Duryodhanization

by Nishant Uppal

  I don’t find any other justification for this behaviour other than the fact that Yudhishthira wanted to remain calm and not reveal their identity in front of anyone, which could put their lives at stake. Therefore, in order to not be recognized and save their lives, they tried to not react to the insult openly meted out to Draupadi.

  As briefly discussed earlier, another collective misdeed of the Pandavas was the burning of the entire Khandava forest, mercilessly massacring innumerable vidhyadhara human tribes, animals and birds who had done no harm to anybody. Not only was this damaging to the ecosystem, but it was also an immoral act that they committed.

  This brings us to a very important question. Why do kings exist? To do as they please with their kingdom and their people or to govern the kingdom and ensure the welfare of the land? In traditional Indian philosophy, a king exists only to uphold dharma. And what is dharma? For God, dharma is ensuring the welfare of all living creatures. For a king, it is the welfare of all his subjects, from the strongest to the weakest. God’s kingdom is the whole world; nature, where all animals are given an equal chance to survive. In man’s world, the definition of dharma changes. The aim is to provide for the weakest of men. The weakest of men cannot survive in the forest. And so man tames the forest and establishes fields. This cannot be done unless an ecosystem is destroyed. This is brought out in the episode of the burning of Khandavaprastha when Arjuna kills hundreds of plants and animals to set up Indraprastha. Implicit in the idea of human culture and civilization is the destruction of nature, which is not only immoral but also harmful.

  However, the burning of the Khandavaprastha, though despicable, was the only option the Pandavas had in order to establish their kingdom. Dhritarashtra and Duryodhana deliberately gave the Pandavas that region of the kingdom, knowing well that they won’t be able to live there for long. Taming the entire forest would not have been possible in a short period of time, while they had no other shelter to settle in.

  Another misdeed of the Pandavas was when they insulted Duryodhana in their palace of illusions, when he had gone to Indraprastha to attend the rajasuya sacrifice. The palace was full of surprises and illusions because of which Duryodhana slipped and fell into a pool. Draupadi taunted him, ‘The blind son of a blind father.’ The Pandavas also laughed along and made fun of him. This acted as the last nail in the coffin and enraged by the insult, Duryodhana planned the rigged game of dice that eventually led to the Kurukshetra war.

  This was a consequence of a human flaw—to boast and make fun of others—that was also present in the Pandavas, because of which they had to face dire consequences. There was nothing unethical in it, but it certainly showed their character in poor light.

  Ultimately, the emphasis on rules and structures of ‘dharma’ we see in the earlier episodes, gets substantially diluted on the battlefield in Kurukshetra.

  The Pandavas, with Krishna’s advice, got Indra (who was also Arjuna’s father) to trick Karna. Karna was known for his charity and the fact that he always fulfils the wishes of the needy. By disguising as a beggar, Indra got Karna to part with his impenetrable armour and earrings in place of alms. This made Karna vulnerable in war, and ultimately led to his death when he was unarmed and was attacked by Arjuna from behind. At one point during the battle, Karna’s chariot wheel got stuck in the mud. He jumped off the chariot to free the wheel, asking Arjuna to pause and consider the most important etiquette of war: never attack one who is unarmed. Upon Krishna’s signal, Arjuna went against the rules and used the Anjalika weapon on him, while he was still trying to lift the chariot wheel off the ground. And this is how Karna was slain.

  Unable to defeat the great warrior Bhishma, Arjuna, on Krishna’s advice, fought standing behind Shikhandi, who was a eunuch and thus, Bhishma could not attack her. Arjuna knew that his grandfather would never attack a woman, and that it was the only way he could ever hope to defeat the mighty doyen. It was on the tenth day of the battle that Bhishma fell to the ground, pierced by Arjuna’s multiple arrows. This was all planned by the Pandavas after being advised by Krishna. In this way, in order to meet their ends, they had to take many unethical decisions in the battlefield to defeat the Kauravas and their armies. Similarly, Arjuna killed King Bhagadatta by fraudulent means, when Bhagadatta lost his vision in the battleground.

  Both of these actions were carried out under the supervision and advice of Krishna who explained in Bhagavad Gita the tenets of dharma in detail and how these actions came under dharma and not adharma—if they had to resort to unfair means to defeat the people who were the followers of adharma then these actions did not qualify as unethical in war.

  An unfair act by Yudhishthira, supported by all the Pandavas except Arjuna, was when he sacrificed Abhimanyu by allowing him to enter the Chakravyuha. Knowing that he was only a child of thirteen years and had no knowledge of how to come out of the Chakravyuha, Yudhishthira let him enter it in Arjuna’s absence. Considering that all the decisions were finally approved by Yudhishthira, and that there were other capable warriors in the army who could have shown their mettle in the field, this act of ignorance led to Abhimanyu’s demise.

  However, sending Abhimanyu to penetrate the Chakravyuha was the only alternative they had since nobody else knew how to do it, except Arjuna, who was battling in another part of the field at that time. Moreover, Yudhishthira made sure that all the great warriors in his army were behind Abhimanyu as he led them through the Chakravyuha. Even though they did follow him, the Kaurava army succeeded in trapping them in such a manner that Abhimanyu got isolated inside and was unable to return.

  Arjuna, with Krishna’s assistance, deceived Jayadratha and killed him. Jayadratha was one of the main people responsible for Abhimanyu’s death. Knowing that Arjuna would kill him to avenge his son’s death, the Kauravas protected him in the battlefield. Arjuna had vowed to kill him before sunset that very day, failing which he would jump into a pyre he had created for himself. The Kauravas decided to keep Jayadratha hidden till sunset, after which Arjuna would have to kill himself for having failed. As the time for sunset neared, Krishna created an artificial eclipse by hiding the sun with his Sudarshan Chakra. Jubilant that Arjuna had lost the wager, Jayadratha came out to mock him. At that very moment, Krishna brought back his discus and Arjuna shot an arrow to decapitate him. Even though it is evident that Krishna was the mastermind behind most of the treacheries in the war, it cannot be denied that the Pandavas were the perpetrators of those treacheries.

  However, it cannot be forgotten that Jayadratha was an immoral person who had outraged Draupadi’s modesty. This was one of the reasons why the Pandavas were so eager to kill him in the battlefield. Moreover, resorting to unfair means was absolutely fine at this point where the fundamentals of dharma had been diluted to such an extent that neither of the armies were following it. Krishna was the one who helped the Pandavas capture Jayadratha by faking the sunset with his Sudarshan Chakra, thus getting implicated in this misdeed.

  Another incident that shows that winning the war meant everything to the Pandavas was when they sacrificed Ghatotkacha, the son of Bhima and Hidimbaa, to save themselves from Karna. Ghatotkacha was summoned by Bhima to fight on the Pandavas’ side in the battle of Kurukshetra. Invoking his magical powers, Ghatotkacha wreaked great havoc in the Kaurava army. In particular, after Jayadratha’s death on the fourteenth day of the battle, when the battle continued past sunset, his powers proved most effective. At this point, having been badly beaten by Ghatotkacha’s attacks, Duryodhana appealed to Karna to use his divine weapon called the Vasavi Shakti. The Vasavi Shakti had been granted to Karna by Indra, but under the condition that Karna could only use it once. Karna had been saving it for his battle with Arjuna, but he realized that he had no choice and hurled the weapon at Ghatotkacha. Fatally wounded, Ghatotkacha flew into the air and made his body grow into a gigantic size, so when he fell to the ground he crushed one akshauhini8 of the Kaurava army.

  I do not see a reason to justify the selfish
ness of the Pandavas here, considering that they never gave Ghatotkacha the rights and the respect he deserved as the first child born to them. They could have justified it by saying that Ghatotkacha came to them for helping rather than the other way around. Therefore, any casualty as a result of the war was unpredictable and undesired.

  The Pandavas plotted to murder their teacher who trusted them more than his own son. Knowing that it would be impossible to defeat an armed Drona, Krishna suggested a plan to the Pandavas to disarm their teacher. Krishna suggested that Bhima kill an elephant named Ashwatthama and make it seem to Dronacharya that he had killed Dronacharya’s son Ashwatthama. After killing the elephant, Bhima loudly proclaimed that he had killed Ashwatthama. Disbelieving him, Drona approached Yudhishthira, aware of Yudhishthira’s firm adherence to dharma and honesty. When Dronacharya asked for the truth, Yudhishthira responded with the cryptic ‘Ashwatthama is dead. But I am not certain whether it is a human or an elephant.’ Krishna also knew that it was not possible for Yudhishthira to lie outright. On his instructions, the other warriors blew trumpets and conch shells, raising a tumultuous noise in such a way that Dronacharya only heard that ‘Ashwatthama was dead’, but could not hear the latter part of Yudhishthira’s reply and thus, an aggrieved Drona put down his weapons. This allowed Dhrishtadyumna to kill an unarmed and unprepared Drona.

  Drona’s killing was again orchestrated on Krishna’s advice, and the events that took place were all a part of the plan to bring down Drona, who was otherwise invincible. The same justification applies here as well that the Pandavas had to resort to unethical means in the war to bring down the supporters of adharma. Even after being asked to lie, Yudhishthira did not speak an outright lie. When he blurted out the truth in the latter part of his sentence, Krishna made sure that the trumpets and horns were blown so loudly that Drona could not hear the rest of it.

  At last, Duryodhana’s death was also a result of unfair means of warfare. At the end of the war, the Pandavas and Krishna made him an offer that he might pick any of the Pandava brothers to fight with, one-on-one, with a weapon of his choice, and that if he defeated that Pandava, Duryodhana would be deemed the victor of the war. Duryodhana picked his arch-enemy Bhima over the other Pandava brothers whom he could have effortlessly overwhelmed with his skill at fighting with the mace. In the fight that followed, at last Bhima struck Duryodhana in his thighs. This proved to be a fatal blow for Duryodhana who was left to die on the battlefield. This was an unethical move by Bhima, as according to the ethics of warfare hitting below the waist was not allowed.

  The killing of Duryodhana was not just a coincidence. Bhima had vowed that he would strike Duryodhana’s thighs, since in the past Duryodhana had asked Draupadi in the court to come sit on his thighs. Krishna, knowing well that Duryodhana’s thighs were vulnerable, reminded Bhima of his vow that as a Kshatriya, Bhima must hit him on his thighs as promised.

  In conclusion, the complex notion of dharma, as defined in the Mahabharata, leaves not just us but even the Pandavas’ descendants, agonizing over questions of what is good and bad. Janamajeya, the son of Parikshit (Arjuna’s grandson), organizes a ritual to sacrifice all the snakes in his kingdom to avenge the death of his father who was killed by a snake. He is stopped midway in this ritual by Astika, the nephew of the king of the Nagas. Astika explains to Janamajeya that his great-grandfather Arjuna burnt a forest to clear land for his kingdom. The forest was the home of many Nagas (serpents) who were left homeless. The killing of Parikshit was to avenge the wrong done to the Nagas. He points out to Janamajeya that sacrificing more Nagas was only perpetuating the cycle of revenge and violence. The sacrifice would create more orphans, who would be thirsty for the blood of Janamajeya and his descendants. When Janamajeya seeks to justify his action by calling it a measure of justice, Astika responds that what the snake did to his father was also an act of justice. And that it will become the refrain of the Naga orphans, who, in future, would avenge the wrongs done to them. Confused at this thought, Janamajeya hesitantly asks him if justice was not on the side of the Pandavas in the Kurukshetra. Astika tells him that the war was only about dharma, and not about justice. Dharma is not about defeating others but conquering one’s self. This somewhat elusive and complex thought is what the Mahabharata leaves us with. Perhaps one thing that it says clearly, is the need to overcome our ideas of self-righteousness, and accept the world in all its complexity, and to always try and see the legitimate claims of justice by those whom we fight against.

  However, questions of dharma are not what concern us in this book. Rather it’s an inquiry about whether we can establish a connection between the actions of the characters in this epic with their personality dispositions using modern methods of psychology. While clearly the actions of the Kauravas and the Pandavas are not exactly the same, but show close similarities, where the end means everything and the process means nothing. Despite apparent similarities in actions, these two sides are treated entirely differently. Whereas, the Kauravas’ actions are entirely villainized, the Pandavas received justifications for all their evil actions. In the next section, I present the justifications in the epic for the evil actions of the Pandavas presented so far.

  The Justifications

  This section examines the justifications provided in the epic for the Pandavas’ seemingly evil actions. The text categorizes these actions into three kinds: those that are the ‘need of the hour’, those that are based on ‘dharma’, and those that establish ‘dharma’. Here, I consider some of the Pandavas’ actions that were discussed in the previous section that fit into these categories.

  While Yudhishthira’s outburst at Kunti for putting Bhima in danger by sending him to kill Baka at Ekachakrapura clearly appears to be a sign of his neurotic and selfish behaviour, the epic provides a justification for his anger. The Mahabharata presents Yudhishthira’s actions as a momentary lapse and not as indicative of his general disposition. For instance, during the same dialogue, we see that Yudhishthira is more concerned with defeating the powerful contemporary agents of ‘adharma,’ such as Duryodhana and the other Kauravas, than with fighting for smaller social issues that may risk Bhima’s life.

  Further, while the Pandavas’ decision to marry Draupadi collectively appears to be a questionable and manipulative act, the Mahabharata presents this not only as a sign of the Pandavas’ unity and political shrewdness, but also as an action befitting the Kshatriyas of the time. The text highlights the precarious situation of the Pandavas—whose lives were in constant danger from Duryodhana and the other Kauravas—and underlines their need for a powerful ally in Drupada. Furthermore, they had to remain united to take on the forces of the Kauravas. Yudhishthira had to ensure that there wouldn’t be any dissention among the Pandavas regarding Draupadi.

  The Mahabharata further appreciates Yudhishthira’s decision as one made with astute foresight that successfully unites the Pandavas against adharma.

  Although there is no moral justification for Yudhishthira’s behaviour when he manipulates Shalya into vowing to support the Pandavas against the Kauravas, the Mahabharata depicts this act merely as battleground strategy. The epic treats this move as an ordinary attempt to confuse and lure the enemy’s alliance, since it did not violate the rules of the war.

  Similarly, while the Pandavas’ burning of Laakshyagriha kills six innocent people, harms countless animals, and brings massive destruction to the environment, the epic justifies this abhorrent act as an attempt to survive in a harsh and unjust world. And ultimately, as the epic says, the Pandavas had a goal to save dharma.

  While Bhima’s childhood bullying could have left the readers unsympathetic towards the character, the text presents his behaviour as innocent and playful, causing no permanent harm to the Kauravas. Yet, the text ignores the harm bullying can do to the self-esteem of a young prince and his brothers, especially during an adolescence that is fiercely competitive. While this is not a justification for Duryodhana’s attempt to kill Bhima, it highlight
s the text’s deliberate and biased presentation of its characters.

  Although abandoning a new mother and her infant child is an act that is universally considered immoral—both today and in the ancient setting of the Mahabharata—the epic presents us with some dharmic justifications for the behaviour. Kunti somehow assures Hidimbaa that Bhima leaving her and their infant in the jungle will be beneficial for everyone involved. She further convinces Hidimbaa that her children are in a precarious position; she explains that she is a fugitive, along with her children, and that they are escaping an assassination bid. She says that they are badly in need of shelter and comfort, and are living in seclusion in order to save and establish dharma.

  Where Arjuna’s unwarranted jealousy towards Eklavya and Karna is concerned, the Mahabharata again protects the image of the Pandavas. It is mostly silent about Arjuna’s disdain for Ekalavya and Karna’s skill and acumen, presenting Ekalavya and Karna as victims of the rigidity of gurus and gurukuls. We cannot know whether the text’s silence on the Pandava’s jealousy is intentional or not. Instead, the epic blames Drona for being insecure about Ekalavya’s skills and dedication.

  Further, it is worth paying close attention to Arjuna’s initial gentle rejection and subsequent acceptance of Ulupi’s and Chitrangada’s sexual advances. While Arjuna first denies their advances based on his observation of Brahmacharya, his eventual acquiescence is presented as Kshatriya dharma—moral responsibility of a warrior. This is contradictory, but justified by the text, which goes out of its way to establish the Pandava’s heroism.

  The epic also presents Arjuna’s kidnapping of Subhadra as a part of Krishna’s meticulous plan, given that Balarama wanted to marry her to his disciple, Duryodhana. Similarly, several other behaviours discussed in this chapter, which appear unfair and sometimes unethical, are justified by the text either as dharma and or as act ordained by Krishna. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita explains the tenets of dharma and how certain actions come to fall under dharma and not adharma—resorting to unfair means to defeat the followers of adharma is not unethical, he explains.