Is Mahabharat truly about good vs evil?

Ye mahayudha hai, ye dharmayudha hai..

This is my third and final blog on the great Indian epic Mahabharat. I can now boast of having completed my first trilogy (although the blogs are not related to each other)!

At its essence, most would agree that Mahabharat is a story of good triumphing over evil. But is it really so?

The neutral point of view

How evil was Duryodhan? What are his evil deeds?

If we look at the story dispassionately, Duryodhan was the eldest son of Dhritarashtra, who in turn was the eldest son of Vichitravira and Pandu’s elder brother, and thus next in line for the throne. Pandu only became king instead of him owing to his blindness. Duryodhan was thus not entirely unreasonable in his demand for being crowned king. Yes, he committed a lot of crimes against the Pandavas and tried to win the throne by deceit. But the Pandavas also practiced deceit (albeit more successfully) during the Kurukshetra battle. If the Kauravas started the cycle, the Pandavas also eventually adopted the same.

All said and done, there is truly speaking not much to choose between a man who attempted to publicly disrobe his bhabhi (sister-in-law) vs a man who wagered his wife and brothers in a game of dice.

Overall, 11 akshohinis (about 11-12 lakh soldiers) fought the battles for the Kauravas and 7 akshohinis for the Pandavas. Does this mean that there were more kings across India who were supporting evil at that time? Or perhaps did they just consider it as another ‘regular’ battle between two ‘regular’ kings fighting for the crown. Shalya, the uncle of the Pandavas, on his way to join the Pandava army, was lavishly entertained by Duryodhana and he ended up agreeing to fight on the Kauravas’ side. Would he have done that if he truly believed Duryodhan to be pure evil?

Just like Yudhishthira’s character flaw was gambling, Duryodhan’s was jealousy. He was jealous of the Pandavas for being in line for the throne instead of him. I am not saying that he didn’t do terrible things. He tried to poison Bhim and kill him. He tried to burn the Pandavas in a palace made of lac. And of course he attempted to disrobe Draupadi. However, at the end of the day, all his wrong deeds were directed towards one family alone. They were driven more by jealousy and a thirst for power than by an evil mind out to rid the world of all good forces. The epic doesn't really show Duryodhan committing evil or shallow deeds on sages or on the public at large. He is not shown to be an unconcerned haughty king or to be unkind to others. There was a period of about 20 odd years when Yudhishthir was ruling Indraprastha, while Duryodhan was the crown prince of Hastinapur under Dhritarashtra. He was probably making most of the decisions then in Hastinapur. While Yudhisthir was no doubt a more able and more loved king, Hastinapur didn't fare too badly either. The city remained prosperous during Duryodhan’s rule. Duryodhan is certainly an inferior man compared to the Pandavas, and a few shades greyer as well, but he is definitely no evil incarnate.

Yudhisthir does differ from Duryodhan in one significant way though. He had committed a cardinal sin when he wagered his brothers and wife while gambling. Furthermore, he had wagered his half-brothers Nakul and Sahdev before he wagered Arjun and Bhim, demonstrating differential treatment between them. He realized this mistake and corrected it later when given a chance. Once during the exile, a yaksha (magical nature spirit) had caused the deaths of the rest of his brothers, who drank poisoned water from a lake without heeding the yaksha’s warning to first answer its questions. Yudhisthir went ahead to answer all questions satisfactorily, pleasing the yaksha, who then granted him a boon that he can restore life to one brother. Yudhisthir chose Nakul for this, reasoning that if one son of Kunti lives, so must one son of Madri. He does redeem himself by this, not wholly or in full measure, perhaps not even substantially, but at least slightly. Duryodhan on the other hand, despite all his plots failing and often backfiring, despite him being anointed the future king of Hastinapur after the Pandavas are asked to rule Indraprastha instead, despite Krishna asking for only five villages to avoid the battle, is simply unable overcome his jealousy, nor accept his fate.

Mahabharat’s actual message

Mahabharat is a phenomenal tale encompassing everything in this world and beyond in all its glorious complexity and layers. However, is it truly a dharmayudh, a battle of good vs evil? Or is it essentially more of a game of thrones, of two royal families fighting for a kingdom, with extraordinary real-life characters and teachings?

Eventually, both sides demonstrate honor and dishonor, duty and deceit, dharma and adharma. Truth be told, most of us subconsciously understand this as well, and still root for the Pandavas. We love Yudhisthir despite his gambling disaster, we respect Draupadi despite her infamous ‘a blind man’s son remains blind’ remark, and we worship Krishna despite his trickery. This is because they do not let themselves be defined by that one trait alone. On the other hand, we accept the tragic deaths of the valiant Kaurava chieftains, because of that very reason; because Duryodhan’s entire life remains defined by his envy, Karna’s by his ‘status anxiety’, and Bheeshma by the flawed interpretation of his vows. They simply fail to move beyond that one obsession which negatively directs almost all their actions.

Perhaps, rather than the literal and simplistic ‘good always triumphs evil’ moral, this is a better message to take home from the epic – that no one is perfect, that everyone does have traits of evil or adharma within, but one cannot let their life be cannibalized completely by that one negative emotion or flaw. Instead, one needs to learn to move beyond it, to harness one’s strengths, work on one’s weaknesses, and accept one’s fate with humility. This is what Mahabharat probably represents and promotes - not so much a resounding triumph of the metaphorical pure inner goodness over evil, but a steady effort of allowing our better self to prevail over its worse counterpart.

---

PS:  My kid’s school had performed Lion King on stage on the annual day a couple of years ago. The principal then had exhorted the parents and student to think of the story from all viewpoints, be it from Simba and Mufasa, or from the effeminate ‘sneered upon since childhood’ Scar. It made me feel pity for Scar for the first time, and I must acknowledge it may have kindled the origin of this blog in my mind.

PPS: Ajaya is the story of Mahabharat written from Duryodhan’s point of view, a devil’s advocate of sorts. It is written by Anand Neelakantan, author of Baahubali (made into the famous movie) and of a similar book on the Ramayan written from Ravan’s point of view. I haven’t read it yet, but it deserves a mention here!

PPPS: If you enjoyed reading this, you can read my prior two blogs on the Mahabharat here and here.