Family Tree of the Kuru Dynasty of Hastinapur - The Kauravs and The Pandavs

Dilemmas in Mahabharat

Sage Vyas, the author of Mahabharat, was such a master of his craft that the dilemmas and conundrums he has woven into the saga have brought modern readers at loggerheads with each other as passionately as the contending characters in the epic.

Obviously, Vyas doesn't merely want to tell a story but wants his readers to pause and ponder.

I must make it clear that here I intend to discuss only those dilemmas that are integral to the plot of the epic and not those debates among scholars which have not been raised as part of the plot by Vyas. For example, ‘Was Yudhishthir Vidur’s son?’ (Ref. Irawati Karve); ‘Was Karn Durvas’ son?’; ‘Was Vidur the eldest or youngest of the three brothers?’ (Ref. Indrajit Bandopadhyay) are speculations. In my humble opinion these scholars are confused about ‘what is hidden by some characters from other characters’ and ‘what is hidden by the author from the reader’.  If Yudhishtir were Vidur’s son by niyog or Karn was Kunti’s son from a pre-marital encounter with Durvas, what was there to prevent Vyas from narrating it to the reader, even if Kunti chose to hide it from the world?

The issues I have presented here have engendered much debate among the characters within the epic as well as among readers; some of these questions have answers in the epic itself, whereas we have to arrive at some answers by inference, and some don’t have a clear answer.

1. Who was the real successor to the throne of Hastinapur – ‘Duryodhan or Yudhishthir?’
2. ‘Did Kunti and Yudhishthir burn six persons in the house of lac at Varnavat?’
3. Draupadi’s question in the gambling hall – ‘Did Yudhishthir lose himself first or did he lose Draupadi first?’
4. Completion of the term of exile – ‘Did the Pandavs complete their term of exile and anonymity?’
5. Yudhishthir’s untruth – ‘Man or Elephant?’

Draupadi’s Question

In one of the most important incidents with far-reaching consequences in Mahabharat, Draupadi poses a question to the Kuru Court. The question stumps the luminaries present on various counts. Some try to avoid it and some try to answer in their own ways.

When Yudhisthir is challenged by Duryodhan to a game of dice he agrees to Shakuni, the clever master of dice, to play on behalf of Duryodhan. After losing all his belongings, he offers one by one his brothers and then himself as stake, loses promptly and declares he has nothing more to offer. At that point Shakuni suggests, “there is still one stake dear to thee that is still unwon... Stake thou Krishna, the princess of Panchal. By her, win thyself back.” [Sabha Parva, Section LXIV]*. Yudhishthir, thinking in a typical gambler’s way, imagines that Draupadi will bring him luck as he had gained Indraprasth after marriage with her, offers her in a gamble to win back what he has lost and ends up losing her too.

In a disastrous sequence of events Duryodhan first orders Vidur to take Draupadi to the maids’ quarters. However, Vidur refuses castigating Duryodhan and opines that she is not a slave, since Yudhishtir lost her after losing himself. Then Duryodhan sends a messenger to take Draupadi to the servants’ quarters. Draupadi, having ascertained that Yudhishthir lost himself first and then her, refuses to come to the hall as she was in her monthly period and clad in but one garment. Instead she raises the question implying, “How can Yudhishthir offer me as stake, after he has lost himself?” Duryodhan sends back a message asking her to come to the court and present her question in person. When the messenger fails to bring her to the hall, Duryodhan orders Duhshasan, who drags her by the hair to the hall.

Draupadi then poses the question to the assembled gathering. The Kuru elders Bhishm, Vidur and the preceptors Krupa, Dron are unable to provide a clear answer to Draupadi’s question, nor does Dhrutarashtra. Even Yudhishthir does not answer Draupadi.

Vikarn, one of Duryodhan’s younger brothers, unable to brook the atrocity committed on that chaste woman, ventures to offer his answer. His reply is quite logical and precise. He opines that Draupadi has not been won by Duryodhan on three counts. First, gambling is one of the four vices attributed to Kings. The acts of person engaged in a vice cannot be said to be of any authority. Secondly, Shakuni prompted Yudhishthir to offer Draupadi as stake; Yudhishthir did not do so on his own volition, which is against the rules of the game. Thirdly, Draupadi is not only Yudhishthir’s wife but the common wife of all five brothers and since he has not taken permission of his brothers, he cannot offer her as stake. Lastly, Yudhishthir had lost himself, so he had no right to offer Draupadi as stake. He concludes, “Drapadi has not been won by Duryodhan.”

Duryodhan’s friend Karn counters Vikarn’s statement by saying, “Yudhishthir had already lost her when he lost himself.” Strangely enough, in the same breath Karn contradicts himself by saying, “O handsome one, select thou another husband now, one who will not make thee a slave by gambling... Thy husbands that are slaves cannot continue to be thy lords any longer...”

In my own view, a fitting reply to Karn’s contention that ‘Yudhir lost her when he lost himself’, would be ‘why did Shakuni then suggest to Yudhir to offer her as wager, if she were already won?’ Shakuni is the mastermind behind all of Duryodhan’s plots. He would not suggest Yudhir to play again with Draupadi as stake, if she were already won. Surprisingly, no one in Mahabharat extends this argument.

Various scholars have diametrically opposite opinions on this issue. In Ravindra Shobhane’s opinion, Draupadi is a supercilious and vain woman and her question is preposterous (Mahabharatacha Moolyavedh, Dr. Ravindra Shobhane, p. 134). Whereas M.A. Mehendale applauds Draupadi for her very intelligent question (Prachin Bharat Samaj Ani Sanskruti, Pradnyapathshala Mandal, Vai, 2001, p. 65-83). He examines the whole sequence of events step by step. He points out that, when the Kuru leaders fails to answer her question, Duryodhan asks the Pandavs to answer it. Bheem, out of respect to Yudhishthir deigns, but Arjun asks, ‘whose owner can he be when Yudhishthir lost himself.’ It is after Arjun’s answer that Dhrutarashtra conferred boons on Draupadi. Using this opportunity, Draupadi asked for Yudhishthir and then the other Pandavs to be released from slavery. It is important to note that she did not ask herself to be freed from slavery for she had already proved that she was a free woman.

Unlike Ravindra Shobhane, I consider Druapadi to be one of the intelligent women in the epic. It will not be out of place here to recall a dialogue between Draupadi and Krishna’s wife Satyabhama while the latter visited the Panadavs in the forest during their period of exile. In that conversation, Draupadi tells Satyabhama, that ‘she managed’ ‘the staff’ and ‘the treasury of Indraprasth.’ [Van Parva, Section CCXXXI]* This does not concur at all with the view that her question to the court was supercilious. In fact if she had not posed this question, she along with the Pandavs would have become Duryodhan’s slaves. One has to conclude, that it was Draupadi who, with her intelligent question, rescued the Pandavs from slavery.

"Man or Elephant’

Yudhishthir, known as the Just King, spoke one half-truth during the Kurukshetra war and it led to Dron’s slaying by Dhrushtadyumna. This act of his is fiercely debated by characters in the epic and by readers alike. It will be beneficial to examine the sequence of events surrounding Dron’s slaying.

After Bhishm’s death, who had commanded the Kaurav army for ten days, Dron was appointed supreme commander. He led the Kaurav forces for five days, but was not successful in capturing Yudhishthir – the task he had undertaken.

1. On the fifteenth day of the war instigated by Duryodhan’s stinging remarks Dron prepared to deploy the Brahmasra to exterminate the entire Pandav army.
2. When Krishna saw this he suggested that if Dron receives some sad news, he will give up the weapon.
3. Bheem had a brainwave and killed an elephant named Ashwatthama and conveyed the news to Dron, implying that his son Ashwatthama had been slain. (This was not part of Krishna’s suggestion.)
4. Dron did not trust Bheem’s words as he knew Ashwatthama could not be slain so easily.
5. Dron approached Yudhishthir to know the truth.
6. Yudhishthir misleads him to believe his son is dead by saying, “Ashwatthama is dead,” and adds in a low voice, “man or elephant.”
7. Dron continues to attack the Pandav army, Bheem chastises him.
8. Dron gives up his weapons and is slain by Dhrushtadyumna.

It is clear that the conception and execution of killing the elephant called Ashwatthama was entirely Bheem’s. Moreover, the intention of this exercise was merely to deter Dron from using the Brahmastra. Neither the Pandavs nor Krishna imagined that Dron would give up weapons and sit in lotus position and Dhrushtadymna would slay him mercilessly.

Yudhishthir was drawn in the incident because Dron approached him. At that juncture Yudhishthir was left with two options.

• Tell the truth and attain personal glory at the cost of destruction of an entire army.

Or,

• Tell a lie and save the army at the cost of personal reputation.

Yudhisthir chose the latter as befitted a king responsible for the welfare of his troops. But he received his punishment as his chariot, which always rode a hand’s span above the ground sank to ground level. For this sacrifice he faced the ire of Arjun, “Thou, O monarch, hath told thy preceptor a falsehood for the sake of kingdom! Although thou art acquainted with the dictates of righteousness, thou hast yet perpetrated a very sinful act. Thy ill fame, in consequence of the slaughter of Drona, will be eternal in the three worlds with their mobile and immobile creatures, like Rama's in consequence of the slaughter of Vali!”

After Arjun criticized Yudhishthir, Bheem chastised Arjun and Dhrustadyumna justified his action of beheading Dron. With Satyaki supporting Arjun a fierce debate raged among the Pandavs. Satyaki and Dhrushtadyumna were on the verge of coming to blows, but timely intervention by Bheem and Sahdev avoided a full-fledged showdown. [Dron Vadha Parva, Section CXCVIII]*

I cannot but marvel at Vyas’ ability in bringing forth the different aspects of Yudhishthir’s and Arjun’s personalities. Arjun was an accomplished warrior, the best of Dron’s disciples; he also has obtained celestial weapons from Shiva and Indra. Yet in the face of action he dithered.  Whereas, Yudhishthir is no great warrior, and like Arjun he faced moral dilemma before the war. But once war became inevitable, unlike Arjun, Yudhishthir is firm and decisive. He knew the importance of defeating Dron and saving his army and takes a quick decision to utter the untruth, which at that juncture was the right thing to do.