How the Mahabharata's "Righteous" Victory Was Built on Sacred Cruelty
A
Study of Structural Violence, Imperial Logic, and the Cost of Dharma in the
World's Greatest Epic
The
Mahabharata is not a simple tale of good defeating evil. Rather, it is a messy,
uncomfortable, and deeply human epic that presents a "flawed vs. even more
flawed" exploration of Dharma. This article synthesizes discussions on how
the "righteous" Pandavas and their mentors systematically exploited
marginalized figures—Eklavya, Karna, Ghatotkach, Hidimba, Uloopi, and Iravan—as
functional assets rather than human equals. The epic reveals how Varnashrama
Dharma (duty to social hierarchy) consistently overrode Sadharana Dharma
(universal morality). Through comparisons to colonial expansion, modern
geopolitical "realism," and empire-building across civilizations, the
Mahabharata emerges as both a potential manual for rationalizing "sacred
cruelty" and a devastating warning about the hollow nature of victories
built on structural exclusion. The burning of the Khandava forest serves as the
foundational act of this imperial logic, with consequences that echo through
generations.
Introduction: The Paradox at the Heart of the Epic
Calling the Mahabharata a paradox is not merely an academic
exercise—it is the only honest way to approach a text that refuses to offer
clean moral categories. Unlike the Ramayana, which allows readers to
comfortably align with Rama against Ravana, the Mahabharata denies its audience
any such comfort. It presents a world where the "heroes" gamble away
their wife, participate in the systematic humiliation of a man based on his
birth, and burn a forest full of innocent creatures to build their capital
city.
As the scholar and translator Bibek Debroy has noted,
"The Mahabharata is not a text that tells you what Dharma is. It shows you
how difficult Dharma is to define." This difficulty is not a flaw in the
text—it is the entire point. The epic forces its readers to confront the
uncomfortable possibility that righteousness and cruelty are not opposites but
companions, often indistinguishable in their application.
The characters that haunt readers most deeply are not the
obvious villains like Duryodhana or Shakuni. They are the ones who existed at
the fringes of the Kuru social order: the tribal prince whose thumb was taken
to protect a royal monopoly on martial skill; the "charioteer's son"
who was denied his birthright and mocked until he became the enemy he was
accused of being; the Rakshasa woman who was married, used, and abandoned; her
son who was summoned to die as a tactical diversion; the Naga princess whose
husband left her behind; and her son who was sacrificed so that a father who
barely knew him could win a war.
These figures are not side-notes or decorative peripheral
characters. They are the "moral mirrors" of the Mahabharata, and
their treatment by the "righteous" reveals the cold, transactional
nature of power during the Dvapara Yuga. More importantly, they reveal
something about power in any era.
The Victims of Social Order: A Gallery of Broken Lives
Eklavya: The Sacrifice of Potential
Perhaps the most heartbreaking episode in the entire epic
occurs early, setting a tone that the rest of the narrative will repeatedly
confirm. Eklavya, a Nishada (tribal) prince, approached Drona, the royal guru,
seeking training in archery. He was refused because Drona's mandate was to
teach only Kshatriyas—the warrior caste. The social hierarchy, encoded as
Dharma, closed its doors.
What happened next is what makes the episode devastating
rather than merely unjust. Eklavya did not rage against the system or seek
revenge. Instead, he fashioned a clay idol of Drona, worshipped it as his guru,
and taught himself through devotion and relentless practice. He became, by any
objective measure, a master archer—perhaps even superior to Arjuna, Drona's
favorite student.
When Drona discovered this, he did not applaud the boy's
merit, ingenuity, or devotion. The political theorist Rajiv Malhotra has
observed, "Drona's reaction reveals the deep anxiety at the heart of caste
privilege—the fear that merit might actually be distributed randomly and that
the system cannot survive if that fact becomes known." Instead of
celebrating excellence wherever it emerged, Drona demanded Eklavya's right
thumb as Guru Dakshina—the traditional fee owed to a teacher.
The "righteous" rationale for this mutilation is
worth examining without sentimentality. Drona's primary duty, as he understood
it, was to ensure the supremacy of the Kuru princes, particularly Arjuna. If a
Nishada could outshoot a Kshatriya, the entire logic of birth-based duty would
collapse. As the cultural historian Devdutt Pattanaik explains, "In the
framework of Varnashrama Dharma, Drona was not being cruel—he was being
consistent. The system required that specialized knowledge remain a caste
privilege. Drona was merely enforcing the grammar of his society."
Eklavya gave his thumb without hesitation. The text does not
record his inner thoughts. One can only imagine what it meant to cripple
oneself for a teacher who had refused to teach, for a system that had rejected
one's very existence. The political philosopher Amartya Sen has written that
"the Mahabharata's treatment of Eklavya anticipates every modern debate
about reservation, affirmative action, and the tension between meritocracy and
historical injustice." The epic offers no resolution, only the image of a
bleeding thumb and a silenced prodigy.
Karna: The Systematic Rejection That Created a Monster
If Eklavya represents the sacrifice of those outside the
system entirely, Karna represents the tragedy of those trapped inside it but
denied its benefits. Born of Kunti's youthful liaison with the sun god Surya,
Karna was technically a Kshatriya of the highest order. But because he was
raised by Adiratha, a charioteer, he was classified as a Suta—a mixed caste,
permanently marked as inferior.
The tournament scene at which Karna first appears is one of
the most painful in all literature. Arjuna has just demonstrated his skills,
and Karna, unable to contain himself, enters the arena and matches—perhaps even
exceeds—every feat. But he is stopped not by any failure of skill but by the
question of lineage. Kripacharya asks him to identify his mother and father,
his royal house. Karna has no answer that will satisfy.
It is at this moment that Bhima, the "righteous"
Pandava known for his strength and his loyalty to his brothers, unleashes a
classist tirade: "A charioteer's son has no right to compete with a
prince. Go back to pulling the reins, son of a Suta." The mockery is
relentless. It is also, from the perspective of the epic's own moral
complexity, completely unprovoked. Karna has done nothing except demonstrate
excellence.
As the mythologist and author Devdutt Pattanaik observes,
"The Pandavas' treatment of Karna reveals their deepest insecurity. They
mock him precisely because they recognize his equal merit. Bhima's words are
the sound of a closed system trying to protect its boundaries." The
literary critic A.K. Ramanujan famously noted that "the Mahabharata has no
villains, only victims who become villains." Karna embodies this
transformation more completely than any other figure.
The paradox deepens when one considers Kunti's silence. She
knows Karna is her son, knows he is Arjuna's elder brother, knows he has been
rejected and humiliated because of his supposed low birth. But she remains
silent to protect her own status and the legitimacy of the Pandava claim to the
throne. The feminist scholar Uma Chakravarti has argued that "Kunti's
silence is structural rather than personal. In a patrilineal system where a
woman's entire status depends on her husband and her legitimate sons, acknowledging
Karna would have destroyed everything she had built." The system, once
again, prioritizes order over truth.
When Karna eventually becomes Duryodhana's closest ally, he
is not joining an enemy—he is joining the only person who ever offered him
respect. Duryodhana, whatever his other flaws, saw Karna's skill and made him
king of Anga. The "righteous" Pandavas, by contrast, never stopped
using his birth as a weapon against him. Yudhishthira, ironically called
Dharmaraja—the king of righteousness—never once intervened to stop the
bullying. His silence was its own form of violence.
Ghatotkach and Hidimba: The Disposable Warriors
The Pandavas' relationship with the Rakshasa tribe is a
study in convenience dressed as Dharma. During their first exile, Bhima killed
the Rakshasa king Hidimb and then, in a narrative turn that raises more
questions than the epic cares to answer, married his sister Hidimba. The son of
this union was Ghatotkach, a powerful Rakshasa who would grow to become one of
the most potent warriors in the entire narrative.
But observe what happens after the exile ends. The Pandavas
leave Hidimba and Ghatotkach behind. They do not bring them to the palaces of
Hastinapur or Indraprastha. The forest people, it seems, belong in the forest.
The anthropologist Veena Das has noted that "the Mahabharata maps a clear
distinction between the Gramya (civilized) and the Aranya (forest/wild). The
Pandavas view the forest as a resource to be tapped, never a home to be
respected on its own terms."
This instrumental relationship reaches its horrifying climax
during the Kurukshetra war. Krishna famously deployed Ghatotkach at night,
knowing that the Rakshasa's illusionary powers were devastating in darkness. He
urged Ghatotkach to fight with such ferocity, to cause such carnage, that Karna
would be forced to use the Vasavi Shakti—a divine weapon that could only be
used once and that Karna was saving specifically for Arjuna.
The plan worked perfectly. Karna killed Ghatotkach with the
Vasavi Shakti. And Krishna danced with joy.
The historian Romila Thapar has called this "the most
chilling moment in the entire epic—not because of the violence, but because of
the celebration. Krishna's joy is not personal. It is tactical. A useful asset
has been expended to protect a more valuable one. That is the logic of empire,
not the logic of family." Ghatotkach was not a nephew or a son to Krishna
in that moment. He was a weapon that had been discharged.
The philosopher Martha Nussbaum, writing about tragedy and
moral philosophy, observed that "what makes the Ghatotkach episode
unforgettable is that the text does not hide Krishna's calculation. It presents
it openly, forcing the reader to ask: would I have done differently? Could any
general afford to preserve a secondary asset at the cost of losing a primary
one?" The question is uncomfortable precisely because it reveals how
easily "necessity" becomes a justification for abandoning those we
claim to love.
Uloopi and Iravan: The Strategic Alliances
Uloopi, a Naga princess, abducted Arjuna during his
pilgrimage and, in the conventions of the epic, married him. Like Hidimba, she
was a "temporary" wife—a satellite spouse from a satellite kingdom.
When Arjuna's travels required him to move on, he left her behind. Her primary
role in the narrative is functional: she provides resources, she revives Arjuna
after he is killed by their son Babruvahana in a strange confrontation that
reads like a curse seeking its resolution.
Their son Iravan came to the Kurukshetra war out of duty to
a father he barely knew. In some versions of the epic—particularly in the folk
traditions of South India—Iravan was chosen as a human sacrifice (the Aravan
Kalapali) to ensure the Pandavas' victory. According to the folklorist A.K.
Ramanujan, "Iravan's sacrifice represents the ultimate expression of the
epic's logic: the periphery must bleed so that the center can survive. But
Iravan's story also contains the tradition's acknowledgment of this injustice—his
request for a one-day marriage, fulfilled by Krishna as Mohini, is a protest
against being treated as a mere instrument."
The folk tradition, interestingly, rehabilitates what the
main epic treats as unremarkable. In the annual festival at Koovagam in Tamil
Nadu, transgender devotees reenact Iravan's sacrifice and his marriage to
Mohini, mourning his death with a ritual that mixes grief, protest, and
celebration. The legal scholar Nivedita Menon has written that "Koovagam
is the Mahabharata's conscience—a ritual space where the epic's silences about
the periphery become audible through practice."
The Two Dharmas: Sadharana vs. Varnashrama
The friction that readers feel when confronting these
episodes comes from a fundamental distinction that the epic itself makes,
though it never resolves the tension between the two. The Sanskrit tradition
distinguishes between Sadharana Dharma—universal values like truth,
non-violence, and compassion—and Varnashrama Dharma—duties based on one's
position in the social hierarchy.
The "righteous" characters—Bhishma, Drona,
Yudhishthira, even Krishna in his most strategic moments—consistently choose
Varnashrama Dharma over Sadharana Dharma when the two conflict. Bhishma, bound
by his terrible oath to serve whoever sits on the throne of Hastinapur, watches
Draupadi's disrobing in silence. He is not being cowardly, from his
perspective. He is being dutiful. The throne commands silence, and the throne's
command overrides his moral obligation to protect a woman in distress.
The ethicist Bimal Krishna Matilal argued that "the
Mahabharata's genius is to show that Varnashrama Dharma and Sadharana Dharma
are not merely different—they are frequently incompatible. And when they
conflict, even the 'good' characters choose the system over the self. That is
not a flaw in the characters; it is a flaw in the system, and the epic knows
it."
This explains Drona's demand for Eklavya's thumb. He was not
being cruel for cruelty's sake. He was preserving the social order. The
problem, as the epic demonstrates across its hundred thousand verses, is that
preserving the social order requires cruelty. The two cannot be separated. One
cannot have a hierarchical society without instruments of enforcement, and
those instruments, by their very nature, will be applied to those who threaten
the hierarchy—whether they threaten it intentionally or merely by existing.
The political theorist Wendy Doniger has observed that
"the Mahabharata is unique among world epics in that it does not hide the
bodies. The Ramayana airbrushes. The Iliad glosses. But the Mahabharata keeps
the receipts. It shows you the cost of every victory, the pain of every
compromise." This is why the epic ends not with a coronation celebration
but with a funeral procession up a mountain.
The Burning of Khandava: The Foundational Massacre
The Khandava forest episode is not merely one incident among
many—it is the foundational act of Pandava imperialism, and its parallels to
colonial expansion across global history are so striking that they cannot be
coincidental. The text presents the burning as a "sacrifice" to the
god Agni, who was "hungry" and needed to consume the forest to regain
his strength. Arjuna and Krishna acted as Agni's agents, creating a canopy of
arrows so dense that no creature could fly out, and slaughtering any animal or
Naga that tried to escape.
The historian Dipesh Chakrabarty has written that "the
Khandava episode performs exactly the same function as the colonial doctrine of
Terra Nullius—the claim that land belongs to no one if its inhabitants do not
use it in ways that the colonizer recognizes as legitimate. The Nagas and
Rakshasas had lived in Khandava for millennia, but because they did not build
'civilized' cities, their home could be redefined as empty space awaiting
improvement."
The only significant survivor was Maya Danava, an architect.
To save his life, he was forced to build the "Palace of Illusions"
for the Pandavas—the very palace that would later become the site of Draupadi's
humiliation, when Duryodhana would mistake a glass floor for water and a
crystal wall for open space. The postcolonial critic Homi K. Bhabha might
recognize this as the classic imperial move: "You destroy the culture, but
you spare the 'useful' experts to build your monuments. The indigenous
knowledge is extracted, not celebrated."
The philosopher Slavoj Žižek, writing about ideology in a
different context, noted that "the true violence of imperial expansion is
not the killing—it is the narrative that makes the killing invisible by
recoding it as destiny, as duty, as sacrifice to a higher power." The
Mahabharata complicates this observation by making the violence visible while
still recoding it. Agni's hunger is a divine mandate, but the text does not let
the reader forget the screaming animals and the fleeing Nagas.
The long-term consequences of the Khandava burning return to
haunt the Pandava line. Takshaka, the Naga king who survived because he was
away at the time, eventually killed Arjuna's grandson Parikshit—the last hope
of the Pandava dynasty—by biting him. The epic offers this as karma, as the
natural consequence of violence that was justified as necessary but was never
truly resolved. The forest remembers. The periphery always remembers.
The Colonial Comparison: Empire's Universal Grammar
The parallels between the Mahabharata's logic and the logic
of European colonialism are not merely analogies—they reveal a structural
pattern that repeats across civilizations whenever a "core" expands
into a "periphery." The "Righteous" must first define the
inhabitants as unworthy of the land they occupy. Then they must invoke a higher
purpose—divine mandate, civilization, progress—to sanctify destruction. Then
they must extract whatever value remains, whether through labor, knowledge, or
physical resources.
The historian Niall Ferguson has argued that "every
empire tells itself the same story: we are not conquerors, we are bringers of
order. The British told it in India; the Romans told it in Gaul; the Pandavas
told it in the Khandava forest. The details change; the structure
remains." The Mahabharata is valuable precisely because it was written by
a culture that was conquered several times over—and therefore learned to
examine the logic of empire from both sides of the equation.
The sociologist Gurminder K. Bhambra has noted that
"postcolonial theory has often treated the Mahabharata as a pre-colonial
artifact, as if its analysis of power is somehow less relevant because it comes
from the 'other' side of the colonial divide. But the Mahabharata's critique of
imperial logic is more sophisticated than most European critiques precisely
because it emerges from a tradition that experienced conquest and reflected on
it extensively."
The "Invisible Grid" of the Mahabharata—the
network of caste, duty, hierarchy, and obligation that determines who matters
and who can be sacrificed—finds its modern equivalents in everything from
global supply chains to immigration regimes. The prosperity of a "First
World" tech hub relies on the "Third World" extraction of rare
earth minerals conducted under conditions that would be illegal in the hub
itself. The cheap labor, like Ghatotkach, absorbs the costs so that the center
can enjoy the benefits. The philosopher Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò has called this
"the international division of sacrificial labor," and the
Mahabharata describes it with chilling clarity.
Krishna: Manipulator or Realist?
The role of Krishna in this structural violence is perhaps
the most debated question in Mahabharata scholarship. Is he the master
manipulator who orchestrates cruelty while pretending it is sacred? Or is he
the only one honest enough to admit that the world cannot function without such
cruelty?
The text offers evidence for both readings. On one hand,
Krishna repeatedly advises the Pandavas to use deception, manipulation, and
tactical cruelty. He suggests the half-lie that kills Drona—that Ashwatthama is
dead (the elephant Ashwatthama, not the man). He encourages Ghatotkach to fight
until he draws Karna's divine weapon. He counsels Arjuna to kill Karna when
Karna is trying to lift his chariot wheel from the mud, violating every
convention of fair combat.
As the religious studies scholar John Stratton Hawley has
observed, "Krishna's actions are so problematic that generations of
commentators have tried to explain them away—as tests, as illusions, as
something other than what the text plainly describes. But the text is not
confused. Krishna does what he does, and the text records it without
apology."
On the other hand, Krishna is also the most honest character
in the epic. He tells Arjuna on the battlefield that he must kill his own
relatives. He does not pretend this is easy or clean. He uses the language of
necessity, not righteousness. When he dances at Ghatotkach's death, he is not
celebrating a death—he is celebrating a tactical victory that saves Arjuna's
life. The philosopher Simon Critchley has written that "Krishna represents
the tragic position that there are no 'clean hands' in politics. Every decision
that matters involves a sacrifice. The only question is who gets sacrificed and
who benefits."
The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, writing about political
ethics, famously distinguished between the moral individual and the moral
state: "An individual may be expected to sacrifice himself for the good of
others. A state cannot be expected to sacrifice itself—it can only sacrifice
its citizens." Krishna, in this reading, is not a god giving divine
commands. He is a political advisor giving political advice. The fact that the
Mahabharata presents this advice as coming from a god does not make it less
political. If anything, it makes it more terrifying: the sacred and the
strategic are fused until they become indistinguishable.
The Hollow Victory: Winning the War, Losing Everything
The Kurukshetra war ends with the Pandavas victorious. The
"righteous" side has won. But the text refuses to allow any
celebration. The victory is described as hollow—a word that echoes through the
final books. The Pandavas have won a kingdom of widows, a city of ashes, a
lineage that will not survive.
Every "shortcut" they took—every manipulation,
every tactical sacrifice, every abandonment of principle in the name of
necessity—returns to haunt them. The killing of Drona and Karna leads to a
cycle of revenge that wipes out the Pandavas' own children, the Upapandavas,
slaughtered by Ashwatthama in their sleep. The tactic that won the war plants
the seeds of the dynasty's extinction.
The literary theorist Franco Moretti has argued that
"tragedy requires the hero to lose everything through his own flaw. The
Mahabharata's innovation is to have the 'heroes' win everything through their
flaws, only to discover that winning was losing." This is not nihilism—it
is a precise moral accounting. The epic insists that actions have consequences,
no matter how "necessary" they seemed at the time. The weeping widows
of Kurukshetra are not abstract statistics. They are the specific outcome of
specific choices.
The final book, the Mahaprasthanika Parva, describes the
Pandavas climbing the Himalayas toward heaven, falling one by one. They are not
falling because of enemy action or natural disaster. They are falling because
of their own internal "sins"—their residual moral failures, the debts
they never acknowledged. Draupadi falls first, because she loved Arjuna more
than her other husbands. Then Sahadeva, because he was proud of his knowledge.
Then Nakula, because he was vain about his beauty. Then Arjuna, because he
boasted about his superiority. Then Bhima, because he was gluttonous and
violent.
Only Yudhishthira reaches the gates of heaven. And he is
alone.
The psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar has interpreted this as
"the ultimate isolation of the legalistic mind. Yudhishthira followed the
rules. He told the truth, technically. He kept his vows. He honored his
position. And at the end, he has no one—not because he failed, but because
adherence to rules is not the same as connection to people." The epic does
not celebrate Yudhishthira's survival. It mourns the solitude of a man who did
everything "right" and ended up with nothing but a dog.
Is the Epic a Guide or a Warning?
This question—whether the Mahabharata endorses the
structural cruelty it describes or warns against it—has divided readers for
millennia. The text itself refuses to answer definitively, which is why it
remains alive in a way that simpler texts do not.
The "manual" reading sees the epic as a realistic
guide to power. Krishna's tactics are not presented as ideal, but they are
presented as effective. The reader who wants to win—whether a king, a CEO, or a
political strategist—would do well to study the Mahabharata as a case study in
necessary ruthlessness. The political scientist Hans Morgenthau, the founder of
classical realism in international relations, could have written the Shanti
Parva: "The king's primary duty is to prevent chaos. To prevent chaos, the
king must be strong. To be strong, the king must be cruel to those who threaten
order."
The "warning" reading sees the epic as a tragedy
that demonstrates the cost of following this logic. The Pandavas win, but their
victory is meaningless. The throne they fought for is a seat of grief. The
kingdom they restored is a graveyard. The reader who wants to avoid their fate
should learn not from their tactics but from their failures. As the novelist
and mythologist Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni has written, "The Mahabharata
is not a how-to manual. It is a cautionary tale. It shows you exactly what happens
when you convince yourself that your cause justifies every means. You win. And
then you are alone with your victory, which tastes like ash."
The most sophisticated reading, perhaps, is that the epic is
both—that it refuses to resolve the tension because the tension is the truth.
The political theorist Isaiah Berlin argued that "genuine moral conflicts
are not between good and evil but between goods." The Mahabharata presents
a conflict between order and justice, between duty and compassion, between the
system and the individual. There is no clean solution because there is no clean
world.
The Escalation Trap: How Righteousness Becomes Its
Opposite
One of the epic's most important insights—relevant to
everything from counterterrorism strategy to corporate ethics—is what might be
called the Escalation Trap. Once you decide that your cause is
"Righteous," you begin to believe that any cruelty committed in its
name is "Sacred Duty." The conviction of rightness removes the brakes
that might otherwise limit violence.
The historian E.H. Carr, writing about the limits of
idealism in international affairs, observed that "those who believe most
fervently in the rightness of their cause are often the most dangerous, because
they feel entitled to break every rule in its service." The Pandavas never
stop to ask whether their tactics are becoming indistinguishable from the
tactics of the Kauravas. They are too busy winning to notice that
"winning" has lost its meaning.
The modern parallels are uncomfortable but necessary. The
drone strike that kills suspected terrorists and their neighbors becomes
"collateral damage." The trade embargo that starves a population
becomes a "necessary pressure tactic." The detention without trial
becomes "exceptional circumstances." In each case, the conviction of
righteousness justifies the expansion of cruelty. And in each case, the cruelty
creates new enemies who were not enemies before.
The novelist Amitav Ghosh has argued that "the
Mahabharata's greatest relevance for our time is its demonstration that
violence is not a solution—it is a cycle. Kill one enemy, and you create two
more: the survivors who will seek revenge, and the part of yourself that
becomes comfortable with killing. The epic's ending is not a happy ending. It
is the recognition that violence always outlives its justification."
The Final Reckoning: Structural Consequences, Not Divine
Punishment
Does the eventual destruction of the Pandava line feel less
like a tragedy and more like a logical, structural consequence? The epic's
framing as divine will or cosmic karma should not obscure the material analysis
that runs beneath the surface. The Pandavas' victory collapses because it was
built on suppressed trauma—the thumb of Eklavya, the life of Ghatotkach, the
sacrifice of Iravan, the humiliation of Karna, the burning of the Khandava
forest. These debts do not disappear because the war ended. They accumulate,
compound, and eventually destroy the dynasty that incurred them.
The sociologist W.E.B. Du Bois famously wrote that "the
problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line." The
Mahabharata suggests that the problem of every century is the problem of the
periphery—the line between those who count and those who do not, those who are
protected and those who are sacrificed, those who sit on the throne and those
whose labor, blood, and absence make the throne possible.
A society built on exclusion eventually collapses under the
weight of its own contradictions. That is not divine punishment. That is
structural dynamics. The Mahabharata is not a theology—it is a sociology,
written in the language of myth.
Reflection: What the Epic Asks of Its Readers
Two hundred words cannot summarize a hundred thousand
verses. But perhaps this can be said: the Mahabharata asks its readers to
abandon the comfort of simple moral categories. It refuses to let anyone stand
safely in the light of righteousness while condemning others to the darkness of
villainy. Every character is compromised. Every victory comes at a cost that
may exceed the victory's value. Every sacrifice of the periphery returns to
haunt the center.
The epic does not offer a solution to the problem of
structural violence. That would be too much to ask of any text. But it offers
something perhaps more valuable: the refusal to look away. The weeping widows
are not edited out. The burning forest is not glossed over. The dancing god is
not sanitized. The Mahabharata forces its readers to sit in the discomfort of
complexity and ask themselves: what would I have done? Whose thumb would I have
taken? Whose death would I have celebrated as a tactical victory? And at what
point would the victory stop being worth the cost?
The epic's final image—five fallen brothers, one survivor, a
dog, and a cold mountain—is not an answer. It is a question. And it is a
question that every generation must answer for itself.
References
Debroy, Bibek (trans.). The Mahabharata. Penguin
Random House India, 2010-2014.
Doniger, Wendy. The Hindus: An Alternative History.
Penguin Press, 2009.
Pattanaik, Devdutt. Jaya: An Illustrated Retelling
of the Mahabharata. Penguin Books India, 2010.
Ramanujan, A.K. "Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples
and Three Thoughts on Translation." In Many Ramayanas: The
Diversity of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia, edited by Paula Richman.
University of California Press, 1991.
Thapar, Romila. The Past as Present: Forging
Contemporary Identities Through History. Aleph Book Company, 2014.
Chakravarti, Uma. Gendering Caste: Through a
Feminist Lens. Stree, 2003.
Matilal, Bimal Krishna. Moral Dilemmas in the
Mahabharata. Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 1989.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe:
Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press,
2000.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. Rethinking Modernity:
Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Kakar, Sudhir. The Indians: Portrait of a People.
Viking, 2007.
Divakaruni, Chitra Banerjee. The Palace of
Illusions: A Novel. Doubleday, 2008.
Ghosh, Amitav. The Great Derangement: Climate Change
and the Unthinkable. University of Chicago Press, 2016.
Hawley, John Stratton. Three Bhakti Voices: Mirabai,
Surdas, and Kabir in Their Time and Ours. Oxford University Press, 2005.
Menon, Nivedita. Seeing Like a Feminist.
Penguin/Zubaan, 2012.
Critchley, Simon. Tragedy, the Greeks, and Us.
Pantheon Books, 2019.
Comments
Post a Comment