Why Bhima is the real hero of the Mahabharata!

Image: thekarna.wordpress.com

There is many a character that one can claim is the 'real' hero of the Mahabharata. I would leave Krishna out of this discussion. There is no doubt that when the Lord incarnates, He is the protagonist and everything revolves around Him.

Krishna aside, the contenders for the next spot include Arjuna, Krishna, Bhishma, and maybe a few others. Some might even put Duryodhana in their list. I, however, put Bhima on top.

Bhima is born the second son of Pandu and Kunti (an avatar of Vayu). Even as a child, his immense strength is on display. When the Pandava children are playing, Bhima is accidentally dropped on a rock. To the parents' surprise, it is the rock that is shattered and Bhima is as cheerful as ever.

During the training period under Dronacharya, along with the Kauravas, while Arjuna chooses the bow and arrow as his weapon of choice, Bhima picks the gada (mace) and so does Duryodhana. (Duryodhana is also actually taught by Balarama, Krishna's elder brother).

In the Draupadi swayamvara, it is Arjuna who is chosen to contest (shooting a revolving fish's eye, not looking directly at it?). While the popular version of the story tells us that 'Arjuna won Draupadi' but due to Kunti's mistake all the brothers end up 'sharing' her, there are other lesser known versions with deeper explanations. One of the back stories is that Draupadi ends up with '5 husbands' because of a wish that was granted by Shiva to her in her previous birth (as Nalayani, the daughter of Nala and Damayanthi). Instead of getting a husband with her 5 favourite qualities, she ends up getting 5 separate husbands. Shiva also blesses her that she would regain her virginity each morning. I have heard another back story that extends this. 4 other devis (the divine consorts of the other Pandavas I think) also have some similar wish granted, due to which they end up having to share Draupadi's body. It is the right devi that actually inhabits Draupadi's body each time 'Draupadi' is with a Pandava.

In any case, Draupadi herself is considered an avatar of Bharati (consort of Vayu), and hence it cannot be Arjuna that is the 'rightful' husband, even though he is the one that participates in the contest. It sure is Bhima. There is a much longer story behind why Arjuna is chosen to contest, and not Bhima. The story involves Shikhandi (something I recently learned of) and will try to post this sometime soon.

Some other quick points on key Bhima acts/slayings:

1) Even in Duryadhana's court, before Draupadi's vastraapaharana took place, Bhima is all fury, and is controlled by Yudhishtira. He makes a vow to Draupadi that he will bring her the blood of Duhsshasana until which Draupadi vows that she will not wash her hair (?). I don't know of any other Pandava

2) Bhima slays Duryodhana and Duhsshasana in the war. These are the main evil characters in the entire Mahabharata.

3) Bhima sacrifices his son Ghatothkacha without a second thought, for the sake of Dharma. Had it not been for Ghatothkacha, Arjuna may have been harmed by Karna. More on this story later.

4) In no way does Bhima ever doubt that Krishna is the supreme being. Arjuna is in doubt whether Krishna might be harmed, forgetting that Krishna is the one controlling the chariot and Arjuna merely the tool. Yudhishtira is afraid that Duryodhana might harm Krisha when he goes to his court to negotiate peace; again forgetting that He protects all, and there should be no such doubts. I am not taking anything away from Arjuna or Yudhishtira, and I am being nitpicky, but these are devatas we are talking about and each one has his/her position in the hierarchy of the pantheon of Gods.

The "Good or Bad" series: Karna Part 1

(image courtesy dollsofindia.com)

Karna is one of the most controversial characters in the Mahabharata. Karna evokes a lot of sentiments -admiration, hate, pity, "underdog", etc. Many interpretations of the Mahabharata actually side with his side of the story.

Movies like Mani Ratnam's Dalapathi (Rajnikanth, Mammooty) also mirror such interpretations where Rajni is depicted as the cast-away child by an unwed young girl, is a victim of circumstances, becomes a part of Mammooty's group (a criminal ring leader cum do-gooder).

Looking at Karna strictly through the prism of Dharma (or good/bad), I must conclude that he was bad. He sure does some heroic things, so there is definitely the urge to paint him in the grey, as someone who was the victim of circumstances, etc. However, one must resist that since in the Mahabharata, all the characters (neglecting minor transgressions) are either plain good or bad. If nothing else, my general rule of thumb is "if you took the side of Krishna in the war, you were good", "if you took the side of Duryodhana, you were bad" (Balarama who did not participate is a different story, more on him later). Lets us for now, of course, ignore the aspect of avatar or amsha, and focus just on the particular character in the Mahabharata. i.e., when I classify Karna as "bad", I don't necessarily extend that to Surya, whose avatar/amsha is Karna (likewise for Ashwatthama, etc).

Karna joins the side of Duryodhana at a time when the latter's evil ways may not necessarily have been apparent. So, while one may excuse that, especially since Karna's ego is boosted (he is made king of Agna), Karna sticks on as a friend for gratitude, and actively aids him in his evil deeds.

(image courtesy hinduyuva.org)

During the game of dice, when Draupadi is gambled away by Yudhishtira, Duryodhana asks that she be brought into the court. Some of the elders protest, but they are not able to resist Duryodhana because he is the king-in-waiting, and they are beholden to him. Dharma goes out the door. When Duhsshasana tries to molest her, Karna does not merely stay silent with shame (like Bhishma, etc.) but actually spurs him on and abuses Draupadi. This one incident is enough to classify him as bad. A kshatriya worth his salt never shows his might against women or children, only protects; whoever it might be. For that matter, this kind of behaviour is considered hooliganism today, let along in dwapara yuga during Krishna's time! Only Vidura, as far as I know, registered his dissent to the disrobing, but was unable to do anything more. Even the Pandavas did nothing (more on this later).

There are several occasions when Karna is reminded of Dharma, including by Krishna. However, he is so blinded by his misplaced loyalty to Duryodhana that he is unable to listen to wise counsel.

Getting the Pandavas' uninteresting grandparents out of the way...

My intro post was about the start of the Mahabharata, with Devavrata becoming Bhishma. This is in continuation...

Probably the most uninteresting characters in the Mahabharata were Bhishma's step brothers  - Chitrangadha and Vichitravirya.

Chitrangadha, the elder of the two becomes the king of the Kurus when Shantanu is gone. He soon dies childless, and the still very young Vichitravirya ascends to the throne with Bhishma ruling on his behalf. I'm guessing that Bhishma is already quite old by this time (say 50 or so), but probably still young given the lifespans in those times.

Bhishma hears of the king of Kashi announcing a swayamvara for his daughters - Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika. Since Vichitravirya is too young, Bhishma decides on go to the swayamvara on his behalf. But... he has other plans for the swayamvara itself. There probably are different varieties of swayamvara, including contests (like the one Arjuna wins at Draupadi's swayamvara), and others where the princess chooses one herself. Irrespective of the mode of the swayamvara, there appears to have been a rule that any suitor prince can kidnap the princess and challenge the rest of the princes to battle. If the kidnapper wins, he gets to marry the princess. Not sure what happens if he loses. I suppose he would be considered disqualified, and the swayamvara would continue as before. Or, maybe the prince that wins against the kidnapper prince is considered the winner of the swayamvara.

Since Bhishma is at this swayamvara on Vichitravirya's behalf, he decides to take the kidnap route. By the way, I read a quasi-history/indology article (or maybe it was a documentary) a while ago that places the Mahabharata, or at least parts of it in Central Asia, since the kidnapping of girls to marry them is apparently common there even now (?). I'm losing patience with  indology researchers who jump to conclusions based on what appears to be flimsy evidence. But I digress...

Bhishma kidnaps the three princesses, challenges the other assembled princes, and dashes off to Hastinapura. On the way, he is challenged by several of the other princes who lose easily. Even Shalya, himself a mighty warrior loses. Shalya is important in this episode because he and Amba have already taken a liking to each other, and Amba expects him to be her man at the end of the swayamvara.

On reaching Hastinapura, Amba reveals her interest in Shalya, and Bhishma lets her go. However, Shalya refuses to accept her because she was won by someone else. Amba now finds herself in a spot, and goes back to Bhishma to ask him to marry her. Bhishma refuses, saying he has already taking a vow to remain a bachelor for ever. Amba is now furious, because she has no options ("it's complicated"). She then requests Parashurama to fight Bhishma for her revenge, which Parashurama accepts.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Bhishma and Parashurama fight for 23 days, and is unable to fell Bhishma. Some versions of this story say that Bhishma decides to use an astra that Parashurama has no knowledge of, at which point the Gods and Parashurama's father rishi Jamadagni intervene and stop Bhishma and Parashurama, respectively.

I'm not sure why Parashurama, an avatara of Vishnu, who is all seeing-knowing, ends up in this situation, but that's a different matter. The Parashurama character deserves a dedicated post..

Anyway, once Parashurama declares that Bhishma is invincible in battle, Amba decides to take her fight to her next birth. She prays to Shiva, and obtains a boon that she will be born a man who would remember his past birth, and will also be the cause of Bhishma's death. Amba is hence reborn as Shikhandi (to Drupada, Draupadi's father), who fights on the side of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata war.

The story now shifts to the Mahabharata war, where knowing that Bhishma would not fight Shikhandi, the Pandavas plan for him to face Bhishma. The Pandavas do this based on Bhishma's suggestion when they seek his advice on defeating him. Even though Shikhandi is a man, I suppose the reason Bhishma would not fight him is that the true nature of Shikhandi is female. Some schools of thought hold that each soul is inherently male/female, and hence a mere accidental birth (for whatever reason) in the opposite sex would not change the inherent.


(image courtesy sbonlifensuch.wordpress.com)

There are only two episodes in the entire Mahabharata (that I am aware of) where Bhishma drops his weapons and welcomes death. Is this selfish behaviour or a character flaw as the commander of an army? Perhaps, but more on this question later.

The first incident is at the start (?) of the Mahabharata when Arjuna refuses to fight Bhishma. Krishna tells Arjuna that if he wouldn't fight Bhishma, then he would finish Bhishma off. On seeing Krishna rush towards him, Bhishma drops his weapons and welcomes death at the hands of the supreme being. This incident, of course, do not end in Bhishma's death because Arjuna stops Krishna and agrees to fight.

(image courtesy indianetzone.com)

The second incident is when Shikhandi (Amba!) is put by the Pandavas before Bhishma on the battlefield, and challenges him to a fight. Arjuna takes Shikhandi along in his chariot, and when Shikhandi challenges Bhishma, the latter drops his weapons.

This being the only chance to take Bhishma out, Arjuna puts arrows into Bhishma and lays him on the bed of arrows.

While it is Arjuna who fells Bhishma, it is Shikhandi who 'causes' his death, technically satisfying Shiva's boon while still giving Bhishma an honourable death at the hands of Arjuna. Arjuna brings Bhishma's mother Ganga to him, by shooting an arrow into the ground (baan-ganga) that creates a fountain of water for him to drink from. Bhishma also recites the Vishnu sahasranama on his death bed, singing Vishnu's praise. Bhishma, not wanting to die in Dakshinayana, postpones his death (boon from his father Shantanu) until the start of auspicious Uttarayana (just before sankaranthi/pongal).

Telugu movie Narthanasala - Virata Parva

This post is part movie review, part Virata Parva episodes.

Of all the Indian movies (well, Telugu and Tamil mostly) on the epics, I like Narthanasala the most. Karna in Tamil comes close, primarily due to Sivaji Ganesan. Many other potentially good performances are wasted due to bad casting. Also, too much DMK-style dialogues, a reflection on the politics-cinema cross pollination during the time.

And I wonder why none of the Mahabharata movies has a good actor in the role of Bhima - not even in Narthanasala. It's usually some physically huge fellow that looks deliberately dim-witted, making the powerful character a laughing stock. More on Bhima later.

Narthanasala wins out for the several great performances - from SV Ranga Rao as Keechaka, NT Rama Rao as Arjuna, the incomparable Savithri as Draupadi. While I didn't understand all the dialogues, the familiar story carried me through.

In the Virata Parva of the Mahabharata, the Pandavas are in the 13th year of their exile. They are required to be incognito, and if caught, would be required to repeat the 13 years. The Pandavas and Draupadi pretend to be civilians and decide to stay in Matsya, ruled by King Virata.

(By the way, there are ancient temples in Pakistan, in a location of importance to the Mahabharata. Chakwal is the region they are supposed to have spent their first 12 years in exile. Katasraj Temples: Wikipedia.)

Yudhishtira acts as a scholar/astrologer (?), Bhima as a cook/kitchen aide, Arjuna as a eunuch/dancer, Nakula as a keeper of the horses (?), and not sure about Sahadeva.

Arjuna is aided by a curse from Urvashi - that he must serve as a eunuch for a year. So, he chooses to turn a eunuch for the 13th year and is employed in teaching dance (learned from Urvashi I think) to Virata's daughter Uttara. NT Rama Rao does a good job as Arjuna in Narthanasala. At the end of the 13 years, Arjuna helps the Matsya kingdom defeat the Kaurava attack, thus revealing himself. When Virata comes to know of their identities, he proposes his daughter in marriage to Arjuna, but Arjuna refuses (since he has taught her, he is like a father to her). She is instead married to Abhimanyu. Not sure if Uttara is Abhimanyu's first wife, or if it is Subhadra.

While NTR does a good job, the best performances are definitely by SVR and Savithri. SVR's monologue in front of the mirror, and his subsequent intoxicated dialogues with Savithri are legendary.

 

Watch Narthansala if you haven't already - even if you don't follow Telugu too well (I don't)! The entire movie is available in Youtube, in parts.

Indra - good, bad, and ugly

Indra plays several characters in the two epics. He appears as Indra himself several times, and as distinct characters/avatars.

The most famous avatar of Indra of course is Arjuna in the Mahabharata. And we all know Arjuna was 'good'. But are there darker shades to Indra, the head of the devas? There are many!

The puranas and the epics build an image of Indra that is playboy-ish. While he does lead the devas, is a key member of the pantheon of Gods, etc., he still has dark shades to his character that no other God has.

The first story where Indra is clearly a villain is that of Ahalya from the Ramayana. Very interesting story, with a lot of takeaways for us in the modern world.

(image courtesy columbia.edu -
Raja Ravi Verma)

Ahalya is described in the puranas as being created specially by Brahma. He creates her to best Urvashi in Indra's court in beauty. She is sent to rishi Gautama's ashrama to be raised, and when she is presented back to Brahma, he is pleased with Gautama's restraint. An open competition is held for all to contest for her hand. Indra, having taken a fancy to Ahalya (and by some accounts, she to him) contests. The first to complete a circle of the world is to be considered the winner.

Gautama does a 'Ganesha' and quickly circles his cow that is giving birth. According to the shastras, a cow that is giving birth is considered equivalent to the entire world, and hence Gautama is declared winner.

After marriage, when Gautama is away from his ashrama, Indra appears in the form of Gautama and seduces Ahalya, leading her to be cursed by Gautama. She would remain unseen to the outside world, as a rock, until Rama brushes his feet on the rock, 60000 years later, to redeem her. Some accounts in the puranas lay part of the blame on Ahalya, but Indra ia accepted universally as having seduced her. And don't worry that he wasn't punished for his act. Gautama curses him that half the blame for any 'rape' of anybody in the world in the future would belong to Indra. Quite a reputation indeed, gained during Satya Yuga (when the influence of Kali is nil). There's more to the curses heaped on him, but the different puranic versions are too many to recount.

The story of Ahalya is a very sensitive issue even today, with women's movements picking it up as a key example of how women are targeted for the faults of others, etc. Some others blame Ahalya for being easy prey. I'll leave Ahalya alone, I'm content to pick on Indra!

(image courtesy gangesindia.com)

During the Ramayana itself, Indra incarnates as Vali, Sugriva's brother. Vali abducts his brother's wife, and Sugriva seeks Rama's help in return for his vaanara forces' help in invading Lanka.

Rama shoots Vali down without facing him in battle, something critics of Rama say he should not have done. Where did yuddha dharma go, whoever the opponent might be?

I however would say that yuddha dharma does not apply in all cases. Just like speaking the truth all the time isn't a virtue (there are cases when speaking a lie can be the dharma).

Given that Vali has abducted his brother's wife, he is not entitled to a fair battle. He deserved to be shot down by whatever means. It does not reflect on Rama's character in any way, just on Vali's (Indra) action.

Here again, a clearly bad character, keeping Indra's reputation up.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Even in the Mahabharata, where Indra plays a mostly clean Arjuna and some other characters, there are dark shades to be seen.

Indra does play some bit roles, including that of an ascetic who goes to Karna during his surya pooja. Knowing that Karna would give away anything that was asked after surya pooja, he asks for his kavacha (the armour he was born with). Karna realizes that this must be Indra incognito (to help Arjuna his archrival), but goes ahead and cuts his armour off. Nothing much bad about Indra's role here, but it does appear to be trickery at first glance, even if it were to Karna, a not so good character inspite of his virtues.


(image courtesy augadha.com)

As Arjuna, while Indra does not commit too many mistakes, there are many episodes that indicate doubt on his abilities or character.

First, Dronacharya protects him in the face of challengers, to keep him the best archer of his times. Ekalavya's thumb is taken, making him incapable of rivaling Arjuna's prowess. Karna is insulted because he isn't a kshatriya, and while he may have displayed skills better than Arjuna, he is insulted by many, including Drona. Even Draupadi, when it seems like Karna might win the swayamvara, tells him that he is ineligible to participate because he was not kshatriya. All these make Arjuna look less grand, almost as if he had godfathers everywhere who would do anything to protect him.

The episode of Abhimanyu dying inside the chakravyuha is heartbreaking. Nonetheless, Arjuna's reaction leaves a lot to be desired. First, Arjuna, in one episode in the Mahabharata is seeing advising a man not to cry at his son's funeral because the son was merely departing his present body, etc. Second, Arjuna hears the whole geeta upadesha from Krishna at the start of the war. He even confirms that he has understood the impermanence of life, and the need for dharma. Within 18 days of hearing the geeta, he cries when Abhimanyu is dead. Krishna then tells Arjuna that he might have as well done geeta upadesha to more deserving people like Bhima. More on Bhima later!

So, there. Indra's good, bad, and the ugly.

The Rishis made Mahabharata interesting!

If there was one group of people changed the course of the Mahabharata (numerous times!), it was the rishis.

I was doing a bit of research after I wrote my 1st post on Shantanu and Satyavati. This led me to several instances in the Mahabharata where the rishis play key roles. Here are some of those:

(image courtesy http://divopics.blogspot.com)

We all know the story of Kunti and how Karna was born. Rishi Durvasa visits Kunti's adopted father Kuntibhoja (she is actually an aunt of Sri Krishna but was given away in adoption to the childless Kuntibhoja). Durvasa is pleased by Kunti's devotion and hospitality to him and teaches her a mantra with the blessings that she can use the mantra to invoke any God and have a son born through them.

Kunti (still a child) decides to test the mantra and invokes Surya, who hands her Karna, and the rest is history.

Durvasa's mantra comes in handy in a crucial time in the epic. Pandu is now the king of the Kurus, and accidentally kills the conjugal couple (means 'in the act') rishi Kindama and his wife. To be fair, the rishi had the powers to transform himself into any animal, and Pandu thought he was only shooting down a deer couple. Still, the badly hurt Kindama curses Pandu that if he ever indulges in any sexual activity, he shall die immediately. And the Pandavas are not yet born! Quite a tricky situation.

Pandu now becomes an ascetic and lives in the forest with Madri and Kunti. Kunti reveals Durvasa's secret Mantra to invoke any God, using which she begets 3 children - Yudhishtira, Bhima, and Arjuna. Kunti also teaches Madri the mantra and she begets 2 children - Nakula and Sahadeva.

Pandu, after 15 years, touches Madri out of passion, and is instantly killed. Out of guilt, Madri commits sati on the funeral pyre, and the story of the Pandavas continues with Kunti as their only mother.

(image from wikipedia, Javanese Wayang)           

Going back chronologically, Satyavati (Shantanu's wife) herself had an interesting history before Shantanu came along. Rishi Parashara ends up getting attracted to her and they have a child who becomes rishi Veda Vyasa (yes, the one who wrote the Mahabharata and organized the Vedas). Rishi Parashara also blesses Satyavati so she gets her virginity back(!).

Her sons (through Shantanu) Vichitravirya and Chitrangadha (step brothers of Bhishma) depart issueless, and Satyavati summons her 1st son Veda Vyasa to give their wives Ambika and Ambalika a son each. Dhritarashta and Pandu are hence born.

So, in two important places in the Mahabharata, the Kuru race itself could have been wiped out had it not been for Durvasa, Parashara (indirectly) and Veda Vyasa. There must be some more to these stories that I am missing. How can children of Veda Vyasa, who is not a kshatriya, be kshatriyas? Can they continue to claim to be part of the Kuru lineage? I read somewhere that according to the shastras the mother's caste determines her childrens' caste (gothra/lineage is different). Is that what is under play here, or does that go against the patriarchal system we've always had? This is most confusing to me.

In the case of Kunti and Madri, their sons are born instantly, or at least that is my reading of the stories. Neither Kunti nor Madri go through the process like Ambika and Ambalika did with Veda Vyasa (in fact the blind Dhritarashtra and the pale Pandu are the result of their respective mother's reactions to Veda Vyasa - one closes her eyes in horror and the other turns pale). This raises interesting questions, going by some of the modern world's developments. It is possible now to have children without actually carrying them, via test tubes. Maybe something similar happened here. Or maybe we should not try to explain things that are divine, where tools unavailable to humans might be in play.   

Are there shastra principles that say that exceptions such as the above (children via some man else or even by invoking God) are proper when the greater good of the people is in jeopardy? Had the Kuru lineage abruptly ended, either in the case of Pandu/Dhritarashtra or in the case of the Pandavas, the course of history could have been altered so massively that the world, and Bharatavarsha would have seen more chaos than resulted. 

Rama doubts Sita?

There are only a handful of instances in the Ramayana where one might question Rama's actions. One such is the incident that happens after Rama wins the war with Ravana, and brings Sita back from Lanka.

On usual incognito rounds of His kingdom, he hears people talking about Sita. They doubt that any woman, even if it were Sita, would not have succumbed to a man, especially after she was under his control for months together.

(image courtest nirmukta.com)

What happens next is Sita undergoes an agni pariksha. If she walks through fire unscathed, she is considered to have been pure and chaste. If there was an iota of impurity in thoughts or actions, she would be burned. She does come out of the fire unscathed, and convinces her citizens.

A lot of issues at hand here, some political:


Firstly, I don't think that Sita should be viewed as the sort of helpless woman she is portrayed as normally. "She crossed the lakshman rekha herself", "she wanted a deer that attracted her", etc. 


Focusing on the agni pariksha incident itself, I don't know if Valmiki goes into details on the Rama-Sita conversation after Rama learns about his citizens' doubts. I have a strong feeling that Sita herself suggested to Rama that the best course for him as the king, and her as queen, is to subject herself to agni pariksha. While the husband may have no doubts on his wife, one holding public office does need to take his citizens' views into account. 


(image courtesy awara32.blogspot.com)

And, I hate that Sita is sometimes depicted as crying on hearing about the agni pariksha (remember Ramayan from the late 80s-early 90s?), whether hurt by Rama's decision or for any other reason. That women are the crying type is a stereotype that's not very accurate. I think the sorrow was felt most on the part of the citizens, to see their beloved queen subjected to a test only because some among them had doubts. (If I might mix a bit of theology in, Rama and Sita being the Lord and His consort herself cannot have experienced any sorrow anyway, they were merely playing their role.) 


That said, I can't understand why Sita had to leave Rama. Having stayed with him through hardships a princess would not be accustomed to, being abducted, and so on, why did she have to leave him after the agni pariksha? Somehow a perfect marriage and couple seem slightly imperfect. She didn't seem to question any of his actions until then - not why he came late to reclaim her, not why they had to go to the forest in the first place. Why question his decision all of a sudden?


Curiously, I don't know that Janaka (the father of Sita) expressed any opinions on his daughter's situation - to Rama or in general. Not sure if Valmiki goes into the details, but I'd be interested in learning more. In today's world, any of what Sita had to undergo would be what the father-in-law might use as grounds to push for a divorce. Was Janaka silent because he knew that his son-in-law could do no wrong? Surely, seeing one's daughter undergo an agni pariksha in public to prove her chastity must have been unbearable? (Was he already dead by that time?)


Finally, Sita does not go back to Janakapuri (which by the way is in present day Nepal). Sita goes to Valmiki's ashrama instead, and ultimately raises her two sons there. Had she gone back to her father, that would have indicated that their marriage had failed which it hadn't. Anyway, overall Sita leaving Rama and moving to Valmiki's ashrama seems to me to have served no major purpose, other than punishing Ayodhya's citizens and depriving them of the presence of their queen and of their twin princes. 

The Intro

The Mahabharata and the Ramayana have always fascinated me, especially the former.

The range of characters, the presence of literally every divine being in the Hindu pantheon, the Lord Himself, history involving every part of Bharatavarsha, every tricky moral situation imaginable, the lead up to the decline of Bharatavarsha, the advent of Kali Yuga, and everything else that form the Mahabharata are so staggering and insightful that one can hardly ignore the epic.

(image courtesy hindugodwallpaper.com)

In the Ramayana, there can be no protagonist but Rama. There do exist versions or commentaries that might present Ravana as the hero, of course. With the Mahabharata, there are many claimants to the mantle of hero - including Yudhishtra, Arjuna, Karna, Bhishma, and probably some others. Still, in my mind the hero of the Mahabharata is clearly Krishna. There can be none other, even if some of the other characters appear more glamorous. More on this later.


There's one episode (and character) in the Mahabharata that moved me a lot. This episode also happens to be chronologically the start of the Mahabharata. The story of Kuru king Shantanu marrying Ganga and begetting Devavrata (later Bhishma) is arguably where it all begins. The story of Shantanu's marriage to Ganga itself is another post, but Shantanu lovestruck by a fisherwoman leads up to Devavrata becoming Bhishma.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Shantanu chances upon a fisherwoman Satyavati, is lovestruck, and goes to her parents to ask for her hand. The parents agree but upon condition that the son of Satyavati will become the king of Hastinapura, taking the Kuru lineage forward. Shantanu is shocked, is unable to do injustive to Devavrata his first-born, and returns in sorrow. Bhishma on seeing his father sad decides to investigate and finds out about his dilemma.

Several interesting questions arise. Was a Kuru king, one that had married Ganga previously, so out of control that he desired to marry someone again? Especially when his own son was of marriageable age? 

On the other hand, I appreciate him not forcing himself upon the fisherman's family. A king of his stature could have gotten away with abducting the girl and marrying her, or putting other pressure. He didn't do that, which is commendable. 

Lastly, why did the girl's parents want so much for giving away their daughter in marriage, that too to a king? Wouldn't any normal person be happy about marrying a king, especially one who is known to be a good king? Either they were not so keen on getting their daughter married to Shantanu (i.e., assumed Shantanu would laugh and go away), or they were really stupid, or they somehow knew that what they wanted would happen. A king during those times would not be able to bypass the first son to make someone else the crown price. Hence, if the fisherwoman's parents were aware of this, they might have expected that it would come down to Devavrata and were going in for a huge gamble. What if it never came down to Devavrata, and Shantanu forgot about their girl?

Devavrata goes to Satyavati's parents and asks for her hand for his father. The parents of course stick to their stand. Devavrata does not hesitate, but promises that Satyavati's son will be the future king. Even this does not convince the girl's parents who question whether his children will keep his word. At this point, Devavrata decides to do the unthinkable - he vows that he himself will never marry, so there will be only one thing to go by, his word. When Devavrata makes this promise, the Gods sprinkle him with flowers from the heavens, and proclaim him 'Bhishma'. On hearing this, Shantanu also grants Bhishma the boon that he would be able to decide the time of his death (this comes in handy when Bhishma prolongs his life on Arjuna's bed of arrows until the start of Uttarayana.)  

Several questions here. If Shantanu had powers to grant such boons, surely he was capable of bringing himself to forget the girl?


Bhishma's devotion to his father is exemplary. This is unparalleled, and Rama's story of taking Kaikeyi's word (on his father's wishes - going to the forest) is the only other such incident I am aware of.  


On the issue of trust, Satyavati's parents do not trust that Devavrata's children will honour his word, but trust him when he declares that he will never marry. I suppose that Devavrata's personality and conviction, his devotion to his father, and the Gods showering petals must have convinced them that his word was to be trusted.  

Just this one episode conveys so much about the institution of marriage, the consequences, greed, celibacy (never heard of any other kshatriya-sanyasi in our epics), devotion to parents, sacrifice, and keeping one's word.