#pandav

Mahabharat clearly reflects the Four Eternal Ages of Hinduism: Satya (The golden utopian age), Treta (The Age of Ram), Dwapar (the age when Mahabharat Takes place) and Kali (the current and the most corrupt age). Satya was considered the eternal age, where any living beings were bereft of corruptions: the Gods, Demi-gods, Goddess Ganga, Ved Vyas, all these characters are the flagbearers of Satya Yuga. Treta Yuga is when corruption existed only within monstrous beings, humans were good, valient and bereft of any corruptions: this is represented in the Characterization of Bhisma, Lord Parshu Ram, Pandu. The Dwapar Yuga is when corruption intruded within humans and they became equally strong and valiant as the good ones: Krishna, Shakuni, Dronacharya, Draupadi were such characters. The Kali is the one where good ones are unable to control the evil and stay silent while the evil ones florish; good and bad becomes gray, layered while social hierarchy topples: Aswathama, Vidur, Karna are such characters.

Yudhisthir, to me, never fits in his own narrative and this was, I think, by design. Why? I have already spoken, Yudhisthir was more than just a character. To me, he was the first archetype of tragic hero. People address Oedipus, Orestes as the classical Greek Tragic heroes who later set the bar for Shakespeare for him to pen iconic tragic heroes like Macbeth, King Lear (he kind of reminds me of Dhritrasthra) or Hamlet. But to me, Yudhisthir was the prototype of tragic hero and he went totally unnoticed by the audience because the author was not focusing on him alone, he was focusing on the broader picture. Now let’s discuss in plain words: what is the tragic hero? One that is led to the tragic ends by fate or by his own deeds. It would be focused on fate if it is Greek tragedy, and in Shakespeare the character will bring doom on himself with his deeds and choices. What makes Yudhisthir hated so much around is his choice to play on. He could have stopped it, toppled the table, declared the game null and void, but he did not. The end that was brought by his action was both designed by “fate” (because Sahdev foresaw the ‘Adharma’ being manifested before) and his actions.

What are some hallmarks of a tragic hero? He is essentially good, has a very focused one track mind, and an infallible moral system that gets corrupted in the end. Yudhisthir possesses all that: he is essentially good, has a one track dare I say simple mind and an infallible moral system--heck he is all morality.  But there is an added element here. I read somewhere in Tumblr , Tragic heroes are essentially those who are in the wrong stories, surrounded by wrong circumstances, wrong people. Yudhisthir is everything and he fits in especially in the last scenario. He did not only had his siblings who were devoted to him, he didn’t only have a pillar-like mother who was strong and infallible--he also had his Kaurav cousins, the venomous Uncle Shakuni and Paternal Uncle, the King who did not like him to ascend the throne. From the moment he walked inside the Royal palace, he already walked in like a lamb into wolf’s den. He is constantly jeopardised throughout his stay there and finally he and his family were burnt in the Laxagruha in Varnavrat. He tried to see the good in people, people who always wanted the worst for him and the Laxagruh incident was a great big reality check--world is not your rosy playground, and you are up for a difficult time.

This was his circumstance. I think, if he and Pitamah Bhishma were born in Satya or Treta Yuga, they would have been happier. They had their worldview set--do what is right. But the definition of right they were following was long outdated. Both Yudhisthir and Pitamah Bhishma were placed not only in wrong time, but also in wrong places. Pitamah Bhishma had all the qualities of a leader: he was courageous, had vision and sense of responsibility. By renouncing the Identity of “Crown Prince Devavrath” to “Bhishma” he commited a  great treason to his abilities: not only he became bound to the throne and to any tom dick and harry ascended upon it, but it also made him subservient to the people lesser than him. If he was instructed to “win” Kashi Princesses as a King, I am sure he would have straight up refused it and called for Death Penalty. But since he was “bound” and had to play the henchman of the throne, he had no choice but to do it. When he became Bhishma, he was only thinking about the happiness of King Shantanu, and not his State--which was virtuous from his character, but not from a long term political setting. 

At the opposite, Yudhisthir was never the leader material--yes he had strong moral and outstanding patience, but somewhere he missed the leading drive to charge--no doubt Arjun became the Best of Pandavs by Yudhisthir’s blessings, and he was quite self aware that it wasn’t up to him, but to his brother to carry on the leading position from De facto means. Yudhisthir would have had an easier life if Karna was accepted by Kunti. Yudhisthir was quite submissive type. In Indian context, submissive has a greater meaning. Submissive men and personalities tend to be peace loving and they tend to surrender themselves for the greater power to attain that inner peace (something that Arjun learns while he was given the Geeta Gyan). Yudhisthir knew how to submit, he wanted submission to the greater power, but he had no one to submit. He lost his father at the tender age, he could not fully submit to Bhishma or Vidur because of their ties with the King. He was devout to his mother, but complete submission was impossible as the eldest son. Even with his wife Draupadi where submission could have been possible (as he suggested that all his brothers should submit their faithfulness to her), he could not--because the stigma of Draupadi being his younger brother’s wife first always plagued him and thus (in the books) he could never love her.

This makes us wonder, all of Yudhisthir’s life was just a big reluctant episode, where he just dispassionately, impartially discharged his duties. Makes sense, because he was the Godson of Yama, the God of Righteousness, Death and Judgement. While you are at a similar position, you don’t do passion, you just don’t do emotional hearty stuff--you just discharge your duty. And this, despite Yudhisthir’s “godly” character trait became his ultimate tragic flaw. His morality and uprightness thus also became a symbol of something greater than him, which makes him more than just a character. His moral uprightness, which also makes him hated by many becomes the symbol of law and legal judgement. In the Dice game, Yudhisthir could not have imagined what would have happened with him or with his families. The enemies relied on his upright nature and exploited him. This symbolises the failure of a legal system. Both him and Bhishma make themselves bound by morality, and not righteousness. 

Yudhisthir’s failure to reply such an unrighteousness represents a very modern problem. When an unprecedentedly heinous crime occurs which the legal system fails to punish within it’s bound, the law itself becomes victim of itself. Yudhisthir, by continuing “the honor of the word” did the same thing, which led him to his tragic end. Law, or the system must prevail to the end--as the Emperor of Aryavrat is the supreme figure of law and Justice, Yudhisthir took it upon himself to see it through. I think there is something very “Dostoevskian” about it, or “eschatological” --to see things to the end. It is a very macabre thing to yearn where you continue to see your misfortunes with a steadfast yet broken heart, until the very end. Again, his blood from the God of Death Yama speaks here. Eschatological concerns itself with the theology that concerns with death, afterlife and Judgement... which are the domains of his father--Yama. He had two choices before him: bringing a code of dishonor to his subjects to carry on for generations, or to disgrace his family for a relatively small time. Although he chose the latter, he ended up bringing sorrow to his subjects which he abhorred to do.

Although the episode of Draupadi’s Cheer Haran was one of the most tragic episodes, and something even Yudhisthir could not imagine in his most horrible nightmares--there is something about it that could be said. Yudhisthir never loved Draupadi in a romantic sense, but he respected her a great deal. As his “ardhangini” he also assumed that Draupadi would be ready to give the same sacrifice as him for Dharma and her subjects. However, as a son of a King with every bit of good conduct present, it was out of his mind that something so horrible could occur with his wife, and by her brother-in-laws. There was an unspoken rule in Aryavrat--you don’t attack your relatives, and thus Kings and Princes married many women to secure borders and dynasties. Yudhisthir was just out of the depths about the sins that would be committed in front of him.

If Yudhisthir and Bhishma is the rigid, failing legal system, Krishna is the Legislative amendment, that breaths life into law and makes it suitable for the new age. I always wondered the strange color dichotomies between Bhishma ad Krishna: Bhishma was always decked in silver, the second best metal after gold, and he was white in his clothes and beard that reminded me of the foams of Lower Ganges in the mountains. Krishna is dark, black and called “Neel Megha Shyama” (dark as the rain filled cloud). I think it was the first literary piece before “Swan Lake” where the “pure white one” dies and “seductive black one” wins. Point to note, Bhishma is celibate, never touched a woman in life and Krishna is famously romantic, well versed in sexual arts and loved by women all across. Bhishma’s celibacy may be granted great by all, but it was ultimately as much as death--because with him the direct bloodline of King Shantanu died. Yudhisthir is born of the God of Death, Yama, and Krishna is the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, the God of Life and Preservation. Death can be rigid, just and equal but Life cannot be so: life is every changing and ever transforming and thus the moral-legal symbol that Yudhisthir represents must change. If the narrative ended with Cheer Haran with Yudhisthir doing something out of the fit of rage or grief, it would have had the classic tragic hero end, but it didn’t because of Krishna. When Life meets Death it explores the nuances of the living with all its sufferings and happinesses rather than accepting the submissive, egalitarian, dispassionate peace. And here, Yudhisthir is forced to “lie”, do things he doesn’t like, suffers the loss of his elder born and elder brother and grows as a person.

Tags