'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 62

Originally posted by: ssroomani

I have read both the books and I enjoyed them. It is a slightly different perspective but I found that interpretation also pretty convincing. I am waiting for the third one to come out.

Only book which I could not really stomach was Ajaya. While I enjoyed the book by the same author on Ramayana, (the first book he wrote Asura), Ajaya somehow was too much to swallow but I read it to try and understand what the author was trying to say.

Authors who strip MB of divinity seem to go for Draupadis throat first. Guess its easier to blame the woman.

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Authors who strip MB of divinity seem to go for Draupadis throat first. Guess its easier to blame the woman.

AC is probably the best non-divine version I have read for that reason. The author does examine the motives of ALL male protagonists including that of Govinda

Well said Anu...which is y I avoid reading these novels...
Draupadi is always the first target for these authors...Draupadi may have been an influential person in the lives of her husbands...but did she land at the battlefield to kill Karna, Bhishma or Drone or did she make murder plots or lose everything in the dice game...

Originally posted by: bheegi

same here...I couldn't complete Ajaya. I enjoyed AC but as Anu had said before, one needs to read it with an open mind. I enjoyed it better than "Parva' which was also stripped off it's divinity element

I liked Parva initially but I have 2 peeves with it


1) why is the author not delving into Krishnas motives in more detail. IMO, it shows fear. Of being socially lynched for going after him
2) the end is so darned depressing


I am waiting to see how KUS ends AC 😃

Regarding Ajaya i would say that its mostly fictional.Most of the incidents that have been described in the book are fictional didn't happen in that way in the actual epic

for example Duryodhan not fighting with drupad at all and instead he is able to broker a peace treaty with him whereas pandavas are shown as warmongers who go and fight with Drupad is completely fictional.As per the actual epic Duryodhan fought and loss

But there are other places(although its just 10-20%) where the author does make a point and good point that too something that is based on the epic.Its isn't just swept under the rug

for example panadavs involvement in burning nishada woman with her son's in laskhagarah.KMG is largely silent on pandavas involvement in this incident .It can go either ways as per KMG it could be planned or something done on purpose it could simplY have happened unintentionally.But the critical edition and RM Ramesh clearly point toward pandavas involvement and them actually pre planning the burning which is how the writer of Ajaya has presented it and criticized it .Which cant be called fictional

so in points like this i do like Ajaya when epic based incidents are shown but with another POV but ya mostly the incidents and twisted and fictional elements have been add to make Suyodhan the hero which he wasnt

I don't mind interps with POV and motives. I really dislike it when incidents are changed or when motives don't meet logic


Guess I will be skipping Ajaya

Originally posted by: AnuMP

The incidents are the same just the strategy and motive behind are different, as far as I can see


You would have to read it with an open mind though and not as a fan of any character

I agree that you have to read those books with an open mind but some things in the book are just indigestible like Rukmini or Rukmavati marrying Pradyumn or Subhadra being in love with Shikhandin. It almost seems like Shikhandin has taken Arjuna's place. Govind is closer to Shikhandin. Sorry but I can't digest such distortion of an important character.

If I am not mistaken Rukmavati did marry Pradyumna. Rukmini doesn't exist in AC. I hadn't really given much thought to Shikhandin one way or the other before AC but I think that was the authors way of supporting marginalized groups of people.


Agree that Arjun doesn't come off very well in AC. But I think you are going to find many authors who take the same view because of the whole sharing thing or giving her up thing as in AC. Parva for example, depicts him even as an abuser. POI takes a very dim view of Parth. I like Arjun as a character but he wasn't without flaws

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Thanks sir for the explanation .However i still have some doubts regarding the purpose of this great war .I hope you wont mind clarifying them.

I understand and agree that this was a war of righteousness as it was fought between righteous panadavs and less righteous kauravas.Kauravas had tormented pandavs for a long time and panadavs had to face a lot of injustice and through this war panadavs got their justice and kauravas were punished for their sins.Which is why this could be called dharma yudh and perhaps this war set an example for the society that righteousness will always win in the end.And like the sholka you shared krishna ji came for the protection of panadavs and so that righteosuness in form of panadavs can win

But where i digress with SP's Mahabhart is how they interpreted this dharma yudh.As in from what i could understand their interpretation was that all kings of aryavrata were evil,the society at large of aryavarat was suffering hence all of them had to be killed in the great war.This is what krishna ji indicated in the second last episode i think.This is something i cant find in KMG at all.But my knowledge is fairly limited so perhaps you can help me understand this.

Were all kings of aryavrat evil , was the society of aryvrat suffering due to which all of them had to die?Even for that matter duryodhna?SP's mahabahrat seems to indicate that war wasn't fought becuase panadvas wanted justice or because yudhishtir wanted his throne back .Yes this was one of the reason but the greator reason was that Duryodhan wasn't good king and people of HP won't be happy under him.Again this is something i cant find in KMG infact KMG at two points seems to suggest Duryodhan was a good king.

Yes certainly Yudhishtir would have been a better king but does that mean that dury was a terrible king and people of HP were to be freed of him.I do agree that unified aryavrat would have prospered but does that mean the society was suffering under its previous rulers.For me this just seems like SP's attempt to sweep under the rug the destruction this war caused by saying all kings were evil so they had to be killed so that Yudhisitr can rule over them

I have also read that later in the epic Ved vyas tells Dhrithrashtra that this war was ordained by god's as vishnu ji had promised bhoomi devi that kshatraiya's will be destroyed and her burden will be reduced.But like you explained this was mostly due to the beginning of a new yuga and the old kshatraiya world had to be destroyed because of that.

Like i said my knowledge is limited to only two translations i have read so i have based my POV's on that hope you can shed some light and help clarify my doubts.I would like to learn more from some one as well read as you.

Also sir i had another query was Aryavrata united under Yudhsitir after this war only or was it after Ashwmedha yagna?

@Sabhayata, I must compliment you on the acuity of your analysis. I had missed parts of the last episodes of the SP Mahabharata. But if a sweeping interpretation was advanced that all kings of Aryavarta had become evil and so society had to be delivered by exterminating them, that would be a rather facile interpretation. Of course there were some ethical issues with the Kshatriya code of the time, some of which were exposed by Vikarna during his denunciation of the disrobing of Draupadi. But they were a heroic lot and they were the defenders of the Dvaapara order so dear to Krshna himself. The decimation of a whole generation of them in the Bhaarata war was a tragic setback that made ancient India vulnerable to all kinds of woes. As you have rightly hinted, those woes were ordained by the nature of Time -- the inexorable cosmic cycle in which Dvaapara had to yield place to the onset of Kali-yuga. Perhaps the SP reference was made as a supposed replication of the earlier instances of Parashurama's genocide of Kshatriyas; but that context was different in that Parashurama's crusade was against the oppressive depredations of certain Kshatriya kings (like KaartaveeryArjuna, who killed Parashurama's father, Jamadagni). And you are right, Mb never describes Duryodhana as a bad king. The issue was his envy of the rightful claim of Yudhishthira.
As regards your other query, the Ashvamedha Yajna was mainly intended as Yudhishthira's penance for the fratricide at Kurukshetra. After the war, he reigned supreme. In fact, the Ashvamedha charity called for lot of wealth, and Yudhishthira expressed the regret to Vyasa that he could not raise the additional fund from the other kings who were mostly adolescents and were all impoverished. So Vyasa advised him to collect the fabulous treasure of king Marutta which was stored in the Himalayas.