Karna was neglected the moment he was born from his birth right. He was humiliated because of the status he was adopted into, despite being a Prince. He told this to Krishna who replied by reminding him how his uncle was wanting to kill him before his life even begin, how he was separated from his parents the moment he was born. Everybody in life has challenges, and we can’t escape it.
Having a lot of everything can be dangerous
Gandhari had 100 sons, but being blind-folded she not only captured herself from the outer world, but also prevented herself from the upbringing of her children. She wanted more then she could handle. Draupadi possessed immense beauty, reason why men lusted for her. Draupadi wished for an husband that had wisdom and moral values, will be strong and well built, a good archer, handsome and intelligent. Not found in one man, she was granted 5 husbands that all individually possessed these qualities, all who failed to protect her from her humiliation in the dice game.
Revenge isn’t always the answer
Shakuni revenged to destroy Hastinapur, in answer to his sister’s marriage to a blind man. His revenge was a astronomical reason for Mahabharat. At the end he died, and left his sister childless. Drupada sought for revenge on Drona when the later attacked him with the help of Kuru Princes and snatched half of his Kingdom. He performed a Great Sacrifice to obtain a son who could slay Drona and a Daughter who could enter Kuru Clan - He lost his sons in the great war and met death in the hands of Drona.
Half Knowledge is more dangerous
Arjuna's son Abhimanyu teaches us how half-knowledge can have an adverse impact. While Abhimanyu knew how to enter the Chkaravyuh, he did not know the way out.
Loyal Friends can take you places
The Pandavas had Lord Krishna, and the Kauravas had Karna. Both of them always backed the two parties, no matter what. In fact, Duryodhan was really weak without Karna.
You cannot be stopped if you are passionate about what you do.
Eklavya was even better than Arjun. He hid himself behind the trees and grasped everything that Drona taught Arjun. His passion for archery and hunger for knowledge made him good at archery then Arjun.
Perhaps the biggest I learnt was: It’s all about how we shape our life, it’s our choices that shape us into becoming the best or worst version of ourself.
If you are still taking prompts, can you do a Pandu does not exist/Pandu dies fic?
Hello anon! Thank you for the prompt!
Pandu doesn't exist throughout most of the Mahabharat, so I presume you're asking if he dies before wedding Kunti or doesn't exist at all?
In that case, I think much of the Mahabharat wouldn't happen at all. Despite his almost negligible existence, his familial position as well as his death forms the crux of the epic. Without him, the five brothers would not exist together, or have any claim to the throne, so pretty much Duryodhan is the projected Emperor.
This also made me realise how one dead man's name united five brothers who don't share the same blood and I'm not sure this is a realization I needed this early in the morning :')
Disclaimer: This particular post will be based on the TV series of Mahabharat (2013). It is because it is the most liked with the current generation (an assumption) and I am reading Mahabharat for the first time from the original text. All this time I only heard it orally or saw it. Will not be commenting on Swarga Arohan Parva, that is another debate. You don’t have to agree with me, this is my own opinion. This post is not meant to hurt anyone’s religious, political, socio-economical faith in any way. Thanks!
When it comes to the fanbase of Pandavs, everyone has fixed fanbases: Arjun leads the pole as the heroic material, Bheem for strength and simplicity, Nakul for looks and Sahdev for khowledge and humility. But the eldest of the Pandavs is always sidelined: Yudhisthir. Actually this sort of “overlooking” reflects a bigger picture: the change of value system of our society in the Kali Yuga, as it was predicted in the Mythical Texts (Purana). To me, Yudhisthir was never truly a “character”, he was so much more than that.
Mahabharat clearly reflects the Four Eternal Ages of Hinduism: Satya (The golden utopian age), Treta (The Age of Ram), Dwapar (the age when Mahabharat Takes place) and Kali (the current and the most corrupt age). Satya was considered the eternal age, where any living beings were bereft of corruptions: the Gods, Demi-gods, Goddess Ganga, Ved Vyas, all these characters are the flagbearers of Satya Yuga. Treta Yuga is when corruption existed only within monstrous beings, humans were good, valient and bereft of any corruptions: this is represented in the Characterization of Bhisma, Lord Parshu Ram, Pandu. The Dwapar Yuga is when corruption intruded within humans and they became equally strong and valiant as the good ones: Krishna, Shakuni, Dronacharya, Draupadi were such characters. The Kali is the one where good ones are unable to control the evil and stay silent while the evil ones florish; good and bad becomes gray, layered while social hierarchy topples: Aswathama, Vidur, Karna are such characters.
Yudhisthir, to me, never fits in his own narrative and this was, I think, by design. Why? I have already spoken, Yudhisthir was more than just a character. To me, he was the first archetype of tragic hero. People address Oedipus, Orestes as the classical Greek Tragic heroes who later set the bar for Shakespeare for him to pen iconic tragic heroes like Macbeth, King Lear (he kind of reminds me of Dhritrasthra) or Hamlet. But to me, Yudhisthir was the prototype of tragic hero and he went totally unnoticed by the audience because the author was not focusing on him alone, he was focusing on the broader picture. Now let’s discuss in plain words: what is the tragic hero? One that is led to the tragic ends by fate or by his own deeds. It would be focused on fate if it is Greek tragedy, and in Shakespeare the character will bring doom on himself with his deeds and choices. What makes Yudhisthir hated so much around is his choice to play on. He could have stopped it, toppled the table, declared the game null and void, but he did not. The end that was brought by his action was both designed by “fate” (because Sahdev foresaw the ‘Adharma’ being manifested before) and his actions.
What are some hallmarks of a tragic hero? He is essentially good, has a very focused one track mind, and an infallible moral system that gets corrupted in the end. Yudhisthir possesses all that: he is essentially good, has a one track dare I say simple mind and an infallible moral system--heck he is all morality. But there is an added element here. I read somewhere in Tumblr , Tragic heroes are essentially those who are in the wrong stories, surrounded by wrong circumstances, wrong people. Yudhisthir is everything and he fits in especially in the last scenario. He did not only had his siblings who were devoted to him, he didn’t only have a pillar-like mother who was strong and infallible--he also had his Kaurav cousins, the venomous Uncle Shakuni and Paternal Uncle, the King who did not like him to ascend the throne. From the moment he walked inside the Royal palace, he already walked in like a lamb into wolf’s den. He is constantly jeopardised throughout his stay there and finally he and his family were burnt in the Laxagruha in Varnavrat. He tried to see the good in people, people who always wanted the worst for him and the Laxagruh incident was a great big reality check--world is not your rosy playground, and you are up for a difficult time.
This was his circumstance. I think, if he and Pitamah Bhishma were born in Satya or Treta Yuga, they would have been happier. They had their worldview set--do what is right. But the definition of right they were following was long outdated. Both Yudhisthir and Pitamah Bhishma were placed not only in wrong time, but also in wrong places. Pitamah Bhishma had all the qualities of a leader: he was courageous, had vision and sense of responsibility. By renouncing the Identity of “Crown Prince Devavrath” to “Bhishma” he commited a great treason to his abilities: not only he became bound to the throne and to any tom dick and harry ascended upon it, but it also made him subservient to the people lesser than him. If he was instructed to “win” Kashi Princesses as a King, I am sure he would have straight up refused it and called for Death Penalty. But since he was “bound” and had to play the henchman of the throne, he had no choice but to do it. When he became Bhishma, he was only thinking about the happiness of King Shantanu, and not his State--which was virtuous from his character, but not from a long term political setting.
At the opposite, Yudhisthir was never the leader material--yes he had strong moral and outstanding patience, but somewhere he missed the leading drive to charge--no doubt Arjun became the Best of Pandavs by Yudhisthir’s blessings, and he was quite self aware that it wasn’t up to him, but to his brother to carry on the leading position from De facto means. Yudhisthir would have had an easier life if Karna was accepted by Kunti. Yudhisthir was quite submissive type. In Indian context, submissive has a greater meaning. Submissive men and personalities tend to be peace loving and they tend to surrender themselves for the greater power to attain that inner peace (something that Arjun learns while he was given the Geeta Gyan). Yudhisthir knew how to submit, he wanted submission to the greater power, but he had no one to submit. He lost his father at the tender age, he could not fully submit to Bhishma or Vidur because of their ties with the King. He was devout to his mother, but complete submission was impossible as the eldest son. Even with his wife Draupadi where submission could have been possible (as he suggested that all his brothers should submit their faithfulness to her), he could not--because the stigma of Draupadi being his younger brother’s wife first always plagued him and thus (in the books) he could never love her.
This makes us wonder, all of Yudhisthir’s life was just a big reluctant episode, where he just dispassionately, impartially discharged his duties. Makes sense, because he was the Godson of Yama, the God of Righteousness, Death and Judgement. While you are at a similar position, you don’t do passion, you just don’t do emotional hearty stuff--you just discharge your duty. And this, despite Yudhisthir’s “godly” character trait became his ultimate tragic flaw. His morality and uprightness thus also became a symbol of something greater than him, which makes him more than just a character. His moral uprightness, which also makes him hated by many becomes the symbol of law and legal judgement. In the Dice game, Yudhisthir could not have imagined what would have happened with him or with his families. The enemies relied on his upright nature and exploited him. This symbolises the failure of a legal system. Both him and Bhishma make themselves bound by morality, and not righteousness.
Yudhisthir’s failure to reply such an unrighteousness represents a very modern problem. When an unprecedentedly heinous crime occurs which the legal system fails to punish within it’s bound, the law itself becomes victim of itself. Yudhisthir, by continuing “the honor of the word” did the same thing, which led him to his tragic end. Law, or the system must prevail to the end--as the Emperor of Aryavrat is the supreme figure of law and Justice, Yudhisthir took it upon himself to see it through. I think there is something very “Dostoevskian” about it, or “eschatological” --to see things to the end. It is a very macabre thing to yearn where you continue to see your misfortunes with a steadfast yet broken heart, until the very end. Again, his blood from the God of Death Yama speaks here. Eschatological concerns itself with the theology that concerns with death, afterlife and Judgement... which are the domains of his father--Yama. He had two choices before him: bringing a code of dishonor to his subjects to carry on for generations, or to disgrace his family for a relatively small time. Although he chose the latter, he ended up bringing sorrow to his subjects which he abhorred to do.
Although the episode of Draupadi’s Cheer Haran was one of the most tragic episodes, and something even Yudhisthir could not imagine in his most horrible nightmares--there is something about it that could be said. Yudhisthir never loved Draupadi in a romantic sense, but he respected her a great deal. As his “ardhangini” he also assumed that Draupadi would be ready to give the same sacrifice as him for Dharma and her subjects. However, as a son of a King with every bit of good conduct present, it was out of his mind that something so horrible could occur with his wife, and by her brother-in-laws. There was an unspoken rule in Aryavrat--you don’t attack your relatives, and thus Kings and Princes married many women to secure borders and dynasties. Yudhisthir was just out of the depths about the sins that would be committed in front of him.
If Yudhisthir and Bhishma is the rigid, failing legal system, Krishna is the Legislative amendment, that breaths life into law and makes it suitable for the new age. I always wondered the strange color dichotomies between Bhishma ad Krishna: Bhishma was always decked in silver, the second best metal after gold, and he was white in his clothes and beard that reminded me of the foams of Lower Ganges in the mountains. Krishna is dark, black and called “Neel Megha Shyama” (dark as the rain filled cloud). I think it was the first literary piece before “Swan Lake” where the “pure white one” dies and “seductive black one” wins. Point to note, Bhishma is celibate, never touched a woman in life and Krishna is famously romantic, well versed in sexual arts and loved by women all across. Bhishma’s celibacy may be granted great by all, but it was ultimately as much as death--because with him the direct bloodline of King Shantanu died. Yudhisthir is born of the God of Death, Yama, and Krishna is the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the God of Life and Preservation. Death can be rigid, just and equal but Life cannot be so: life is every changing and ever transforming and thus the moral-legal symbol that Yudhisthir represents must change. If the narrative ended with Cheer Haran with Yudhisthir doing something out of the fit of rage or grief, it would have had the classic tragic hero end, but it didn’t because of Krishna. When Life meets Death it explores the nuances of the living with all its sufferings and happinesses rather than accepting the submissive, egalitarian, dispassionate peace. And here, Yudhisthir is forced to “lie”, do things he doesn’t like, suffers the loss of his elder born and elder brother and grows as a person.
story of showing departed relatives by vedavyas to pandavas by grace of goddess bhuvaneshwari
story of showing departed relatives by vedavyas to pandavas by grace of goddess bhuvaneshwari
Yudhishthira became the king of Hastinapur after the battle of Kurukshetra. Dhritarashtra lived his painful life by staying there for eighteen years. One day Dhritarashtra decided to spend the rest of his life in the forest and told Arjun his decision. He asked for some money from Yudhishthira to pay obeisance to his sons. Yudhishthira asked his brothers and mother and gave money to…
