, there are multiple instances wherein his commitment to his friend’s welfare is found to be lacking. He fled the battle against the Gandharvas and left Duryodhana to fend for himself. He foolishly gave away his Kavachaa & Kundala to Indra despite being warned by his biological father, Surya of Indra’s disguise as a Brahmin. He knew perfectly well that it offered him invaluable protection and losing it would hinder his and Duryodhana’s chances of victory. Regardless, he did it so that his reputation of incredible generosity and not turning anyone away empty-handed, would remain untarnished. His self-image seemed to matter more than his friend’s best interests. He even promised his biological mother, Kunti that he would spare the lives of all Pandavas (barring Arjuna) if he were to vanquish them in battle. As it turned out, he did end up sparing the lives of Yudhishthira, Nakul and Sahadeva rather than slaying them. Had it occurred, it would have decided the final outcome of the war in a different direction right there and then; for Yudhishthira was the king under whose aegis the Pandava side was fighting, and the capture or death of the king signals an immediate defeat of the army. He also sat out the first ten days due to ego issues and clashes with Bhishma. Wouldn’t a true friend be willing to set aside his hurt pride and give his all by fighting spiritedly? Instead, he took offence at Bhishma’s accurate assessment of his battle prowess and abstained from fighting simply because he didn’t want the credit for his wins to be ascribed to Bheeshma who was to command the Kaurava army. Clearly, these choices reflect poorly on his judgement. In addition, throughout the entire sordid saga, he was continually inciting Duryodhana to commit more heinous acts & gave false promises of vanquishing Arjuna by foolishly boasting of being the superior warrior. Never mind the fact that he had continually lost all past battles where he had faced Arjuna. He seemed hell-bent on war simply to satiate his maniacal hate for him and to be deemed as Bharatha’s best warrior.
  Multiple portrayals have depicted him as a continual victim to justify his abhorrent actions. There was no doubt that he did undergo some misfortune in his life such as being separated from his birth mother and being denied the royal advantages he should have had. But how long can that be used as an excuse? He had been crowned King of Angadesha by Duryodhana and had been brought up by loving parents. He was a formidable warrior in his own right. He was indeed tutored by Dronacharya despite claims to the contrary in popular media although Drona did not impart knowledge of the Brahmastra to him as he did to Arjuna, deeming his temperament to be unfit to be trusted with responsible usage of such a majorly destructive weapon. Yet, he managed to learn from the best, Drona’s own guru Parashurama, despite using deceit to gain access to his tutelage. ‘Mahabharata Unravelled’ does an excellent job of presenting readers with the exact portrayal of Karna from Ved Vyasa’s Mahabharata. Those who seek to glorify adharmic men like Karna would do well to analyse his track record for what it is, make a suitable assessment and arrive at the correct conclusions.
  2.Bhishma and Vidura: One of the book’s stand-out chapters (apart from ‘The Friendship of Doom’) was that of ‘The Ideals of Freedom and Fetters’ which deals with two Characters, Bhishma and Vidura. The title is an apt one and deals with how two very different individuals who were both affiliated with the Kaurava clan and involved in its administration (at some point) chose to respond to the series of Adharmic acts committed by Duryodhana and his coterie. One chose to be bound by his oath or fetters and strayed from Dharma while the other stuck to adhering to it and thus liberated himself instead.
  The book beckons the reader to contemplate whether Bhishma truly had no choice in events leading up to the Kurukshetra war and behaved as he did simply because he was oath-bound. Many exceptional circumstances arose which offered him the chance to break his vow in the interests of the larger picture and maintaining Dharma. He could have acceded to the Queen Mother Satyavati’s request to sire progeny when her son died, and the kingdom desperately required an heir to the throne. This was as unprecedented a circumstance as it could get and rather than obstinately adhere to a vow out of personal attachment, he should have understood that unforeseen emergencies call for unusual solutions. Moreover, much later, as the forefather of the clan, he of all people should have objected to the disgraceful disrobing of Draupadi rather than remain a silent spectator. Even when questioned directly by Draupadi on the validity of Yudhishthira’s staking her, he prevaricated. Notwithstanding a half-hearted response, he did at least assure her that such vile acts were sure to destroy the Kaurava clan. That’s somewhat to his credit I suppose.
  Unlike Bhishma’s prevarications, we have the unequivocal protests of the noble Vidura. He is said to have been Dharma personified himself. He made his objections clear and ensured that he was heard by all in the assembly who had witnessed the shameful acts. He never failed to offer wise counsel to Dhritrashtra and spoke plainly regardless of whether the latter liked to hear his blunt truths or not. These included repeated counsel such as asking him to return the Pandava’s kingdom as their due. Although generally prone to blunt speech, there were occasions when he could choose to be more soft-spoken if the situation required it, such as post-war when Dhritarashtra was grieving the loss of his sons. Unlike Bhishma who continued to reside with the Kauravas after the game of dice, Vidura chose to register his protest by vacating his palace quarters. One wonders why the former behaved as he did rather than emulate Vidura who strove to continually adhere to Dharmic dictates.
  3. Yudhishthira: There is an entire chapter (‘Dharma meets strength’) dedicated to the noble Yudhishthira. Many question why he is labelled as Dharma Raja when he committed such an irresponsible and unforgivable act as staking Draupadi. There is no doubt that he is at fault and must be condemned for this specific act. But one must try to understand his mindset throughout the ordeal better and keep his impeccable past track record in mind before dismissing him as such. He was bound to obey the invitation as it had been sent by Dhritrashtra, his senior family member and head of the state. There was the propriety and conventions of that time to adhere to, that entailed Kshatriyas being unable to refuse an invitation to a game of dice. Although Vidura reluctantly relayed the invitation, he still warned him of the potential pitfalls. Despite Yudhishthira’s hesitancy owing to not being a very good player, Shakuni dismisses his reluctance before the match and continues to exhort him to play. All these clearly indicate that he was not enthusiastic about either the process or the outcome. Perhaps he got carried away due to the sheer ‘thrill’ of gambling. There’s a strange zest that gamblers experience when they stake huge amounts. The exhilaration that more can be gained when so much has already been lost can distort the minds of even the most astute. It is important here to recognise this state of mind when he staked Draupadi. He had lost all his material possessions. He had even staked his brothers and himself and lost on both counts. Such a person is truly anguished and would clutch at any straws to recover what they have lost. They lose sight of what is appropriate and what is inexcusable and simply drown in that desperation. At this critical junction when he is still processing the changed scenario and is unsure how to proceed, Shakuni wickedly suggests staking Draupadi. Perhaps if he had had time to think things through, he would have refused. He may even have realised that he couldn’t do so since he had already staked himself. But desperation clouds our judgement and the chance of recovering lost gains (however slim) seems enough. Under the influence of such desperaration, he then proceeded to carry out what would set off a chain of events that would have horrifying consequences. In addition to the common complaint above, he is perhaps unfairly labelled a coward in some circles. Although I found myself initially agreeing with that, I realised I hadn’t thought it through completely.
  Here is one such incident where his behaviour may initially strike one as unbecoming of a warrior. I had been confused as to why he had tolerated Keechak’s kicking and public humiliation of Draupadi in King Virata’s court after her past ordeals. Shouldn’t he have stood up then and there and given Keechak his due? It seems outrageous that he should instead whisper and ask her to put up with it. To his credit, he did publicly state that it was indeed an unjust act, and her Gandharva Husbands would avenge this insult. He was of course referring to the 5 brothers themselves as the ‘Gandharva’ charade was what she had circulated to support her persona/identity as Sairandhri. But then on thinking it over further, I had forgotten that they were still undergoing their period of exile and hiding. Regardless of how wrathful he (and all the brothers must have rightly felt on her behalf), they could not risk an open confrontation. If Keechak were killed in broad daylight, it would not take long for Duryodhana’s network of spies to recognise who were the ones behind it as there were few warriors to match him in strength.A difficult but pragmatic decision had been made in the spur of the moment. Despite recognising this, one still can’t help feeling sorry for Draupadi. Later, when she and Bheema conspired to kill Keechak, I was glad to know that Yudhishthira did not dissuade them and gave his silent approval.
  Another such incident that critics cite to call him a coward was when he kept delaying the war by resorting to diplomatic negotiations and compromises such as accepting only 5 villages. They may not have understood the entire context, thought about what he and others stood to lose and what grim forebodings they had in store in case they did proceed to war. It wasn’t a question of warring with unknown enemies. In this case, they were waging war against friends, family (near and extended), mentor figures and many more with whom they did not necessarily harbour animosity. In addition, a war of this kind could annihilate the entire race leaving behind only widows (as the case indeed turned out to be). It wasn’t as much shirking from the military requirements or fear of being slaughtered as much as recognising the above considerations and of course the economic and monetary realities as well. A war of such scope threatened to throw large swatches of the populace into poverty and was not limited to those simply taking part in the war. Was presiding over such an impoverished, grieving populace worth the efforts undertaken? His arguments against war must be understood in this context before labelling him as a ‘coward’.
  However, his behaviour when King Virata verbally abused and then injured him is confusing. When both had been informed of Virata’s son’s victory, Yudhishthira knew that it was Arjuna in the guise of the eunuch Brihanala who had come to his aid and had single-handedly vanquished the Kauravas. He said as much. However, the king flew into a rage when he felt his son was being compared to a eunuch and flung the hard metal dice onto him, thereby severely injuring his nose. He began to bleed profusely and Sairandhri who was nearby rushed to his aid and placed a bowl beneath his bleeding nose. He displays remarkable restraint by not retaliating and then asks her to prevent the fast-approaching Brihanala from entering the quarters. This was wise for the latter would have slain the ignorant king had he known of his act of harm towards Yudhishthira.
  And yet, it got me thinking. Why didn’t Yudhishthira retaliate of his own accord? Their period of exile was technically complete. Arjuna had already battled against the Kauravas and now, there was no fear of being discovered. Why then did he not respond in kind when Virata hurt and abused him so? He could also have easily disclosed his true identity on the spot. This incident left me bewildered as to why a renowned Samrat, one who had conducted the Rajasuya Yagnya should behave so tamely.
  4. Draupadi: Often incorrectly portrayed as a vengeful and volatile woman in popular depictions, the book sheds light on other aspects of her personality including her devotion and sense of duty to her husbands and mother-in-law. An often-overlooked aspect is Draupadi’s constant striving to behave with class, grace and dignity on all occasions. Nowhere is this more pronounced than throughout the entire sordid and sorry saga of the game of dice. Even after the humiliating disrobing, she did not go to pieces, shriek or abuse the Kauravas with vile language that they richly deserved. She was also certainly angry with her husbands, Yudhishthira in particular, but she did not go about berating and abusing them. Instead, she maintained her composure throughout the ordeal and during its aftermath. Later, she calmly proceeded to use the 2 boons granted to her by Dhritarashtra to free her husbands from servitude. She does not covet boons and when asked for her third boon, clearly states that it is her husband’s duty as part of being a Kshatriya to recover what they have lost. It is not for them to rely on more boons to do what is already mandated of them. To have such self-restraint despite undergoing much distress is no mean feat for anyone and even Karna who had previously abused her as a ‘prostitute’ finds himself admiring her composure and calls her a rare woman amongst many.
  5. Arjuna: The characterisation of Arjuna remains faithful to as he is described in the Itihas. A hard worker who was committed to excellence in all forms. The zeal with which he put in efforts to excel at multiple endeavours is worth emulating for all of us. Moreover, the single-minded focus and discipline he’d cultivated while mastering various forms of warfare under Dronacharya’s tutelage came in handy later on. One such example was that of music and dance which he rapidly learnt while living under the hospitality of the Gandharvas in the DevaLoka.
  The descriptions of rapport and dynamics with Sri Krishna are equally faithful to the original. He was a mentor, guide and advisor to all of the Pandavas but was particularly close to Arjuna. There were many occasions wherein the latter chose to defer to the former’s superior wisdom and was not above admitting his ignorance. More often than not, he was receptive to the advice offered and wasn’t egotistical by assuming he knew better. No better example than that of the time when he is about to wage battle in Kurukshetra and is reluctant to perform his Kshatriya Dharma. The enormity of what he must soon carry out looms in on him and he is understandably overwhelmed. He sees so many of his friends, relatives, teachers and other acquaintances, some of whom were close and others he knew in passing. It can’t be easy to recognise that you must vanquish and possibly kill those whom you have known on close terms or even those acquaintances with whom you have no bone to pick. Most of us in modern societies are uncomfortable with even quarrelling with friendly acquaintances even if they may have done ethically questionable things. It is here Krishna steps in and does what he always does, i.e. motivate Arjuna when the latter is despondent. I will not delve deep into the exposition of the Bhagwad Gita but will dwell on Arjuna’s mindset at that time. He is so overwhelmed that he finds his morale slipping and cannot exercise his powers of discernment as he normally would. Krishna exhorts him to not be swayed from his initial resolve. Arjuna then finds himself taking refuge in Shri Krishna and taking Sharanagati. It is akin to handing him the position of Saarathi of his senses and is not merely limited to his military role as a charioteer during the war. It is not easy to acknowledge one’s limitations in the large scheme of things and hand over the reins of our life to our Ishta Devata. Yet do it we must, and Arjuna’s example here is one worth emulating. Of course, our troubles pale in the face of what he underwent, and his ethical dilemmas are far more complex. Yet, readers would be unwise not to pick up on this lesson after completing the reading of this book.
• Raja Dharma and Bhishma’s discourse:
  The book includes a summary of the discourse Bheeshma gave to Yudhishthira on Raja Dharma after the war was complete. While I won’t list it all out, I will mention some of the important considerations and recommendations that a king or ruler must adhere to. The importance of restraint and not indulging in too much sensory pleasure cannot be overstated. A king must be in perfect possession of his senses at all times, particularly during times of crisis. Addictions and vices must be avoided in the interests of his citizens whom he must consider at all points and treat as if they were his own children. Kings who are too fond of drink, unregulated hunting (mrigaya) and spend most of their time in their women’s quarters do not understand Raja Dharma and lead their states poorly.
  Samrat Yudhishthira, whether in Indraprastha prior to the doomed game of dice, or after the war as the king of united Hastinapura, was the very embodiment of Raja Dharma,