Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar
Dear Friends,
Thank you all very much for inviting me to be a part of your discussion here. I really loved reading your questions, and hope to do some justice to them.
Please find below a pretty long post in which I try to cover some of the main/ recurrent questions so far. My intent here is to a) allow us to move deeper into these issues, or move forward with new questions in the evening's chat and b) make the most of the ten posts per day that I am currently restricted to L
Consequently, I will also have to combine reponses to your questions later on too.
I have not directly addressed some of the more detailed questions some of you have posed. I shall go through the posts again over the next some days and try to cover what has been missed.
Thank you for your patience with me, and if I have inadvertently not responded to you, please do feel free to post your query again.
Now, on to the questions (and my attempt at answers):
Why did Govinda choose Dharma to marry Panchali/ become Emperor?
Many of you have pointed out possible reasons, and all of these are, to some extent part of the larger web. Govinda's distrust of Syoddhan's brothers, the intent to put a Kuru on the throne... all of these are part of the web of reasons. I will add one more:
What we must also remember is that Govinda was not working in isolation, but was working to weave his own plans around those of Vyasa and other players. He did the best he could with what he had. He wasn't always right, and he knew it, which is why he descends into despair when things backfire. But at the end of it all, he discovers a deeper strength and meaning that brings him back to Kurukshetra.
Negative (really?) portrayal of Dharma 😊
Let me say this, many of the statements Dharma makes are taken directly from the KMG ed, sometimes even the critical ed. I too was initially shocked to find that Dharma's behaviour was not always consistent with the picture that was painted of him. But I feel I've done little extra to make him seem negative, and this is really the impression he gives of himself, when we view him from contemporary perspectives.
For example, Dharma does not believe himself to be in the least error in staking his subjects at dice - not even after the war. If you went and asked him today, he'd probably protest saying he did no wrong (I think there was a question about why he does not repent). He does not repent because he thinks he does right. And I agree that he is undoubtedly principled and honest about that. Nowhere have I said that he did wrong. All the other characters say is that his beliefs, which are representative of the larger system, are wrong. Dharma is a symbol of the (then and now) existing hierarchy. And that structure is, I think you'll agree, not a positive one at all.
Arjun/Partha
We are used to thinking of the epic characters as one-dimensional, perfect from the get go, and that, IMHO is a disservice to their true heroic natures. Heroes are those who rise above themselves, who learn and grown. And that is what happens with Partha - he is the symbol of... well you and I, really. People who are not Govinda, but who realize that life is all about trying to get there. Over the three books, Partha is one of the characters who changes the most - from being a womaniser' to someone who is clear and noble in through and intent. But to see this characters growth, you'd have read all three books J
The same goes for his relationship with Govinda. It evolves over time (and the books). Also, Partha was the only one to say anything in question of Dharma's authority at the dice game (other than Bhim's ineffectual rants) - something that would certainly serve to strengthed the bond between Govinda and Partha - not just emotionally, but also at a rational, philosophical level.
As for his getting educated' on flame tailed and flame-tipped arrows by Uttara - why is that such a shock. I doubt a truly noble warrior such as he would have had ego-issues when it came to knowledge of that sort. It doesn't diminish Partha in the least that there are things he does not know - he is willing to learn, that is more valuable than all knowledge he holds.
Why is Panchali childless?
First, let me state for the record that I personally object to the notion that a childless Panchali is incomplete.' Women are not defined by their wombs alone. She is completely capable of being a mother - not just to Abhimanyu - but a woman who feels like mother-like compassion beyond ties of blood and kin. At the same time, she does not have to be a mother, to be deserving of our compassion. She is human, that is all that matters.
Second, both timelines as well as event descriptions are pretty sketchy when we come to the Upa-Pandavas. Nor, as you all know, do the five have any major roles to play. I remember a statement which, roughly rendered, said "by giving each of her husbands a child she fulfilled her duty to them." - suggesting it was put in as a matter of propriety. Otherwise, it does seem quite a feat to deliver exactly one child each with calendar precision, and then have no further children, no?
Missing events
One word answer: Interpolation 😊
Please see my blog (I can't post the link here coz Im a newbie) for more on this.
The War
Why war? What purpose did it serve? Why did Panchali want it? Why did Govinda want it? These are precisely the questions that made me begin writing The Aryavarta Chronicles. How could rational and compassionate individuals like these two want or sanction the killing of hundreds of thousands. Many years and 500K words later, I have an answer, though I do not claim it is the only answer: revolution.
Thanks, and look forward to continuing the discussion!
PS. The books are not available in the US because the publisher does not have US rights (ie US rights available for sale, hint hint!)
comment:
p_commentcount