When Gandhari blindfolded herself to be sightless like her husband, she became a female counterpart of the blind king. She could have made other choices. She could have tried to be the eyes and wisdom of her husband (since he lacked both). Surely, that would have been more purposeful. Had Gandhari stepped in to administer the kingdom on behalf of the blind king and taken charge of the affairs of the state, the tale of Mahabharata would have been rather different. It would have been more forthright and challenging, since Gandhari was a courageous, ambitious woman with a good heart. But she seemed to have surrendered her initiative too easily and without a thought. She drifted through the vagaries of life blindfolded, helpless and uncared for. Kunti, on the other hand, successfully carried out her duties as both, a matriarch and an assertive wife.
In the end, the gory battle swallowed all of Gandhari’s sons. Her pleas to make peace with the Pandavas were ignored by the Kauravas, and her warnings about the fatal prophecy about the ruin of the clan with Duryodhana’s birth were dismissed by Dhritarashtra. This is why when Duryodhana came to seek her blessings, she just said ‘only where righteousness is, victory be’ (Chaitanya 1985, p. 159-63).17 This statement is an example of profound observation, highlighting an eternal truth as well as an unalterable providence.
The stirring experiences of an engaged reader upon reading the Mahabharata lends significance and vibrancy to the epic poem. These characters show what the consequences of the union of two individuals with negative personality traits can be. This eventually leads to an unsuccessful and dissatisfied married life, and thus troubled offspring.
2
DURYODHANA
A Judgemental Assessment
Using the villainous personality traits of Machiavellianism, narcissism, neuroticism, psychopathy and everyday sadism, the current chapter attempts to judge Duryodhana and his misdeeds. In other words, this chapter presents a scientific assessment of the degree to which his personality had these five villainous dispositional characteristics. Thus, we deal in two variables to assess Duryodhana’s dispositional characteristics. The five villainous personality traits and Duryodhana’s various actions and behaviours.
To assess Duryodhana’s personality, I refer to two important research works conducted by social scientists R.J. Deluga (1997)1 and Arijit Chatterjee and Donald C. Hambrick (2007).2 Deluga examined the personalities of thirty-nine American presidents, ranging from George Washington to Ronald Reagan, using historiometric methods. Historiometry examines biographical information of historical figures using quantitative measurement, without any prior theoretical commitment. This methodology includes content analysis and the use of adapted personality instruments with biographical works. As such, it attempts to establish personality patterns from the particular to the general across a sample of cases. In historiometry, profiles of subjects are prepared by abstracting personality descriptions verbatim from numerous standard biographical sources and fact books. These profiles are prepared as objectively as possible.
Further, Chatterjee and Hambrick (2007) examined the effects of the personalities of chief executive officers (CEOs) of American computer software and hardware companies on the financial performance of their firms. The researchers used unobtrusive measurements such as the prominence of the CEO’s photograph in the company’s annual report, the CEO’s prominence in the company’s press releases, the CEO’s use of first-person singular pronouns in interviews and the CEO’s cash and non-cash compensation in comparison to other top managers in the firm. Other unobtrusive measures include physical traces (evidence people leave behind in their physical environment), non-participant observation, documentary sources, written and spoken words of subjects, structure of offices and bedrooms, contents of personal web sites and consumption patterns as ways to learn about their preferences, perceptions and personalities.
I employ similar unobtrusive techniques to assess Duryodhana’s dispositional characteristics across the five villainous personality dimensions. I will rely on the singular primary source of information—the Mahabharata. Duryodhana is a leading villainous character, so there are sufficient instances to assess him along the five personality dimensions. In the following section, I present several instances from the Mahabharata and map them on to the five personality dimensions.
Dispositional Mapping
Duryodhana is one of the major characters of the Mahabharata. He was the eldest of the Kauravas—the hundred sons of Dhritarashtra and Gandhari. Being the firstborn son of the blind king, he was the crown prince of Hastinapur along with his older cousin Yudhishthira (eldest of the five Pandavas).
When we analyse Duryodhana’s characteristics to categorize him according to certain negative personality traits, it is obvious that he was evil right from the start.3 But what makes Duryodhana an evil person? There is a regular reiteration of offences against the Pandavas by Duryodhana. These include the attempted poisoning and drowning of Bhima, the burning of the ‘Laakshyagriha’ and all the incidents that took place in the game of dice at the gambling assembly. The memory of the humiliation faced by Draupadi and the whole Pandava family when the menstruating Draupadi is dragged by her hair and clothes, upon Duryodhana’s orders, through the ‘circle of kings’ fueled a want for retaliation in the Pandavas. This is a leading motive till the very end of the war. Draupadi’s contempt and Bhima’s fury are so powerful that in many places in the Sanskrit Mahabharata, and in various different retellings, Draupadi’s insult and its outcome are an indispensable feature of the story. From this point of view, this violation is seen as the main sin of its perpetrator—Duryodhana.
Throughout the epic, Duryodhana is steadfast in his enmity against the Pandavas. We are not suggesting that enmity is a virtue. We are simply bringing notice to the fact that, good or bad, Duryodhana’s thoughts, beliefs and actions always fell in a single line. There is not a single instance where he repents or reconsiders his actions. Even as he is dying, he tries to belittle Yudhishthira, laughing at the hollow victory of the Pandavas. He is convinced that he is right in coveting the wealth of the Pandavas. He says with authority, ‘Discontent is the root of prosperity. Therefore, O king, I desire to be discontented. He that striveth after the acquisition of prosperity is, O king, a truly politic person.’4 According to him, it is Kshatriya dharma (the dharma or the duty of the ruler class) to covet the property of others and expand one’s territory. So, he is only following this dharma when he schemes to acquire the kingdom of the Pandavas. Duryodhana is defined by the jealousy he harbours for the Pandavas. This characteristic trait is a part of his identity.
Right from the beginning, when Kunti comes back to Hastinapur seeking refuge, Duryodhana is tormented by a feeling of insecurity. He fears the kingdom will go to Yudhishthira, the eldest prince and the son of Pandu. His own father, Dhritarashtra, was only a custodian in the absence of Pandu. The thought of being at the mercy of the Pandavas is so appalling to him that he tries everything in his means to eliminate them. Though Bhima childishly tormented the Kauravas, but never with malice,5 Duryodhana, already insecure, developed a deep-rooted hatred for Bhima and his brothers.
In the following section, using instance-based historiometry,6 I present various behavioural instances that throw light on Duryodhana’s personality traits. They are also indicative of the degree to which Duryodhana’s personality had elements of the five negative personality traits discussed earlier.
Behavioural Instances Indicating Personality Traits in Duryodhana
The first instance that highlights his negative personality traits was also his first act of insolence against the Pandavas in his early days. At the time, the Pandavas and their mother Kunti had come to Hastinapur after Pandu’s demise. Yudhishthira was sixteen years old and Duryodhana was a year younger to him. Growing up, Bhima had unparalleled physical power, and used to mock and defeat the Kauravas. Bhima’s perky tricks of suffocating them in water, shaking them down the trees and pulling them by hair left Duryodhana outraged. Unfit to counter him alone,
Duryodhana resorted to spite and scheming. The plot he considers is pre-planned. The insidiousness of this young boy as he carefully ascertains the pros and cons of his evil plan is shocking. The Pandavas greatly depended on Bhima’s prowess. Duryodhana realized that if he succeeded in killing Bhima, he could easily overwhelm and arrest Yudhishthira and then Arjuna. With these three Pandava siblings out of his way, there would be no one to stop him and he would be the heir apparent of Hastinapur.7 He thoughtfully and painstakingly measures every potential outcome.
He erects a castle in Pramanakoti, on the banks of Ganga. He constructs this royal residence for water sports and then welcomes the Pandavas to join him. When they arrive, all the servants are asked to leave and the princes go around exploring the magnificence of the place. While they are occupied with different games and recreation, Duryodhana treats Bhima to delicious food laced with poison. Bhima eats the food and due to the effects of the poison, becomes unconscious. Thereafter, Duryodhana ties his limbs and drowns him in the river so that all chances of his survival are negated. When Bhima doesn’t return in the evening, Yudhishthira and his brothers frantically search for him. Though everybody thinks that Duryodhana was behind this, no one questions him. The authority he impressed upon others, even at that early age, shows the powerful nature of his character. Later, Bhima returns with his strength increased manifold with the blessings of Vasuki, the Naga king. This instance gives one an insight into the cruel and devious mind of Duryodhana.
Through the analysis of these behavioural instances, it seems that Duryodhana had Machiavellian traits in him since his early days. This incident shows how he could go to any extent to safeguard his interests, even if it meant engaging in immoral acts and behaviours. His lack of empathy towards others and the sense of superiority he felt about himself are obvious. This highlights his narcissistic and psychopathic traits, along with the Machiavellian ones. It also shows his neurotic tendencies. His excessive jealousy leads to anxiety and outrage, fueling him to take revenge on the Pandavas.
The second behavioural instance that highlights his negative dispositions was when after being defeated in his first attempt to vanquish the Pandavas, he and his father plan another plot against them. This time Duryodhana did not concentrate on Bhima alone, but on all the five siblings along with their mother, Kunti. After making this plan, he waits for a whole year to execute it. In this time he tries to win over the people of Hastinapur by doing innumerable good deeds and giving away much wealth to the poor and needy. Only after ascertaining that he had earned a good name with the people does he act on his plan. On his instruction, he asks Dhritarashtra to send the Pandavas to the city of Varanavata to witness the merriments there. In Varanavata, the Pandavas stay in a castle constructed exclusively for them. On Duryodhana’s command, Purochana has fabricated the palace with lac and other flammable objects. Even after the Pandavas reach Varanavata, Duryodhana does not act immediately. He waits another year. Only after making sure that no one suspects him of harbouring evil intentions does he command Purochana to set fire to the palace of lac. At an ideal moment, when nobody presumes anything, Purochana sets the royal residence ablaze. Thus, hoping to kill the Pandavas and Kunti. We see that the Duryodhana’s wrath is of such great magnitude that he isn’t ready to spare even Kunti. Of course, with Vidura’s timely intervention, the Pandavas escape to safety and survive. This second incident throws light on Duryodhana’s sly maturity in executing premeditated evil plans. His emotions against the Pandavas have only grown stronger, but he is not impulsive. He is willing to wait to get the desired results. Every move is well thought out and calculated. This cold bloodedness shows his criminal intent and manipulative character. Along with Machiavellian traits, he also exhibits psychopathic tendencies.
The third instance of his behaviour where he shows psychopathic traits was when he could not win Draupadi’s hand in her swayamvara, as he failed to bend the bow to hit the target. Duryodhana’s mental make-up was such that he could not stomach failure, and he did not accept this defeat gracefully. Instead, he instigates the other kings to rise against the young ‘brahman’ Arjuna (in disguise) who had won the contest. His need to always win and feel superior to others is paramount. It becomes psychopathic in nature when he resorts to immoral and criminal acts that harm others.
The fourth instance that exemplify his personality traits to be similar to that of a narcissist is his acts of chivalry that he uses to portray himself as a good person in people’s eyes, even though these were driven by his hatred for his cousins. On seeing the valorous young Karna throwing a challenge at Arjuna, only to be rejected as an unequal suta putra, he rejects any class difference at birth and declares that only valour will merit honour. Even though borne out of a negative motive, the crowning of Karna by Duryodhana shows him in good light. He is successful in garnering admiration in the hearts of the common public, which could have been his secondary motive.
The fifth instance that indicates his negative disposition was when he expressed his desire to perform the ‘rajasuya yajna’, just like Yudhishthira had done to establish his prowess in his kingdom and gain the confidence and support of other kings. He requested Veda Vyasa to conduct the rajasuya sacrifice for him in Hastinapur, just like it was done in Indraprastha. But Vyasa declined to do so, citing adharma and evil intention as the reason behind conducting it. Vyasa tells him that the purpose of performing the rajasuya yajna is to establish dharma not to loot the states and force his authority on them. He asked Duryodhana whether he would wash the feet of Lord Krishna, who washed the feet of all the sages present in the rajasuya yajna and proved his humility. Duryodhana refused, and said that he would give donations to all of them but not wash anyone’s feet. This depicts his character as one so absorbed in self-love that he refuses to pay respect to Yudhishthira by washing his feet as the host. Vyasa points out that he agrees to donate any amount asked for so that he can boast about it in future and be his arrogant self.8 Thus, this incident portrayed his narcissistic traits.
The sixth instance that characterizes his negative personality was when he made Karna the commander of his army and sent him on a worldwide military invasion, ‘Digvijaya’. Karna embarked upon a worldwide military campaign to subjugate kings and impose Duryodhana’s imperial authority over them. Bringing tribute and allegiance from kings all over the world, Karna helped Duryodhana perform the Vaishnava sacrifice to please Lord Vishnu and crown himself ‘Emperor of the World’, as Yudhishthira had done with the rajasuya. He did this to manipulate the common people into believing that he was the most powerful person in the world. In order to establish that, he used to make daily public announcements of the kingdoms he had won. However, it should be noted that he never mentioned any states that were more powerful than his, and which would be able contenders in warfare. He only mentioned the states that he won against such as Angadesh and Ahikshatra. The common people did not know that these states were already under the territory and authority of Hastinapur. Karna was the ruler of Angadesh and Drona was the head of Ahikshatra, which he seized from Drupada with Hastinapur’s support. This information was concealed from the public so that they believed Duryodhana unquestionably. This kind of manipulation to achieve his ends in the competition against the Pandavas again shows Duryodhana’s Machiavellian personality traits.
The seventh instance that makes it seem that Duryodhana could have possessed psychopathic traits was when after Yudhishthira’s rajasuya yajna, Duryodhana did not leave Indraprastha and stayed in the Pandavas’ palace. He was amazed to see the wonderful illusions in the palace built by Mayasura. When Duryodhana tried to enter a door, he hurt his head because it was not really a door but a wall. When he went further, he saw a pool of water and tried to step into it. But it was glass that looked like a pool of water and he hurt his foot on the glass. Bhima and the other Pandavas who were present there were amused and made fun of him when they saw this. Then Duryodhana went ahead and fell into a pool, which looked just like the floor. Seeing this,
Draupadi started laughing loudly. She commented, ‘A blind man’s son is also blind.’ This insult hurt Duryodhana so much that he vowed to take his revenge on Draupadi. Duryodhana was jealous of the luxury of the Pandavas’ palace. He told his uncle, Shakuni, that he wanted to rob the Pandavas of all the luxury they were enjoying. He wanted it all for himself. Shakuni replied, ‘You can’t take all this by force. We will take all this from them.’ Duryodhana agreed with his uncle and together they started thinking of devious plans to oust the Pandavas from Indraprastha.
The eighth instance that shows his negative personality was the game of dice. It marked the pinnacle of Duryodhana’s hatred and insecurity towards the Pandavas. It gives an insight into the appalling dispositions that an individual may have when in the grasp of strong feelings. From here there is no turning back, and Duryodhana proceeds towards his own devastation. This time he goes to considerable lengths to devise a foolproof arrangement, which rules out any positive result for the Pandavas. He realizes that with Drupada and Krishna as allies, it was difficult to defeat them in battle. He also realizes that though Bhishma, Drona, Kripa, Karna and the rest were on his side, the Pandavas were equally powerful and the result of a battle would be unpredictable. With all this in mind, Duryodhana sees the game of dice as the right means to usurp the Pandavas’ wealth. There is no bloodshed in the game of dice, and victory is sure. There was no one in the world who could compete with Shakuni in rolling the dice and winning. Though Dhritarashtra was hesitant at first, upon perceiving Duryodhana’s affliction, he gave his permission to invite Yudhishthira for the game. Yudhishthira, fully aware that he was no match for Shakuni, accepted the invitation. And the game began. As the momentum picked up, Yudhishthira gradually lost all of his immense wealth. If the game had stopped here, maybe there would have been some redemption for Duryodhana. Although he had gained the entire wealth of the Pandavas, he was not satisfied. Locking arms with Shakuni, he goaded Yudhishthira to play further. Yudhishthira, too caught in the web of desire to win and unable to resist himself, pledged his brothers one by one—Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula, and Sahadeva—and lost all of them. He feverishly played on, even pledging himself. Much to Duryodhana’s glee he lost. Yudhishthira, always lauded for fairness of conduct and nobility, stooped to pledging his wife Draupadi. This was an appalling act that would put even the most insolent wretch to shame. As expected, Shakuni won and Draupadi was lost as well. Drunk with the pride of success, and inebriated with his victory over the Pandavas, Duryodhana charted his own doom as he ordered his brother Dusshasana to drag Draupadi to the court. The ever-faithful brother dragged the princess of Panchala to court, seizing her by her hair. Menstruating and attired in a single piece of cloth, Draupadi’s piteous requests for decency of conduct fell on deaf ears. Duryodhana’s suppressed and hitherto unsatisfied emotions took complete control over him. Unmindful of demeaning himself by insulting the daughter-in-law of the Kuru dynasty, he authorized Dusshasana to disrobe Draupadi in the public court in front of everyone assembled. She was saved by Krishna’s divine intervention, miraculously draped with endless yards of cloth, which Dusshasana was not able to remove. However, this dreadful action of disrobing Draupadi sealed Duryodhana’s fate as the Pandavas resolved to seek payback for every insult in a befitting manner. Even after this, Duryodhana did not stop his insults. Forgetting that Draupadi was his brother’s wife and equivalent to his mother, he moved his garment to reveal his left thigh and taunted Draupadi to come and sit on his lap. There was no stopping him as he heaped insult after insult at the Pandavas and their beloved wife. Nobody except Vidura and Duryodhana’s brother Vikarna dared to stop him. It is only then that Dhritarashtra intervened, trying to pacify the Pandavas and Draupadi by reinstating their freedom and returning all the wealth they had lost. Duryodhana was infuriated at Dhritarashtra for letting the Pandavas go scot-free, and made him bring the Pandavas back for another round of dice. This time he promised that he would not go beyond taking their wealth. The Pandavas came back and Yudhishthira played with the wager that whoever lost would surrender their kingdom and live in exile in the forests for thirteen years. He eventually lost. There was an additional clause, that the thirteenth year should be spent incognito. In case they were identified, they would have to go back to the forest for another thirteen years. The game of dice is an example of the great lengths Duryodhana went to, to exterminate the Pandavas and their mother. This is indicative of the enormity of the psychopathic traits he possessed. He exhibits antisocial behaviour, diminished empathy and remorse, disinhibited or bold behaviour and serious criminal tendencies against the Pandavas. He has psychopathic, Machiavellian, narcissistic and sadistic personality traits. He is disrespectful, particularly with reference to his treatment of Draupadi, and lacks empathy for a woman in vulnerable conditions.
Duryodhanization Page 8