Bhimsen: Episode 67

159 comments

1. First!! – EEE HAAA…

2. Prem,

   The narrative first says that Satyaki went to the forest along with the Pandavas and Krishna. Later, it says that Bhima puts down Satyaki in the list of dead. Is this just an error or is it meant to convey something else?

   Sriram

   1. Sorry, Sriram and Vinayak — Satyaki in the list of the dead is an error, correcting it now. He dies along with the rest when Dwaraka collapses.

3. One qs. if Satyaki went with the other Pandavas into the forest to celebrate how did he end up dying with D and the Pandavas’ children?

   1. Like I just said, was an error. 🙁 Not because he was with Bhim so how could he die — Dhristadyumna was with Bhim too; some of them went back to camp, and Satyaki could have. Error not of improbability, but because Satyaki is one of the people who survives the war, and much later, it is his quarrel with Kritavarma that sets off a chain of events that ends in the destruction of the Yadava clan and the deaths of Krishna and Balarama. My bad.

4. Engrossing and Excellent as usual. Is this the last episode? Are there more episodes to follow ? The last couple of sentences does seem to indicate that this is the end.

   1. The last episode in the war segment — a few more to follow on post-war developments. I’d think a dozen tops more to go, give or take a couple.

5. Super episode. Surely, Bhim must be the next tragic hero after Karna in Mahabharata.

6. Regarding Y’s switching on and off of dharma, I think he is pretty consistent w.r.t dharma filtered through caste and clan. He does not consider Karna a Kshatriya, so he is ok with the way he was killed. He is not happy with the way Drona was killed, since he is a Brahmin. Again in the forest episodes, he lets go Jayadratha away but wants a tribal to be killed for laying hands on Draupadi. He gives more importance to the birth rather than the deeds of the person when it comes to right or wrong.

   Again my opinion, could be wrong.

   1. Yeah, you are more or less on target. But that is precisely the problem if you try to set him up as the man who absolutely stands for truth and honor and sugar and spice and all things nice: for such, right and wrong should be absolutes; in fact, that is how he is described, but then it turns out prejudice guides his moral compass just as much as it does everyone else’s. Makes him human, admittedly, and that is not a bad thing. Trouble though is, Bhima is a black or white type of person, less casteist and more egalitarian than any of the others, and thus cannot understand people who make such fine distinctions.

7. Another amazing episode. Usually we get to read / see the end of the war as a triumph for Pandavas with no window into the minds of the warriors.

   The battle was more realistic than the usual version seen on TV and supported by this wiki entry on Gandhari:
   “Gandhari made a single exception to her blindfolded state, when she removed her blindfold to see Duryodhana rendering his entire body except his loins invulnerable to any foe. This was however to prove fruitless as Bhima smashed Duryodhana’s thighs in their decisive encounter on the eighteenth day of the Kurukshetra battle, a move both literally and figuratively below the belt.”

   Your version is more believable.

   However, it is strange that none of the brothers chose to be with B even for a few minutes, specially since he was the one who had finished it all for them. It is not uncommon to have people seek the company of winners. In moments like these one feels if he really had someone close to him at all – except for Abhimanyu for a brief period.

   1. Yes Mahabarat is not a typical “they lived happily ever after” – it gives details of what happened to each one of the warrior who took part in it including Krishna.

   2. Yeah well — I can’t recall ever hearing of a man dying of a broken thigh, so this ‘rendering inviolate’ business seemed a tad silly, it is not as if the thigh is all that important a target, especially in war as opposed to more formalized exhibition-style combat. A more plausible reason for disagreement would be whether B was right or wrong to hit D when he was weaponless, is what I figured while trying to visualize how the battle could have played out.

      As for the brothers, N and S wouldn’t really count, nor would they have the confidence to side with B against the heavyweights. A in the heat of the moment would tend not to want to take sides between his brother on one hand and his best friend’s brother on the other — besides, unlike B who instinctively backs people he thinks are in the right, as for instance he did with Dhristadyumna after the killing of Drona, Arjuna never intervenes in such cases. He is a self-centered chappie — quick to sense his own hurts, but not as quick to sense those of the others.

8. Brilliant Episode ! Pathos inducing …. beginning of the nothingness that engulfs after completion of a major task.

9. Waiting to see how Prem deals with Aswathama – knowing what Bhim does to his enemies (the way he crushes his kaurava cousins) he would definitely want to finish him off, come what may.

   1. I dont think Aswathama dies. He is supposed to be a chiranjeevi (who never dies). From what I remember, in his duel with Arjuna, he and Arjuna tries to use bramhastra, then krishna (or somebody else) forces them to stop using it, as it would cause great destruction.
      Aswathama is unable to control his brahmastra and is humiliated. But he does not die.

      1. Yes I have read that – it is Vyasa who stops them both (Arjun can recall the weapon but Aswathama cannot – it causes damage to Uthara’s son but Krishna gives him life again) and curses him to wander the earth without salvation. But I’m expecting a change in Prem’s narrative 🙂

      2. Aswathama’s story is another instance of the cross pollination between the mahabharatha and the myths from the west. It is similar to Cane’s end in Old testament. Cain also lives forever and has a mark on his forehead so that no one will harm him.

   2. Not at this point expecting to do too much with Ashwathama — I have some thoughts of bringing him briefly back in maybe in the next episode then keeping him for the very end, but as yet half-formed ideas, so will leave it to play itself out in time 🙂

10. Usually they finish the fight at the moment he is hit at below the belt but here the below the belt hit is used as a immobilizer which is followed by a crash… yes more logical (I’m almost positive it was your add-on)

    1. Yeah — the battle scene was pretty much my thing. I was trying to visualize it like a stunt director would in a movie, and then write those images up. The blow to the ribs to finish off the challenge, the blow to the thigh as an inadvertent incident where B is looking to administer the coup de grace but D in twisting away from the blow gets it on his legs, and the final blow more aimed at Balarama than at D, is how I saw it.

11. Nice episode. Great description of the nothingness Bhim feels now that his lifelong mission is over. Something made worse by therealisation that there are more enemies to be dealt with. Bhim’s life is depressing right now.

12. Prem,
    Good job,though was quite abrupt.Wanted to read how you would depict Krishna indicating to Bhima through twigs how to end Duryodhana,but you made it all of Bhim’s doing.Will you address the final walk to heaven with the dog?Would like to see Bhim’s perspective when he falls down.Waiting to read the forthcoming episodes

    1. I didn’t go anywhere near that whole Krishna with the twig thing quite deliberately.

       I don’t see the logic in this below the belt business — that is more suited to stylized combat than to war, and to my way of thinking, the subsequent extrapolation of storytellers with their heads in the romantic clouds and their feet not too grounded in the realities of war.

       1. If you see both Mahabharat and Ramayana have stylised combat interspersed with war! that’s what makes these stories ever lasting and evokes romance.Whether it’s the 10 heads of Ravan ,the laxman rekha or below the belt Duryodhana or the eclipse created by krishna to end jayadratha-logic has to be put on the backburner.In case of mahabharat- what it shows is inspite of the 5 pandavs it was Krishna who made all the difference,and as Balaram says it was Duryodhana who was more skilled-but maybe Bhima who was hungrier for revenge and victory.Again your viewpoint and depiction-but if logic was the keystone-Karna couldn’t have been concieved!

          1. Oh, Karna could have been conceived, and quite logically at that. We’ll get to that in time.

             1. Prem,let us hear what naughty thoughts you have about Karna being Conceived?Adultery/Artificial insemination…
                On a lighter note-Infants don’t enjoy infancy as much as Adults enjoy Adultery !

          2. As to the other bit, about Krishna’s omniscient role in the Mahabharat, that is not what Jayam or even Bharatam says — that was a later addition, with the epic itself being recast primarily as a showcase for Krishna as the Vasudeva of the age. Not dissing it, that is the epic as it stands and I am fine with that — but there have been even earlier versions that detail all these events without however leaning on Krishna to make every single thing happen.

             1. this is one thing I don’t get about it. I am well aware of the historical sense of the way mahabharata developed, but what I don’t get is why Krishna became a GOD and not one of the pandavas? this historical narrative and also your narrative seem to characterize Krishna somewhat along the lines of Chanakya, but people almost forgot chanakya but Krishan becomes a GOD. not sure why that happened from a historical perspective. are we missing some pieces from history?

    2. Oh sorry, forgot the other bit. I haven’t yet figured out where to end this thing and how, but I suspect I need the walk to heaven. MT in the original uses it as his prologue; when I started doing this version I skipped that and went straight to the kids appearing before the gates of Hastinapura; now I’m thinking I might circle back to MT’s beginning, and use that as my own ending. Will see how it plays out in the mind 🙂

       1. Isn’t the walk to the heavens too much of a fantasy. It could have been a pilgrimage all of them were undertaking which ended in disaster.

          1. Depends how you play it, I would think — haven’t thought that far ahead yet, though. 🙂

    3. Krishna depicting with the twigs is when Bhima is battling Jarasandha, not Duryodhana. According the the “accepted” version, Jarasandha was torn apart and stitched back together by his mother (or someone else) when young. Hence, when Bhim also does the same to him, the two pieces of his body come back together to form a whole body again. That is when Krishna splits the twig and throws the two pieces in the opposite direction.

       Remembered another interesting piece: Only one of the following were destined to live a full life – Bhima, Duryodhana, Jarasandha, Keechaka and Bakasura.

       1. Yeah, but if I remember right, when B and D are battling, K points at the thigh to remind B of some vulnerability. Not too sure of the details without cross checking, but I figured I’m not going anywhere close to reading the conventional narrative while trying to write this one — can get too tempting to take stuff from there and reinterpret here. 🙂

          1. Right. Krishna slaps his thigh while cheering Bhima, which was also meant as a reminder to Bhima about his vow of breaking Duryodhana’s thigh.

          2. In the BR Chopra version, on the night before the battle with Bhima Duryodana is summoned by Gandhari. She plans to make his entire body invulnerable by just looking at him using her “visual power” accumulated over the years of blindfolding.

             When D is on his way to meet G, Krishna meets him on the way and asks him if he is not ashamed to stand naked in front of his mother and coerces him to wear a loin-cloth at least. So when G sees D, she makes all his body parts immune to any attack except the ones covered by the loin-cloth.

             And during the battle Krishna points to B by slapping his own thigh.

             1. An alternate version I have heard is that when Duryodhana was born he was dipped into a river with magial powers and he was held at his loins. Not sure if there exists a narrative depicting this

             2. Yeah, sort of like Achilles being dipped in the Styx by his heel. I think in later years, there was considerable cross pollination.

13. Balaram’s out-of-the-blue appearance just as Duryodhana and Bhim are readying themselves to fight each other was a tad dramatic and too much of a coincidence to be believed. I guess you chose to stick to the accepted story in this instance.

    1. Yeah, more or less — Balarama would for all his wanting to stay away have kept abreast of what was happening, and likely decided to return once the result of the war became apparent. That he lands up there just when these two square up is an accident of timing I thought about, and figured I could live with. Besides, it is Balarama’s strictures that really angers Bhim, so his presence at the venue was more or less mandatory — more so, because I wanted to explore his state of mind after his final battle, and it would have been harder to do without some strong emotional prod; defeating D would have brought relief and a touch of weariness, but not the overpowering angst that comes from being so totally misunderstood.

14. Actually, I was expecting Bhim to hit below the belt – and by that I meant not on the thigh but on the loins or the pubes. That I felt was probably Bhim’s punishment to Duryodhana for all the injustices meted out to Druapadi, disrobing her, asking her to accept him as yet another man in her life in addition to the existing five, etc. The hit below the belt to have constantly been berated by Duryodhana all his life that he was born to an impotent father; for Duryodhana to also have doubted Bhim’s potency.

    I did not mind much about Krishna’s involvement in the decision making – you could have taken both options. Personally, I believe this was closer to the truth as it would have been difficult for Bhim to have heard/seen Krishna referring to Duryodhana’s thigh.

    Also, hitting below the belt in a one-to-one combat even if it is war, was probably not on as per the Yudha Dharma. Many rules were broken and this was just one more. And Yudhishtra would have felt that it was probably not required at this stage of the war given that the war was more or less won with only Duryodhana left.

    1. You know, all these notions of dharma and adharma miss one point: we are talking of human beings, not automatons.

       Here is a man who for 13 years has been the first and only port of safety for his family; a man who for 17 days has fronted the war effort, playing the lightning rod and making himself the prime target for the combined might of the Kauravas. A man who when the family wanted him to gave up the first woman he ever loved; a man who always put his comforts second to the needs of his mother and brothers; a man who systematically destroys the enemies that have plagued his family.

       The last, deadliest enemy is before him. He has had through presence of mind had to divert a potential disaster his elder brother caused by issuing a generic challenge [which incidentally is no creation of mine, but is from the conventional narrative], he is fighting for life against a highly skilled enemy, and he finally overcomes that enemy. If I were him, I’d look for acknowledgment, for a smattering of applause, or at least a kind word — when instead he is greeted with condemnation, he is entitled as a human being to question it; in fact, he would be inhuman if he did not.

       Y can sit on the sidelines and say it was probably not necessary to kill D — like he did earlier with say Jayadratha. Not that I have fought a war, but I would think if there is one thing a person cannot and will not be in the heat of battle, it is philosophical, or rational even.

       1. True – the least his brothers could have done is to applaud his effort, closed ranks and defend him against Balarama’s verbal assault. The famed Pandava unity has cracked in this point? Kunti’s purpose of the common wedding is defeated, I would think. They have lived in exile and managed to keep their sense of purpose. Now when their enemy is down, they cannot help bickering about the method?

          As mentioned by Vineet, after winning the biggest battle of his life, Bhim finds himself all alone. Tough to imagine what Y and Balarama want here?

          Does Bhim ever turn around and put Y in his place, given that he knows he has done singlehandedly done most of the hard work, without ever reacting like, say Arjuna has. Probably not at this point of time, but later perhaps?

          1. No, one of the characteristics of Bhim is that no matter how much he disagrees, he will never ever publicly challenge his brother’s will, or question his decisions.

             Actually, I was thinking while responding to the questions about Bhim and his contempt for his brother, which supposedly contrasts with the conventional narrative: wouldn’t that be the narrative where Bhim asks Sahadeva to bring him fire, so he can burn his elder brother’s hand for having staked all on the dice?

             1. Bhim asking Sahadeva to bring him fire – was the imagination of Mahakavi Subramanya Bharati in his Panjali Sabatham (Tamil). Not sure if it was part of the conventional narrative.

15. Another generic comment not specifically related to this episode. Something that has been rankling in me since the beginning of this narration. Thought I will let it out now – with the war all over and only the closing ceremonies left.

    We live in an age where breaking rules is second nature to us. We run red lights, pay bribes to policeman for even something as mundane as a passport verification enquiry, pay the registrar while registering our new home, violate building norms saying that the norms are not practical and then apply for regularization, par cars at no parking zones, watch illegal/pirated DVDs, etc.

    This is an age where we are now desensitized to breaking rules. And probably the reason why we cannot understand or accept the fact that Yudhishtra was very righteous. He was righteous with respect to the norms set in those days. A righteousness that set him apart from the other kshatriyas. The reason why he was liked and the reason why he was considered to be more rightful to the Hastinapur throne. That he was righteous is something that we fail to see and accept from today’s context. And hence we come up with manufactured ways of putting him in poor light; of character assassination; and by justifying the misdeeds of others in the war.

    There is no place in the conventional narrative when Yudhishtra resorts to adharma. Even in the Drona episode, he agrees to only add the ‘hataha’ part that gets drowned in Krishna’s panchajanya. MTV or Prem have conveniently added many aspects from Bhim’s perspective that puts Yudhishtra in poor light – including that of Draupadi’s wedding to all five. But even if that were true, Yudhishtra still does not do anything outside the cloak of Dharma that he wears. He stays righteous throughout the Mahabharata.

    By portraying him in poor light, I believe it just dilutes the Pandava side from what they were fighting for. The war just becomes another fight for power, for the throne. Dilutes what they stood for. If all is fair in love and war, if the Pandavas felt that they can break rules to win the war and get at the kingdom, what stopped them from waging a war immediately after the dice game was lost? That was the time when they already had a kingdom (the one that they lost in the game), they had completed the Rajasuya yaga and hence would have definitely had many kings on their side, and more would have joined them if they knew that it was all lost over a crooked game of dice.

    What stopped them then? Was it not Yudhistra’s sense of dharma? Was it not because the brothers accepted that fact and agreed to go with their brother’s sense of justice? And only when they were denied their due, as was promised in the game of dice, after 13 years do they go to war?

    The trouble I find with this narration is that sans the “sense of justice” that Yudhihtra has, the Mahabharata becomes less of an epic. If no longer holds the exalted position that it does in us. I do not mind the “humanizing” part of the narration – but the crux of the story, the central line in the epic, that it is a fight between dharma and adharma, should not get lost.

    And in that crux, it is our Yudhishtra who figures most. He is the pivot of dharma that the pandavas fight around. By painting Yudhishtra in a poorer light, of being manipulative and not being impartial in his sense of justice, the story loses its central theme. And boils down to be a dramatic fight for power, a war that satisfies many egos.

    1. “Character assassination”? A touch too strong, surely?

       You mention the ‘hataha’ bit. Let’s see: so Y’s dharma tells him that as long as he mutters, sotto voce, that Ashwathama is an elephant, all is well? If truth telling was an inviolate norm for him, he would have refused to be part of the entire charade, no — rather than participate, and then add under his breath a word he knew, with or without the conch blast, would never be heard?

       To suggest that Y is portrayed in a uniformly bad light is to forget many things about this narrative — not least the fact that Y single-handedly decides/insists on doing all that is humanly possible to avoid war, up to and including sending Krishna as emissary to ask for five villages, which goes against the mood of his brothers.

       The Mahabharat was always a battle of succession — all efforts of the Pandavas were aimed at securing a kingdom, and all attempts of the Kauravas were to stop them from achieving that goal by any means possible.

       If “justice” or even “revenge” were the driving factors, if it was always about dharma versus adharma, how is that consonant with saying we can avoid war if you give us X amount of territory? And if you can’t give us X, how about a reduced amount, say a smaller x? Does that then mean dharma and adharma can coexist if both parties have their own space?

       I won’t argue the point about whether this narration has the larger themes of the conventional one. Maybe not — but if the objective was to stick to those lines, then why bother writing it when that version already exists?

       And then there is Y. Again. And this constant angst that he has been painted in a poorer light — addressed repeatedly elsewhere — omits one central point: an impartial outside observer can see actions of a whole spread of characters one way; a participant in an event will likely see it another — and this is the narration of one participant, from his particular point of view. A Dhritarashtra would probably see all this differently.

       A Duryodhana would likely ask, my father was the eldest, he only voluntarily stepped aside for Pandu because of his own physical problem, but that does not mean Pandu’s sons have to automatically inherit — my right as the eldest son of the eldest son is incontrovertible. From his position therefore, all acts of Y and his brothers are aimed at depriving him of his rightful inheritance — and that is a perfectly valid viewpoint too.

       I could go through the list in similar fashion, changing the perspective every time. Why for instance is it inconceivable to imagine that Arjuna could harbor resentment over the fact that the woman he won through his skill had to be shared with others due to a notion of ‘dharma’ he did not personally subscribe to?

       To suggest that Arjuna felt that way dilutes the character of Y how?

       My point is this: the conventional Mahabharat sets out to tell a story one way, to introduce various themes, motifs, motivations. Absolutely fine, absolutely valid.

       This looks at the narrative differently — you may not find in this the same themes that draws you to the conventional story, but this one has its own themes, its own motifs — more human, less concerned with larger philosophical questions.

       To reject this narrative in part or in whole is absolutely fine, and the inalienable right of any reader; to say however that the other is the only way of looking at it is however not.

       1. Character assasination – a touch too harsh, yes. What I meant to say was, if you take away the only aspect of Yudhistra’s life – i.e. his dharma – then it is tantamount to character assasination.

          I agree – the motifs in the conventional narrative may not find a place in this which is from a single character’s POV – but the central theme of dharma v/s adharma is violated here if you take away Yudhistra’s righteousness. That was the point that I found hard to take.

          The hatah part is where I find Yudhistra was at his best. He sees Drona running havoc and him the risk of losing the battle – the battle that means most to him and his brothers. And then Krishna comes up with this devious plan – and bheema and Dhristadyuma agree to it. However, there is a catch. What if Drona does not accept Bheema’s cry of victory? What if he does not believe that his son is dead? He relies on Yudhistra – that aspect alone makes the character of Yudhistra tower over the rest. That the commander-in-chief of the opposite party chose to rely on his word says a lot about Yudhistra.

          So now, Yudhistra agrees to play the part – party due to desperation and that makes him human. He wants to win the war and churns out the Aswattamah hatah….Kunjarah! He wants to win, prepares himself to lie and then at the last minute has a change of heart. He cannot do it, it is not in him to say a lie; to cheat. And he blurts out the Kunjarah. But gets submerged in the conch blaring.

          What the above incident portrays is an immense read into Yudhistra’s character. Despite the odds, despite agreeing to lie, he just could not. It is one thing to look at this incident as Yudhistra’s inability to lie, inability to step away from his dharma and another cynically look at this as his way of justifying his own lie. But given his character till that point in time, you would think that he would have probably said kunjarah because he just could not cheat.

          The fact that Yudhistra took the decision to ask for just 5 villages instead of the entire kingdom also attributes his eagerness to avoid a war and at the same time protect his rightful inheritance. Duryodhana’s inflexibility forces him to go to war – something he would have avoided even at the cost of not avenging all the injustice faced by the Pandavas and Draupadi.

          I agree that there could have been differences in opinion among the brothers. Arjuna may have felt bad about Draupadi being wedded to all five brothers. All that still has space in the narration even with Yudhistra being righteous. This need not be compromised to add the other perspectives.

          I am not rejecting the entire narrative – I felt that by painting Yudhistra to not be all that righteous, takes everything away from the Pandavas. There was no reason for them to agree to the dice game thing after it got over. There was nothign bding them – they could have just gone back to Indraprastha and declare that the dice game was void. They need not have sat and watched Draupadi getting humiliated. They could not fight because they were then slaves and had no right to fight their injustices. They need not have spent 13 years in the forest. Instead they could have gathered their forces within an year or two and fought the Kauravas. After 13 years in exile do they not risk losing their relationships with other kings; they may even get forgotten. But still they did because that was the condition with which the dice game was played. They even risked the one year agyathavasa. All this was done because of Yudhistra’s insistence on fighting it out the right way, the path of dharma.

          Long story – and to sum up – I feel in this narration, the yudhistra part was the only jarring aspect. Maybe, Bhim could have been a little more understanding and sympathetic of his elder brother for whom he was even ready to die in battle. 🙂

          1. Granting all you say, that actually plays into my point. All of this would be valid in the conventional narrative. They would even be enhanced, explained in greater depth, had the narrative been from Y’s point of view.

             However, this is the story of a person who is perhaps Y’s polar opposite — less shackled to the philosophical underpinnings of life, more apt to act and react as circumstances dictate.

             Such a person would not understand the motivations of a Yudhishtira — had I tried to incorporate such an artificial understanding, the character of Bhim would have become considerably diluted, which is not fair to *this* narrative and to *this* character.

             However, that does not devalue Yudhishtira — you look at it one way, I’ll suggest another:

             Bhim follows his brother’s lead in everything that matters; he accepts his leadership, he subjugates his own feelings and defers to his brother’s opinions at all crucial moments; he constantly stifles his own doubts about a particular course of action, and always allows his brother to dictate even the course of his own life.

             He even defends his right to do so against all others — even his favorite brother, Arjuna, when the latter is incensed. “He is your elder brother, and he is your king”, Bhima tells him, subjugating his own doubts, “and if you don’t do what is necessary to put him on the throne, I can and will.”

             You could equally argue that all of this underlines Y’s greatness, that a man with Bhim’s strength and ability is prepared to play a subservient role.

             All of that, a Bhima would do; all of that is consonant with his character, no matter from where you source its development. But to have him understand what is outside the scope of his intellect would be a reach I couldn’t make, not without so diluting the central character as to render this narration meaningless, merely so I could create some sort of philosophical connect between one story and another.

             You make the point about the epic being diluted because the spine has been taken away. But that is the thing: this is not an epic, nor does it ever pretend to be. This is a more basic story of a family ravaged by time and circumstance. To create or re-create a narrative of that kind, and at the same time to say wait a minute, it also has to adhere to another narrative of another sort, is to straddle two stools at the risk of falling between them.

             One other point: the raison d’etre of such recreations would be precisely what is happening here: by presenting a different point of view, such a narrative forces or at least tempts the reader to re-look at the original. Sometimes, this re-examination could result in rejection. At other times and for other people, it could result in re-affirmation. Either way, it brings such questions to the forefront, and permits, even prompts, the individual to think in a way a mere rehash of existing tropes never would.

             1. I agree – Bhim may not understand where Yudhistra comes from – it may be beyond him, or just that he does not care.

                But I guess in this narration, we get so close to Bheem, so much into his way of thinking, that we start to empathize him, begin to look at the other charaacters through his eyes and feel that Yudhistra was being foolish, scheming, unreasonable, or whatever is the mood at that point in time in the narration. That may be the conflict I faced since I have this hard cut character of Yudhistra etched in my mind. 🙂

                And again, if you go by all that you have said above about Bhim always being with his brother – it did not go well. As you said, maybe he did not understand Y’s motivation but trust him he did.

                The trust was not very evident in this narration – thought there was more room for contempt.

                But agree – I have not tried to analyze the characters in such depth before. This narration gave a fresh perspective. I was sharing this with one of my friends just this morning – he too reads this blog – and that this has actually motivated me to go back and re-read the original. This epic is so complex that you can derive a 100 interpretations and still feel that it was inadequately covered.

             2. Hmmm…I’ll take that as a complement; in the sense I at least got Bhim’s voice right. As for the balance, there is as you say always the conventional version, so Y’s place in the imagination is secure no matter what happens to his image here 🙂

             3. Oh yes!! you got Bhim’s voice right except for the part when he relates to Yudhistra. The narration does not bring out the love he has for his brother, the trust in his King. For Bhim to be ready to give his life for him (as he tells Arjuna during his standoff with Y), it has to be backed with something that is much stronger than the fact that Y is weak and also manipulated to marry Draupadi. That is probably the only missing link in this version.

                I agree – Bhim does everything as per Y’s wishes; does not rebel even when they lose everything; even after D’s humiliation; Bhim is ready to even lose his life for Y. But given that this is narrated in HIS POV, will Bhim not once think fondly about Y? Not once feel for Y? Try to at least see why Y is doing/saying things the way he does?

                From the initial days when he has disagreement with Y’s lofty standards, the narration slowly moved towards contempt. Was that also deliberate or is it just me feeling this way?

             4. No, I don’t see him trying to think things through from Y’s point of view.

                Be fond of him yes. Unquestioningly obey yes. Be prepared to put his life on the line yes. But not think of things from his point of view — that is easier said than done.

                Actually, one of the templates I drew on was my own relations with my father, which were stormy to say the least. I love him to bits; I wept like a baby when he died. But there were things he said I didn’t agree with and rebelled against [unlike Bhim, actually, who accepts even if he cannot understand]; when my uncles would try to make piece by suggesting I try to see things from his point of view, my invariable response would be, I am not him, therefore that is no more possible than it is for him to see things from my point of view and understand where I am coming from.

                I don’t think there is at any point any contempt for Y the person. A lack of understanding, yes. Again — it is possible for me to disagree bitterly with my father, and to hate what he is doing or saying in a particular instance. I have, to the point where I’ve left home thrice during my twenties; and to the point where for the last six years of his life I neither wrote nor called. Did I have contempt for him, or hate him? No way — I was fonder of him than he knew, but that does not mean I bought blindly into all that he said or did.

                I’ve tried to bring that sense into the narrative at times, of disagreement, and of one type of personality unable to understand the other type of personality. Contempt I think would be your read, not something I have tried to infuse.

             5. Prem, I agree with kalki here. In fact, this was exactly the point I was trying to make during our brief interaction in the last episode. To me, the most jarring aspect of this narrative is the lack of rationale or characterization which would make someone like Bhim stand quiet while his wife is being molested. I did read your justification regarding joint families etc., but I don’t think that would explain a character as volatile & strong as Bhim not doing anything while his wife is molested.

                I think, in our effort to humanize the epic, we should not lose sight of the cold fact that pandavas stuck to their version of dharma thru thick and thin inspite of repeated attempts to kill them in a non-combat scenario, they value their word and left their kingdom after a mere dice game (a kingdom they built from the ground up). What will a person like Bhim be thinking when he stands quiet like draupadi is getting molested? what will a person like Bhimbe thinking when he agrees to give up kingdom and goto forest? Can a mere loyalty to his king alone make him do it, don’t you think he needs to have some notions of dharma which makes him follow him? even bad guys know in their heart of hearts what is right, so why is so difficult for someone like Bhim to know in his heart that Y is dharmic and not hypocritical? if even enemies in war are willing to believe Y’s word, why will Y’s own bro have so lil value for his righteousness? I think Prem, you are probably making a mistake in comparing these characters to your own personal life experiences with your father and joint family. We should look at other known momentous characters in known history to possibly dwell into what someone like Bhim might be thinking. For example, take the example of Gandhi & Vallabhai Patel ( Gandhi and patel will be Y & Bhim, while Gandhi and Nehru will be Y & Arjuna..there is a lil bit of lonelyness and sadness in Patel’s life too). Patel disagreed vehemently with Gandhi many many times, but he knew about Gandhi’s righteousness and never doubted his intentions, in the end Patel many times went with Gandhi’s word inspite of not agreeing with him. but to think that patel thought gandhi is a hypocrite is really a stretch. To further add to this parallel, 1000 yrs from now, people might as well find it very difficult to believe that someone like Gandhi existed( just like Einstein predicted) and might seek to dumb him down and make it a battle for the right to rule India between the brits and congresswalas. No?

                bottomline is, going by your own characterization of bhim, it is really hard to fathom or expect someone like Prem’s bhim to stick with Y inspite of his so much dislike for Y’s ways and methods, inspite of him thinking that Y is a hypocrite who turns dharma on and off at his convenience. I don’t think joint family alone explains this part of Bhim’s character. Also, if you don’t mind me saying, it looks like you rebelled and took your own decisions and went your own way inspite of your father’s objections, eventhough you were deeply touched and cried like a baby when he passed away. in contrast, in your narrative, Bhim never really rebelled against his king/elder bro, he always, all thru his life stood by his bro thru thick and thin, even when that bro lost entire kingdom. I am not able to understand how you are seeking to explain Bhim’s characterization using your experience with your father, afterall , we are not questioning bhim’s strong feelings for his bros. A volatile character like bhim is more likely to rebel just like you did, don’t you think? unless, Bhim too, at some level, bought into prevailing mores and values and honor etc. but there is no evidence of his buying into that stuff anywhere in the narrative.

    2. I don’t mean to play the devil’s advocate here, mostly because I’ve quite enjoyed this re-telling of my all time favorite “story” — but I have to applaud Kalki for raising the same doubt I’ve been having for some time now.

       Adding a post-modern twist to a tale that’s been ingrained into the collective consciousness through different forms of media, is definitely an interesting experiment. I applaud Prem here for his assiduousness in keeping up with the daunting task at hand, and by no means wish to belittle his effort. It’s really been a wonderful re-telling.

       I’d compare this re-telling to a “voiceover” driven movie, where what happens on screen is analyzed and interpreted by a single character, leaving little or no room for any alternative explanation. Giving life to emotions inside a hardened warrior like Bhimsen, when there is little proof or otherwise that such a thing existed, is again a nice ‘experiment’.

       But taken as a whole there are far too many deviations from the original/conventional narration. Yudhisthir is definitely portrayed in negative light and his own brothers think of him as an opportunistic wimp! Krishna is a strategist, not the omnipotent deity that we know of; Arjuna — who by all accounts was the primary hero of the battle is relegated to the background. It’s all about Bhimsen (fair enough, since he’s the centerpiece here) and his interpretation of events, which by the way just sound too post-modern. There’s added complexity by way of Bhim’s conflicting emotions, when simplicity in terms of framing the events is desired — taking away the demi-god status of the Pandavas, portraying Krishna as an ordinary king etc.

       It’s all interesting, no doubt, but having read the entire Amar Chitra Katha (some 48 volumes, comic books if you will) recently, I can’t buy it for long. Not long enough to drown my childhood memories of the C Rajgopalachari version I read, and definitely not the graphic images of Amar Chitra Katha!

       1. Prem, you surely have re-ignited the flame here. And we see how we are struggling to come to terms with the traditional way of how the Mahabharat is represented (with the folklore and curses and fanciful events, Krishna being given God’s status, the narration suggesting that the story itself being much more than an internal squabble in a family and conflict for land).

          If you take the Mo-Maya out of that and present it with an objective view with the key players very human like, we mortals brought up on the fancier version (no offense meant) find it difficult to digest. At the very least it is surely food for thought 🙂

          The story being passed on from yore, sure has made legends out of many characters. This narration surely helps in seeing through some of them!

          1. “Struggling” is probably not the right word. Proclivity/Preference is what defines the concept of choice, and in my case here, the argument slightly against a more “complex” version.

             Since I raked up the film analogy up in my post, a “Memento” is a fine work of (post-modern) art, but can it beat the simplicity of a “Godfather”? Even comparing apples and like, surely “The Sopranos” doesn’t beat The Godfather! Or so I happen to think, anyway.

             1. But see, here’s the thing: does a Memento even want to *beat* the simplicity of Godfather, or set out to do that?

                I believe a narrative, any narrative, deserves to be seen in its own right. Yes there will be the inevitable conflicts with other narratives, and that can — as I keep finding out here — fuel interesting discussions.

                The bottomline though would be, no one version needs to be *the* one, in the sense of carrying with it the compulsion on all other narrators to adhere, to paint within the same lines it draws.

                If every mafia/crime movie set out to be the Godfather, we’d tire of it pretty soon, no?

             2. Though it is futile to compare, I for one thought the Soprano’s was much better but hey what do I know? The Godfather was good no doubt and any movie in sepia and set in the early 20th century will find romantics drooling over but the Soprano’s was a hugely more difficult task from a director’s perspective.

          2. Yeah, and that sense of ownership is understandable, so I don’t see this is a flame anyway, never have.

             What I would have a problem with would be if one of those fundamentalist idiots began hurling bricks through my bedroom window, demanding to know how I dared insult one of the greatest epics of all time — you know the kind of thing 🙂

             1. Just to clarify the re-igniting flame comment was made wrt your narrative regenerating interest and making us see things through a new light.

                Definitely was not trying the ‘How can you defile the holy epic’ routine 🙂

       2. But that is the thing, Saket — who said you had to replace your ACK version or the Rajaji version with this?

          About proofs — I frankly did not let that bother me too much, or at least as much as consistency. What proof is there of anything at all even in the master narrative anyway? It started out as some 8000 verses. By the time the disciple told the story it became 24,000. Next thing you know, it is 90,000-plus. Clearly there has been extrapolation, to the order of three, four times the original storyline, and somewhere in there, stories have been added, motivations ascribed, dialog invented… to the point where you don’t know [more so given the lack of a printed copy of the source text] just what is *true* or *false* any more.

          The thoughts and emotions I write in for Bhim have likely no factual basis, but in that it does not differ from much of the conventional narrative — that is a work largely of the imagination, and so is this. Hence my point about consistency — I only try and make sure that anything he does or says is consistent with the character as it has evolved through this narration.

          Yes, there has been deviation. Quite a lot, too. But then, I would think if you researched and wrote the history of my family, it would differ substantially from if I were to write it myself.

          In the case of Bhim, it would be a problem if I seek to argue that *this* is the real narrative, that the demi god version is fake and a concoction of many fevered imaginations. I do no such thing, however — this is a version, and that is all it is, and hopefully there is space in the public imagination for this to coexist with all other narratives, conventional or otherwise.

          Had a sudden, amusing thought: Imagine if I finished this and started off on one of the two things I have vaguely considered: redoing Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjaya from Karna’s pov or the other malayalam master work from Draupadi’s point of view. Likely, half the time I’ll be fielding questions on the order of ‘But you were the one who said in your Bhim that…’ 🙂

          1. Prem, I never suggested that your version or MTV’s version shouldn’t co-exist, only my preference for the conventional narrative. Had I been so impudent, I would not be following your episodes with such eagerness (speaking of which, I probably broke my blogosphere hibernation today, which must have lasted at least 6 months :))

             The other point, if it was drowned in between my rambling thoughts was that the Mahabharat, in its conventional/pristine form alone is a treasure trove of thematic depth, plot, character-driven narrative and so on. By adding a few character motivations here and subtracting a few there, it probably takes away the focus from the intrinsic merit of the story, of which there is enough to expand till the cows come home.

             I like “complexity” in stories as much as anyone else — character motivations, the humanizing of heroes, the concept of “duality” and so on. It serves as good fodder for the brain, but what I see here, and I mean no offense whatsoever, is a filtering of the story, where the filter is defined by the mores/conventions of present day society! I happen to like the conventional, the more “fanciful” version if you will, simply because I was and still continue to be in awe of its thematic richness. If additions were done to the original narrative and imagination stretched to the limit, I say it’s as good an example of imagination as we’ve seen — perhaps since time immemorial.

             1. Oh, I agree with all of that — I am an epic freak, and the Mahabharat remains my favorite of all time. And strangely, I haven’t attempted to use any contemporary filters in this retelling.

                MT makes a point, when he says he has neither added to nor taken away from the original storyline of the Mahabharat, as set out in Jayam. I have, he said, only tried at times to expand on the silences [come to think of it, one such is coming up I think next week 🙂

                When you think of this version, it might help not to think of the conventional narrative, from which it draws nothing, but to see it more as being sourced in that original, now largely lost, first critical edition of the epic.

                Incidentally, a few people on here have already mentioned this book — but you might want to try reading Yuganta, by Irawati Karve. I did over the weekend. Brilliant.

             2. Thanks for the recco, Prem. I intend to check out Mrityunjaya as well..

    3. The fact that Yudhishtra marries Draupadi by itself (not going into whether he tried to influence Kunti or his other brothers) is not a righteous act. Again, when Draupadi, his wife, pleads with Y (being Virata’s confidante) to save her honor from Keechaka, his silence betrays his righteousness. The thought of spending another 13 years in the forest won over his sense of righteousness in that instance. Add these two to the war incidents (Dhrona’s and Karna’s death) and you have enough material from the conventional version to question his character. The Arjuna-Yudhishtra war of words in the middle of the war is also part of the conventional narrative and it shows the kind of contempt Arjuna has towards his elder brother for coveting Draupadi and manipulating their mother to succeed in his scheme. If Arjuna had feelings of contempt towards Y, why is it hard to accept Bhim having similar feelings towards his elder brother?

       1. Prem,
          Thanks first of all for allowing us in having a wonderful discussion on Mahabrarata.

          IOI also have a similar question as Kalki.

          I mean I do not get a sense of bondedness that must have been present between the pandavas from your writing. (Maybe I have missed it out)
          Without a sense of affection towards each other, it would have been impossible for them to stick together through out their life.

          Having fight between brothers is understandable, as it is bound to happen. But I do not see instances of where Bhim show genuine affection towards his brothers.
          I think there was an admiration of Arjuna’s prowess, and one instance of recognition of administrative capablities of Nakula and sahadeva.

          But other than that Bhim comes up as pretty much an introvert.

          May be the conventional narrative itself does not have this kind of show of affection.

          My basic query is what keeps the pandavas together during to the extent that they are always united even under duress.

          My apologies if I had missed something obvious.

          Regards
          Magesh

          1. There is as much bonding here as there is in the conventional narrative. Maybe more. The Mahabharat as I recall it does present the picture of five brothers united by purpose, but there is nothing in there of the brothers bonding as we would today.

             Here, there is actually more — as witness for instance the many references to B and A practicing together, discussing things together, etc. N and S would be a unit, with complementary skills. And typically in a joint family, the patriarch — which here would be Y — did not mix too closely with those below him in the hierarchy, not out of pride but because that distance had to be maintained in order to be able to take the hard decisions that sometimes become necessary.

             What keeps them together? The concept of family, of brothers united against the fates. Often, that is all there is. Tough to understand, perhaps — but then I’ve looked at husbands and wives who fight bitterly all the time, and wondered what on earth keeps them together.

             The other adhesive is the mother, who has always gone the extra mile – up to and including ensuring that the brothers shared a wife — to ensure that nothing breaks them up.

             Actually, there is in some narratives a dialog between Karna and Duryodhana, where the latter talks of strategically creating rifts between the sons of Kunti and Madri, and Karna tells him, forget it, Kunti ensured nothing of the kind would happen when she got Draupadi married to all five.

             There is that link, there is self-interest, the feeling of family that is heightened by the fact that they are surrounded by dangers… plenty of adhesives, without the need for bonding as we understand it.

          2. Here is my two cents about the question of no bonding between Bhim and Yudhisthar or actually lack of show of bonding between B and Y, how many time it happens that when you expect somebody to be good at something, you don’t really show your appreciation that easily. Arjun, Nakul and Sahadev, being the younger ones, B sees them growing in front of him, sees them coming leaps and bounds. But for Y who was always supposed to be good leader and future king, anything he does is taken in that context and never really appreciated that much. B did appreciate Y when he notice that the way he builds the spy network while in Vanvas so its not that he doesn’t appreciate his brother’s skill at being his King, however he can be at best be said guilty of taking him for granted when it comes to be the Man to lead in the peace time.

             On a separate note, I think the real crux of this Narrative as Prem has also pointed out before is that somewhere in the conventional narrative, B was not given its due. He along with Arjuna was the strength of Pandavas and it was always A who was considered a Hero. B the loaner and real hero who never got it his due is the central theme and the hitting point.

             1. The analogy I draw between Bhim and Yudishitir is one which you typically in a “india” classroom. In Indian classrooms one always had a awe and appreciation for the academically brilliant (as the society values it more) vs. the athletic variety. The athletic variety (once labeled such) could never be academically brilliant and once in a while academic brilliance from the athletic kind is looked at by suspicion or labeled “fluke”

                I would venture the same dynamic is going on here, Y becuase of his constant association with gurus held that “academically brilliant” stature and Bhim was the athletic kind.

                My 2cents!

16. Prem, the pain and anguish of Bhim that you depict hits a raw nerve. Bhim almost comes across as a loner in the end. Unrequited in love (Bhim is one who does everything for Draupadi but never gets back what he entirely deserves), he does not have a friend like Arjun has (Krishna), ridiculed as a bully and idiot pretty much all his life, does not get the credit he deserves as a supreme warrior and for the deeds accomplished.

    As tragic (if not more) as Karna as someone pointed out.

    1. I would think — especially in light of some developments to follow [not trying to be mysterious, it is simply that writing this, while simultaneously travelling to Pune and spending considerable time with friends, left me with no leisure to consider the details of what-next — that is something I have to find time later today or tomorrow in time for Thursday’s episode] — that it is this central thought that prompted MT to write Randaamoozham in the first place, just as he wrote the screenplay/story of Oru Vadakkan Veeragatha, that I referred to in the tribute note on his birthday recently.

       The flawed, misunderstood hero is more than any other creation inspirational for a story teller, and Bhima fits that profile. While doing this episode and indeed so many others before this, the greatest challenge and the fun was to try and get into his skin. Writing the battle was easy — merely a matter of visualization. Writing the bit that follows — his going to the river, his reverting to childhood dreams, all of that stuff — took forever, simply because you had to forget who you were and try and be someone else, empathize, and through that empathy, try and figure out how he would have felt and what he would have thought.

       Sad… scary… and fascinating.

17. You know what.. Guys.. The discussions regarding the episodes are getting even more fascinating. I for one,am refreshing periodically just to look at new comments and Prem ‘s reply to them…

    1. *LOL* Tell me about it — it’s been totally fascinating and invaluable — the kind of questions people ask work as an ongoing litmus test about the logic of the narrative, and how strong or weak it is at various points.

18. Prem

    I rediscovered my love for the Mahabharata thanks to you and this unique POV style of narrative. I got my grandmother to recollect the Mahabharata and narrate it to me. The simple beauty of listening to her vivdly describing the war, the characters, their emotions rammed home to me the beauty and depth of our culture and our epics.

    I am not sure if you are as skilled a narrator as you are with written words, but a meeting/gathering in the metros to rehash Bhimsen, followed by an interaction with the readers would be great. If that could be accompanied by a reading, nothing like it.

    Thanks once again for this. I for one, wish , you would take a sabbatical from rediff and devote yourself full time to writing. : )

    1. Strange that you said this — these last few weeks, been getting similar and related questions in mail.

       The suggestions thus far include: (1) Doing a live chat on the blog using coveritlive, once the series ends; (2) Doing something like a q & a post, where once it is over people post their comments and discussions, and I respond on the fly like I’ve been doing here for individual episodes, only this covers the whole narrative. And then there was this girl who asked if I would sit down for a q & a she wants to videotape and put up on her blog.

       I’m not sure if I can in a finite span of time make it to all metros — but if there is interest, I certainly can do Bombay quite easily, and think of the others in time. Or alternately, go with one of the suggestions above.

       You guys decide 🙂

       1. How about throwing up a poll on the blog when the series is done? I am sure there would be a quite a few more who would be addicted to it by the time Bhimsen ends.

          1. How about you guys decide if you want to do a meet up in Bombay when this is done, hopefully mid-way through next month? 🙂 The open forum on blog is easily done, doesn’t need a poll anyway. But come to think of it, meeting a bunch of folks over beer for a chat could turn out to be great fun. Anyone want to work it out, I’m game

             1. For those not in Bombay, maybe the attendees can transcribe the beer and chat session?

19. Can’t say if I liked this episode.
    The feeling may be similar to that of other Pandavas of relief (D’s death) and resentment (B’s hurting of unarmed D).

    Anyways keeps me eager to look forward for next episode.

    KP

    1. I do not seem to get this line of argument. D lost his weapon during combat. That is to say B overpowered him and due to which he was un-armed so to speak. B gained this advantage during a fair combat!

       Putting it in simpleton terms, every warrior would lay down his arms if he felt he was about to loose and conveniently get away??

       I understand the kshatirya way etc, but in any combat being able to dismantle the opponent’s armory is a path to victory.

       1. Yeah, I didn’t much understand the fuss in the conventional narrative either. Maybe all these months of trying to get inside the guy’s head is making me too much like him — horrors! 🙂

       2. “every warrior would lay down his arms if he felt he was about to loose and conveniently get away??”

          There was probably a lot more shame attached to doing such a thing, than what we can comprehend in today’s terms. Shame worse than death, in all probability.

          Warriors lived and died on the battlefield — and accordingly were exalted for following the Kshatriya dharma.

          1. True. Equally, there was shame attached to running from the battlefield. That didn’t stop warriors from doing it all the time, though — even the conventional narrative is peppered with instances of everyone, up to and including the master warriors, being defeated and leaving the field rather than let the battle play out to the logical conclusion.

             Today we have lots of conventions that govern war — conventions that are routinely ignored, just as they were then. So it is not a reach to say someone who valued his life more than some notional honor would use the loophole.

             1. I have a friend who is in the Indian Army (a Captain who was part of numerous covert ops). According to him, during battle with the enemy, all a soldier thinks is how NOT to die. Among the list of the things he would die for during battle, country is the last thing that he would die for (even though that is the main reason he would have joined the army for).

                This is what he said – a soldier thinks first of himself – then his fellow soldiers right next to him, then his unit, his company, his regiment and finally comes the country. The soldier has to defend himself first. Then once that is done, he defends the soldiers next to him. They are like his shield, if they are killed then he is alone and he will be killed too. After that comes the unit – if the unit is safe then all the soldiers in the unit are safe, so he is safe. And so on….

                What he was trying to say was – the last thing on a soldier’s mind when in active battle is Jana Gana Mana and his country – all he is thinking is how to stay alive and he will use any means to achieve that goal.

20. This discussion forum seems even more hyperactive than usual, today. 🙂 Not complaining — just a note, leaving office now, not likely to access internet till tomorrow, so if there are subsequent messages and you get no replies, you know why.

21. A brilliant post to end the war Prem…the Bhim-Duryodhan battle was as good as I expected it to be.

    In the conventional narration Krishna supports Bhim on his killing Duryodhan, just like he eggs Arjuna to kill Karna when he was unarmed. But you have chosen to show Bhim as being unsupported in his act of killing D.
    But you have indeed portrayed the emotions going through Bhim quite beautifully.

    Cheers!!

    1. Thanks mate. Yeah, true — but then, in the Karna episode, A is confused and almost about to give up his best chance to kill the main enemy, which would necessitate Krishna’s urgent intervention. There was never any question in Bhim’s mind that his war would not end until D died at his hands, so there was no need to bring in K [as later narratives, which among other things sought to use the story largely as a showcase for the avtaar version of K and hence had him intervene in every aspect did].

22. posting it here again because adding it to kalki,prem exchange became too difficult to read.

    Prem, I agree with kalki here. In fact, this was exactly the point I was trying to make during our brief interaction in the last episode. To me, the most jarring aspect of this narrative is the lack of rationale or characterization which would make someone like Bhim stand quiet while his wife is being molested. I did read your justification regarding joint families etc., but I don’t think that would explain a character as volatile & strong as Bhim not doing anything while his wife is molested.

    I think, in our effort to humanize the epic, we should not lose sight of the cold fact that pandavas stuck to their version of dharma thru thick and thin inspite of repeated attempts to kill them in a non-combat scenario, they value their word and left their kingdom after a mere dice game (a kingdom they built from the ground up). What will a person like Bhim be thinking when he stands quiet like draupadi is getting molested? what will a person like Bhimbe thinking when he agrees to give up kingdom and goto forest? Can a mere loyalty to his king alone make him do it, don’t you think he needs to have some notions of dharma which makes him follow him? even bad guys know in their heart of hearts what is right, so why is so difficult for someone like Bhim to know in his heart that Y is dharmic and not hypocritical? if even enemies in war are willing to believe Y’s word, why will Y’s own bro have so lil value for his righteousness? I think Prem, you are probably making a mistake in comparing these characters to your own personal life experiences with your father and joint family. We should look at other known momentous characters in known history to possibly dwell into what someone like Bhim might be thinking. For example, take the example of Gandhi & Vallabhai Patel ( Gandhi and patel will be Y & Bhim, while Gandhi and Nehru will be Y & Arjuna..there is a lil bit of lonelyness and sadness in Patel’s life too). Patel disagreed vehemently with Gandhi many many times, but he knew about Gandhi’s righteousness and never doubted his intentions, in the end Patel many times went with Gandhi’s word inspite of not agreeing with him. but to think that patel thought gandhi is a hypocrite is really a stretch. To further add to this parallel, 1000 yrs from now, people might as well find it very difficult to believe that someone like Gandhi existed( just like Einstein predicted) and might seek to dumb him down and make it a battle for the right to rule India between the brits and congresswalas. No?

    bottomline is, going by your own characterization of bhim, it is really hard to fathom or expect someone like Prem’s bhim to stick with Y inspite of his so much dislike for Y’s ways and methods, inspite of him thinking that Y is a hypocrite who turns dharma on and off at his convenience. I don’t think joint family alone explains this part of Bhim’s character. Also, if you don’t mind me saying, it looks like you rebelled and took your own decisions and went your own way inspite of your father’s objections, eventhough you were deeply touched and cried like a baby when he passed away. in contrast, in your narrative, Bhim never really rebelled against his king/elder bro, he always, all thru his life stood by his bro thru thick and thin, even when that bro lost entire kingdom. I am not able to understand how you are seeking to explain Bhim’s characterization using your experience with your father, afterall , we are not questioning bhim’s strong feelings for his bros. A volatile character like bhim is more likely to rebel just like you did, don’t you think? unless, Bhim too, at some level, bought into prevailing mores and values and honor etc. but there is no evidence of his buying into that stuff anywhere in the narrative.

    1. Guys, due respect to all who are asking this question, but don’t you think this argument has begun to chase its own tail and needs to be given a rest?

       As far as I can see, your point is Bhim should have had some notion of dharma, hence he bought into whatever his brother said and did and looked up to Y as the embodiment of Dharma.

       Fair enough. But what is that view based on? The conventional narrative? Okay, what about the conventional narrative buttresses that argument? Y’s interpretation of Dharma, for instance, is that no kshatriya can in honor refuse a challenge to a duel, or to a game of dice, hence he plays. Does the conventional narrative say for instance that Bhim was okay with that? No. In fact, he wants to burn the hand that pledged his brothers and his wife.

       I could go on, but here’s my point: I don’t mean to diss your viewpoint; I have no reason to. Nor do I mean to show up Y as a characterless wimp — again, I have no reason to. Finally, I never intended to use my own experiences to interpret Bhim — if I used the argument, it is *merely* to underline the point that in joint families, it is often not necessary to think in a way identical to the patriarch — it is merely necessary to recognize that he *is* the patriarch, and that you owe him a duty that supersedes your own feelings on the subject du jour.

       I therefore argue that Bhim had that sense of duty [which is, in case you hadn’t noticed, an aspect of dharma]. And that hence, whatever disagreement he had he constantly sublimated; he even sublimated his own rage at the insult to Draupadi [the conventional narrative and mine both show him angry at the time, ready to shed blood, but is restrained by Y — so in what way do the narratives really differ here?]

       The problem is that you get a perception of Y as a wimp. Again, that is something I have tried to explain — you are seeing, in situations of constant stress, a man who is not brought up to handle these stresses — and you are seeing him through the eyes of a man who by contrast is made for such situations. So yeah, he would seem a little undercooked — had you seen him in peacetime situations, through his eyes or through the eyes of others who can recognize the qualities that make him a great peace time monarch, you would get another impression — but that is another narrative, another viewpoint, maybe another day.

       What I don’t get is this: why is it so difficult to understand that Bhim could have seen his brother as less than perfect? You don’t only follow and obey perfection — so there is really no dichotomy here. Incidentally, Bhim has his own notions of dharma [he says, for instance, that the kshatriya’s dharma is to honor the vows he makes, and if that vow is to kill Duryodhana then so be it. Y thinks the kshatriya dharma begins and ends with don’t kill someone who is defenseless. So what you have is not a case of one believing in dharma and one not, but merely two people having conflicting views of what that dharma is — and that is absolutely fine, there is nothing to say there is only one way of viewing anything, including the meaning of words like dharma, duty, et al. And incidentally, no, a volatile character like Bhim is not apt to rebel like I did — I rebelled in a different time and a different age, had I been born in my family a generation earlier, I would not have; vide the fact that one of my uncles is even more volatile than I am, but he accepted decisions he furiously disagreed with. What I keep trying to point out is, this relates to an age where people obeyed the elder, no matter what they themselves thought — they needed no further buttressing.

       And I think that I am pretty much all talked out on the subject. I am willing to accept that you have your viewpoint on why Bhim does what he does; I’ll ask that you accept mine. 🙂

       1. Prem, you got me wrong on two count, in my view

          1. It is not about Bhim and Y differing on what constitutes dharma. My question was about Bhim viewing Y from a decidedly negative angle, thinking of him as a hypocrite and as a wimp. You can differ with someone on what constitutes dharma, but to think your elder brother is wimp and a hypocrite with vehemence and still follow him in everything is not believable.

          2. You again got me wrong about accepting one another’s point of view. Each has his own POV, as I mentioned earlier I differ with you on many counts but did not bring them out because it is merely your take Vs my take. What I wanted to brought out was that the way you built your narrative, the characterization of Bhim did not gel well with someone who will goto forest just because his elder bro asked him to. SO, no prem, it is not about me accepting your POV. We are only discussing the characterization here, not arguing about which POV is correct

          1. 1. Yes it is. Or are you suggesting that Bhim would, while watching his elder brother play the part of the village idiot in that dice chamber, have felt — what, admiration? Of course he will differ with Y and still follow him — for him, there is no greater dharma than family, no greater duty that what he owes that family, and nothing greater in life than to lay that life at service to that family, of which in his mind Y is the unquestioned head. All of which is a point I have made time out of mind.

             2. Okay let me try it this way. In the conventional narrative, which is what everyone is using as template, Bhim violently protests the dice game. Bhim excoriates his brother in open assembly [not a nice thing to do, no? he not only treats him with contempt, but does it in front of strangers and enemies]. he openly threatens bodily harm to his eldest brother. [I would point out, superfluously, that he does none of those things in THIS narrative].

             So tell me, why then does Bhim meekly walk off into the forest, because his brother says so? He has less reason to do so in that narrative, than he does in this.

             I am not suggesting you accept my PoV, mate. Merely spelling out what my PoV is. As to discussing what is “correct”, I don’t think there is any such thing. Clearly, you cannot accept mine, and I didn’t pull mine out of a hat or create the characterization without thought, so neither of us is going to accept the other’s pov.

             That is fine. Let’s move on.

       2. “I therefore argue that Bhim had that sense of duty [which is, in case you hadn’t noticed, an aspect of dharma]. And that hence, whatever disagreement he had he constantly sublimated; he even sublimated his own rage at the insult to Draupadi [the conventional narrative and mine both show him angry at the time, ready to shed blood, but is restrained by Y — so in what way do the narratives really differ here?]”

          Absolutely agree. Bhim has time and again shown that his dharma is to be on Y’s side and fulfill his promises/vows. He has been steadfast on that throughout. So yes – Bheema has that notion of dharma always instilled in him. There is no confusion on that count.

          As I said earlier, it is the way Y comes across in this narration. But I am ready to take it – nothing wrong in Bhim thinking Y is a wimp (I dont think he does even in this narration but for argument sake…) so long as he does not let him down in front of others. I think this was highlighted in his exchange with Arjuna where Bhim feels that Arjuna can only vent to him and not even to Krishna as Krishna is not family.

          So maybe, we can put this discussion to rest? 😉

          1. 🙂 Yeah, I already did. And your final para is the point I have been driving at, with no success, for quite a few episodes now. And that Arjuna episode has one other thing: Bhim’s very simple philosophy, that he has lived by all his life:

             To wit: My duty is to my family, and my elder brother is head of that family — so that as far as I am concerned is it. Yes, you can be hurt [as Arjuna is here]; yes, you could be in the right and he in the wrong [as is the case here]. Bottomline, though? None of that matters — our job is to make sure our elder brother gets his rights; if you can’t do that job because your tiny ego got pricked, fine, I can — and will.

             To cast B in that light is not to belittle anyone else, least of all Y. When that thought intrudes, it might help for us to remember that if the brother had been an amoral, wine swilling, characterless wastrel, he would never have evoked that degree of commitment in a man who, clearly, could have carved out a life, a kingdom, a career for himself.

       3. Prem, it is futile to change the mindset of those who grew up reading the ACK or Rajaji version or watching BRC’s TV serial. Both Mahabharatha and Ramayana in their conventional form show the characters as black or white and the relationships as strongly positive without any discontent or strongly negative without any common interests providing no opportunity for reconciliation. It is quite as easy to question the conventional characterization of Rama and Ravana by making Rama as an insecure husband who didn’t trust his wife enough and Ravana as a person who in a bout of anger kidnaps Rama’s wife and then develops genuine love towards her but still had enough good values to never lay a finger on her throughout her long stay. Maniratnam’s upcoming Ravan explores this angle without getting into an argument with the ultra-religious groups by setting the story in current times.

          What I see here with some of your readers is a refusal to believe that there could be disagreements between the brothers and B and A could have seen Y as manipulative and somewhat hypocritical in his interpretation of Dharma but they could still stay united to take revenge on their cousins who insulted their wife and had taken away their Kingdom.

          1. Even in the conventional Ramayana narration, Ravana is a man of many skills to his name. He is considered to be very learned, handsome, a great warrior, very good musician and actually a man for whom most women fall for his charms.

             And that is where he miscalculates. He thinks Sita will for him and leave her exiled husband – so he wants to do a double whammy by insulting Rama by abducting his wife and also getting one more trophy wife in his palace. However Sita is made of different stuff.

             For Ravana, forcing himself on Sita would have hurt his pride. He wanted her to come to him, accept him as superior to Rama.

             And when Hanuman and Rama first set their eyes on Lanka, they see it as a very prosperous and beautiful city. Both feel that Ravana must be a very good king to have made his country so prosperous and the people happy.

             While fighting Ravana, Raama is amazed to see his dexterity and skill that he mentions to Vibeeshanan. And even gives an opportunity once to Ravana to come back and fight another day when Ravana loses all his weapons and is stranded on the battle field.

             If you read Ravana’s character, the only blemish you may find there is his mistake in abducting Sita. Otherwise, he was a dutiful king and a wonderful administrator.

             1. Skills, charm and being handsome are not part of one’s character. In the conventional version, Ram is an avatar of Vishnu and Ravana is an Asura and that in itself sets the framework for the characterization and the story which is – no points for guessing – the battle between good vs evil.

             2. And Pray – why should an Asura be ugly and unskilled? In fact most well known Asuras were fairly learned and skilled – Prahlad, Maha Bali, Ravana, Kumbakarna, Vibeeshana, were all such types. The Rakshasas also have a very able guru in Sukrachariya.

                And again, the conventional Ramayana as written by Valmiki does not name Rama as an avatar. That was a later addition. 🙂 In Valmiki Ramayana, Rama is a human and a great human being and had one more unique quality that set him apart from the rest – he was the type who would not think about any other woman than Sita.

                And that quality is contrasted with Ravana who abducts another man’s wife and as a result terming him as an asura. The human and Asura terms in the Ramayana refer to qualities and not as we commonly come to understand the term Asura.

                Also, Ravana is a brahmin born to Sage Vishravar and grandson of Sage Pulastyar. So the Ramayana is not actually as black and white as the Ramayana teleserial made it out to be. 🙂

             3. You are missing the point again. Skills and outward appearance do NOT define a person’s character. The discussion here is about characterizations and not how skilled, learned or charming a person is shown to be.

          2. 🙂 But that is the point, mate: it is no part of my agenda to change anyone’s mind, or to undercut the conventional work. In my mind, both versions — and all others — co-exist quite happily. I am only attempting to point out that I didn’t do these characterizations without thought.

             1. Agreed, Prem. My point is, there will always be some among your readers who cannot be convinced with this sort of characterization and it is not your fault.

             2. You guys should watch Ravana epic being telecast on Zee TV, it has Ravana POV. In this epic they have shown Ravana being hell bent on establishing asura dhrama by converting all arya kings to asura dharma. His fault was not only abducting Seeta.

23. Prem,
    I am a long time fan, followed you from Rediff days through your blog and everywhere i can find your writing. But, this is the first time, I am commenting. I am not a writer, so please forgive my poor language.

    Like all the readers here, I am also a big fan of history, mythology and hybrids like Mahabharata. I have watched BRC’s TV creation, about 20 times, each time finding something new, even in that dramatized and sometime over simplified telling of this greatest story ever told.

    One of things I always find fascinating about MB is the way every character is justified in doing what they are doing. Every character has a POV, a back story that justified his or her motives and actions. Even the villains(if you could call them), like Duryodhana and Shakuni have their reasons and these reasons could be perfectly justified in another story that could be written from their POV. But the beauty of the great epic is that one character’s POV doesn’t necessarily negate another character’s views or motivations. Which is kind of what happens in real-life, where there are no heroes or villains only different POVs, motivations, reasons and circumstances.

    That’s the only problem I have with your narration and for that I agree with Kalki and others. Kalki seemed to have expressed that the best but many of us are trying to say the same think. And, it’s not because we are finding it hard to accept a different interpretation. Somehow Y’s character comes out weak, manipulative and incoherent with his status in the story and the time depicted. Somehow, you haven’t done that to any other character. Why this fixation to bring down Y?

    We have a large family, 6 brothers and my eldest brother is like Y. I don’t like him and have lot of resentment against him because of expectations unfulfilled. But still, I have my love and reverence for him, still till this date, I find it hard to argue with him straight. Every time hate starts building inside me, the moments of unconditional love he has shown at times and the father figure he has been balances it out and deep down I always think that he is a good guy who just doesn’t understand some things the way I do.
    Of course, every case is different. But the way the big story is written, it seems unlikely that what Bheem and Arjun had was more than frustration and some resentment.

    1. Hi, mate, and thanks for the kind words.

       About B and Y — here we go again 🙂 — I have a hard time dealing with questions that suggest [I don’t mean this in an irritated sense, but merely in a practical one] that one of my objectives is to bring down Y.

       “Why this obsession”, you and others ask. Why indeed? There is no answer, no logical reason anyone out there can give for why I would do that — so could the answer be that I am not trying to, have never tried to, do that?

       This narrative sees events through the prism of Bhima’s vision. Take that as a starting point.

       Second, keep in mind that it is perfectly human for an individual to dislike, even feel contempt for, particular actions of another individual without feeling contempt for the individual itself.

       What, for instance, do you think a Bhim or in fact anyone would feel for a brother who, having struggled for years to build up the family fortune, having narrowly escaped death in the process [thanks largely to Bhim, not the brother himself], and having somehow revived the fortunes of the family, then walks into what everyone can see is a trap, and foolishly continues the dice game even when the opposition gives him a perfectly logical way out? [D does say, accept defeat and leave now, we have no problem with that — when Y doesn’t, is it possible that B could have thought he was putting individual pride ahead of the family, when as the eldest, it is axiomatic that family always comes first?].

       I could go on, but throughout the narrative, B’s “contempt” as you call it is for things his brother does that he does not agree with. You can or cannot agree with B’s point of view, but I see nothing in any accepted narrative to suggest he should not have a point of view, or that this is not the right one. In any case, I don’t know what went on in B’s mind, neither do the multiple authors who wrote the original epic. In such narrations, you try to conceive of the character, and then to make sure that all his thoughts are consonant with that character — which is all I try to do here.

       If everyone has a problem with my Bhim’s attitude to his brother, I would suggest — like I said elsewhere, this argument is now beginning to chase its tail, and since I have nothing of substance to add to what I have been saying, I’d like to desist, rather than say the same thing over and over — I would suggest that you read the *conventional* narrative once more.

       Bhim does question Y at several points in that narrative — why is that okay, but the questioning in this narrative not okay?

       You mention your family. I would say — precisely! Throughout this narrative, does Bhim ever, once, openly voice his doubts or what you guys call his “contempt”? Never.

       In the conventional narrative he railed at Y in the presence of an assembly of not just his enemies, but of the entire town. Now why is that easy to accept? Why do you see no harm, no contempt, in B openly criticizing his brother, calling him an immoral gambler in such a forum, and asking for fire so he could burn his brother’s hand?

       Everyone gladly accepts that narrative, but has problems with Bhim’s contempt in this one — a feeling he never, ever, shows in the open, or even expresses to his brother in private. So just what are we talking about here? Yes, Bhim has feelings. And since this is his point of view, I do touch on those feelings — but outside Bhim and the readers, no one knows what those feelings are, so where is the problem?

       You mentioned your extended family. Thank you — you gave me the answer to your own question, when you said “I don’t like him and have a lot of resentment… but I have my love and reverence for him… every time hate starts building, the moments of unconditional love he has show…”

       EXACTLY.

       You then are Bhim, and should be able to understand this narrative. Bhim has considerable resentment. But always, over and above all his own hurts and wounded feelings, there is the strong sense of the respect and reverence due an elder brother, that he unfailingly tenders; there is the sense of the brother as a father figure [Y calls him son and child, on more than one occasion] that stills his tongue; there is the duty he believes he owes Y, and the sense that it is Y that is keeping the family together… all of which balances out his wounds, and keeps him constantly at Y’s side, no matter what.

       So what is the problem? As far as I can see, those who disagree with this portrayal appear to be saying it is not enough for B to lay his life in service of his brother, to give him unquestioned obedience, respect, to defend him against everyone — including even Arjuna, when the latter gets upset.

       Apparently in addition to all this, he is not even allowed to feel hurt deep inside.

       Your own experience, I would suggest, should tell you it doesn’t work like that — and help you understand both this narrative, and the Bhim who lives in these words.

       1. Prem,
          Thanks for the long response!
          Well, I feel more like a Karna, instead of Bhim, but I get your point 🙂

24. Prem,
    I am actually surprised that the brothers and allies (besides Yudi) reacted in this way after the slaying of Duryodhan. You have already mentioned that your perception of Arjun as that of a self centered individual who is blind to another’s angst or POV. However, I expected Krishna (as per the conventional narrative) to step in and defend Bheem here. It was in fact Krishna who always came up with “non-dharmic” ideas to defeat the enemy (like Drona, Jayadrata and then Karna). It is a little out of character for him to stay silent here.
    Balarama is the least qualified to speak here. This man constantly supported an individual who had publicly disgraced a royal princess and tried to kill his cousins by some of the most treacherous means possible. He comes across as a hot headed person with hardly any brains. Moreover of all the ugly glares the allies and bros give Bheem, they finally go to the forest to celebrate ….. what a bunch of hypocrites !
    BTW, the Pandavas are still relatively young when this war gets over. All their sons are dead. How come they did not have any more children after the war ? Why was Parikshit, the grandson of Arjun and Subhadra the next king of Hastinapur ?

    1. well pandavas were well into their late 50s or even 60s after the war, I don’t think it is surprising that they did not beget any more children.

       As for Krishna and his non-dharmic ideas, not relevent to the narrative here, but below link might be interesting in seeing krishna and bhisma and their individual interpretations. Basically, the bottomline is, a person can be so attached to his own personal dharma that he loses sight of the greater good, Bhisma & Y falls into this catgory, they are bent on sticking to the letter of the dharma, to protect their own personal dhrma, reputation etc. Krishna in contrast is willing to wager his own personal dharma at the alter of greater good. In modern times, sometimes, we see good guys incapable to do good things because they are too worried about their image getting tarnished, Anthony with a squeaky clean image is one example. He is known to be extra careful and bent towards not doing anything to avoid pointing fingers. In contrast, Gandhi accepted removal of his turban ( for which he fought earlier and refused to stay in court) in SA court to continue taking up the cause of greater indian community.

       http://www.infinityfoundation.com/mandala/h_es/h_es_chakr_bhishma.htm

       my 2 cents

    2. Krishna and Balarama shared a fairly precarious relationship — so logically, even though K would have seen B as being in the right, he would at that point be more preoccupied in ensuring that Balarama in his anger didn’t do something stupid. Besides, K would have reckoned that Bhim was perfectly well able to take care of himself 🙂

       About the lack of other children, there is a passing reference to the whys and wherefores in a subsequent episode, so I’ll leave that aside for now.

25. I read all the replies from Prem and but whatever it is worth, here is my 2 cents.

    It is simply inconceivable for me to think that Bhim will have such low, dim view of Y. You can have resentment and anger for Y’s messing up in dice game, but other than that Y was rock solid in doing the right thing and also making sure that age’s who who applauding pandavas as righteous. To me, it is inconceivable that Bhim would have trouble understanding such a basic thing howver volatile he might be.

    for the record, it is not about Bhim thinking of Y as less than perfect, it is not about Bhim resenting some decisions of Y, it is not about Prem’s narrative missing the dharma aspect as the overriding theme, it is about Bhim’s character totally lacking respect for Y ( there is no evidence of Bhim deep down thinking of Y as a good guy), it is about Bhim thinking of Y as a total hypocrite and a wimp without the neccessary strength to realize his kingdom dreams etc.

    1. Bhim does not “totally lack respect” for Y — he respects him for his strengths. Respect does not mean not seeing the weaknesses of people, it means obeying them despite those perceived weaknesses, because he is in that position to command obedience.

       If that fact and line of thinking hasn’t come across to you guys yet after all these episodes and elaboration in discussions, put that down to my lack of skill in communicating a thought that is very clear in my mind — and let’s move on, please.

       Not to be dismissive, but seriously — this particular line of argument has gone on endlessly, with neither of us having anything to say we haven’t said about 25 times before. Time to move on.

       1. Prem, you were definitely being dismissive. I know it is your blog but since we are here, I hope you appreciate the fact that you need to let people post on something as long as they want, of course you are not obligated to respond. In fact, if you paid attension, you would have realized that my above post was not even addressed to you, in my mind, both of us said whatever we needed to say and there is nothing much to add. I was hoping for a discussion on it from other members. if this not something you support, please let me know and I will never ever leave a comment like that.

26. Very nice, Prem. But have a feeling that you are cutting down to fit it into episodes. And then, it is just my opinion.

    1. Nope, this is pretty much all I had to say in this segment. I could have made the battle with D an episode all its own, and elaborated on the battle a bit more, but that would have left me with having to do an episode on the massacre, where the problem is there are no eyewitnesses to it, so there is just so much detail B could have gotten. Would have ended up stretching that episode more than it deserved to be, so I clubbed it with this one, and reduced the battle description by a couple of paras tops.

27. I just would like to point out that Shikandi dies along with Dhristadyumna. In this narrative, Bhim has not accounted for him yet.

    1. It was one of the names I didn’t mention, because I was trying to keep the focus on Draupadi’s brother [Shikandi is one too, but she never really has anything to do with him] and children. In that massacre, almost everyone dies — not just D and S and the kids, but the bulk of the remaining Pandava forces as well, burnt to death as they slept. I didn’t bother with the full list, is all.

       1. Hi Prem,

          In Episode 52 Bhim proposes Shikandi to be the Commander-in-Chief of Pandava army. Hence, I thought Bhim should be taking note of his death. Anyway, it is only a thought.

          1. When Bhim proposes Shikandi it is not out of any sense of attachment, but merely as a practical proposition on the basis of his having watched the guy at practice and figured him for an adept — plus, young enough to fulfill the requirement. That said, yeah, leaving Shikandi’s name out of the list was likely bad thinking on my part 🙁 Or equally a function of a muddled mind, I initially wrote Satyaki where I meant Shikandi. Age catching up with me. 🙂

       2. A little off topic. You have shown Shikandi ashaving none of the androgynous qualities that is mentioned in the Mahabhatha. Any guesses when did such a description of him start?

          1. At some point between the Vaisampayana narration to Janamejaya — the version we call Bharata, the second in the sequence that we know of though there appears to be a lost retelling by another of Vyasa’s disciples — there seemed to have begun an attempt to retell the basic story in a larger, epic-scale format.

             Among other things, such recreations brought in the whole mythological element, created demigods out of human beings, created divine intervention as a constant, used the device of boons and curses to scale up the narrative. Hard to say when in this process the whole Shikandi thing kicked in, but easier to see the hows and whys.

             As Karve points out in Yuganta for instance, Bhisma had the rep of a warrior without having done too much to deserve it. As the narrative gained in heft, he became a demigod, temporarily here on earth, and unassailable.

             The problem with setting up someone as superhuman is that you then need to create a loophole. The Amba/Ambika/Ambalika episode played into that, with the scorned Amba committing suicide so she could be reborn as a man and be responsible for taking Bheesma’s life.

             The logical trouble is, we believe in rebirth, and none of us have a clue what we were in the previous avtaar, let alone what everyone else was. Shikandi may have been a woman, or a dog for all anyone knows, in a previous birth — in the one in question, however, he is a man. Period. Even the boon Amba asks for as she enters the fire is to be born as a man — not a eunuch.

             Stands to reason then that it is as a man that Shikandi exists in that particular life, and has to be seen in that light — to say she was a woman in the past birth is neither here nor there [by that token, what the hell, Karna could in a previous birth have been the greatest king of all time, does that mean you don’t see him as a suta putra in this birth?].

             Once all these bells and whistles began getting tacked on, the product of multiple imaginations of varying quality, the epic developed considerable heft and interest, and the enormous scope and sweep of the narrative meant we didn’t examine such loopholes too closely, nor did we mind much that they existed. Fair enough [consider for instance the bit about Achilles only vulnerability being his heel. If the argument is that is the only way he could be killed, I find myself asking — when was the last time we heard of someone being killed by an arrow/wound to the achilles? Crippled, yes. Killed? You can’t even bleed to death that way. But does that matter? No — we just get swept along on the narrative, we know the flaw exists, and we wait with a sort of awed fascination for the moment when it manifests.]

28. Was Visokan depicted to be this wise in the conventional narratives? He sure seems to come across as Krishna Jr. in awareness and tactics.

    Anand

    1. Visokan does play an active role in the earlier narrations, not just as charioteer but also as strategist. It is in keeping with the times, where the charioteer was more than a bloke with a driving license — witness for instance the high premium top warriors placed on getting the best charioteers for themselves — Krishna for Arjuna, Shalya for Karna…

       The charioteer needed to have a finely tuned awareness of war craft, because his handling of the reins could create chances for the warrior he was piloting, or mar those chances. That means he had to know to a nicety the strengths and weaknesses of his master, and be able to play to them in the way he handled the chariot.

       That said, he is a tad more proactive in this version, because on occasion I had to use him as the means to ferry information to Bhima. 🙂

29. Hi

    Slightly off the trend of the discussion …

    In the Tamil renderings of MB, I have read that Duryodhana was showered with flowers after the duel. It is an honour not even accorded to Bishma. It is a popular pastime on prime time Tamil TV to endlessly debate why that is so.

    Prem: I was just wondering if B would reflect on D’s redeeming qualities now that he has had his revenge and put his demons to rest. I know that even in most conventional narratives it is not so; but given the B’s characterisation as “the thinking Bheem” I am just wondering …

    The way I think about it, it is a reflection of the shades-of-grey-ness that pervades MB; no character is black nor white. That, to me, is why MB is so interesting even after so many years.

    1. The showering of flowers bit would be a reflection of the line of predestination and atonement. D does the evil he does because it is all part of the cosmic plan; once he dies in battle he fulfills his role in that plan, and atones for all he has done, and hence is lauded by the gods. Also witness the episode where Y goes to heaven and finds Duryodhana and others already there, while his own brothers are in hell — the thinking again being that D and company have lived out their hell on earth, whereas the Pandavas barring Y still need to atone.

       Bhim wouldn’t agonize about D too much because he never has the opportunity to encounter any of D’s good qualities, such as they were — their antipathy dates all the way back to their childhood, unlike the case with the other Pandavas who felt the brunt of D’s fury only in their late teens.

       1. Sorry to harp on this, but I cant buy your first line of argument.

          Surely the Ps suffered more than the Ks and therefore did more ‘atoning’? So, where is the question of D squaring accounts by death? And the cosmic plan angle does not work also because of the lot, D has the least backstory.

          Regarding B, I was just hoping; not really in keeping with the character to talk/ think about D, I agree.

          Would be fascinating to look @ MB from D’s PoV; there is enough scope for black-white reversal with Krishna being the Shakuni equivalent in the black-MB!

          1. Eh? It is not *my* argument; it is what the conventional narrative says at the end of the swargarohan chapter.

             There would be great fun to do a Duryodhana point of view yes — except much of it would have to be entirely made up. The MB follows the Pandavas most faithfully at all times, and hence provides considerable backdrops to work against, whereas we meet the Kauravas only on those occasions when they are in conflict with the Pandavas.

             Doesn’t stop you from making up stuff out of whole cloth about what they were up to in the interim, I know — but that is the kind of exercise that will require considerable time in isolation, to think, plan etc. Too much of a luxury just now

       2. This is precisely why this version of the story is so deeply unsatisfying despite being rich in superficial detail like for example the description of the mace duel in this episode. In reality this imagining is deeply informed with the leftist zeitgeist of today. Thus the emphasis on (1) glorification of tribals and other so called “victims” of the Aryan domination of India, (2) belittling of authority figures like Yudhishthira. Krishna, Bhishma etc and cynical interpretation of their motives, and (3) the depiction of a “thinking” Bhim full of racial guilt and fraternal frustration.

          The Mahabharat is a transcendental experience for nearly all readers because it is a story about human frailties and failings above all else. Duryodhan, or Suyodhan, is not an evil person. He is a learned prince, a highly skilled and talented warrior, and a leader of men. His failing however is that despite his obvious good qualities he is insecure, envious and covetous. His adharma lies not in torturing and insulting his relatives, regardless of the rightfulness of their claims – it lies in his selfishness in putting his own interests before those of his “kul” or blood. In his qualities he is superhuman, but his failings humanize him. Krodh, ahankaar and lobh are his adharm. Yudhishthira on the other hand is above these baser instincts, and thus better suited to discharge the role of a king. He has infinite patience, humility and does not covet. Such a person is suited to be king, because his actions are deliberate, unemotional and considered. To label his actions as weakness and cowardice is to call Gandhi a coward for his call to non-violence. It reflects a populist and superficial understanding of morality and ethics. In fact, even the definition of dharm as understood by the present author is far off the mark – dharm as used in the original Mahabharat, and in fact in Hindu thought, is not morality, and certainly not the modern western-judaeo-Christian morality. Dharm in Mahabharat refers to Neeti, or the law. In fact, Mahabharat as well as Hindu thought sees no sunlight between Dharm and the law. In this thought, man is neither the karta (giver) of law nor is it open to his interpretation. There is no morality in law. The law is absolute, given by the Brahma, and humans simply must adhere. To the extent that they do, they are dharmic, and if they do not, they are adharmi. Yudhishthira’s actions viewed through the prism of today’s prevalent morality may appear immoral or unjust, but those words had no meaning for him and his contemporaries because their quality lay in adherence to the law as given by the Brahma and taught by the elders and teachers.

          Prem’s retelling of MTV Nair’s novel is doubtless a good exercise in rendering an important vernacular work into English. However, let us not elevate it, or the original for that matter, to the level of an epic. It remains a political interpretation with a clear leftist-populist agenda bound to appeal to shallow intellects. It is folly to interpret an epic as old as the Mahabharat (or Ramayan) through modern morality. I maintain that this is the National Enquirer version of Mahabharat.

          Also, I should clarify that I am neither a Hindu fundamentalist, nor a left-hater. In fact, I am a proud Nehruvian and hate the RSS/BJP types. Nehru himself gets slotted into a narrow leftist category, when he was a humanist and a much deeper thinker than he gets credit for. I prefer to enjoy the epics for their richness, texture, detail and beauty of form, and make an effort to deal with them on their own terms rather than attempt to fit them to my own leanings and beliefs. Any effort to do so seems to me rather self-serving and bourgeois.

          1. Gaurav, out of your total post, I agree with only your below quote

             To label his actions as weakness and cowardice is to call Gandhi a coward for his call to non-violence.

             Y is a much misunderstood character in MB and for those times filled with war, killing etc., he was in fact equivalent to Gandhi. Out of the whole MB, he was the one main character who was steadfastly opposed to war, he was the only guy who recognized how killing millions to avenge an insult to one women is not worth it. There is a reason why various characters including enemies respected and showered praises on Y inspite of his lack of skills in actual combat.

             On a larger context, I do caution those who on this forum posted how they are reading Prem’s version to their kids. I think because of the format of Prem’s narrative, the strength, the vigour and majesty of original characters is lost to a large extent. MB’s main advantage lies in the sheer strength of character shown by even supposedly villians like karna. This romanticized version is to a large extent responsible for the universal popularity of MB after so many years. I wouldn’t trade that sheer joy/emotion I felt as a child reading rajaji’s MB. We did be robbing our kids of something if we skip the original romanticized version and go straight to different POV takes on it.

             1. Completely agree with you, EE.

                Reason why we all enjoy this POV is because we are aware of the original narrative. Without the backdrop of the original, this is just a simple tale. (No offence to Prem or MT)

          2. Hey Gaurav:

             I think you have taken out much more than was originally present either in my post or in Prem’s MB. Critic’s privilege, I guess.

             I am not very sure how you say “This is precisely why this version of the story is so deeply unsatisfying despite being rich in superficial detail …”. The logical thread from my post to this conclusion is not visible to me.

             I dont really see all the zeitgeist angst in Bhimsen. It is a simple tale told from a neglected point of view. I dont think Prem is competing with Vyasa or even Rajaji. Therefore there is no need to confer any status on it, epic or otherwise. Why is it so difficult for you to just accept it as a well told retelling of great story?

             Regarding your arguments about D & Y, again, it is a point of view & no less valid (nor more) than other informed points of view. It is a subject of great debate and I dont think it will be resolved by you or me on a forum like this.

             What I am objecting to in your post is the statement “It is folly to interpret an epic as old as the Mahabharat (or Ramayan) through modern morality”. Why?

             Even the epics & the upanishads that you so adore with sesquipedalian words encourage questioning and self realization of truth, be it ephemeral or ultimate.

             I aver that a truth that can not withstand questioning is no truth at all. Times change; one’s belief systems have to take cognizance of the changed mores & incorporate them.

             That being said, once again, I think Prem is not looking at re-interpreting the MB or its messages. Why overload Bhimsen with layers of meaning and motivation?

             If it bothers you so much, you dont really have to visit the site, you know?

             1. Sridhar, I started off my previous comment that way in response to Prem’s reply, specifically the quote “The showering of flowers bit would be a reflection of the line of predestination and atonement. D does the evil he does because it is all part of the cosmic plan; once he dies in battle he fulfills his role in that plan, and atones for all he has done, and hence is lauded by the gods.” etc.

                Per my reading/understanding of the epic the above is not borne out. The Gods shower the stricken Duryodhan with flowers in appreciation of the epic battle he fought with Bhim – the 2 best mace fighters of their time in a fight the likes of which would never be seen again. It is in appreciation for the aesthetic beauty of such a battle – sort of like a Sachin v Warne. It is also in appreciation for Duryodhan’s honorable conduct in following the accepted rules of mace fighting – after all, he could also have hit below the belt, specially since he was the manifestly evil one. He fought well, and with honor, proving his invincibility within the norms of mace fighting, and hence the flowers.

                Anyway, my comment about judging an apic through modern morality is rather obvious I thought. Each age is informed with its own code of good and bad which to later generations might appear downright nasty. As a very mild example, polygamy appears evil to us all today, but not so long ago it was the accepted norm and no stigma was attached to it. Hence for me to say today that my great-great-great-grandfather was an evil man for having 5 wives is stupid, because I am using today’s POV for something that was the norm then. Notions of Good and Evil are relative to space as well as time, and while today’s morality may dictate that the Aryans were racist people who despised the tribals and called them asur or rakshas, this ignores the simple fact that it was perfectly normal to do so in their day and age. For us to judge them, reflects a superior attitude which is juvenile & presumptuous and hence I term it folly. I am a great believer in “let he who hath no sin cast the first stone” or “judge not lest you shall be judged”. Thus, I would rather deal with an epic on its own terms – the actions shown in the Mahabharat were conventional, legal and neeti-sammat for their time, however evil they might be by today’s yardstick. The 3 themes I have identified in Prem’s narrative are repeated throughout, and show modern leftist morality at work – racial guilt, anti-establishment rebellion, and victim-philia. Calling it as i see it. Of course, if you do not like, you don’t have to read my comment. 🙂

                Surprisingly, I do find myself in rather close agreement with almost all of Prem’s non-MB related writings. Hence surprised at the superficialty behind this interpretation. Excellent writing from a technical sense, but poor subject matter choice. Interesting concept, but vehicle for facile socio-political moralizing rather than any deep appreciation for the epic’s worth. Hoping a lot of the underlying morality bits are from MTV Nair, and not Prem’s own original thoughts. Would be interested to find MTV’s political leanings. Assuming mid-20th century Kerala intellectual bourgeois communist/leftist, based solely on this work.

             2. Also in a separate reply Prem reference Achilles’ Heel as a story device. It has always struck me how similar the Greek story Achilles is to the Indo-Aryan one of Duryodhan. Achilles’s mother picked him up by his heel and dipped his body in the river Tethys to make him indestructible. Since the only undipped part was the heel, it remained his only weakness, and he died from an injury there. When the war was about to begin, Gandhari called Duryodhan to appear naked before her. Knowing Bhim’s vow and his skill with the mace, she wanted to make his body indestructible by taking off her blindfold for an instant and looking upon him with her eyes. The accumulated power in her eyes of her self-sacrifice in blindfolding herself for life, would make his body indestructible. Duryodhan, being shy about appearing naked before his mother, covered his thighs with a banana leaf, and thus when Gandhari opened her blindfold his entire body became like Vajra except for his thighs and lower belly. Since that area was forbidden in combat anyway, Duryodhan thought he’d be safe but Bhim hit him on the thigh to kill him. The similarities between these two episodes has always fascinated me. Which legend came first, and then travelled to the other land and when?

30. Comments on this episode have gone beyond 100. 🙂

    I have learnt a lot from the comments section too – as much as I have from the main narration. As someone suggested, the comments could be included in an appendix or something like that when you are ready to publish the book. 😀

    1. *LOL* Such fun, no?!

       1. Actually this is a great idea. A published book having the comments that are the most enlightening would be a great novelty. The next generation novel??

          1. Easier done in PDF form. Need to think a bit more.

31. Fascianting, as others mentioned, both the episode as well as comments/discussions!
    I am already saddened by the fact that that it will come to an end in 4-6 weeks 🙁 , partially redeemed by the fact that the episodes I have been looking forward to most are set to begin now.

    Prem, I am sure you deserve all the rest/break after Bhim finishes, but do you have any vague plans to do something similar in future?

    On Y-B discussion, I did not feel that there is considerable difference between the conventional and this narrative. After listening to MB in my childhood also, the impression of Y was that of an impractical/incompetent person; same here.
    The incident which was a bit jarring for me was Krishna’s gloating over G’s death. I am fine with K’s portrayal as a scheming person who wants to win at all costs. To that end, I would have been fine even at his gloating over success of his plan of sending G towards Karna. What was a bit discordant was K also belittling G as a tribal, etc.

    Manish

    1. As on date, all I want to do after this is over — 8, 10, 12 episodes should do it, hopefully, since the peace time narrative is merely intended to round off a few ongoing questions, and to underline a few thought processes — is take a break.

       The writing hasn’t been particularly taxing, but the amount of thought certainly has been. My fault in part, because I opted to digress from the MT version to a very large extent while still painting within his lines, but to do that meant more effort than I had bargained for while simultaneously earning my keep.

       A month or so down the line? I don’t yet know. I am fascinated by the idea of using this forum to round off the narrative — but I am not yet mentally clear whether such a rounding off will happen if you look at this through Draupadi’s eyes [in which case, it would have to be a retelling of PK Balakrishnan’s book Ini Nhaan Urangatte] or through Karna’s, in which case Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjaya suggests itself [this work also tends to be more in line with the demi-god narrative stream of the original, so maybe it will better balance the demystification of the Bhim version].

       I don’t want to do too much thinking of those things just now, though. The episodes thus far were relatively easy because they are driven by fairly spectacular incidents; the ones to follow are considerably more about internalizing, about the mental side of this whole thing, hence I suspect far harder to do, and thinking of what next is not ideal just now.

       About K and his gloating, that was a natural reaction of a strategist whose ploy worked — underlined by the immense relief he would feel on knowing that his dearest friend is now safe. Caste considerations weighed very strongly then — vide G’s own angst about how no one ever treated him as a human being since he joined the war, for instance.

       For K, G is a problem on two counts: his lower caste means he is expendable, which is prima facie; equally to the point, as a king himself and as a person aware of the larger picture, he is distinctly uncomfortable with the thought of any maverick band of high quality warriors running around loose, unchecked, pillaging at will, and hence to put an end to that is part of his vision of statecraft, and entirely consonant with the ethos of the time.

       I didn’t touch on this much because Bhim was not in situ at the time, but if you think back to the creation of Indraprastha, the Pandavas were fobbed off with a small, infertile tract of land in the midst of an enormous forest. For them to be able to create a kingdom, they needed to clear land, and to establish their suzerainity. They achieved both objectives when Krishna and Arjuna set fire to the Khandava forest, and ruthlessly killed the Nagas for whom it was home. The conventional narrative gives the nagas demigod status, with Takshaka the friend of Indra as their ruler, but if you see it in practical terms, the Nagas were an expendable band of tribals who owed no allegiance to any king, to have them running around this close to the nascent kingdom was a clear and present danger, so K and A did what their notion of statecraft suggested, without any qualms about the mass slaughter. [I merely touched on it by having Bhim see the burnt out huts of the tribals when he returns to Indraprastha after his trip and marriage to Balandhara].

       Yeah, I’ll grant it is discordant. Largely because we are more comfortable with the narrative that creates all kinds of boons and curses to explain actions that otherwise would seem less than humane.

       1. Perhaps ideal (from rounding-off perspective) would be a Duryodhan or Dhritrashtra POV.
          Not only would the narrative itself make for extremely interesting reading, but imagine the comments and discussions (If Y’s “humanizing” could spark such discussions, imagine…).

       2. If you do write a Draupadi version of your own, based on the book “And now let me sleep” i.e Ini Nhaan Urangatte, please don’t go off on the Karna tangent and stay faithful to the character chosen.
          Why does everyone want D to either fall in love with K or to see his “godly, amazing, larger than life kind and charitable, etc” side? That too after he is dead and when none of it matters? I would understand if K survived the war and was somehow crowned king, etc. I would, however, have liked to have put D in to the Krishna and Karna convo in which Krishna, in addition to the throne and kingdom, also offers D as bonus package to K. But within character and the actual grittiness and without the rose-tinted glasses.

          The same with Karna as a POV, based on Mrityunjay (anyone have an english translated pdf of it??). I would avoid the whole Draupadi tangle in his POV.
          Enough of the icky Titanic-romance.

          Anyways, I just came across Bhimsen now, so have hijacked your comments section, so many years late! Good work. 🙂

32. I was thinking of how difficult it would be to write another POV for ramayana as opposed to Mahabharatha. I am aware of Ramayana through the eyes of Ravan. I was thinking of something through the eyes of say lakshman. He also has to undergo vanvas, and what more, he doesn’t even have his wife for company 🙂

    My thinking is loopholes for another POV is less in Ramayana, compared to Mahabharatha. Or could be just me. Maybe it needs someone like MT/Prem to imagine that.

    And also humanizing Rama seems to be more dangerous than humanizing Krishan, atleast in these times.

    As they say, what do I know, I just code.

    1. I have read a poem called urmila ki virag (dont know the author), which explains the feelings of laskman’s wife Urmila. That is a nice angle to look at.

       As you said, it would be interesting to look at Ramayana from lakshman’s POV

    2. “And also humanizing Rama seems to be more dangerous than humanizing Krishan, atleast in these times.”

       True but there are enough grey areas in Ramayana that can be interpreted as against character for the key roles. To name a few, Ram’s shooting down Vali from behind a tree when Vali is engaged in a fight with his brother, Ram’s insistence on Sita proving that she is chaste and again his sending her off to the forest based on a commoner’s opinion of his decision to take Sita back are events that humanize Ram. As for Ravan’s character, the positives of his character (loyalty towards his brothers and sister, his respectful treatment of Sita when she is in his custody) that are glossed over in the conventional version can be brought into focus to balance the characterizations. The conventional version seems to highlight the positives of Ram and either glosses over his negatives or comes with some sort of mythological excuse to explain his actions. In Ravan’s case, it is vice versa.

       1. Rama banishing Sita to the forest is not from Valmiki Ramayana. That was Bhavabhuti’s imagination. The entire uttara ramayana is bhavabhuti’s addition. Valmiki ends his version with the Rama pattabhishekam.

          1. When and by whom it was added is besides the point. What is relevant is that it is the accepted version.

             1. who says it is the accepted version?

                actually even in Indian tradition, uttar ramayan is avalmikam, that is not written by valmiki and quite a few people reject the whole thing as unauthentic. There is wealth of info available thru research which clearly shows how far removed the uttar ramayan is from original, the language, the knowledge of geography, the setting, the caste considerations in soceity are totally different from original, it was clearly written atleast a 1000 yrs after the original. According to many historians, there is a subtle competition between kshatriyas and brahmins in ramayan and is evident in parushuram episode. Priestly class got their chance to set the record straight with the cooked up uttar ramayan version by making even Rama kill a sudra for reciting vedas.

             2. There you go again…all I tried to convey by using the term “accepted” is to refer to the version most people are aware of. Whether or not some people reject it is again besides the point. The exercise to retell Ramayan with a realistic view of the characters (as wished by Rahul above) would have the objective of presenting an alternate view to what most people are acquainted with.

             3. din’t mean to tick you off mate..I only wanted to bring out the fact that quite a few people think uttar ramayan is not authentic.

                leaving uttar ramayan alone, I agree with your broad point that there are enough things in ramayan itself which are grey and can be explored. I do not like uttar ramayan mainly because it is not written by valmiki and is clearly a later age cook up and also because the fascinating aspect of original ramayan like ideal prince etc. are largely missing from this one.

                Here are a few pointers
                a. the attempted swearing in of Rama by Dhasharath itself is grey area. Dasharath alreadyt promised kaikeyi that her son will be king before marrying her. Dhasarath in fact mentions that since Bharat & Shatrugna are away, now is the right time to appoint Rama heir apparent in valmiki version.

                b. Valmiki version clearly sees Rama as human and not god, the bala kanda and other aspects are later age additions to make God out of a idealistic human. This is a historical fact based on etymology.

                c. Rama eventhough agrees to goto forest, was not happy with his father and it comes out quiet clearly during initial stages. Valmiki deals with it beautifully and shows us how Rama grows with it and deals with it.

                d. Cutting off Shurpanaka’s nose is huge mistake

                e. To many Vali’s killing is controversial eventhough personally I don’t find it wrong based on Rama’s regal explaination. If you read valmiki ramayan, it is also possible that Rama was in fact not hiding behind trees as is popularly believed.

                f. sita’s test of chastity is a later age addition and any humane, rationale version cannot deal with something like agnipravesha.

                Many more instances but personally, reading valmiki’s version is great experience and you can’t help but fall in love with Rama if you start by treating him as a human which is what Valmiki’s version did, nowhere is any mentioned of Rama’s avatar etc.

33. after so much discussion on ‘Y’ , views and counter views. I got interested to know how the narrative would be through Y’s point of view.

    What was going through his mind..when he made all these dubious decisions…
    what did he think of his strengths compared to his younger ( stronger and skilled) brothers.
    what would have gone through his mind whenever his ‘DharamRaja’ tag got a beating ??

34. Pingback: links for 2009-08-11 « Unjustly

35. Hi Prem
    I have been a great fan of Mahabharata since I was a kid, and my fascination has grown over the years with every new version, POV or interpretation. Your version of the epic through Bhima’s point of view is one of the most fascinating reads. I feel that one reason for the attention that Mahabharata has been enjoying over the years is because it is a very realisitc story of human life , with black & white often merging into various shades of grey. Hence it has always been contemporary in every age and time, and people have found so much to research and interprete . Even hundred years hence there will be people like you will keep discovering new joys within the age old tale.

    Wanted to recommend/ suggest a couple of things( I understand its your call what you want to write, but as a fan I will love to see these)-
    1. A POV of Duryodhan, as many others have suggested. I imagine it in two ways. D has a lot of justification in his claim to the throne for which he fights the P. His father was the elder Prince but was denied the throne on some technicality, but he rightfully inherited the kingdom once pandu died. As such , Dhritarashtra’s son could claim to be the the legal heir in line for the kingdom, being the present King’s eldest son. Pandavas , it can be said , had usurped the throne from D. Even his defeat on the battlefield has been the result of a long chain of manipulations, half-lies & opportunistic below-the belt hits by pandavas and Krishna. With this in mind, it be interesting to imagine how the epic would have panned out had D managed to win the war. We all know that history is written by the victors. Maybe thats why we know of the Pandavas as the heroes of mahabharata 🙂

    b) There is a very interesting Bengali play , Shakunir Pasha, a one-man act that presents Mahabharata from Shakuni’s POV. Instead of a cunning villain we see a man imprisoned , broken and forced to do the bidding of his powerful relatives. He is torn between his own conscience and his fear and helplessness in the face of D’s ruthlessness. Infact, I have read somewhere that Shakuni’s story isnt quite as simple as we know it. Shakuni was one of 100 Gandhara Princes who were imprisoned by Dhritarashtra. Dhritarashtra’s marriage to Gandhari was a political setup meant to broker peace between Hastinapur & Gandhara But later the wise men of Hastinapur felt that the 100 gandhara Princes(including Shakuni) posed a great threat and managed to put them all in the dungeons where they were given 100 grains of rice everyday. Gandhara Princes drew lots and selected Shakuni who got to eat all of the 100 rice grains, so that he could live and avenge his brothers and destroy the Kuru royal line. later he managed to make himself useful to Duryodhana as a lackey & used D’s ambition and ego as instuments for his own revenge.

    I will love to hear from you about your views on these points and will love it even better if you consider one or both of these as a future project.

    Sid

    P.S > P.S- Are there any good English translations available for the two books you mentioned -Ini Nhaan Urangatte & Shivaji Sawant’s Mrityunjaya. And any other recommendations?

    1. The Shakuni part is a popular version. In fact the dice that shakuni used were purportedly made from the bones of his dead brothers and hence gave him an unfair advantage whenever he used them in a game of dice. 🙂

       but no…I don’t think this is a very original version. Shakuni was a scheming villain who did all that to benefit his nephew. that is how I see it – no point in attributing other motives to his actions.

       1. Hi Kalki
          About the idea of Shakuni’s motivation, didnt intend to pass it off as an original idea. As I mentioned, I read it somewhere. So obviously the version already exists. My point was that an extrapolation of this premise, or even just a POV from this angle the way Prem’s Bhimsen is , can be quite interesting to read as well. I feel that none of the Mahabharata’s characters, atleast the major ones , are unidimensional. For eg Duryodhana is the villain and yet he is strong , brave , generous and commands the respect and loyalty of many stalwarts in Mahabharata.Infact I find it surprising that majority of the characters in mahabharata are allies of D and most them go to a lot of trouble to honor the friendship seemingly out of loyalty- Karna, Ashwathama, Balarama, Shalya(related to Pandavas),Drona, Kripa, Bhagadutta. Based on sheer strength of character, I think Duryodhana would have made a better King than Y.
          Take out some of the moral trappings & the mythical hyperboles( boons, curses etc) and its the richness of the characters that make it so relevant in all ages. Again Mahabharata can also be percieved and interpreted in many ways and so your view of one person as pure evil is understandable. But like rest of the characters , Shakuni can also be explored to find new facets to the story as we know it. mahabharata as we know it is not an original work by a single author- most of what we know of Mahabharata is the result of centuries of modifications, additons , explorations by scores of story-tellers, & may be that is also how it will servive 1000 years from now. Amen! 🙂

          1. Shalya was tricked to join D since he gave his wordas a Kshatriya , he originally he had intended to join Pandavas.
             Think only K was truly loyal to D due to his friendship. Others had to be loyal as they were part of royal court and were his subjects (Drona, Kripa). Balarama thought he was the best disciple! Most others were kings who were aligned with his kingdom.

             Agree he had some redeeming qualities, but his obsession with humiliating his cousins ended in his downfall!

    2. Another version I have heard:
       To determine who was the smartest of the Gandhara princes while in the prison, the task was to thread a bone without the person making a hole in it. Shakuni tied the thread to an ant which bore a hole into the bone and came out with the thread tied, at the other end of the bone. Thus it was decided that Shakuni should get to eat and live so that he may take revenge while the other brothers starved to death.

36. anybody know of a english version of Vijayam? is there any such version available anywhere in any language? been trying to get hold of such a version since long. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    1. If you find one, let me know — I think the closest is what they call the critical edition.

37. This piqued my interest in this epic. I appreciate if some of the folks here suggest English versions of Maha Bharatham, preferably non-vanilla versions with different POVs.

    Thanks Prem. I spent countless hours reading your content on variety of topics over the last 15 years. My US life would have been a lot poorer without your online presence since the Rediff’s early days.I still get amazed with how well read you are and the superb analytical reasoning skills you possess.

    1. Jagadeesh,
       Welcome to the fan club. I agree with you wholeheartedly, been a great fan and follower of Prem since Rediff days. I used to read every word of his cricket match reports and now his blog.

       Amit

38. If what Bhimsen did to Duryodhan, what Arjun did to Karna and Bhishma, and what Dhrushtadyumna did to Dronacharya was correct, then why do we consider Kauravas as villians of Mahabharata?
    If all of the above is correct,then all that the Kauravas did the whole of their life was also correct.
    Isnt it?

Comments are closed.