One of the more popular posts on my blog is the one on Love in Mahabharata. I lost track of comments on that post because I wrote it so long ago and when a comment would sporadically pop up, I would be confused and then forget to get back to it. And I’ll admit, I lost interest in analysing that one particular episode. I had intended to write a series of posts as I read Ramesh Menon’s version of the Mahabharata, but I have been reading it in a fragmented way and honestly, didn’t have anything to say. I passed the pivotal dice game, an episode I believe holds great significance, taking a chapters in the book. But the metaphysical points being made, beyond the superficial events, escaped me and I had nothing to add.
Most people tend to fixate on the idea of Yudhishthira’s foolishness. I did not grow up on those stories and nobody held Yudhishthira up to me as a paragon of virtue. So perhaps I am able to a more neutral view of him. Certainly, in the Mahabharata, he is extolled for his virtues and all the other Pandavas defer to him. The dice game provides a crisis of faith, which it appears most modern commenters have succumbed to. Perhaps, the older generation overlooked Yudhishthira’s flaw (because it appears there was only one) when they praise him as a role model and the reaction of the younger generation seems like a backlash. From everything I have read so far, I am on the side of the older generation.
For me, the beauty of this epic lies in the nuances. None of its events, actions and characters are strictly black or white, they exist in the grey zone. Everyone, even the Gods, are fallible. And yet, some are less fallible. Yudhishthira is one of these. It is acknowledged that his weakness is gambling, that is why the Kauravas chose gambling with which to trap him. And yes, he loses control, he falls for it.
The Greek epics also have heroes and Gods who fall. It seems like the ancients were more realistic than us moderns who seek perfection in those we are asked to admire. In Greek tragedy, there’s the concept of hamartia or the fatal flaw, sometimes interpreted as tragic error of judgement. One of the most common traits is hubris (or pride). It seems to me that Yudhishthira’s fatal flaw was not so much gambling as arrogance. He was warned that the Kauravas would have a trick up their sleeves, that they would probably cheat, but he so strongly in his gambling abilities that he thought he would win. Some argue that Yudhishthira didn’t really know how to gamble before this match but the version I’m reading seems to say he did and was an expert too. Later, he disguises himself as a gambler in Virata’s court so he must have been good at it.
Yudhishthira’s other flaw is his adherence to dharma. This is not so much a flaw as his personality. He is supposed to be the embodiment of dharma. So when he is invited by his uncle (which could be read as a summons), he is obliged to accept. It is also is adherence to dharma that has him accept the unfair decrees of the elders once he has lost everything. For example, nobody addressed the question of how Draupadi could be put up as a stake as a queen, and how she could be put up by someone who was already a slave and hence had no property. (On the subject of which, read this). But Yudhishthira accepted the elders’ verdict because that is what he believed was the righteous path.
So Yudhishthira’s obvious flaw was his pride in gambling and his inability to accept that he was losing and wouldn’t be able to turn the game around. But the more nuanced flaw is dharma itself. Are we being told to tread carefully on the righteous path as it can lead to disaster?
What most people seem to forget (or don’t know) is that Yudhishthira is tortured thereafter by what he has done and repents deeply, repeatedly begs forgiveness and tries to gain the better of himself. What he does not do is stray from the path that he thinks is right. Like every leader that ever was, he fell. But he raised himself with dignity and tried to do better. That’s pretty heroic, IMO, albeit in an understated way that might seem boring to some. After the dice game there are so many times when Yudhishthira is the voice of wisdom and reason. Of all the Pandavas, he does have the best judgement, even though his judgement tragically failed him on (as far as I know) one occasion.
***
And while we’re talking about nuanced characters, there’s Karna, the most ambiguous of them all, placed smack between the forces of good and evil. The most moving episode I have read so far is the one in which Surya comes to warn Karna that Indra is going to try and trick him into giving up his armour and that he must refuse or he is risking his own life. Karna refuses to refuse Indra. He too insists on the path of honour even if it costs him his life. In this, Karna seems to be the equal of Yudhishthira, even superseding him.
Basically, Karna is a tragic character. He is doomed and worse, he knows it. Still, he does what he thinks is right. Always. Okay mostly. Mostly is good enough for me.
***
And then there’s Duryodhan, the villain of the piece. Even in him, there is something admire. He was the one who stood up for Karna and said the Pandavas couldn’t dismiss him just because of his lack of lineage because Kshatriya law did make allowances for people of exceptional talent to join their ranks. This episode brought the caste system into focus, and Duryodhan stood of the side of caste mobility. He may have had ulterior motives, but no one contradicted his logic.
I also admire Duryodhan for his courage. One can even understand his sense of being wronged, after all he was raised as the heir apparent and suddenly he has to deal with the idea that he is to play second or sixth fiddle. His flaw is that he is on the wrong side of destiny but unlike Karna he doesn’t know it or he lets his worst instincts prevail mostly. Nevertheless, in battle, he has courage. After challenging Virata’s army to draw the Pandavas out, the elders advise running away as soon as Arjuna appears. Their reasoning is that they are sure to lose. For Duryodhan, that Arjuna is powerful is no reason not to fight.
I am yet to really read this one. Even though I do know the broad story, the nuances will only pop up to life when I do pick it up eventually. But this stood out as I read through your post:
“None of its events, actions and characters are strictly black or white, they exist in the grey zone. Everyone, even the Gods, are fallible. And yet, some are less fallible.”
And I realise that this is largely true, and I would even go so far as to say, it is the basis of the Hindu way of life. In its original school of thought, I think this is what forms the basic principles of being a Hindu. That there is no definite right and wrong, there is only Karma and Dharma and your actions (both right and wrong) have consequences. Its why we dont have commandments or rules to play by, but a more exploratory way of life, with goals to meet. How you get there, what you do along the way is your choice and depending on how you act, that journey is easy/difficult/enjoyable/painful etc etc.. Even at a broad level, the story of many characters of the Mahabharata play out this train of thought..
Yeah, Haathi, that’s what I have realised (with only superficial knowledge of Hinduism admittedly) and I feel that this epic is an illustration of that idea on a grand scale.
In a way, Christianity is easier to follow when you’re young because the morality is pared down to essentials and the choices made. But in practice as adults, noone lives in those black and white terms. So viewing our actions in a more nuanced context makes more sense as I grow older. Maybe the path laid down by Christ is the essentialised version of what it means to be righteous, but for us lesser mortals, a more nuanced version of the code to the right life is useful.
the thing is find fascinating is how it differs depending on translation. i think i remember menon’s duryodhana being FAR more black than the other woman’s (dammit i can’t remember her name). as in in menon’s translation he is often characterized as the embodiemnt of evil.
am going to now start the gorgeous hardbound arshia sattar translation of the ramayana (yay!).
Yeah, I was a bit taken aback at how Menon portrays Duryodhan’s birth. Almost as if Satan was being born. And he is by and large, the bad guy. But even then, there are flashes of positive attributes, which i think is a hallmark of this epic and even Menon may not have been able to
So you finished the Maharabharat then? .
yes last january. but i don’t even remember it. sigh. old age! and too much reading…
Karna and Duryodhana are two of the most under-stated characters in Mahabharata. Of course those days the grey zone was less talked about and our elders focused on good vs evil, hence stuck to the good – which is Yudhishtira. I think modern day life makes us more sympathetic to grey characters such as Karna and Duryodhana.
Ravana is another character from mythology who has been hugely taken for granted. Rama is even worse…he is praised when a lot of times he has proved that he is almost as fallible as the rest of them.
I don’t know about understated because both of them are there quite a lot. Yeah, I guess modern life does make us more sympathetic to grey characters and the underdogs.
Don’t know much about Ramayana, but the little I know (from watching the televised version) he is indisputably the bad guy. Was totally surprised when I heard some sects worship Ravana. And I think there was recently a Hindi movie with a controversially sympathetic portrayal of Ravana?
From reading the Mahabharata, it seems Rama and Yudhisthira are similar characters. In fact, there are references made to Yudhisthira being a reincarnation of Rama. Basically, both are the embodiment of dharma. So, although I don’t know Rama’s story in detail, I suspect he is praised for adhering to dharma. If he is like Yudhisthira, then he wouldn’t be as fallible as the rest of them, but just capable of falling once or twice.
Actually Ravana had his good points. He was an accomplished veena player and was very well-versed in statecraft — even Rama acknowledges as much when he sends Lakshmana to a dying Ravana for some tips on the dharma of a good ruler. And of course Ravana must be given credit for not trying to force himself upon Sita at any point during her one year stay in Lanka–he cajoles her, coaxes her, threatens her but he never touches her.
Come to think of it, he was more of a gentleman than Rama ever was. In fact, Rama found it inconceivable that someone could abduct a woman–a beautiful woman like Sita–and not have sex with her even once in such a long time. Ultimately it was this disbelief which led him to banish Sita to the woods.
So overall quite a grey character, I would say, but yeah not good enough to be worshiped, certainly!
I guess the movie takes off on that strain then? Not good enough to worship in the frame of the epic maybe, but there may be other myths that portray him in a different light.
Hadn’t heard of Ramesh Menon’s version. Growing up in Pune, Mahabharata was always about Irawati Karve’s Yuganta. It is a collection of essays from an anthropological and historical perspective that turns many of the conventional readings of the text on their head. I only read Yuganta in 2008 and was so distracted by my motivation for reading that did not pay adequate attention to the text itself. Need to revisit it.
Oh, if I ever finish this one shall check that one out. I am interested in that perspective. What was your motivation for reading the text?
Nilanjana Roy’s piece i think talks about a lot of these things. or wait as it someone else’s? all the retellings, and the women who wrote from other perspectives…oh wait thats the ramayana. never mind.
The motivation was existential angst more than anything else. I did not quite do it justice though. Not sure about Nilanjana Roy’s piece, but I know Jai Arjun Singh wrote a good review of Yuganta on his blog a few years ago.
And also Ranjit Desai’s Mrityunjay for everything about Karna.
Sorry, my bad. The author is actually Shivaji Sawant. Mixed him up with Desai.
I love this post. Was so hooked to this book that it went with me everywhere. Agree on the shades of grey but i dont see any grey in karna-why do you think so? He comes across as the most straight forward honest self respecting person in the story to me. Heard that there is a book on karna too must find out the name and pick it up. Am sure it would be an informative read.
My grouse about the book is that it’s too heavy to carry around. Well, I just finished the first volume and the second is lighter so maybe I’ll attempt lugging that about and read faster.
I see Karna as grey because first of all, he’s in the bad guy camp. He is essentially Duryodhan’s sidekick. Also, sometimes he is excessively vicious. Like his treatment of Draupadi after the dice match, though that may be because she spurned him at some point. Yet, his backstory makes us sympathetic to him.
ISOTC above has suggested a book on Karna.
Like most people, I was a huge Karna fan when I was a kid. Reading the Mahabharata (the actual version i.e K.M Ganguly’s english translation which is considered the closest translation) I was pretty shocked by plenty of things.
I was shocked at Karna more than anyone else and my pity/liking for his character took substantial hits. Especially the vastra haran episode. That is where I felt like slapping him.
1. He calls Draupadi a whore: Ok, from the overall Karna input in to this episode, his abusing Draupadi was the least detestable action, since this was only a verbal assault. And some people would say she had also called him a “sutaputra”. So as far as verbal insults go, they are on par now.
2. Karna stops Vikarna from defending Draupadi and again goes on the whore with 5 husbands tangent.
3. Karna (and not Duryodhan) is the one who actually gives the last horrible command to Dussasan about stripping Draupadi. The actual words are: “Karna said, these Pandavas are now slaves. So they shouldn’t be wearing kingly clothes. Dussashan strip that whore/slave Draupadi also. A woman who sleeps with 5 men is a whore and a whore has no honour”.
This last act is, IMO, the vilest and I can’t believe that it was Karna who gave that command and which Dussasan so lovingly followed. There is no justification for this. Even the sutaputra comment is no justification for this.
It makes me feel that almost all the men in that assembly (in the vastraharan scene) were chauvinists and MCPs. Karna one of the biggest. There is another episode during the war when he starts abusing the women of Madra, saying they are promiscuous and drink wine and eat beef.
Another flaw in Karna’s character is his anger and his herd mentality. When enraged and when in a crowd of people, he seems to suspend his own morality/rationality and goes by whatever the herd is doing/saying. This is seen, first during the vastraharan episode and secondly during the slaying of Abhimanyu.
So yes, while he has quite a lot of good points such as charity, nobility, loyalty, etc; he also has very horrible flaws too, which people often forget or let go. Actually he goes to the two extremes of good and bad.
And I am not surprised that when it came down to it, Krishna was on the side of Arjuna and not Karna. Still he is a tragic/complex and overall interesting character to read about.
Another interesting thing (and what CBD’s Palace of Illusions is partly based on) is that when Krishna revealed his parentage to Karna was offering him the kingship and other stuff if he could side with the Pandavas, Krishna also slyly offers him Draupadi as wife, as a bonus package.