iravati karve

7/26/2019 Iravati Karve

1/58

The Draupadi debate: victim or feminist?

Irawati Karve's Yuganta

eople who tend to be easily offended (and to use this as an excuse for violence) continue to hyperventilate over

mythological holy cows. Yarlagadda Lakshmi Prasad's ahitya !kademi !ward"winning book Draupadihas

been the sub#ect of loud protests (and much shoe"throwing) because the writer allegedly depicted the

Pandavas' $ueen %in a highly ob#ectionable manner and used highly immoral words for her%.

&'ve been privately amusing myself by imagining how these offence"takers would respond to &ravati arve's

classic Yuganta which is one of the most renowned academic studies of the ahabharata and its characters.

arve who took a historical"cum"anthropological perspective on the great epic was dismissive of the idea that

*raupadi was a proto"feminist hakti+goddess figure , she saw her as being #ust as dependent and subservient

as any other woman in a strongly patriarchial society. -er analysis of the crucial episode where the humiliated

$ueen poses a $uestion of *harma to the elders in the aurava assembly is especially scathing she treats

*raupadi as a sort of pretender trying to speak with authority about things that she doesn't know enoughabout and suggests that %she should instead have cried out for decency and pity in the name of the shatriya

code%.

& don't agree with all of arve's assessments but the point is that here is a respected academic (and a woman

herself) engaging closely and intelligently with the text and treating its heroine as well as the other characters

as human beings with strengths and weaknesses. /hat's the best most rewarding approach to

theMahabharata which is first and foremost one of the world's most complex literary works. & wish more

people would appreciate this.


2/58

Yuganta, by Irawati Karve - Reading The Mahabharata

This short and very readable book of essays on the Mahabharatawas recommended by rparvaaz,

who I believe has a copy for me. (Please e-mail me, and I'll send you my home address.) I read it

via inter-library loan, and am writin it up now as it's due today.

!arve was an anthropoloist, and enerally approaches the source with the concept that it

documents real people and events, but with an overlay of myth and many later and less-accurate

interpolations. (I say mostly because she doesn't entirely discount all of the mythic elements, like

"hishma's boon to live until he chooses to die.) #he likes the uncompromisin harshness of the story,

compared to later (soft and sentimental, in her opinion) stories like Shakuntala, and her readin is

often startlinly harsh itself. $nd very eye-openin. I can't even bein to count the number of times

when I thouht, %I never thouht of that& "ut it makes a lot of sense.%

$s I soon must leave to return the book, this will be more scattered notes than a real review. I'll take

her essays in order.

%The inal ffort.% This is about "hishma, and is full of surprisin (to me, anyway) interpretations.

#he suests that he became trapped in his role as dispassionate uardian, and so could not stir

himself to actually affect events, and that he chose yasa to father children on $mbika and $mbalika

because yasa would do it, then take off, whereas a youner man with a position at court miht ain

power and threaten "hishma.

!arve calculates his ae at the start of the war to be *+-++& Personally, I think that sort of

calculation is bound to be misleadin with a tet that old and that has had so many additions over so

lon, and it makes more sense to estimate people's aes based on what they're actually doin in the

tet and how people react to them. (#he does this in other essays too, such as claimin that !arnamust have been in his mid-twenties when he first challened the teenae $runa, and so he was

bein a bully. I think that even if mathematically that's true, the story never says anythin about it

and instead indicates that they're evenly matched, so it makes more sense to take that as the case.)

It makes more sense to me to think of "hishma as bein in his sities or early seventies-- old, but

still stron and hale. /o way can a ninety-year-old fiht for ten days in a war.

$nyway, she uses this to suest that 0uryodhana only asked him to be eneral as a formality and

courtesy, and was shocked when he accepted. $nd then "hishma kicked out !arna and didn't fiht

very hard in the hope of stoppin the war... with the conse1uence that everyone ot so annoyed with

him that they miht not have tried too hard to protect him in the end. 2h, and she says that

Parasurama was an interpolation, and the oriinal "hishma was no reat shakes as a warrior. I don'tknow that I buy this, but it's interestin to think about.

%3andhari.% 4er life sucked.

%!unti.% 4er life sucked too.

!arve suests that 0urvasa fathered !arna, and the story about the earrins and armor arose from

him havin been abandoned with old to pay for his care. If that was riht, would that mean he

really was a suta, and ineliible for the throne5 "ut !arve later says that idura (a suta) miht have

been 6udhisthira's bioloical father, which I think also makes him a suta. 0oesn't the father have to

be a kshatriya (or a 3od) to make the child of royal birth5 idura was ineliible for the throne
http://rparvaaz.livejournal.com/http://rparvaaz.livejournal.com/


3/58

because his mother was a maid. "ut yasa was... what, eactly5

I am now totally confused about the lealities of what each parent must be under what circumstance

for their child to be a possibility to inherit the throne. ($nd !arna was iven a kindom, so that's a

possibility too. 7ould idura have ruled 4astinapur if Pandu and 0hritarashtra had both died without

producin heirs5)

!arve theori8es that Pandu was impotent, not cursed, and went to the forest so no one would know

who fathered his children. ("ut I thouht it was leal for someone else to father children on a wife

with the husband's permission, so I'm not sure why that was necessary.)

%ather and #on5% This makes a plausible case for idura bein 6udhisthira9s bio-dad. idura was

supposed to be the incarnation of 6ama, plus there was that weird thin where he lay down on top of

6udhisthira when he was dyin. There's also a nice discussion of sutas in this essay.

%0raupadi.% $ really harsh analysis of her behavior durin the strippin, sayin that she was stupid to

make a leal arument and instead should have thrown herself upon everyone's mercy as a helpless

violated woman. I really don't aree that that would have made the slihtest bit of difference. Plus,however useless it was in such a patriarchal time, I am a person of my time and as such, I think

0raupadi was awesome and had ten times the uts and interity of anyone else there at the time.

There's also a comparison of the ideali8ed #ita with the realistic 0raupadi, and an adorable bit of

0raupadi:"hima fantasy at the end.

%The Palace of ;aya.% This interprets the forest fire at !handavaprastha as the Pandavas attemptin

enocide aainst the /aas, whom !arve suests were tribal people with animal clan names. 6ikes&

I have to say, after all the Pandava haioraphy one comes across, I cracked up when she compared

them to 4itler.

%Paradharmo "hayavaha.% $n analysis of the role of 0rona and $swatthama in terms of how they did

and did not behave as "rahmins.

%!arna.% $ain with the dissin of my favorite characters& #he also says that his relationship with

0uryodhana was one of retainer and patron, not true friendship, as proved by !arna only marryin a

suta and not a !aurava woman. or one thin, my recollection is that the only !aurava woman was

0ussala, and she was taken. Plus, I can't disreard the many times the two of them are weepin in

each other's arms, swearin eternal loyalty, and ust hanin out toether. It seems much more like

the !rishna-$runa relationship to me. Thouh I do aree that !arna was certainly not considered an

e1ual by anyone else, ecept perhaps !rishna.

%!rishna asudeva.% This talks about !rishna's oal of becomin a asudeva, which is apparently a

title and role that can only be borne by one man at a time. (I had assumed it was a patronymic, from

his father asudev.) acinatin stuff. !arve takes the position that !rishna was a brilliant man and a

reat politician, and was only thouht to be a 3od after his death. $s I mentioned in an earlier post,

it eplains the bi8arre massacre of the 6adavas story as a manled account of how the 6adavas ot in

a drunken brawl and were then attacked by enemies wieldin iron-tipped reeds, and that !rishna

chose to fiht to the death rather than be for protection from others (such as the Pandavas.)

%The nd of a 6ua.% This discusses the values and social conditions of the time, and how later Indian

literature displays chanin values.


4/58

The whole inheritance thin is confusin me, too. I am also reminded of the yptian throne, where

the kinship passed throuh the woman. ypt was not matrilineal in the strict sense, but it was the

royal blood of the woman that authori8ed the kin to rule. 7hich is why the first thin a pharaoh did

when he ained the throne was to find himself a woman with somesort of royal blood to marry, to

leitimi8e his claim. #he miht be the dauhter or widow of the previous pharaoh, or, if he was of

royal blood himself, she miht be his sister or aunt. $t least with the Pandavas, where the fathers

were all different but the mothers were married into the royal family, that sounds vauely similar.

=oincidentally, my Ihopeful>)

2ooh, oooh, so many comments. !arna... unny because the adult challenin a teenaer thin at

the weapons contest was always how I imained that in my mind. I mean, I always ust assumed

that 0rona would want to show off $runa sooner rather than later (while he's still a teenaeheartthrob), and, knowin the chronoloy of the story, well, !arna would haveto have been

somewhat older than $runa at the time. I can't recall ever readin a version that specified their aes

at the time (or was it buried somewhere in the 3anuli mess5), but in my head, that's always how it

was. "ut I never saw it as !arna bullyin $runa because of his ae. /or did anyone else actually

present at the contest. It seemed like of all the issues brouht up in the weapons contest, ae is the

one issue that everyone inored, because it had no bearin on anythin.

And then Bhishma kicked out Karna

I always thouht it was !arna who threw the temper tantrum and refused to fiht if "hisma was on

the field5 2h these many confusin versions.

!o "a# can a ninet#$#ear$old fight for ten da#s in a "ar

6ou never met my reat randmother.

%&ather and Son'% This makes a lausible case for idura being Yudhisthira*s bio$dad idura "as

suosed to be the incarnation of Yama+ lus there "as that "eird thing "here he la# do"n on to of

Yudhisthira "hen he "as d#ing There,s also a nice discussion of sutas in this essa#

I still think that my favorite cracktastic interpretation of idura is the one where he's a futureincarnation of 6udhisthira born in 6udhisthira's past.

2n a more plausible level, but kind of on a tanent, I always kind of bouht the theory that idura

fell in love with !unti at some point. "ut he never touched her, of course. "ecause he's idura and he

doesn't roll like that. $lthouh I thouht that under some circumstances, it was all riht for a man to

accept his brother's widow as his wife5

%-rauadi% A reall# harsh anal#sis of her behavior during the striing+ sa#ing that she "as stuid

to make a legal argument and instead should have thro"n herself uon ever#one,s merc# as a

helless violated "oman . reall# don,t agree that that "ould have made the slightest bit of

difference /lus+ ho"ever useless it "as in such a atriarchal time+ . am a erson of m# time and assuch+ . think -rauadi "as a"esome and had ten times the guts and integrit# of an#one else there

at the time


5/58

?uoted for truth.

Karna... Funny because the adult challenging a teenager thing at the weapons contest was always how I

imagined that in my mind. I mean, I always just assumed that Drona would want to show off Arjuna

sooner rather than later (while he's still a teenage heartthrob, and, !nowing the chronology of the story,

well, Karna would ha"e to ha"e been somewhat older than Arjuna at the time.

Yeah, I had pictured him about five years older. I don't know what the difference is canonically and like I

said, I don't really trust a!e"calculations# but I think if $arna was better than %r&una because he was older

and so physically stron!er, that would have been stated.

I always thought it was Karna who threw the temper tantrum and refused to fight if #hisma was on the

field$ %h these many confusing "ersions.

Yeah, I've heard it both ways too. If the latter, it reminds me of %chilles sulkin! in his tent.

I still thin! that my fa"orite crac!tastic interpretation of &idura is the one where he's a future incarnation

of udhisthira born in udhisthira's past.

That is awesome. here did you come across that?

$s for the 6udhisthira@idura thin... It was a lon time ao, when I was searchin on the web for

information about reincarnation. I came across an article written by someone... I want to say that it

was on one of the maor websites like 4indunet or somethin, but I have no bookmark, and my

memory is fu88y. $nyway, the uy was eplainin that reincarnation doesn't happen in linear time,and that a %future% reincarnation of someone could actually be born in the chronoloical past. $nd

then he casually mentioned 6udhisthira and idura as an eample. $s in, by the way, idura was a

future reincarnation of 6udhisthira even thouh he was born before 6udhisthiraA and then he meres

with 6udhisthira at tne end. 2r somethin. It was a very casual mention, but I still remember it very

clearly because I remember thinkin, %That's pretty awesome.%

%Karna% Again "ith the dissing of m# favorite characters0 She(.ravati Karve) also sa#s that his

relationshi "ith -ur#odhana "as one of retainer and atron+ not true friendshi

I've seen this arument used by authors who obviously really like !arna but really despise

0uryodhana. #o they rewrite !arna so that he never really %liked% 0uryodhana, or they enerally try

to distance him as far from 0uryodhana as possible. 0inkar's The Sun 1harioteeris the most blatant

eample of this that I can think of off the top of my head.

Beardless of what the motivation or reasonin behind it is, inorin the !arna:0uryodhana

relationship strips away a ood chunk of what makes the ;ahabharata interestin and morally

comple, in my opinion.

I'm assumin that this is the one that also said that 6uddhisthira's father was probably idura,

udin by the practice of niyoa. ;ade sense to me, I mean, I wouldn't procreate with 0hritarashtra

if you paid me a million dollars. idura, on the other hand, had his head screwed on riht.


6/58

I hated the part about 0raupadi deservin what she ot since she defended herself, and didn't play

the part of a damsel in distress. Perhaps it's ust me, but I think it would be hihly out of character

for a woman born out of fire to be meek.

This reminds me, I have to re-read this. I forot how wonderfully entertainin it can be.

ahem. bhishma did not choose vyasa. satyavati did.

drona was CD at the time of the war *clearly mentioned in tet), and bhishma wsa drona's

contemporary.

duryodhana asked bhishma not 1uite as a formality. he reckoned the pandavas would fiht a little

less valiantly if they saw randad out there. worked fine for aruna, didn't it5

durvasa as karna's father, vidura as yudhishtira's... i've heard these before. but vyasa doesn't strike

me as a person who would shrink from recordin a scandal in the family, heh heh.

vidura was sierd by a brahmin upon a sudra woman, which makes him not a suta, but a paarasava.

totally ineliible. however, caste then depended not ust on birth, but also on upbrinin. so, a born

kshatriya (e.. karna) brouht up as a suta, would remain a suta unless somethin drastic happened(as in the case of krishna - born a kshatriya, brouht up as a opa - which is a vaishya subcaste -

made to wear the mantle of a kshatriya aain).

that fatherin children bit was absolutely leal.

vidura did not lay down on top of yudhishthira... humph. he entered yudi in spirit. no physical contact

is mentioned. he walked away from yudi when yudi tried to touch his feet.

drona and aswatthama5 didn't she analy8e the un-kshatriya characteristics of vishwamitra (he was a

kshatriya, then decided to become a brahmin by penance), or come to that yudhishthira5

vaasudeva is indeed a patronymic. however, you may be iven the name vaasudeva, even if you are

not the son of vasudeva. there was another kin who wanted to be known as vaasudeva as well

(takin the meanin 'lord of the world'), and declared that he was the rtue vaasudeva and krishna a

pretender. hence the battle between him and krishna.


7/58

Bhishma and Iravati Karves Yuganta

It was only recently that I had the pleasure of reading Iravati Karves tour de force Yuganta,

which I found one of the most brilliant and original studies of the Mahabharata. The rst

essay in the study is on hishma, and in it she tal!s about the futility of the grandsires longlife that spans several generations.

Karve begins the essay by summarising the plot, leading up to hishma bringing home

young "atyavati and presenting her to his old father as his new wife. #ere the scholarly

author ma!es a brilliant comparison of hishmas sacrice for the sa!e of his father

"hantanu with that of his ancestor $urus for the sa!e of his father Yayati and then as!s

what hishma gained by the sacrice in contrast to his ancestor who got his fathers

!ingdom overriding the rights of his elder brothers.

%hen you thin! of it, the sacrices are stri!ingly similar. To begin with, both fathers are old

and both sons young & hishma is perhaps twenty years old when he ma!es his sacrice

and $uru, though we do not !now his e'act age, is the youngest of his fathers sons, all of

them in their youth. In both cases, the sacrice is made by the sons so that their aged

fathers can en(oy sensual, and more specically se'ual, pleasures. In $urus case what he

sacrices is his youth, whereas in hishmas case, it is more than his youth that he

sacrices) he sacrices right to the throne, his whole life, and more.

y ta!ing the vow of urdhvaretatva, celibacy, he puts an end to his pra(atantu & his family

line. Indian culture sees few other sins as greater than that of brea!ing the pra(atantu. In

the famous convocation address in the Taittiriya *panishad, when the *panishadic guru

gives his parting advice to his disciple, the very rst duty he en(oins upon the student after

giving guruda!shina is to see that he does not brea! the family line) ach+ry+ya priyam

dhanam +hrtya pra(+tantum m+ vyavacchetsh.

The Mahabharata itself and the $uranas tell us stories of men whose austerities turned voidbecause they did not full this duty en(oined on them. It is the Mahabharata itself that tells

us the story of the ascetic -arat!aru who was turned bac! from his ascetic life and as!ed to

turn to family life in order to save his ancestors & -arat!aru subseuently begets /sita, who

stops -anama(ayas sarpasatra through which the !ing was trying to e'terminate the 0agas.

The $adma $urana tells us the story of Mahasati "u!ala, whose husband Kri!ala was

similarly turned bac! from the ascetic life and as!ed to go bac! to family life by his

ancestors.

$itr1rna, debt to the manes, is one of the basic debts that each man is born with according

to the ancient Indian tradition. /part from re(ecting the se'ual urge and its e'pression for

himself along with the pleasures and privileges of family life, what hishma did by ta!ing his


8/58

vow to remain an urdhvareta, was to fail in this regard. hishma had grown up fully aware of

the tradition that said when a man failed to produce a son, his manes fell from their world.

2oming bac! to Iravati Karves uestion, in contrast to $uru who gains a !ingdom and

becomes the vamsha1vardha!a, the progenitor of the race, what does hishma gain by the

great sacrice he ma!es3 True, the gods shower 4owers upon him at the moment of his vow.True, the world calls him hishma from that moment on. ut apart from that3 The answer is)

futility, emptiness, frustration and lifelong su5ering.

%ell, he did get one solid thing from his father, points out Karve) icchamrtyu, the power to

choose the time of his death. #owever, the author claries this) what he wins in return for

his sacrice is avadhyata, not a(eyata & he cannot be !illed by others, but it does not mean

that he cannot be defeated. /nd avadhyata can be a curse at times, and it mostly is)

through that privilege hishma lost the blessing of being !illed on the spot in a battle, which

privilege all !shatriyas had.

Karve observes that perhaps hishma got carried away by his own oath as a man who falls

into a mighty river gets carried away helplessly by its torrent.

#ow true Karves observation is proved by words in which he refuses "atyavatis subseuent

reuest to brea! his vows, occupy the throne of #astinapura, and marry and beget children.

"atyavati ma!es that reuest because his vows had by then become meaningless. #is vowswere ta!en so that "atyavatis children could inherit the harata throne, but her husband

and children were now dead and the harata throne itself had become without a master.

This is what hishma says in answer to the reuest of his widowed step mother)

6I shall give up the three worlds, I shall give up the empire of the gods, and if there is

anything greater than these, I shall give up that too & but I will not give up my truth. The

ve elements may give up their nature, earth the fragrance it e'udes, water the taste it

brings, light the forms it reveals, air the sense of touch and space its capacity for sound. The

sun may give up its splendour, the moon its coolness, Indra his valour and the lord of(ustice, (ustice itself & but I will not give up my truth. 7et the world end in dissolution, let

everything go up in 4ames & but I shall not give up my truth. Immortality holds no

temptations for me, nor does overlordship of the three worlds.8

True, one should !eep ones vows. ut at what cost3 /nd when they have become totally

meaningless3 %hen !eeping the vow defeats the very purpose for which it is ta!en rather

than brea!ing it3 /nd when the person for whose sa!e you too! that vow reuests it3

Iravati Karve is absolutely right in arguing that hishma is li!e a man fallen into a river. /s I

observe elsewhere 9Krishna) / "tudy in Transformational 7eadership &


9/58

http)::www.bolo(i.com:#induism:; hishma becomes obsessed with his vows and

gets helplessly carried away by them. #e becomes narcissistic and lives trapped in his own

self1image. In Karves words, he has become into'icated with his vow, drun! on it.

The essay also uestions the sincerity of hishmas commitment to the throne of

#astinapura because of which he stood by it through thic! and thin, eventually leading itsarmy against the $andavas whom he believed to be virtuous, competent and the rightful

heirs to the throne of #astinapura. "he uses hishmas refusal to brea! his vow and occupy

the throne and beget children to uestion the sincerity of his commitment. If he had such

intense love for the family of the Kurus, she as!s, why did he not brea! his vows and accept

"atyavatis reuest3

Karve sees a dual purpose in hishmas immediate acceptance of the position of the

commander1in1chief of the Kaurava army when ?uryodhana reuests him & that is, a dual

purpose apart from his possible desire to lead such a mighty army as that of ?uryodhana.@ne, to !eep Karna away from ?uryodhanas side, which hishma !new he would so long as

he was ghting, and thus wea!en ?uryodhanaA and two, to persuade ?uryodhana to give

the war even at that stage by frustrating his victory through dilly1dallying, which, through an

analysis of the battle of the rst ten days, the author argues he did.

@B@

%hile Karves essay on hishma is brilliant on the whole, there are details and observations

she ma!es with which one has to disagree, some of minor importance and others uite

signicant.

Cor instance, spea!ing of Dyasas niyoga with the wives of Dichitravirya, the author refers to

the third ueen learning that Dyasa 9Ea terrifying brahmana> is going to come to her and

sending her maid to him. /s we all !now, there is no third ueen & there are only /mbi!a

and /mbali!a. /nd the Mahabharata is uite specic about who was as!ed to receive the

sage again in her bed after /mbali!a gave birth to $andu) /mbi!a, the elder of the twoueens & (yeshFh+m vadhGm.

Karve tal!s of hishma getting Kunti to wed $andu, sort of against her will. The e'pression

she uses in the #indi version is Egale b+ndh diya, clearly meaning it was not according to

her wish. "he then argues that this was an in(ustice done to Kunti because $andu was

incapable of intimacy with women. "he as!s how much her soul must have cursed hishma

for this.

The facts are however di5erent. Though there is a discussion between hishma and Didura

in which hishma tal!s of getting Kunti as a wife for $andu, the Mahabharata tells us that it


10/58

is in a swayamvara that she chooses him from an assembly of several princes, all on her

own accord, and impressed by him. The critical edition is brief here, though that too says

she chose him in the swayamvara)

rGpasattvagunopet+ dharm+r+m+ mah+vrat+

duhit+ !untibho(asya !rte pitr+ svayamvare

simhadamshtram ga(as!andham rshabh+!sham mah+balam

bhGmip+lasahasr+n+m madhye p+ndum avindata

$andu, according to the critical edition verse uoted above, is elephant1shouldered, has the

eyes of a bull, and is mighty powerful. 9/ slight aside) The critical edition, praising $andu

here, says he had the fangs of a lion & simhadamshtra. Dery unli!ely. /nother case of the

critical edition getting it wrong. The Hita $ress edition has it right) simhadarpa & with thepride of a lion. ven the e'pression ga(as!andha, elephant1shouldered, is strained. The Hita

$resss mahoras!a in its place is beautiful> /nd Kunti wins 9chooses> him from among

thousands of !ings in her swayamvara.

The Hita $ress edition of the epic describes the swayamvara in greater detail. It describes

how she sees him, the best of the haratas 9bharatasattamam> in the assembly of princes,

loo!ing li!e a tiger among !ings 9r+(ash+rdGla>, with the pride of a lion, a powerful chest

9mahoras!a>, the 9into'icated> eyes of a bull and mighty strong. 7i!e the sun that eclipses

all other celestial luminaries when it rises, he eclipsed all other !ings with his glory. "eated

in the assembly, he loo!s li!e a second Indra and seeing him, Kunti, every limb of hers

tormented by longing 9!+mapart+ngi>, loses all control over her mind 9prachalam+nas+> and

her heart becomes wildly disconcerted 9hrdayena +!ul+>. That is how she chooses $andu

from among the men in the assembly. Karves saying that hishma forced her upon $andu

9against her wish>, thus earning her hearts curses, does not agree with the reality of the

epic at all.

/lso, Karve implies that hishma !new $andu was impotent when he got Kunti and Madrimarried to him. The epic states, though, that $andu receives the curse that ma!es him

impotent while he was living in the (ungle with his two wives. #e had left his !ingdom to his

brother ?hritarashtra, for whatever reasons, and had gone to live in the (ungle and it is

there that he comes across sage Kindama having se' in the form of a deer and !ills him

while the sage is in the middle of the act and receives his curse that he cannot have se'

with his wife and if he did, he would die.

In an article of mine 9The $uJJle of $anduA http)::bolo(i.com:hinduism:;;.htm> I have

argued that $andus impotency is unli!ely to be the result of the curse but is psychologicaland has much earlier origins. #owever, in all probability, hishma had no clue of this and to

imply that he got two wives for $andu in spite of !nowing he was impotent is denitely

wrong.


11/58

@B@

Karve argues that people of hishmas day did not approve his action of carrying away the

three Kashi princesses, /mba, /mbi!a and /mbali!a, from their swayamvara hall. "he sites"hishupalas words in the La(asooya hall as a proof for this. %ell, when "hishupala abuses

hishme in the La(asooya hall, he is fuming in hatred at hishma and Krishna and if we ta!e

his words to be true or representative of the general feeling of the people, both Krishna and

hishma would me the most hated people of the age. The fact is (ust the reverse. /nd

denitely so in the case of hishma & even when Krishna was controversial, hishma

commanded universal respect in his age.

/s for carrying the princesses away from their swayamvara, this was a perfectly respectable

custom among the !shatriyas of the day. %e must remember here that hishma does not(ust come there, snatch them and run away. #e stands there and e'plains precisely what he

is going to do and challenges the assembled princesses to stop him if they can. /s /mba

says later after she was re(ected by "halva, her swayamvara was not an ordinary one but

one that reuired the suitor to prove his valour and claim her and her sisters & they were

viryashul!as, their Ebride price was valour. /nd as hishma himself e'plains in the assembly

of !ings, of the eight types of marriages practised in the land, what was considered the

most desirable for a !shatriya was swayamvara and even among swayamvaras, what was

considered superior by the virtuous was carrying away the bride:s after defeating the other

!shatriyas through valour)

svayamvaram tu r+(any+h praamsanti upay+nti ca

pramathya tu hrt+m +huh (y+yasm dharmav+dinah.

lsewhere hishma says, he went there after hearing they were to be won over through

valour) vryaul!+ca t+ (N+tv+.

#e challenges them repeatedly, announcing himself by name and informing them again and

again that he is going to carry them away) bhshmah antanavah !any+ haratti punah

punah.

I do not thin! the people of the day considered this action of hishma evil. 0o, what he did

was the most respectable thing for a warrior hero in his days.


12/58

Incidentally, even in his insane criticism of hishma, "hishupala does not accuse him of

abducting the princesses for another person 9for his half brother and not for himself>.

/pparently there was nothing wrong with it according to the rules of the times. %hat

"hishupala nds fault with hishma is for abducting a princess who was anya!+m+ & who

desired another man. #e is referring e'clusively to /mba.

Karve also ma!es "hishupala say that the whole world !new that /mba had chosen:married

"halva. In the #indi te't, "hishupala tells hishma) 6amb+ ne +lva !+ varan !iy+ th+. s+r

duniy+ is b+t !o (+nt th. phir bh tum ne us!+ haran !ar l+ye.8 The nglish te't is) 6Though

it was !nown to all that /mba had been promised to "halva, you abducted her.8

%ell, here again Karve is wrong. This is how the passage she is referring to appears in the

Mahabharata)

anya!+m+ hi dharma(Na !anya!+ pr+(nam+nin+

amb+ n+meti bhadram te !atham s+pahrt+ tvayi

Translated, this means) #ow was it that you, who thin! you !now dharma, carried away the

virtuous maiden called /mba who desired another man3

*nli!e what Karve says, "hishupala does not say anywhere that the whole world !new /mba

had chosen or married "halva. /ll he says is she was anya!NmN & desired, and:or was

desired by, another man. In the Mahabharata, what happened between /mba and "halva

before she was abducted by hishma was their own secret. /mba herself says her love for

"halva and "halvas love for her was their secret 1 even their father did not !now that. ven

in her most furious moments, /mba does not accuse hishma of carrying her away !nowing

that she belonged to another. True, this is the version of the story that hishma tells on the

eve of the Mahabharata war, e'plaining why he will not ght "hi!handi, who is a

reincarnation of /mba. In spite of this, however, there is no indication anywhere in the

Mahabharata that it was public !nowledge 9s+r duniy+ is b+t !o (+nt th. & it was public!nowledge.> that /mba had chosen:married "halva.

/part from putting the words Ethe whole world !new /mba had chosen:married "halva into

the mouth of "hishupala, the author in her own words asserts this soon after) Eamb+ man se

+lva !i thi (+nte hue bhi bhshma use rath mein baith+!ar !yon l+y+38 9?espite !nowing

that /mba in her heart belonged to "halva, why did hishma carry her away in the chariot3>

@B@


13/58

/ccording to Iravati Karve, the reason why other men of the Kuru family were not considered

for the niyoga with /mbi!a is that choosing another male from the royal family would have

given that person the position of the father of the future !ing and much power would have

gone into his hands & and away from hishmas hands. "o, she says, it occurred to "atyavati

and hishma that someone unrelated to the royal family of the Kurus would be the ideal

choice.

%as hishma so power1greedy, li!e a modern politician3 %as the choice made so that

hishmas power would not be reduced3

%hile that certainly is not impossible, I feel a di5erent possibility. The choice, once hishma

re(ected the honour, was made not on the basis of whom to avoid, but on the basis of whom

to select. Dyasa, the person chosen was not e'actly some Eforest1dwelling brahmana, but

"atyavatis own son. /nd it is "atyavati who suggests his name when hishma puts forward

the suggestion that the niyoga be performed by some noble brahmana.

%e !now that when "hantanu wanted to marry "atyavati, then commonly !nown as Kali, her

father ?ashara(a insisted that the marriage would ta!e place only if a promise was made

that the son born to her would inherit "hantanus throne. Hoing beyond this, he also loo!ed

into the possibility that if hishma married, his sons born in the future might ma!e claims

over the throne. To avoid this possibility, hishma ta!es his two well !nown vows) one,

giving up his claim over the throne, and the other, forswearing se' and becoming a lifelong

celibate. %e generallynassume these were the conditions that ?ashara(a set, and Kali

"atyavati had nothing to do with them.

#ow true is this3 2ouldnt ?ashara(a have been e'pressing Kalis desires and ma!ing

demands on her behalf3 Crom what we !now of Kali, she was a hard bargainer. %hen

$arashara, Dyasas father, saw her and desired her, she does not give herself to him straight

away, but sets conditions before him. True, we do not see in the Mahabharata her setting

these conditions & her story is told very brie4y there. #owever, if we go by the ?evi

hagavata $urana, rst she ridicules him for being obsessed with her, a sh1smelling girl,

whose fowl smell spread for miles around. 6?o I not disgust you,8 she as!s him. The sagesresponse is to turn her sh smell into the fragrance of mus!. Then she ob(ects to ma!ing

love in the day light. The sage creates a mist and through it, dar!ness. Then she ob(ects to

ma!ing love while they are in the river & she was ferrying him across the Yamuna. $arashara

agrees to wait until they reach the other ban!. "he then ta!es from him the promise that

her father 9and other people> do not come to !now of what they are going to do, and the

boon that she will retain her virginity even after intercourse. It is only then she gives herself

to him

2ouldnt this Kali1"atyavati have been the one who demanded all those vows from "hantanuand young "atyavrata3 2ouldnt her father ?ashara(a have been merely e'pressing her

wishes3 Isnt it possible that it was Kali who was really power hungry and not ?ashara(a3


14/58

I believe it is uite possible that "atyavati had a hunger for power. $erhaps in her there was

the power hunger of a princess brought up as a shergirl and it is that hunger that made her

bargain with "hantanu and "atyavarata 9hishma> in the beginning. /nd it is perhaps the

same power hunger, once she nds an opportunity, that made her choose her son Dyasa as

the man to perform niyoga with her daughters1in1law. That way she could ma!e sure that it

is her blood that inherits the throne. It would be the same, from her standpoint, as2hitrangadas or Dichitraviryas son occupying the throne. /ll three are eually her sons.

It is very possible that it was uite innocently that hishma suggested that the niyoga be

done with a brahmana. It is very possible that "atyavati pounced on this opportunity and

decided to have it done with her son Dyasa.

@B@

/ very minor thing. Karve sees Kunti as E!a moti tagdi8 & uite hefty and fat, implying

unattractiveness. ut that is not how the Mahabharata sees her. "he gives the impression of

being a strong woman, but that is because of her great inner strength. @therwise, the epic

describes her as irresistibly beautiful. #ere are a few descriptions of her physical beauty

from the verses dealing with her swayamvara) prthulalocan+, with large eyes, which in India

have always been a sign of beautyA te(aswin & lustrousA rupayauvana+lini & endowed with

beauty and youth. @ther words used to describe her are adbhutadaran+, wondrous to loo!

at, subhag+, auspicious one, and tanumadhyam+, slender1waisted. "he is far from beingE!a moti tagdi. 9To Karves credit, in the nglish version, done by herself, she alters this

and says that 6she was apparently a large, big1boned girl.8 $erhaps she was, who !nows,

though the Mahabharata says nothing li!e that.>

@B@

@ne of the most interesting uestions Karve as!s in her essay is why hishma chose toaccept the position of the commander1in1chief of the Kaurava army. %hy did he not decide

to go to the forest and spend his old days there, when his stepmother did3 @r if not then, at

least why did he not go on a pilgrimage on the eve of the war, as alarama did, since his

heart too was divided3 Karves answer is interesting) hishma accepted the position of the

commander1in1chief of the Kaurava army so that he could slow down the war in the hope of

the war being called o5 by ?uryodhana seeing that he was not winning. Karve also sees a

second reason behind his acceptance of the postion) to !eep Karna away from battling for

?uryodhana so long as he lived.

In the conte't of this discussion, Karve ma!es this fascinating observation. Tal!ing of

?uryodhanas o5er of the position of the commander1in1chief of his army to hishma, the

author says) $andavon ne use !ulvrddh hone !a (o gaurav nahin diya, us !i !haanapoori


15/58

duryodhan ne !i. ?uryodhana gave him the respect that was his due as the eldest of the

!ula, which the $andavas did not give him. "he is referring to the $andavas not o5ering him

the agrapu(a during the ra(asuya, as the nglish te't ma!es clear) 6the honor which had

been denied to him by the $andavas at the sacrice.8

%hen you thin! of it, it is rather strange that the $andavas did not do it. #e was the eldestof the Kuru family 9ahli!a was there, but he was not a dominant gure.> #is reputation as

an indomitable warrior was great & even the redoubtable $arashurama, his guru, had not

been able to defeat him in battle. #e was learned in every branch of !nowledge and he

commanded great respect for his integrity. In every sense of the word, hishma was a living

legend. esides, the $andavas were very close to his heart, and they themselves held him in

great reverence and were indebted to him for so many things. #e seems to be the natural

choice. I doubt if the thought of the agrapu(a being o5ered to Krishna had come to anyones

mind before hishma suggested it. Yet when it comes to the agrapu(a, the $andavas do not

o5er it to him. Instead, Yudhishthira as!s the grandsire to whom it should be o5ered.

/fter hishmas fall in the war, when time comes for the ne't commander1in1chief to be

appointed, ?uryodhana does a very clever thing. Lather than straight away ma!ing ?rona

the ne't commander1in1chief, he as!s Karna, who is the other claimant to the position, who

should be given that position. /s!ed thus, even if Karna desired that position and felt he was

the best choice, it becomes rather delicate for him to do say so. #e suggests that ?rona be

given that position and ?uryodhana happily does so.

It is perhaps the same thing happening here. Lather than o5ering the pu(a to hishma,

Yudhishthira goes and as!s him who should be given the position. hishma naturally does

not claim it for himself but suggests Krishnas name. %as Yudhishthira deliberately denying

that honour to hishma through that uestion3 %as hishmas ready acceptance of the

position of the commander1in1chief of the Kaurava army at least partly in4uenced by

Yudhishthiras not giving him the honour that was his due3 I thin! there is a strong

possibility of this being so, as Karve suggests.

Karves discussion on the age of hishma is one of the most conservative and clear I havecome across. "he argues that hishma should be at least ninety1two and possibly one

hundred and two at the time of the war. In her discussion though, she forgets to add some

years. /fter being appointed yuvara(a, ?evavrata remains as the crown prince for four years

9varsh+ni chatv+ri>. The epic tells as that the battle between the two 2hitrangadas lasted

three years. These years are not added to her calculation.

/ccording to Karve, at the time when he carried away the Kashi princesses from their

swayamvara hall, hishma must be a minimum of thirty1four years old. %ell, in the conte't

of the swayamvara, the Mahabharata uses the word Evrddha meaning an old man todescribe him three times in three consecutive verses and in the third verse it describes him

as valpalitadh+ranah & his s!in is wrin!led from age and his hair is white. The princesses

ta!e one loo! at him, and they turn around and run away seeing how old he is. This is hardly


16/58

the description of a thirty1four year old royal warrior. There is no uestion of premature

aging in the case of hishma & his health was perfect until his last days.

There are more years that Karve fails to add. "he says Dichitraveerya died soon immediately

after his marriage. The Mahabharata tells us that he lives a life of indulgence with his two

wives for seven years 9t+bhy+m saha sam+h sapta viharan> after which he falls sic!./ttempts are made to cure him through all !nown means, which too must have ta!en time.

"he gives one year gap between hima and /r(una & the Mahabharata mentions at least two

years. @f course that does not ma!e much di5erence in calculating hishmas age. ut she

also mentions /r(una must have been at least si'teen years of age at the time of his

marriage with ?raupadi. %ell, he has completed his studies in the meantime, completed a

digvi(aya while Yudhishthira was the crown prince 9this maybe an interpolation>, and, after

the house of lac was set re to, lived in the (ungle for some while. "i'teen seems too less.

/lso, there is a passage 9again possibly an interpolation> which very specically mentionsthat $andu died on /r(unas si'teenth birthday & while the birthday celebrations were going

on, while Kunti was busy serving meals to the invited brahmanas, $andu ta!es Madri with

him to the (ungle and there meets with his death. If $andus death happens when /r(una is

si'teen, then all the incidents mentioned earlier are subseuent to this, ma!ing /r(una

much older at the time of his marriage.

@f course, between ninety1two and one hundred and two is very old indeed and adding up

all these years to that will ma!e hishma impossibly old. $erhaps Karve was right in trying

to arrive at a conservative estimate, though the epic di5ers from the gures she gives.

@B@

These problems are there with Yuganta. ut in spite of all these, I want to repeat, Karves

study is brilliant and e'tremely valuable. The stand she ta!es for loo!ing at the epic story is

thoroughly rational and boldly independent and her analytical powers are admirably superb.

?eepu-uly O, BBP at ;)B /M

This is a good and detailed critiue of KarveQs Yuganta. I have been meaning to read this,

and your analysis only ma!es me want it more.


17/58

Yuganta and the Didura1Yudhishthira Lelationship i...

Mahabharata) Light to the harata Throne

he )u**le of )andu

by +atya haitanya

(ne of the most beautiful si!hts I have ever seen is

a male and a female deer united in coitus. I can still

vividly recall the scene from three decades a!o

because every small detail of it is indelibly etched inmy mind ) so radiant was the si!ht. There was the

deer park, with a tall net fence around it, surrounded

by hu!e trees in verdant !reen. In the distance was a

hillock and nearby, a lar!e lake with branches of

ancient trees bendin! into it, under which I often sat

with a book in my hand as the sun serenely

&ourneyed towards the ocean in the western sky. The

matin! deer couple stood there, the front le!s of the

male over the doe, their bodies united. The female

was absolutely still, not a muscle moved in her

body, her eyes did not blink* and in those eyes, inher entire body you could see total surrender,
http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Writers&WriterID=1345&CategoryID=45http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Writers&WriterID=1345&CategoryID=45


18/58

surrender to the act that was !oin! on, surrender to

life, surrender to e+istence. he was no more she

then, she had lost her individuality, her identity as

an individual animal, and had become one with her-other, with mother nature, she had ceased to e+ist

as separate from her. It looked as thou!h she was in

some deep trance, a trance that had filled her bein!

with the bliss of surrender to the total. The

movement of life all around the united couple, the

uiet, unhurried movement of the other deer in the

park as they nibbled here and there, the !entle

swin!in! of the trees in the soft bree/e, all seemed

to add to the stillness in which the doe stood. I was

so overwhelmed by the si!ht that after I moved

away from the park it took me hours to come backto the reality of everyday livin!.

The -ahabharata tells us 0andu saw e+actly this same si!ht when he was out huntin! one

day. The ne+t moment he took out five sharp arrows, !olden and shinin!, with beautiful

feathers attached to them, and shot the male and the female. The male, who was a sa!e

who had chan!ed himself into a deer, the epic tells us, cursed 0andu in his moments of

death that 0andu would meet with his death when he made love to his wife because he

had killed him while he was en!a!ed in coitus.

0andu had seen the deer couple was en!a!ed in se+ ) the -ahabharata makes it very

clear. 1e killed them seein! with his eyes that they were makin! love. $indama, the sa!e

who had transformed himself into the deer, tells 0andu what he had done was unthinkable

) not even men totally devoid of all intelli!ence, men who were constantly en!a!ed in

sin, men who had no control over their lusts and an!er, did what he had done. $illin! a

male and a female while they were en!a!ed in coitus is truly unheard of. 1ow could a

kin! of the 2haratas, a royal family so rooted in ri!hteousness, do such a thin!?

The uestion $indama asked 0andu pu//led me for a lon!, lon! time. In my attempt to

understand 0andu and the nature of his action, I read repeatedly all that the -ahabharata


19/58

tells us about 0andu. %nd the deeper I delved into his life and his personality, the more

pu//led I became. 3verythin! about 0andu seemed to be a riddle.

4or instance, why would a youn! prince after spendin! thirty ni!hts with his new wife

and with an earlier wife, leave them and !o on a world conuest in which he ruthlessly, to

use the words of the -ahabharata, reduces 5his rival kin!s to ashes6? hy would that

youn! prince, the lon! awaited occupant of the throne of the $uru"2haratas, adored byall, immediately after completin! a world conuest, at the hei!ht of his !lory, leave

everythin! behind and !o to the forest takin! his two wives with him to make huntin! his

full time occupation? The -ahabharata tells us that his wives advised him to do so. hy

would two youn! wives of a lustrous youn! kin! ask him to leave behind his kin!dom

and all its comforts as well as the challen!e and responsibility of rulin! it and !o and live

in the forest, spendin! his time huntin!?

%nd there were other riddles.

0andu had to ask his wives to be!et children for him with the help of other men throu!h

the ancient custom of niyoga, in which a man other than the husband impre!nated

women. hy e+actly did he have to do that? as it because of the curse of $indama? (r

had 0andu been impotent all alon!? 1ow e+actly did he die? %nd the day he chose to die:

the fourteenth birthday of his son %r&una. %nd the time: It is while mantras were bein!

chanted by a section of the brahmanas and a feast was bein! served to other brahmanas by

$unti that 0andu leads -adri away into the uietude of the &un!le where he later makes

love to her and meets with his death.

hy did he do that? as %r&una6s birthday no occasion for celebration for 0andu? as he

re!isterin! his protest a!ainst the celebration, and a!ainst %r&una and $unti, by walkin!

away from the feast of which he was the host and hence shouldn6t have left? If so, what

was he protestin! a!ainst?

-y first clue came from a verse in the epic. %s 0andu lay dead after en!a!in! in se+ with

his youn!er wife -adri, $unti who comes rushin! to the scene blames her for their

husband6s death. %nd then she says: 72lessed are you, -adri, and more fortunate than I

am. 4or, you were able to see the face of the kin! rapturous.??????? DhanyA t"am asi

bAhlee!i matto bhAgyatarA tathA, drshta"atyasi yad "a!tram prahrshtasya maheepateh -Adi /0./#. $unti was referrin! to the ecstasy of a se+ual clima+ that still lin!ered on the

dead 0andu6s face ) an e+pression $unti was familiar with on other men6s faces, on the

faces of the four different men who had fathered her children, but was never lucky to see

on the face of 0andu, her husband.

The -ahabharata tells us specifically that a smile lin!ered on 0andu6s face even in his

death.

$unti had never once in her life seen 0andu6s face lost in the throes of se+ual ecstasy. hehad never once seen on his face that post"coital smile of contentment that was there in his

death. %nd yet nothin! in the -ahabharata tells us that 0andu had re&ected her se+ually.


20/58

1e was deeply in love with her from the day she chose him for a husband to the last day

of his life. o if this first wife of his, this beautiful woman he had obtained for himself in

aswayam"araand had brou!ht home proudly, the woman he had lived with in re!al

comforts in 1astinapura and in the loneliness of &un!les and mountains, the woman who

was his constant companion all throu!h his lonely, tortured life, hadn6t once seen his face

so in all their life to!ether, and that in spite of 0andu bein! desperate for children, then

the conclusion is clear and inevitable:)andu was impotent all through his married life.

That e+plains a lot of thin!s about 0andu. 4or instance, it e+plains why 2heeshma was in

a hurry to !et a second wife for him. The -ahabharata does not tell us how lon! it was

before 2heeshma went and !ot -adri for 0andu as a wife, payin! a bride price as the

-adra"2ahleeka custom demanded to her brother halya. It &ust tells us a word that

means 5then6 or 5afterwards6 in the be!innin! verse of a new chapter ) this then could be

immediately after the $unti"0andu marria!e, it could be sometime later too. 8ettin!

youn! 0andu a second wife as soon as he had obtained for himself one wife does not

make sense, unless it was meant to be an ur!ent political alliance, which it does not looklike. 2esides, 2heeshma would have been very, very reluctant to offer his nephew two

youn! beautiful wives at the same time ) he had done it with 0andu6s father

9ichitraveerya and the conseuences were disastrous.

9ichitra had been obsessed with his two pretty ueens that he spent his entire time in se+

with them and eventually died of the dreaded royal disease of the day,rajaya!shma, all the

royal physicians from the kin!dom and abroad failin! to save his life. It is this death that

had made necessary the hated niyogaswhich produced Dhritarashtra, 0andu and 9idura.

It is e+tremely unlikely that a once scalded 2heeshma would want to repeat hise+perience.

The second marria!e should have been after some time and there should have been an

important reason behind it. It was not a love marria!e but an arran!ed one, a political

alliance does not seem to have been a desperate necessity, which leaves us one other

stron! possibility. The marria!e had failed to produce what the $uru"2harata family

needed more ur!ently than anythin! else: an heir to 0andu, in case anythin! happened to

the youn! kin!. The $unti"0andu marria!e had failed to produce offsprin!, which would

be the case because 0andu was impotent from the be!innin!. 2heeshma, who had no idea

that $unti was already a mother before her marria!e, must have assumed this could bebecause of some fault with her ) the woman is the first suspect in such cases and !ettin! a

second wife is the easiest solution for the man, particularly for a kin!. 1e mi!ht not even

have considered the possibility that 0andu was impotent. %nd 0andu mi!ht not have

revealed it himself, nor $unti. o 2heeshma !ets -adri as a second wife for 0andu.

It also e+plains why 0andu left on a world conuest thirty ni!hts after his weddin! with

-adri. The -ahabharata tells us it is e+actly after thirty ni!hts that he left on the

conuest ) and the words used are not thirty days, but thirty ni!hts. i!hts of a whole

month. It must have been a terrible whole month for an impotent 0andu. 1e had now two!or!eous wives, each as beautiful as a !oddess, and yet there was nothin! he could do in

their beds since he was impotent. % bitter, frustrated, furious 0andu !athers his army and


21/58

leaves on a world conuest. 1e had failed to prove his manhood in his bed, but he had to

prove it somewhere, and now he could prove it in the battlefield. 0andu was sava!e in the

battlefield, as we should e+pect him to be, the -ahabharata tells us. 1e did not &ust win

battles, but burnt his rivals to ashes. 1e then came back victorious brin!in! with him

enormous wealth.

Describin! this, the -ahabharata uses a very unusual e+pression to describe thetriumphant 0andu on his return to1astinapura2 punar3mudita3"ahanah. (n this return

&ourney to 1astinapura, even 5his vehicles were happy ) once a!ain6. That is to say 0andu

was once a!ain happy and even his vehicles, his horses, his elephants all reflected his

happiness. The words once a!ain are si!nificant: they speak of previous unhappiness. It

was not a happy 0andu that had left on the conuest, but an unhappy one. ;nhappy

because he had failed to prove himself a man in his chamber. 1appy because he had now

proved himself a man in the battlefield. The bitterness, the frustration, the fury in him has

been e+hausted ) at least for the time bein!.

hat happened ne+t is also e+plained by the fact that he was impotent from the

be!innin!. 0andu does not add the conuered wealth to the treasury of the $uru"2haratas,

as we would e+pect him to have done. Instead he distributes it all amon! 2heeshma,

atyavati, %mbika, %mbalika, 9idura, his friends and so on. It is as thou!h he wanted

them all to see the amount of wealth he had won, the !lory he had attained ) and certify

how much of a man he was. The wealth is so much that we are told Dhritarashtra later

performed a hundred ashwamedhasacrifices with it.

ow he does one of the stran!est thin!s ever. 4ollowin! the ur!in! of his wives, he

decides to leave the kin!dom and !o to the &un!le with them, to live his life there en!a!ed

in huntin!< 0andu is the ruler of 1astinapura, the lon!"awaited ruler, he has &ust taken

over the rei!ns of the kin!dom in his hands, he has proved himself to be competent as a

kin! by successfully wa!es battles in a conuest of the directions, and immediately after

that he decides to leave the kin!dom behind and !o and live in the &un!le with his wives.

%nd there is no motivation like what %shoka later felt post the $alin!a war.

1is mother, amon! others, who, to brin! him into this world so that the $uru line would

not come to an end and will have a le!itimate ruler, had to submit herself to the

abomination of a niyogawhich she found repulsive and shrank away from with all herbein!, must have been shocked by 0andu6s decision.

hy did 0andu do somethin! like that? % stron! possibility that comes to mind is that he

did not want 2heeshma to brin! him yet another wife. 1e had no answer to the accusin!

!lances of his mother and !randmother, and the man who had brou!ht him up like a son )

his uncle 2heeshma. -aybe others too uestioned him, some in words and some by other

means, enuirin! when the baby princes were comin!. %s it happens in every family. 1e

has no answer to them. 1e must have discussed this with his wives, from whom he could

not have hidden the facts of the matter. They in their wisdom and understandin! advisedhim to leave everythin! and !o to the &un!le and live with them there. o one would

torment him there.


22/58

=>=

If 0andu had been impotent all alon!, then it is not because of the curse of the sa!e that he

was forced to have his children be!otten by other men. Is the story of the curse by the

sa!e then not real? Did nothin! like that ever take place? Is the story an attempt to cover

up 0andu6s impotence from the be!innin!, to find an 5acceptable6 reason for it?

ell, the entire story need not be a lie. 2ut it looks like part of it definitely is a lie: the

part that says that it is the curse of the sa!e who had chan!ed himself into a deer that

made it impossible for 0andu to have se+ual relations with his wives. That part may be a

later addition to the story of what 0andu actually did to the deer couple. hat could have

happened is that 0andu saw a male and a female deer in coitus in the &un!le and shot them

dead. ust that.

2ut then why would, as we asked earlier, a cultured man like 0andu, a scion of the noble

2harata dynasty, do such a thin! as that?

% possible answer is: for the same reasons that turned him impotent.

There is every reason to believe that 0andu6s impotence was psycholo!ical. 0andu was

physically fit. 1e was a mi!hty warrior who was a terror to his enemies. 3+cept for the

paleness of his skin, there is no mention of any physical deficiency in him. %nd his death

comes while en!a!ed in an act of se+ with his wife. %ll these point at his impotence

havin! been psycholo!ical and not physical.

%re there then psycholo!ical reasons that could have caused impotence in 0andu?

@iterature on the psychopatholo!y of impotence tells us that while impotence may have

physical causes in males over forty, it is almost always of psycholo!ical ori!in in males

under forty* that psychopatholo!ical impotence may be associated with a very restrictive

upbrin!in! concernin! se+, ne!ative attitudes toward se+, ne!ative or traumatic se+ual

e+periences and other deep"seated causal factors such as unconscious feelin!s of hostility,

fear, inadeuacy, or !uilt.

Aould 0andu6s impotence have risen from any of these sources? To answer that uestionwe will have to look into 0andu6s past ) particularly into his early years as a child when

he was most impressionable and into the years when he was an adolescent and his

se+uality was blossomin!. ;nfortunately the -ahabharata !ives us no details of these

years and for that reason all that we can do is con&uncture about them.

%s we all know, 0andu was the son born to 9yasa and %mbalika throu!h the custom

of niyoga. 1is mother had become a widow at the death of 0rince 9ichitra. hen he met

with his early death due, accordin! to the epic, to overindul!ence in se+ with his two

wives, %mbika and %mbalika, he had produced no offsprin!. The illustrious line of the

$uru"2haratas was now without a man ualified to sit on the throne on which such

le!endary kin!s as -anu, 0uroorava, ahusha, Yayati, Dushyanta, 2harata, 1astin,

%&ameedha, $uru, and hantanu had sat, without a head to wear their proud crown.


23/58

Devavrata 2heeshma was there, of course, but he had taken the vow not to sit on the

throne thou!h he would stand by it. The $urus were desperately in need of a prince.

It was 2heeshma whom atyavati approached first ) she must have felt now that her

father6s !reed had come to nou!ht and 2heeshma6s vows had been rendered meanin!less

by mi!hty time, he should take the rei!ns of the kin!dom into his own hands to which

they ori!inally belon!ed. 2heeshma refused ) vows were vows and he would not breakthem. 0erhaps it was the bitterness in him speakin!, perhaps this is what had become of

him because of that bitterness or maybe he had become really 2heeshma ) the aura

around his vows had imprisoned him in its awesome !lare. hatever the reason,

2heeshma decided his vow and himself were !reater than the desperate need of the $uru"

2harata empire and refused both to marry and be!et children and to perform niyogain

9ichitraveerya6s 5fields6 and produce offsprin!. 3ventually 9yasa had to be called in and

this other half"brother of 9ichitra had to do theniyogain spite of his reluctance.

The niyogawas not a happy incident for 0andu6s mother %mbalika &ust as it was not forher sister %mbika, Dhritarashtra6s mother, either. In spite of knowin! it would be 9yasa

who would be performin! the niyoga, when the sa!e entered her room and approached

her bed, %mbalika was horrified and turned pale. The act of conceivin! 0andu was an act

of indescribable horror and repu!nance to his mother. o !reat was the repu!nance and

horror the sisters felt that they refused to under!o the torture a second time and when

forced, sent a maid in their place. %nd after the conception and !ivin! birth to 0andu,

%mbalika, like her sister after conceivin! and !ivin! birth to Dhritarashtra, withdrew into

a shell from which she never came out.

It is unlikely that 0andu !rew up without hearin! palace rumors about his birth. In a place

packed with maids and slaves as the palace of 1astinapura was, it is impossible that this

did not happen to a child who had no father and was totally ne!lected by his mother. It

should not surprise us if he had heard, or at least overheard, what happened in some

!raphic details. The incident involves niyoga, it involves se+ between a youn! widowed

princess and a sa!e and such stuff is ideal for !ossip. 1ow a youn! sensitive mind would

react to such talk he hears is impossible to predict and 0andu was definitely a very

sensitive child and later a very sensitive man. In 0andu6s case it appears that the result

was an unconscious horror of se+, for what he heard was about his own mother. The

ima!es that the !ossip he heard !enerated must have been played repeatedly over andover a!ain in his mind, renderin! him eventually psycholo!ically impotent. It is not

impossible that every time he approached one of his wives, the ima!e of his mother, of

the horrible e+perience she was sub&ected to, ima!es of his mother6s horror and aversion

at the moment of his conception, all rushed into his mind.

4rom the picture of him that the -ahabharata presents to us, 0andu appears to have been

a man capable of !reat love, at least to be!in with. %s a child he must have loved his

mother deeply, as is shown by his act of offerin! at her feet part of the wealth he had

brou!ht from the conuest. @istenin! to all those stories from palace !ossip, stories thatcould have been very confusin! to a child, he must have felt like countless other children

that se+ was somethin! horrid that men did to women. It wouldn6t be surprisin! if he had


24/58

felt he too had a share in sub&ectin! his mother to that horrid act ) partly because he was a

male and partook of the crime of all males towards women and partly because his mother

had to under!o it all for his sake, so that he could be born. The result would have been

!uilt, powerful !uilt.

I wonder what 2heeshma6s effect on the child and adolescent 0andu could have been with

re!ard to his se+ual development. The -ahabharata tells us that it was 2heeshma whomostly brou!ht him up. 1ere was a man who had become a le!end in his own lifetime for

more than anythin! else because he had denied se+ to himself. The whole world looked

up at him with awe. 1e had said no to women once and then, even when be!!ed to break

his vow, stuck to his vow. The -ahabharata does not tell us what his relations with

atyavati were ) when hantanu saw her and fell hopelessly in love with her, Devavrata

had already been officially appointed the crown prince and what she had done was to

snatch away from his head that crown of yuvara&a.

The -ahabharata does not tell us if he hated her for this, if he hated all women because ofthis. It is possible that he did, considerin! how adamantly he stuck to his vow of havin!

nothin! to do with women, thou!h he was always perfectly !entlemanly and chivalrous in

his behavior towards them. 0erhaps his forcin! 8andhari to marry his blind nephew

Dhritarashtra and his capturin! by force and brin!in! to 1astinapura the three $ashi

princesses from theirswayam"arahall speak of his contempt for women, thou!h these

actions were not very rare in his days. The vow that he would never fi!ht a woman too

speaks of his dislike and contempt for women.

%lso relevant to our discussion is 2heeshma6s attitude towards women in !eneral as

e+pressed in a chapter in theAnushasana )ar"aBAh CE, thou!h it is possible that this

discussion does not really represent 2heeshma6s views on women and is a philosophical

discussion added later to the epic in his name. %t the openin! of this chapter, Yudhishthira

tells 2heeshma that women are the root of all evil and it has been said that they are mean"

minded. 1e then asks 2heeshma to tell him about the nature of women. In answer,

2heeshma uotes the answer theApsara0anchachooda had !iven arada who had asked

her the same uestion, approvin! of her words. hat follows is a downri!ht

condemnation of women. e are told that even pretty women with husbands, born in

noble families, do not remain within bounds. (nce they !et an opportunity to meet

outsiders, they do not bother even for husbands who are famous, rich and endowed withunparalleled handsomeness, even when these husbands do everythin! to please them.

omen can !ive themselves to the !reatest sinners, without feelin! any shame about it.

There is no man woman wouldn6t !ive themselves to ) his a!e, his other conditions,

nothin! matters to them* all that is needed is that he be a male. 1e may be a deformed

dwarf, it does not matter* he may be nauseatin!ly repulsive, that does not matter. %ll that

matters to women is that he is male. %nd if men are not available to satisfy their lust,

women will have no hesitation to seek se+ual pleasure from other women. 4or, women

are &ust never satiated se+ually* with them it is as fire is never satiated with wood, the

ocean is never satiated with rivers, death by consumin! mortals.


25/58

0anchachooda has words to say about the nature of women which I am reluctant to write

here ) so blunt and crude is she in her description of the evil that women are. 0ut death,

fierce storms, the evil world under!round, massive, all consumin! confla!rations, the

sharp ed!es of weapons, poison, fierce snakes, wei!h all these a!ainst &ust woman on the

other side and woman would be no less than all these terrors put to!ether, says

0anchachooda in words that 2heeshma approves of and uotes to Yudhishthira answerin!

his uestion.

Years of almost sin!le"handed upbrin!in! by 2heeshma who held such views on women,

by the man from whom a fishermaid had snatched away the throne of the crown prince of

an empire that was already his because his father in his old a!e had contemptuously fallen

in love with her, the man who for the sake of his father6s lust for her had to take the

terrible vow of life"lon! continence, the man who had the very vicious and distasteful

e+perience with %mba that eventually forced him to en!a!e his own !uru in a fierce

battle, couldn6t have but left its marks on the tender soul of the !rowin! child 0andu.

%nd if that is not enou!h, consider the two references to his linea!e 0andu makes

immediately after killin! the deer in coitus and feelin! !uilty about it: 1e is the son of

the !amatma9ichitraveerya, the prince whose soul itself was lust, born to him in his

kshetra, 5field6, be!otten by 9yasa.

hat is the le!acy of 9ichitraveerya that 0andu considers himself an heir to? @ust. @ust

that brou!ht death. @ust in which 3ros and Thanatos met. The adolescent 9ichitra was so

enamored by the two beautiful princesses whom his half"brother had brou!ht for him that

he spent his days and ni!hts in a sin!le passion ) makin! love to them. 1e became a

victim to the dreaded disease rajaya!shmaand no doctor could pull him back from the

&aws of death. 9ichitra also brou!ht with him the le!acy of an old emperor6s lust for a

youn! maid ) hantanu6s lust for the fishermaid atyavati. %nd atyavati herself is a

product of lust. $in! ;parichara had !one to the &un!le on a huntin! trip re&ectin! his

wife6s invitation to him to !o to bed with her. he had made her desire known to him

throu!h a messa!e she had sent him informin! him she had &ust had her ritual bath after

her monthly periods and was ea!erly waitin! for him in their bedchamber. In the &un!le

the kin! was unable to control his lust ) all around him nature stood bathed in all her

estrous !lory, the matin! calls of birds filled the air around him thick with the scent of

passion. atyavati was the child born to that kin! who had lost control over himself, bornto an apsara livin! as a fish in the Yamuna accordin! to the -ahabharata ) in all

probability a fisher!irl who satisfied the kin!6s lust of the moment.

This is a le!acy of lust ) strai!ht and unmi+ed with anythin! else. The other linea!e he

speaks of is perhaps more confusin!. 9ichitra6s biolo!ical father is 9yasa ) born of sa!e

0arashara6s lust for the fish"smellin! $ali"atyavati, lust that was unwillin! to wait even

so lon! as it takes for $ali and the sa!e to cross the river. Their union took place in the

boat itself, ri!ht in the middle of the river. 9yasa brin!s in his blood the irrepressible lust

of 0arashara and of ;parichara 9asu. 2ut at the same time, 9yasa is an ascetic too ) aman who had his se+uality under control, thou!h he too had slipped once, thus be!ettin!

his son huka. 0andu6s 9yasa linea!e is thus both of lust and asceticism.


26/58

% very restrictive upbrin!in! concernin! se+, ne!ative attitudes toward se+, ne!ative or

traumatic se+ual e+periences, thou!h at second"hand, other deep"seated factors such as

unconscious feelin!s of hostility, fear, and !uiltF 0andu seems to have had his share of

all these elements that cause psychopatholo!ical impotence ) and a rich share of them at

that.

=>=

In the -ahabharata, and in fewer details in the Gamayana, we have the story of

$almashapada. $almashapada was an ancestor of Gama who had received a curse from

his !uru 9asishtha which transformed him into a Gakshasa. hile livin! his accursed life

as a Gakshasa, $almashapada meets a 2rahman youth and his youn! wife in a forest. The

couple were in the &un!le makin! love and they had not yet completed their act when they

saw the Gakshasa and ran away. $almashapada cau!ht the brahmana, and the brahmani

be!!ed him not to eat him up. he told him of how she was in her ritu, how desperate

they were for a child, how they hadn6t finished their matin! act and therefore he shouldspare her husband. $almashapada did not heed her and went ahead and ate up the

2rahmin youth. %n!irasi, the brahmani, wept bitter tears ) and so deep was her pain that

as each drop of her tears fell on the !round, it became a bla/in! fire and burnt up the

place.

The brahmani then cursed $almashapada. 1e had interrupted her and her husband

makin! love and killed her husband. 1e would not be able to make love to his wife any

more ) if he ever made love to his wife durin! her ritu, the period sanctioned for

lovemakin!, he would die. %lmost the identical curse as 0andu received and for almost

identical reasons. It is this curse that made it impossible for $almashapada to have se+

with his wife -adayanti and forced him to offer her to his !uru 9asishtha forniyoga.

@ike $almashapada, 0andu too carried a curse on him. 1is impotence was the result of

that curse ) but that curse was not !iven by $indama. 0andu was cursed lon! before he

killed the deer. 1is curse was a result of his very restrictive upbrin!in! concernin! se+,

his ne!ative attitudes toward se+, the traumatic se+ual e+perience of his mother the

trauma of which he had internali/ed, unconscious feelin!s of se+ual hostility, fear, !uilt.

Do insi!hts from psycholo!y or psychopatholo!y e+plain why 0andu killed the deeren!a!ed in coitus? They do. %nnals of criminolo!y are full of crimes committed by men

who have ne!ative attitudes towards se+, have deep unconscious feelin!s of se+ual

hostility and !uilt, have been forced to suppress or repress se+ for one reason or other,

have an unsatisfactory se+ual life, whose natural se+ual lon!in!s have remained

unfulfilled. @ust killin!, se+ murder ) these are terms used for acts like what 0andu did,

thou!h crime literature mostly talks about acts committed a!ainst humans.

0erhaps these insi!hts would also e+plain his fury in the battlefields that made 0andu

5reduce his enemies to ashesH, thou!h this could be a very natural thin! to do for akshatriya and a prince in those days. 2ut it is a fact that 0andu derived pleasure from

killin! ) he devoted in entire life after the world conuest to huntin!, which is somethin!

few other kin!s have done, if any.


27/58

=>=

hy did 0andu choose %r&una6s birthday to take -adri into the uietude of the &un!le and

to make love to her there, meetin! his death in the process? hy did he choose the

precise moment when priests were chantin! sacred incantations invokin! divine blessin!s

on %r&una, the precise moment when brahmana6s were bein! served a feast? as %r&una6s

birthday no occasion for celebration for 0andu? as he re!isterin! his protest a!ainst thecelebration, and a!ainst %r&una and $unti, by walkin! away from the feast of which he

was the host and hence shouldn6t have left? If so, what was he protestin! a!ainst? The

uestions we had asked earlier.

4or those who are not fully conversant with the -ahabharata, the epic describes it was

the uttara phalgunaday on which %r&una had completed fourteen years, the 2rahmins

were chantin! mantras and a feast was bein! offered celebratin! the birthday when 0andu

took the beautiful -adri away into the &un!le and there made love to her. hen he should

have been with his family, when he as the host had an important role to play and shouldhave been receivin! the 2rahmins and &oinin! them in the rituals and the feast, 0andu

uietly slipped out of the place takin! his youn!er wife with him. $unti failed to notice

this because she was busy servin! the meals to the brahmanas.

The Indian tradition forbade se+ durin! the daytime.

The epic tells us he did so because he was overpowered by se+ ) !amamohita. 1e

certainly could have been. 2ut there is also another side to it ) the day and time he chose

speaks of other possibilities. 1e must have been frustrated. It is possible that in spite of

his ur!in! $unti and later -adri to !ive him sons throu!h niyoga, he really hated

the niyogasand felt little affection for them. The niyogasmust definitely have been

humiliatin! for him, as bein! forced to offer his wife to other men for be!ettin! children

would be to any man. Yet he did it for the sake of his afterworlds, so that his ancestors did

not blame him of not payin! back the debt to the manes,pitr3rna, and maybe perhaps

because the eldest of them could inherit the throne. 2ut it is also possible that more than

his desire for children it was his wives6 desire for them that impelled him, thou!h the

-ahabharata does not e+pressly say so. omen6s lon!in! for children is usually lon!er

than men6s ) for while for man children are a need, for women it is the fulfillment of their

bein! women. It is possible that in spite of what the epic tells us and contrary to what weare told by it, it was $unti who was desperate for children rather than 0andu and it was

she who persuaded him to allow her to have children by other men, perhaps Yudhishthira

by 9idura, her de"arbrother"in"law#, traditionally the first choice in case her husband

failed to !ive her a child, and subseuently by two other men. 0andu could have resented

this deeply, thou!h he could not say no to the stron!"willed $unti, and later to -adri

when she sou!ht permission to walk on the path shown by $unti.

That his children are not his children is not somethin! that many men would be able to

tolerate. o 0andu re&ects the birthday celebrations, re&ects the birthday child, re&ects themother of the birthday child, and !oes to the &un!le takin! his softer other wife to the

&un!le with him e+actly when 2rahmins are bein! served at home. %nd on that day, for


28/58

the first time in his life, in the passion !iven by his bitterness and loneliness, his

frustration and fury, he succeeds in makin! love to her there, surrounded by nature in

estrus once a!ain. 1is success must have surprised even him, filled him with unspeakable

thrill, uncontrollable rapture. (ne moment he is deep in the abysses of bitterness and fury,

and the ne+t he is in the heavenly hei!hts of the thrill of his first successful lovemakin!.

4rom those hei!hts to which he had soared for the first time in his life, he plun!es strai!ht

into his death.

There was years of bitterness in him. uppressed day after day, week after week, month

after month, year after year, until %r&una has completed fourteen years. %nd then, as the

birthday celebration is !oin! on, violence possesses him, and the e+plosion takes place.

hy %r&una6s birthday? hy not the birthday of 2heema or Yudhishthira, if not of

akula and ahadeva since 0andu seems to have had a softer corner in his heart for

-adri? To answer that uestion we will have to know who %r&una6s father was ) his

human father.

0andu is one of the most tra!ic fi!ures in Indian literature. 1is is the tale of innocence

punished for the crimes of others. 1e carries a curse with him ) the burden of the

knowled!e of the story of his birth, of his linea!e, which makes his life hell. 0andu6s life

elouently portrays how our life is not all in our hands, how so many factors beyond our

control !ive it direction, somethin! we are loath to admit today. (ur past has a stron! say

in makin! us what we are, in makin! our life what it is ) and that past includes our

parents6 past too. e carry on our shoulders the burden, and the honor, of their actions.

ust as our children will do those of ours.

In the spiritual interpretation of the -ahabharata, 9yasa6s four sons are embodiments of

the fourpurusharthas) !oals of human life. huka is the embodiment of the

paramapurushartha, of mo!sha, liberation* 9idura of dharma, ri!hteousness* and

Dhritarashtra of artha, wealth and possessiveness. 0andu, this interpretation tells us, is the

embodiment of !ama, desire. 1e is lust embodied.

Impotent !ama, perhaps.

(r maybe perhaps 9yasa wants to tell us that kama is always impotent in the ultimate

analysis, in spite of the fact all creation sprin!s from it.

Impotent kama, insatiable kama. $ama that can never !ive us ultimate contentment.

4a jAtu !Amah !AmAnAm upabhogena shAmyate,

ha"ishA !rishna"artme"a bhooya e"Abhi"ardhate.

ever indeed is kama satiated by the en&oyment of desired ob&ects* instead, like fire when

offerin!s are made into it, it keeps flarin! up.

;ntil impotent desire consumes the desirer himself.


29/58

536un3/778-ore by : atya Ahaitanya" ee more at: http:www.bolo&i.cominde+.cfm?

mdJAontentKsdJ%rticlesK%[email protected]

This whole story is written by a dumb guy who has no !nowledge about the

glorious past of India. 0ow pay attention to these points here 1

;. Handhari had ;BB sons and a daughter. 0o matter what but a woman

canQt physically give birth to ;BB children in her lifetime. /nd age

di5erence between ;BB brothers was (ust a few hours. This fact clearly

shows that in ancient times people !new the technology of Test Tube

babies. in Mahabharata itQs clearly mentioned that ;BB children were born

in pots in a cave by the help of Dyasa. Therefore niyoga had nothing to dowith real se'. It was an act of ta!ing dna from woman and ma!e a test tube

baby.

. Handhari too! a vow to blindfold herself for whole life. 0ow this was not

forced on her, infact she too! this vow by her own will because she wanted

to live li!e her husband. 0ow living blindfolded is a very diRcult thing to do

but she did it. it shows that in ancient times people were very !ind, loyal

and honest. They used to stic! to their words unli!e nowadays wherepeople promise only to brea! it. "o this proves that heeshma didnQt brea!

his vow not because of he hated women or some other stupid reason.

bheeshma didnQt brea! his vow because that was a trend those days to

stic! to their words.


30/58

the fact that there is indeed another science called spiritual science which

people have forgotten about and which needs to be re1e'plored.

"top demeaning the ancient India and accept the fact that ancient indian

people indeed were very advanced and they were smart too so they used

to hand over this !nowledge only to those with good character and moralvalues to avoid misuse of that !nowledge. they didnQt hand over their

sacred !nowledge to dumb assholes li!e nowadays every other country has

atom bombs and machine guns and we see so many wars.

"top thin!ing from your ass and open your narrow brain and only then you

will understand the history. These literature were not legendary stories

only, itQs real history. ?wari!a city of "hri Krishna has already been found

under the sea near gu(rat. "cientists have also recovered some gold coinsfrom the ruins of drowned city under ocean with printed $eacoc! feathers

on those coins so thatQs also proved that the !ing of that city indeed loved

peacoc! feathers. $retty soon more evidences will also be recovered. 1 "ee

more at) http)::www.bolo(i.com:inde'.cfm3

md2ontentUsd/rticlesU/rticleI?;V=Wsthash.%lollD7.dpuf

Krishna2A +tudy in ransformational 9eadershipby +atya haitanya

There is an old story about a sa!e who was sittin! serenely under a tree in the &un!le, lost

in the immense beauty of the world around him. The trees around him, the vines climbin!

on them, the birds perched on the trees and vines, the animals !ra/in! !ently amon! them

all, the placid

iravati karve

Documents