#adharm

I think the war was called dharmayuddh because it was for the establishment of dharm (insert logic of "the end justifies the means" here). The Pandavs had left their personal grievances behind, and were fighting mostly to eradicate adharmic forces and cleanse Aryavart once before the 'next age' of Kaliyug began.

But with this line of reason, the question that arises is that if it was a war to remove adharm and establish dharm, then a) Why were adharmic means like, as you said, deceit and lies used to overpower and defeat the other side, and b) Who is to say that adharm didn't exist on the Pandav side?

The answer to both the questions seems to lie in one man: Krishna. Because Krishna endorsed and guided the means of 'deceit' and 'cheat' that would be used to kill the 'maharathi's, and Krishna is the Supreme Being, the Mahabrahman, therefore the so called "means of cheat and deceit" are no longer cheat and deceit, they are just bent rules. And because Krishna sided with the Pandavs [apart from the facts that a) Krishna himself by the Cosmic Design caused the 'siding' to happen, or knew that it would happen if he framed his offer (my Narayani Sena, or me) the way he did, and b) He HAD to pick a side, y'know, so he probably went with the side that he was sure would listen to him and would accept his reasoning with open hearts and would fight for the cause he wanted them to fight and sacrifice for], and Krishna, again, being the Supreme Being, the know-er of all good and all evil, he sided with them, so kinda by default, the Pandav side becomes more dharmic than the Kaurav side, if not entirely free of adharm.

Before I move to the question of adharm in the Pandav side, let me just add that the above logic works only and only if you accept Krishna as the "Supreme Being", and his reasons and discourse (anyone thinking Gita?) as The All-Pervading, Unquestionable Word. Otherwise, it's a mere matter of the united, spirited, and emotionally charged side of War obviously winning against the patchwork of reluctant warriors and enthusiastic soldiers who were to serve the purpose of personal vengeance, a cause definitely petty when compared to the Pandav propaganda of Establishing Righteousness On All Of Mankind (and remember, Yudhishthir, before the war began, went around the Kaurav army and invited willing soldiers and warriors to join their side if they felt that their cause was right, and Yuyutsu joined them [more like just Yuyutsu joined them, which should, I believe, say a lot about the Kaurav side and army, and Yuyutsu's (and Karna's) image today only somewhat serves to reinstate that "Victors write History"]).Another thing that may come to mind is that Krishna used the Pandavs and allies as tools to serve his greater purpose of making the world fit for the start of Kaliyug (y'know, ending the existence of divyaastra, etc.). Of course he did. Everyone was a tool, and everyone today is one too. However, it is also to be kept in mind that even though Krishna was (and is) the Master Puppeteer, he loves his "puppets" dearly too.

Now about adharm being there on the Pandav side too (yes it was there), here's something: The Pandavs realized their mistakes, and suffered for them, atoned, and earned forgiveness in their lifetime. The Kauravs, on the other hand, went on with their party of adharm lifelong, never realizing their folly, and even if realization hit them, they blatantly ignored it and ploughed on with their evilness. So at the time of War, we have to take into consideration not only the adharm on each side, but also the dharm, in which the Pandavs heavily outweighed the Kauravs. Which is why it is better and more befitting to say that victory went to the more dharmic side, rather than painting the picture in monochrome-- because there are no blacks and whites in Mahabharat, the entire thing is a motley of greys and grays.[Please note though, that the definitions of "dharm" and "adharm" above have been implied with respect to the times THEY lived in. Since there is no concrete criterion or absolute definition which can be assigned to dharm, this is a rather subtle topic to touch. Hence, my speculation(s) in the above paragraph are based on what is already established, because going into what constituted dharm/adharm for each party and how could either be "nullified" (which isn't a literal thing that is possible) is kinda beyond the scope of tumblr posts... So yeah.]