Sir
Thanks for taking out time and chatting with us.My questions are
1)In Ajaya from what i have read Pandavs seem to believe in a hierarchical system i.e since they were princes of kuru dynasty their status in society was higher and they deserved more or they had more rights or that their lives meant more than the lives of people who were lower than them in status but Suyodhan believed in the opposite
I can somewhat agree with this interpretation as there are examples of the same in text like Bhima insulting Karna during the contest organized for Kuru princes by Drona,Arjuna's involvement in Eklavya's incident,Panadavs involvement in burning of Nishada's at lakshagarah,Arjuna's involvement in Khandavprasath incident
So from these i can interpret as you have about Pandavas but my question is was Suyodhan any different .I mean his friendship with Karna can be quoted as an example but as per me that did start with a selfish purpose i.e to have some one as strong as Arjuna on his side and not necessarily to prove that he believed that even as Suta Karna deserved all rights of a kshatariya as Karna was a good warrior.So my question is can we really say that Suyodhan was any better are there any other examples of the same except for his friendship with Karna?Also in Ajaya even Krishna ji seems to share pandavas beliefs of hierarchical system and hence is against Suyodhan?Is there any example of the same that even Krishna ji believed in hierarchical system?
When Suyodhana supported Karna, Karna was an unproven warrior. He had suddenly burst into the scene and was not even allowed to match his skills. Suyodhana took a bold decision in supporting an underdog, not bothering whether he was Kshatriya or not. His speech at the coronation of Karna looks almost modern
He asks, do we ask the source of the rivers? Can we ask the lineage of brave men?
Imagine this- A prince is standing up for a commoner when the entire society is crushing him. The warrior is unproven. Suyodhana does not even know his name or how he can match Arjuna.
Then there are folk tales which I have narrated in my book, where Suyodhana once again stand up for the downtrodden. There is a temple in Kerala that celebrates this incident.
Compare this with Pandavas.
Whether Krishna believed in hierarchical system is something that depends on how you interpret Chaturvarnam Maya Srishtam and the rest of Gita
2)Ajaya is based on inversion theory i.e villains were actually the heroes and heroes were actually the villains and the side that won wrote their side of the story
But some how i find it hard to believe this inversion theory .As after reading the translation of the epic that we do have today i dont really see Kauravs being portrayed as villians and pandavs as complete heroes.if that were the case wouldn't the fact that Pandavs cheated to kill some major kaurava warriors be removed as well?Wouldnt Pandvas involvement in Nishada burning be removed as well?Wouldnt any citation that indicated Suyodhan was a good king be removed as well?
My point is if we go by the theory that victor's write their own history and hence their own story and wouldn't victor's remove any thing wrong or bad about them.The fact that even the flaws of pandavs are there in the epic that we have today makes it hard for me to believe in the inversion theory.Wanted to know your views on the same?
Mahabharata, how it was written by Vyasa and how it was later used as a propaganda by religious authorities are two different things. Mahabharata is a neutral epic. It just tells a story. Krishna is just another prince, before he became a God in later interpretations.
Since the story was already popular, the people who told the story could only work around events and give their own logic for inconsistencies in act of Pandavas. For example, Pandavas use dubious methods to defeat Kauravas. The explanation given is that anything is okay for Dharma- end justifies means, or all these elders were silent when Panchali was shamed, hence they deserve to die. All the crimes of Pandavas are whitewashed.
So, my book does not go by inversion theory. It is just taking out contrived explanations given to glorify Pandavas. Most of the events are same, only view point differs.
And Mahabharata is story of Karma. Every one pays for his or her Karma. It is a zero sum world.
Kunti who kills the 6 Nishadas in a fire, dies by a fire. Dhritarashtra and Gandhari who kept mum when Kunti killed them or perhaps plotted for Kunti's death, are also killed by the fire.
Krishna who did not or could not prevent the cousins from fighting saw his own clan fighting to death
Pandavas did not win the war, for they too lost their sons and there was nothing left to rule. They died a lonely death in bleak heights of Himalayas. You can glorify it by calling it Moksha.
CID
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
