dharmarajya1

8/20/2019 Dharmarajya1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dharmarajya1 1/282

TRANSITION

TO

POST-VEDIC SOCIAL POLITY

AND

DHARMARAJYA

(PART ONE)

A SOCIO-POLITICAL STUDY OF

THE MAHABHARATA

BY

Dr. V.NAGARAJAN

2005



2 of 282

Copyright © Author

V. Nagarajan D.Litt

ISBN 81-901175- 6-4

Publisher

Aishma Publications

C/o Sharada Nagarajan

501, Dipesh Enclave

Pawar Nagar

THANE 400601

(India)

402, Savitri Apartments

Laxmi Nagar (West)

NAGPUR 440022

(India)

Phone 022-25429140

9324296525

E-mail [email protected]

DHARMARAJYAAND

POST-VEDIC SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSTITUTION



3 of 282

CONTENTS

Part One1. Dhrtarashtra on his defeat (5)

2. Utanka and Takshaka (24)

3. Pulomas and the new social order (30)

4. Privileges of the technocrats, Nagas (37)

5. Janamejaya and Sarpayajna, Massacre of the Proletariat (50)

6. Jayabharatam, the epic in a capsule (82)

7. Hastinapura Tangles (100)

8. Pre-Pandava decades (110)

9. Kshatriyas return to power (132)

10. Dushyanta, Sakuntala and Bharata (156)

11. Santanu and Bhishma (192)

12. Bhishma’s Regency (215)

13. Hastinapura Feuds (232)

14. Kanika’s Political Policy (247)

15. Vidura and the Great Escape (257)

16. The Town with a Single Council, Ekacakrapura (269)

17. Adoption of Draupadi and Dhrshtadyumna by Drupada (283)

18. Draupadi, Pandavas and Polyandry (288)

19. Vidura and the Pandavas (311)

20. Hastinapura to Indraprastha (326)

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (339)

Part Two

1. Bhishma on Theory of Incarnation and Krshna’s Exploits (5)

2. Bhishma and Krshna’s Role in Rajasuya sacrifice (24)

3. The Gamble for Power and the Sequel (53)

4. Loss of Freedom and Yudhishtira’s Exile (73)

5. Pandavas and Life in Exile (108)

6. Yudhishtira defends and asserts his approach (136)

7. Pandavas and preparation for war (155)

8. Nala and Gambling (164)



4 of 282

Part TwoThe Pilgrims’ Progress and

Reorientation in Duties of a Dharmaraja

9. Pulastya and Narada on Reorientation Centres (174)

10. Do--------------------------------- (188)

11. Spread of Reorientation Centres (203)

12. D0-------------------------------- (227)

13. Do-------------------------------- (249)

14. Do------------- ------------------ (273)

Part ThreeOn Dharmarajya (5)

1. Yayati, an Enigma (37)

2. Temporary Admission to Aristocracy, Yayati etc. (70)

3. Chitraratha, the Gandharva Scholar (90)

4. Arjuna’s Exile and Return to Khandavaprastha (114)

5. Narada’s Counsel to Yudhishtira on Dharmaraja Polity (143)

6. Assemblies (Sabhas) of different Vedic officials (161)

7. Yudhishtira’s Rajasuya sacrifice and Jarasamdha (173)8. Yudhishtira’s emergence as an Emperor (191)

9. Hanuman briefs Bhima on the four epochs (210)

10. Kubera briefs Yudhishtira (222)

11. Arjuna guided by Indra (227)

12. Nahusha guides Yudhishtira (232)

13. Markandeya counsels Pandavas on Diseent, Deviance, Decline (243)

14. Markandeya on Sanatkumara’s views on Prthu polity (250)

15. Markandeya on Sarasvati views on the duties of intellectuals (257)

16. Markandeya on Social Unrest and Massive social change (271)

17. Markandeya on Return to Pre-Vedic Social Order (281)

18. Markandeya on Valid Gifts and Dharma (299)

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (319)



5 of 282

TRANSITION TO POST-VEDIC SOCIAL POLITY

(PART ONE)

1

DHRTARASHTRA ON WHAT LED TO HIS DEFEAT

The origins of Hindu social polity proper may be traced to the last decades of the

long Vedic era, that is, to the decades that witnessed the events connected with the war

described in the great epic, Mahabharata. Krshna Dvaipayana, known as Vyasa, is claimed

to have composed this epic and dictated it to Vinayaka at the instance of Brahma.

Dvaipayana, son of Satyavati and Parasara was the stepbrother of Vicitravirya, son of

Satyavati by Santanu a ruler mentioned in the Rgveda. Vyasa is said to have edited and

compiled the four Vedas and also the ancillaries and annexure to them. Dvaipayana sired

Dhrtarashtra and Pandu on the wives of Vicitravirya, son of Santanu by Satyavati, under the

provisions of the then social laws that permitted niyoga , impregnation of one’s wife by his

nominee.

This epic narrates the feud between the sons of Dhrtarashtra and those of Pandu

that ended in the famous battle of Kurukshetra, which witnessed the death of all the major

participants except Asvattama, Krpa, Krtavarma, Krshna, Satyaki and the five Pandavas.

Asvattama was the son of Drona who headed the royal academy of Hastinapura, which

specialised in martial arts. Drona had married Krpi, sister of Krpa who too was on thefaculty of this academy. Drona and Krpa along with Bhishma, son of Santanu by Ganga,

were the main counsellors of Dhrtarashtra to whom they were loyal till the end despite their

dislike for and disapproval of the ways resorted to by his sons. Krpa and Krpi were

foundlings brought up by Santanu.

Krtavarma was probably a member of Krshna’s cabinet and at the instance of

Krshna’s brother, Balarama, had extended his support to the Kauravas, the sons of

Dhrtarashtra. Satyaki, a Vrshni, was a charioteer of Krshna who too was a Vrshni and

functioned as the charioteer of the Pandava prince, Arjuna, in the famous battle at

Kurukshetra. Arjuna had married Subhadra, Krshna’s sister. Asvattama, Krpa and

Krtavarma along with Badarayana joined the council of seven sages convened by Manu

Savarni. Parasurama, teacher of Balarama and Karna, half-brother of the Pandavas, too was

an expert in martial arts. He too joined this council along with Rshyasrnga who had married

Shanta, a sister of Rama.

All the events connected with the so-called ‘incarnations’ (avatars) of

Vishnu as Matsya (fish), Kurma (tortoise), Varaha (pig), Narasimha (man-lion),

Vamana (dwarf), Parasurama, Rama, Krshna and Balarama took place during the



6 of 282

last century of the long Vedic era and were not separated from one another by

millennia or even by centuries, I have urged. The chief of Savarni’s council of seven

sages was Galava, a former disciple of the Vedic sage and Rama’s instructor, Visvamitra.This council was in office when Dvaipayana acquainted Parikshit who took over the reins of

Hastinapura at the end of the above battle with the history of the several lineages that had

held sway in different parts of Aryavarta till then and especially those of the Soma (lunar)

and Surya (solar) lineages.

Parikshit was the eldest among the Kurus who had survived that battle. He had not

taken part in it, being far away from that scene. He was a patron of Manu Savarni who was

stationed in the Western Ghats when Rama was in exile and went southward in search of his

wife, Sita, who had been kidnapped by Ravana, the ruler of Lanka. Savarni appears to have

gathered around him some eminent sages who had not found favour with Kashyapa and

other members of the council of seven sages nominated by Manu Sraddhadeva

(Vaivasvata).

Another prominent person who took refuge under Manu Savarni was Bali who had

been eased out by Vamana, a disciple of Kashyapa, from his state in Janasthana in the

Vindhyas. Kashyapa, son of Marici, was the chief of the council of seven sages during the

tenure of the seventh Manu, Vaivasvata. The famous sages, Atri, Vasishta, Gautama,

Visvamitra, Bharadvaja and Jamadagni were its other members. Parasurama who was

exiled from Aryavarta by Kashyapa was the son of Jamadagni who was killed by the

Haihayas. Bharadvaja was the political guide of Chakravarti Bharata whose mother,

Sakuntala, was a daughter of Visvamitra.

While Dvaipayana (often identified as Badarayana) acquainted Parikshit with the

history of the times that preceded the feuds between the two ‘Kuru’ factions, ‘Kauravas’ and

‘Pandavas’, Vaishampayana, one of his main disciples, narrated to Janamejaya, the

successor of Parikshit, the events connected with these feuds and the famous battle of

Kurukshetra. The extant texts of Mahabharata which have received from time to time

numerous accretions are to be handled with caution if we are to draw a credible outline ofthe features of the social polity of the post-Vedic times.

Laying down at the outset the principles of sequence to be followed, the Vaishnavaite

school of editors of Mahabharata suggest that one may not delve further into the times that

preceded the arrival of the Pandavas at Hastinapura. Pandu spent most of his time in the

forests controlling and civilizing their denizens while Dhrtarashtra, his blind elder brother,

ruled from that city. It is not known whether the two brothers had friendly relations or had



7 of 282

reservations about each other. Vidura who was born to Dvaipayana by a maid who attended

on Vicitravirya had a soft corner for Pandu and his wives and children.

Pandu had been advised not to have sex with any woman. Durvasa, a sage, hadcounselled him to take advantage of the provisions of law on niyoga and permit his wives

to bear children by other men. Yudhishtira, Bhima and Arjuna were born to Kunti,

Pandu’s first wife. They were sired by his officials designated as Dharma (Yama),

Vayu and Indra. These personages were not gods. Nakula and Sahadeva were born

to Madri, Pandu’s second wife. They were sired by the Asvins, Dasra and Nasatya.

The Asvins who represented the lower ranks of the commonalty too were officials

in Pandu’s polity, which retained some of the features of the later Vedic polity.

The society of the Vedic times did not look down on wives resorting to niyoga when

the husband was required not to have sex with any woman. Dhrtarashtra and Pandu

themselves were born of niyoga. Their ‘father’, Vicitravirya, had been advised to permit his

wives to procreate children for him by his stepbrother, Dvaipayana. Neither of them was a

‘Kuru’. Pandu was reported to have overlooked the warning given by sages and died while

trying to have sex with Madri.

The Pandavas grew up in the forest and after a few years some sages of the forest

escorted them and Kunti to Hastinapura where they shone in comparison to the sons of

Dhrtarashtra by his wife who was a princess of the northwest province, Gandhara (now part

of Afghanistan). The people of Hastinapura and also Dhrtarashtra and his sons welcomed

them though some refused to believe that they were sons of Pandu who had died many

years back. This initial welcome soon gave place to jealousy and feud between the Pandavas

and the Dhartarashtras.

Before dwelling on the sorrows that the blind ruler, Dhrtarashtra, gave vent to his

reporter (Suta), Sanjaya, after the battle where the king’s sons had fallen, it may be noted

that at that stage only the natives ( jana) of the city of Hastinapura had been organized into

four classes (varnas). Varnasrama scheme as known now had not come into force in many

areas of the subcontinent.Gandharas, Kekayas, Kurus and Madras amongst others followed the Gandharva

system where neither the nobles (devas) nor the free middle class (gandharvas and naras)

nor the lower class of commonalty (manushyas) followed the scheme of four classes and

four varnas and the code of monogamy that it recommended. Both polygamy and polyandry

were common features. The Gandharvas were adventurers and many of them did not seek

to settle in any place and had not developed the institutions of marriage and family and



8 of 282

even households and they were known to be polygamists while their counterparts,

Apsarases were noted for practice of polyandry.

Panchala in the Ganga-Yamuna basin was the centre of this Apsara culture. Themarriage between Pandava Arjuna of the Kurus who were noted for their Gandharva

practices and Draupadi of the Panchalas who permitted polyandry has to be viewed in this

light. It may be noted here that neither of these two practices has to be condemned as

unethical and permissive, holding rigorous monogamy as the ideal mode of marital relations

and polygamy and polyandry as surrender to lust.

The arrival of the young Pandavas as students (Brahmacharis) in Hastinapura and

their being accepted by its people despite reservations by some of the citizens is followed by

Arjuna winning Krshna (Draupadi) in the svayamvara contest arranged in the Panchala

court for the princes who aspired for her hands. This event raised his fame among the

archers and none dared to face him in battles. He defeated all the kings and their huge

armies and conducted the Rajasuya sacrifice for his brother, Yudhishtira. This could be

accomplished only with Krshna’s counsel and the prowess of Bhimasena and Arjuna who

killed the proud rulers, Jarasamdha and Sisupala.

Till this stage the sons of Dhrtarashtra had not parted company with the Pandavas.

But the huge gifts and tributes that Yudhishtira received on this occasion made Duryodhana,

son of Dhrtarashtra jealous and angry. Maya, an Asura architect had built a hall like that of

the nobles (devas) for them. This too increased his misery. When he stumbled like a rustic

while moving in that hall and Bhima laughed at his discomfiture in the presence of Krshna

he became pale and then red with rage.

Only after his wellwishers had conveyed the report on this incident and the misery of

Duryodhana to Dhrtarashtra did the king permit the game of dice. This enraged Krshna who

preferred settlement of disputes through debate. Dhrtarashtra ignored the views of

Vidura, Bhishma, Drona and Krpa and permitted this gamble. Krshna refrained

from stopping this game and the subsequent injustices and the consequent

terrible war only to allow the Kshatriyas to destroy one another, the chroniclersays. It is a weak attempt to defend Krshna’s failure to step in, in time to prevent the

undesirable game of dice taking place.

Dhrtarashtra felt it necessary to explain to his confidante and reporter why he

permitted the game of dice to take place. He had ascertained the views of Duryodhana,

Karna (Arjuna’s brother) and Sakuni (Duryodhana’s maternal uncle) before arranging the

contest. He was not for war and he knew that in war the Pandavas would win. He was not

for the destruction of their clan. He claimed that he was impartial between his sons and



9 of 282

those of Pandu. Though his sons hated him he tolerated their words, as he was blind, old

and weak.

Dhrtarashtra sought the indulgence of Sanjaya while putting forth his views on howthe war between the two factions began and how it resulted in the victory of the Pandavas

over his sons. As he was unable to bear the sight of the wealth that the Pandavas had

received and was unable to defeat them in battle and win ‘rajyalakshmi’ (the state-

treasury, which was enriched by huge tributes) though he was a Kshatriya, Duryodhana

plotted with Sakuni to defeat them in battle.

It was a stage when the system of tax (kara) had not yet come into force in many

regions and the powerful ruler received tributes (bali ) from his vassals and subjects.

Dhrtarashtra claims that he and his sons were recognized as duly belonging to the

Kshatriya class. He seems to have had reservations about Pandu and the Pandavas on this

score. Of course he like others did not recognize Krshna, a Yadava, and Karna, the son of a

Suta (chariot-driver), as Kshatriyas. The Gandharas and Panchalas too were then not

recognized as Kshatriyas.

The chronicler had submitted at the outset that the epic dealt with only dharma

(social order and ethics) and artha (polity and economy) and not with the other two

values of life and pursuits ( purusharthas) of a trained leader ( purusha), kama (sex

and sensuousness) and moksha (salvation). Speculation and gambling were not the means

to be adopted by Kshatriyas for amassing wealth. They were permitted to resort to only

valour (though not to coercion) for gaining wealth.

His sons had to resort to means other than valour to win as from the very beginning

there was, according to Dhrtarashtra, little chance for them to score over the Pandavas in

valour. Arjuna’s exploit in archery, which won for him Draupadi, was the first proof in this

respect. So too was his abduction of Subhadra, sister of Krshna and marriage with her an

indication of his superior valour. It won for him and the Pandavas the support of Krshna and

his brother, Balarama who visited their capital at Indraprastha.

These were important political alignments between one of the two factions, that is,the Pandavas and the Panchalas on one hand and between them and the Yadavas on the

other. Dhrtarashtra like Bhishma did not treat the Panchalas and the Yadavas as eligible for

the status of Kshatriyas though they were valorous. Dhrtarashtra did not acknowledge that

he was aware of and had permitted the secret burning down of the Pandavas and their

mother, in their forest palace built of lac. He however learnt that they had escaped death

and that Vidura had assisted them in their escape. Their escape was publicised only after

they had reached Panchala and got married to its princess, Draupadi.



10 of 282

Dhrtarashtra realised that his sons were outwitted and had lost the support of

influential officials like Vidura. His hopes were dashed when he learnt that Bhima had slain

with his bare arms Jarasamdha, the great Magadha chieftain (who shone amongst theKshatriyas though not himself a Kshatriya). He lost hope when he heard that the

Pandavas had defeated many kings in battle and performed a Rajasuya sacrifice.

These defeated rulers had to accept the Pandavas as their superiors and could not aid any

one against them. This ‘sacrifice’, celebration of a significant political event, isolated the

Dhartarashtras and diminished the chances of their scoring over the Pandavas in political

manipulations.

When Dhrtarashtra heard about Duhsasana’s attempt to drag Draupadi to the

assembly and strip her he lost all hopes about the chances of his sons winning. This attempt

and Yudhishtira’s losing all wealth after Sakuni had defeated him in dice did not cause a

split among the Pandavas who had all married Draupadi. The valiant brothers all stood by

Yudhishtira. This too convinced the blind ruler that his sons would not be able to score over

the Pandavas even though they had lost in dice all their wealth earned through war.

The Pandavas had no longer the advantage of wealth (artha) but they were all

individuals (atma) who were honoured for abiding by rules of dharma. They had to go to

the forest (which was exempt from the rules of polity and economy applicable to the towns

and villages). When Dhrtarashtra heard about the several works they did there despite

difficulties, bound by the ties of affection to their brother, Yudhishtira, he lost hope about

his sons scoring over them. The people of the forest had turned in favour of the

Pandavas while the people of the capital and the villages had turned against the

sons of the ruler and could not be depended on.

When Dhrtarashtra heard that noble graduates ( snatakas) and thousands of

Brahman students who lived only on alms had accompanied Yudhishtira (‘son’ of

‘Dharma’ ) to the forest, he was convinced that the intelligentsia was no longer with him

and the Kauravas and that this prevented their scoring over the Pandavas. The forests were

under the jurisdiction of the hunters. The Pandavas had to face opposition from them asthey entered their territory. But Arjuna defeated them and their leader by his prowess in

archery and the latter was pleased and gifted him the invincible missile known as

Pasupata.

This leader of the hunters was Mahadeva who was worshipped as a

charismatic chieftain (isvara) who extended boons to his protégés. Mahadeva was

treated by the nobles (devas) as superior to all of them. When Dhrtarashtra heard about

this event he realised that Arjuna had secured the support not only of the warriors of the



11 of 282

forest who were hunters but also of the entire class of nobles who were not subordinate to

any janapada administration. This restricted the area and population from whom the king

could expect support.The exile of the Pandavas to the forest did not result in their being weakened

politically and economically. Elder sages, maharshis, (who were also legislators) along with

their disciples joined them and became their close friends. This too lessened the chances of

his sons scoring over the Pandavas in popular support, Dhrtarashtra realised. Arjuna who as

(Dhananjaya) had won wealth by honest ( satya) means, that is, by defeating the rich and

powerful opponents in war went to the social world (loka) of the nobles ( svarga) and there

learnt from its head, Indra, the methods of using the missile (divyastra) that was owned

exclusively by the nobles (devas).

When Dhrtarashtra heard that Arjuna was being praised for his mastery over that

missile, he knew that it was not easy for him and his sons to score over the Pandavas.

Yudhishtira who during his exile visited several centres (tirthas) of education in specialities

met the astronomer (cum-astrologer), Romaca, and also the Gandharva scholar,

Brhatasva, who specialised in the science of dice (dyuta) and learnt from them several

secrets. When Dhrtarashtra learnt about this, he understood that the Pandavas were

preparing themselves for another battle in dice and could not be defeated easily.

He also heard that Arjuna had defeated the Kalakeyas who were feudal chieftains

and sons of Puloma and had been assured by Brahma (the chief judge) immunity from

being defeated and subordinated by the nobles. Arjuna was only a commoner and the

Kalakeyas could not expect him to honour this assurance. Dhrtarashtra realised that no law

or clause of exemption prevented Arjuna from destroying the feudal lords and that he and

his sons who had lost the support of the people of the forest, the intelligentsia and the

sages and the liberal nobles could not expect to depend on the feudal lords (asuras) either

for military support.

Arjuna had gone on behalf of the nobles (devas) to defeat their enemies, the feudal

lords (asuras) and returned to the socio-political world of Indra after accomplishing hismission successfully. Dhrtarashtra became diffident when he learnt about this. Exile had not

weakened the Pandavas. He had no hope of getting support from Kubera either. Kubera, the

chief of the rich plutocrats (yakshas) of forests and mountains was stationed in a remote

mountain range and was not accessible to the commoners (manushyas) of the agrarian

plains.

Bhima and other Pandavas had however been able to go to his place and establish

rapport with him. When Dhrtarashtra learnt about this his hopes lessened further. His sons



12 of 282

depended on the intellect of Karna when they went to a fair to select cattle and had been

captured by the Gandharvas. Arjuna who had good rapport with the Gandharvas got

them released. This report too made Dhrtarashtra realise the extent of his isolation andweakness of his sons. [Karna was the son of a chariot-driver ( suta). Sanjaya was a

chronicler ( suta).]

Yudhishtira was born to Kunti and the official who was in charge of

enforcing social laws (dharma). As a ruler (raja) he was expected to uphold

dharma. During his exile this official appeared before him ‘disguised’ as a rich

plutocrat (yaksha) and put him certain questions to ascertain whether he

continued to stand by dharma. When Dhrtarashtra learnt about the replies given by

Yudhishtira and that Yudhishtira was continued to be looked upon as an upholder of

dharma despite his losing his wealth and power (artha) his hopes of success further

dwindled.

The rich bourgeoisie and the sober judiciary were both favourable to the

Pandavas. This weakened further the Kauravas on whom the blind king depended. This

blind king did not have an efficient institution of spies (chakshus, drshti , eyes). This was

exhibited in their failure to find out how the Pandavas spent their year of life incognito in

Virata.

During this period the Pandavas who held powers equivalent to those of the civil

judge (agni ) challenged the Dhartarashtras who dared to enter the territory of Virata in the

pretext of searching for missing cattle. Dhrtarashtra realised that his state was

helpless against intrusions by neighbours like the Viratas especially by the people

of the pastoral democracy, which did not recognise state borders as sacrosanct.

Virata had undefined borders and the cattle and their owners, the pastoral people, could not

be expected not to cross into territories claimed by others. They treated intruders into their

territories as rustlers and would not hesitate to subject them to local discipline without

reference to the king and other higher authorities.

In the agro-pastoral Vedic polity, the official designated as Agni headed the Samiti ,the council of scholars, and represented the commonalty, manushyas, and functioned as

the civil judge. Such polities were confined to definite areas. But in Virata, which had no

borders, any learned person could function as the spokesman of the people who

were mainly pastoral people in this particular area. When the Pandavas spoke for the

local populace and upheld its rights and interests, Dhartarashtras failed to recognize them

but had to beat retreat. This annoyed Dhrtarashtra.



13 of 282

Kicaka, which too was located in the Ganga-Yamuna basin, was ruled by an oligarchy

of one hundred chieftains (as Hastinapura under Dhrtarashtra was), who behaved like

lawless feudal lords. ( Asuras, feudal lords, claimed to be senior, jyeshta, to devas, nobles.)The chief of this oligarchy misbehaved with Draupadi and was torn to pieces by Bhima. The

report of this event unnerved Dhrtarashtra. His sons too had misbehaved with her and

would not be let alone if they did so again, it showed. Dhananjaya (Arjuna) who lived in

Virata as a prominent and respected individual, not attached to any social group,

mahatma, had as a lone charioteer defeated the trained charioteers in the armies of the

rich ( sreshta) enemies of the people of Virata. This report too unnerved the Kuru ruler.

Matsya, another state in the lower Ganga-Yamuna basin had a Virata constitution

and was noted for its Apsara culture and fishing as its chief economy. Arjuna (who was

employed there as a teacher of dance) was offered by its ruler his adopted daughter,

Uttara. Arjuna accepted her on behalf of his son, Abhimanyu. This political alliance (through

marriage) too weakened the rulers of Hastinapura who controlled the northern (uttara)

areas of this basin.

Nearly eighteen huge armies each two thousand (million?) strong were reported to

have fought and perished in the battle of Kurukshetra (that took place for eighteen days).

Though the Pandavas had lost to the Kauravas all they had in the dice game, they had by

the end of their term of exile gathered seven such armies (akshauhini ). This news

increased the despondency of Dhrtarashtra further. He also heard that Krshna who

succeeded Urukrama who measured the entire Prthvi (earth in common parlance, the

agro-pastoral plains inhabited by the commonalty, central India, madhyadesa, over which

Prthu exercised suzerainty and which had for a short time come under the control of Bali)

by one of his (three) steps, was engaged in guiding the Pandavas in every act of

theirs.

Krshna had as Sripati taken over the control of the rich treasury of Bali

when the latter was eased out. This news too unnerved the ruler of Hastinapura. The

Pandavas had gathered a huge army and a rich treasury was at their disposal. Narada, adiplomat, had told Dhrtarashtra that in the academy of the scholars and jurists

(Brahmaloka) Krshna and Arjuna received the same respect as the revered and

highly influential sages Narayana and Nara did. Krshna himself was a diplomat and

had approached the Kauravas on behalf of the Pandavas as an envoy. He had to return with

his mission of peace and friendship unfulfilled. This report too unnerved Dhrtarashtra.

Karna and Duryodhana had planned to take Krshna in bonds and had to

refrain from doing so when Krshna “took Visvaru pa”, that is, when Krshna proved



14 of 282

his credentials that he represented all sections of the larger society and enjoyed

support among all of them though he came unarmed as an envoy. This news about

the foolishness of the two leaders made the ruler diffident. When Krshna was about toreturn, the mother of the Pandavas, Kunti, stood alone before his chariot. He consoled the

sad mother and told her words of encouragement. This news upset the king.

Dhrtarashtra was upset by the fact that Krshna functioned as the counsellor

of the Pandavas and that they had the moral support and best wishes of Bhishma

(son of Santanu) and Drona (‘son’ of Bharadvaja). Karna, an archer equal to Arjuna in

calibre, had refused to fight as long as Bhishma was the commander of the king’s army.

Karna’s withdrawal made Dhrtarashtra lose hope of success in war.

Krshna, Arjuna and Gandiva bow were the three powers, which his sons could not

withstand, the King knew. He was explaining to Sanjaya why he lost the war. When during

the course of the war, Arjuna lost hope and sat down in fatigue, Krshna inspired him by

showing him all the worlds (lokas) on his body i.e. by making the former realise that the

latter represented the entire larger society.

Dhrtarashtra wondered why among the tens of thousands of charioteers who were

killed by Bhishma there was not even one prominent supporter of the Pandavas. Was

Bhishma sincere in his charge to defeat the Pandava army? When Bhishma, a devotee of

dharma, told the Pandavas how they could kill him and the Pandavas readily

adopted those steps and brought him down, Dhrtarashtra lost all hope of victory.

Arjuna had kept in front Sikhandi (a eunuch) as his shield and hit the valiant and invincible

general, Bhishma.

When Dhrtarashtra heard that the aged and brave Bhishma lay on the bed of arrows

hit by arrows after he had destroyed most of the Somakas he had no hope of victory. (This

may be a reference to the extermination of most of the forest troops that were drafted by

the Pandavas. These troops respected Soma while the troops of the nobles followed Indra

and those of the commoners, Surya.) Arjuna exhibited his skill when with his arrow he

raised a fountain near Bhishma’s bed of arrows to quench his thirst. This exploit too madeDhrtarashtra diffident.

The breeze blew over the Pandava camp favourably and the ‘stars’, Sukra and

Surya, were in positions favourable to them. That is, political policy advocated by

Usanas or Sukra, and the political power as exercised by Surya, the head of the

Kshatriya governing elite, were in favour of the Pandavas taking over power. The

cruel enemies bleated looking at the king’s men. These too added to their diffidence. When

Drona who was an expert in extraordinary methods of fighting and using different types of



15 of 282

missiles failed to kill the Pandavas, who wore rich dresses like the plutocrats of the forest,

Sreshtas, Dhrtarashtra lost hope. His sons had engaged a group of seven great charioteers

to kill Arjuna. But when the king learnt that Arjuna had killed them he lost hope of victory.Drona who was well armed guarded an arrangement of troops that could not be

penetrated or sneaked through by the ‘itaras’ (others, in common parlance), the warriors

of the other society of the forests drawn from the ranks of forest workers ( sarpas , serpents

as often translated). But Abhimanyu, son of Subhadhra, fighting alone managed to

penetrate it. Dhrtarashtra realised that his army had its weaknesses. When the great

charioteers were unable to defeat Arjuna, they surrounded young Abhimanyu and exulted in

killing him.

Arjuna took the vow to kill Jayadratha, ruler of Sindhu, who was guilty of causing the

boy’s death. The ruler of Sindhu and Sauvira was in a position to tilt the balance of power in

wars. This distant ruler was expected not to take part in the conflict between the two

political blocs but was not to be ignored. When Dhrtarashtra heard about this incident he

became nervous. Arjuna fulfilled his vow of revenge, killing Jayadratha in the midst of the

enemies. Dhrtarashtra lost the only political ally who could aid him in an emergency and

offer asylum.

Krshna was considerate to the animals. He did not neglect to make the horses of

Arjuna’s chariot drink water when they were tired and kept the battle pending in the

meanwhile. Arjuna too sat inside the chariot and kept the enemies at bay while the horses

recovered from fatigue. When Dhrtarashtra heard how Satyaki returned successfully to

Krshna and Arjuna after confusing the invincible army of elephants led by Drona he lost all

hope of success. Karna too did not kill the great warrior, Bhima, whom he had trapped.

Instead he let Bhima go after teasing him.

Dhrtarashtra obviously doubted the sincerity of the commanders whom he

and his sons had selected. As the brave warriors, Drona, Krtavarma, Krpa, Karna and

Asvattama, son of Drona, and Salya, ruler of Madra, did not try to stop the killing of

Jayadratha for whom Dhrtarashtra had special affection, the latter knew that there was nochance of victory for him and his sons. These generals and counsellors of Hastinapura

must have resented the interference of that political ally in the internal affairs of

their country.

Karna’s weapon, Sakti , which was meant to kill the left-handed Arjuna, had been

rendered futile by targeting Ghatotkacha, a Rakshasa (and son of Bhima). This too

discouraged the king. He had high hopes about Asvattama, son of Drona. But this warrior

too was taken round and round by his opposing charioteer, Nakula. Nakula was in the midst



16 of 282

of unarmed commoners (manushyas) who according to the rules of war should not be

harmed. The leaders of the state army were being outwitted and outmanoeuvred. After

Drona fell, his son, Asvattama cast the special missile given to him by Narayana but it couldnot kill the Pandavas.

None of the other sons of Dhrtarashtra dared to stop Bhima from drinking the blood

of Duhsasana. Bhima took this revenge for the latter had molested Draupadi. This event

discouraged the king. When he heard about how in the battle between the two brothers,

Arjuna mortally wounded Karna, he lost all hope. Even the nobles (devas) could not

understand why the two fought against each other. Salya, the king of Madra, had always

been a force balancing Krshna in war strategy. But he fell at the hands of Yudhishtira.

Sakuni, the gambler who was known for his deceit, and was the root for this war, fell at the

hands of Sahadeva. These events upset the King.

Duryodhana who had lost much blood and energy and was exhausted hid himself in

a pond and lay down motionless. But the Pandavas followed him to the pond and teased him

and incited him to take up the mace and fight. In the several new ways of moving round

and round and fighting with maces engaged in by him and Bhima, Krshna hinted to the

latter to hit him on a prohibited spot to cause death. When Dhrtarashtra heard about this

fight and the fall of Duryodhana, he could have no further hope of victory.

This account of how the feud between the Dhartarashtras (Kauravas) and

the Pandavas began and how the former and their supporters were all killed in the

battle may be said to convey the core of the great epic. Of course, in this narration to

his confidante, Sanjaya, the king attempts to absolve himself of the responsibility for

allowing it to take place and seeks to indulge in self-pity. It may be noted that this account

does not mention that the Kauravas were one hundred in number. It refers to only two

sons, Duryodhana and Duhsasana, of Dhrtarashtra. It is also significant that in this account

Dhrtarashtra does not claim to be a Kuru or refer to his sons as Kauravas.

The account pertaining to the role of Asvattama is an after-thought and a

post-script. Dvaipayana could not have had harsh words for this son of Drona.Badarayana, Krpa, Krtavarma, Parasurama and Asvattama had joined the council of seven

sages convened by Manu Savarni during the tenure of Parikshit. Parikshit was the eldest

among the members of the Kuru clan who survived this fratricidal war. The

Pandavas were not eligible to rule Hastinapura though they had won the war.

Though Draupadi had married all the five Pandava brothers, it is likely that she did

not have any sons by them. Asvattama’s detractors might have laid the charge later that he

killed all the five sons of the Pandavas while they were asleep and that this made him



17 of 282

infamous. Still worse, he was accused of having attempted to destroy the foetus in the

womb of Uttara who had been married to Abhimanyu. According to this episode, his missile,

aishika, failed to hit the target. That Krshna had played a role in reviving the foetus hasmajor contradictions.

Dhrtarashtra heard that Dvaipayana (Vyasa) and Krshna had cursed Asvattama for

this sin of foeticide. It is most likely that Uttara was not bearing the scion of the Pandavas

and that this post-script is a poor and irrational attempt to claim that Parikshit who took

over the reins of Hastinapura at the end of the war was the grandson of Arjuna.

Sanjaya noticed that his king had become despondent because he had lost all his

sons in the war, which was the result of the game of dice between them and the Pandavas

that he had permitted. Dhrtarashtra had lost the eligibility to head the state. One who had

no sons was not eligible to be head of the family or to control its wealth, as there would be

none to inherit his wealth and continue to carry out his duties after his death. This

orientation had been used to justify the principle and practice of traditional

vocations that certain families claimed as their privilege and the principle of

hereditary monarchy and hereditary posts. It also led to the permission given to

resort to niyoga.

Sanjaya tried to console his sobbing master by citing to him the instances, where

eminent rulers had departed without leaving behind sons. They were born in royal families

and had all the qualifications needed to be kings and were masters of superior missiles and

had the prowess of Indra and adopted just methods to conquer the earth (bhumi , prthvi ).

They had become famous in the social world (loka) of (commoners) by performing liberal

sacrifices. They enjoyed the benefit of traditional legitimacy though their lines ended with

them. There were some who enjoyed charismatic legitimacy. They were noted for their

great enthusiasm and prowess. These brought them huge following though they were not

born in royal families.

Dhrtarashtra had heard their exploits from the chroniclers, Vedavyasa and Narada,

Sanjaya reminded him. He reminded the king of Saibya, the great charioteer, Srnjaya, anexpert in (methods of) conquests, Suhotra, Rantideva, Kakshivan (a Vedic poet), Bahlika,

Damana, Chaidya (Sisupala, prince of Chedi), Saryati, Ajita, Nala, Visvamitra, Ambarisha,

Marutta, Manu, Ikshvaku, Gaya, Bharata, Rama (son of Dasaratha), Sasabindu, Bagiratha,

Krtavirya (the highly fortunate) and Janamejaya. (This Janamejaya was different from the

ruler to whom Jayabharatam was narrated.)

Sanjaya also recalled how Yayati whom nobles (devas) themselves honoured in their

sacrifices conquered the entire earth comprising forests and countries and marked the



18 of 282

boundaries with pillars and who did several good deeds. All these rulers died without leaving

male progeny. Narada, who had the status of a Devarshi , had recounted their careers to

Suvaidya who was grieving over the death of his son. This claim is very significant. Thesetwenty-four rulers had passed away before Dhrtarashtra stepped down.

(We would draw the attention of this claim to the significance of the issue of two

Yayatis, to that of ten sons of Manu and to that of the two sons of Rama and to the end of

Bharata’s lineage with him. For a scrutiny of the careers of these chiefs vide my volumes on

Hindu Social Dynamics. Several myths have been exploded and many legends interpreted

rationally in those volumes.) Manu Vaivasvata had no sons and had only one daughter, Ila.

Ikshvaku was one of his protégés. Rama must have passed away according to the

chroniclers only recently then without leaving behind a lineage.

The nobles must have accepted Yayati as superior to them and they must have

borne the expenses on the maintenance of this aged ruler who had carved out his new

integrated empire of agricultural lands and forests into five states with definite boundaries

and retired. Purus, Anus, Yadus, Drhyus and Turvasus were the five peoples of these states.

There were many other powerful and great kings prior to the above twenty rulers who had

similarly passed away without leaving behind children to continue their lineages. They were

far superior to the sons of Dhrtarashtra in valour and intellect.

Even those whom great poets lauded for their valour, generosity, nobility, faith in

god, devotion to truth, purity, compassion and honesty and frankness and had all wealth

and good traits had to come to an end. The sons of Dhrtarashtra were on the contrary, bad

in character and were guilty of jealousy and rage and greed and it was not advisable for the

king who had listened to the social codes ( sastras) and was educated and intelligent and

accepted by the learned, to grieve over their death.

The chronicler told the ruler who was a descendant of Bharata that intellectuals who

followed the social (and political and economic) codes never got perplexed. He knew that it

was the duty of the king to punish (the guilty) and protect (the innocent). One who seeks to

protect his sons should not allow them to go fully in their way, Sanjaya said. But the kinghad to do so and this resulted in their death and his defeat, he implied. He would not have

been required to thus rue later if he had reined them.

Sanjaya added that none could conquer fate. Hence none goes beyond the path laid

by Brahma. This may not be a later addendum. Sanjaya implied that the path that the

constitution, Brahma, which was superior to the codes, Sastras, had laid was not to be

transgressed. He held that Dhrtarashtra was guilty of transgression of the constitution.



19 of 282

Time is responsible for birth and death and pleasure and pain. It is Time, which

creates the different beings and destroys them. Even Kala (god of death) who destroys the

people is destroyed by Time. All things in the world, good or bad, are altered by Time.(Matter is indestructible but its form can be changed.) Time both destroys men ( prajas)

and recreates them. While all sleep Time alone does not go to sleep. None can cross the

limits of Time and none can stop its moving in the same way in the midst of all objects.

All those events that have taken place and all those that are taking place now (that

is all the objects that are being constantly formed in the cosmos) have taken place because

of or have been, according to this stand, created by Time (kala). Sanjaya was not invoking

the picture of God as Time even as he did not advocate the concept of predestination or

Brahma as the God who has determined one’s fate.

Dhrtarashtra should realise these and not lose his power of reasoning, he counselled.

But the ruler knew that it was the assembly of nobles, devas, of his country, which had

prevented him from annexing for enjoyment by his sons what the Pandavas had won by

their valour. His approval of the game of dice and resort to deceit and rejection of the offer

of peace and appointment of able generals had all gone waste. These generals refused to go

all the way to kill the Pandavas and had limited personal goals.

The nobility was a force to reckon with. Dhrtarashtra had ignored it. He put on a

brave face that he had lost the war not on the battlefield but because of the constitutional

limitations within which he had to function. The constitution and the nobles required him to

step down as he had lost his sons and was no longer eligible to incur any liabilities that he

was not in a position to discharge.

We would here draw attention to the role of the integrated aristocracy of Hastinapura

with respect to the game of dice indulged in by Yudhishtira. The integrated aristocracy of

Hastinapura was led not by the contented and generous nobility, devas, or by the

sober intellectuals but by the rich plutocrats, yakshas, who however did not

countenance deceit as a valid means of acquiring wealth though they conceded

that dice which meant submission to inexplicable fate was a valuable alternativeto war as a means of settling disputes. One of the yakshas occupied the position of the

judge and enforcer of social and moral laws, dharma, and had called on Yudhishtira to

ascertain how far he adhered to the new social code approved by this integrated aristocracy

led by the plutocrats.

But the plutocrats and the technocrats did not have the same status as the cultural

aristocrats, devas did. They had the status of devatas, which was marginally lower to

the status of nobles, devas. The officials in charge of enforcement of the



20 of 282

provisions of the socio-economic code, dharma, ranked next to the head of the

judiciary, who as Brahma, protected the provisions of the socio-political

constitution, which vested in that judiciary an authority and penal powers thatwere superior to those the head of the state, rajan, was allowed.

2

UTANKA LOSES THE EARRINGS TO TAKSHAKA

We notice hidden in the eulogy of this epic (in the final portion of this section dealing

with sequence) a comment that it refers to aristocrats (devas), intellectuals among them

(devarshis), Brahmarshis noted for their chastity, plutocrats (yakshas) and technocrats



21 of 282

(nagas). All of them were members of the new integrated assembly of aristocracy

that was glad that Dhrtarashtra and his sons had failed in their vicious plan. The

inclusion of the yakshas and the nagas in this aristocracy of Hastinapura indicates that ithad a rich economy based on technology and utilisation of forest resources.

It was governed from Indraprastha by the Pandavas leaving King Dhrtarashtra in

charge only of the traditional agrarian economy of the core society. Dhrtarashtra, himself a

naga, had failed to gauge the enormity of the error that he committed in allowing the

industrial economy to slip away from the control of the central authority. Economic and

social integration that the nation-states created by Yayati cherished was weakened thereby.

The revolt of the industrial workers, sarpas, against Parikshit was an offshoot of

this failure.

The chronicler told the sages of the forest that the field where the battle between the

Kaurava army and the Pandava army took place was called samanta- panchaka , a field

with five ponds. They were filled with the blood of the Kshatriya warriors even as the

samanta- panchaka, was filled with the blood of the Haihayas whom enraged Parasurama

had killed. The chronicler recalled how Parasurama who repeatedly slew the Kshatriya

communities ruled the agro-pastoral lands ( prthvi ) of the commoners. He avoids giving the

impression that it was a conflict between Brahmans and Kshatriyas.

Parasurama did later regret his deeds and requested the elder members of his

family, pitrs, to guide him to get free from the sin of having exterminated the Kshatriyas.

It was a period of transition from one social order, which envisaged Kshatriya communities

as ones engaged in protection of the people to one which envisaged them as rulers vested

with coercive power over the commoners (vis, manushyas comprising both owners of

property, vaisyas and propertyless workers, shudras). They were not sovereigns and

would have no control over the Brahmans.

The new order recommended by Parasurama permitted the Kshatriya rulers to

settle their personal rivalries through duels without involving the commonalty ( prthvi ). The

battle of Kurukshetra too marked a transition from the order that subordinated only thecommonalty to the provisions of the socio-economic code, dharma to a new one that while

banning war as a means by which Kshatriya communities settled their dispute

subordinated them too to the provisions of this code. The statements that Parasurama was

on the scene of transition from the krta yuga to treta yuga and that the battle of

Kurukshetra took place during the transition from dva para yuga are later interpolations

and are not to be given weight. Parasurama was alive even when this battle took place but

did not help any of its actors.



22 of 282

The second chapter of the chronicle states that Bhishma led the Kaurava army for

the first ten days and Drona for the next five days and Karna for the next two days. Salya

was the leader on the last day. After he fell, Krpa and Krtavarma and Asvattama arereported to have killed the Pandava generals while they were resting. This allegation cannot

be upheld. It should have been a later unauthorised interpolation. All the three along with

Parasurama and Badarayana were taken on the council of seven sages during the tenure of

Manu Surya Savarni, a contemporary of Parikshit.

What was narrated to Saunaka and the sages of the Naimisha forest was claimed to

be what Vaishampayana, a disciple of Dvaipayana (Badarayana) had narrated to

Janamejaya during the sarpayajna. The work was arranged in one hundred chapters and

eighteen sections. The first section, Adiparva, covers the years that preceded the

establishment of the second capital at Indraprastha with the Pandavas in charge.

The second chapter of this section introduces the reader to what each of the

chapters and sections proposes to deal with. While Vyasa (Dvaipayana) personally narrated

‘all’ the one hundred chapters, they were arranged in sections and proclaimed in the

Naimisha forest by the chronicler who was a son of Romaharshana. The second chapter also

presents a summary and theme of each of the remaining eighteen chapters included in the

first section.

The third chapter, ‘Paushyaparva’ describes the greatness of the sage, Utanka. The

fourth, ‘Paulomaparva’ deals with the greatness of the lineage of the sage, Bhrgu. The

fifth chapter, ‘ Astikaparva’ deals with the sarpayajna (sacrifice of serpents, in common

parlance) performed by Janamejaya and what was narrated to him about Bharata and other

rulers who were his predecessors.

Janamejaya and his three brothers were performing a long ‘ satra-yajna’ at

Kurukshetra when the latter beat and chased away a ‘dog’ though it had not polluted the

sacrifice. It complained to its mother, Sarama, who guarded the areas of the nobles. She

told them that they would have to soon face an unexpected danger. To be precise, it was

the owner of the dog who used it for scavenging who was chased away and he hadcomplained to the lady who supervised scavenging in the areas where the nobles resided.

Janamejaya who had earlier been a governor of Takshasila and had succeeded

Parikshit to the throne of Hastinapura felt disturbed and went to his capital to search for a

priest who would free him from his ‘sin’. He wanted to engage the services of a priest

whose father was a noted sage and whose mother was a ‘naga’ . This priest could

chase away all ‘ paisacas and bhutas’ except those who were deputed by Mahadeva to

punish the deflectors.



23 of 282

It is not rational to translate the terms nagas and sarpas as serpents. They were

talented technocrats and industrial workers who operated the mines. Paisacas were

members of the counter-intelligentsia who were pushed into the forests and the socialperiphery and the bhutas were the discrete individuals of these areas and they were not

members of any social or economic group. Most of them were under the protection of the

famous socio-political leader and ideologue, Mahadeva. [Rationalism requires that

Narayana, Mahadeva, Vishnu, Samkara, Vamana, Krshna, Samkarshana, Subrahmanya,

Parasurama and Rama are recognised as eminent socio-political ideologues and activists of

the final decades of the long Vedic era. They were deified only long after their times.]

Janamejaya took advantage of the services of that priest who would surrender to any

Brahman any useful object of his if the latter asked for it. He sent that priest with his

brothers to annex Takshasila.

Sage Dhoumya who was a political counsellor of the Pandavas was a disciplinarian

and demanded that his disciples should surrender to him and not retain any portion of the

alms they collected nor earn anything without his permission. Uddalaka Aruni was one of his

students who could bear all the sufferings inflicted on him. Uddalaka’s associate, Upamanyu

had to obtain the support of the Asvins who were physicians (and were elevated as nobles

by Manu Vaivasvata) to overcome his blindness caused by starvation. Dhoumya had forced

him to almost end his life by drowning in a well. A third disciple of his was not required to

serve his teacher as he was married and had his own group of disciples.

Paita was pleased by the service that Janamejaya and his friend, Paushya, a

Kshatriya ruler, had rendered to him and directed his disciple, Utanka to help them.

Utanka was asked to offer to Paita’s wife whatever she wanted as gift instead of to his

teacher. She wanted that he should obtain the rings worn by the wife of Paushya for her.

The latter readily parted with the rings but warned Utanka to take them safely as Takshaka,

‘king’ of the nagas was eager to take hold of them.

The institution of gurukula by which unmarried students stayed with their teachers

and served them is alleged to have developed serious flaws even by the times of reveredDhoumya (a teacher of Yudhishtira) and Uddalaka a noted Upanishadic scholar. Such a

presentation seems to be an irresponsible attempt by later interpolators to hide their own

weaknesses and to justify their giving up this system. This does not mean that the

gurukula (where the teacher and the disciples lived together in the same campus) was free

from flaws during the times the Upanishads were composed.

Dhoumya did not deserve harsh condemnation though he might have been a

merciless disciplinarian. Paushya engaged Utanka to officiate at sraddha rites that he was



24 of 282

due to perform. Utanka who went out to get purified was tested by Paushya to ascertain his

calibre. It was in fact an attempt by a Kshatriya ruler and a Brahman counsellor at

browbeating each other. The chronicler points out that the Brahman was soft heartedthough he was acerbic in speech while a Kshatriya was polite in his speech though he

might be harsh in his dealings. This stereotype has come to stay. Utanka who was

dismissed by Paushya lost the costly rings.

They were stolen by a monk ( sanyasi ) who was indeed a woodcutter and carpenter

(takshaka) and who hid himself in the cellars where these artisans including weavers plied

their trade. With the help of Indra Utanka entered those areas and discovered how they

were in fact palaces of rich rulers. The world of the technocrats, nagas, was a rich and

mind-boggling one. Utanka returned to his teacher to understand the implications of his

experiences.

Some of the technocrats and their followers had Airavata as their king (ra ja). He

shone in battles and could shower missiles as well as wealth “even as clouds showered

lightning as well as rains” and appeared in different forms wearing uncommon rings. These

technocrats, nagas, who followed Airavata, led a splendid life like the nobles

(devas) of svargaloka. There were many spots on the northern banks of Ganga where

these rich jewellers had settled. Utanka eulogised these great nagas and their leader,

Airavata. He eulogised also Dhrtarashtra, the senior naga chieftain who once led and

directed from the centre a huge dispersed army (of 21800) during its march. Utanka also

saluted the elder brothers of Airavata.

He also saluted Takshaka who had earlier resided in Kurukshetra and Khandava

forest. Kurukshetra where the Pandavas and the Kauravas fought and which

Krshna described as Dharmakshetra was earlier a wooded land, Kuru jangala, and

Indraprastha, the new capital, was built after burning down the Khandava forest.

Takshaka must have felt hurt by this deprivation of his followers who were woodcutters and

carpenters of their source of livelihood. (Takshaka and a chieftain of a cavalry were then

residing in Kurukshetra and on the banks of a rivulet, Ikshumati.)The youngest son of Takshaka aspired to be a ruler of Nagas. Utanka could not get

back the rings though he eulogised Takshaka and his son. He saw two women weaving a

cloth on a loom and six boys operating a wheel and a man ( purusha) seated on a horse. He

must have been supervising these workers. We would not dwell on the interpretation that

the teacher gave of his experiences. There is no need to introduce mysticism and allegory.

All artisans, woodcutters and carpenters, jewellers and makers of bridles and reins,

weavers and manufacturers of oil were included in the class of nagas. This class of



25 of 282

technocrats and industrial workers had its own ambitions and organisation. Utanka had a

grouse against Takshaka who had stolen the rings gifted to him by Paushya’s wife. He went

to Hastinapura and requested Janamejaya to punish the thief that Takshaka was. Takshakawas accused of having caused the death of Parikshit by preventing Kashyapa from

proceeding to give that king the needed antidote to serpent-bite.

The nagas and sarpas are not to be presented as elephants or as serpents.

They were industrial workers who depended on forest wealth, including mines, timber and

animals like elephants. The expansion of the essentially agro-pastoral state and economy of

the plains and its intrusion into the forest and exploitation of its wealth and suppression of

its technologically advanced population are not to be overlooked.

Parikshit fell at the hands of Takshaka. Utanka who nurtured a personal grievance

against Takshaka instigated Janamejaya to avenge the killing of his predecessor. This

account has been prefixed later, it appears, to defend Janamejaya who was guilty

of a heinous genocide and to present the sarpayajna performed by that ruler of

Hastinapura and former viceroy of Takshasila as a genuine religious rite intended

to placate the souls of the dead ancestors.

3

THE PULOMAS AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER

It is noticed in the fourth chapter that the claim that instigation by Utanka who had

lost the gold earrings that he had obtained from Paushya’s wife to Takshaka led to the

performance of the above sacrifice was not believed in full by the sages of the Naimisha



26 of 282

forest. They were asked to wait for the arrival of the head of their academy Saunaka who

was the head priest at that sacrifice to acquaint them with the correct reason for the

performance of that sacrifice, what it meant and what happened during that sacrifice.Saunaka asked the chronicler who was a disciple (and son) of the famous singer of

ballads, Romaharshana, to narrate the legend of the lineage of the Bhrgus as he had heard

from his father. The chronicler, Sauti, said that he would narrate to Saunaka, ‘son’ of Bhrgu,

the account given by Vaishampayana and other senior scholars (of the society) about the

Bhrgus who were held in esteem by Indra and other nobles, by the sages and by the

Maruts.

Adityas, Vasus, Rudras and Maruts were treated as four sections of the traditional

nobles (devas) of the Vedic social polity. But by the end of the Vedic times the Maruts

appear to have lost their status as devas and were treated as daityas, equal to the feudal

lords, asuras. The Rudras had withdrawn into the forests leaving the Adityas and the

Vasus to govern the core society of the agro-pastoral plains.

According to the chronicler, Brahma who rose to that position by himself,

Svayambhu, created a new authority from the Agni of the sacrifice performed by Varuna. In

other words, the head of the judiciary that interpreted the socio-political

constitution, Brahma, had risen to that position (designated as Brahma) by his own

merit, nominated Bhrgu as Agni , as the head of the council ( samiti ) of intellectuals

and as civil judge to assist Varuna who was an ombudsman and chief magistrate

with the power to ensure that every one performed his duties and fulfilled his

obligations and liabilities. Varuna could take into custody any one who failed to

discharge his duties and social obligations. Chyavana was Bhrgu’s protégé and

successor (to this post of Agni ).

Pramati, who was in charge of the departments that ensured dharma was followed,

succeeded Chyavana to that post. Ruru was the son of Pramati by an Apsaras. It is implied

that Pramati was not fit to hold that post as he had fallen to her attractions and was not

duly married to her. But Ruru’s successor, Sunaka, was held in high esteem as a scholarand expert in Vedas and as an upholder of Satya and Dharma , that is the puritanical laws

of the later Vedic times based on truth (Satya) and the new liberal laws based on the

principles of Dharma. Saunaka was a ‘brother’ of Sunaka.

The fifth chapter then offers to present the birth of Chyavana. When Bhrgu’s wife,

later known as Pulomi, was pregnant with Chyavana, an Asura (feudal lord) who had loved

her and expected to marry her came to Bhrgu’s abode when he was not present. One of

Bhrgu’s predecessors was then officiating as Agni . The Asura, Puloma, claimed that she



27 of 282

belonged to him but had been forcibly married to Bhrgu by her father. Bhrgu’s disciple was

unable to give a definite opinion on whether Puloma was entitled to take Pulomi away. But

as he took her away ‘she left behind the infant in her womb’.While a woman who was no longer a virgin could opt to go away with her ‘man’, she

was not entitled to get married while she was pregnant by another man. If who had

impregnated her could not be determined her father who was responsible for her protection

had to look after that child growing in her womb until it was born and after that too. This

social law, dharma, was then in force. Pulomi had to recognise this rule and go away with

her spouse only after the child was delivered. (Bhrgu was the proponent of the laws based

on Manava Dharmasastra).

The then official, Agni , however followed the laws based on truth, Satya. He

conceded that Puloma, the Asura chieftain, had indeed married Pulomi before Bhrgu

married her by Brahma marriage, which according to the new code based on principles of

Dharma allowed the father to determine who would be the best groom for his daughter.

Her father had rejected Puloma and preferred Bhrgu. It would have been wrong on his part

to give her away as a virgin to Bhrgu when she was pregnant. Puloma tried to carry

away a married woman by force and resorted to Rakshasa marriage. Bhrgu’s code

had rejected it though only Asura marriage (that is sale and purchase of girls without

ascertaining their views) and Paisacha marriage (by enticement) were banned by the

earlier rules based on Satya. Puloma was a feudal (asura) chieftain who had scant

respect for scholars, Brahmans , and for Brahma marriage. It was a stage when the

scheme of four classes (varnas) had not yet been implemented fully amongst the

commoners even of the plains. The residents of the forests and the higher strata of the

society and the vast mobile population were yet to be brought under it.

On seeing the child slip out of the mother’s womb Puloma let them free, it is said. He

must have tried to abort the birth of the child but only caused premature delivery leading to

his discovery that the child resembled Bhrgu and not him. Pulomi was happily reunited with

her husband, Bhrgu, but only after Chyavana had grown up. The official who functioned as Agni hid himself from Bhrgu who learnt that the former had erred in concluding that

Puloma had sexual contact with Pulomi before or after her marriage with Bhrgu. Only

Pulomi’s (the mother’s) version on who Chyavana’s father was should be given credence

and not the claim of any man.

The new liberal code based on Dharma, promulgated by Bhrgu deprived

Agni of the authority to function as civil judge, a function that official was

performing under the earlier empirical and puritanical code based on Truth, Satya.



28 of 282

That official protested that he had been impartial and had adhered to the principles of both

Satya and Dharma and that if a witness gave wrong evidence he and his lineage would

suffer for failure of justice caused thereby and that the official could not be held responsible.The laws of the later Vedic age based on truth had cast the responsibility for

miscarriage of justice on the witnesses. The judge was not expected to examine whether

the witness spoke the truth or not. Only when the codes based on dharma came into

force superseding the earlier ones, the rules regarding verification of facts and

endorsement by three independent witnesses came into force. Ordeals and faith in

the honesty of those who had taken the pledge to speak and abide by the truth yielded

place to rational enquiry and establishment of truth through logical process. Bhrgu’s

predecessor who occupied the position of the civil judge, Agni , belonged to the period of

transition when the laws based on satya and those based on dharma , were both in force

resulting in the judges being perplexed and justice not being rendered.

Bhrgu’s predecessor to the post of Agni asked him to realise that the former who

officiated in different capacities for different types of ‘rites’ treated the pitrs and the nobles

(devas) on par, in accordance with the ancient Vedic practice. He implied that the

feudal lords, asuras, who had given up authoritarian ways, were on par with the

pitrs who adopted gentle persuasion to make others, especially the youngsters to be on the

right path, and that they had been granted a status equal to the liberal nobles,

devas. Varuna was treated as an asura. The asura marriage was no longer held

objectionable and had to be honoured even as the will of the noble who organized the social

welfare marriage (daiva type of marriage) of the girls under his care was honoured. It is

wrong to interpret daiva marriage as one intended by God.

As Agni kept away from officiating at sacrificial rites, that is, with the role of

the civil judge and endorser of the validity of social rites taken away from him, the new

generation of subjects ( prajas) who had been taught to utter the holy aumkara and seek

acceptance of their offerings by members of the governing elite, to remain as accepted

members of the organised society, were discomfited. The sages and the nobles thenapproached Brahma, the chief of the judiciary and the interpreter of the socio-political

constitution to restore to Agni his role.

Bhrgu had declared that no one was necessary to function as ‘ Agni’ at the

‘sacred’ rites. The sages, the elders and the nobles were the three cadres who received

the offerings made by the commoners at the sacrifices performed by them. Agni received

these offerings on behalf of these three non-economic cadres and arranged to meet their



29 of 282

interests. If in the middle Vedic polity, the civilised feudal lords, asuras, were

treated as pitrs, Bhrgu refused to grant them that status.

Only the elders who had retired to the forests giving up their worldly interests hadthe status of pitrs. It was not necessary to have an official as an intermediary to secure for

the three cadres the shares due to them. Brahma, the interpreter and upholder of the

new socio-political constitution declared that the post of Agni (civil judge and head

of the council of intellectuals) might be retained but he be authorised to receive only

his wages and the shares of the nobles (devas) on their behalf. ‘ Agni’ was no longer

authorized to accept any contributions on behalf of the sages (rshis) and the elders ( pitrs).

This was a major change in orientation and social practices introduced by the

socio-cultural code, dharmasastra that Bhrgu proposed. No civilian officer would have

failed to hand over to the nobles (devas) the shares due to them. Thus a compromise was

arrived at.

There was a major shift in the role of the official designated as Agni . Agni

had earlier been the official in charge of the commonalty of the plains and the spokesman of

the intelligentsia. Now he was authorised to look after the interests of all the three

social worlds (lokas), commonalty, aristocracy and the other society of the forests

and mountains. He would have the status of an Isvara, that is, a charismatic chieftain of

the social periphery who aided his followers he chose to aid.

The new social order brought all the three social worlds (lokas) under the

jurisdiction of this official of civilian affairs while at the same time not requiring the nobles,

the sages and the retired elders including the feudal chieftains to be present personally at

the rites performed by the commoners and instead allowing this official, Agni , to accept on

behalf of and convey to the nobles their shares. [Some modern scholars who claim to be

‘rationalists’ and condemn these rites are ignorant of the changes that had taken place by

the end of the Vedic era with respect to the role of Agni vis-à-vis the three non-economic

cadres, devas, rshis and pitrs.] Of course Agni was entitled to his wages. He was

however no longer the keeper of the conscience of the individual that he wasduring the later Vedic times under the laws based on Satya.

Ruru is said to be a grandson of Chyavana, the famous physician, who had married

Sukanya, a daughter of Saryata, a protégé of Manu Vaivasvata. Young Ruru loved

Brahmatvara, a girl born to Menaka, a famous Apsaras, and Visvavasu, a Gandharva, and

brought up by a sage in the forest. Gandharvas and Apsarases had not developed the

institution of marriage and family. They constituted a mobile population ( jagat ).

Sages (rshis) brought up, educated and arranged for the marriage of girls who were left



30 of 282

unprotected by their parents. Such marriages were known as Arsha marriages and

had the same force as Brahma marriages had.

The educated (Brahmans) were expected to marry the virgins (kanyas) offered tothem by their parents. There was no place for personal choice or love or considerations of

wealth and gifts and status in such marriages though in the case of Arsha marriage, the

grooms, mostly students, had to offer a cow and a calf in return to the sage who had

brought up the girl in his abode. Ruru, a follower of Krshna, was upset when the bride fell

unconscious after snakebite. According to the legend, an envoy of the nobles advised him to

offer half of his scheduled duration of life so that she might get revived. This needs a

rational appreciation.

The nobles (devas) knew that commoners (manushyas) did not live for more than

the length of life prescribed. The latter were not allowed to lead a life of retirement. They

had to work till the end. It was possible for an individual to share with his wife the

total quantum of work assigned to him and the two might live in retirement after

completion of the entire assigned work. If Ruru was agreeable to let Brahmatvara

share equally his work and earnings with her as common workers did he could be permitted

by the official in charge of implementation of the new code, dharma, to marry her. [Such

workers were known as share-croppers, ardhasitikas.] She was not to be treated as but a

‘daughter’ of a sage and kept away from manual labour or as the free daughter of a

Gandharva who might function as an artiste but not forced to be a common worker. In

other words, the rules governing the relations of the man and his wife as prevalent among

the common workers would become applicable to those who were married under the new

provisions of Arsha marriage.

According to the legend Ruru turned against all serpents ( sarpas) including those,

which lived in water. The counsel that he received from a sage (rshi ) who resided near

waters and belonged to the mobile working class ( sarpas) may be attended to. He

expected that the Brahmans would not harm any being and would be calm and

peace loving. They should give asylum to all beings ( pranis), (which were at the baresubsistence level). Besides adherence to non-violence (ahimsa) and truth ( satya)

they were expected to be patient according to the code of dharma. Brahmans

should never seek to follow Kshatriyadharma. The kshatriyas were empowered to

punish the guilty and were required to protect the subjects ( prajas) and may be harsh.

That sarparshi then asked Ruru to hear from Brahman scholars what took place at the

sarpayajna conducted by Janamejaya and the part played by Astika, a great intellectual.



31 of 282

4

PRIVILEGES OF THE TECHNOCRATS

KASHYAPA, ARUNA, GARUDA AND THE NAGAS

Later editors of the great epic were carried away by the impression that Janamejaya

was justified in exterminating the sarpas, the industrial workers who were constantly on

the move and operated the industrial economy of the forests and mountains. The editors of

later medieval times lost sight of the features of the social polity of the Vedic times and put

forth interpretations that defied reason. They misinterpreted the stand that Kashyapa took

on behalf of a macro-society that covered not only all human beings but also other living

beings.

Kashyapa had clarified that all the eight sectors, liberal nobles (devas), feudal lords

(asuras), sages (rshis), elders ( pitrs) commoners of the plains (manushyas), the vast



32 of 282

free intelligentsia (gandharvas, apsarases, etc.), the plutocrats and their guards

(yakshas and rakshas) of the frontier society and its technocrats and proletariat (nagas

and sarpas) were approved by him and that they were all to be treated as born to him and Aditi . But some critics classified this vast society as Adityas (those born of Aditi), Daityas

(asuras etc. those born of Diti) and Danavas (yakshas etc. those born of Danu).

Kashyapa did not approve this classification.

Some claimed that he had thirteen wives and that animals, birds, etc. were born of

some of them. The fifteenth chapter of the first section, Adiparva, is a later interpolation

intended to establish that the nagas and sarpas were a cursed group from the earliest

times and that the massacre of the sarpas, serpents, was intended to free them from that

curse. Legends have to be interpreted rationally.

Kadru and Vinata were said to be two of the several wives of Kashyapa.

Kadru prayed to him for giving birth to a thousand nagas of the same form and Vinata for

two sons who would be more powerful than them. Kashyapa was a creator of an

inclusive macro-society and the later editors compared him to Brahma (the

creator). According to the chronicler who was narrating to Saunaka and other sages of the

Naimisha forest the circumstances that led to the performance of the sarpayajna and its

failure, the era of domination by the nagas, that is, by technocrats would last five centuries

and would be ended by the second son of Vinata.

Aruna, the ‘chariot-driver’ of Surya, had influence comparable to the latter. He was

considered to be the first son of Vinata and the ‘vulture’, Garuda, her second son. While the

creed that veered round Surya or Aditya and upheld the supremacy of devas, the politico-

cultural aristocrats, honoured Aruna, Garuda was visualised later as the highly revered

vehicle and transporter of Krshna, in one of the ten ‘avatars’ or incarnations of Vishnu.

Most of the events covered by these ‘avatars’ or incarnations did take place during the last

decades of the long Vedic era. It is irrational to treat them as exploits of God Vishnu or as

fiction.

Aruna was visualized during the early medieval times as bailiff, an officialfunctioning under Varuna, the Vedic official who was an independent ombudsman and

rigorous implementer of the provisions of the Atharvan socio-political constitution. Varuna

had a status on par with Indra, Agni , Vayu and Surya, in that set-up. As Surya took

over the leadership of the nobility, and the importance of Varuna waned, Aruna became

the official who communicated to the masses and the officials and forewarned them about

the wishes and plans of Surya to enforce the rigorous provisions of the amended

constitution as a benevolent authority.



33 of 282

Aruna was redder than Surya but less hot. He was given the status of a devata,

which was marginally but definitely lower than that of a deva, which status Varuna had

though he was described by some as an authoritarian figure, an asura. In the earlypost-Vedic polity, Surya ( Aditya) was recognized as a social guide par excellence,

a jyoti . He guided all the social worlds (lokas). [It indicates the recognition, that the

movements of all the planets are dependent on the sun.]

It may be noticed that neither Aruna nor Surya nor Varuna had any influence over

the technocrats, nagas, who had definite say in the economy for over five centuries

immediately before the neo-Vedic constitution of the Upanishads came into force. The

later editors of the great epic were enthusiastic about the role of Garuda in controlling the

influence of the nagas. The chronicler told Saunaka and other sages of the forest about the

dispute between Katru and Vinita over the colour of Ucchasravas, the famous horse of the

nobles (devas) which had made its appearance during the ‘churning’ of the ‘sea of milk’ by

the devas and the asuras, the liberal nobles and the feudal lords to get hold of eternal

(amrta) authority to rule over the commoners.

When the nobles assembled at ‘Mount Meru’ to deliberate on ways and means to

secure this permanent power, the sage Narayana was said to have recommended that the

dispute be settled peacefully by churning the sea. In fact it was a game of tug-of war

between the two classes. The nobles were asked to stake all that they had for their health

and wealth, medicinal herbs and jewels. The pole that was used for churning the bowl of

yoghurt is visualised as the tall mountain, Mantara, full of herbs and costly minerals and

jewels. It would stand on the turtle (kurma, kacchapa). That is, Kashyapa undertook the

responsibility of bearing the cost of this friendly game.

Vasuki is presented in this allegory as the rope used for churning. Vasuki was a

devotee of Krshna, a Vasu chieftain. He was a mariner who used ropes to pull the

barges along the river from the banks or along the seacoast. Mariners and rope-makers

were a sector of the Nagas (serpents, as understood later) even as several sections of

artisans including architects and chariot-makers, woodcutters and carpenters were treatedas belonging to the class of Nagas and assigned to the frontier industrial society. Vasuki

like Kashyapa would adopt a stance of neutrality between the nobles and the feudal lords in

their struggle for power and immunities and privileges (amrta).

The events behind the allegories have to be unravelled and put forward in a rational

manner. While the rich and senior feudal chieftains (asuras) caught hold of the face and

neck of Vasuki, the ruler (ra ja) of the Nagas, the nobles stood near his rear. According to

the legend the ocean was poisoned by the venom spurted out by Vasuki as the asuras



34 of 282

pressed his neck. In other words, the evil intentions that artisans were believed to have

always entertained got expressed and vitiated the social atmosphere as the feudal lords

coerced them. Both the nobles and the feudal lords fled the scene, as the rage of thecoerced artisans was unbearably violent.

The nobles and the revered sages reported to Brahma, the chief judge and upholder

of the socio-political constitution that violent events reminiscent of the fire and lava seen at

the time of ‘flood’ caused by eruption of sub-oceanic volcanoes were seen everywhere.

Coercion of technocracy had affected all the social worlds adversely. They requested

him to find out a remedy for the disaster that threatened all.

Brahma, the upholder of the constitution, then approached Rudra (consort

of Parvati) who had the status of Lokesvara, the charismatic and beneficent leader

of the social world (of commoners), and was known as Hara for a solution. For the

welfare of the social world of the commoners Rudra drank the poison, according to the

legend. In other words, he absorbed all the evil outfalls on the commonalty on behalf of the

nobles. He was hence known as Nilakanta, one with the ‘blue’ neck.

When the nobles and the feudal lords continued the struggle after it was ensured

that it would no more affect the commoners adversely, the rage of Vasuki, the chief of the

technocrats (nagas) who were affected the most in that struggle, was directed against both

the nobles and the feudal lords. The churning harmed all animals and other living

beings of the sea but benefited the nobles (devas) who gained all immunities

(amrtva,).

The Vaishnavaites of the later days were upset by the neglect of Narayana (Vishnu)

in the earlier versions of the legend of the churning of the sea. They claimed that Brahma

wanted only the nobles (devas) to be favoured and strengthened (with the nectar) but

Narayana proposed that all who took part in the task of churning the sea (nature), that is,

the nobles as well as feudal lords and also the technocrats should benefit from the use of

the resources of nature (hidden in the sea). The churning resulted in the recognition of the

three cadres, feudal lords, nobles and commoners represented respectively by jyeshta,lakshmi and sura. The feudal lords were accepted as senior ( jyeshta) to the rich nobles

and the commoners were declared to be eligible to administer the state treasury ( sura). [It

is not sound to interpret sura as liquor. Jyeshta, the elder sister of Lakshmi (goddess of

wealth) signified misfortune, while her younger sister, ‘Bhudevi’ , represented patience.]

This churning also resulted in the recognition of the asvas or gandharva cavaliers

as a special cadre that was supported by the nobles and supported them. Ucchasravas, the

horse that neighed aloud represented this class. The famous cow, Kamadenu, the sacred



35 of 282

flower tree, Parijata and the great elephant, Airavata too are said to have emerged and

joined the nobles (devas) along with the artistes known as Apsarases.

The physician, Danvantari, who had the status of a devata is said to have taken themedicated and enriched milk, amrta, in a pot to the spot, where it would be distributed to

the eligible cadres. But he was chased by the asuras who suspected foul play. The later

Vaishnavaites have claimed that it was the detractor, Mohini , who had in the form of

Narayana, served that nectar to the nobles (devas) and kept the feudal lords (asuras,

daityas) and the plutocrats (danavas) deprived of the benefits of the churning of nature.

These later editors had to concede that some followers of Vishnu (Narayana) had

not acted justly.

The attempt to settle peacefully the dispute between the two rival cadres of the

ruling class, the liberal nobles (devas) and the feudal lords (asuras), failed. For, some

detractors ignored the interests of the feudal lords and the plutocrats (danavas). The

feudal chieftains took to arms once again and the two leaders, Narayana and Nara,

ensured that only the nobles secured the immunities (against death sentence)

associated with the concept, nectar (amrta).

All those who were offered the drink and accepted it whether they were great social

leaders ( purushottama) like Narayana (Vishnu) or highly talented free men

(narottama) like the sage Nara, fought along with the nobles (devas) against the feudal

lords. Vishnu (Narayana) wielded the powerful weapon, Sudarsana wheel. It was meant to

protect the pious and noble persons who were his followers as in his career and role as

Krshna it was used. Of course this weapon could be used to injure the very powerful of the

vicious opponents.

In his roles as Parasurama and Rama, Vishnu had used only the bow indicating that

he was but the best of free men, a status substantially lower than that of a great social

leader. These great personages could not mobilise the people of the social periphery

(chakra) whose services were drawn on by the villagers and people of the towns for

purposes of sanitation and guidance ( sudarsana) when they wanted to enter the forestsinfested by wild animals. Parasurama and Rama have been lauded as Purusha and only

Krshna was referred to as Purushottama. Some have claimed that his trainee, Arjuna, was

at the level of Narottama and that Krshna and Arjuna were like the two famous sages,

Narayana and Nara.

Narottama the best of the free men who was entitled to act on behalf of the state

and the commonalty (manushyas) and Narayana who as Purushottama was a great

social leader, put down the asuras, the feudal lords. The nobles did not fight as they were



36 of 282

overwhelmed by the might of the feudal lords and could not engage the services of the

commoners to fight on their behalf. [Later they could not fight, as the immunity from death

(amrta) that had been granted required that they should not take up arms.] It was left tothose among the commoners (manushyas) were free men (naras) or social leaders

( purushas) to battle against the feudal lords , asuras.

Until the armed free man , Nara, entered the scene the feudal lords had domination

over the forests and the mountains and the commonalty (bhumi ) and also the open space

(akasa). That is, the nobles (devas) could not exercise coercive power over the frontier

industrial society (antariksham) of mountains and forests and the open space (akasa)

occupied by the insignificant, unorganised and mobile and powerless individuals. Nara

(Narottama) ensured that the open space (akasa) of these individuals was made secure

against intrusion by the feudal lords (asuras) and their allies, the plutocrats (danavas,

sreshtas).

While Nara used the bow, Narayana used the authority he had acquired as the

wielder of the Sudarsana, the good guide, to exercise the powers of Agni , the enlightened

civil officer with authority over the commonalty. The enemies hid themselves in the depths

of the earth (bhumi ) and the sea. That is, they were allowed to control the deep mines of

the earth and the seas. The nobles (devas) were allowed to dominate the population of the

open space (akasa). Indra, the head of the social world of nobles handed over to Nara the

charge of amrta, that is, ensuring that the state administered by the free men, naras, did

not violate the immunities and privileges that had been given to the aristocrats (devas)

alone.

The friendly dispute between Kadru and Vinata, two ‘wives’ of Kashyapa on whether

Ucchasravas, the horse (gandharva chieftain), who appeared on the scene during the

‘churning’ of the ‘sea of milk’ that is the struggle between the nobles (devas) and the

feudal lords (asuras) for powers, immunities and privileges as the ruling class is a titillating

episode obviously interpolated later. Was this Gandharva chieftain unblemished and hence

eligible to be admitted to the company of the nobles (devas) or did he despite theenormous freedom that he enjoyed in choosing his vocation and career as an intellectual or

as a warrior or as an artiste, carry the blemish of unreliability in affairs and functions that

required his services? The technocrats, Nagas, were considered to be unreliable

though they were honoured for their expertise. Did the free intelligentsia

(gandharvas) who were superior to the free men (naras) qualify to be admitted to the

ranks of the cultural aristocracy (devas)?



37 of 282

As pointed out earlier the technocrats (nagas) were expected to hold sway for five

centuries. The culture that they promoted left a mark on the outlook of the free

intelligentsia (gandharvas) that was closer to the cultural aristocracy (devas) rather thanto the free men (naras) among the commonalty (manushyas). These free men ran the

affairs of the integrated state. The chronicler interprets that the sarpas who were singed by

Agni , the chief of the intelligentsia in the sarpayajna that the ruler, Janamejaya,

conducted were those technocrats (nagas) and members of the industrial proletariat

( sarpas) who refused to adversely infect the free intelligentsia (gandharvas) with the lure

of the advantages that industrial economy offered them and the common people who were

natives of the soil ( jana).

The head of the judiciary, Brahma, and the gatherings of nobles were uneasy as the

working class of sarpas was increasing in numerical strength in the integrated janapada

without contributing to its cultural and social development. They endorsed the approach of

Kadru (a follower of Kashyapa) that the members of the industrial proletariat who did not

make positive contribution to the native community of the region were a liability to it.

The nobles (devas) imposed even death penalty on the workers who proved harmful

and destructive to the rest of the living beings. The chief judge, Brahma, approved this

step. He requested Kashyapa who had recognised and promoted the interests of the

industrial proletariat ( sarpas) not to feel offended with this step that was first proposed by

Kadru. The latter may be visualised as having been a protégé of Kashyapa who was against

treating any sector of the larger society as persona non grata. He (Brahma who was later

lauded as the god of creation) also instructed Kashyapa on how to ensure that those who

were harmed by (the bite of) the workers ( sarpas) were cured.

In order to save the class of nagas and sarpas, Karkotaka, a rich technocrat (naga)

offered to become the black tail of Ucchasravas, that is, be part of the retinue of that

Gandharva chieftain who was held in respect by the nobles (devas). The two wives

(sections of followers) of Kashyapa (represented by Kadru and Vinata) were satisfied that

the free intelligentsia (gandharvas) would not come entirely or be even prominently underthe influence of the technocrats (nagas) but would not be totally free from their influence.

Unless we present a rational outline of the contradictions faced by the society during the

later Vedic era we would be drawn into presenting fantastic interpretations about the events

and personages of those times.

Garuda (visualised as the offspring of Vinita and Kashyapa) assumed the position of

Agni and influenced the entire larger society (visva) even as Agni controlled the agro-

pastoral commonalty ( prthvi ). Agni told the nobles (devas) who were enemies of the



38 of 282

feudal chiefs (asuras) that the ‘powerful’ Garuda was not he ( Agni an approved civil judge

and head of the intelligentsia) and that the nobles hence need not fear Garuda.

Garuda was an enemy only of the technocrats (nagas) and of the feudallords (asuras) and the rebel militants (rakshasas). The sages and the nobles

eulogised him as having the powers of Indra and Surya, Agni and Vayu and Yama, (the

Vedic officials) and Vishnu , Siva and Brahma (the post-Vedic Trinity), according to the

chronicler and prayed to him not to harm them in any way. The chronicler says that when

Surya thought of burning down all the social worlds (lokas), Garuda and Aruna

intervened to protect them from the wrath of that official. Rahu, one of the Nagas had

managed to secure immunity (from death) that was granted to the nobles (devas) and this

incensed Surya, the chief of the nobles and head of the administration. Kashyapa had

prevailed on this official (through Aruna and Garuda) not to blame the nobles for this.

The powers of Surya were eclipsed but only for a short duration. They were

however reduced. Kadru (that is, one of the sections following Kashyapa that encouraged

the technocrats) appealed to Indra, the head of the traditional aristocracy (devas) who

controlled the huge army, to save the technocrats (nagas), from the cruel treatment meted

out to them by Surya, the head of the new political authority (kshatras). In the traditional

Vedic social polity Indra was honoured and obeyed by all the sectors of the larger society.

A return to that arrangement was expected to restrain the new political authority,

Surya, from indulging in excesses.

Garuda, ‘son’ of Vinata, was required to carry out the instructions of the nagas and

sarpas, the technocrats and the industrial proletariat as she had lost to her sister, Kadru

who was their guardian (mother). They expected him to secure for them through his

prowess the immunities that the nobles had been granted. The vulture Garuda was

permitted to kill the trappers and hunters who were enemies of the birds and live on their

flesh. The hunters did not belong to either the agro-pastoral commonalty ( ihaloka) or the

nobility ( paraloka) and were pitiless ‘sinners’.

Garuda was however warned against harming the Brahman who had more powersthan Agni and Surya , the civil judge and the chief of the civil administration had. The

chronicler implied that the Brahman who was the head of the judiciary was more powerful

than the two and hence he should not be antagonised. It was in the nature of the Brahman

to be like the sarpas vindictive.

The statement that Garuda should realise that the Brahman belonged to the best of

the varnas (social classes) is obviously a later interpolation. During the pre-varna Vedic

times, Brahman was said to have emerged before all other living beings did and was



39 of 282

visualised as the intellectual who conducted himself like a father (a status that Brahma, the

chief judge had as Praja pati ) and as a teacher (guru). It was implied that Brhaspati often

referred to as Guru should be given precedence over other officials belonging to thedifferent social sectors.

Garuda wanted his mother to advise him on whether as intellectuals the Brahmans

belonged to the commonalty of the core society and were headed and directed by Agni or

as sober sages and elders of the forest who were guided by Soma. She did not enlighten

him on this issue but counselled him not to harm a Brahman in any way or for any

reason. She prayed to Vayu, Surya, Chandra, Agni and the eight Vasus who were

governors of the eight regions of the larger post-Vedic polity to protect Garuda. Garuda

was in later times feared as a second Yama (god of death, in common parlance). He

had to live on the hunters on whom he pounced. [Later he did not hunt the hunters nor did

they hunt him.]

As he lived on fishes he could not get any food while in the areas of the commoners

(manshyaloka). According to the legend, Garuda who was on a mission to procure the

nectar for the nagas and sarpas was advised by Kashyapa to seek strength by living on

the elephant and the tortoise that lived near a lake and were trying to kill each other. We

may overlook such statements, which are obviously later interpolations intended to attract

the attention of the gullible commoners.

Kashyapa advised Garuda to secure the blessings of the Brahmans (that is, to

secure the approval of the members of the judiciary) to be able to score over the nobles

(devas) and accomplish his mission. In a grove belonging to the nobles Garuda, the

missionary, came across some Valakhilya sages who were hanging upside down from the

branches of a banyan tree and were engaged in meditation in a difficult yogic posture. He

did not want them to be harmed by any indiscreet action of his.

They were pleased with him and in fact they named him as Garuda as he carried a

huge weight of responsibility while flying in the sky, that is, while going up towards the

abode of the nobles (devas). Garuda who had the status of Agni and directed all the socialworlds transported the Valakhilya sages to the academy whose head (bhagavan)

Kashyapa was. Kashyapa had reservations on the nobles (devas) being granted special

privileges and immunities.

He wanted to know Garuda’s assessment of the attitudes of the Valakhilya sages

who were believed to be in favour of encouraging technocracy. He advised Garuda whom

nobles (devas), feudal lords (asuras) and their associates (rakshasas) could not subdue,

not to harm or antagonise these sages in any way. He told the Valakhilya sages that the



40 of 282

post of Garuda had been instituted for the welfare of the (native) people, jana and that the

latter had undertaken a great mission. Kashyapa requested them to permit Garuda to carry

out that mission.We would bypass the pictures created by the fancies of the later poets and point out

that the Valakhilyas who were engaged in study of theoretical science were requested to

permit Garuda to use their knowledge for the benefit of the commoners of the janapada.

The technocrats (Nagas) would be in a position to help the commoners if they were granted

the same privileges as the nobles (devas) had.

The recognition granted to the utilisation of science of technology and to the

technocrats led to unrest and internal conflicts among the different groups of nobles

(devas) like Vasus, Rudras, Maruts, Adityas and Saddhyas. These conflicts proved

more harmful than the wars between devas and asuras, the two rival sections of the ruling

elite.

Indra, the head of the assembly of nobles (devas) wanted to know from

Brhaspati, the chief administrator and controller of the economy of the commonalty

( prthvi ) why the power and authority of the nobles (devas) had weakened. Brhaspati

explained that Garuda who enjoyed the patronage of the sages known as Valakhilyas and

was a protégé of Kashyapa planned to secure the immunities and privileges (amrta) that

the nobles had and would succeed if Indra erred and was not cautious. Indra mobilised the

armies of the nobles (devas) to guard the nectar that they had obtained bypassing the

feudal lords, asuras. The chronicler says that Kashyapa had ‘created’ Garuda to punish

Indra and other nobles who had treated with contempt the weak and dwarfish Valakhilya

sages.

Kashyapa appealed to the Valakhilyas who advocated and followed the laws based

on truth, satya, not to dethrone Indra who had been appointed by Brahma (who

implemented the provisions of the socio-political constitution) as the head of all the three

social worlds (divam, prthvi and antariksham, nobility, commonalty and frontier society)

but to instead permit him to appoint Garuda as the chief of the sector of ‘birds’(messengers). In the new social order outlined by Kashyapa, Aruna and Garuda were

nominated as ‘brothers’ (associates) and assistants of Indra. This reduced the powers of

Purandara who was then (that is during the tenure of Manu Vaivasvata) Indra.

[Kashyapa was the head of the council of seven sages during the tenure of this Manu.]

The nomination of Aruna as the ‘chariot-driver’ of Surya implied instituting of

checks on the powers of the administration-cum-army (kshatras) headed by Surya or

Aditya. Nomination of Garuda as the head ( Indra) of ‘birds’ meant checks on the powers



41 of 282

of the nobility to control the free movement of persons belonging to other sections of the

larger society. Garuda succeeded in confusing the armies of the nobles, make them lose

unity and flee in different directions. The immunity from death penalty and privileges(amrta) that the nobles (devas) had secured for themselves were approved and guarded

jealously by Agni , the head of the intelligentsia ( samiti ) and civil judge (of the Vedic

times). But Garuda silenced him too. He skilfully managed to enter the spot where the

‘nectar’ was kept and carried it away. The later Vaishnavaite chronicle describes how Vishnu

was pleased with Garuda’s exploits and appointed him as his transporter and adopted him

as symbol on his flag.

Indra was able to curtail the powers of Garuda but not defeat him fully. He

instead sought permanent peace and friendship with the latter. In other words, Garuda, the

advocate of the cause of the technocrats, nagas, was able to come to an agreement with

the nobles, devas, on the issue of privileges for the latter along the lines the nobles

enjoyed. Indra did not want that the immunities (amrta) granted to the nobles (devas)

should be granted to others lest they should injure the interests of the former.

Garuda assured him that he was only conveying the knowledge of the availability of

the immunity to all including the Nagas, the technocrats but would not make it available to

any one other than the nobles. Though he had authority over all social sectors, Garuda

‘prayed’ that he permitted to ‘feed’ on the ‘sarpas’ , that is, utilise the services of the

industrial proletariat for his exclusive purpose. It meant that no sector of the ruling

elite, aristocrats or feudal lords or plutocrats would be free to utilise the services

of the industrial proletariat. Only technocrats (nagas) would have access to these

services.

Technocrats (nagas) would control the services of this proletariat but Garuda would

oversee them on behalf of the Valakhilya sages who were advocates of a culture based on

technology. The legend refers to how the sarpas, that is, the mobile working class, were

tricked and the nobles (devas) took away the immunities (amrta) promised to them. Of

course irrational statements introduced by later annotators and narrators of this episodethat pertained to the times of Manu Vaivasvata, Kashyapa and Purandara Indra are not to

be allowed to cloud our vision.



42 of 282

5

MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENT INDUSTRIAL PROLETARIAT

JANAMEJAYA’S SARPAYAJNA

Astika, the Believer

Why did Janamejaya perform the highly controversial sacrifice, sarpayajna?

Why did the Brahman, Astika, save the ‘sarpas’, from ‘fire’? Whose son wasAstika? Saunaka, an associate of Sunaka, a Vedic sage, wanted to be enlightened on these

by the narrator, Upasravas, who had heard about the sacrifice from his father,

Romaharshana (the thriller). The latter was a disciple of Krshna Dvaipayana who was a

witness to that event. Dvaipayana had not authorised the Naimisharanya version unlike

Vaishampayana’s version of the events pertaining to the great war, and the battle of

Kurukshetra that were narrated to Janamejaya by the latter. But it cannot be dismissed as

mere hearsay.

The Sarpayajna, the sacrifice of ‘serpents’, was a historical event. It was not

a killing of serpents for extracting antidotes nor was it a symbolic act of purification. It was

a massacre (like genocide) but not of any ethnic groups. Nagas and sarpas were

neither ethnic groups nor worshippers of serpents. They were technocrats and

industrial workers of the Vedic times. Chroniclers have described Janamejaya as a cruel

ruler, as Kautilya notices (in Arthasastra 1-6-6). Many rulers might have been described as

Janamejaya, one who made the people tremble. But the one whom the chronicler deals with

in Mahabharata and to whom Jayabharatam was narrated was Parikshit’s successor.

Parikshit of Kuru’s lineage took over the reins of Hastinapura on Yudhishtira’s retirement.



43 of 282

Kautilya, the author of a treatise on political economy, was a contemporary of

Parikshit and Manu Savarni, of Dvaipayana and Bhishma. His work in couplets ( slokas) was

edited and cast in prose maxims ( sutras) and annotated several centuries later byVishnugupta who belonged to the decades of the Nandas and Mauryas.

The Astika who features only in the Adiparva of the Mahabharata was the son of

Jaratkaru, a Brahman scholar who had spent most of his early life in rigorous

austerity as a celibate, as a free ( svatantra) person without any attachments. Such

a person did not feel bound by any social or political code and was not bound to any state.

He was described as a Brahman, an independent unperturbed intellectual who did

not care for his personal needs either. Others might not have been patient with such a

person who did not respond to any stimulus.

During the Vedic and early Upanishadic periods such independent intellectuals

were treated as ideal Brahmans, as those who delved deep within while they searched for

the ultimate truth. They were free from ‘self’ and practised extreme self-denial. But they

differed from Vratyas who too were noted for self-denial and austerity but held heterodox

(not necessarily heretic) views on the existence of Brahman or Purusha (the Ultimate as

some translate).

Not all Vratyas were nastikas, persons who did not believe in the existence of soul

or in the existence of ‘God’. It is misleading to describe them as ‘broken men’. They

were not outcasts or exiles though most of them were later declared to be not eligible to

wear the sacred. Vratyas were Saivaites and socio-political ideologues and organisers.

They were resolute and selfless in their mission but responsive to all and were not adamant.

They however differed from the Vairagis who had withdrawn from all personal pursuits and

social attachments totally and tended to be cynical, even misanthropic.

The Vratyas did not accept the initiation rites and rules outlined in the

Dharmasastras but they had not rejected the four varna classification and the asrama

stages as irrelevant and invalid or the four human values ( purusharthas), dharma, artha,

kama and moksha. Rites and rituals were but social prescriptions and were of no spiritualimport, they held. Heterodoxy is not heresy.

Jaratkaru, the Desiccant

‘ Jaratkaru’ was persuaded by his harassed ‘elders’ ( pitrs) to marry and beget a son

who would perform his and their last rites and save them from their sufferings and

uncertainties (about the future abodes of their souls). Begetting a son was a social and

‘spiritual’ necessity, many thinkers held. This belief has seeped into the lives of the

commoners and moulded all their social systems since the later Vedic times. During the



44 of 282

early and middle Vedic times when the Gandharva way of life dominated there was little

emphasis on marriage and family and on begetting sons and bringing them up in the

traditional ways of the family. The above belief may be irrational but it is unwise to attemptto destroy these systems and disorganise the lives of the commoners (manushyas).

As a free ‘Brahman’ , Jaratkaru was not required to or expected to adhere to this

belief and these social systems and practices. Yet he agreed to marry provided he was

gifted a virgin with the same nomenclature, that is, who too was a desiccant like him.

( Jaratkaru was not a personal name.) This austere Brahman might have been afflicted by

severe consumption and would marry only a similarly ailing girl. The Valakhilyas to which

cadres his ancestors belonged and whom Garuda came across and who advocated

technocracy, too might have been severely afflicted. ‘ Jaratkaru’ was called so because self-

torture had led to corrosion ( jara) of his body and painful abrasion (karu). Like Vedic

Brahmans he was a free individual and had no varna or gotra attribute or

restriction.

Many scholars as intellectuals were in search of the Ultimate, Parabrahma but had

not yet come to the conclusion that there was such an ultimate and that it could be

attained. Astika was one who believed firmly in the existence of soul and in

Parabrahma (that is, faith in God, in common parlance). According to Krshna a Brahman

had to be an Astika, a positivist.

Jaratkaru’s marriage with a Naga girl

As a Brahman, Jaratkaru could not ask for wealth or even for alms. Hence he

would not seek a wife. But if someone realising his (spiritual) need gave his daughter in

marriage to him as gift (kanyadan) he would accept her. In Jaratkaru’s view, fulfilment

of sex urge need not be the purpose of marriage. Marriage, vivaha, was a duty

connected with the code of right conduct, dharma, and not a fold for sex and

pleasure, kama. Fulfilment of the obligations to one’s ancestors, pitrs, calls for

continuance of the male lineage (conceived and born within the fold of wedlock). One needs

not only a son, but also a grandson and great-grandson at least, according to the rulesgoverning shraddha rites and rnamukti orientation (freedom from debts to the nobles,

sages and elders, devas, rshis and pitrs) instituted as such rites.

After Manusmrti came into force only Brahman fathers were permitted to follow

the above pattern of Brahma marriage and give away their daughters as virgins to the

grooms who were duty-bound to accept them. But the groom was not required to be a

bachelor or even a Brahman. Till then, both the bride and the groom were required to be

born to Brahmans to be eligible for this type of Dharma marriage. The girl should not have



45 of 282

attained the age of consent, that is, three years after puberty. (The Kautilyan state however

threw open all the eight types of marriages to all the classes, varnas.)

Jaratkaru would accept her not for economic (artha) considerations or for sexualpleasure (kama) but to fulfil his duty (dharma), to procreate a son and ensure a

‘permanent’ place for his ancestors ( pitrs). The term, ‘ pitr’ is not to be used

indiscriminately to indicate the spirits of the deceased ancestors that had not yet obtained

freedom from rebirth. The elders, pitaras, who have retired from worldly life and become

vanaprasthas or sanyasis have to be distinguished from the ancestors who have given up

their bodies and whose souls are on their way to their permanent abode, svarga, heaven in

common parlance or anantya or endless cosmos. As pointed out elsewhere, the retired

feudal lords, asuras, after reformation in their outlooks and practices, were treated as pitrs

or pitaras and as almost equal to the nobles, devas. While the pitrs stayed in the plains,

their counterparts who lived in forests were known as pitaras.

Many ritualists believed that ‘sonlessness’ resulted in non-fulfilment of this goal. But

the first Manu, Svayambhuva, had discounted this fear and permitted lifelong celibacy. The

importance and influence of this orientation is not to be overlooked, students of Hindu

sociology should note. It may be irrational but it cannot be wiped out. The ‘sex’ component

of marriage was given a second place and not the first, which it occupies in unorganised

mass societies or occupied in the ranks of the gandharvas and apsarases of the Vedic

times.

Marriage and family were not institutionalised among the gandharvas and

apsarases who constituted a free intelligentsia. Gandharva marriage was the most

popular and most common of the eight types of marriage (Brahma, Arsha, Daiva,

Praja patya, Asura, Gandharva, Rakshasa, Paisacha). But it did not accept the

orientation of begetting a son to fulfil one’s duties to one’s ancestors.

Marriage is not to be by choice but has to be predestined, Jaratkaru

insisted. The ‘donor’ must have already decided to whom he would give his daughter in

marriage and must be waiting for the recipient of the ‘gift’ to call on him. Of course,Jaratkaru would not ask for her hands but would accept the ‘gift’ offered. This was not a

meaningless ritual or deception or self-deception. [Later Brahmans were permitted

and even required as brahmacharis, to ask for ‘alms’. But the householders and the

retired, grhasthas and vanaprasthas could not ask for or accept alms or gifts. The

monks, sanyasis, were not permitted to ask for ‘alms’ but could accept ‘alms’.]

Jaratkaru’s conduct was like that of a sanyasi . As Vasuki, a Naga chieftain, had

a sister who met this description, Jaratkaru, desiccant, and had decided to give



46 of 282

her in marriage to a Jaratkaru only, the alliance took place. Vasuki had played a

notable part in assisting the nobles and the feudal lords to settle their dispute and claims for

power through a friendly tug-of-war and in the process had suffered physically. He was amariner and Krshna held him to be the best among the Nagas (vide Vibhuti -Yoga of

Bhagavad -Gita).

Naga Marriage

Among the Nagas and Sarpas (as among the Gandharvas), who belonged to the

class of mobile industrial workers, the brothers gave away their sisters in marriage. Among

the commoners, manushyas, Brahmans gave away their daughters in marriage and that

too before they attained the age of consent and often before they attained puberty. Other

girls were free to select their spouses on their own terms. (Hindu sociology needs to be

redrafted, rid of wrong stereotypes.)

The state law of marriage as instituted by Kautilya demanded that all

marriages be approved by the fathers of the boys and the girls in the cases of

dharma-type marriages (arsha, daiva, praja patya and brahma) and by their

mothers too in the case of the four non-dharma type marriages (asura, gandharva,

rakshasa and paisaca) before the magistrate, Dharmastha, could grant certificates

of validity. All the eight types were open to all the four classes (varnas).

Dharmasastra tended to keep the four dharma-type marriages limited to the

Brahmans and the Rakshasa type (marriage by abduction) to the Kshatriyas. It banned

the Asura type (sale and purchase of girls for marriage) and the Paisaca type (marriage by

seduction) and allowed the Gandharva type (voluntary union of adults) to all. The Naga

practice could not have been approved by the Kautilyan state, as permission of parents did

not feature in it.

Gandharvas of the Vedic times followed a practice similar to that of the Nagas but

the girls were totally free to accept or reject the grooms recommended by their brothers.

The Naga practice had a tinge of coercion as well as seduction. The Nagas were not

tribals nor were they worshippers of serpents. They were artisans, boatswains, etc. who hadto give up the life of members of settled communities.

Among the Nagas, the elder brother was responsible for the protection of his sisters.

His influence over and responsibility for them continued even after their marriage. Among

the Gandharvas, this responsibility ceased after the sisters got married and went away

with their consorts. (Gandharvas were not celestial beings. They formed the free

intelligentsia of the larger society.)



47 of 282

Vasuki

Saunaka, the Bhargava scholar, was told that ‘ Astika’ was born to Jaratkaru, the

austere Brahman who was an independent thinker and was not attached to any school ofthought or academy or attached to or obliged to any social group. Jaratkaru’s wife was a

Naga and she too was a desiccant, Jaratkaru. She was not a Brahman by birth or by

nurture. It was not an intra-varna marriage. She belonged to the class of boatswain.

Rope-makers and bargemen who used ropes to haul the boats along the banks of rivers and

along the seacoasts belonged to this class. Astika had to discharge his duties to his

paternal relatives, dayadas, who were Brahmans and also to his maternal

kinsmen, jnatis, who were Nagas. The latter were about to be thrown into the fire at the

sarpayajna being conducted by Janamejaya.

It may be remarked here that it is wrong to translate the term, ‘ varna’ as ‘caste’

and to use the terms, ‘varna’ and ‘ jati’ indiscriminately to refer to the concept,

‘community’. ‘Varna’ was a conglomeration of individuals and groups and communities who

pursued vocations that called for application of intellect or coercive power or economic

power or manual power. An individual or family or a group was selected and assigned to a

socio-economic class, varna, on the basis of his or its traditional vocation and aptitude.

Later, as there were no authorities empowered to inspect, select and assign any one

or group to a class, fresh recruitment to the class came to a halt and the offspring of those

already selected continued to ply their traditional vocations and claim the privileges of the

class to which their forefathers had been selected and assigned. Brahmans, Kshatriyas,

Vaisyas and Shudras were classes, varnas, and their members were drafted from

different social sectors (lokas) with distinct orientations. Most of them, especially the

Vaisyas and Shudras, had earlier belonged to the unclassified agro-pastoral commonalty

(manushyas). When the liberal aristocracy (devas) was dissolved its members joined the

three higher classes and most of its loyal servants, dasas, were absorbed in the class of

free workers, Shudras.

Most of the feudal lords (asuras) were accepted in the fold of kshatriyas as rulersand their employees (dasyus) were absorbed in the ranks of non-conformist militant ranks

of rakshas most of whose warriors were associated with the plutocrats (yakshas). The

gandharvas were a large independent middle class and its members who did not function

as settled and organised communities and were free to move about in all areas joined one

of the two varnas, Brahmans and Kshatriyas as independent intellectuals or as free

warriors. Nagas were technocrats and directed the organised industrial proletariat, sarpas,

and functioned under the plutocrats (yakshas) of the frontier industrial society of the



48 of 282

forests and mountains. Both Nagas and Sarpas had developed orientations similar to those

of the Gandharvas and Apsarases as they were all mobile cadres and were not engaged

in agriculture or in pasture.There was widespread support and sympathy for Vasuki who had spat off all his

venom while helping the nobles (devas) to settle their disputes with the feudal lords

(asuras) amicably in a tug-of-war. This ‘game’ organised perhaps under the aegis of Manu

Raivata and Ajita, a Kashyapan chief, however did not succeed in bringing about a

permanent end to the feuds between these two antagonistic sectors of the ruling elite of the

core society of the Vedic times. It was part of the legend veering round the ‘tortoise’

(kurma, kacchapa, Kashyapa) incarnation (avatar ) of Vishnu. For a proper appreciation

of Janamejaya’s sarpa-yajna, it is necessary to first examine Parikshit’s misdemeanour and

his death caused by Takshaka.

Parikshit’s Misdemeanour

Parikshit who belonged to the Kuru lineage spent his time in hunting as his ‘great-

grandfather’, Pandu did. (Ch.40 Adiparva) For purpose of state records, Parikshit

inherited Pandu’s throne after the Pandavas had left for their last journey. The

postulate that Parikshit was the posthumous son of Abhimanyu (son of Arjuna by

Subhadra) was advanced by later chroniclers to claim traditional legitimacy for his

rule. Dvaipayana had not advanced this claim, as hereditary monarchy was not the norm

then.

On Dhrtarashtra’s death, control over Hastinapura passed into the hands of Parikshit,

the senior-most surviving member of the Kuru lineage which claimed Ajamidha as its

founder, even as Pratipa-Santanu-Vichitravirya lineage did. Dhrtarashtra and Pandu were

claimed to be sons of Vichitravirya. In fact they were born to Dvaipayana by Vichitravirya’s

wives, Ambika and Ambalika who had to submit themselves to the provisions of niyoga,

impregnation by a nominee of their impotent husband. Vichitravirya was born to Santanu

and Satyavati, ‘daughter’ of a fisherman. Dvaipayana was born to Satyavati by Parasara, a

Vedic sage before she married Santanu.Dhrtarashtra was a ‘Kuru’. Though this blind ruler survived the battle of Kurukshetra,

all his sons (Kauravas) and their associates had been killed and so too the sons of the

Pandavas had fallen. The victorious Pandavas left for the Himalayas, never to return.

(Abhimanyu’s child by Uttara was never born.) Dhrtarashtra had been convincingly

defeated and withdrew from the scene immediately after the battle of Kurukshetra.

Parikshit (who perhaps was then the sovereign of the Kuru territories and was away

in the Northern Province, Uttarakuru) took over the realm of Hastinapura. It could pass into



49 of 282

the hands of his sons, if any, or into the hands of his dayadas. Parikshit was the

youngest son of Kuru and a grandson of Samvarana. Parikshit himself died ‘sonless’,

though later chroniclers presented Janamejaya as one of his ‘four’ sons.Samika and Srngi, Takshaka and the Proletariat

According to the legends, Parikshit was searching for a deer that he had hit with his

arrow, when he came across Samika and asked him whether he had seen it. But this sage

was then observing silence and did not answer him. Parikshit was annoyed and threw a

dead snake on the sage’s shoulders and went away. But the sage remained unperturbed

and refrained from ‘cursing’ the king as the latter ruled the forest area also.

Kuru-jangala was a vast uncultivated forest tract in the Kuru kingdom. The moors

were known as Maru lands. [The Maruts belonged to them.] The Kuru territory was wooded.

Neither was held fit for cultivation. A janapada was till then a mainly agro-pastoral

region governed from a central city, nagara (whose residents were not on the

move). The Kautilyan state reorganised the janapada and included the adjoining

mountains and forests in it. (Kautilya was a contemporary of Parikshit and Savarni and

witness to Janamejaya’s fall.)

Samika’s son, Srngi, was urged by his companions to avenge the insult to his father.

Srngi belonged to the local Kaurvya group of sarpas, forest workers. He engaged

Takshaka, a sarpa chieftain and leader of woodcutters and carpenters, to get Parikshit

killed within a week. (Ch.41) Samika did not approve Srngi’s move and sent his disciple

(Kauramukha), perhaps a monitor of his academy in the Kuru forest, to warn the king to

be on the alert and to seek pardon for his impetuous son. According to Samika, the

subjects ( prajas) should not harm the ruler of the country where they lived. He did

not approve revolt and sedition. The people were able to perform their social and

cultural duties, dharma, because their king protected them and it was the king’s

duty to protect his subjects. Samika told his son that according to Manu, “a king was

equal to ten Vedic scholars”.

This guide of the proletariat of the forest, a sarparshi , must have been citingPracetas Manu, author of an Arthasastra. Pracetas Manu was known also as Daksha

Savarni who succeeded Surya Savarni as Manu by then. The king, a Rajanya, ranked

superior to the Brahman, an intellectual. This is not identical with the claim that

the secular, temporal state is superior to the ecclesiastical order. Dvaipayana, a

Parasara, did not accept this claim. (Jaratkaru was an independent intellectual and so

too was Astika.)



50 of 282

Srngi pleaded inability to hold back Takshaka. Sarpa revolt, i.e. revolt by the

proletariat, had already begun. Parikshit had treated the industrial proletariat, the

sarpas, with contempt though they had accepted him as their sovereign and hencethey rose against him. But the older generation among them were sober and

disapproved rebellion. Hastinapura was then weak and vulnerable with most of its troops

slaughtered in the battle of Kurukshetra. Parikshit’s own troops had been on sent on

circumambulation to establish authority over the territories claimed by him. They failed to

return. Perhaps they had perished in the Himalayas. He had not taken part in the feud

between the Kauravas and the Pandavas. He secured himself in a closed tower on top of a

single pillar. He kept physicians ready to treat him if poisoned.

Parikshit suffered from a siege complex. Even Indra, the chief of the house

of nobles, felt that the king was at fault and refused to come to his help. Parikshit

then sent for Kashyapa a great sage and expert in antidotes, aushadi , and offered him

liberal gifts. But Kashyapa who had a good opinion about Takshaka (and Dhrtarashtra) did

not come to his help. Kashyapa who headed the council of seven sages during the tenure

of Manu Vaivasvata treated the two, Dhrtarashtra and Takshaka, as the true

representatives of the socio-economic sector of nagas and sarpas as the Viraj

allegory in Bk. VIII of Atharvaveda shows. (Vide Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient

India, Ch.3) Parikshit’s supporters accused Kashyapa of having accepted bribe from

Takshaka and let down the king. (Ch.43 Adiparva) They claimed that a woodcutter had

secretly witnessed the deal between Takshaka and Kashyapa. (Ch.50) But others refuted it.

The status of Takshas, carpenters, needs proper appraisal. Many Brahmans

of later times disliked them as they claimed a status equal to theirs. They

criticised Kashyapa, Bhrgu and Bharadvaja for their liberalism and support to the

carpenters and smiths (who as artisans were treated by Kautilya as equivalent only to

Shudras who were mainly agricultural workers). These artisans tried to rise in the social

ladder by emulating the social practices and ways of life of the Brahmans.

Takshaka represented the class of workers whose vocation depended on timber.These workers resisted burning down forests. It was a period when new janapadas

were being set up and the villagers shifted to upland areas and forests were being

pushed back to bring more areas under cultivation, especially of cotton. These

steps caused new social tensions and economic conflicts. All the workers connected

with the timber industry—woodcutters, carpenters, cart and chariot-makers, boat-builders,

boatswains, rope-twisters, spinners and weavers—were classified under the pre-varna

Vedic social sector of nagas and sarpas. So too, miners and metal workers, including



51 of 282

blacksmiths, silversmiths, goldsmiths, jewellers and pearl-divers were included in this socio-

economic sector. It also included masons, sculptors, architects and builders (who used

stone for foundation and stone as well as timber for superstructure).These workers had to be constantly on the move in search of new resources in

forests and mountains and they manned the economy of the forests and mountains and

their services were drawn upon to build a new urban civilisation. Takshaka was one of those

leaders of carpenters who had assisted Parikshit and Janamejaya to build the city of

Takshasila, which later became a great centre of learning. When the varnasrama scheme

was first introduced, it was expected to cover only the agro-pastoral commonalty (bhumi ,

prthvi , manushyas). The patriciate, devas, who lived in urban enclaves were not brought

under it. Similarly both the plutocrats (yakshas) and the technocrats (nagas) and

proletariat ( sarpas) who looked after the industrial economy of the forests and mountains

were not brought under its ambit. In the new integrated janapada advocated by the

economists of the Arthasastra school, these industrial workers were given a status

equal to that of agricultural workers who belonged to the commonalty. They

resented it as they had expected that on the basis of their trait (guna) of

dynamism (rajas) they would be given a status equal to that of Kshatriyas. The

technocrats expected to be accepted as intellectuals and treated as Brahmans.

Nagas and sarpas wanted to be treated as superior to the Vaisyas and Shudras

who belonged to the commonalty (vis). These workers were organised, armed guilds

and owned their tools of production and even capital needed for investment. Samghas and

Srenis were such guilds and corporations.

But they were rudely shaken and disappointed when they were denied ‘dvija’ , twice-

born, status in spite of their intellectual acumen and independence and were instead

clubbed with the Shudras, ordinary servants and agricultural workers. Dvija was one who

was taken away from the family in which he was born and was selected and trained for the

vocation of a (higher) socio-economic class (varna) for which he had the necessary

aptitude. Those persons, who were not so trained, were free to be manual workers and theywere referred to as Shudras.

The new state refused to treat the Nagas as Brahmans well versed in

humanities, in Vedas, and the Sarpas as Kshatriyas entitled to bear arms for

defending others. It called upon these workers to surrender their arms and merge

in the commonalty as Vaisyas if they were not engaged in physical labour. The rest

were assigned to the Shudra varna and denied membership in the local bodies. Under the

samkara-varna (mixed classes) scheme they were described as Ayogavas. They rose



52 of 282

against the Kuru state of Parikshit, which prevented their rise in the social ladder and

denied them immunities which Brahmans and Kshatriyas had. Sociologists and

anthropologists should not pass by the nagas and sarpas as primitive tribes who wereconfined to the forests and were worshippers of serpents. They were technologically and

intellectually more advanced than most of the commonalty of the agro-pastoral plains. They

constituted the technocracy and industrial proletariat that dominated the frontier economy

of the forests and mountains of the dichotomous society of the Vedic times. This

proletariat had successfully resisted all attempts by others to exploit the natural

resources, timber, minerals and ores, fish, pearls and corals and gemstones and

elephants. The sarpa revolt was a significant socio-economic event with political

overtones. Takshaka’s act was not a personal vendetta. He was not a hireling

either. (Later writers have failed to appreciate it in the proper light and in the correct

context.) Most of the artisans, sarpas, were mobile groups and they had refused to

abide by the rules of territorial loyalty demanded by the Kshatriya rulers. Samika

was loyal to the king, but his son, Srngi, was not.

Parikshit had failed to recognise the importance of the independent industrial

proletariat which had entered into a contract with the ruling elite and which refused to be

treated as equal to docile servants and bonded workers. Parikshit’s successor,

Janamejaya proved worse. He refused to recognise their rights as human beings.

He let loose a reign of terror. It may be noted here that intellectuals, traders and

artisans have always acknowledged only limited loyalty to the state in whose territory they

lived. Ra jabhakti is alien to them. They claimed to be citizens and workers of the world,

temporarily resident in a particular kingdom. Only peasants were fully loyal to the state as

they were attached to the soil, bhumi , and could not emigrate. Nationalism is native to the

agrarian population.

The proletariat offered to abide by it but the Kshatriya state refused to accept the

hands of loyalty extended by it. As a party to the new contract, the proletariat,

sarpas, demanded recognition as kshatriyas, which the elite refused to extend.They did not want to share power with the workers and instead asked for their

subordination and subservience to the state. The sarpa revolt has to be read in this

light. The kshatriyas had already alienated the intelligentsia and been weakened by

internal feuds.

The Sarpa Sacrifice

After Parikshit’s death poisoned by Takshaka, a sarpa leader, the Rajapurohita

selected as the king the lad who performed his last rites. Who was the Rajapurohita



53 of 282

then? [Krpa was the Rajapurohita, the political counsellor, when Parikshit ascended the

throne after the exit of Dhrtarashtra. Krpa had joined the council of seven sages convened

by Manu Surya Savarni during the reign of Parikshit over Hastinapura.] The ministers andthe people too supported this move. Janamejaya was not Parikshit’s offspring nor was

he a usurper. He was a charismatic youth whose valour won him the rulership. He

might have been the viceroy at Takshasila, a prominent educational centre and a strategic

outpost when he was invited to take over the reins of the Kuru state. He knew very little

about the intrigues that led to the battle of Kurukshetra. Parikshit became ruler, as

Yudhishtira and the other Pandavas were sonless and were not eligible to rule though they

had won the battle.

But Parikshit did not prove to be a wise ruler. (Of course courtiers have to praise

their kings and patrons.) Janamejaya was left a difficult legacy. He had to punish his

own supporter, Takshaka, for having led the revolt of the workers ( sarpas) against

his predecessor, Parikshit. He had to avenge Parikshit’s death and discharge his

constitutional (dharma) obligation. It needs to be noted that the sarpayajna had no

spiritual or theological importance. Utanka, an adventurist ‘son’ of a Vedic scholar

had advised Janamejaya to perform this sarpayajna.

The chronicler claims (Ch.51 Adiparva) that this ‘symbolic’ sacrifice had been

instituted by the nobles (devas) and referred to in the ‘ancient‘works. Perhaps an earlier

Janamejaya, a despot and ancestor of Puru, had performed such a sacrifice. Whether it

was revival of a forgotten tradition or setting up of a new precedent by the young

despot, it was sheer vindictiveness and merciless suppression of the justly

aggrieved and agitated proletariat, sarpas. Astika, the believer and a positivist thinker,

opposed this massacre of the innocents.

Trisamdhi and Indrasamdhi

The commoners, manushyas, of the core agrarian society would not offend

the workers, sarpas, and the sarpas would not harm those who did not disturb

them. This agreement had been arrived at during the Vedic times under the Triple Entente,Trisamdhi , by Indra, Angirasa and Arbuda, I have pointed out in my critique on the

features and provisions of the Atharvan polity (Vide Ch.4-Evolution of Social polity of

Ancient India). The three chiefs represented the urban aristocracy (devas), the

commonalty (manushyas) of the agro-pastoral plains and the proletariat ( sarpas)

of the frontier society (antariksham) respectively. This historical compact among

the three social worlds (lokas) also required that those who were guilty should

give themselves up voluntarily to Indra and not be provided asylum by any of the



54 of 282

three sectors. Indra, the head of the nobility, was accepted as the head of this triple

alliance. He would proceed against the guilty.

Sakra who had a hundred exploits to his credit was then Indra and Angirasa wasone of the two major authors of Atharvaveda, which enshrined the socio-political

constitution (Brahma) of the Vedic times. Arbuda was a sarparshi , an intellectual who

guided the sarpas, workers of the forest. Sakra put to death even Arbuda for having aided

Aurnabhava, a criminal and habitual defaulter. Brahmans too were warned against

protecting the feudal lords, asuras, against whom this alliance of the three social worlds

(lokas) was set up. The provisions of Trisamdhi and its corollary, Indrasamdhi , need

to be borne in mind while examining the roles of Takshaka, Janamejaya and

Astika. These two agreements of immense social import continued to be operative even

after the scheme of four varnas came into force.

Takshaka and his men were indicted by the purohitas (who were political

counsellors and not mere priests conducting religious rites) for killing their king,

Parikshit. It was high treason and punishable with death. The sarpas, the

industrial workers (proletariat) had consented to be the king’s subjects ( praja) as

conceded by Samika. The war against the nagas and sarpas had ended long before the

times of Parikshit, after the killing of Arbuda for helping the asura outlaw, Aurnabhava. It

was recompensed by the installation of his ‘sons’, Arbudi and Nyarbudi, as autonomous

rulers, Isvaras or Isanas. These were charismatic and powerful chieftains who were

helpful to their devotees and controlled the social periphery and the forests and mountains

nearby.

Indra and Brhaspati had taken this step on behalf of the agro-pastoral core

society of nobles (devas) and commoners (manushyas). Brhaspati, an exponent of

political economy, was a Brahmavadi , an ideologue-cum-activist of the Atharvan school.

He had the status of ‘guru’ or ‘ purohita’ and Indra had to consult him in the

administration of the Vedic state comprising the capital town, pura, and its rural hinterland,

rashtra or janapada. It may be noted that the agro-pastoral core society recognised thesocial, cultural, economic and political autonomy of the industrial proletariat of the frontier

society.

This does not mean that the nagas and sarpas were ethnically or racially

different from the population of the core society or were animists or were beyond

the bounds of the varnasrama scheme that the commoners had adopted. They

were about to be absorbed in the higher varnas (socio-economic classes) when



55 of 282

the sarpa revolt was precipitated by the arrogance of Parikshit. Janamejaya’s act

was dysfunctional to this wholesome process of integration of autonomous social units.

The concluding lines of Ch.50 Adiparva explain why Janamejaya performed the sarpayajna. In his view it was his duty to harm Takshaka, an evil person, for having killed

his ‘father’ ( pita). Takshaka had killed the king (Parikshit, ‘father’ of Janamejaya) to

help Srngi. It was wrong and mischievous on Takshaka’s part to send back the Brahman,

Kashyapa who could have saved Janamejaya’s ‘father’. With Kashyapa’s blessings and

through the attention of the ministers, that king who had never suffered defeat could have

survived, Janamejaya felt. This would not have been a loss to Takshaka.

Janamejaya accused Takshaka of arrogance. He accused Takshaka that he

had bribed Kashyapa, a Brahman. He held Takshaka guilty of gross violation of the

principles of justice. He told his ministers that he would please them and Utanka

and himself by performing an act of revenge. He conducted the sarpayajna only

after the ministers had agreed to it. It was a political act and not a ‘religious’ one.

Sarpayajna was an act of self-purification by Janamejaya according to the

‘purists’. He was expected to give up all that he had inherited or acquired whether

by good means or by foul means and was to start a new career in a new post. (The

‘serpent’ sheds its skin periodically.) But it was not so in reality. It was a summary trial

of all suspected criminals and rebels, flushing out the ‘dangerous’ members of the

proletariat and burning them to death. It was a slaughter of the innocents, an

Austerlitz.

The nagas and sarpas, as mobile artisans who had to seek employment and

customers for their goods in different parts of the country, had only secondary

residentship rights in the primarily agro-pastoral plains and their cultural and

political, civil and civic rights were not honoured by the rulers and even by the

commoners. They were not culturally or intellectually or even economically backward

though they were not allowed to settle down in the villages and towns of the plains. They

controlled the industrial economy of the newly integrated janapada and had by Parikshit’stimes given up their nomadic lives and been guaranteed certain economic concessions and

political immunities in return for their making available to the kingdom, ra jyam or

janapada, where they had settled their expertise and labour, to the exclusion of other

kingdoms.

Janamejaya failed to honour the terms of this agreement and proceeded to

destroy the entire proletariat. His move was a threat to the integrated janapada and the

new economy. Extermination of Sambara and Namuchi and deposing and exiling of



56 of 282

Vairochana Bali (a contemporary of Parikshit) had ended the threat to the agro-pastoral

core society of nobles and commoners, devas and manushyas, from the feudal lords,

asuras. Death of Ravana of Lanka and installation of Vibhishana as the new ruler ended thethreat posed by the rebellious guards, rakshasas , to the frontier society, especially to its

rich rulers, yakshas. Kusasthali conclave had led to the acceptance of these plutocrats as

devatas, by the liberal aristocrats, devas, and to the emergence of more broad-based

socio-cultural (dharma) and politico-economic (artha) codes, I have pointed out.

But these efforts at the creation of a just and peaceful larger society were

set at nought from time to time by impetuous elements. These elements have to

be identified correctly and put down. Sober thinkers cannot approve Takshaka’s

act of sedition and Janamejaya’s destruction of the rebels but such sober thinkers

imbued with foresight have not been many. Was Janamejaya’s campaign directed

against the independent intelligentsia, Brahmans, also? He was not popular with them as

Kautilyan Arthasastra (1-6-6) shows. Kautilya was a witness to the careers of Parikshit and

Janamejaya, Ambarisha, Kartavirya and Parasurama.

According to the chronicler the priests pronounced that performance of

sarpayajna was valid and that Janamejaya was eligible to perform it. He belonged

to the Bharatas and was functioning under the provisions of the Rajarshi

constitution. But when he hosted this yajna, he conducted himself not as a sober

( satvik ) intellectual that a Rajarshi was expected to be but as an ordinary king,

Raja, who was noted for aggressiveness and rage (rajas). (Ch.51 Adiparva)

The Slaughter

The architect, sthapati , of the hall where the sacrifice was to be performed was said

to have had a ‘premonition’ that it would not be completed and that it would be stopped by

a ‘Brahman’ . (Ch.52 Adiparva) He must have noticed resentment against Janamejaya’s

move. Architects and engineers were intellectuals even as the physicians were. But

they were not admitted to the Brahmana varna. The physicians were treated as

Ambasthas and were assigned a status equal to that of the Kshatriya administrators. In the samkaravarna scheme they were treated as the offspring of

Brahmans by Vaisya wives, an anuloma stain by two steps, which lowered their

social status considerably and kept them at a distance as ‘napitas’. The government

officials who manned the bureaucracy were assigned a similar low status. They were not

accepted on par with the independent intellectuals, Brahmans.

Architects and engineers who were not engaged in physical work were

assigned to the cadre of sutas. Charioteers and chroniclers too were assigned to



57 of 282

this cadre. They were ascribed a pratiloma stain by one step and described as the

offspring of Kshatriyas by Brahman wives. They however ranked higher than the ordinary

kshatriya soldiers and also higher than the ambastha physicians. But they were not given dvija status and were debarred from studying or teaching the Vedas , the works on socio-

cultural heritage including metaphysics and theology. Ambasthas too were kept out of

these. The cadre of sutas covered several groups of intellectuals and professionals who

were closer to Brahmans.

Janamejaya had directed that no unauthorised person should be allowed

entry to the hall. He must have banned entry to all Brahmans other than the

official priests, lest they should interrupt the sacrifice, which they perceived to be

a slaughter of the innocents. Hundreds of ‘snakes’ were hypnotised by the chants,

caught and cast into the sacrificial fire, the narrator told the credulous listeners. Bhargava

Chanda, a disciple of Chyavana (an expert in medicine) was the chief priest at the

sacrifice. He might have collected snake poison for medicinal purposes. (Other Bhrgus

might not have approved his role.) Vyasa (Dvaipayana), Kutsa Jaimini (a rival of

Dvaipayana), Uddalaka (son of Aruna), Asita, Devala, Narada, Parvata and

Mudgalya (son of Mudgala) were present at the sarpayajna, Saunaka was told.

(Ch.53 Adiparva)

As Kautilyan Arthasastra (Bk.14 Ch.3) indicates Galava, Devala and Narada were

associated with Manu Surya Savarni. They were also participants in the academic conclave

held under the aegis of the Gandharva chieftain, Hu-Hu during the tenure of Manu

Chakshusha. Narada and Parvata were ‘brothers’. Asita and Devala were Kashyapa’s

disciples. This sarpayajna became a controversial event. For, though it was agreed

that the assassins of Parikshit needed to be punished with death, Parikshit himself

was guilty of gross misdemeanour. Indra and other nobles (devas) were not

willing to pardon his offence and contempt for sarpas. Dvaipayana and other sages

gave respectability and legitimacy to the slaughter of the innocents by their

presence at this ‘sacrifice’. Whether they too were guilty of abetting ‘genocide’ may bedebated for Dvaipayana (and Jaimini) had evinced keen interest in drawing an outline of the

neo-Vedic socio-political constitution that is described in the main Upanishads.

Five Groups of Workers, Sarpas

Takshaka sought and was given asylum by Indra, the chief of the house of

nobles (devas). But many innocent workers, sarpas, were not so fortunate and were

being burnt to death at Janamejaya’s orders. Later chroniclers were misled and misled

others when they tried to present this as killing of poisonous ‘serpents’. Janamejaya, the



58 of 282

immature and rash successor to the thoughtless and arrogant ruler, Parikshit, failed to

identify correctly who among the five groups of workers, sarpas, were guilty and who were

not.Takshas were carpenters. Their livelihood depended on timber that they procured

from forest. They contributed to the housing and transport sectors of the integrated

economy of the expanded janapada and were hence patronised by the nobles and were

depended on by the commoners. Sages like Kashyapa, Bhrgu and Bharadvaja encouraged

them and they were given ‘dvija’ (twiceborn) status, which made them eligible to study

Vedas and perform domestic sacrifices. They were artisans but became equal to Vaisyas.

Kautilyan state was prepared to recognise the artisans—carpenters, blacksmiths,

goldsmiths, silversmiths, jewellers, spinners, weavers, mariners, boat-builders, cart makers

etc.—only as Shudras though it gave all the Shudras the same social, economic, civil, civic

and political rights as Aryas, free citizens, that the Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas

had.

Chariot-makers and architects who were builders of palaces, temples and

dams were known as rathakaras. They had to ply their trade from their factories located

in the forests and mountains on the outskirts of the city. They were warned against

mingling with the chandalas who had been cast out of the core society for violating sex

codes. Rathakaras, Sutas and Magadhas were offered a social status equal to that of

dvijas. Chariot-drivers and chroniclers were included in the class of sutas. The ruling

class of Magadha was rich and politically influential though it did not adhere to the norms of

governance prescribed for kshatriya rulers. Takshas were ambitious but were not as

assertive as these groups were.

Dhrtarashtra was an expert in architecture. Like Takshaka he too was a protégé of

Kashyapa. (Vide Ch.3 on the Vira j allegory, Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient India)

The rulers of Hastinapura were Nagas who tamed elephants (hastis) for transporting timber

and for the army. In my thesis, Foundations of Hindu Economic State based on

Kautilya’s treatise, Arthasastra, I have pointed out that the expanding Kautilyan statepreferred to acquire elephant-forests to timber-forests, as the disputation between Kautilya

and his deuteragonist, the unidentified teacher (acharya) indicates. I have wondered

whether this teacher was Krpa who guided Parikshit and whether Kautilya’s treatise was

first outlined during their times. The Kautilyan state preferred to acquire iron and copper

mines to gold and diamond mines.

Kautilya’s was an industrial state and not a capitalist state. It was

dominated by the technocrats (nagas) and depended on the proletariat ( sarpas).



59 of 282

Kashyapa patronised Dhrtarashtra, a technocrat, and Takshaka, a leader of the proletariat.

Both of them contributed to the development of urban civilisation utilising the resources

brought from the forests and mountains. He encouraged Prthu too. Prthu headed anagrarian state, which however did not hold the industrial proletariat in esteem. Kautilya

was a witness to the regimes of Dhrtarashtra, Parikshit and Janamejaya and also

of Prthu and to the tenures of Manu Vaivasvata and Manu Surya Savarni. He was a

contemporary of Dvaipayana, Bhishma and Krpa. While Dhrtarashtra was a hasti , and

the hastis who were technocrats suffered at the hands of young Janamejaya, Parikshit was

a Kuru.

A third sector of the sarpas , workers who suffered is identified as the kaurvyas.

‘Srngi’ was a Kaurvya. He was expected to be loyal to his king, Parikshit but he was

annoyed with that king who had insulted his father, Samika, who was a loyal subject of the

expanded janapada of the Kurus. Dhrtarashtra did not have effective control over the

forests around Hastinapura. But Parikshit (who succeeded the Pandavas) had

brought them under his control through promise of equality of treatment to their

denizens with that for the native commoners ( jana) of the plains. Sarparshis like

Samika (Srngi’s father) were sober intellectuals who guided the workers.

The fourth group to suffer at the hands of Janamejaya was led by Airavata

who was Arjuna’s son by the Naga princess, Ulupi. The Yaksha plutocrats who

controlled the wealth and economy of the industrial areas of the forests and

mountains encouraged this group. Janamejaya was against the followers of

Dhrtarashtra and those of Pandu as well. He openly retracted on the assurance that

Parikshit had given to the workers of the forests that they would be treated on par with the

natives.

The fifth group to suffer at his hands was the one led by Vasuki. (Ch.57

Adiparva) This mariner enjoyed the support of Vasudeva Krshna. He had shed all his

‘venom’, his animosity against the nobles (devas) and also his partiality for the feudal lords

(asuras), the two rival sectors of the ruling elite of the core society. This group had becomedocile and was highly respected in later times for its attachment to the Vaishnavaite

devotionalism sponsored by the Satvatas who followed Vasudeva Krshna and

Samkarshana.

Astika stops the ‘sacrifice’

Parikshit-Takshaka conflict seems to have been a Hastinapura-Takshasila conflict,

which Parikshit had ‘inherited’ and was entangled in. Janamejaya had to realise that

Parikshit did not enjoy the support of the elite (devas) and had antagonised the



60 of 282

artisans of the frontier society who had consented to become subjects of the

rulers of Hastinapura. He failed to identify the culprits and launched a campaign

against the entire working class ( sarpas) and the relatives of Vasuki, the mostdocile of the above five groups, were getting killed. Vasuki was distressed and asked

his sister, Jaratkaru, to prevail on her son, Astika, to intervene and save her relatives.

(Ch.54 Adiparva)

Vasuki felt that the sarpayajna was being conducted to destroy him and his

kinsmen. He had to face the ordeal of fire, the test proposed by Agni , the civil

judge of the commonalty and meet Yama, the magistrate who punished the

violators of the orders of prohibition (yama). [The comment that the sarpas were

required to undergo this punishment for disobeying the instructions of their mother, Kadru,

and for not protecting Ucchasravas, the pure king if the Asvas (a branch of Gandharvas)

from the trick played by Vinata may be a later interpolation intended to provide credible

chronological sequence to the episode of the churning of the ocean.]

Vasuki recalled how Brahma (the jurist) had told him earlier that Astika

would stop this sarpayajna. We must get free from the stereotypes that present

Dhrtarashtra, Asvattama, Drona and Airavata as elephants (hastis) and Takshaka, Srngi,

Vasuki, Purukutsa as serpents ( sarpas or nagas). These were social and political leaders of

the communities of artisans, it needs to be recognised.

Astika must have had a hand in the installation of Janamejaya on the throne

of Hastinapura, as Parikshit’s successor. Parikshit himself was guided by

Krpacharya, a member of the council of seven sages of Manu Surya Savarni. Krpa

was one of the few leaders, who did not get killed in the battle of Kurukshetra. Both

Kauravas and Pandavas had been his students. His sister had married Drona, the military

counsellor of the king of Hastinapura. Drona however got killed in that battle but his son,

Asvattama, survived and joined Savarni’s council. I have posited that the Acharya with

whom Kautilya had valuable disputations on political economy and political affairs

must have been Krpa. Who was this highly influential Brahman, Astika? We do not come across him

in any other context. He must have enjoyed the respect of the ideologues of his

times and been revered as a flawless personage. He must have been an

outstanding jurist and perhaps the head of the constitution bench of the judiciary

whose members Janamejaya had not (to be precise, did not want to be) invited to

witness the sarpayajna. Belief in the existence of an imperishable soul, atma, is



61 of 282

the hallmark of an Astika. This belief governs his conduct. He is not necessarily a

ritualist nor is he a mere ritualist, a stickler to rules of procedure.

According to Krshna, a Brahman must be an Astika. It was not necessary formembers of the other social cadres and classes to entertain this positivist thinking that

there is an indestructible and imperishable soul in every living being and that there is no

difference between the soul of one person and that of another or even of that of a member

of another species. Only such positivist thinkers were entitled to be members of the

judiciary, which interpreted and invoked the provisions of the socio-political

constitution of the larger society.

Others too could be Astikas but their lives were not governed to the same extent as

those of the Brahmans by the belief that the soul, which is within every being, that is,

jivatma, is the same as the great soul, paramatma or Brahma or Isvara or the Ultimate

and endless (anantya) with which one should strive to become one. An Astika is not a

pessimist or a fatalist. He believes in the ability of the individual to rise to the

highest level and become one with the divine, in the possibility of the jivatma

becoming one with paramatma. (Some Astikas have reservations on this issue.)

He believes that all beings have ‘souls’. In the cycle of births and deaths, it is not

necessary that the soul enter only a human body. One may be reborn as an animal or as a

bird, as fish or as an insect. It is not necessary that it is reborn in the same family. Hence

birth in a particular social class or family is the result of the totality of vices and

virtues, pa pa and punya, which have attached themselves to the soul concerned in

his previous birth. Very few are able to attain freedom from rebirth. This belief moulds

the conduct of the Astika who endeavours his best to be free from sins and attain

the highest stature of an impartial and just executive or a jurist representing the

causes of all sectors and ranks of the larger society. Mere worship of a ‘personal’ god

does not make one an Astika.

Astika, unlike his father Jaratkaru, did not believe in self-torture. Unlike his

father he was a believer in the importance of performance of one’s duties. He wasa karma-yogi . One’s duty is not only to one’s self or to one’s ancestral family, clan

or kula only or to one’s spouses and offspring alone. It extends to the entire

humanity and to all living beings, to the macro-society and to the environment.

The sages of Naimisharanya do not seem to have come across this positivist thinker

who enjoyed a good rapport with the industrial workers, especially with the Vasukis. (Ch.58

Adiparva) After accomplishing his mission he returned to them. He was not an

invitee to the sarpayajna but none dared to stop him. Astika brushed aside the guards



62 of 282

and entered the hall where many persons who had the influence (tejas) of Surya and Agni

had assembled and praised the king before seeking a boon. (Ch.54 Adiparva) These

personages were powerful administrators (Kshatras) and judges (Brahmans) inthe neo-Vedic social polity (bearing the designations, Surya and Agni ).

As one peruses the chronicle he would be reminded of the three boons that the

dwarfish Brahman, Vamana, sought from the asura emperor, Bali. These three boons

deprived the latter of his improper acquisitions. Vamana was a disciple of Kashyapa and Bali

was under the guidance of the great political thinker, Usanas.

Astika addressed Janamejaya as Parikshit’s son, thereby assuring him that he did

not intend to question Janamejaya’s authority to function as Parikshit’s successor to the

throne. Astika also addressed him as Bharatasreshta indicating that Janamejaya

belonged to the high cadre of Bharatas. (Ch.55 Adiparva) In fact, Janamejaya was a

‘brother’ of the great emperor Chakravarti Bharata. Parikshit, on the other hand

belonged to the Kurus while Dhrtarashtra belonged to the Purus.

Astika seems to have found fault with Dvaipayana for leading a group of

priests who were eager to receive the rich gifts offered by Janamejaya. He agreed

that Janamejaya was an efficient administrator and protector of the subjects ( prajas) in the

social world (loka) of commoners (manushyas). In Astika’s view, the King, Varuna

and Yama were treated as rulers (rajas) who upheld dharma. He held and pointed

out to Dvaipayana and other sages that the king (raja) was not entitled to function

as the sole judge.

He had to sit along with the two traditional officials, Varuna who functioned

as ombudsman during the Vedic times, and Yama who functioned as the chief

magistrate having authority over the commonalty (but not over the nobles or the

frontier society). Only persons with the trait (guna) of dynamism and assertiveness (rajas)

could be appointed to the posts of head of the state (Ra jan), ombudsman who ensured

performance of one’s duties (Varuna) and magistrate who enforced the orders of

prohibition (Yama). The court was not constituted properly. The assembly of nobles andintellectuals who were loyal to Surya and Agni respectively could not function as a court of

enquiry. It did not have the right to pronounce judgement against the leader of the artisans

who was accused of treason. Only the smaller group comprising the three officials

mentioned above had this right, according to the jurist, Astika. Only these three

officials were entitled to determine whether any socio-cultural legislation, dharma, was

violated by Takshaka.



63 of 282

In the post-Vedic polity, the king functioned as the Indra of manushyas, that is,

exercised economic and political authority over the commonalty even as Indra did over the

nobles (devas). Astika implied that Janamejaya had authority only over the socialworld of commonalty and not over the other two social worlds (lokas). Takshaka

who as a sarpa belonged to the frontier society had been recognised by Indra of

the nobility as Nagendra, as Indra of Nagas and hence Janamejaya could not

proceed against him unless Varuna agreed that the constitution permitted punitive

action against him. [It is wrong to presume that Surya, Agni , Indra, Varuna and Yama

were gods of the polytheistic and pantheistic Vedic society. These were designations of

certain officials of the Vedic polity.]

Astika, the diminutive Brahman compared Janamejaya with those rulers who had

performed sarpayajna earlier—Indra, Rantideva, Gaya, Sasabindu, Kubera, Nrga,

Ajamidha, Rama, Yudhishtira and Vyasa. All of them must have been guilty of some major

sins and tried to purify themselves by performing this sacrifice. Not all of them were rulers

though they all wielded political power. Sarpayajna was not objected to if it was an act of

self-purification, shedding one’s sins, wrongly acquired wealth and bad traits. Astika was

not against a symbolic sacrifice. He compared Janamejaya to Nabhaga, Dilipa, Yayati,

Mamdhata, Dambhodva and Parasurama and also with Vasishta, Valmiki, Aurva and Trta

(Ch.55 Adiparva) [I have dealt with the careers of most of these personages in my volumes

on Hindu Social Dynamics where I dealt with the transition from the pre-varna Vedic

social order to the post -Vedic varna system.]

Yet Astika was afraid that Janamejaya was doing a wrong in performing this

sacrifice. He was politely challenging an established tradition and the precedents set up by

eminent thinkers and rulers. These personages did not belong to a forgotten past and were

on the scene only a few decades earlier. Astika, son of Jaratkaru, was an influential rebel.

Astika and Indra

Astika first persuaded Indra to withdraw his protection to Takshaka whowas guilty of killing Parikshit and to produce him before the king (Janamejaya).

Indra had proposed to grant Takshaka the status of a noble, deva, and thereby enable him

to enjoy immunity against prosecution for any crime including treason. (Ch.53 Adiparva)

Indra said that he had already sought permission from Brahmadeva, that is, from

the noble (deva) who functioned as the chief judge (Brahma) and counsellor on

provisions of the socio-political constitution (Brahma) to give asylum to Takshaka



64 of 282

who was required by the head of the state for murder of Parikshit and treason

against the state.

Only the commoners (manushyas) of the agro-pastoral plains and theresidents of the forests included in the state were the king’s subjects. According to

the constitution introduced by Manu Vaivasvata (Vide Ch.9 Foundations of Hindu

Economic State) they had to pay one-sixth of their income as tax to entitle them to be

protected by the king. The non-earning members of the society were not required to pay

taxes and would be given protection even though they did not pay tax (kara). During the

Vedic times, the nobles (devas), the sages (rshis) and the elders ( pitaras) were three

non-earning cadres maintained by the rest of the society through the system of voluntary

sacrifice (yajna).

The forest-dwellers, particularly artisans (nagas and sarpas) had only

recently then consented to become the king’s subjects. Gandharvas, kimpurushas

(vanaras) and kinnaras who formed the retinue of the plutocrats (yakshas) had

opted to stay outside the jurisdiction of such newly formed integrated janapadas.

They preferred freedom to subjugation though they had to be constantly on the move,

homeless, I have pointed out. They too were all human beings even as nagas and sarpas

were. But the latter had become subjects ( prajas) of the king, though they were permitted

to enter the villages and towns only when they were required to assist their natives ( jana).

They did not have primary citizenship rights.

The opening lines of Ch.56 Adiparva indicate that Janamejaya was not willing to go

all the way with the priests who were officiating at the sarpayajna. He would be satisfied if

action was taken against Takshaka alone. But the priests, especially the chief hotr

priest wanted Indra to be punished for giving asylum to Takshaka. Indra, the chief

of the nobles (devas) had offered him protection from Agni , the head of the

council of intellectuals and civil judge.

The ‘priests’ (judges) felt his offer was an affront to their authority. They

demanded that Indra too should be tried and punished by the civil judge, Agni . Butthe king had no jurisdiction over the nobles, devas. Only the house of nobles ( sabha

or divam) could indict any of its members for an offence. It could also admit new members.

Nahusha, a mobile artisan had been admitted to its ranks and even appointed as Indra

when the incumbent of this post had been suspended for violation of social codes. Indra

had the authority to admit Takshaka to the nobility.

As ‘ Indra’ , following Astika’s directive, refrained from recognising Takshaka

as a deva (noble), Takshaka had to be presented, as a common citizen, but as one



65 of 282

superior to other commoners, manushyas who were manual workers. He had a

status in between those above (in akasa, sky, open space) and those on earth

(bhumi , prthvi ). [Trisanku had been given a similar status by Visvamitra. Vide Ch.17Hindu Social Dynamics vol 2 on Roots of Hindu Social Tensions) Takshaka was saved

from being thrown into fire (agni ) as he was a Naga chieftain and had the status

of a devata (slightly but definitely lower than that of a deva).

He could not be subjected to examination and punishment by the civil judge,

Agni , who had jurisdiction only over commoners (manushyas). Indra, the head of

the assembly of aristocrats (devas) had recognised Takshaka as Indra of the

technocrats (nagas) while Astika recognised Janamejaya as Indra of the

commoners (manushyas). But the scholars like Dvaipayana refused to treat Takshaka as

superior to other nagas. He was but a naga who had no special privileges or immunities,

according to them. (Ch.56 Adiparva)

Both devas and devatas as chieftains with personal followers ranked higher than

the commoners (manushyas). Devas and devatas have later been wrongly described as

‘gods and demigods’. Kusasthali conclave convened by the great thinker, Samkarshana

(brother of Vasudeva Krshna), granted the plutocrats (yakshas) of the frontier

industrial society (antariksham), the status of devatas, benefactors, a status almost

equal to that of devas, the aristocrats of the core society who were liberal donors.

(Vide Ch.15B Evolution of Social polity of Ancient India)

It was a then recent event. This step brought together the two societies, agro-

pastoral core society of the nobles and the commoners and the other industrial

society of the forests and mountains. The implications of the step that Astika took need

proper appraisal. While the ordinary workers were subordinate to the state (king)

and had no immunities, their chieftains had certain privileges. The state had to

honour them. [Arbudi and Nyarbudi had the status of Isvara or Isana. They were

autonomous administrators of the frontier regions.]

Astika was following the provisions of Indra- samdhi , the agreementbetween Indra and Brhaspati on behalf of the nobles and the commoners, devas

and manushyas. It gave the chieftains of the third social world (loka), the frontier society

(antariksham) the right to protect their followers and subjects and punish those who

harmed them. Was Astika, son of Jaratkaru and nephew of Vasuki, a Ra japurohita

(equivalent to Brhaspati ) guiding Parikshit? Was he in that capacity involved in the

selection of Janamejaya as Parikshit’s successor?



66 of 282

Parikshit followed the traditional Rajarshi constitution by which the

successor to the reigning king was selected by a committee of three members

from among the eligible candidates. The political counsellor (Ra japurohita) appointedby the assembly of nobles ( sabha) and the council of scholars ( samiti ), the incumbent

head of the state (Ra jarshi ) and the prime minister (which post also was held by Indra in

addition to control over the army and the treasury) were the three members of this

committee. When Dhrtarashtra was the king of Hastinapura, Drona was Ra japurohita and

Vidura was Indra. But Vidura had little influence over the affairs of the polity.

Kautilya amended this constitution, I have pointed out in Ch.8 of Foundations

of Hindu Economic State. He empowered the two officials, Indra and Rajapurohita

to select the successor to the throne in an emergency. Normally they had to, along

with the retiring ruler, nominate the Crown Prince and train him. Such a nominee

was not necessarily a son of that ruler. Hereditary monarchy was not the norm. During

the later Vedic era, Indra and Agni and then Indra and Brhaspati functioned on behalf of

the nobles and the commoners, devas and manushyas. Under these systems, an electoral

college of chieftains who excelled in aggressiveness, rajas, selected the Rajan. But he did

not have sovereign authority over either the nobles or the commoners. Under the

Rajarshi constitution, the ruler was a sober ( sattva) intellectual rather than an

aggressive (rajas) chieftain. He had to function with the aid of Indra and under

the guidance of Rajapurohita.

Astika was unable to defend Parikshit’s misdemeanour or the gruesome act of

genocide about to be conducted by Janamejaya. This episode shows the sages who were

present at the sarpayajna in a poor light. Theirs was blind loyalty to the crown. They were

helpless witnesses to the slaughter of the innocents. Astika was a socio-political force to

reckon with, like Kashyapa, Aurva and Vamana. Vamana, a Kashyapan, had forced Bali

to surrender his ill-gotten wealth and go on exile. He had the status of Upendra and was

backed by the troops of Indra and Vishnu, which poured in when those of Bali resisted his

steps. Aurva stopped Parasara’s virulent campaigns against the militants, rakshasas.Kashyapa stopped Parasurama’s campaigns against the kshatriyas who formed the regular

troops of the states. Like them, Astika, a yet unidentified Brahman jurist stopped

Janamejaya’s campaigns against the industrial proletariat, sarpas. He must have

been well known to Kutsa Jaimini, Dvaipayana and others who had assembled at the

sacrificial arena. He was a charismatic personality who could not be resisted by any one

there.



67 of 282

The ‘Elusive’ Janamejaya

According to Bhagavatam (9-22-35), Parikshit had four ‘sons’, all great warriors, of

whom Janamejaya was the chief. The chronicler notes what took place after Parikshit’sdeath caused by Takshaka. These lines must have been later additions as the Bhagavata

chronicle was narrated to Parikshit soon after he became king after the battle of

Kurukshetra, while the Mahabharata was narrated to his successor, Janamejaya and to

still later generations. Janamejaya ‘would’ burn all ‘ sarpas’ , it says. It adds that

Janamejaya performed an Asvamedha sacrifice under the ‘priesthood’ of Tura (a horse-

trainer), son of Kalasha. (9-22-36)

This priest must have belonged to the Turvasus one of the five peoples

( pancajanas). Shatanika, son of Janamejaya, is said to have learnt Vedas from

Yajnavalkya and Saunaka. (9-22-38) Yajnavalkya, a jurist and counsellor of the Janaka of

Videha, was acquainted with the tragedy that struck Parikshit’s soldiers and horse sent on

circumambulation to legitimise his conquests. (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 3-3-2)

[Yajnavalkya was the brother-in-law of Katyayana, an expert in political economy and

counsellor of Dasaratha of Koshala.] Only an archer (Sudhanva, ‘son’ of Angirasa) who

accompanied these soldiers returned alive. Sudhanva was a rival of Virochana, son of

Prahlada and father of Bali. Parikshit might have been unprotected when Takshaka who led

the sarpa revolt killed him.

Ch.63 Adiparva is considered to be an authentic version of the Puru lineage as

narrated by Vaishampayana to Janamejaya. Janamejaya, the son of a Puru chieftain by a

Koshala princess, is said to have performed an asvamedha sacrifice and also the visvajit

yajna to establish him as a conqueror of the entire world (visva) before he retired to the

forest. Was this Janamejaya a son of Dushyanta, a Puru ruler, by Lakshi, a daughter of

Bhagiratha, a ruler of Koshala?

Chakravarti Bharata was a son of Dushyanta by Shakuntala, a daughter of

Visvamitra. Shakuntala was also known as Visalakshi, a student of the great socio-political

thinker, Visalaksha. Janamejaya must have been a brother of Bharata. Janamejaya marrieda Magadha princess and had several sons for whom he secured the princesses of the

countries he conquered. One of his sons married a daughter of Takshaka, it is added. After

the sarpayajna was put to an end by Astika’s intervention, Janamejaya must have arrived

at a compromise with Takshaka and this marriage signalled cessation of hostilities. Another

of Janamejaya’s sons is said to have married a daughter of Trishanku and a third one is said

to have married a daughter of Kartavirya Arjuna. These claims make this Janamejaya a



68 of 282

contemporary of Bharata, Trishanku and Kartavirya. He could not have been the ‘great-

grandson’ of Arjuna.

Antyanara, the chieftain of a border post in the western region, once performed asacrifice on the banks of Sarasvati before that river dried up. His son, Trasnu, married a girl

from the Kalindi (Yamuna) region and moved eastwards. Their son, Ilila (Ilina) was the

father of Dushyanta. It would appear that Duryodhana and Yudhishtira alone were not the

claimants to the throne of Hastinapura. Bhishma was the son of Santanu by Ganga, a

daughter of Bhagiratha (who had tamed the flow of the river Ganga) while Janamejaya was

the son of Dushyanta by Lakshi, another daughter of Bhagiratha. This would make

Santanu, Dushyanta, Ganga, Lakshi, Shakuntala, Satyavati and Parasara

contemporaries and senior to Bhishma, Vicitravirya, Bharata, Janamejaya and

Dvaipayana. Jahnu (who assisted Bhagiratha in taming Ganga) and Parikshit were

sons of Kuru and were dayadas of Santanu, Devapi and Bahlika.

After the disastrous battle of Kurukshetra, Parikshit, the eldest among the surviving

dayadas took over Hastinapura. On his death, Janamejaya, a half-brother of Bharata

stepped in. Dvaipayana guided him, while Bharadvaja guided Bharata. The Kaurvyas, a

group of artisans loyal to the Kauravas resented Parikshit’s reign. According to Ch.

101 Adiparva, Janamejaya was one of the five sons of Kuru while Parikshit was held to be

Kuru’s ‘grandson’. It is obvious that later chroniclers had lost grip over chronology of those

times. However, the presence of Dvaipayana and Devala at the sarpayajna indicates that

Janamejaya had a valid claim. Astika who stopped this massacre still remains a ‘mysterious’

person.

{This chapter is adapted from the chapter on Janamejaya and Sarpayajna in Vol 3

of my treatise, Hindu Social Dynamics (1999). A few relevant issues then left hanging

have been clarified in this chapter.}

6

JAYA BHARATAM



69 of 282

THE EPIC IN A CAPSULE

Dvaipayana and the Kurus

According to Ch.60 Adiparva of the epic, Mahabharata, Dvaipayana and his disciples

went to meet Janamejaya, Parikshit’s successor, who was getting ready to perform the

‘famous’ sarpayajna. The Bhagavata legends were narrated to Parikshit and the

Mahabharata epic was narrated to Janamejaya. There are marked discrepancies between

the two accounts and not all of these may be attributed to later interpolations, amendments

and differences in editions.

Badarayana and Krshna Dvaipayana might not have been the same personage. They

belonged to the school of Parasara. Sukhadeva and Vaishampayana were disciples of

Dvaipayana (who is also known as Vyasa). Dvaipayana had sired Pandu, Dhrtarashtra and

Vidura (note the sequence) only with the intent to ensure the continuance of the lineage of

Santanu. For, Santanu’s son, Vichitravirya, was impotent while Bhishma, his other son had

vowed to remain a celibate.

Dvaipayana had followed the practice of ‘niyoga’ . Dvaipayana and Vichitravirya

were the sons of the same mother, Satyavati, but by different fathers, while Bhishma and

Vicitravirya were the sons of the same father, Santanu, but by different mothers. In a

rigorously patrilinear system, Dvaipayana’s sons could not be construed as

Santanu’s grandsons and they were hence not eligible to continue Santanu’s

lineage. But what prevailed during those times was not a patrilinear system of succession.

Continuance of the ruling dynasty overweighed all other considerations. If one did

not have a natural son (aurasa), he could acquire one by any of the then approved

methods. Satyavati had directed her daughters-in-law, Ambika and Ambalika, to beget

sons for their impotent husband, Vichitravirya by her son, Dvaipayana.

Neither the society as a whole nor the Kuru clan has to be held responsible and

blamed for this direction, which was a base maltreatment of women. Cows are mated to

studs to procreate calves and increase the cattle-stock of the owners. Dvaipayana had to

consent to be a ‘stud’. But he did not withdraw from the scene after obeying his mother.Ambika and Ambalika were not helpless young widows at the mercy of their mother-in-law,

Queen Mother Satyavati. They were princesses of the powerful kingdom of Kasi and were

held in respect.

This episode of procreation by niyoga is not to be treated as an example of injustice

to women in general though Bhrgu and other sages who drafted the code, Manusmrti found

it repugnant. [Some condemn this code for being equivocal on matters pertaining to social

mores and some oppose it for its being too puritanical. In fact, the sages tried to arrive at a



70 of 282

consensus and had to accommodate diverse stands and could not adopt a dogmatic

approach.]

Dvaipayana (Vyasa) is said to have classified the then extant Vedic hymns into fouranthologies. He enjoyed the status of ‘Brhaspati’ in the Hastinapura polity, i.e. he

represented the commonalty and was in charge of its political economy. He directed his

disciple, Vaishampayana, to narrate to Janamejaya the authorised version of how the

Kauravas and the Pandavas became rivals and enemies. In Vaishampayana’s view, Pandu’s

preceding Dhrtarashtra was justified though all the three brothers (Pandu, Dhrtarashtra and

Vidura) had the right to rule as successors of Santanu. The law of primogeniture had

then not yet been accepted nor has it been in most places and communities since

then. The eldest brother got an additional share as the guardian of the legacy and

not the entire estate. [The 19th century editors of the Dharmasastras prevailed upon by

the British administrators who engaged them to help in the drafting of the Hindu Law felt it

expedient to defend the law of primogeniture upheld by the British royalty.]

Santanu had pushed out his brother, Devapi, and ignored his younger brother,

Bahlika. Vidura was recognised as Vichitravirya’s son though born to a maidservant (dasi )

for she had to yield to the prince’s advances and not to others. She too was directed to yield

to Dvaipayana who was substituting for Vichitravirya. She was almost a wife, but not a

queen. Pandu suffered neither physical handicap nor social handicap and was hence given

precedence over Dhrtarashtra and Vidura when Santanu died. Before tracing what

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya, it would helpl to have a correct appraisal of the features

of the institution of marriage and family prevailing then.

While monogamy was not mandatory, bigamy was permitted and even preferred at

all social levels. Even wives had not perceived it to be wrong or as harmful to the institution

of marriage and disadvantageous to children. But bigamy has always tended to upset the

stability of the family when the issue of control over its property, especially indivisible one,

crops up. One was however not allowed to marry again, if he had a son by either of the

wives. [The rnamukti orientation, by which one’s debts to one’s forefathers, pitrs, could bedischarged only by begetting sons and continuing the male lineage led to the preference for

‘sons’.] But her son could not be denied a share in his father’s wealth, if his family had not

discarded her. Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura were kshetrajas, as they were born in the

fields (kshetras) or wombs, ‘owned’ by Vicitravirya though the seeds sown were not his.

The rules governing ‘niyoga’ did not permit Dvaipayana, their progenitor, any claim over

these offspring or over Vicitravirya’s property.

Dhrtarashtra Handicapped: Lacked Institution of Spies



71 of 282

There could be no partition of the kingdom, as it was not personal property. The

rajanyas who were members of the electoral college could elect one from among

themselves as their head. The head of the state had a fixed tenure and there would berotation of headship. Though it was by seniority in age, merit and ability (samarthyam)

could not be ignored. Vaishampayana hinted that Santanu himself had bypassed his elder

brother, Devapi, and ignored his younger brother, Bahlika, and that it was a precedent to

Dhrtarashtra being bypassed by Pandu and to Vidura being ignored. [Precedents were cited

when Kaikeyi demanded that Rama be bypassed and her son, Bharata, be installed as crown

prince of Kosala.]

Kautilya’s perception about the two events needs closer scrutiny. He was a

keen observer and his observations are profoundly significant for a proper appreciation of

the then polity. [Kautilya was a contemporary of Bhishma and Dvaipayana.] The institution

of spies, chakshus, the intelligence bureau, was for every state a structural requisite, even

as ministry, legislature, judiciary, army, treasury and head of the state were. It might be

directly under the head of the state or be under one of the ministers. Its reports were to be

considered before any political action was taken. It was almost autonomous though not too

diffused in structure and function. It had several wings.

If the ruler of a state lacked the institution of spies, a constitutional and political

requisite, he was likened to a blind man (like Dhrtarashtra, it was implied). He was unable

to receive personal knowledge of what was happening around him or be informed of it by

his spies. He was an asastra-chakshu. Whatever information he got was through persons

who were not authorised by the statutes of the state. These were mostly his flatterers and

they were not qualified to be dispassionate observers and processors of data. On the other

hand the Kosalan state had a separate institution of spies and the minister in charge of it

was designated as Drshti (sight). But Rama failed to use it and tried to collect data

personally and got misled.

Kautilya and the unidentified teacher (acharya) debated on the issue of this

shortcoming. (Vide Ch.26 Foundations of Hindu Economic State and Ch.12 Evolutionof Social Polity of Ancient India) The teacher felt that the king who deviated from the

provisions of the code (chalita- sastra) could be easily prevailed on to follow the rules while

the absence of the institution of spies, a structural deficiency, was more harmful as it led to

the king’s being forced to depend on cabals and bureaucracy. But Kautilya disagreed.

Nominating suitable assistants could compensate the absence of this institution, by creating

a support mechanism, which he called sahaya sampada. The deviating king was more

harmful and harmed himself too, Kautilya pointed out. This disputation is of considerable



72 of 282

importance to political sociology. Kautilya wanted the institution of spies to be directly under

the king, the head of the state, instead of being under an independent minister.

Charanas and chakshus , scouts and observers were political institutions, whichhelped the king in ensuring the security of the state and his person. The acharya might

have been Krpa who was attached to the Kuru state academy and who later became a

member of the council of seven sages under Manu Surya Savarni during the tenure of

Parikshit. Kautilya was a dialectician who delighted in bringing out both sides of every issue

and weighing them and arriving at a valuable middle path. This teacher helped him as a

deuteragonist and was not an antagonist of Kautilya. The debates between the two have to

be studied in the context of the new integrated and expanded janapadas that came into

existence by the last decades of the long Vedic era.

Deficiencies of Kuru State of Hastinapura

Pandu was eligible to rule but he rarely stayed in the capital. After his premature

‘death’, Dhrtarashtra took over the reins of the state. During Dhrtarashtra’s regime, Vidura

held the important post of Indra and guided the nobles while Dvaipayana held that of

Brhaspati and represented the commonalty, notwithstanding the stifled complaints that

their mothers did not belong to respectable Kshatriya families. Both were great thinkers

and statesmen and were respected by Bhishma, an outstanding general and spokesman of

the Kshatriya aristocracy. Like Krpa, Dvaipayana too survived the battle of Kurukshetra.

His associate, Badarayana, joined Manu Savarni’s council of seven sages. Badarayana who

directed Sukhadeva to narrate the Bhagavata legends to Parikshit and Dvaipayana who

directed Vaishampayana to narrate the chief episodes of the great epic Mahabharata to

Janamejaya might not have been the same person.

The Kuru state unlike Kosala did not have an eight-member cabinet of the type

recommended by Manava Dharmasastra. It was also different from the traditional sabha-

samiti pattern approved by the Rgveda. It followed one similar to the pattern that Manu

Uttama recommended which divested Indra of the power to lead the army but allowed him

to control the house of nobles and the treasury. The neo-nation-state instituted byMahadeva deprived Indra of the control over the treasury also and vested it in

Brhaspati . (Vide Ch.5 Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient India) As all the states

tended to adopt this pattern, and as he was teased for having been born to a dasi , Vidura

became virtually powerless.

Dhrtarashtra’s dilemma was partly on account of the inadequacies in the

structure and organisation of the Kuru polity. He could not overrule the commander-

in-chief, Bhishma, or the finance minister, Vidura, or antagonise Dvaipayana, his progenitor.



73 of 282

He was only presiding over a rigid (dhrta) nation (rashtra) rather than over a

powerful state. Of course, none of these dignitaries could act against his decisions. He

enjoyed rational legitimacy as he functioned under the Ra jarshi constitution. TheMahadeva constitution of neo-nation states had placed restrictions on all authorities

including the king and made the chief of the people, praja pati (elected by the senior

citizens and heads of families) the most influential authority. There was a delicate balance

of powers.

The King was however the final adjudicator akin to Varuna of the Atharvan

polity, a position which Yudhishtira aspired for, when he planned to perform

Ra jasuya sacrifice. He was yet a viceroy a Indraprastha. [Astika had preferred a three-

member judiciary comprising the King, the ombudsman (Varuna) and the

controller of crimes (Yama).] It would appear that like the ‘goddess’ of justice,

Dhrtarashtra was blind. But the blindness prevented him from observing the facts and made

him act on hearsay and pronounce unjust verdicts. Dhrtarashtra was an arbitrator but

there was no authority in Hastinapura that could overrule unjust verdicts. It was a

structural deficiency. To trace correctly the causes of the battle of Kurukshetra, an

appreciation of these shortcomings of the Kuru state is needed.

Dvaipayana’s Version

As Dhrtarashtra stepped down after the battle of Kurukshetra, Yudhishtira claimed

the throne of Hastinapura. But soon Vidura retired and Krshna too left for home and passed

away in distant Saurashtra, hit by a hunter’s arrow. The victorious Pandava chief,

Yudhishtira, stepped down (perhaps at the instance of Dvaipayana), paving the way for

Parikshit, the only surviving member of the Kuru clan to take over.

The Ra jarshi constitution did not recognise victory in battle as granting

legitimacy to the rule by the victor. The Mahadeva constitution provided for

autonomous small nation-states and did not envisage conquest of one people by

another. A Dharmavijayi was expected to install the vanquished or his brother or

son as the ruler, sign an agreement of peace with him and withdraw. Rama wassuch a Dharmavijayi and installed as kings Sugriva and Vibhishana after killing their

brothers, Vali and Ravana. Yudhishtira had to do so. He could get back what was due

to him and his brothers but could not hold on to what had been liberated from the

Kauravas. The latter areas had to be handed over to the Kurus. Parikshit was a Kuru.

As Parikshit became the king, Janamejaya was nominated as his deputy and

heir-apparent and the chief of the commanders and was required to be trained in

administration by Indra, the head of the house of nobles. Many states followed the



74 of 282

pattern of dyarchy, dvairajyam, sharing of powers by two authorities, as suggested by

Kautilya and accepted by the acharya (Krpa) with reservations. It might be officials

designated as Indra and Agni (as in Rgveda) or Indra and Brhaspati (as in the Atharvan pattern) or Ra jan and Indra or Indra and Upendra or King (Raja) and Crown

Prince (Yuvaraja).

The crown prince (yuvaraja) was not necessarily the king’s son. It was not the king

but the crown prince who was selected from among the many aspirants and trained and

then promoted to the post of the head of the state, as the king retired. This feature of the

Ra jarshi constitution promoted by Samkara appealed to Kautilya and perhaps to

Kashyapa also.

The Core of the Epic

Dvaipayana met Janamejaya in his capacity as Brhaspati while the latter

was yet to be installed as the king in place of Parikshit who had died ‘bitten by

snake’. The rajanyas, who were members of the electoral college, had assembled

to witness the sarpayajna. They were expected to draw the correct lessons from

the battle of Kurukshetra, which was still fresh in their memory. They knew that

there was a bitter struggle for power between the two rival factions, Kauravas and

Pandavas, and the two resorted to ‘dice’ to settle their dispute and that the Pandavas (who

lost) were exiled to the forest. It was followed by a war, which caused destruction of the

people on the earth (bhumi ); that is, the commoners were the main sufferers.

Dvaipayana, as the guardian of the interests of the commoners in his

capacity as Brhaspati , blamed both the factions. Kautilya knew only the above core

and the report that the Pandavas who returned from exile did not get the share

due to them. He faulted Yudhishtira for his addiction to gambling and Duryodhana

for his greed. Kautilya was a junior contemporary of Dvaipayana and Bhishma. The

battle of Kurukshetra was a historical event but had not yet been recognised as a historic

event. Under Dvaipayana’s instructions, Vaishampayana proceeded to outline the authentic

version of the causes, course and fall-outs of that destructive battle. The rest of theMahabharata cannot be treated as authentic, if its contents contradict this Janamejaya

version known as Jayabharatam.

Legitimacy

After their father’s death the Pandavas returned home from their forest school and

soon got trained in the Vedas and in archery. All princes had to master these two

fields, cultural history and military science. It was a stage when the two codes,

dharmasastra and arthasastra, were yet to be outlined in an authoritative form



75 of 282

and the Vedas were hence being referred to directly for tracing the rules that were

being codified by these two sastras, the Rgveda in particular for determining what

was dharma, the socio-cultural constitution and the Atharvaveda for what wasdanda, the socio-political constitution. Arthasastra presented the politico-

economic constitution, covering the two fields, economy (varta) and polity

(dandaniti ). Kautilya recommended that the methods advocated by the samkhya system

of dialectics be resorted to to cull out from the three Vedas, (Rg, Yajur and Sama) what was

dharma and what was not.

Pandu was interested in hunting and paid little attention to governance and

administration and yet he exercised charismatic appeal. When Pandu died his sons were

too young to shoulder the responsibility of rulership. There was hence no

alternative to installing blind Dhrtarashtra as king and allowing Bhishma and

Vidura to rule in his name. Dvaipayana does not pass strictures against any of the three

brothers, Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura. Both Pandu and Dhrtarashtra were his nominees.

He had introduced them as successors to the impotent prince, Vichitravirya. They were ‘his’

sons by niyoga.

Ch.61 Adiparva takes an objective stand on the causes of the feud between the

sons of Pandu and those of Dhrtarashtra. After their training, the Pandavas were entrusted

with administrative tasks and they acquitted themselves well and became popular with the

citizens of Hastinapura. [In the new states the cities were autonomous and mattered more

than the rural areas.] This made the Kauravas jealous. It may be inferred that the

Pandavas, though younger and though they had been away from the capital during

their childhood years, were better trained in administration than the Kauravas

who were inured to the ways of the court but had failed to endear themselves to

the citizens.

The Pandavas had the benefit of charismatic legitimacy even as Pandu had, but their

claims to hereditary or traditional legitimacy were weaker than those of the Kauravas.

Rational legitimacy, approval by appropriate constitutional authorities, was more difficult togain. The ‘sons’ of Dhrtarashtra had been accepted as ‘claimants’ to the throne of ‘Kuru’, as

‘Kauravas’, but the sons of Pandu were not. Charismatic legitimacy could not and does not

bypass either traditional legitimacy or rational legitimacy. When a charismatic leader

tries to bypass either of the latter two legitimacies, his action is dubbed as revolt

and he is punished. Populism may have its immediate rewards but cannot promise the

ultimate good to its pursuer.



76 of 282

Conspiracy

According to Jayabharatam , Duryodhana, Karna and Sakuni plotted to harass the

Pandavas and chase them away from the city. Duryodhana was vexed with Bhima and triedto kill him first by poison and then by drowning him in the river. But Bhima survived these

attempts on his life. Duryodhana and Sakuni were the villains in these attempts. The

chronicler absolves Karna. Vidura who was deeply interested in the welfare of his subjects

( prajas) as a member of the elite supported the Pandavas. [He seems to have treated the

Pandavas as his own ‘sons’ ( prajas).]

As Sakuni’s suggestions failed, Duryodhana accepted Karna’s counsel, which was

endorsed by Duhsasana and other friends, and persuaded his father, Dhrtarashtra, to build

a palace outside Hastinapura and send the Pandavas there so that his sons might enjoy

rulership (without adverse comparisons). Even when Pandu was alive Bhishma

controlled the capital and not Pandu. Dvaipayana, Bhishma, Drona and Krpa did not

suspect anything diabolic when they agreed to this proposal. However Vidura could smell

the rat.

The Pandavas were to be isolated from the citizens (who mattered more than he

villagers and the forest-dwellers). [Kautilyan reforms were aimed at unsettling this

demographic tilt. The paura- janapada, pura-rashtra urban-rural dichotomy, which the

Atharvan polity had consented to, was replaced by an enlarged janapada and diversion of

the market-centres and the workshops to the suburbs and of the forts to higher and inner

terrains, leaving the city as an administrative centre.] Dvaipayana version needs careful

scrutiny. He was more than a chronicler. He was one of the kingmakers, and

played a crucial role in the decisions taken by the rulers.

Janamejaya is told that Kunti (Pandu’s widow) went with her sons to reside in

Varanavata. She might have had some supporters there. It was situated inside an elephant-

forest. While Kunti’s marriage with Pandu seems to have met with disapproval, Madri’s

marriage with him was not. Only Yudhishtira, Bhima and Arjuna who were born to Kunti

were enemies of Karna (her son by pre-marital sex) and not Madri’s sons, Nakula andSahadeva. Before the Pandavas left the capital for Varanavata, Vidura briefed them

about the plot hatched by Duryodhana and alerted them. The latter had engaged

Purocana (one of his ‘pilots’) to kill them by burning down their house while they were

asleep. (It was made of inflammable wood, lac.) The Pandavas dug a tunnel, burnt the

house down with Purocana in it and fled to the forest. Dhrtarashtra is accused of

abetting this plot.

Bhima’s marriage with Hidimba



77 of 282

A forest guard (raksha), Hidimba, noticed the fleeing Pandavas, near a mountain

stream. They killed him lest he should inform Duryodhana about their escape. While in the

forest, Bhima married Hidimba’s daughter (or sister?) and had by her a son Ghatotkacha.(This lad later got killed in the battle of Kurukshetra.) Bhima had resorted to rakshasa

marriage, which was originally treated as kshatriya marriage, as marriage by conquest.

Though there was an element of coercion in it, rakshasa marriage was not

motivated by lust or by greed. Unlike asura marriage it did not treat woman’s

service and labour as purchasable. It smacked of male chauvinism.

Rakshasas too were Kshatriyas by occupation. Asuras and rakshasas were not

ethnically different from the rest of the society. Asuras were feudal lords. The stereotype

that presents the rakshasas as ‘giants’ or as ‘cannibals’, is unacceptable. They were in fact

guards who had become unruly and rebellious. Whether Bhima’s wife was the sister or

daughter or widow of Hidimba, a raksha, it was a kshatriya marriage, which

offered protection to the unguarded. Brahmans had to marry the Brahman virgins

gifted to them. It was Brahma marriage. Kshatriyas had to marry the girls

conquered by them or who sought their protection. Later, marriage by abduction was

treated as rakshasa marriage.

Pandavas and Draupadi—Polyandry and Apsara marriage

But closer scrutiny would show that Bhima’s marriage with Hidimba was an

Apsara marriage where the wife was willing to entertain her spouse at her

residence and bring up her child by him. She could bring it up as she desired. In

Kshatriya and Brahma marriages, the wife had to stay with her husband at the

latter’s residence and bring up that child, as he desired. Daiva, Arsha, Prajapatya,

Asura, Rakshasa and Paisaca types of marriages too prescribed this procedure.

Only Gandharva marriage as regularised by Pururavas led to the

establishment of an independent home where the two spouses, husband and wife,

had equal voice and equal responsibilities with respect to their children. [As

Kautilya noticed this was the practice among the agriculturists, especially the ardhasitikas where both husbands and wives worked and earned.] Apsara marriage might have

resembled the condition of professional prostitutes but the latter were paid for providing

sexual pleasure and the fathers did not openly acknowledge the offspring as theirs but it did

not involve such demeaning gratification for sex. Plutocrats (yakshas) and technocrats

(nagas) too resorted to Apsara marriage.

Leaving behind Hidimba and her son, the Pandavas went to Ekachakrapura,

a town governed by a single council. All its members had equal responsibilities



78 of 282

and they selected its chief by rotation. The Pandavas stayed there disguised as

Brahman students. (Brahmans were free to live in any town or village and earn their

living by seeking alms. They could not be prosecuted for any offence but could only beasked to leave the place.) But Bhima was already married and could not claim to be a

Brahmachari . During their stay there, he killed a notorious ‘cannibal’ who was terrorising

the residents. The chronicler adds that the Pandavas learnt about Draupadi’s

svayamvara (the bride selecting her groom personally) and proceeded to Panchala and

won her. They overcame their opponents and stayed in Panchala for one year before they

returned to Hastinapura. (They might have been only in their teens then.)

There is no attempt here at romanticising or exaggerating or at making Arjuna a

hero. Dvaipayana does not state that it was Arjuna who won Draupadi. Nor does he

refer to the rivalry between Arjuna and Karna. He does not dwell on this

polyandrous marriage as an unusual form of marriage or as an undesirable one. It

is taken in the stride. His own mother had sexual relations with more than one man.

Marriage in the same varna (socio-economic class) and monogamy had not yet

become the norm. Women were free to select their spouses. Only among the

Brahmans, girls were got married before they attained the age of consent.

Even asura marriages where the groom had to pay bride-price, sulka, could not

have taken place without the explicit consent of the brides, though it was taken under

duress and the girls could not but consent as their parents were helpless and were not able

to guard them. At times the parents themselves harassed and exploited their daughters.

Manava Dharmasastra proscribed asura marriage and marriage by seduction ( paisaca

marriage). [It had not yet come into force then.]

Khandavaprastha and Indraprastha

Dhrtarashtra and Bhishma directed the Pandava brothers who returned from Pancala

to stay at Khandavaprasta, to avoid developing further animosity against their ‘brothers’.

Khandavaprastha was a cluster of villages with broad well-laid roads meant for

the chariots of the princes. But it lacked several facilities. It was a garrison located inthe forest and had no rural hinterland. The garrison had to be rebuilt. An earlier chieftain

might have abandoned it. The Pandavas overpowered the local chieftain and stayed there

for many years. They had the status of Adityas, Suryas, that is, of generals and were

answerable to the supreme commander, Bhishma who was stationed in the

capital. [Their stepbrother, Karna , who became an ally of the Kauravas, was an aspirant to

the post of commander-in-chief, which was bestowed on Bhishma for life by his father,



79 of 282

Santanu. Karna himself was born to Kunti by her pre-marital sex with a general, Surya. He

would not consent to be on par with the Pandavas.)

Yudhishtira was the head of the garrison and he aspired to become, a samrat , anindependent emperor. A samrat had the power to arbitrate among his subordinate

rulers and to derecognise the insubordinate rulers. Only after performing the

rajasuya sacrifice where his authority to direct other rulers was established and

recognised by all the assembled rajans, who were in fact administrative heads of

the different districts in his empire, he could become a samrat.

But Krshna dissuaded him from declaring himself as such, for at that stage,

Jarasamdha who was almost invincible controlled the ‘solar’ (Surya) dynasties of

the Ganga basin and also the ‘lunar’ (Soma) lineages of areas north of

Indraprastha (Delhi) and the Bhojas of Madhyadesa (between Yamuna and Sindhu).

Only Sindhu delta (to which area Jayadratha belonged) and Gujarat and areas south of

Narmada were far from his reach. Until Bhima killed Jarasamdha in a duel, Yudhishtira could

not have his way. Yudhishtira was not unambitious.

Vaishampayana told the ruler, Janamejaya, that Yudhishtira who was powerful

and adhered to the laws based on truth ( satya) once exiled his valiant and

favourite brother, Arjuna, to the forest for thirteen months. This was a punishment

for a minor lapse that offended Yudhishtira’s image and authority as the head of that

suburban garrison state, Indraprastha. [Kings and officials were liable to be exiled for

thirteen years for major violations of the constitution. Death sentence seems to have been

rarely imposed. Bharadva ja’s plea for imposing death sentence on rebellious princes did not

find favour with other political thinkers, I have pointed out. It was awarded only for killing

Brahmans (especially judges) and cattle and in some places for matricide and infanticide.]

Arjuna spent the period of exile visiting important centres (tirthas). These

were not necessarily centres of pilgrimage. They were centres of learning too,

especially, in fields of administration and specialities. During his travels he

established useful political contacts. He married a naga girl and a Pandya princess andstayed with them. He also went to meet Krshna who was then at Dwaraka and there

married his sister, Subhadra. These were all political alliances. It is not known whether he

entered into those alliances on his own or at Yudhishtira’s instance.

It was reported that Krshna and Arjuna burnt down the Khandava forest ‘to

satisfy Agni’ . (Some would interpret that they put down a raging forest-fire.) It must

have been a move to protect men and cattle from wild animals and bring the

woods under agriculture and pasture. ‘ Agni’ was the designation of the official



80 of 282

who was in charge of the commoners (manushyas) of the agro-pastoral plains of

the Vedic social polity. In the later Vedic period, these plains were placed under

Brhaspati , an expert in economy. The commoners of the remote villages continued tobe guided by ‘ Agni’ . The other Pandavas were not involved in this project and troops were

not used.

The rulers of Hastinapura must not have empowered the Pandavas to

tamper with the ecology or alter the topography or to convert the suburban

garrison state into a full-fledged state, a paura- janapada or urban-rural complex.

[Janamejaya had invited Dvaipayana to bless the sarpayajna, the campaign to exterminate

the rebellious workers of the forest.] ‘ Agni’ , the chief of the commonalty of the areas,

which were till then known as Khandava forest, was pleased and presented a bow (known

as Gandiva) and a chariot to Arjuna. He was given a flag with Hanuman as his symbol. [The

Kauravas had the serpent ( sarpa) on their flag indicating that they enjoyed the support of

the sarpas, the forest workers. The vanaras were free men, naras, of the forest.

Hanuman was their leader.]

Arjuna’s burning that forest was a controversial project whose results

spilled over to the reigns of Parikshit and Janamejaya. Khandavaprastha yielded

place to Indraprastha (a city of the rich nobles) after settling its rural population

in the areas reclaimed after burning down the woods and pushing their original

inhabitants deeper into the forests. In the traditional Vedic social polity, ‘ Indra’

represented the nobles (devas) and ‘ Agni’ the commoners (manushyas). ‘Soma’

represented the frontier society of the forests and mountains, antariksham. This polity

continued to exist in many regions during the Mahabharata times.

While burning down the forest, Arjuna rescued Maya, an asura architect.

Maya later helped him to build his magnificent hall at Indraprastha. The nobles

(devas) had been known for their straight-forwardness, generosity and spirit of sacrifice

while the feudal lords (asuras) were selfish, authoritarian and cruel. Though the nobles

constituted the rich ruling elite, they were simple and did not arouse jealousy in the mindsof the commoners.

True, as a ruling class they demanded hard work from the latter, which the

commoners did resent. For, the latter were being exploited physically, even as the

commoner exploited the labour of the animals. Sakra Indra had defeated the feudal lords,

asuras, convincingly. But the nobles became victims of the mirage created by the asura

orientation. Asuramaya, treating the worldly things as eternal, pursuing the

transient and false as the eternal truth, began to grip the minds of the nobles.



81 of 282

Krshna warned them against this weakness. [Maya is said to have built Ravana’s capital.

Ravana’s wife, Mandodari, was Maya’s daughter.]

Maya was a designation used to denote an architect-cum-engineer. Theseengineers belonged to the frontier society and were in close contact with the

plutocrats, yakshas, who controlled its rich industrial economy. The services of

these architects were available to the nobles (devas) and their opponents, the

feudal lords (asuras). Arjuna must have been egged on by his brothers to claim the post

of ‘ Indra’ . (He was born to Kunti by Vasava, an official who held the post of Indra.) Had he

done so, he would have been guilty of rebellion, for the Pandavas who governed

Indraprastha were still subordinate to the rulers of Hastinapura.

Exile and the Battle

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that Duryodhana who was foolish and wicked

coveted that hall. With Sakuni’s help he deceived Dharmaraja (Yudhishtira) at dice

and sent him to the forest for a period of twelve years. Yudhishtira had declared

himself as an independent ruler, entitled to pronounce judgements according to

the code, dharma, but he had not disowned Dhrtarashtra’s suzerainty over

Indraprastha or ignored Bhishma’s authority as commander-in-chief. A reappraisal

of the features of the ancient Indian states is necessary if we are to draw a proper outline of

the course of Hindu social dynamics. The concept of dharmara jya has to be presented

correctly. It was not a theocratic state or a state that imposed varnashrama

dharma.

The Pandavas and their wife, Draupadi had to live incognito for one year after exile

for twelve years. In the fourteenth year they returned and asked for their wealth but could

not get it back. Kautilya knew only this bare episode (as Vaishampayana told Janamejaya in

what is known as Jayabharatam) that led to the battle where Duryodhana fell. Bhishma,

Dhrtarashtra, Drona, Vidura etc. are kept out of this account. Dvaipayana holds that the

Pandavas were unjustly denied their share, that is, the province that they had governed

from Indraprastha. They destroyed the Kshatriyas, killed Duryodhana and retrievedtheir kingdom after most of persons involved had been killed.

Dvaipayana did not approve the violence engaged in by the Pandavas that led to the

collapse of the entire Kshatriya cadre of Hastinapura. The troops collected by the Pandavas

might have been from the ranks of non-kshatriya cadres while those of Hastinapura led by

Bhishma were Kshatriyas, the recognised ones. The Pandava army was composed mainly

of volunteers who were not attached to any family or clan and had placed their services at

the disposal of their state. As naras, they did not belong to any social class (varna). The



82 of 282

Pandavas performed Asvamedha and other sacrifices to mark their victory and

establish the legitimacy of their rule.

A Note on Yudhishtira’s RoleThe Pandava regime at Indraprastha was an oligarchy headed by

Yudhishtira. As Dharmaraja he had the right to interpret and implement the

provisions of the socio-cultural constitution, Dharmasastra and the duty to do so.

Only a king who had performed the Rajasuya sacrifice was eligible to hold that

post. Among his ancestors, Ajamidha alone might have occupied that position. This

newly revived post was on the lines of Varuna in the Atharvan polity.

The earlier Ra jarshis were entitled to interpret the constitution, Dharma.

They were not executives and could not be faulted for lapses and misuse of power

by their subordinates. The designation, Dharmaraja, made Yudhishtira, the chief

judge and also the chief executive. But as he lost the game at dice he had to go on

exile. He was not a sovereign ruler nor was he the crown prince when he was

exiled. He was but a viceroy and had no control over the army or the treasury. His

authority as Dharmaraja ended when he had to go on exile. The terms, Ramarajya

and Dharmarajya have become synonymous with good and just governance. But they had

their distinct constitutional features. (Vide Ch 8 and 9 Evolution of Social Polity of

Ancient India)

The Last Journey

Yudhishtira might have returned to power at the age of forty-five. The chronicler,

Dvaipayana, does not mention for how many years he ruled. The Atharvan constitution

entitled him to rule for ten years. But Dhrtarashtra was still alive and was the head of the

state though all his sons had fallen in the battle. The Pandavas were entitled to rule

independently only if Dhrtarashtra retired or was removed or if he died. They

might have ruled only for a year or two after Dhrtarashtra retired. Vidura too gave

up his body. He seems to have gone on prolonged abstinence from food and water and

ended his life. After providing for Krshna’s widows, the Pandavas left for their last journey,maha prastanam, never to return. This was the brief account that Vaishampayana narrated

to Janamejaya. This alone was what Dvaipayana had authorised him to narrate.

The appendages to Jayabharatam are numerous and are not all authentic. The battle

of Kurukshetra was essentially a conflict between two rival Kuru factions. This version

mentions only a few names—Pandu, Dhrtarashtra and Vidura, Duryodhana, Duhsasana and

Duhsala, Yudhishtira, Bhima and Arjuna, Bhishma and Krshna, Karna and Sakuni, Kunti,

Draupadi and Subhadra, Purocana, Hidimba, his daughter and Gatotkacha. Several



83 of 282

prominent personages including Drona and Krpa, Asvattama, Drupada, Abhimanyu,

Gandhari, Madri, Nakula and Sahadeva are not mentioned. This is significant. There is no

mention of where the battle (of Kurukshetra) was fought and for how many daysand who all took part in that battle. Who succeeded the Pandavas?

Janamejaya’s Questions

The Pandavas knew what Dharma was and yet they killed some who ought

not to have been killed. Why did the commoners (manushyas) still praise them? It

would appear Janamejaya could not endorse Dvaipayana’s stand that Pandavas too were

guilty of violation of codes of war and peace, for the popular perception even in those days

was different. The Pandavas were wronged and were not in the wrong, many held.

Why did they tolerate the troubles given by the wicked though they were not

guilty and could resist the enemies? Janamejaya referred to the Pandavas as

purushasreshtas, as prominent social leaders ( purushas). What made Bhima control

his anger? There is a hint that Bhima headed a huge army, which had ten thousand

elephants. Why did not Drupada’s daughter, Draupadi (Krshna) burn down

Dhrtarashtra’s sons (that is, haul them up before the civil judge, Agni ) though she

could do so?

Why did the sons of Kunti and Madri consent to the gambling that Yudhishtira

indulged in? Why did Yudhishtira who was the protector of Dharma and who was

the ‘son’ of Dharma suffer the hardships? How did Arjuna destroy the huge army by

himself? (The other Pandavas are given no credit.) Dvaipayana’s rudimentary account

and the answers to these nagging questions provide the quintessence of the

Jayabharatam. The rest of the Mahabharata answers other questions raised in later times.

The above questions pertain to the last decades of the long Vedic era. Dhrtarashtra had

explained to Sanjaya why he lost all hopes of victory; Dvaipayana explained to Janamejaya

who belonged to a cadre of victors how the Pandavas retrieved what they had lost.

{This chapter originally found a place in my thesis, Evolution of Social Polity of

Ancient India (1989) and then in vol 3 of my work, Hindu Social Dynamics (1999).}



84 of 282

7

HASTINAPURA TANGLES

Politics is sociology in the limelight. Struggle for power is latent in every social unit,

even in the compact nuclear family. The elaborate dayabhaga system of coparceners

claiming shares in the ancestral property and in the properties of one another intensified

this undesirable struggle for power and wealth. The sraddha rites sanctified in and

prescribed by the social codes, sastras were expected to ensure peace for the departed

souls but they disturbed the peace among the living. And as the living and the dead

belonged to the ruling classes, they disturbed the peaceful life of the commoners.

Often the mighty won and the rights of the weak were trampled on with impunity.

Parasurama banned wars and bloody battles, which required the commoners to

fight for their masters and die on the battlefield or go back seriously maimed and

unfit for any work and to die of poverty and starvation. He called upon the rich to

settle their disputes through dice and the strong to settle them through personal

duels.The dayada system has to be examined carefully. It had its beginnings in

the social milieu of the century that preceded the battle of Kurukshetra (c.3100 BC

according to Hindu tradition and c. 1400 BC according to most western scholars and their

adherents). It was not based on nor was it part of varnasrama dharma which itself

was first envisaged during that century.

Santanu and Bhishma

The house of nobles (devas) bypassed Devapi and installed his younger brother,

Santanu, on the throne of Hastinapura. It is inadvisable to translate the term, ‘devas’ , as

‘gods’ and assume that the people of the Vedic society were polytheists. It is wrong to hold

that the king was endowed with ‘divinity’ as he was appointed by ‘gods’. The earlier kings

needed approval by the nobles and they preferred ones from among their own

cadre to govern their subjects. The king had no divinity in him nor was he nominated by

the ‘divine’ being. The subjects knew this position and obeyed their king only because he



85 of 282

enjoyed the support of the ruling class, which had monopoly over arms and controlled the

treasury.

While Devapi was exiled to the forest, the youngest brother was kept at a distance.He was sent to the northern mountainous district, Bahlika. The pleasure-loving gentle ruler

(Santanu) pleased all with his healing touch. These brothers belonged to the last decades of

the long Vedic age. Santanu and Devapi find mention in Rgveda. Bhishma was a son of

Santanu and Ganga. Ganga, an Apsaras was a daughter of Bhagiratha, a great

emperor. Dushyanta had married Lakshi, another daughter of Bhagiratha. Janamejaya was

their son. Sakuntala, daughter of Visvamitra by Menaka, an Apsara, was another wife of

Dushyanta. The famous emperor, Bharata, was born to Dushyanta by Sakuntala. Bhishma,

Bharata and Janamejaya were contemporaries.

Janamejaya had the right to succeed to the wealth and realm of the great

plutocrat that Dushyanta was. But Dushyanta’s uncle, Kanva, and Visalaksha, the

political thinker and counsellor of Sakuntala, who stood for Kshatriya aristocracy

prevailed on the nobles (devas) to nominate the valiant youth, Bharata, as king on

Dushyanta’s retirement. Bharadvaja, a senior sage like Visvamitra, guided Bharata.

When Dvaipayana and Vaishampayana repeatedly addressed Janamejaya as

‘Bharatasreshta’ they implied that like his brother, Bharata, he was a son of a respected

plutocrat (sreshta). Bharata had found favour with the nobles, aristocrats, as he was

trained in the ways of administration and in war, as prescribed for a Kshatriya.

Ganga was a shrewd socio-political counsellor who had inspired the school

of Ambha. This school inspired Bhishma’s championing of Kshatriya aristocracy.

Kautilya refers to the views of the Manavas who like Bhishma were followers of the politico-

economic code ( Arthasastra) of Pracetas Manu. Like Pracetas, Bahudantiputra (an

Indra who had authored Bahudantakam, a treatise on political economy) had great

respect for the sober school of Ambha, which stressed strength as well as

gentleness, resoluteness as well as patience. The Ambhas were not crooked and

hoped that the princes could be taught the perils of indulging in revolt against the state andmade to stay sober through proper training.

Kautilya too had great regard for this school though he was more pragmatic than

these thinkers who were his senior contemporaries. Bhishma treated Ganga as his

‘conscience-keeper’. He permitted his father, Santanu, to marry Satyavati whom the father

too had courted and resolved to remain a celibate for life and defend the rightful

incumbents to the Kuru throne.



86 of 282

The Frontier Society

Santanu, a descendant of ‘Hasti’ and Rajarshi Ajamidha was a Kshatriya, that is,

one who had consented to abide by the Vedic code of conduct prescribed for the anointedKshatriyas. Such Kshatriyas were drawn from the ranks of Gandharvas rather than

from the cadres of nobles (devas) and were characterised by the trait of rajas,

dynamism and aggressiveness. They had no source of income other than what was

prescribed for rendering service as protectors of commoners, Brahmans and the

cattle.

But Santanu’s predecessors were Hastis, a group of artisans who owned

quarries. ‘Hastis’ (elephants, in common parlance) controlled architecture and civil

engineering and construction of urban complexes, palaces and halls, and used both stone

and wood, logged and towed in by tamed elephants. Hastis were a branch of ‘Nagas’ .

Nagas belonged not to the urban (nagara) economy but to the frontier industrial

economy of the forests and mountains (antariksham). The stereotype that presents

nagas and sarpas as serpents and serpent-worshippers needs to be discarded. The Nagas

were technocrats and the Sarpas the industrial proletariat of the pre-varna Vedic

society. The core society of the plains was engaged in agriculture and pasture and had

trade relations with this frontier society and its industrial economy.

The socio-economic periphery round the core society included the

communities dependent on riverine economy, trappers and hunters, besides the

rich miners and the industrial proletariat. These communities like the miners and

artisans sought to be recognised as Kshatriyas. But they were treated as Nishadas and

Rathakaras under the samkara-varna (mixed classes) scheme and kept at a distance.

The two social economies, core and frontier, had already begun to interact

at different levels, breaching their erstwhile long isolation and evolving mutually

acceptable codes of social conduct which were later brought under the principles

of dharma and economic pursuits (varta) and relations. [It is not only impolitic butalso unacademic and irrational to abide by the stands of the 19th century Western

Indologists and cultural anthropologists that the ‘tribes’ of the forests, mountains and sea-

coasts were not ‘Hindus’ and were exploited by the higher classes and the people of the

towns and villages of the plains.] Dharmasastras and Arthasastras were such

integrated and comprehensive codes.

These interactions even while leading to social integration (lokasamgraha)

and social progress (lokayatra) did strain social relations and caused new social



87 of 282

problems. These problems encompassed the agro-pastoral socio-economic system of the

plains, which was extending its ambit and getting restated and pushed back by the powerful

frontier society and its industrial economy. The latter was penetrating the urban complexes,which were safely cushioned till then by their rural hinterland, leaving in the process, the

commoners (manushyas) of the plains, flabbergasted. The two great epics, Ramayana and

Mahabharata, do reveal these trends.

Satyavati, a Nishada.

Satyavati’s father was a chieftain of Nishadas, a community of fishermen

and boatmen. He was not a Kshatriya by birth or by occupation, a varna status

which was till then open only to select members of the agro-pastoral core society

and was yet to be thrown open to the entire frontier society. Riverine and marine

communities kept away from and were kept away by agrarian and pastoral communities.

But they were not outcasts or untouchables. In the pre-varna social configuration, the

boatsmen were included in the broader socio-economic sector of nagas and

sarpas, even as chariot makers and cartmen, rathakaras were. Some sarpas were

excessively docile and some nagas were domineering. Absorbing them in the new varna

scheme was not easy.

Satyavati, the nishada girl, had already a son by Parasara, a Vedic sage (an

intellectual and hence a Brahman) when she married Santanu, a Hasti Kshatriya. But she

did not ask for any special status for that son, Krshna Dvaipayana (a dark-complexioned

boy who was born on an islet in the river). His father, Parasara, was rearing him as a

Brahman scholar. Endogamy was not the norm then; and pre-marital and extra-

marital sex relations were taboos neither for men nor for women.

To be precise, the institutions of marriage and family did not envelop most of the

population during the early Vedic period when the laws based on Rta (natural tendencies)

were in force. Even when the laws based on Satya (truth) supplemented the laws based on

Rta these institutions had not developed the binding force that they acquired when the lawsbased on Dharma came into force by the end of the Vedic era. Satyavati, as Queen Mother

dominated the political arena of Hastinapura.

Bhishma, Vichitravirya, Dvaipayana

Vichitravirya, Santanu’s son by Satyavati, was impotent. Bhishma, his elder brother,

was Santanu’s son by Ganga. He had vowed to remain a celibate. Dhrtarashtra and Pandu

were born to Vichitravirya’s wives, Ambika and Ambalika, by Krshna Dvaipayana, who was

Satyavati’s son by Parasara. Kshetraja and niyoga rules had been invoked to give



88 of 282

legitimacy to such procreation and surrogate parenthood. They were declared to be

Vichitravirya’s sons and held eligible to occupy the throne of Hastinapura.

Vidura who was born to Dvaipayana by Vichitravirya’s servant (dasi ) lateremerged as a great scholar and socio-political counsellor. But he was declared

ineligible for any share in power or wealth for his mother was not a wedded wife. The throne

of Hastinapura, which was guarded by Bhishma, became a bone of contention between

Dhrtarashtra and Pandu and between their successors, the Kauravas and the Pandavas.

Dhrtarashtra and Pandu

As Dhrtarashtra was blind his younger brother, Pandu, was nominated to succeed

Vichitravirya. Only after he became father of a son, Pandu could get recognised as the

legitimate ruler. But he had been advised to refrain from sex. Yudhishtira, Bhima and

Arjuna were born to Pandu’s wife, Kunti, by nobles (devas) who held the posts of

Dharma, Vayu and Indra respectively. Nakula and Sahadeva were born to his

second wife, Madri, by the Asvinikumaras, Nasatya and Dasra who had been newly

recognised as nobles (devas). The Asvins had not been recognised as Kshatriyas and

were not given the status of dvijas, twiceborn, and were treated as Shudras. Nasatyas

had not taken the vow to speak truth ( satya) but however (as na-asatyas)

refrained from perjury. Dasras were docile servants.

The five brothers were acknowledged as ‘sons’ of Pandu though these officials had

sired them. [Later versions of the epic tried to present these officials as ‘gods’ or as

‘godfathers’ who protected the interests of these sons.] Pandu had directed his wives to

get impregnated by a Brahman even as his own mother had been impregnated by

Dvaipayana, a Parasara Brahman. But they preferred to get impregnated by Kshatriya

officials-cum-nobles as recommended by Durvasa, a revered and feared Saivaite sage

and disciple of Atri who guided the society of the forests and mountains.

Bhishma, an authority on polity, Rajadharma, upheld the requisite of

traditional legitimacy to become eligible to occupy any position. It favoured the

sons of Dhrtarashtra who was a ‘Hasti’ and enjoyed the approval of Kashyapa (thechief of Manu Vaivasvata’s council of even sages) as an ideal Naga chief. The sons of

Pandu enjoyed rational and charismatic legitimacies and had the support of

Vidura. Kunti who was guided by Durvasa, a disciple of Atri (a colleague of Kashyapa) was

a Bhoja princess. She was a protégé of Prthu and was known as Prtha. The policies,

which this agrarian ruler of Madhyadesa adopted, found favour with Manu Vaivasvata and

Kashyapa and also with Atri. The Bhojas were basically native landlords. They were

autonomous rulers but were not recognised as full-fledged Kshatriyas.



89 of 282

Traditional legitimacy of later times required that both parents of the ruler should

have only Kshatriya (and preferably Ra janya) blood in them. They should have inherited

‘rajas’ , dynamism and aggressiveness, by both lineages, paternal and maternal.Dhrtarashtra’s wife was a Kshatriya princess from Gandhara (which covered areas to the

northwest of River Sindhu), now in Afghanistan. It was a land whose people followed

Gandharva ways of life. The mothers of Dhrtarashtra and Pandu were Kshatriya

princesses of Kasi. However, neither Vichitravirya (their assigned father) nor Dvaipayana

(their genetic father) had in him the trait of rajas , the trait held as requisite for rulership.

Dhrtarashtra, as a hasti (a naga), had aggressiveness tempered by

gentleness. His mother was a Kshatriya princess and his genetic father was a Brahman.

Kshatriyas excelled in dynamism and aggressiveness (rajas) while Brahmans excelled in

gentleness and scholarship ( sattva). He could hence become a Rajarshi, a scholar-

king. But as he was blind he could not observe persons and events personally and had to

depend on his personal reporter ( suta), Sanjaya. Hastinapura had certain shortcomings in

its state structure, one of which was the absence of an official and objective institution of

spies, chakshus.

Pandu had a Gandharva spirit and was too gentle and unassertive to be a

successful ruler though he had charismatic appeal. According to the then norms, one’s

nature was inherited from the paternal ancestors and his nurture was determined by the

traits of his maternal ancestors. Dhrtarashtra and Pandu had both the benefit of

nurture by a ‘Kshatriya’ mother and nature inherited from a Brahman sire. But later

chroniclers passed this on as advantages derived from the official ‘Hasti’ (elephant) paternal

lineage.

Arjuna’s Birth

The chronicler records that when Arjuna’s birth was celebrated the seven sages,

Kashyapa, Gautama, Atri, Jamadagni, Vasishta, Visvamitra and Bharadvaja graced the

rituals. Obviously, this event must have taken place during the tenure of the seventh Manu,

Vaivasvata, who patronised Sakra Indra whose protégé Arjuna was. This Manu must havehad two tenures of twelve years each. Arjuna must have been born when the first

tenure as Sraddhadeva had just begun. Parasurama, son of Jamadagni, had just

then killed Kartavirya Arjuna, the powerful ruler of Haihaya.

Later the Haihayas killed Jamadagni in revenge and that set in motion the famous

campaign of Bhargava Parasurama to demobilise the Kshatriya troops of several states. This

campaign came to an end when Kashyapa exiled Parasurama from Aryavarta to Kalinga.

When Yudhishtira went to Gaya before the battle of Kurukshetra took place to



90 of 282

obtain approval of Manu Vaivasvata for his claims to the throne, Vaivasvata had

already retired and was inaccessible. Similarly he could not meet Parasurama. It

may be inferred that both of them were not inclined to support him.The chronicle adds that at the rites performed the seven sages, Marici, Angirasa,

Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu and Daksha (Pracetas), too were resent. Atri was the seventh

member of this first council of seven sages nominated by the first Manu, Svayambhuva.

This claim cannot be upheld as valid. They must have been very old. The chronicler extols

Atri (whom the lunar, Soma, lineages revered) as a sage equivalent to Surya (that is,

Vivasvan) whom the solar lineages revered. Bharadvaja, counsellor of Bharata, must have

envisaged a significant role for Arjuna. He was expected to take the place of Kartavirya

Arjuna.

Ch.132 Adiparva indicates that Arjuna, as a Bharata, was slated to be an

emperor. But it was not to be, as though the Pandavas won the battle of Kurukshetra

mainly because of the valour of this great archer, they could not secure legitimacy for their

rule. Arjuna was not eligible to become a ruler. Marutta, Bhagiratha, Bharata,

Mamdhata and Kartavirya Arjuna were the five great emperors who were on the scene

before Jarasamdha emerged as a great force.

Madri and ‘Sati’

Saryati, a teacher belonging to the school of Usanas when Kunti escorted them to

Hastinapura, after the demise of Pandu, had already initiated the Pandavas in archery and

other martial arts. Political thinkers like Usanas were attached to academies where princes

and other youths received training in martial arts. Some of these thinkers like Parasurama

conducted their own schools without royal patronage.

Pandu had indulged in sex with Madri against medical advice. Did Madri commit

‘ sati’ , dying on his funeral pyre? She must have felt guilty. ‘Sati’ was a pre-

kshatriya, Gandharva orientation and practice, reflecting and related to an

inextricable and inexplicable bond between brother and sister, particularly twins,

which led to the death of the survivor in despair soon after that of the other. Thisorientation (not related to ‘incestuous’ sex) was transferred to the relationship between

spouses after her brother and guardian married off the girl. ‘Sati’ reflected the absence

of the will to survive against all odds. It was never mandatory and not even

recommendatory, though some have extolled it as a feature of an unbroken marital tie.

Modern versions of ‘sati’ are either avoidable suicides or heinous homicides.

Madri belonged to the Madra land, which like the Kuru land retained this

Gandharva orientation even during the times of Parikshit, which were coeval with the



91 of 282

early Upanishadic era. The Kurus and the Pancalas of the Ganga-Yamuna doab had

begun to develop a new pragmatic and assertive Kshatriya dharma (applicable to

both men and women of the Kshatriya cadres), which precluded such despair anddeath. But Arjuna who has been glorified was not adequately assertive. He shared

Pandu’s Gandharva orientation and diffidence. Romances were many that veered

round him.

When during the last century of the Vedic era the scheme of four classes, varnas,

was proposed, it was made applicable first to the agro-pastoral commonalty. The sober and

intelligent among them were encouraged to join the class of Brahmans and the dynamic

and aggressive persons were recruited to the army as Kshatriyas. Members of these two

cadres had to give up their affiliations to their original clans, and commence a new

life joining the schools meant for them. Later, the rich among the commoners

(manushyas) joined these schools. They became Vaisyas and the rest of the commoners

who were engaged in manual labour were known as Shudras. Before this varna

classification came into force, there were four main classes, nobles (devas), free

intellectuals and warriors (gandharvas), free men (naras) and labourers

(manushyas).

Only the commoners were organised as clans (kulas) and communities ( jatis) and

nobles (devas) like Adityas, Maruts, Rudras, Vasus, Asvins and Visvedevas directed

their activities. Visvedevas dominated the upper crust of the class of Vaisyas while

the Asvins guided the workers. The free intellectuals-cum-warriors (gandharvas) and

the free men (naras) and also the nobles (devas) were given freedom to join the class

(varna) best suited to them and follow one of the vocations assigned to that class. The

ordinary workers, Shudras, who were included in the class of manushyas were not free to

join any of the three new higher classes. The Pandavas were born when this new

arrangement under the dharma codes came into force in select pockets including the land

of the Kurus and the city of Hastinapura.



92 of 282

8

PRE-PANDAVA DECADES

Vaishampayana first acquainted Janamejaya with the careers and times of his

coparceners, the Puru lineage of valorous kings, before he answered that king’s intriguing

questions. He traced them to Brahma, the non-manifest and incomprehensible socio-

political constitution of the Atharvan times. Later annotators have presented Brahma as

the God of Creation. During the early post -Vedic times, ‘Brahma’ was the

designation of the interpreter and upholder of this constitution. He was the head

of the constitution bench and ranked higher than the official who implemented the

socio-cultural code, dharmasastra. As the head of the judiciary he was equal to, if

not superior to the king, who was the head of the state. He was granted a social rank

and immunities that the nobles (devas) enjoyed.

The earlier rulers were recognised as rulers under the Atharvan (Brahma)

constitution as they were able to establish in battles their superiority over their

rivals and could gain the approval of the houses of nobles. This unwritten

constitution was in vogue during the times of the Purus. According to Dvaipayana and

his disciple, Vaishampayana, Marici and Daksha emerged as the aides of this high judicial

officer, Brahma. To be precise the praja pati of Barhismati in the Sarasvati basin who later

became Manu Svayambhuva was originally one of the ten members of a board of ten

prajapatis, chiefs of the people and was in charge of dharma before he was raised to the

position of Brahma of that region, Brahmavarta. [Vide Ch.6. The Epoch of the Early

Manus, Evolution of Social polity of Ancient India] Marici and Daksha were two senior

members of this board and they were nominated to assist Brahma, the head of the

constitution bench of that area. The chronicler says that Kashyapa, ‘son’ of Marici,

married Aditi, ‘daughter’ of Daksha. Other legends hold that Kashyapa married Aditi,

Diti and Danu, three daughters of Daksha. Some others say that he married eight daughters

of Daksha. Kashyapa has clarified that only Aditi was his wife and that all the eight socio-

economic sectors of the larger society were visualised as her eight ‘sons’. Surya (Vivasvan)

is presented as son of Kashyapa and Aditi and Manu Vaivasvata as a son of Surya.



93 of 282

Ila was the daughter of Vaivasvata. Pururavas was son of Ila, according to

the legends. The later chroniclers had got confused. He was not the son of Ila, daughter of

Vaivasvata. He was the son of Ila, an Apsaras, by Budha, a Vidyadhara. Vidyadharas were young scholars who held that knowledge gave power to them and they generally

stayed on the outskirts of the towns and villages. Both Vidyadharas and Apsarases

belonged to the social universe ( jagat ) of Gandharvas who were not settled

communities and had not developed the institutions of marriage and family and

were not engaged in economic activities. They enjoyed several immunities.

The chronicler notes that Ayu was the ‘son’ of Pururavas and Nahusha was the ‘son’

of Ayu and Yayati was the ‘son’ of Nahusha. We would hold that Yayati succeeded Nahusha,

Nahusha succeeded Ayu, and Ayu succeeded Pururavas. The practice of hereditary

monarchy had not come into force and to be precise, the institutions of marriage

and family had yet to take roots. Yayati married Devayani, daughter of the famous

political thinker, Usanas (Sukra) and also Charmishta, daughter of Vrshaparva, a highly

respected feudal lord, an asura ruler. Usanas (Sukra) has been accused of having promoted

the interests of feudal lords (asuras) and militants (rakshasas) against liberal aristocrats

(devas) and commoners (manushyas). His version of political science recommended

adoption of a harsh policy by states.

The chronicler notes that Yadu and Turvasu were born to Devayani and Drhyu, Anu

and Puru to Charmishta. In other words, Yadu and Turvasu were sober and gentle by

nurture while Drhyu, Anu and Puru were aggressive and cruel. Yadavas (among

whom Krshna was one) claimed to be descendants of Yadu, while Pauravas

(among whom Janamejaya was one) claimed descent from Puru. According to this

chronicler, Janamejaya was born to Puru (son of Yayati) by a princess of Kosala.

[It may be noted that Bhagiratha was a ruler of Kosala and Lakshi whom Dushyanta married

was his daughter. Janamejaya was the son of Dushyanta and Lakshi.]

Ch.63 Adiparva presents a mind-boggling picture of the rulers who succeeded

Janamejaya and their conquests. It is not advisable to treat them as forming a singlelineage. They must have been members of an oligarchy that took over on Janamejaya’s exit

from the scene. According to this chart one Riksha married Jvalanti, a daughter of

Takshaka. Antyanara, the governor of a border region seems to have been a scholar.

(Sarasvati, Goddess of Learning, is said to have married him.)

Ilila was the son of Antyanara’s successor, Trasnu, by a maid who lived beside the

river Kalindi (Yamuna). Dushyanta was the son of Ilila. The chronicler agrees that

Dushyanta had two wives, Lakshi, daughter of Bhagiratha and Sakuntala, daughter of



94 of 282

Visvamitra. Instead of declaring Janamejaya as the son of Dushyanta and

stepbrother of Bharata, this chronicle declares him to be the son of Puru.

The chronicler takes pains to defend Sakuntala’s claim that Bharata was her son byDushyanta. As he was required to bear the responsibility for the birth of that son, the latter

was known as Bharata, the chronicler says. He then proceeds to give a chart of the

successors of Bharata. These too were members of an oligarchy that took over power as

Bharata retired. Among the members of this oligarchy we come across Hasti who built the

city of Hastinapura. Obviously, Pururavas, Ayu, Nahusha, Yayati, Puru, Ilila, Dushyanta and

Bharata did not rule from Hastinapura. We do not know where their capitals were.

Ajamidha who is claimed to be an ancestor of Yudhishtira was an influential

member of this oligarchy. He was considerably senior to Bharata. His gentleness

led the chroniclers to claim that his mother was a Yadu or Yadava. Samvarana (an

enemy of Bharata) is said to be a ‘son’ of Ajamidha. Samvarana (who was exiled by

Bharata) married a princess of the southern Tapati region. Kuru was the son of

Samvarana and Tapati. Parikshit is claimed to be a descendant of Kuru. In fact, he

was a son of Kuru. Bhimasena is claimed to be a son of Parikshit. It is likely Bhimasena

was a protégé of Parikshit and had married a princess of Kekaya.

The chroniclers are seen to be confused here. Pratipa, father of Santanu, Devapi and

Bahlika was the son of one Parisravas. [This was not the son of Bhimasena. That Parisravas

like Parikshit might have been given to morbidity.] Pratipa who might not have been a great

warrior had married a daughter of Sibi, a prominent ruler of forestmen. Sibi was noted for

his kindness to birds and to all beings in general. Santanu must have been nurtured to be

compassionate like Sibi. Devapi had gone to the forest (that is, had been exiled) even when

he was young. There is no report about what happened to Bahlika.

Devavrata, also known as Bhishma, was born to Santanu by Ganga,

daughter of Bhagiratha. In order to help his father to marry his ladylove, Satyavati,

Bhishma consented to accept her as his mother (stepmother). Dvaipayana was born to

her by Parasara when she was yet unmarried. Chitrangada and Vichitravirya were thetwo sons born to her by Santanu. A Gandharva killed Chitrangada soon after he succeeded

Santanu to the throne.

Then Vichitravirya took over the kingdom. He married Ambika and Ambalika, two

daughters of the king of Kasi. As he fell ill before any child was born to him Satyavati

requested her son, Dvaipayana to procreate for him an offspring. Dvaipayana agreed and

procreated for him three sons, Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura. This chronicler suppresses

the fact that Vidura’s mother was but a maidservant (dasi ). He also does not dwell on why



95 of 282

the claims of Bhishma to the throne were ignored. He does not state who among the three

sons was the eldest. We have to presume that Dhrtarashtra was held to be elder to the

other two sons.Once again we are made to wonder what role Vyasa played in obtaining for him

hundred sons by Gandhari. She must have consented to marry Dhrtarashtra, the blind

prince of Hastinapura on the condition that she was permitted to bring a large retinue (of

one hundred persons) from her native land, Gandhara and that he would treat them as his

‘sons’. Only Duryodhana, Duhsasana, Vikarna and Chitrasena were his sons by her.

Pandu had two ladies, Kunti and Madri. The chronicler seems to imply that they

were wives only for ornamental purposes, that is, to meet the statutory

obligations. He might never have had sex with them. Pandu was said to have once hit a

stag with his arrow when it was having sex with a deer. The stag, that is, a sage who spoke

for the stag told Pandu that the latter would meet a similar fate. Pandu is said to have

avoided sex fearing that he would die while copulating. As it was said that one who

had no offspring was not eligible to be admitted to the ‘holy worlds’ ( punyalokas) he

requested his wife, Kunti to bear ‘sons’ for him (by other men).

Kunti then gave birth to Yudhishtira by Dharma, to Bhima by Vayu and to

Arjuna by Indra. These were officials on his ministry and had the status of devas

(nobles) or devatas. Dharma had the status of devata, a rank marginally lower

than deva. Madri gave birth to the twins, Nakula and Sahadeva by Asvinidevas. Kunti had

advised her to follow her method of niyoga. Niyoga was treated as a ‘sacred

procedure’, vrata, meeting the desire of the husband. It was copulation without

seeking sexual pleasure and without experiencing orgasm.

Pandu copulated against medical advice with Madri who had decked herself, leading

to his (suspected) death. Madri died on his funeral pyre (?). She requested Kunti who was

senior to her to look after her sons, Nakula and Sahadeva. Accompanied by sages she

escorted the five Pandava brothers to Hastinapura where she reported to Bhishma,

Dhrtarashtra and Vidura how Pandu had passed away.The chronicler accuses Dhrtarashtra of having plotted to burn down the

Pandavas and Kunti with the palace built of lac. He says that Vidura rescued them.

Purocana does not figure nor does Duryodhana in this plot. This account refers to how

Bhimasena killed Hidimba and married Hidimba and procreated a son, Gatotkacha on her.

But it does not refer to Hidimba as a rakshasa or mention the relation between him and

Hidimba. It refers to their arrival at Ekachakrapura but not to Bhima’s exploit there.



96 of 282

The Pandavas went to Pancaladesa and gained Draupadi in the svayamvara

(competition). After returning to Hastinapura they received half the kingdom

(rajyam) and resided in Indraprastha. There is no reference to who built that town andwhere and how Duryodhana was teased in the hall constructed there. This account refers

to the other wives of the Pandavas including Subhadra, sister of Krishna. These

marriages secured for them the support of other states like Kasi, Cedi and Madra

and the cadres like yadavas, nagas and gandharvas. The chronicler states that the

Pandavas had thirteen sons by their wives including five by Draupadi and Abhimanyu by

Subadhra.

Every one of the Pandavas had at least two wives. Monogamy was not the norm. The

chronicler refers to the marriage between Abhimanyu and Uttara, daughter of Virata, and

her becoming pregnant. According to him, Kunti on the advice of Krshna decided to

transfer to her own womb the dead foetus. She hoped that the foetus would be

revived! Krshna wished that the commoners (bhumi ) would bring the child up as

truly born to Abhimanyu. There is no mention of Asvattama trying to kill that six-

month old foetus and Krshna protecting it with his Chakra. He seems to have touched

it with his foot while transferring it to Kunti’s foetus. Such transfers were not uncommon.

This account seems to take note of the then prevalent rumour among the

nobles and others that Parikshit was accepted as the protégé of Kunti and came to

the fore after the entire clan (kula) of Kurus had been destroyed (kshina). Parikshit

was presented as the son of the famous warrior, Abhimanyu by Uttara. The chronicler

claims that he was named so by Subhadra. He also claims that Janamejaya was the son of

Parikshit. This entire story about how Parikshit was born and how he succeeded the

Pandavas is a later interpolation and is not to be given credibility.

The later chronicler claims that Satyavati was indeed a daughter of Uparicara, the

famous ruler of Cedi. Uparicara, according to him was chaste and never gave up the rules of

dharma or studying the Vedas. But he was however given to hunting. This ruler (ra ja) who

‘increased’ the Puru lineage captured the beautiful country of Cedi at the instance of its ‘ Indra’ . It must have been then without a head of the state. He had then given up arms

and was living in a forest resort and performing ‘tapas’ (that is, indulging in academic

research).

Indra and other members of the house of nobles (devas) held that this research

(tapas) had made Uparicara fit for the post of Indra. They requested him to become free

from that exercise (quest of the unknown) and return to protect the commoners

(manushyas). They pointed out to the king that the system of dharma among the



97 of 282

commonalty (bhumi ) should not falter and that as king he should institute it so

that the system of dharma would be holding up all the social worlds (lokas). [This

principle is incorporated in the Manusmrti .] It needs to be remarked here that Manusmrtihas prescribed study of Vedas, performance of yajnas and offering gifts to others (the

deserving and needy) as the duties of those who were assigned to the three higher classes.

Earlier all these persons were also required to be engaged in tapas , strenuous search for

the unknown, new means and new knowledge.

Sibi belonged to that earlier stage when the formation of the three classes of dvijas

was intended to lead to the creation of an advanced civilisation that required the members

of the educated classes being engaged in academic research (tapas) as the ancient sages

were and not be merely docile, duteous and generous.

Indra offered to protect the nobles (devas) and told the king (ra ja) to

protect the commoners (manushyas). This dyarchy implied that the king would not

have jurisdiction over the nobles but the nobles and their chief, Indra would

oversee that the commoner-king always endeavoured enthusiastically to protect

dharma in the social world of commoners. If the king was engaged in activities

prescribed by the socio-cultural constitution (dharma) he would later attain the social

worlds (lokas) whose members had secured eternal virtues ( punya). The king (raja)

who would be in the social world of the commoners on the land (bhumi ) would be

a friend of Indra who was in the higher social world of independent nobles

( svarga). The devas were known also as svas.

These opening lines of Ch.64 Adiparva present a picture of the emergence of the

new state that retained certain features of the Vedic and early post-Vedic polity in that it

kept the social world of nobles out of the jurisdiction of the chief executive of the

commonalty. It assigned to the latter the duty to uphold the socio-cultural

constitution (dharma), and to the house of nobles and its chief the duty to

supervise and extend friendly help to the commoner-king. This king was not a

creature of the electoral college of violent rajanyas, which the Vedic king was. The Indra- Agni scheme by which the Rgvedic core society assigned to Indra

control over the nobles (devas) and to Agni (scholar, Brahman and civil judge) control of

the commoners (manushyas) and the Indra-Brhaspati agreement of the Atharvan

scheme by which Indra (head of the house of nobles) would not act independent of

Brhaspati (the expert in political economy) who directed the activities of the commonalty

( prthvi , bhumi ) with the King as but an ornamental head of the state gave place to the

Indra-Ra ja scheme.



98 of 282

The annotator of the later times did not have a proper appraisal of the features of

the early post-Vedic polity that the chronicler was dealing with. He was not on strong

grounds when he attributed the emergence of the new arrangement to the return ofUparicara Vasu to the rural areas of Cedi. The Vasus were connected with pastoral economy

rather than with the agrarian or forest economy. Indra advised Uparicara to reside in

the predominantly pastoral country, which was also known for its diamonds and

jewels. It did not lack food grains.

The commentator notes that the villagers do not deviate from the rules of

the socio-cultural code (dharma) and are easily satisfied, that is, they are not

ambitious or greedy and are honest. It is implied that the residents of the city ( pura)

are not so. The cultural cleavage between paura and janapada is highlighted. He

also notes that the people of the rural areas did not utter lies even in jest and that

sons lived with their fathers and helped the elderly. There was no partition of

hereditary property and the system of undivided family was still in operation. It is

implied that it was not so in the urban areas that Indra and the nobles controlled.

Indra allotted the king power only over the rural areas where the institution

of united family was intact. The villagers did not exploit the weak bulls for ploughing the

lands. They fed those bulls (and not kill them). The chronicler claims that Uparicara was a

pride of Cedi where the members of all classes (varnas) always adhered to their prescribed

duties (dharma). In other words they did not find it necessary to avail of the provisions of

a paddharma, conduct permitted when in an emergency. It is likely that a paddharma had

not yet been codified then. Uparicara was acquainted with the ways of life of all the three

social worlds (nobles, commoners and frontier society, divam, prthvi and antariksham).

He was offered the ‘aircraft’ that only the nobles used. This was to help him to move

about in the open space (akasa). Among the commoners (manushyas) Uparicara was the

only person who was entitled to use it. (To be rational, the nobles permitted Uparicara

Vasu social ascent without restrictions.) He would be like a noble (deva) in the

guise of a commoner. The later annotator adds that Indra offered Uparicara, Vaijayanti ,a garland of lotus flowers, which would protect him from injury in battles. This garland

that signified fortune and a bamboo-stick that signified his power to punish the

guilty were what Indra gave him to make him give up his tapas and return to the

country to become its ruler (ra ja).

The king was given all the privileges and honour that nobles had and was allowed to

stay in the city though he had jurisdiction only over the rural areas. Indra and other nobles

(devas) dominated the city. In return for the honour given in the city, Uparicara



99 of 282

accepted that the commoners of the rural area (bhumi ) would honour Indra. In

token of this mutual respect, the king would be permitted on a specific day to

enter the city with the rod.It meant that the king had sovereignty over the entire paura- janapada

though he had effective control over only the rural areas (desa or rashtra or

rajyam) and not over the capital, which would be under the control of the nobles

and their chief, Indra. The annotator says that other kings still follow this precedent that

Uparicara set up. Then there follows a description of the Indra festival that brought the

urban areas and the rural population closer. The question of who between the king and

Indra was superior is not to be construed as an issue of whether the king or God

was superior to the other.

Uparicara Vasu who adopted this new Rajarshi constitution by which the nobles

governed the capital and the king the rural areas emerged as a great emperor nominating

his five sons as viceroys of the regions that he conquered. He enjoyed the support of the

gandharvas and apsarases who did not belong to either the cadres of nobles or to the

commonalty and who formed a social universe ( jagat ) of free intellectuals.

As he moved among the higher ranks (divam and akasa), the aristocrats and

free intellectuals of the society, he was called Uparicara, the annotator explains.

Uparicara was, however, a vasu, as owner of pastoral lands He came across a youth

and his sister in a mountain valley and appointed that lad as his general and took his sister

as his wife. According to the story, the semen which was to be lodged in her womb was in

fact lodged in the body of a fish and that a boy and a girl were born to it.

A rational interpretation would be that Uparicara was sent for hunting by his elders

when he was whiling away his time in the forest (as a ra jasreshta, as a ruler who

conducted himself like a rich plutocrat of the forest areas). He was deprived of the company

of his wife and fell for a fisherwoman who conceived these two children for him. He handed

over his daughter to a fisherman for bringing her up. Satyavati was thus brought up as

a ‘girl smelling fish’ (matsyagandha). Parasara, son of the sage, Sakti, was attracted tothis daughter of Vasu who was plying a boat on behalf of her godfather.

According to the chronicler Parasara knew everything about her past (lives) and she

was surprised to hear them. He told her that she had never seen her actual parents and had

desired that she should be treated as the daughter of Vasu, a son of Manu. The annotator

explains that the seeking to be the daughter of one other than the natural father

resulted in the fall in Satyavati’s social status from an apsaras to a fisherwoman.

This explanation is irrational.



100 of 282

The chronicler asserts that Satyavati was indeed the daughter of Uparicara Vasu and

that Santanu was born to her by the Brahmarshi (sage and Brahman), Parasara. In an

attempt to endorse the concept of rebirth, the annotator states that one falls fromhis status as he loses through his error the power and influence he has acquired

by his exertion (yoga). The nobles (devas) experience the results of their deeds even

when they are in the positions from which they perform those deeds. But in the case of

commoners (manushyas) those results (gains or losses) are experienced only

after their tenures in those posts are over and when their tenures in their new

posts begin. While the nobles (devas) held permanent tenures (and have hence been

described by some as immortals) the commoners (manushyas) were granted only limited

tenures in the positions to which they were assigned.

When she was an apsaras, that is, when she exercised the rights she had as

a free intellectualist girl Satyavati yielded to Parasara and bore for him a son,

Vyasa, who later classified the Vedic hymns into four anthologies. On her accepting

the role of a daughter of a chieftain (ra ja) of the community of fishermen she married

Santanu and got two brave sons, Chitrangada and Vicitravirya by him. She returned to her

status of an apsaras, a free girl who lived beside water, after these two were born.

The chronicler implies that Satyavati did not stay in the palace of Santanu but

retuned to Parasara. But she did not want to stay with him either for long. As an apsaras

she was required to be under the guardianship of her father (or godfather) and

not get attached to her lover for all time or stay with him in his residence as his

married wife. An apsaras was eligible to have sexual relations with a man of her

choice and even bear children for him. But she had to remain an unmarried woman

under the guardianship of her father. The expression, ‘kanyadharma’ meant this

way of life. [It meant the way of life of one who preferred to be a daughter. It did not

mean the duty to be a virgin.]

Was Vyasa, the editor of the Vedas, the same person as Krshna Dvaipayana who

sired Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura? Were these two personages the same as Badarayanawho was a member of the council of seven sages of Manu Savarni and outlined the

Brahmasutra, the formulas outlining the neo-Vedic socio-political constitution that

may be traced in the Upanishads? The chronicler hints that Dvaipayana was born to

Parasara after Satyavati rejoined him as an apsaras. She was known to the

commoners (manushyas) of the plains (bhumi ), as ‘Gandhavati’ and as one who

stayed far away from them. Gandharvas and Apsarases were known as punyajana,



101 of 282

people who had done good deeds and as enjoying thereby a good and blessed life emitting

good culture ( punyagandha, scent of virtue, punya).

Sumantu, Jaimini, Paila and Vaishampayana were the disciples of Vyasa while Sukhawas his son also. Vyasa taught them the Vedas. It was Dvaipayana (Vyasa) who had

immediate contact with the sons of Santanu and was acquainted with the events leading to

the battle of Kurukshetra. Some annotators have claimed for the epic, Mahabharata, the

status of fifth Veda. According to the chronicle, Bhishma who too loved Satyavati

and perhaps had sexual relations with her was born to Santanu by Ganga. His

relations with Satyavati brought him in contact with the Vasus, that is, with her

‘father’, Uparicara Vasu, and his powerful sons. He was a beneficiary of these political

relations.

Animandavya, a great sage who knew the meanings and purposes of the

Vedic hymns was once accused of theft when he had not committed theft. He

argued that except for harming a bird once when he was a young boy he had not committed

any sin or crime. He was shocked that his great contributions (tapas) did not stand

him in good stead and were ignored by the official in charge of justice (dharma).

The sage ‘cursed’ that official, Dharma who had the status of a devata (a rank lower

than that of an aristocrat, deva) to be ‘reborn’ as a Shudra for ‘slaying’ the character

of a Brahman (who was himself entitled to interpret the socio-political constitution,

Brahma, as the chief judge). The chronicler says that the official was ‘reborn’ as

Vidura, a scholar who abided by the rules of dharma. Vidura however had the

status of a Shudra. To be precise, Vidura as the official in charge of Dharma was lowered

in social status on account of his offence in convicting the innocent sage for theft.

Vidura was thereby declared ineligible to function as such official. It is

implied that he had held that position for some time. Did he in that capacity have

sex with his brother’s wife, Kunti, under the rules of niyoga? Did he hence

acknowledge his personal duty for Yudhistira’s welfare and also by Kunti when she

was in distress? The chronicler was aware that the scheme of four classes (varnas) hadnot yet come into force. There were a few who were qualified to be included in the class of

Brahmans but were assigned to lower classes. Vidura was such a scholar. Sanjaya, the

reporter on whom blind Dhrtarashtra was an eminent scholar and was equal to a sage but

was assigned to the mixed class of sutas on the basis of who his father was. The father was

a matador.

Karna is known so as he was reported to have been born with earrings. Karna was

born to Kunti, daughter of a Bhoja ruler (who was but a native landlord) by Surya who had



102 of 282

the status of a charioteer ( suta). Karna was denied the status of a Kshatriya and

Sanjaya that of a Brahman and were treated as but equal to Shudras who were not

entitled to sacramental rites. ‘Sutas’ were sons of Kshatriyas by Brahman womenaccording to the scheme of mixed classes. Such a pratiloma alliance was frowned upon.

They were treated as but Shudras. Karna was born to Kunti by pre-marital sex and

was a kanina. He was born before Yudhishtira was born to Kunti and the official in

charge of Dharma.

The chronicler accepts the myth of reincarnations of Vishnu as facts of

history. For the welfare of all the social worlds (lokas) that worshipped him,

Vishnu (or Narayana) was born to Vasudeva and Devaki (as Krshna). It may be

noted here that Vasu was an owner of pastoral lands. As he enjoyed the status of a noble

(deva) he was known as Vasudeva. Krshna, his son, was hence known as Vasudeva.

His mother, Devaki, had a status, Devaka, which was marginally lower than that of

a noble, deva.

The later annotator feels it necessary to dwell on the traits of ‘God Vishnu’ (Krshna)

and his purpose in being born among the Yadavas. This annotator would describe him

as (an upholder of) the inscrutable and imperishable socio-political constitution,

‘Brahma’ and as upholding the laws based on basic nature (mulaprakrti )

comprising the three traits ( sattva, rajas and tamas) and as a flawless individual

(atma, soul in common parlance) who is not a member of any social group. He

would describe him as a great (mahat ) ‘doer’ (karyaprakrti, executive) and as a

charismatic and benevolent chief (isvara) of those who are guilty of egotism

(ahamkara) and other faults that prevent them from developing intellectualism.

This chief is an invisible internal controller (antaryami ) and the entire social world

(loka) is his ‘creation’ and he has declared that both good and bad deeds (karma) would

have their results that are to be borne by the doer. Since this system of work and rewards

and punishments has been made applicable to the entire larger society he is known as

Visvakarma. Sattva, gentleness is the predominant trait in Krshna. God is alsovisualised as the form of aumkara, the eternal letter. His greatness cannot be measured by

his personal form or by time or by the size of the country where he is followed. He is stable

and shining wisdom incarnate.

He is also described as the swan (hamsa) who taught the principles of

Brahma to a great scholar. As he gives asylum to all living beings and is the

individual (atma) representing all beings at the bare subsistence level ( jivatma),

he is called Narayana, the free man (nara) who protects all who have sought



103 of 282

refuge in him from his protected place. He is also said to be one who has no isvara

(charismatic and benevolent chief) superior to him. He is one who supports all.

The annotator of the later times describes this high ‘God’ as one unborn (aja). Itmay be noted here that in the later Vedic polity, the commoners were described as jana, as

those who were born in the local region, janapada, and they were not eligible to move to

areas outside that janapada. On the other hand the nobles (deva) were not born in the

predominantly rural area that a janapada was. They were free to move in all areas.

As Vasudeva, Krshna was not required to restrict his movements to any

particular janapada. He was subtler than the subtle persons, things and concepts.

He did not change his natural form ( svaru pa) as a noble who had risen from the

commoners though he might move in different areas. He had no personal

attachments and was detached (and was hence a recluse, a kaivalya). He had no

predecessor (was anadi ) and was Brahma incarnate. In other words, the constitution

that he advocated had no precedents. He was ever the same (that is, was not

equivocal in his views) and was lauded as the highest social leader ( parama

purusha), as a creator and the leader of all beings ( pranis) at the subaltern (a

mulapurusha). ‘Vishnu’ was born among the Yadavas in order to institute dharma on a

stable level. Many of these concepts find an echo in the BhagavadGita.

The chronicler then refers to the birth of Krshna’s admirers, Satyaki and

Krtavarma who were well versed in all missiles ( sastras) and in all codes

( sastras). [Though he fought for the Kauravas, Krtavarma survived in the battle of

Kurukshetra.] Drona was born (in a bowl made of leaves) to Bharadvaja, a sage who

performed rigorous tapas. Krpa and his twin-sister Krpi were born to an archer. The

powerful warrior, Asvattama, was born to Drona and Krpi. Drshtadyumna who later

destroyed Drona was born to an official who had the rank of a civil judge, Agni .

It seems that under the provisions of civil law, Drona was declared a guilty

person. Drshtadyumna was only carrying out the death sentence passed by that

official. ‘ Agni’ had recognised Drshtadyumna and Draupadi (Krshna) as offspringof Drupada (rival of Drona). The chronicler seems to imply that Drona was guilty of not

acknowledging them as his offspring. Subala, the ruler of Gandhara was the son of Nagnajit,

a disciple of Prahlada. Sakuni and Gandhari, mother of Duryodhana were born to Subala.

The chronicler blames both Sakuni and Gandhari of having worked for destroying dharma.

Gandhari too was interested in the affairs of the state on behalf of Duryodhana. There is no

indication that Dhrtarashtra was handicapped in his administration though he was blind.



104 of 282

Dhrtarashtra and Pandu were born to Krshna Dvaipayana by the wives of

Vicitravirya. The chronicler rejects the notion that Pandu was a weakling. He also

asserts that to the two wives of Pandu five sons who were equal to devas (nobles)were born. Yudhishtira was the best among them in traits (gunas). The chronicler

then adds that Yudhishtira was born to Dharma, Bhima to Vayu, Dhananjaya (who was

handsome and the best among the warriors) to Indra and Nakula and Sahadeva (who were

handsome and served the elders humbly) to Asvinidevas. The chronicler states that a

hundred sons were born to Dhrtarashtra who was intelligent. But he enumerates only ten

besides Duryodhana. Not all of them were born to Gandhari. As Yuyutsu was born to a

Vaisya mother, he was called a Karana. It may be inferred that Duhsasana and the

other ten too had the status of only rich charioteers (maharathis), rathakaras or

karanas , officials of the state who were members of the rural bureaucracy. They

must have offered their personal services to Dhrtarashtra and Duryodhana.

The chronicler records that Abhimanyu was born to Subadhra and Arjuna and that he

was nephew of Krshna and grandson of Pandu, a great person (mahatma). Five sons were

born to Draupadi by the five Pandavas. The chronicler refers only to Bhima’s son,

Gatotkacha, who was born in the forest to Hidimba. He does not refer to any other son of

the Pandavas. The chronicler refers to Sikhandi who was a eunuch. Born a ‘girl’, he became

a great warrior. Thus he mentioned to Janamejaya the names of the important persons

among the hundreds of thousands who had taken part in the famous battle of Kurukshetra.

Did Parasara marry Satyavati? The above version of the chronicle included in the

great epic, Mahabharata, does not find favour with some scholars. They have held that it

would have been improper for Satyavati to marry Santanu when she was already married to

Parasara. This objection overlooks the fact that the institution of marriage itself was not

present among a vast section of the population, especially among the free intellectuals who

included, the mobile groups of gandharvas, apsarases, vidyadharas, vipras, charanas

and chakshus.

The fisherwomen who along with their consorts, fishermen, were characterised asnishadas in the scheme of mixed classes, samkaravarnas, were originally treated as

apsarases. The argument that Vasishta and other sages, Uparicara Vasu and other

elders could not have conducted a marriage between Parasara and Satyavati with

all sacraments but without the knowledge of her fisherman father, if it would prove

a flimsy bond and would snap on the arrival of Santanu on the scene does not stand to

reason.



105 of 282

All that the later chronicler intended to do was to defend the relation between

Parasara and Satyavati by introducing Vasishta and Uparicara as witnesses to the union

between the two, which was voluntary and did not harm the interests of any one. Thearguments that Vasishta had set a bad precedent by his presence there and that

the commoners of this world would not have approved of his sanctifying a

marriage that was not permissible under dharmasastra are inane. What did the

statement, ‘becoming a virgin again’ mean?

Satyavati was married to Santanu in due form following the then practices

among the commoners which required that the consort of the king should have

been pure at the time of her marriage. Her alliance with Parasara was suppressed from

the subjects of the state. After Santanu’s death she went back to Parasara

suppressing her relation with Bhishma and then with Santanu. From the point of

view of the apsarases, which the fisherwomen were, she rejoined Parasara as his

companion and not as a widow of Santanu. She had only exercised her rights as an

apsaras to have sexual relations with any one she liked and was answerable only

to her father. The term, matsyakanya did not necessarily mean a girl of the matsyas

who was a virgin.

Some modern critics have taken objection to granting approval to

remarriage. It may be true that the codes have not permitted the woman to remarry

either after the death of her husband or after being divorced. It may also be correct that

there are no precedents to allow remarriage. But this law banning or not permitting

remarriage of women is valid only for the commoners (manushyas) who are bound by the

codes of their clans (kulas) and communities ( jatis) or classes (varnas). [Satyavati was an

apsaras, a free intellectual and was not governed by these codes.]

It could not be applied to the mobile population of free intelligentsia

(gandharvas and apsarases, vidyadharas and vipras) where the very institutions of

marriage and family were absent. These critics have failed to take into account the fact

that earlier dharmasastra had jurisdiction only over the organised and settled communitiesand not over the unorganised free intelligentsia (gandharvas and apsarases) and the

independent men and women (naras and naris) who owed no loyalty to any clan or

community. The question of the sages (rshis) permitting remarriage does not arise.

Later Manava Dharmasastra opted not to interfere with the codes (dharmas) of the

organised clans (kulas) and communities ( jatis) and to bring under its ambit only those

individuals who were willing to give up their rights as independent intellectuals

(gandharvas, apsarases, vipras, charanas, chakshus, siddhas, tapasas) and as free



106 of 282

men and women (naras and naris) and join one or the other of the four socio-economic

classes (varnas). Of course a clan or a community as a whole might be admitted to one of

those varnas. Many communities could not be admitted to them and stayed as mixedclasses.

The term, ‘Kanina’ refers to the son of a ‘kanya’ . As Panini, the grammarian has

pointed out Vyasa and Karna were kaninas. ‘Kanya’ then meant an unmarried girl rather

than a virgin. He was her son by pre-marital sex. Unmarried girls were under the

guardianship of their fathers and often under that of their brothers. This was particularly

true in the cadres coming under the free intelligentsia and free men and free women. Of

course, the social codes of the early times when varna system first came into force

prohibited the three higher classes from resorting to gandharva, asura and

rakshasa types of marriages. No one was permitted to resort to paisaca marriage,

which was seduction of a minor girl. Only the four dharma types, brahma, arsha, daiva

and prajapatya, were open to them.

Asura marriage (that involved sale and purchase of girls) too was similarly

prohibited. The chronicle pertaining to Sakuntala permits gandharva marriage (voluntary

union of consenting adults) and rakshasa marriage (marriage by abduction of the girl) only

for Kshatriyas. This chronicle was drafted in later times. Whether a particular marriage

was valid or not has to be determined on the basis of the section to which the girl

and the boy respectively belonged and what type of marriage it was.

Some critics of later times have wondered whether Satyavati’s father (godfather)

was entitled to give her in kanyadan (gifting a girl as a virgin) to Santanu. Satyavati did

acknowledge the parental authority of that fisherman and had his consent when she married

Santanu. Kanyadan was not a practice among the gandharvas and apsarases. It

was applicable only to girls whose mothers and fathers were both Brahmans

(teachers or priests). Even in the case of such girls if they had attained the age of consent

(three years after puberty) the fathers were not entitled to take recourse to the practice of

kanyadan.Gandharva type of voluntary union of consenting adults was open to boys

and girls, men and women of all sections of this population. The social codes

(dharmasastras) had to recognise the prevalence of this practice and make it permissible.

Gandharva unions did not insist on marriage being permanent unions. They also

did not object to pre-marital sex and extra-marital sex.

Did Vyasa (who was born to Parasara and Satyavati) reprimand his mother for her

affairs with Santanu? This issue need not be given undue importance. It is not necessary to



107 of 282

try to absolve him or his mother only because he was the editor of the ‘sacred’ anthologies,

the four Vedas. His works and discourses need not have been inspired by Satyavati nor had

any effect on her life.The statement that Parasara permitted her to become a virgin again would

only mean that he overlooked her affairs with Bhishma and her living with

Santanu as his consort and accepted her back when she returned to him after

Santanu’s death. The sage knew that virginity once lost was lost forever and could

not be restored. He never insisted on the practice of marrying a virgin. Kanyadana was

not a practice among gandharvas and apsarases or among their lower cadres, naras and

naris. Fidelity too was not expected of them.

Some chroniclers have stated that Sakuntala and Dushyanta had got married by

gandharva methods and that the marriage took place in Kanva’s abode, with priests

officiating at the sacramental rites. Later critics have questioned this statement on the

ground that sacramental rites were not permitted when there was voluntary union and when

such union was permitted. No sacramental rite might have been prescribed for

validating gandharva marriage but there was no proscription of sacramental rites.

Did the two prefer to get their marriage witnessed by the civil judge, Agni and by

the priest? Kanva might have called for such witnesses, as he knew that his nephew was

fickle and might disown the girl. The claim that the marriage was solemnised without his

knowledge is untenable.

Some annotators have suggested that Parasara was eager to have sex with

Satyavati after her return but that she did not respond. It may be noted that wanton

attempts to establish that yogic exercises performed by sages only increase their urge for

sex are unwarranted. Was Parasara in a dilemma on whether to reunite with her giving up

the path of renunciation that he had accepted after her walking away on him? Experiencing

such dilemma has not been unusual.

The later annotators draw a sharp distinction between the practices of the

earlier times as noticed in the Vedas ( srutis, works heard and transmitted orally) andthose based on Sastras ( smrtis, works drafted on the basis of what was remembered

among the numerous practices of the past). These annotators have tended to distinguish

among the codes of right conduct, dharma, the ones that are based on the Vedas and the

ones that are based on the Smrtis, between Srautam and Smartam.

They treat the ways of life, achara, practised by the cultured and civilised

persons, sishtas, on the basis of the traditional importance attached to them as

different from the two dharmas, the Vedic and the post -Vedic . We may state that



108 of 282

these ways of life had not only traditional legitimacy but also rational legitimacy.

They may not be declared as invalid on the ground that they do not find approval in either

Srautam or Smartam. They were pre-Vedic in origin and may be endorsed even now ifthey are found rational, useful and honourable.

The dharmas or duties prescribed by the Vedas for all ranks of the society

are generosity (offering gifts), obeying the directions given by the chief domestic

(hotr ) priest who functioned as the civil judge (agni ) and performing sacrifices

(yajna) (to meet the needs of the three non-economic cadres of the society, nobles, sages

and elders, devas, rshis and pitrs). In the post -Vedic society all these three cadres

lost their identity having merged in the four classes, varnas. The post of civil

judge, agni , controlling and answerable to the commonalty (manushyas) rather

than to the ruling elite (devas), gave way to the post of dharmastha, created by

the state.

The code of duties, dharma that had its origin in the last decades of the long

Vedic era and was instituted during the early post -Vedic times, as the smrtis

recall, proscribed violence, uttering falsehood, stealing, unauthorised sex and

attachment. These were yamas. The magistrate, yama, could punish v iolation of

these prohibitory instructions even with death in some cases. [Of course the nobles

were not under the jurisdiction of this official, yama.] Purity, contentment, tapas or

severe endeavour, reading Vedas and meditation on ‘god’ (isvara) were the rules

prescribed (niyamas) for all. Of course one who failed to perform these tasks was

not taken to task by any official but was not held in high respect.

In addition, smarta dharma called for performing the duties (dharma)

prescribed for one’s class (varna) and stage of life (asrama). Smarta dharma

called for belief in the existence of a benevolent ‘god’ and permitted every one to

meditate on a ‘god’ of his choice and in the form in which he wished to worship .

Such ‘deism’ was not a requisite in the Vedic or Srauta dharma. The yamas and

other niyamas were however not all newly introduced by Smarta dharma though they didnot feature prominently in the Vedic milieu and in the code of conduct then prescribed for

the commoners.

Varnasrama dharma was introduced by Smarta dharma though it was

already envisaged during the later Vedic times. The annotator explains that

dharma implies what is basic and upholds all activities, aspirations and results and

also what does not leave one but stands by him always. According to the teachers

what produces happy results is dharma and what results in unhappiness is adharma. They



109 of 282

seem to give a hedonistic interpretation of the term, dharma. They were dealing

with the types of marriages and what among them could be considered as

providing real happiness within the framework of dharma.Only Brahma, Daiva, Arsha and Prajapatya types were prescribed as dharma

types for Brahmans. According to the anti-hedonistic social code, Gandharva type

of marriage can never become a prescribed or permitted one (dharma) for

Brahmans. Kshatriyas and Vaisyas were expected to emulate the Brahmans. For those

who did not belong to the three varnas, Brahmans, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas,

gandharva, asura and rakshasa types (voluntary union, sale and purchase of girls and

abduction), too were valid dharma marriages.

This annotator does not state which types of marriages were permissible or

prescribed for the Kshatriyas and Vaisyas. They might resort to gandharva, asura and

rakshasa types but he refuses to recognise them as prescribed dharma marriages even in

their cases. Smarta dharma that came into force during the early post -Vedic times

did not permit the educated classes, dvijas, to follow these three types. It did not

recognise svayamvara and rakshasa marriages which the Kshatriyas claimed to be their

privilege.

The Vaisyas, the higher economic classes, were willing to ‘buy’ girls as

wives to meet domestic labour. This was asura type of marriage and was

obnoxious in the eyes of smarta dharma. The common workers, Shudras and the

mixed classes many of whom belonged to the frontier society or to the social periphery and

were not admitted to the three educated classes would be justified in resorting to them.

Paisaca marriage (by seduction) was banned for all. [The later annotator presents an

elaborate picture of the scene of the marriage between Parasara, claimed to be a grandson

of Vasishta and Satyavati claimed to be sired by Uparicara Vasu but brought up by a

fisherman. This exercise to absolve Vyasa of all blemishes is not called for.]



110 of 282

9

KSHATRIYAS RETURN TO POWER

Janamejaya wanted to know why the Pandavas who were equal to nobles

(devas) and were great warriors (maharathis who fought from chariots) were

born among the commoners (bhumi ). The chronicler told him that he had heard

that the purpose behind such birth was known and was to be known only to the

nobles (devas) and yet he would with the permission of Brahma, the guardian of

the socio-political constitution acquaint the king with that purpose. He traced the

purpose to the times of Parasurama (son of Jamadagni), who rid the commonalty (bhumi )

twenty-one times from Kshatriyas and then left for the Mahendra mountains to perform ‘tapas’ .

The chronicler does not refer to the battles between Parasurama and the Haihayas

and Talajanghas and his surrender of the regions conquered by him to Kashyapa and his

exile from north India (Aryavarta). When the cadres of Kshatriyas, soldiers, were all

removed from the social world (loka) of the plains (bhumi ), their wives and

widows who desired to have sons yielded themselves to the Brahmans. The

chronicler takes pains to remove the impression that the Brahmans (whose cause

Parasurama championed) exploited the unhappy and unguarded Kshatriya women.

The chronicler gives the impression that the Brahmans resorted to the

rigorous provisions of the laws permitting niyoga and anuloma alliances and had

sex with the Kshatriya women for meeting the requirements of dharma and not for

sex (kama). The offspring born to these women proved to be more valiant than the

Kshatriyas. This was a one-time permission and experiment intended to aid the

Kshatriya cadres regain numbers. These new Kshatriyas born to Brahman fathers and

Kshatriya women lived long and followed the principles of dharma.

The annotator notes that at that stage the Brahmans were treated as the best

of the four social classes (varnas). Sexual intercourse was meant for procreation

and reproduction of the species and not for sexual pleasure. As this principle of

dharma has been followed by the offspring of the Kshatriya widows scrupulously

they have a full life of a hundred years, the chronicler claims. The commoners

(manushyas) are told that they can live without pain and disease if they have sex only to

fulfil their societal duty and not for pleasure.

The scheme of four classes (varnas) was first applied to the commonalty

(manushyas). At that stage those who were recognised as Kshatriyas were of a



111 of 282

highly aggressive type and the new generation of Kshatriyas were sober and less

aggressive because of the intervention of the Brahmans. It is inadvisable and

irrational to presume that there were either political or ethnic or genetic differencesbetween Kshatriyas and Brahmans. It is inadvisable to give credit to the story that the

Kshatriya widows were indeed required to submit to Brahmans for sex and procreation.

The members of the judiciary who upheld the socio-political constitution of

the Atharvaveda (Brahma) did not approve of the step that Parasurama took to

dissolve the Kshatriya armies of twenty-one states. New sober cadres had to be

raised. They would not be temporary recruits required to be ready to die on the battlefield

but would be permanent standing armies entrusted with the duty to protect dharma, the

socio-cultural code. The new Kshatriyas were entitled to rule not only the agrarian

plains (bhumi ) but also the other areas like mountains, forests and cities of the

expanded state.

As the Kshatriyas came back to power all the classes (varnas) including

Brahmans became happy. The kings were required to discard the flaws of partiality and

anger while rendering justice and punishing the guilty and administering the state. The

new state headed by the king placed Indra in charge of (rains and) agriculture and

the entire economy. He was head of the eight-member ministry that had

jurisdiction over the entire integrated empire, Janamejaya, a Bharata plutocrat

( sreshta) was told. The chronicler indirectly points out that the post-Parasurama

state covered the entire country, which was surrounded by seas. Did Bharata and

Prthu rule the entire Indian subcontinent?

It was a period when the Brahmans studied the Vedas and their branches

and the Upanishads. They did not ‘sell’ this knowledge, that is, they did not seek to earn

their living by teaching Vedas to others. They refrained from uttering Vedic hymns in

the presence of Shudras. The tillers were than assigned to the class of Vaisyas. Only

service of others was the duty assigned to Shudras. The commoners (manushyas)

were assigned the duty of looking after the cattle. They did not cheat the calves oftheir milk. They had not been assigned to either class, Vaisyas or Shudras. The

traders did not cheat by using wrong measures.

They must have been assigned to the class of Vaisyas. It needs to be noted that the

Vedic practice of treating only the traders as Vaisyas was reintroduced during the later

medieval times. In the meantime all agriculturists and pastoral peoples too were treated as

Vaisyas and only the servants were treated as Shudras and denied the rights and

opportunities that the three higher classes had.



112 of 282

It was a period when the commoners (manushyas) held dharma to be the

support for their lives and took care of dharma, the socio-cultural code and did

only what was defined to be valid deeds according to the principles of this dharma code. In other words, they were subordinate to the socio-cultural code, dharmasastra,

rather than to the politico-economic codes, arthasastra and dandaniti .

Though the Kshatriyas were reinstated the society preferred to govern its

activities on the basis of the provisions of dharmasastra rather than be coerced by

the state or pursue acquisition of wealth. All followed rigorously their respective

activities and duties as prescribed for their respective class (varna). This code followed the

principle of freedom to adhere to the law of natural aptitude (rta) as it was during the early

Vedic times when the mighty could not have their way as the weak asserted their ability to

survive against all odds. The powerful rulers could not break their resilience.

The annotator calls that period as the period of creative activities, krtayuga. It was

marked by growth in numbers of all living beings and by affluence among the commonalty

(bhumi ). While the social world (loka) of commoners (manushyas) was well developed, a

new generation of rulers was born to princesses of the ra janya cadre. They were later

categorised as feudal lords, asuras. In the prolonged war between the liberal aristocrats

(devas) and the feudal lords (asuras) the latter were defeated several times by the former

and were deprived of their wealth (aisvarya, sura) and expelled from the social world of

the nobles ( svarga) who were entitled to have personal property and personal contingent

of troops.

The new generation of feudal lords were treated as but persons born

amongst the commoners (bhumi ). It may be noted that the chronicler addressed

Janamejaya as purushasreshta to indicate that he was an eminent social leader

( purusha) and then as Bharatasreshta to indicate that he was an eminent successor to

Bharata, and then as the king of manushyas to indicate that he had jurisdiction only over

the commoners. He addresses Janamejaya then as ra jasreshta and prabhu. Janamejaya

was expected to function as a rich generous ruler of the plutocratic type as Dushyanta andBharata were and not as a feudal lord (asura) who used coercive methods to gain riches.

In order to become kings (ra jas) in the plains (bhumi ) the new generation

of asuras gained control over not only the commoners (manushyas) but also the

different groups of animals like cows and horses, mules, elephants and camels.

That is they controlled the pastoral economy and also the armies, which needed these

animals. The asuras also became controllers of animals on whose meat many lived. In

short the polity and economy, agrarian, pastoral and forest fell into their hands. Agriculture



113 of 282

of the plains (bhumi ) is the basis of this economy. As the asuras, feudal lords, got control

over it, it became impossible for the commonalty (bhumi ) to have socio-economic stability.

Some of the proud kings of the commonalty (bhumi ) were daityas anddanavas who had been expelled from the ranks of the nobility ( svargaloka) and

who joined the feudal lords (asuras). [Aditi, Diti and Danu were according to the

chronicles, three daughters of Daksha who married Kashyapa. The nobles with good conduct

who became administrators were known as Adityas (sons of Aditi). Their counterparts were

Daityas (sons of Diti). The Danavas (sons of Danu) were after wealth.] These powerful

and arrogant rulers of different types spread over the entire continent that is surrounded by

the sea. Through might they harassed all the four classes (varnas) and also all

living beings ( pranis, of the subaltern).

While hunting the herds of animals, these feudal lords harassed the sages who were

in their forest resorts. They also moved about throughout the agrarian plains

(bhumi ) as enemies of Brahmans (jurists who upheld the social laws, dharma). The

chronicler notes that the powerful and arrogant feudal lords (asuras) who had imbibed the

traits of the plutocrats ( sreshtas) harassed the commonalty forcing its patient motherly

and noble representative (bhumidevi ) to approach the chief judge and upholder of the

socio-political constitution (Brahma) for a solution and end to their sufferings. [We would

not present Brahma as the ‘god of creation’.]

The powerful generals of the different directions (dig-gajas) who controlled

the troops of those areas that were drawn from the five ranks of free individuals

( panchabhutas) (who had not yet been brought under the scheme of four classes but who

were equivalent to the nobility and the four classes in their social and economic roles and

belonged to the social periphery) did not have the necessary strength to support the

commonalty that was losing its economic status and social power. [The social

periphery had discrete individuals who had been expelled from their classes and also

members of the ruling elite who were in exile.] The eight leaders of the nagas,

technocracy and the industrial proletariat (like Adisesha) could not even whenacting together render the basic support needed for the agrarian commonalty. The

clans (kula) of the mountains too could not extend the necessary support for the

commonalty that was being harassed the feudal chieftains (asuras).

Bhumidevi (the representative of the commonalty) presented their case to Brahma,

the chief of the constitutional bench, who had ‘created’ all the beings ( pranis) which were

at the bare subsistence level and also all the social worlds (lokas) and was being held in

esteem by the nobles (devas) and the sages (maharshis, who were legislators) and the



114 of 282

jurists (Brahmans) and also by the pleasure-seeking (vanti ) gandharvas and apsarases.

The spokeswoman (who had the status of a devi , lady) of the commonalty (bhumi )

presented to Brahma in the presence of the eight officials who were guardians ( palakas)of the regions in the eight directions her appeal for protection for the commonalty of the

plains (bhumi ) against the feudal lords (asuras). The later annotator states that Brahma

knew already the purpose for which Bhumidevi had come.

It was not a surprise to Brahma as he was the creator of the social universe

( jagat ) and must have known the minds of devas, asuras and other living beings

( pranis). The new constitution, over implementation and interpretation of which this judge

presided, had included in the core society, the social universe ( jagat ) of gandharvas and

apsarases, nobility (devas), feudal lords (asuras) and other living beings ( pranis) at the

level of subsistence in addition to the commonalty organised on the basis of the four

classes.

This judge, Brahma , knew the minds, aspirations and orientations of all these

sectors. The later annotator would treat this high judicial authority, Brahma, as the head of

the commonalty (bhumi ) and as the one who is the first cause of this arrangement and as

the director of all activities and as the ‘giver of happiness’. The head of the constitution

bench (Brahma) told (Bhumidevi ) the spokeswoman of the commonalty that he

would send all the nobles (devas) for carrying out her request.

He asked them to “be born’ in this world as commoners, hiding their form of nobles,

in order to reduce the burden that the commonalty had to bear. In other words, a new

cadre of nobles was created who would share the responsibility to protect the

commoners against the cruel and arrogant feudal lords who were then controlling

the affairs and economy of the plains and the periphery. Similarly the cadres of

gandharvas and apsarases were dissolved in the commonalty to enable the latter

to have a free intelligentsia that would resist the orientations spread by the feudal

lords. Indra and other nobles consented to give up their erstwhile isolation and agreed to

function as the new protective elite of the commonalty of the integrated society. The laterannotator says that these nobles prevailed on Narayana to be born in the world (bhumi ) to

free it from the blemishes (the wrong orientations that had been given to the commonalty

by the feudal lords, asuras). (Ch.65 Adiparva)

If the nobles were to merge in the new integrated society, it might result in

Indra losing his status and power. But he had to assure the sage, Narayana, that

he would, like the sages, take part in creating the new commonalty. They would

destroy the feudal lords (asuras) and the rebel militants (rakshasas) as directed by the



115 of 282

new constitution (Brahma) but would not accept the gandharvas and the nagas, the free

intelligentsia and the technocrats, as desirable elements. They would destroy them and the

other beings who lived (sponged) on the commoners (manushyas).Vaishampayana pointed out that the new elite had from its birth the power

necessary to withstand the combined might of the asuras and rakshasas and

gandharvas and nagas. The perception of this class of aristocrats differed from that of the

new constitution, Brahma. The commoners must have noticed this departure from

that constitution by the new elite, devas. The traits of new elite were reflected in

the conduct of the Brahmarshis and the Ra jarshis. Some of the intellectuals among

the nobles opted to join the judiciary while some others who were aristocratic in temper and

not so introvert as the former accepted to function as the directors of the new state.

This account made Janamejaya eager to know Vaishampayana’s version of

the origin of the cadres, known as nobles (devas), feudal lords (asuras),

gandharvas, apsarases, commoners (manushyas), plutocrats (yakshas) and their

militant guards (rakshasas). We have to interpret this version in a rational manner and

not discard it as myth and fantasy. The chronicler notices that Brahmadeva (the head of

the constitution bench who had the status of a noble, deva) accepted as his ‘manasputras’

(godsons or protégés) the six great sages (maharshis), Marici, Atri, Angirasa, Pulastya,

Pulaha and Kratu. These were important legislators and were members of the first council of

seven sages convened by Manu Svayambhuva.

Bhrgu might have been the seventh member. Pracetas, Vasishta, Narada and these

seven sages were on the board of editors of Manava Dharmasastra. Svayambhuva was

the chief of the people ( praja pati ) of Brahmavarta (the Sarasvati-Drshadvati basin in

present Rajasthan) with the designation, Brahma, before his elevation to the post of Manu.

These ten personages represented different sections of the population and Manu

Svayambhuva recognised them as Prajapatis.

According to legends, Kashyapa, ‘son’ of Marici, married ‘thirteen’ daughters

of Daksha and procreated on them the different sectors of the macro-society. Inother words, he accepted all these thirteen sectors as eligible for all rights as living beings.

The twelve charismatic and generous guardians (isvaras) were known as Adityas.

According to Vaishampayana, Vishnu was the best among them. In other words, Vishnu was

not then honoured as the highest ‘God’. Dhata, Mitra, Varuna, Aryama, Sakra, Amsa,

Bhaga, Vivasvan, Pushan, Savita and Tvashta are counted as the other eleven Adityas (sons

of Aditi). This account does not grant Vasus, Maruts and Rudras a status equal to

these twelve administrators.



116 of 282

It recognises only Hiranyakasipu, father of Prahlada, as a Daitya (son of Diti and

Kashyapa). Prahlada had five younger brothers. Prahlada had three famous sons,

Virochana, Kumba and Nikumba. The mighty Bali was the son of Virochana. Bana knownalso as Mahakala was the son of Bali. Janamejaya must have known about all of them. They

belonged to the last decades of the long Vedic era. Vaishampayana did not use the terms,

Daityas and Asuras, indiscriminately. There were forty persons who were included in the

category of Daityas. Viprachitti, a heterodox scholar (and thinker) was the eldest and most

famous ruler among them. Sambara, Namuci and Puloma belonged to this category. Other

chronicles have treated them as Asuras. They have described the plutocrats (yakshas) as

Danavas. While tracing the different groups that are said to be descendants of Kashyapa by

his ‘thirteen’ wives, the chronicler refers to Sukra, a Bhargava, as a counsellor ( purohita)

of the ‘asuras’ . There were three other groups of cruel asuras.

The chronicler mentions six persons including Aruna and Garuda as the

offspring of Kashyapa by Vinata. Sesha, Ananta, Vasuki, Takshaka, Kurma and

Kulika, six nagas are enumerated as his offspring by Kradu. Vaishampayana

mentions the names of some devagandharvas (who were closer to the nobles and were

free intellectuals) born to Muni. This list includes, Narada. Another group of

devagandharvas who married the daughters of Prata is mentioned. The famous

gandharva, Visvavasu, was one of them.

Another wife of Kashyapa is said to have been the mother of some of the

famous apsarases, like Rambha, Alambusha and Tilottama. They had four brothers

including the two gandharvas, Haha and Huhu. The different social classes (varnas)

including Brahmans, and animals like cows and horses are all traced to the different wives

of Kashyapa. (Ch.66 Adiparva) This sage refused to treat any section of the population as

totally undesirable. Vaishampayana had referred to twelve officials as Adityas. In the

opening lines of Ch.67 eleven Rudras are mentioned. These include Pinaki (a Vira),

Sarpa, Kapali, Isvara, Bhaga and Sthanu. They may be treated as persons who

exercised charismatic influence over the population of the forests.Brhaspati, Utatya and Samvarta are said to have continued the tradition, that is, the

ideology outlined by Angirasa. Even as it is irrational to treat Kashyapa as the ‘son’ of Marici

and Marici as the ‘son’ of Brahma, it is unsound to treat these as the ‘sons’ of Angirasa.

There were many sages who were claimed to be followers of Atri. Addressing Janamejaya as

the best among the commoners (manushyasreshta), the chronicler told him that

Pulastya was a spokesman of the plutocrats (yakshas), their guards (rakshasas), free



117 of 282

men of the forests (vanaras), and the retinue and messengers of the plutocrats

(kinnaras).

The remark that sarapas (fish and other aquatic animals), kimpurushas (monkeys), lions, tigers, bears and wolves were the descendants of Pulaha only implied

that this sage was a spokesman of the people who had been outcast and were dependent on

these beings. The Valakhilyas , who were associated with ‘ surya’ , that is, were on the

move throughout the day and were adherents of satya (truth) and were tapasvis

(meditators) were followers of Kratu, as Vaishampayana told the king. The editors and

annotators of the later medieval times did not have a correct appraisal of the features of the

Vedic and even early post -Vedic social polity.

The kimpurushas who formed one of the vast mobile populations, social

universes, had leadership traits and their followers, kinnaras, were free men. It is

unsound to present the former as horses with human faces and the latter as men with faces

of horses. Like gandharvas and apsarases they were treated as social universes,

jagats. They had right to move across all lands, forests, moors and mountains.

They were all human beings. The more assertive and talented among the residents

of the forests (vanaras) were referred to as kimpurushas. The kinnaras were groups

of musicians and entertainers. Later eunuchs were called kinnaras.

We would pass by the interpolations that the editors and annotators of the later

medieval times have effected while enumerating the fifty ‘daughters’ of Prajapati Daksha.

The ten editors of the Manava Dharmasastra have been described as having been

daughters of Daksha. This powerful chief must have granted approval to the project

launched by Manu Svayambhuva who had earlier been his colleague and was in charge of

determining what provisions of law should be brought under social laws, dharma, and what

under civil laws, niyamas and yamas, do’s and don’ts. The official in charge of social

laws, Dharma, as a devata, had a status lower than that of the chief judge who

interpreted the socio-political constitution, Brahma or Atharvaveda. The latter had

the status of a noble, deva, and could not be proceeded against by the civil courtsor dharmasthas.

The twenty-seven stars in the Hindu almanac were said to be consorts of Chandra

(Soma, the sober chief of the intellectuals). They were all daughters of Daksha, according to

the chronicler. They represented the twenty-seven rules pertaining to worldly activities and

social progress (lokayatra). These rules of social economy were not to be adjudged

by rules of dharma. The officials in charge of social economy did not have coercive power

and they and traders in general were known as non-kshatras, nakshatras. They were



118 of 282

pragmatic while the latter were moralistic. The remaining thirteen daughters married

Kashyapa, according to this legend.

The agreement between Marici, the chairman of the ten-member board of editors ofthe social code, Manava Dharmasastra and Prajapati Daksha, the chief of the court of

magistrates who ensured adherence by all to the thirteen rules (yamas and niyamas) was

interpreted as the ‘marriage’ between Kashyapa, son of Marici, and thirteen daughters of

Daksha. The annotator explains that Brahma was superior to Dharma and also to

Daksha. In other words, the socio-political constitution incorporated in the Vedas,

particularly in Atharvaveda, was superior to Manava Dharmasastra and that the

latter drew sustenance from the former. Prajapati Daksha inspired the constitution

of an integrated macro-society bound by social laws (dharma) as well as rules of

economy (varta).

The chronicler told Janamejaya that Dharma recognised the eight Vasus, the

officials in charge of the open and common lands in the eight different directions

and their wealth. They were treated as the ‘sons’ of dharma, a devata. These eight

officials were dhara, dhruva, soma, ahas, anila, anala, pratyusha and prabhasa and

they had distinct roles, looking after the commoners of the agrarian plains, the rich of the

central capital, the sages and other denizens of the forests under Soma, the alert

administration under Surya, the people of the open space (akasa, vayu), the civil judge

and representative of the intelligentsia (agni ), the scorcher (the magistrate in charge of

penalising the violators of the prohibitions, yamas) and the guide and enlightener. These

were similar to the roles performed by the eight members of the ministry. The

chronicler traces also the names of the officials functioning under these Vasus. There are

other versions that refer to the eight officials as Adityas.

The chronicler refers to officials who were subordinate to these eight Vasus as their

‘sons’ . One of them, Kumara (Karthikeya, brought up by six Krithika sisters) is described

as the son of ‘ Agni’ (anala). The sage, Devala, is claimed to be the son of ‘Pratyusha’ .

He must have been a severe puritan. But his ‘sons’ were known for their patience.Visvakarma, the sculptor and architect of the universe, was working for the nobles. He is

said to be the son of Prabhasa and nephew of Brhaspati . The commoners too revere him.

According to Vaishampayana, the personages who had the status of nobles

(devas) were thirty-three in number, eight Vasus, eleven Rudras and twelve

Adityas, Praja pati and Vasat . During the post-Vedic decades, Maruts were not included

in the list of nobles (devas). They were treated as Daityas, as undesirable persons who

were born to Diti. Marici and Kashyapa were Maruts. Many later chroniclers objected to



119 of 282

Kashyapa’s view that asuras and devas, feudal lords and generous nobles should be

treated on par.

Vaishampayana held that Sakra (Indra) was the chief of the twelve Adityas.Vishnu was the youngest of them, that is, was the last to be admitted to this

group. He did not treat him as the highest God or as Virat or Purusha as some

other chroniclers have done. He clubbed together the Rudras, Saddhyas and Maruts

and Visvedevas with Vasus. He pointed out that Brhaspati and Aruna and Garuda

were treated as belonging to the Aditya group, that is, approved group of nobles.

This should have been a later development.

Usanas (Sukra) was included in the list of Vasus. In other words, socio-

political realignments led to the administration of the commonalty coming under

the principles of dandaniti outlined by Usanas. Brhaspati who in the Atharvan

polity spoke for the commonalty ( prthvi , manushyas) while Indra was the chief of

the house of nobles, was elevated and given a place in the administrative body set

up by the nobles as a guide ( purohita) of the nobles (devas). Brhaspati upheld varta

and also dandaniti , economic activities and political policy.

The new nobility kept both powers, economic and political in its hands. As

Brhaspati joined hands with Sakra Indra, Usanas (Sukra) who had been aligned

with asuras and rakshasas, feudal lords and militants, felt free to extend aid to the

Vasus to enforce strict penal laws over the commonalty. Vaishampayana asked the

king to recognise the asvinidevas and the medicinal herbs whose use they knew and the

(owners of) cattle as belonging to the ranks of yakshas. They were not to be treated as

belonging to the working classes. They were to be treated as contributing to the wealth of

the land.

The chronicler claims that Bhrgu was born from Brahma’s heart. In other words,

Bhrgu, the chief editor of Manava Dharmasastra , was a protégé of Manu Svayambhuva

who had held the position of Brahma , the chief of the people of Brahmavarta, before his

elevation to the newly created position of Manu, the Thinker. Sukra is treated as one of thenine ‘grahas’ (planets). He is often referred to as ‘Kavi’ (a great scholar and legislator) and

also as the son of ‘Kavi’ (that is, son of Bhrgu, the great legislator). As Kavi , Sukra

(Usanas) authored the civil and political code, Dandaniti . As Kavi , Bhrgu compiled

and edited the socio-cultural code, Manava Dharmasastra.

According to Vaishampayana, Sukra had been the teacher of nobles (devas) as well

as feudal lords (asuras). With Brhaspati recognised as a noble (deva) and a teacher of the

nobles (devas), Sukra’s influence was restricted to the asuras and rakshasas. As the later



120 of 282

lost power and were exiled or eliminated in battles, the civil and political laws

promulgated by Sukra were incorporated in the Manava Dharmasastra. They were

made applicable to the new commonalty composed of the four classes. These lawswere intended to benefit the social world (loka) of commoners and ensure their

welfare. This development took place during the pre-Janamejaya decades.

Vaishampayana traced that the famous sage Chyavana was the son of Bhrgu by

Pulomi and the highly influential sage, Aurva, was the ‘son’ of Chyavana. Jamadagni was

the son of Rchika who was a son of Aurva. Parasurama was the youngest of the four sons of

Jamadagni but in talents was the best of them. He was an expert in martial arts and was

noted for having destroyed the Kshatriyas. Jamadagni was one of the hundred disciples of

Aurva. These disciples and their many followers were the most numerous among the

commonalty (bhumi ).

Besides Bhrgu, ‘Brahma’ had two other ‘godsons’, who were known in the world as

dhata and vidhata. In other words, the socio-political constitution, Brahma, was in favour

of those persons who were benevolent and protective. These two characteristics,

benefiting a particular individual and spreading the benefits among all, were what

Manu Svayambhuva had developed. They were expected of the nobles (devas)

who governed the commonalty (manushyas).

Janamejaya was eager to learn a dependable account of the traits of the various

sectors of the larger society. The chronicler told him that Lakshmi was viewed to be the

daughter of Brahma. It was a period when the concept of Brahma as the creator, Vishnu as

the protector and Siva as the destroyer had not yet been postulated. Brahma was viewed

as knowledge incarnate and Lakshmi as wealth incarnate. The horses of the sun, Surya,

were described as the offspring of Lakshmi. Later chronicles have added that she had an

elder sister, Jyeshtadevi . The feudal lords, asuras , claimed that they were elder ( jyeshta)

to the liberal nobles.

This lady was an adherent of the asura culture that had been promoted by

Sukra (Usanas). She was presented as the ‘daughter’ of Sukra and wife of Varuna.Varuna, a Vedic official who took into bondage those who had failed to perform

their duties especially to the elders was presented as an asura. The chronicler said

that Bala was her son and Sura was her daughter. In other words, the Vedic official,

Varuna and Sukra (Usanas) who upheld the validity of asura culture treated

pursuit of might as the orientation of the asuras and pursuit of pleasure

emanating from possession of wealth ( sura) as the orientation that the nobles had

developed.



121 of 282

As the native people ( jana) felt hungry and ate one another, adharma was

born to Sura. In other words, the people of Janasthana, which was ruled by the mighty

feudal warlord (asura), Bali, who was guided by Sukra, had neither power nor wealth. Poverty led them to ‘eat one another’ (in accordance with matsyanyaya, the larger fish

eating the smaller and growing further) resulting in the collapse of law and order and

spread of adharma, illegal and unjust acts. The annotator finds fault with the vesting

of the control over the treasury ( sura) in the nobles (devas) for the commoners

indulging in a mad struggle for survival and every one of them resorting to unjust

and illegal ways (adharma) to meet his needs. The emergence of the rebel militants

(rakshasas) is attributed to the spread of adharma. Fear (bhaya), horror (mahabhaya)

and insentience (mrtyu, death in common parlance) are the result of adharma , the king is

briefed. There is nothing beyond mrtyu, that is, a society in the clutches of injustice

meets finally with its doom and cannot return to law and order.

We would bypass the account of the origin of the different species of birds and

animals as it is irrelevant and cannot stand the test of reason and logic. Janamejaya was

eager to know in detail about the nobles (devas), feudal lords (asuras), free intellectuals

(gandharvas), technocrats (nagas), militant rebels (rakshasas) and great personages

(mahatmas) among the commoners (manushyas) of the earlier times. Vaishampayana

said that he would first recount the careers of the nobles and feudal lords who

‘were born’ amongst the commoners.

Viprachitti, a prominent feudal lord and member of the counter-intelligentsia, who

misled the people on the social periphery, after having been deprived of his lands and

exiled, resurfaced amongst the commoners as King (Ra ja) Jarasamdha. [Krshna accused

him of setting up Vasudevaka and Bhishmaka as rivals to him and Bhishma and propagated

distorted versions of their teachings on social polity.] Hiranyakasipu (who is said to have

been killed by Narasimha) was an atheist who opposed the Narayana cult propagated

by Narada. According to Vaishampayana this feudal lord, Hiranyakasipu (a daitya,

‘son’ of ‘Diti’, and father of Prahlada) after having been deposed resurfaced as Sisupala. It is not sound to hold that Vaishampayana was only comparing Jarasamdha and

Sisupala who were enemies of Krshna with Vipracitti and Hiranyakasipu. The chronicler

implied that the orientations that the two warlords represented had not ceased to

be influential with the easing out of the two. Those orientations and

authoritarianism were followed by many other powerful rulers among whom

Jarasamdha and Sisupala were prominent persons who had to be thrown out.



122 of 282

Prahlada was a popular ruler and was honoured for his impeccable character and

conduct. But his brothers were not all so. Two of them, Samhlada and Anuhlada after

severe chastisement emerged as Salya of Vahika and Drshtaketu, rulers against whomthere were no complaints. [The sage, Agastya killed another brother, Hlada, an

elephanteer,] Vaishampayana pointed out to Janamejaya that the rulers of many states of

the earlier decades had the traits of feudal lords, asuras, and that they had undergone a

change in their outlook and traits and become gentle and acceptable to the people. Some of

the highly revered rulers (ra jasreshtas) of Kekaya had earlier been feudal lords (asuras).

Ugrasena too was earlier an aggressive and ferocious feudal warlord. The invincible

ruler, Asoka was earlier Asva, a rich feudal lord (asurasreshta). Asva’s brother,

Asvapati (commander of a cavalry unit) emerged as Hartika, a rich social leader

( purushasreshta). [Asoka and Asvapati must have been associated with the Kekayas

who were known for their Gandharva orientations. Asoka referred to here was a warlord

who had later opted to follow social welfare methods to alleviate the sufferings of the poor

and the sick. This might be also a reference to one of the eight ministers of Dasaratha who

is seen to have had a soft corner for Kaikeyi and her son, Bharata.] Vrshaparva, a

wealthy asura ruler (and a student of Sukra) later became a king who was deeply

aware of people’s wishes and needs and met them and was known as

‘Dirgaprajna’ . His brother too after giving up authoritarian ways became a constitutional

king, ra ja.

Vaishampayana noted that the famous ruler, Brhadratha, was earlier a feudal

warlord (asura). Ekachakra, a famous rich asura chieftain of the forests the and social

periphery (asurasreshta) became popular among the commoners (bhumi ) as

‘Prativindhya’. He might have been a counter to Bali, the asura warlord of the Vindhyas.

Not all asura warlords acted against the rules of war. ‘Hara’ who captured many enemies

treated them well and was praised as ‘uttama asura’ , a noble warlord. He was satisfied

with collecting ransom and became Subahu, a generous and wealthy king.

The ruler of Bahlika was keen on reinstating the enemies and getting rid oftheir enmity for him and was known as ‘ahara’. Janamejaya and other members of

the audience were asked to discard the stereotypes that they had been fed on

about the asuras. Another ‘uttama asura’ (good warlord) had a calm and pleasant face

(like the moon) and was known as ‘nicandra’ . He later became a famous and wealthy ruler

and was called ‘Munjakesa’ , one who was almost bald. Nikumba who was never defeated

in battles and who was an intellectual gave up his asura orientation and was known among

the commoners (bhumi ) as a plutocratic king (ra jasreshta) who ranked superior to the



123 of 282

nobles (devas) and governed the nobility also. But most of the kings who held sway over

the commoners belonged to the cadre of feudal chieftains (asuras).

The great asura, Saraba, later became Ra jarshi Paurava. Parvateya and Rishikawho too were Rajarshis had earlier been feudal chieftains (asuras). Rishika was a

Rajasreshta , a highly respected king who functioned also as a Ra jarshi . It is likely that

this overlord was not duly anointed as a Ra jarshi which post required that the ruler should

have surrendered all his personal wealth to the state treasury. Though Rishika conducted

himself like a sage, Rshi , he fell short of the expectations and was but a Rishika.

Vaishampayana was constantly aware that his host, Janamejaya, did not function under the

Ra jarshi constitution, which envisaged a sober intellectual as a ruler, guide and

philosopher. Janamejaya was a king who had risen from the ranks of plutocrats, a

rajasreshta.

The chronicler notes that such transformation of despised and dreaded feudal

warlords (asuras) into rulers (ra jans) (heads of states functioning under the provisions of

dandaniti advocated by Usanas and other scholars) had taken place in all areas of the

subcontinent. Even Vrtra, the powerful warlord, asura, who was declared fit to be

exterminated, was said to have survived and become Ra jarshi Maniman. Vrtra’s

brother became a king (ra ja) who governed the commoners (bhumi ) on the basis of the

provisions of Dandaniti . (Vrtra was indeed a Gandharva chieftain who functioned like a

warlord, asura, engaged in a campaign against hedonism.] This account requires us to

adopt a rational approach to the issue of an eternal conflict between cruel feudal

warlords (asuras) and liberal cultural aristocrats (devas) and accept the

possibility of the former turning into good rulers.

Some other asuras too agreed to function as rulers (ra jas) upholding the

rules and laws prescribed in Dandaniti . The Kaleyas were dreaded warlords who let

loose death and destruction. But eight of them underwent reformation and emerged as

kings (Ra jas) functioning under prescribed codes and even as Ra jarshis. One of them ,

Samudrasena, who ruled an island surrounded by the ocean, later followed the codes ofdharma and artha, rigorously. Another Kaleya became the ruler of nishadas , a section of

the commoners (bhumi ). The chronicler recounts the names of many kings who had earlier

been notorious for their rage and cruelty.

Kamsa (Krshna’s uncle and son of Ugrasena) was earlier known as Kalanemi. He

was a highly powerful and famous and wealthy warlord (asura). But some of the feudal

chieftains were liberal like the nobles and had the status only of devaka , a rank

lower to devas. These devakas were like gandharva chieftains who had access to the



124 of 282

commonalty (bhumi ). Vaishampayana seems to treat Ugrasena as a devaka closer to the

intellectuals that gandharvas were. Ugrasena’s son, Kamsa, had asura orientation

but his daughter, Devaki, (mother of Krshna) had the orientation of a freeintellectual, a gandharva. The chronicler then dwells on the traits and roles of some

gandharva chieftains who ranked superior to commoners (manushyas) but were not

equal to the nobles (devas). The aristocrats (devas) tended to remain away from the

commonalty (manushyas) but the devakas mingled among the latter.

Drona was born to Bharadvaja who was successor to Angirasa Brhaspati

who as devarshi had the status of a sage (rshi ) and was entitled to mingle with

and counsel the nobles (devas). Vaishampayana would treat Bharadva ja as one

following the gandharva ways of procreating sons on gandharva or apsara women

and leaving them to grow up on their own. Drona became a famous and mighty archer.

He had studied the Vedas and was an expert in martial arts. Drona’s lineage did not end

with him. His son, Asvattama, was noted for his valour and might and was a terror to his

opponents. The chronicler says that Asvattama was the product of Siva and Yama, of lust

and rage. [Some later annotators who were devotees of Vishnu left no opportunity to fault

Siva.] But Asvattama lived as an excellent commoner. [Like Parasurama, Krpa and

Badarayana, he was a member of the council of seven sages during the tenure of Manu

Savarni. Vaishampayana does not claim that they ‘lived forever’.]

The chronicler then deals with the lineage of Santanu. He must have borne in mind

that Santanu (one with a healing touch) had brought up Krpa and his twin-sister, Krpi, who

had been abandoned by their father an archer and gandharva. Asvattama was born to

Drona and Krpi. They were duly married and Drona brought him up in his own vocation. The

chronicler says that Bhishma was born to Ganga (an apsaras and daughter of Bhagiratha)

after her first seven children, vasus, had been thrown into the ‘river’ as the sage, Vasishta,

had ‘cursed’ them. These eight vasus who might have been born of unsanctified sex

with rich persons were however functioning under the directions of Indra, the

head of the house of nobles.According to the legends these eight children were born to Santanu and Ganga. The

youngest of these Vasus, Bhishma, gave asylum to the Kauravas. He was a great scholar

and intellectual and destroyer of enemies. Bhishma was born to Santanu while the others

were not, the chronicler implies. This great warrior and expert in martial arts had fought

against the great personage, Parasurama (who too was an expert in them). Bhishma was a

Vasu but Vasishta, who patronised the Vasu group of nobles refused to recognise the sons

of Ganga. Krpa, a Brahmarshi (a sage who was entitled to interpret and implement the



125 of 282

provisions of the socio-political constitution, Brahma) belonged to the Rudra group of

nobles, that is, was patronised by the Rudras who unlike the Vasus had withdrawn to the

forests. Krpa however stayed in the plains (bhumi ) and looked after the interests of thecommoners.

It would appear that Sakuni who was a great commander in the world of commoners

had no significant previous career. He was born about sixty years before Parikshit died (that

is when the dvapara yuga began). [It is said that Kaliyuga began with the death of

Parikshit.] Satyaki, a pious man who stood by the laws based on truth ( satya) and

was a prominent leader of the clan of Vrshnis (to which Krshna belonged) was

earlier one of the seven Maruts. Vasus , Rudras , Maruts and Adityas were four groups

of traditional nobles (devas). Vrshnis were a branch of Vasus.

Drupada who was the best among the commoners (manushyas) wielding

weapons and who had the status of a Rajarshi earlier belonged to the aristocratic

cadre of Maruts. Like Satyaki and Drupada, Krtavarma (a great Kshatriya warrior

who had the status of a king, raja) also had belonged to the cadre of Maruts. It

may be noted that the Vasus merged in the class of landlords while the Maruts in the class

of Kshatriyas. The king (raja) of Virata too was earlier one of the seven Maruts.

Dhrtarashtra, ‘son’ of Krshna Dvaipayana, before his elevation as the king

(ra ja) of the Kauravas, had the status of a Gandharva king (ra ja) and was known

as Hamsa, son of Arishta. Was he introduced so to the princess of Gandhara before

his marriage with her? This intelligent and powerful ruler was born blind because of the

fault of his mother (in resorting to niyoga). But his handsome brother, Pandu, a great

warrior, was earlier a Marut .

Vaishampayana told the king, Janamejaya, that Vidura, the best among the wise and

who was rich and also had noble sons was the son of Vyasa who had been born to the Vedic

official in charge of Dharma. Did Satyavati have sex with a noble who was in charge

of Dharma even as Kunti did (with Surya) before giving birth to Yudhishtira? Was

her son, Vyasa refused the status of a noble (deva) and required to function as acommoner?

The chronicler describes Duryodhana as an incarnation of the evil personage,

kalipurusha who brought disrepute to the Kauravas and destruction to the commoners

(bhumi ) and as one who deserves being condemned by all social worlds (lokas). He

instigated the feud that destroyed also all living beings ( pranis) (at the bare subsistence

level). The chronicler describes Duhsasana, Durmukha and others who supported

Duryodhana as rakshasas , undisciplined militants. Yuyutsu was born to Dhrtarashtra by a



126 of 282

Vaisya woman. He ranked next to Duryodhana but was not a member of the oligarchy of

one hundred Kauravas who were all educated and well-trained in warfare.

Duryodhana had a sister, Duhsala whom Dhrtarashtra gave in marriage as a virgin toJayadratha, ruler of Sindhu, as desired by Gandhari. Among those who had married in

accordance with the gandharva system (as Dhrtarashtra and Gandhari did) the mother had

an important voice in selecting the groom for her daughter if the latter had not yet attained

the age of consent.

Vaishampayana told the king that Yudhishtira was born to Dharma (who had the

status of a devata), Bhimasena to Vayu and Arjuna to Indra. Dharma, Vayu and Indra

were officials of the state in the Vedic polity looking after justice and ethics, the population

of the open areas and the treasury and also army. They were members of the cadre of

nobles. The handsome and compassionate brothers, Nakula and Sahadeva were born to

Asvinidevas who were closer to the commonalty (bhumi ) and looked after agriculture and

medicinal herbs.

Arjuna’s famous son, Abhimanyu, received training under Soma, the sober

intellectual and head of the frontier society of forests and mountains in the Vedic

social polity. Abhimanyu was in the forest during his formative years as the Pandavas

were under exile then. What Soma had forecast about him when he was born should not be

rejected as fiction. It was a considered comment of the later annotator. Soma directed the

nobles not to engage Abhimanyu in the mission to kill the feudal lords of the earth (bhumi ),

that is, those chieftains whose conduct resembled that of the feudal lords and who had

mingled among the commonalty.

It was the task of the nobles (devas) to crush their rivals, the feudal lords

(asuras). The kshatriyas of the commonalty (bhumi ) however were required to

fight against the rebel militants, rakshasas. Abhimanyu who was recognised as having

the qualifications and eligibility (varchas) to battle against the feudal lords would not

survive long in this world, bhumi , his teacher and grandfather, Soma, feared. Did

Subhadra’s father have the status of Soma , head of the intellectuals stationed in the forest?The annotator while dealing with Soma’s ‘prophecy’ and warning compared Arjuna and

Krshna to the two great sages, Nara and his associate, Narayana. In Soma’s view, the

Pandavas and some of their allies had the traits of nobles. They would in battle kill

the warriors who belonged to the cadre of viras. The warriors who were not approved as

kshatriyas and were not members of the standing army were placed in the category,

viras. They were drawn mostly from the populace of the forest.



127 of 282

Abhimanyu was not assigned this task. Abhimanyu who became a great warrior

‘lived’ only for sixteen years and had within half a day destroyed one-fourth of the army of

the asuras when Arjuna and Krshna were not on the battlefield. Abhimanyu’s ‘death’ ispresented as a reunion between him and Soma. Did the chronicler only mean that

Abhimanyu who had descended from Soma would reunite with him as a ‘ pitr’ , the soul of

the departed ancestor? Or did Abhimanyu not fall in the battle? Did he return to his school

in the forest after completing his mission in the commonalty? A rigorous rational approach

leads to several myths being exploded. This is not wanton iconoclasm. Abhimanyu was a

great warrior but his mission was limited.

Soma who had consented to depute him to take part in the battle of Kurukshetra on

behalf of the third social world of forests and mountains, which he represented,

acknowledged that ridding the commonalty (bhumi ) of the feudal lords (asuras) was not

the task of only the nobles. All the three social worlds (nobility, commonalty and forest

society, divam, bhumi and antariksham) were committed to this mission. Soma had

however offered the services of Abhimanyu only for a limited purpose and for a short

duration. Soma (moon) was claimed to be the ancestor of the Kauravas and the Pandavas

and other chieftains who took part in that battle. The rulers belonging to the solar (Surya,

Vivasvan) lineage did not take part in this battle. The prophecy also declares that

Abhimanyu would procreate a son who would continue his lunar lineage and re-establish the

destroyed Bharata lineage. There is no suggestion here that Parikshit was

Abhimanyu’s posthumous son by Uttara.

The chronicler takes care to point out to Janamejaya that he had recounted only the

birth, that is, the purpose behind the birth of his ‘father’s father’, Abhimanyu. Parikshit,

governor of Uttarakuru, was the only surviving son of Kuru. He was selected as the king

when the claim of the Pandavas to the throne of Hastinapura after the battle was not

upheld. Parikshit had not participated in that battle. Janamejaya, a stepbrother of Bharata,

took over the rule on Parikshit’s death. For purposes of public consumption, Parikshit

was declared to be the ‘son’ of Abhimanyu and Janamejaya the ‘son’ of Parikshit.Neither was a descendant of the Pandavas.

Dhrshtadyumna (son of Drupada and brother of Draupadi) was patronised by an

official, Agni , who looked after the interests of the commonalty and functioned as

the civil judge in the Atharvan polity. He might have claimed to be playing a similar role

(when he acted as a ‘spy’). His brother, Sikhandi turned a militant (rakshasa) when he was

in his boyhood teased that he was but a girl. [Bhishma might have been convinced that he



128 of 282

was indeed a ‘girl’.] Dhrshtadyumna, Sikhandi and their sister, Draupadi were products of

the apsara culture that the Panchalas followed.

Some Visvedevas who were indeed members of the upper crust of thecommonalty but were later treated as equal to nobles, devas, and formed the

electoral college for selection of nobles, must have sired the five sons of Draupadi.

This would have been in tune with the apsara culture of Panchala. The later annotator tried

to find a rationale for this act of Draupadi and a similar one of Kunti.

Prtha was the sister of a Vasudeva whose father was a rich and brave

Yadava chieftain. [Prtha was called so as she was a protégé of Prthu who ruled the agro-

pastoral plains, Prthvi , and was an agrarian ruler.] Her father gave her in marriage to

Kuntibhoja, a son of his cousin. Her sons would inherit the wealth and lands of

that Bhoja (a native landlord). When she was yet at her father’s house, that is,

before she got married to Pandu, she learnt from Durvasa, a Brahman sage, how

to bear sons by nobles (devas) of her choice.

The girl, curious to test the efficacy of the ‘mantra’ , invoked Surya and

became pregnant by that official. Thus Karna was born to Prtha (Kunti) by pre-

marital sex. Fearing the wrath of her brothers, she left the babe floating in a river

and a charioteer (a suta and husband of Radha) brought him up as his ‘son’. He was

named after Vasushena, a famous leader. [Vishnu is known as Vasushena.] He became

a master of martial arts. He learnt Vedangas, the ancillaries to the Vedas, though he was

not entitled to learn the Vedas proper as he was not eligible for membership of the first

three classes, varnas. This is a later attempt to establish that Karna was not denied access

to formal schools.

The chronicler says that when Karna was engaged in mastering the formulae

(performing japa) he had nothing that should not be given to Brahman teachers. Indra

approached him in the guise of a Brahman and asked him for his earrings, which

served him as shield, and Karna parted with them. (Vasushena was called Karna after

this incident.) In return Indra gave him a powerful weapon that could kill any onewho was a noble (deva) or a feudal lord (asura) or a commoner (manushya) or a

free intellectual (gandharva) or a technocrat (naga) or a militant (rakshasa).

Addressing Janamejaya as Rajasreshta, a rich king (a plutocratic king), the chronicler

extolled Karna too as a rajasreshta (a rich king who could give away all the wealth he

had). The great warrior who was the son of a general (Surya) and was brought up in the

house of a charioteer ( suta) became a counsellor and friend of Duryodhana.



129 of 282

The later chronicler says that Krshna, son of Vasudeva, had the traits of Narayana,

who was a noble (deva) superior to all nobles (devas) and who is ‘eternal’ and that his

brother, Balarama, who was highly valorous among the commoners (manushyas) those ofAdisesha, a naga (a technocrat). Janamejaya is asked to recognise in Pradyumna, a

brilliant intellectual, the orientations that Sanatkumara had propagated. The

chronicler then describes the prominent ladies of those times, like Rukmini (wife of Krshna

and daughter of King Bhishmaka), Gandhari, Kunti and Madri as having followed the

orientations of the apsarases. Some of the powerful rulers on the earth were born in the

lineage of Yadu, he says.

10

DUSHYANTA, SAKUNTALA AND BHARATA

Janamejaya asked the chronicler, Vaishampayana, to tell him in a chronological order

the careers of Puru, son of Yayati, and his successors who ran the administration in tune

with the principles of dharma. Yayati belonged to the period of transition from the

puritanical laws based on truth, satya, to the liberal laws based on dharma. The

transition was over by the end of the Vedic era. Janamejaya wanted the senior

member of the constitution bench (the Brahmanasreshta) to explain how Bharata became

king (bypassing the former who too was a son of Dushyanta).

According to Vaishampayana, Puru, a rich and eminent king (rajasreshta)

governed the state (rajya) as an overlord (adipatya) on the same lines of dharma



130 of 282

as his father, Yayati, did. He exercised military powers equal to Indra. Puru had

three sons of whom Pravira, a great warrior later expanded his kingdom. Isvara and

Raudrasva were the other two sons of Puru according to this account. Pravira’s son,Manasyu with his three generals (sons) brought the entire country surrounded by seas on

all the ‘four’ sides under his control.

Raudrasva was a gandharva warrior attached to the cadre of nobles known

as Rudras. He had several sons by an apsaras. Contact with the Rudras seems to have

made them be particular in performing sacrifices and get educated through hearing sermons

and also master archery. The Rudras gave importance to ways of life based on the

principles of dharma. They were not after wealth and pleasure. Raudrasva might not have

been the same as Puru’s son.

Among the many sons of Raudrasva, Anadrshti became the sole king of the

commonalty (bhumi ) and exercised powers equal to what Indra exercised over the

nobles (devas). He was a scholar and also a powerful ruler. His son, Matinara, performed

Ra jasuya and Asvamedha sacrifices and secured immense authority over the vassals. He

functioned within the provisions of the code based on the principles of dharma. Tamsu,

‘son’ of Matinara, conquered several regions. Dushyanta was a son of Ilila, a son of Tamsu.

Janamejaya was Dushyanta’s son by Lakshi. Bharata was born to Dushyanta by

Sakuntala, the chronicler said. The greatness of the Bharatas was because of him.

According to this chronology, Nahusha, Yayati, Puru, Pravira and Manasyu ran the Puru line.

Raudrasva, Anadrshti, Matinara, Tamsu, Ilila and Dushyanta preceded Bharata.

Tamsu must have been a Druhyu and a contemporary of Puru and

Dushyanta a contemporary of Manasyu. It is not sound to presume that each of these

rulers exercised power for several decades and that each of them was the natural son of his

predecessor. Most of them were prominent members of the oligarchy that took over power

after the exit of the predecessor. (Ch. 88 Adiparva)

Janamejaya told the head (bhagavan) of the academy of jurists and intellectuals

that he wanted to hear in detail about the birth and achievements of Bharata whom hedeemed to be a great personage (mahatma). Then Vaishampayana, addressing him as a

prominent leader of the Bharatas, began to dilate on the achievements of Dushyanta who

he said continued the lineage of the Pauravas. Dushyanta, grandson of a Drhyu was at

first the protector (rakshaka) of an island surrounded by all sea on all four sides.

It may be recalled that Yayati had despatched Drhyu to distant islands angered by his

refusal to oblige his father by exchanging Yayati’s age for his youth.



131 of 282

Dushyanta emerged as a conqueror of numerous islands located amidst rich

coral reefs and also all the areas whose native population had accepted the

scheme of four classes (varnas). Of course his conquests ended on the borders beyondwhich the aliens (mlecchas) lived. All the regions (desas), which had been divided into four

zones, mountains, forests, moors and plains, came under his suzerainty. When Dushyanta

was king none transgressed the code of classes (varnas). His was a plutocratic

state, which did not permit any one to till the lands or operate mines

independently. All the wealth of the land belonged to the state. The chronicler says

that there was no sinner in his country. It was a rich and tough state.

Addressing Janamejaya as purushasreshta , a rich social leader of the plutocratic

society, Vaishampayana said that when Dushyanta was the king of the different provinces

(desas) the commoners (manushyas) followed the code based on dharma which

permitted methods of earning both socio-cultural benefits (dharma) and economic (artha)

gains. Unlike the people of the forests and mountains and the moors, (where tilling of lands

and mining without the permission of the state were banned and which were outside

agriculture), the commonalty of the plains was not brought under state control. It was

governed by the code of dharma even on matters pertaining to economic

activities. [The chronicler said that when Dushyanta ruled the country there was no fear of

thieves or of starvation and disease. Of course this was the usual way of eulogising a king.]

All the classes (varnas) obeyed the king and were satisfied in performing their duties as

prescribed in the code without depending on the nobles (devas). The nobility had no

control over the commonalty which was directly under the king.

Vaishampayana implied that this plutocrat-king banned cultivation and private

mining in non-agricultural areas and exercised strict control over those areas. Their

population had been brought under the scheme of four varnas. Both socio-cultural

(dharma) and politico-economic (artha) codes were made applicable to those areas

where entrepreneurs functioning with the permission of the king could become

rich but not be owners of lands. The population of the agricultural plains too hadbeen classified but they were autonomous and were governed by the codes of

dharma. Dushyanta and the commonalty did not enjoy the support of the aristocracy. He

ignored them and they too ignored him and his people. Dushyanta’s was not an

integrated society.

The plutocrats who had precious stones at their disposal could purchase the surplus

of the agricultural produce from the commoners of the plains and were governed by codes

different from those prevailing in the agrarian society of the plains. The pastoral society



132 of 282

of the moors was under the jurisdiction of the commercial society of the plutocrats

and the miners who were engaged by them. The aristocrats were isolated thereby.

Agriculture was dependent on rains. Industry had not developed and hence waters of riverscould not be harnessed through dams.

The Brahmans, the jurists and teachers, were particular in fulfilling their

duties (dharma). They followed the code based on truth ( satya). Vaishampayana

implied that though the commonalty and the other society of the plutocrats and

proletariat followed the dharma codes and the social universes, which were not

organised as settled communities followed the codes based on laws of nature, rta,

the judiciary was tuned to the puritanical laws based on truth, satya.

In short, in the plutocratic state of Dushyanta, a Drhyu, agrarian economy was

governed by dharma code while the pastoral economy, and industrial economy and trade

were governed by both dharma and artha codes. There was a vast population which had

no homes and no vocations and was governed by the laws of nature, rta, leading to intense

struggle for existence and survival of the fittest. But the judiciary was puritanical and

invoked economic and social laws based on truth ( satya).

Young, handsome, valiant and strong Dushyanta had mastered all martial arts. He

was equal to Vishnu in strength and to Surya (Vivasvan) in brightness (tejas). He was

however not compared with Sakra Indra and Manu Vaivasvata the two other great

personages of the last decades of the Vedic era. But the chronicler would contrast him with

Sagara (his contemporary) in whom there were some undesirable traits. He compared

Dushyanta with the earth (bhumi ) in patience. Summing up Dushyanta’s governance

Vaishampayana said that he kept the native peoples ( jana) of both the town ( pura)

and the country (rashtra) happy. The concept of paura- janapada had come to stay.

(Ch.89 Adiparva)

Janamejaya told the head (bhagavan) of the academy who knew the principles of

social philosophy and was an outstanding intellectual that he was eager to hear in detail the

biography of Bharata who was lauded for his great intellect and about the birth ofSakuntala. He wanted to know how the warrior and prominent social leader

( purushasreshta) of the other economic society obtained her. We would not attend to

hyperboles and romanticism that have marked all narrations about the relationship between

Dushyanta and Sakuntala.

Dushyanta accompanied by a huge contingent of troops left the town for the forest

on his hunting expedition. He looked like an Indra who could stop the elephants of the

army of the enemy. The hordes of the enemy did not dare to stand against this prominent



133 of 282

plutocratic leader ( purushareshta) who like the Vasus, a cadre of nobles, was an expert in

unarmed duels. Vaishampayana implied that like Indra, Dushyanta controlled both the

treasury and the army. He was however essentially a Vasu, rich landlord, and was nottrained in arms. His was an economic state and not a military state and his untrained

troops had to depend on their physical strength and wrestling to overcome their opponents.

On his way he was received and extolled by the jurists and scholars of the frontier

society, brahmanasreshtas. When the king who was equal to Indra left the town on an

elephant, the people of the city ( pura) and the country (desa) who had been classified as

Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and Shudras, followed him for some distance. Then he

switched to a chariot whose speed and sound rattled the commoners of the plains ( bhumi )

and the nobles who lived in their towns on hilltops ( svarga) and went with his men to a

wildlife sanctuary in the uninhabited desert for hunting. They hunted deer and wild animals

until they were exhausted. The elephants of the forest crushed many of the hunters drawn

from the commonalty. Of course the king had the privilege to kill the lions with his arrows.

(Ch.90 Adiparva)

After hunting several animals, along with his troops and vehicles Dushyanta reached

a grove located a few miles away from the town. It had been assigned for scholars

especially in herbs ( siddhas) and scouts (charanas). Dushyanta bypassed that grove

and entered another while chasing a deer. After resting for a while in a dilapidated building

near that grove the archer went ahead and entered a huge and pleasant grove with many

tall abodes and beautiful gardens. Groups of siddhas, charanas, gandharvas,

apsarases, kimpurushas and kinnaras were spread over all the vast area of that

large garden. These were social universes ( jagats) whose members were constantly on

the move. They lived happily as individuals and were not organised as clans (kulas) and

settled communities ( jatis) but they had their specific orientations. They had no place in

towns and villages though they could enter them at will.

While moving about in that grove admiring their happy movements Dushyanta saw

an abode lit with the flames of its sacred fire, agnihotra. Dushyanta who was alreadymarried and had a queen (ra jalakshmi ) entered that abode of yatis and valakhilyas

who were celibates since birth, (individual) sages (rshis) and groups of sages.

Yatis though they were grhasthas, householders, did not take part in nor were interested

in worldly gains. Valakhilyas were scientists and technocrats rather than philosophers. To

the sages the king’s visit to their abode (asrama) on the banks of Malini was an honour.

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya (who had conducted the infamous sarpayajna)

that the rich and valiant king, Dushyanta, saw the abode of Kanva on the naturally beautiful



134 of 282

banks of that river frequented by wild animals and great ‘ sarpas’ . These animals and

‘ sarpas’ felt secure and were not a threat to one another. The forest abode of Kanva on

the banks of Malini looked like that of the two sages, Nara and Narayana locatedon the banks of Ganga. Dushyanta (a plutocrat by orientation) entered the grove and

garden, which was rich like that of Chaitraratha, a Kubera, the plutocrat (yaksha) who

exercised jurisdiction over the rich resources of the forests and mountains.

Dushyanta left behind his troops outside the grove telling them that he was

proceeding to visit the sage Kanva who was shining brilliantly with his knowledge of

Brahma and who had no trait of aggressiveness, rajas. Kanva was born in the Kashyapa

gotra (that is, shared the orientations that marked Kashyapa’s societal approach). He had

given up his wealth and traits of a king (ra jan) and through his wealth of endeavour

(tapas) become a scholar-cum-jurist (brahma). Kanva was Dushyanta’s uncle.

Dushyanta was a king who for the commoners (manushyas) of the plains had the status of

a charismatic and benevolent chief, Isvara. Normally the Isvaras had their seats in the

forests and in forts near the towns and villages and were held in esteem by the

population on the social periphery.

The rules of the abode of the sage required that no one should enter it with arms

and in the paraphernalia of the king. Dushyanta left his crown and weapons outside and

accompanied by his political guides ( purohitas) and ministers entered the abode, which

looked like the high academy of the intellectuals and jurists, Brahmaloka. Dushyanta, an

eminent social leader ( purushasreshta) witnessed the sacrifices performed there and

listened to the Rgvedic hymns recited. Kanva was one of the major contributors to

the Rgvedic anthology. The later annotator adds that he listened to the other Vedas and

its ancillaries too. Experts in Atharva Veda were prominent among the sages

present. The experts in Samaveda were offering sacrifices (yajna) to the discrete

individuals (bhutas) of the social periphery where the asrama was located.

The later annotator says that the sages were experts in different sciences

like etymology, phonetics, abstract reasoning (nyaya), knowledge of the self, principles ofsocial laws (mimamsa), statements of different types, exemptions and special connotations

(vaiseshika), the code pertaining to the fourth stage of life (mokshadharma), wrangling

and establishing indisputable final positions ( siddhanta), grammar, prosody etc. Some of

these fields of study were developed only during the early post-Vedic era.

The annotator notes that the academy had experts in astronomy, economy (artha)

and economic activities and their traits, languages of birds and men of the forests. There

were scholars who based their stands on descriptive works (epics and sagas) and others



135 of 282

who were experts in social control (lokayata). The later annotator says that the

Rajasreshta, a plutocratic king witnessing the ‘temple worship’ conducted by Brahmans

felt as though he was in Brahmaloka. To be precise, the scholars were engaged insanctifying the hall meant for the nobles (devas). The judges who were intellectuals had

high regard for the aristocrats. According to the chronicler, Kashyapa had recommended

this arrangement by which the nobles were present and were honoured when the

scholars conducted their proceedings. (Ch.91 Adiparva)

Dushyanta then entered alone Kanva’s thatched hut but was annoyed to note that

the sage was not present there. He was however received in a befitting manner by a young

girl who was dressed like a sage (rshi ). She asked him his purpose in visiting the holy

abode of the great sage (maharshi , who was also a legislator). Dushyanta was impressed

by the flawless and beautiful girl, who received him with honour. Dushyanta introduced

himself as the son of the famous Ra jarshi , Ilila. He declared that he had come to pay his

respects to the highly experienced maharshi , Kanva and asked her where that head

(bhagavan) of the academy had gone. Sakuntala told him that her father had gone out to

fetch fruits and asked him to wait for some time to meet him.

Dushyanta then told her that he was attracted by her beauty and wanted to know

who she was and why she was in the grove. He said that he was born in the Puru lineage of

Rajarshis (that is, scholars-cum-rulers who functioned under the Rajarshi constitution)

and offered to marry her. He claimed that he never thought of girls who were not

Kshatriyas, whether they were daughters of sages or belonged to lower or higher strata.

He claimed that he was one who controlled his mind. He felt that she must be a Kshatriya

girl as he had formed that opinion about her from her conduct. He would never try to think

of a Brahman girl (as his wife).

He asked her to love him who loved her. He offered her a position as his queen. She

should not think that he had any low intent. The chronicler hints that Sakuntala was known

also as Visalakshi, one with wide eyes and as a follower of the school of Visalaksha, a socio-

political thinker who upheld the interests and orientations of the Kshatriya aristocracy. Shetold the king that Kanva who was known for his high endeavour (tapas) and had definite

thinking (chitta) and knew the code of dharma and was a great personage (mahatma)

and the head (bhagavan) of the academy treated her as his daughter. Sakuntala told

Dushyanta that she was not free to decide and act ( svatantra) in matters

pertaining to her. Kanva was her master and father. Dushyanta should tell him

about his purpose and seek his permission.



136 of 282

It was not proper to do anything that was prohibited, she said. Dushyanta knew

that on the issue of genetics Kanva was strict. [It is not sound to interpret that Kanva

was particular about not letting his semen fall.] The Vedic official (devata) in charge ofdharma might deviate from the code of conduct but Kanva, the disciplinarian,

would not. Dushyanta wanted to know how she came to be a daughter born to Kanva. He

asked her to remove his doubts.

Sakuntala would tell him what Kanva had told a sage about how she became his

daughter. Indra who feared that Visvamitra might pull him down from his position

deputed the talented apsaras, Menaka, to distract the sage and disturb his efforts

(tapas). Menaka hesitated, as she knew about the ‘anger’ of Visvamitra who had separated

Vasishta from his sons. Though born in a Kshatriya community by his merit Visvamitra had

become a Brahmana. He had created the huge river known now among the commonalty as

Kausiki from a small fount useful only for bathing. He had named it as Bara to indicate that

the river was always full.

Though easily irascible, Visvamitra was a liberal and officiated at the

sacrifice, yajna, performed by an outcast, chandala. He was an enigma. He was

unhappy with the then socio-economic class of Vaisyas, na-kshatras and created a

new one of his vision. [This has later been taken to indicate a group of five stars.]

Rajarshi Matanka who had once saved his wife later became Visvamitra’s protégé,

Trisanku. Visvamitra gave asylum to Trisanku against Vasishta.

Visvamitra was a Rajarshi , a political chieftain who followed the provisions of the

Ra jarshi constitution, which placed the powers of the judiciary in the hands of the scholar-

king. But Vasishta was a Brahmarshi , a sage who was entitled to interpret the constitution,

Brahma , which subordinated the executive and political power to the judiciary.

The nobles (devas) did not approve of the steps taken by Visvamitra in his capacity

as Ra jarshi to legalise the gifts offered by the person outcast by Vasishta, the

Brahmarshi , in accordance with the provisions of the socio-political constitution. They

destroyed the tools that the outcast used in his sacrifice. The highly powerful andindependent ruler, Visvamitra, made new instruments and continued the rites. He also

despatched Trisanku to the exclusive enclave ( svarga) of the autonomous nobles (devas).

Menaka was hence afraid of approaching Visvamitra and distracting his attention. He would

burn her if she dared to touch him.

As Ra jarshi , Visvamitra had the powers of Agni , the civil judge who directed

the social world of the commoners (manushyas), and also those of Surya and

Chandra (Soma), who directed the two social worlds, the nobility (devas) and the



137 of 282

frontier society of the forests and mountains (antariksham). He had also the

powers of Yama, the powerful magistrate who could pronounce even death

sentence for serious offences.Menaka told Indra that even the chief magistrate (Yama) and the great intellectual

(Soma) and the legislators (maharshis) and the perfect sages ( saddhyas) and all the

nobles (devas) and also the masters of scientific knowledge (valakhilyas) trembled before

Visvamitra. Indra should suggest a way to protect her if she went on their mission. She

wanted the help of Vayu (wind) and Manmatha (an aromatic herb, the ‘god of Eros’) and

Indra provided them. Then she went to the abode of Visvamitra. Thus Kanva told the

inquisitive sage the events behind the circumstances that preceded Sakuntala’s birth.

(Ch.92 Adiparva)

The union between Menaka, an apsaras, and Rajarshi Visvamitra resulted in

the birth of Sakuntala whom her mother left behind near the banks of Malini on

the Himalayan slopes and went to the enclave of the nobles. Kanva saw the child

protected from the wild animals by the ‘birds’, that is, by forestmen who bred birds. He

learnt that she was the child of his friend, Visvamitra, who had left for his abode on the

banks of Kausiki. They expected Kanva to be compassionate and bring up that child. As he

had saved her life and brought her up, Kanva was her father. Visvamitra was her

genetic father. As ‘birds’ of the uninhabited forest protected her, Kanva named her as

Sakuntala. Kanva declared her to be his daughter and Sakuntala thought of him as her

father. She had not seen her genetic father. She thus told Dushyanta how she became

Kanva’s daughter. (Ch.93 Adiparva)

Dushyanta was convinced that Sakuntala was a Kshatriya girl and proposed

to marry her by the gandharva type of marriage, as it was the best for Kshatriyas.

As a plutocratic king he offered her golden ornaments and precious stones and pearls and

clothes and hides of different types received from different towns and also (the wealth of)

his kingdom. But Sakuntala did not want to annoy her father. She preferred that he

should give her away in marriage as for her the father was the authority and thechief official (devata, god in common parlance). She would accept as her husband the

person to whom he gave her.

The later annotator makes her draw attention to the declaration that when a child

young a woman is protected by her father, in youth by her brother-in-law and in

old age by her son. It was this declaration that required a married woman depend

on her brother-in-law when her husband was away for battle or trade. The

gandharva-apsara culture did not make the woman depend on her husband and



138 of 282

required her to treat her husband’s brother as her noble guardian (deva) and this

close relation between the two has come to be honoured in several sections of the

society down the ages. This orientation led to the legitimising of sex between the womanand her brother-in-law, an apsara orientation and the practice of niyoga.

This gandharva code prevented the girl from acting on her own accord

( svatantra), a right enjoyed by the consorts of nobles (devas) and by the

apsarases. She had to be under the watchful eyes of her brother before her marriage and

her brother-in-law after her marriage when her husband was away. The dharmasastra

accepted the mother as guardian of the unmarried girl, the husband as the

guardian of the young wife and the son as the guardian of the aged mother and

declared that a woman should never act independently. The practice to which

Sakuntala drew attention was in vogue before dharmasastra was codified.

While Dushyanta claimed that Kanva was calm by nature, Sakuntala who held Kanva

to be a Brahman feared to incense him by doing anything without his permission. The

annotator says that anger is the weapon that the unarmed Brahman (judge) wields. The

Brahmans destroy their enemies by anger even as Indra destroyed the asuras by his

vajra (the spine given by Dadhichi). The king burns the guilty through his power to punish

(danda) even as the civil judge ( Agni ) uses the flame (when one has to take oath) and the

general (Surya) uses the arrows hot like the rays of the sun.

While the king could inflict corporal punishment on the disobedient subject, the civil

judge could require the suspected perjurer to undergo the ordeal of fire and the general of

the army as court martial could challenge the coward who fled the scene of battle to

undergo deep scorching to prove his endurance. The judge (Brahmana) who presided over

the constitution bench indicted the guilty, only by pronouncing angry words. Kanva was

such a judge who was superior to the king and the civil judge and the general of the army

and was more feared. Hence Sakuntala would not accept Dushyanta’s proposal.

Dushyanta knew Kanva and asserted that he would not get angry. He urged her to

realise that one was one’s own ‘kin’ (bandhu, brother) and one had to depend ononeself and that according to the dharma code she was eligible to gift herself to

another as svayamdatta, that is, choose to give herself to her lover, a version of

personally selecting one’s groom, svayamvara. The later annotator refers to the eight

types of marriages mentioned in the dharmasastra, brahma, daiva, arsha, praja patya,

asura, gandharva, rakshasa and paisaca. He draws attention to which of these

Svayambhuva Manu had lauded as dharma marriages. Brahmans were to treat the first

four as the best and the Kshatriyas the first six.



139 of 282

Kings could resort to rakshasa marriage. It was in fact tokenism calling upon them

to protect the women who could not protect themselves and who did not have guardians. It

however later emerged as marriage by conquest, a step taken by rakshasas, rebelmilitants, who resorted to kidnapping girls with intent to have sex with them. Vaisyas and

Shudras could resort to Asura marriage. It was sale and purchase of girls and was

despicable. Only the first four, brahma, daiva, arsha and prajapatya and gandharva

were considered as dharma marriages during the times of Manu Svayambhuva for

they did not involve economic considerations or coercion or deception. Asura

(purchase) and paisaca (deception) types of marriages were against dharma.

Some later annotators were misled. The pre-Svayambhuva society banned

paisaca marriage for all classes and prescribed brahma, daiva, arsha and

prajapatya for the Brahmans, Gandharva and Rakshasa for the Kshatriyas and

Asura type for the other commoners, Vaisyas and Shudras. Dushyanta indicated

that while he was entitled to forcibly carry Sakuntala away, he preferred to marry

her by gandharva marriage, that is, with mutual consent.

She then told the rich Paurava king that if what he said was the path

prescribed by dharma and if she was free ( svatantra) to give herself in marriage

( svayamdatta) he should promise to grant her what she asked for. This would be

under the middle Vedic laws based on truth ( satya), that is, commitment once made

should be never retracted. The new laws based on dharma were not as intransigent on this

issue as the old laws based on satya were.

Sakuntala demanded under the provisions of the laws based on satya that

Dushyanta should declare that the son (Bharata), born to her by him would be his

immediate successor as crown prince. [In Ramayana, Kaikeyi demanded a similar right,

that her son (Bharata) would be the immediate successor of Dasaratha.] If this condition

were to be fulfilled her marriage with him was possible, she said. Dushyanta did not

hesitate to give her word that her son would succeed him. He would take her to his

capital in due course in a befitting way, he said. They stayed together without any ritesperformed to solemnise the ‘marriage’. [Later annotators have claimed that rites were

performed in secrecy.]

Dushyanta left her assuring her that he would soon arrange to take her, in a formal

way, with all honour to the capital. He did commit himself on the basis of the laws

based on truth ( satya), which were still in force, according to Sakuntala. He gave the

impression that he had accepted the princess as his wife. He left after again embracing her

assuring her that he would act in conformity with the socio-cultural laws based on dharma



140 of 282

pertaining to his status as a ra janya. It was a period of transition from the laws

based on satya and personal commitment to the laws, dharma, based on social

obligations and social status. He left without staying back to apologise to Kanva.Addressing him as Bharatasreshta, the chronicler told Janamejaya who ironically

could only succeed Bharata though elder to him, that Sakuntala who had conquered her

senses and organs used her right to act independently ( svatantra) and thereby slipped

from her personal duties ( svadharma) realised her error and became afraid. Kanva

guessed what had happened and asked her to narrate the facts. Kanva found that

Dushyanta had not acted against the provisions of dharma governing his status and

obligations. He also held that her union as a princess with a king was not wrong. He agreed

that gandharva union was the best for Kshatriyas. [The later annotator adds that

Kanva was under the impression that the marital ‘rites’ had been gone through.]

Kanva held her husband, Dushyanta to be the best among social leaders

(uttama purusha) and a great personage (mahatma) and as one interested in

dharma. He ‘prophesied’ that a famous and great son would be born to her and that he

would rule the entire land (bhumi ) surrounded by the seas. When that great emperor,

chakravarti , and her son advanced against his enemies his army would never be blocked;

it would have easy passage and there would be no need to resort to battles to subdue them.

He regretted that he had delayed her marriage but added that Sakuntala had not

sinned in choosing her spouse. Sakuntala hoped that King Dushyanta, an uttama

purusha whom she had accepted as her husband, would marry her in the presence of the

nobles (devas). She requested Kanva to bless him and his ministers and help in ensuring

that he continued to be devoted to dharma and did not err in governance. Kanva agreed

and directed her not to depart from her vow to be true to her husband. (Ch.94 Adiparva)

‘Three years’ (to be rational, ‘three months’) passed and Sakuntala was bearing a

child and yet no messenger from Dushyanta arrived at Kanva’s abode. As suggested by

Kanva, the wives of the sages advised her to deliver the child. They pointed out that one

had to honour the words of one’s father. An early annotator notes that Vishnu washonoured as the Vedic official (devata) who directed the activities of the nobles

(devas). This might have been a reference to one Vishnuchakra who held the position of

Indra and was said to have hauled up some followers of Bhrgu for being in possession of

secret wealth. ‘Vishnu’ referred to, might have belonged to a social cadre that was lower in

rank to the cultural aristocracy of the core society of the agro-pastoral plains, but could lead

and direct them.



141 of 282

The Brahmans acted according to the direction given by the official (devata)

designated as Agni and by the Veda. This official too must have similarly belonged to a

lower cadre of intellectuals and directed the activities of the commonalty. The twoofficials, Agni and Indra exercised considerable influence in the polity during the

tenures of Dushyanta and Bharata. But in the social polities like the one that Dushyanta

headed where acquisition of wealth without strenuous work was valued these officials were

drawn from a closed oligarchy surrounding the king rather than from the ranks which

upheld the prestige of an impartial aristocracy and abided by the suggestions of a sagacious

council of intellectuals. The form proposed by the Atharvan constitution was retained

but the spirit was lost as the officials could not be bold and independent. The two

officials might have been both brothers of Dushyanta. [The later annotator who has failed to

appreciate this situation comments that a woman has to act as her brother-in-law directed.]

The latter was in the status of an official (devata) occupying the position of civil

judge ( Agni ). The (native) people ( jana) had to obey the instructions of the jurist

(Brahman) who interpreted the constitution and was a Vedic official, devata. As

her ‘father’ and head (bhagavan) of the academy had instructed that she should deliver

the child at the due time she should not postpone the delivery. Sakuntala agreed and

delivered the child at the proper time.

The poet-chronicler then describes how the nobles (devas) and apsarases

and sages residing in Kanva’s academy welcomed the birth of the new powerful

and liberal emperor. That child grew up in the forest while Dushyanta who was afraid of

the sage, Kanva, did not invite Sakuntala to his palace. The child (Bharata) was known as

Sarvadamana as he tamed all wild animals and wild men of the forests. The sage arranged

for his education in the Vedas and in all types of arms and martial arts as he attained the

age of twelve. (Ch.95 Adiparva)

Brahmarshi Kanva, a sage (rshi ) who knew the provisions of the

constitution, Brahma, noted that it was the proper time to get Sakuntala’s son

installed as crown prince and directed her to escort her son to Dushyanta. Kanvatold her that he had already approved her marriage and had advised her to follow the vow

to abide by the instructions of her husband. This vow also required her to attend on him

which she could not as he had failed to take her to his place. By her disciplined conduct

she had become eligible to enter the punyalokas, that is, the cadres like vidyadharas,

charanas, tapasas, chakshus, siddhas, gandharvas and apsarases whose members

were either unmarried or lived alone though they had their lovers and spouses. On

completion of the twelve-year period of penance and austerity associated with the



142 of 282

concept of tapas Sakuntala would be entitled to join the commonalty

(manushyaloka) and obtain huge wealth, Kanva said.

Instead of indicting Dushyanta, Kanva gave the king the benefit of doubt and advisedher to go and please the king in her own interest and delight in her son being installed as

crown prince. To approach the high officials (devatas), the elders, the kings and the

husbands, voluntarily instead of being summoned was always advantageous,

Kanva pointed out. He ordered her to do what he wished to be done. He told his son’s son

( pautra) about Dushyanta, an emperor of the lunar group and of the Puru lineage.

[Dushyanta was Kanva’s brother’s son and hence Sarvadamana was equal to Kanva’s son’s

son.]

Kanva told the boy that his mother, Sakuntala, was that king’s queen and that she

wanted to go to her husband and that he would salute the king and obtain the paurava

kingdom. He should function under his father who was a king of kings. Bharata would

obtain the kingdom that belonged to his father’s father (Ilila). That was the

‘natural law’, Kanva said. He advised the boy to think of him when he obtained that

kingdom. Ilila was a member of a Druhyu oligarchy headed by Tamsu. The lands of

the central region and the capital of Yayati had been given to Puru while the

Druhyus were sent to lands beyond the seas. Ilila and Dushyanta had expanded

their kingdom and Ilila secured the Puru lands. As crown prince, Sarvadamana

(Bharata) would come into possession of those lands.

Kanva did not envisage Bharata coming into possession of the rich islands

beyond the seas, which belonged to Ilila and which Dushyanta had inherited or the

other lands that Dushyanta had acquired by conquest. Kanva asserted that

Sarvadamana was born in the Puru lineage. Sarvadamana seems to have had

reservations about accepting Sakuntala as his mother and Dushyanta as his father.

He had grown up as an orphan under the care of the Brahmarshi who had been to

him father as well as mother.

He did not want to leave the hermitage and suggested that Sakuntala might go aloneto her husband, as she desired. Instead of playing with wild animals he would be attending

on the sage, obeying him and studying Vedas. Sakuntala was disturbed; she was happy

that her ‘father’ had permitted her to meet Dushyanta and be reunited with him; but she

was pained that her son disowned his mother.

Sakuntala felt that her son was deliberately disobeying her. She pointed out that the

elite (mahajana) of the janapada suffer because one of them commits a sin. She

wondered whether Dushyanta had become persona non grata with the elite of his state



143 of 282

because of his violation of the code of conduct. Sarvadamana who was engaged in taming

the wild animals had not only begun to disobey her but had also annoyed the sage by

disturbing the life of the forest animals and men. She interpreted that she and her son werehence being sent away. She would not go to Dushyanta or seek her son’s interests and

would instead stay back to serve the great sage who knew the tendencies of the soul.

Kanva pitied her and again impressed on her that she should meet Dushyanta.

The annotator of the later times makes Kanva extol the vow that the wife

took to be true to and obey her husband. Such a sincere wife pleased the head of the

family who was ordinarily elder to her husband and who had the status of a noble (deva)

and controlled the finances and wealth of the family and would grant her what she asked

for. He would also aid her even without her seeking aid (anugraha) and remove her

difficulties. [It was not meant that gods came to their rescue.] Such wives receive gifts

from their husbands too and gain the merit ( punya) attached to loyalty, obedience

and service. Hence Kanva exhorted Sakuntala to go and serve the king (raja).

He told Sarvadamana that the latter was his daughter’s son and Ilila’s son’s

son and that there was no stain in his birth. [The annotator implies that if Sakuntala

was Kanva’s daughter and Dushyanta his son, it would be a marriage between sister and

brother and that was against rules. But Sakuntala was his foster daughter and Dushyanta

was his brother’s son. Hence the above objection is ruled out.] The fact was Sakuntala loved

her husband though she adduced arguments to avoid meeting him. So her son should

escort her to her husband.

Addressing him as a Paurava Kanva said that he was capable of leading a group of

sages to Dushyanta’s place. He asked some of his disciples to accompany Sakuntala and her

son. Kanva was of the view that if married women lived amidst their relatives for a

long period it would affect their reputation, discipline and duty (dharma)

adversely. [This is a later-day orientation presented as Kanva’s view.] Sarvadamana while

agreeing to treat Sakuntala as his mother would however refer to Dushyanta not as ‘father’

but as ‘king’ though Kanva asked him to go to his father. As she asked her foster-father topardon her for her mistakes Kanva was moved to tears because he had feelings like a

commoner (manushya) though he was a sage (rshi ) who was expected to be stoical.

Kanva told his disciples who were to escort Sakuntala that she was born and brought

up in the forest and she was ignorant of the route. They should follow the road to the house

of the kshatriya (Dushyanta). He told those disciples who were Brahmans , that

Pratishtana where once Pururavas who was a co-parcener (dayada) of Sarvadamana

(Bharata, son of Sakuntala) lived with Urvasi was eight miles from his abode. That rich



144 of 282

agrarian-cum-forest city was on the confluence of Ganga and Yamuna. It was an important

market centre.

According to the chronicler of the later times Indra had constructed that fortified cityfor Budha, son of Ila. [Some early chronicles have treated Ila as an apsaras and Budha as

a vidyadhara and Pururavas, a gandharva, as their son.] This chronicler claims that the

people of this city who were assigned to different classes (varnas) were particular in

adhering to their respective duties (dharma) and that that city had many scholars who

were eager to conquer ‘ svargaloka’ , that is, were eager to enter the intellectual aristocracy

which had a status equal to the cultural aristocracy of the nobles headed by Indra. Kanva’s

disciples accompanied by Sakuntala and her son reached the centrally located royal palace

and entered its main hall where the king, a Ra jarshi , sat surrounded by jurists

(Brahmans), administrators (Kshatriyas) and ministers and lauded by the chroniclers

( sutas), rich and powerful rural chieftains (magadhas) and courtiers (vantis). The king

was sitting in comfort having ended his session of hearing and settling economic disputes

(vyavahara). The omens were good and the disciples told Sakuntala that she would

become queen and her son the crown prince that day itself.

The chronicler then dilates on the impressions that Sakuntala and her son and the

unkempt disciples of Kanva created in the minds of the citizens who had assembled there.

Of course the conduct of Sakuntala and her son impressed the people. But the criticisms, by

some fools among the people of the city of the disciples of Kanva made them blame

themselves for not having heeded to that sage’s counsel that they should not enter the city.

The sages who had given up all attachments had no work in the city, which had plenty of

bad people. So they turned back leaving behind Sakuntala and her son. (Ch.96 Adiparva)

As the sages left, Sakuntala and her son went towards the royal palace, with several

admirers following them. Both bowed their heads to the king who was impressed by the shy

mother and promised to extend her any help that she sought. Addressing Dushyanta as a

maharaja (a ruler who was also a judge) and an uttama purusha (outstanding

personage), she requested him to listen to what she said. She introduced her son as oneborn to him and told him that he was required to install that boy as crown prince. She asked

him to act according to the promise he had given her in the abode of the sage, Kanva, when

he had union with her. She asked him to recall that pledge.

The chronicler told Janamejaya that Dushyanta who was caught in enjoyment with

other women had forgotten her and her son. [Does he imply that Dushyanta had been

informed about his son soon after his birth?] He did recognise Sakuntala and was delighted

to see his son but did not wish to acknowledge them as his wife and son. The King told her



145 of 282

that he did not remember to have been united with her and that he did not have unwanted

affairs with women. He asserted that he was not associated with her in any of the three

aspects of life, dharma, artha and kama. He did not remember having been united withher by any of these types of marriages. She might go or stay or state what else she wanted

from him. He left it to her further course of action. (Ch.97 Adiparva)

Sakuntala got angry at that dismissal but would not accept it silently. She

told the king that though he knew the truth he spoke like a petty commoner who did not

fear losing his reputation. His conscience knew that what he said was untrue and a lie. He

was insulting his inner conscience that was a good witness to what had happened. One who

displays his mind in a way different from its real form is like a thief who steals his own

property and who is hence guilty of all sins. She said.

The put forth her arguments using the steps that led to first recognition and

then acknowledgement of the truth by the accused, who pretended having not

remembered the act of his union with her. He thought that she was alone and had no

witness. He did not know the first personage who was present in his mind but was hidden.

He was committing a sin in the presence of that witness when he denied having been united

with her.

Dushyanta belonged to the times when the puritanical laws based on truth,

satya, were yet in force though the generous laws of dharma had come to be

acknowledged as useful in securing justice. Sadpurushas were respected

personages who had given up speaking untruth and most of them had emerged

from lower ranks of the society. They were not entitled to take oath that they were

speaking truth, as they had not studied in formal schools. They were not dvijas (twiceborn)

who were required to take the pledge to abide by truth ( satyavrata) but were yet

respected as na-asatyas. Their evidences were as valid as those of the educated

who had as satyavratas taken the pledge to speak truth on all occasions. The laws

of dharma brought the sadpurushas most of whom were on par with uneducated

na-asatyas on par with those who had taken the oath to speak the truth at allcosts. Adherence to these laws helps an abjurer of falsehood and does not harm him.

The chronicler was dilating on this issue in Janamejaya’s court in the presence of

eminent jurists on the enigmas involved in the Dushyanta-Sakuntala dialogue. A sinner

thinks that none knows that he has sinned. But the nobles (devas) and the great

soul ( paramatma), which is within him but is invisible and yet controls his actions

from within him, have seen what he has done. Neither polytheism nor pantheism was

meant here. The conduct of the commoner was under the constant supervision of the Vedic



146 of 282

officials designated as Surya, Chandra, Vayu, Agni , Akasa, Prthvi , Apa, Manas, Yama

and Dharma who all had the status of devatas and who functioned during day and night

and also during dawn and at dusk.If the soul of the individual ( jivatma), which is in his heart and which is

witness to all his acts is satisfied he is cleared of his guilt by Yama, ‘son’ of

Vivasvan. Every social body had an inner controller who watched the activities of every one

of its members. If he absolved the individual who was suspected of having done a wrong

act, the state official, yama, did not feel it necessary to interfere. This was the stand that

the legal system took during the period of transition from the laws based on satya

to the laws based on dharma. He was not required to go through the rigmarole of citing

evidences for and against him and weighing them. The magistrate, Yama, warns the

commoner who is bad and who acknowledges that he has done an act not

satisfying his inner conscience, that is, the inner controller of the individuals of

the social body against doing that act again. [Yama was not ‘god of death’.]

The nobles (devas) who constituted the appellate court during the later Vedic times

did not help one who of his own accord, disparaged his conscience, his inner soul (atma)

and presented a contrary picture of what he had in his mind, that is, his purpose. Sakuntala

warned the king that he stood to lose the goodwill of the nobles by giving a distorted

version of his association with her. Dushyanta had hinted that it was Sakuntala who

had voluntarily asked for sex with him. She took serious objection to this

distortion as she had behaved according to the oath of loyalty to one who had accepted

her as his wife and had refrained from thinking about any other man during his long

absence. She had come voluntarily as a wife and he had not respected that. Why

was he was treating her in that assembly as a helpless vagrant? She was not

pleading in a lonely place.

She warned that if he did not fulfil her request his ‘head’ would break into

pieces. The chronicler meant that he would lose the protection of the house of nobles

that was superior to him. The nobles unable to act unanimously may take diverseviews. The later annotator then dilates on the status of the wife and the benefits accruing

from having an offspring. This orientation has become an integral part of the social laws of

the post-Vedic times. It is not likely that Sakuntala who as a Kshatriya was capable of

defending herself advanced all the arguments presented in this section.

She had married Dushyanta in accordance with gandharva marriage which

law approved only if both parents of the girl and both parents of the boy gave it

ex-post-facto approval. The concept that a man is reborn when he enters the womb of



147 of 282

his wife has come to stay. As he is so born, the legislators who knew the earlier history of

the society, that is, the recorded precedents and the sages called the wife jaya. The

duly married person, purusha, that is, a husband who does his duties in accordancewith the provisions of the socio-economic code, should have an offspring who would

help his forefathers to swim across the river of liabilities and social debts. Not only

should that head of the family have an offspring but that offspring too should have

such a recognised offspring born of his wife. The socio-cultural constitution of the

Vedic times, Brahma, described a person who saved the ancestors from the whirlpool,

‘ put’ , as ‘ putra’ . One wins the support of the cadres known as ‘ punyaloka’ , the virtuous

people, when he has a ‘son’. His wealth is declared to be immune from attachment by the

state for want of an approved successor. It becomes permanent property that none of the

successors or other kinsmen could sponge on after the birth of a grandson, the son’s son

grants this immunity to him. Such immunity is called happiness, ananda.

The socio-economic code, dharma, of the transitional period defined the

term bharya as wife who bore her husband’s child. She had to be well versed in

domestic duties and have an issue. She had to love her husband as her life. She had to be

chaste. She was considered to be an equal partner of her husband. She was an excellent

companion.

Accepted social values (dharma), economic means and wealth (artha) and

sexual pleasure (kama), the three purposes (artha) that a man as the head of the

family (as a purusha) pursues are because of his wife. The code would insist on the

fulfilment of all the three requisites to entitle the woman to the status of a wife. Else, she

might be a guide or a partner in economic activities or but a concubine. Only a woman

who had the qualifications needed for being called bharya entitled her husband to

exercise civic and economic rights. Widowers and bachelors could not exercise those

rights. Also, men whose wives were sterile were deprived of these rights.

Only those men who had wives could be householders (grhasthas). This rule

led to remarriage by men on the death of their wives. Only they had legal immunitiesagainst being pulled up for vagrancy. Only they were entitled to own wealth and property. A

wife who utters sweet words is a friend in privacy. In social, cultural and religious (dharma)

acts she guides like a father. In difficulties she comforts like a mother. While walking along,

even if it were in forests, she is a solace to her husband. The code claimed that only one

who had a wife could be trusted. Hence she is the main support for a husband.

Sakuntala indirectly cautioned Dushyanta against disowning her lest he should have to forgo



148 of 282

all his civic and economic rights and be declared incompetent to head the state as a

successor to Puru.

Dushyanta and Sakuntala had entered into gandharva marriage, voluntary union ofadults who had reached the prescribed age of consent. As dharma marriage, that is, as

it was permitted by dharmasastra, it could not be retracted on, even if it had been

entered into haste or without full awareness of the implications of the compact

entered into. When the husband is alive (and even when he is dead) only the wife

recognised by socio-economic laws and has the responsibility for the birth and nurture of

the issue by that husband and has taken the vow to remain true to him stays beside him

even in difficulties and acts according to his wishes. The wife who predeceases the husband

awaits in the other world the arrival of her husband, according to this orientation. The wife

whose husband predeceases her follows the discipline of being true to her husband,

( pativratadharma) even after his death. These rules were incorporated later in the code of

social laws (dharmasastra).

The chronicler notes that Sakuntala was aware of the relations that were to

prevail between husband and wife. The husband had access to his wife when they

were both in the social world of commonalty. When they were to move to another

social world ( paraloka) either of the two might be the first to do so. In the present social

world she is meant to nurture (meet the requirements of) the body. To a person who

proceeds to a higher social world ( svargaloka) she is like food he takes along for eating

when necessary. In other words he could not exploit her for sex and procreation when

he moved along with her to a higher social rank. This was the implication of the

expression, ‘ panigraha’.

As the son is the father reborn, a husband should treat the mother of his

son as equivalent to his mother. He could not have sex with her without her

permission. Preferably he should cease to copulate with his wife after the birth of

his first son. For all, the son is one’s own self, ‘atma’ . The traits that are found in the

father are found in the son too. The good or bad behaviour and deeds that are foundin the son are those that are inherited from the father. The chronicler does not

attribute to the nurture given by mothers (who are chaste) the shortcomings in their sons.

A father sees in his son procreated on his wife his own reflection as he sees in a mirror and

feels delight even as one who has meritorious deeds to his credit attains as he rises to the

cultural aristocracy ( svargaloka).

Women who act like chaste wives but carry the foetus of other men in their wombs

destroy the fame and purity of the clans of their husbands and they too land in horrible



149 of 282

ghettoes (naraka, place meant for fallen men and women). Some persons (native-born,

jana) treated as theirs the sons procreated on their wives by other persons who

did not belong to the local area ( parapurusha). The laws blamed the husbands forfailure to guard the chastity of their wives and required them to treat those children as

theirs. The chronicler treated the bastards as the enemies of their fathers. They

would hate their fathers and disobey them and the duped father too would hate them. This

was then the easy way to determine whether the son born was truly one’s own. Sakuntala

pointed out to Dushyanta that a father would not hate his son and a son would not hate his

genetic father for the son is a father reborn.

Dushyanta and Sakuntala had lived apart from each other for over twelve years. She

points out how some of the local-born persons ( jana) who might be suffering from grief and

diseases seek comfort in the company of their wives. Some husbands might have travelled

abroad and return weak and in rags. They feel as much delight in their reunion with their

wives as the poor do when they gain wealth. An intelligent person, finding that his comfort,

happiness and dharma are in his wife (bharya) should not speak any word that she does

not like though she may say harsh words.

The chronicler adds that the Vedas say that wife is one’s half. She protects his

wealth, offspring, body, worldly life, dharma and his future place in the cultural

aristocracy ( svarga) and association with sages and ancestors ( pitrs). The

chronicler was drawing attention to the later Vedic orientation by which the commoners

through the institution of sacrifice (yajna) contributed one fourth of their earnings to the

maintenance of the three non-earning sectors of the core society, nobles, sages and elders

(devas, rshis and pitrs). The chaste women are like the land where the men are reborn

and continue their lineages and hence the husbands never give them up.

Even the sages cannot have offspring without women. The very cadre of

sages will cease to exist if they do not have sons to be trained as their successors.

But the cadre of nobles does not have the capacity to recreate ‘itself’. In other

words, an aristocrat could not depend on inbreeding to continue his lineage. Thenew nobles have to be recruited from the upper crust of the commonalty, known as

visvedevas or have wives and produce sons by them even as commoners do.

Intellectuals in all the social worlds who know everything have to use the

services of women to create new cadres. Sakuntala pointed out that there was nothing

better than the son after falling down on the ground rise up and with soil all over the body

and embrace his father’s body. Though Dushyanta was a father who would hug and

comfort his son he did not support his son who was standing close and eagerly



150 of 282

glancing at him. Even the ants do not neglect their eggs. Why did he alone not support his

son born to her and take him up in his arms?

The pleasure, which one obtains from the touch of his son, is far more than what onecan get from hugging a woman, she said. She requested Dushyanta to allow his handsome

son to touch him. She cited: “Among commoners, the Brahman is the best and among the

quadrupeds the cow is the best and among those who may be revered the teacher is the

best; the best among those that are sweet to touch is the son.”

Addressing him as Rajasreshta, a rich plutocratic king and praising him as a

Vira (a group of nobles belonging to the Rudras, a traditional group of nobles who were

associated with the people of the forests) Sakuntala told him that his son too had been

brought up as a Vira. He was born three years after their first meeting and a long period

of secret courtship and was meant to remove his grief of being sonless till then. As she had

ordered the boy to accompany her he had come there and was awaiting the king’s invitation

to come closer to him and be accepted. She told the king that it had been prophesied at the

time of the birth of that boy born in the Puru lineage that he would perform a hundred

asvamedha sacrifices to honour his conquests and a rajasuya sacrifice to establish his

status as an emperor and other sacrifices.

The chronicler presented through Sakuntala’s appeal to Dushyanta to accept her son

as his, another aspect of the relation between father and son that has come to characterise

the social orientation instituted by the end of the Vedic era. In the social world of the

commoners it is noticed that the parents who had gone to other towns on their return

delight in taking up in their hands the children left behind them and caressing them.

Brahmans (who followed the Atharvaveda) while casting and reading out the horoscope of

the young children cited from the Vedas a statement. It implied that the son was born of

every one of the organs of the father and that the son was indeed the father

himself and the latter blessed him to live for a hundred years and that as his soul was with

that child the lineage of that child should continue forever.

According to the adage what was one became two. The son is another man( purusha) who has evolved from a man ( purusha). The chronicler introduces the

concept of the three domestic fires and their implications, which had their origin amongst

the middle class who were moving from the nomadic way of life of gandharvas to that of

the settled communities of commoners to explain how one lit stick was used to light

another stick. Sakuntala claimed that his monarchy had to end giving way to

diarchy. He had been made into two with the birth of the crown prince.



151 of 282

She asked Dushyanta to recall how he happened to reach the abode of Kanva while

chasing a deer and obtained her who was then a virgin. Urvasi, Purvacitti, Sahajanya,

Menaka, Visvasi and Krtasi were six famous apsarases. Of them Menaka was born to thehigh official, Brahma. The nobles ( svargaloka) prevailed on her to go to the social world of

commoners (bhumi ) and entice Visvamitra. Sakuntala told Dushyanta and his

assembly that she was born to Menaka by Visvamitra. Visvamitra’s ancestor, Kusa

was a rich ruler.

Kusa was a Rajarshi and also an additional civil judge. The post of a second

Agni was created by the constitution, Brahma. This official was in charge of

implementing the social laws, dharma. During the middle Vedic period when the laws

based on satya were in force, the chief of the council of scholars was designated as Agni

and was made civil judge having jurisdiction over the commonalty. When the laws based

on dharma came into force, the king if he was a Rajarshi could function also as the

head of the council of scholars and civil judge.

Kusa’s successor, Kusanabha, was a powerful ruler and yet he followed the above

arrangement, the king ensuring implementation of social laws (dharma) that were however

to be within the ambit of the Atharvan constitution, Brahma. Kusa’s was a soft state.

Kusanabha’s was a tough one. Visvamitra’s father, Gadhi, was Kusanabha’s son.

Sakuntala thus traced the Kshatriya lineage of her father and her birth and how Kanva

found her and brought her up.

She recalled to Dushyanta how he had stayed with her seeking the advantages

indicated in the three purposes, dharma, artha and kama and had requested her to give

an offspring who would continue his lineage. He had taken her hands ( panigraha)

according to the rites prescribed for gandharva marriage. Neither Kanva nor

Visvamitra had given her away as a virgin, kanyadana (a procedure valid only under

Brahma and Arsha marriages). This does not mean that she was not a virgin when

Dushyanta married her. The term, ‘kanya’ implied that the girl had not yet attained the age

of consent (three years after puberty). Only after she had attained that age she had marriedhim by gandharva marriage.

Sakuntala declared that she was seeking his protection in the interests of

her academy (kula, clan) and in the name of her chastity and discipline and also

under the provisions of the laws of ethics based on truth ( satya) and the social

laws (dharma). It is improper to interpret that Sakuntala acknowledged that she followed

the apsaras way of life of her mother (that is), providing pleasure to men of her choice.

She told Dushyanta it won’t behove him to pledge to do a particular act and then falsify it.



152 of 282

He was the chief (natha) of the social world (loka), the expanded commonalty that

covered plains, periphery, rivers, moors and forests.

He should not keep back his duties (dharma) as (natha) and reject her whohad come as one who had him alone as her husband and was flawless. The

chronicler makes her assert that unlike the apsarases she was not polyandrous. She

followed the discipline of monogamy. She rued that she must have committed some sin in

the previous birth that led to her being abandoned on her birth by her parents and then by

her husband. Now she would return to her forest abode but leave behind her child. She

requested the king not to abandon Bharata.

But Dushyanta refused to acknowledge Bharata as the boy born of him and

refused to believe what she said, alleging that all women were given to lying. She

was a shameless daughter of a sage, he charged. He refused to believe that she

was the daughter of the great sage, Visvamitra by an apsaras, Menaka. He refused

to believe that the boy who had grown up into a powerful well-built youth could be the son

of a delicate girl like her. He accused her of being lowborn and of being a prostitute. The

annotator makes Dushyanta talk ill of women. They were all given to lust and were

unchaste and yielded to men who were not their husbands.

He accused Menaka of having been a prostitute and Visvamitra as a pitiless

Kshatriya who wanted to become a Brahmana and one who was given to lust. He

refused to treat Menaka as a lady who belonged to the nobility who exercising her

right, of her own accord gave birth to the girl, Sakuntala, by Visvamitra. He thought

that the people ( jana) spoke ill of Sakuntala’s birth. He might treat Menaka only as the best

among apsarases and her father only as a great sage (maharshi ) implying that the latter

was not a Brahmarshi , only as a scholar entitled to be a legislator and not one who could

be a member of the constitution bench.

Why did she then speak like a prostitute? Her birth was low and her nurture too

seemed to have been low, he charged. He refused to believe that Kanva had brought her

up. He was angry that she had dared to tell all these to the king. He dismissed her sayingthat she might go wherever she wanted to. She might receive whatever clothes and

ornaments she desired, he said. (Ch.98 Adiparva)

Sakuntala would not take the insult and curt dismissal lying down. She told

the king that he saw the minor weaknesses of others but failed to notice the major

drawbacks in his own career and lineage. She pointed out to him that her mother,

Menaka, lived amidst nobles and that they respected her way of life. Sakuntala claimed

that her descent was superior to his. While he moved about only among the commoners



153 of 282

(bhumi ) and did not have access to the nobility (devas) she moved about in the higher

open space (akasa) as a free intellectual.

Sakuntala claimed that she had access to the abodes of Indra, the chief ofthe house of nobles and also to that of Kubera, the head of the plutocrats. She

could also visit Yama, the chief magistrate and Varuna, the ombudsman who

settled disputes on privileges of the different social cadres. She hinted that she

might take recourse to higher political, legal and constitutional avenues to obtain

justice. She pointed out to Dushyanta that his co-parcener, Ayu, was born to Pururavas by

Urvasi, an apsaras. Many great sages and Kshatriya warriors were born to apsarases.

The sages did not cease to be respected because they did not know who their

mothers were or because their mothers were lowborn.

She told the king that the popular statement ( janavakhya) she was drawing

attention to would make him realise his error. “One who is ugly thinks that he is more

handsome than others until he sees his face in the mirror.” A handsome person does not

speak ill of others. In this world of commoners one who uses bad words is reckoned as a

clown. Evil persons delight in abusing others. The chronicler comments that an atheist

(nastika) fears the codes of truth ( satya) and the social laws (dharma) as he fears

an enraged worker ( sarpa).

The chronicler was reminding Janamejaya how the positivist thinker (astika) made

the former fear the wrath of the injured proletariat by citing the puritanical laws of the

middle Vedic period based on ethics and truth ( satya) as well as the later Vedic liberal

laws based on dharma. The positivist thinker (astika) will certainly not violate those

laws. The nobles (devas) would destroy the security of one who abuses one’s own

son.

The period of decline (kali ) comes over to those who do not help others, to

liars, to the impure, to the atheists and to those who have deviated from good

practices. It does not affect those who act according to the rules of dharma. He

points out that an idiot absorbs among the good and bad suggestions given by others onlythe bad ones while an intelligent person absorbs only the good ones. One who is not clear in

his intellect selects only those traits of others that are compatible with his. Some who have

no self-restraint are jealous of the fame of others and unable to follow them, speak ill of

them. An upright man regrets abusing others while a scoundrel delights in abusing others.

The impious are keen on criticising others while the gentle and pious

( sadhu) take care not to criticise others. Even as a pious person ( sadpurusha) gets

satisfaction in respecting the great, the ignorant and impious get satisfaction in abusing the



154 of 282

upright. The fools notice the flaws in others while they are unaware of their own. Hence

when they are to be condemned by others they condemn others. Nothing is more

disparaging than the evil people in this social world (loka) abusing the upright as evilpersons. Sakuntala asserted that one (the king) was bound to suffer if he inflicted severe

mental torture on the people ( jana). She refuted his claim that the people were laughing at

her and her son when they were proceeding to the royal palace.

The elders ( pitrs) who had retired to the forest treated the son as the root

from which the future generations of the clan grew up. They might have given up

all the duties (dharma) that were prescribed for one in the householder (grhastha)

stage of life but were advised not to give up their sons. Sakuntala would not take a

narrow outlook on the issue who was entitled to be a ‘son’. She cited the views of Manu

(Svayambhuva) on this issue. Besides those sons born to one’s wife, the father

had to accept the orphans (who had no guardians) that he had come across, the

adopted ones, the protégés brought up by him, the purchased ones and those born

to him and unmarried girls as his sons. All these six types of sons had a share in the

property of their father by the dayabhaga system. There were six types who did not have a

share in this property. [This might have been a later interpolation.]

The annotator says that the commoners (manushyas) are made to adhere to the

prescribed social laws (dharma) and feel delighted when sons are born to them and they

rescue the elders ( pitrs) from ‘hell’ (naraka). Sakuntala exhorted the king not to

abandon his son. He should protect his son and also truth ( satya), that is, the

word he had given her. Sakuntala pointed out that there could be no conflict

among pursuit of personal (atma) interests, adherence to truth ( satya) and

performing one’s social duties (dharma). He should not utter lies. She told the king

that it was his duty to protect his ‘soul’, that is, his inner conscience (atma) and

also the laws based on truth ( satya) and the social laws (dharma). As a brave king,

he should not resort to deception.

Then the annotator extols adherence to truth. It is far superior to performing athousand asvamedha sacrifices. There is no socio-religious duty (dharma) that is

equal to adherence to truth ( satya), he says. There is no achievement that is superior

to truth and no sin worse than non-adherence to truth (asatya). Sakuntala explained to

those persons who would dilate on the minute differences in the two sets of laws,

satya and dharma, that adherence to truth ( satya) was a great social duty

(dharma). She told the king that giving a pledge was more binding than the declaration to

stand by truth. All pledges were made binding and violation of them or non-



155 of 282

fulfilment of them was punishable. They were politico-economic treaties and

sanctions would follow if they were broken. Breach of mere solemn declaration to

adhere to truth did not invite such sanctions.Sakuntala advised the king not to lose the advantages that he stood to gain

through the pledge. It was an essential ingredient of a treaty of friendship that a valuable

pledge was mentioned in the document. She advised him to ensure that the clause of

friendship was in accordance with the laws based on truth (satya). The union between the

king, Dushyanta and Sakuntala was not contracted under the provisions of gandharva

marriage, which could be ordinarily retracted by a charge of non-fulfilment of sexual

pleasure and companionship. It was made binding by her promise to present to him an

offspring who would be his worthy successor and his promise that that son would be

installed as the crown prince.

He had to not only accept that son for his own ‘spiritual’ benefit but also fulfil her

expectations about that son. She pointed out to the king who was on trial in his public court

that the plea that one had forgotten what he had done or said would not stand the test in

legal proceedings. He would be deemed to be a liar. ‘Forgetting’ was a major offence. She

said that his inner conscience knew what the truth was and what was not. Hence he should

rely on the social laws (dharma) applicable to his roles as a husband, father and king and

deliberate on what was in his interests and what was not. Only one who does not deceive by

lust, rage and hatred his foes and friends, is the best social leader (uttamapurusha). If it

was untrue that he had sex with her and if he did not believe what she said she was ready

to go back to her abode (in the forest). A person like him had no qualities of friendship.

If he had doubts about that lad being his son he could arrive at a decision

after consulting the intellectuals (buddhi ) in his court. The court in those days took

into account similarity in personal factors like conduct, voice, memory, truthfulness,

chasteness, education, valour, fearlessness, views and physical signs, hair arrangement and

gait while determining whose the child was. As there was a similarity that boy was a

reflection extracted from his body. She appealed to him not to abandon that boy whoaddressed him plaintively as father.

Her son might not have been offered the donkey’s milk to indicate that he would be

brought up as a prince. But he was brought up on the tiger’s milk, she reminded him.

Donkeys were domesticated animals while tigers were not. Dushyanta was being warned

against antagonising his son. This son would rule the entire continent surrounded

by the four seas without Dushyanta’s presence. She told him that Indra, the head

of the assembly of nobles, had told her that her son would become a chakravarti ,



156 of 282

head of a confederation of states. She asserted that this declaration would not go

waste.

Sakuntala told the king that she had (while coming to his court) requestedenvoys from the nobles (devas) to stand as witness to this pronouncement. They

had not till then committed themselves to her about saying anything true or false.

They would settle the issue on the basis of the provisions of the constitution of the

confederation of states that they had envisaged, she implied. They would not permit

their objective to be frustrated. There was a hidden threat that Dushyanta might be

deposed to install that lad as Chakravarti -designate. She would not stay to influence

the nobles or their envoys. She would return with her son to the forest as an unfortunate

woman. (Ch.99 Adiparva)

Dushyanta was being surrounded by his supporters among whom were ‘priests’

(rtviks) who looked after the rituals and formalities of the state, political counsellors

( purohitas), teachers (acharyas) and ministers. He heard the voice from the open

space (akasa) of a person who was not member of any social group (asariri ), which

told him that the mother (that is, her womb) was like a leather-bag and that the son

belonged to the father who had procreated him. The voice pronounced the lad to be

Dushyanta’s son and advised the father to accept him. It pronounced that

Sakuntala was speaking the truth and that every organ of the ‘son’ was directly

received from the father and thus the son was born.

The voice implied that every organ of the state of Dushyanta would become

the corresponding organ of the state of his son. In other words, a son inherited in toto

and intact and directly, the state of his father under the rules of hereditary monarchy. It

was not so in the case of successor governments under other forms of rule,

whether diarchy or oligarchy or where the younger brother succeeded the general

or some one else was elected to succeed. The voice hinted that Dushyanta who

belonged to the Puru lineage was not a direct descendant of Puru. It interpreted that the

central authority (atma) who represented him was known as Dushyanta- putra, the son ofDushyanta.

He had gifted the seed and he was reborn as his son. It was his duty to protect that

son. He had to revere and not disrespect Sakuntala who had kept her vow to be true to her

husband. Dushyanta had disparaged the entire female sex. The voice proclaimed

that woman was an incomparably pure object according to Dharmasastra. The

annotator of the later times takes pains to remove the impression that the socio-cultural

codes were biased against women. As the voice of the unseen interpreter of social laws said



157 of 282

that Bharata was Dushyanta’s son by Sakuntala, the nobles (devas) who sat on all sides of

the hall told the king that the lad was born of him and that he should not reject Sakuntala.

The son lifted from the level of despicable men (naraka) the one who sowed his seed.Dushyanta was the genetic father of that lad, the nobles declared.

The wife gives birth to her husband as he sows his seed in her. The son is the

cause of the father even as the father is the cause of the son. The nobles accepted

the argument that the man divides himself into two and begets his other half on

his wife. They exhorted the king to accept Sakuntala’s son. That lad was a great boon and

wealth (aisvarya) and should not be lost. He should protect his son who was his soul. The

nobles pronounced that Sakuntala’s son was a great person (mahatma) and belonged to

the Puru lineage. As Dushyanta had to bear the responsibility of protecting that boy both on

his own accord and under their orders, he should name that boy as Bharata. The glory

accruing from Bharata would be known as Bharati and his clan would be called Bharata and

his successors as well as his predecessors would be known as Bharatas. The nobles also

declared Sakuntala as a pativrata, one true to her husband.

As the sages (rshis) who had only pure endeavour (tapas) as their wealth

endorsed the declaration of the nobles (devas), the king rose from his throne to

offer homage to the nobles. There had been a rift between the king and the nobles

and the sages bridged it. He asked his counsellors ( purohitas) and ministers to listen to

what the envoy of the nobles and the nobles and sages said. He too recognised that lad as

his son. If he had accepted the lad only because Sakuntala had said so the people ( jana)

would have had doubts and that lad would not have been accepted as his son. Dushyanta

was trying to defend his initial unwillingness to accept Bharata as his son. Then he invited

that lad and performed the rituals as a father to rename him as Bharata.

He honoured his wife, Sakuntala, too properly according to social laws (dharma). He

explained why he hesitated earlier to accept her as his wife. The natives ( jana) of the plains

had not known the relation between Dushyanta and Sakuntala and now the rites were gone

through again in their presence, he explained. He had while disparaging her referred towhat had happened before their marriage. As she was a lady ( stri ) who was ordinarily

inaccessible, the social world (loka) of commoners were likely to doubt the veracity of her

claim that she had married him by gandharva marriage with no formal rites like

kanyadana which were to be witnessed by nobles, sages and elders. He had quizzed her in

order to remove their doubts, Dushyanta claimed.

He acknowledged that she belonged (like her mother, Menaka) to the social

world of nobles (devas). Ladies (devis) of the households of nobles (devas) were



158 of 282

free to act, free to give themselves to the spouses of their choice. Dushyanta knew

that the adoption of the new social laws, varnashrama dharma, had introduced

several imperceptible changes in the social orientations which not all the people ofthe janapada were aware of. The natives of the janapada who had been brought

under the orientations of the four classes (varnas), Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and

Shudras would be able to appreciate the concept of monogamy and the orientation,

pativratadharma. A married woman has to remain true to her husband forever

irrespective of the changes in their fortunes and in respective social statuses. He told her

that their son had been accepted as the one who would get the state (rajyam)

(after him).

She would be the first of the queens, he declared. He had borne her unkind

words, as she loved him. So she too should bear his harsh and improper words and lies

about her, he pleaded. Women fulfilled their duties by their husbands,

pativratadharma, by forgiving the errors of the latter. Then he introduced her and

Bharata to his mother, Ratantari. Both Rathantari and Dushyanta would refer to

Sakuntala as Visalakshi, one with wide eyes. It indicates that she belonged to the

cultural aristocracy, which had a wide outlook on all social issues and was a

follower of the great socio-political grammarian, Visalaksha.

Bharadvaja was the political counsellor of Bharata. Pisuna who was his contemporary

was the finance minister of Dushyanta. He was known for his miserliness. The chronicler

notes that Dushyanta handed over the responsibility of administration of the state to

Bharata and retired. (Ch.100 Adiparva)



159 of 282

11SANTANU and BHISHMA

Dushyanta, Bharata, Bhumanyu, Suhotra, Ajamida

The chronicler told Janamejaya that Bharata succeeded Dushyanta in the proper

order. Bharata was the son of Sakuntala who had the status of a peeress, devi , and was

hence superior to Dushyanta’s other wives. Bharata’s political transactions were pure and

were fit to be approved by the cultural aristocracy (devas). They never met with defeat and

were highly lauded by the commoners, the native people ( jana) of his primary state.

Bharata conquered the feudal lords (asuras) and made them his subordinates. He

functioned in accordance with the socio-cultural laws (dharma) that the gentle and pious

( sadhus) followed. This powerful king became more famous than all others as a

chakravarti (head of the confederation of states) and isvara (charismatic benevolent

ruler) of all the agro-pastoral plains (bhumi ).

Like Indra, the king of the nobles (devas), Bharata performed several sacrifices.

[The nobles were no longer mere recipients of the offerings made by the commoners at

their sacrifices (yajnas). They too sacrificed what they had earned to the deserving

persons.] He honoured Kanva (his guardian and foster-father) by granting him the status of

Praja pati , chief of the people on par with Daksha. He conquered all the petty rulers of the

Ganga-Yamuna basin and performed hundreds of asvamedha sacrifices on the banks of

Ganga, Yamuna and (eastern?) Sarasvati.

Bharata begot sons by women of high social status but he did not approve of them

and hence the mothers killed their sons, the chronicler says. “Begetting these sons became

a waste”. This does not speak high of Bharata. Addressing Janamejaya as Bharata, the

chronicler said that Bharata performed great sacrifices, yajnas, under the guidance of

Bharadva ja, a great sage (maharshi ) and legislator, and the son of a rich landlord was



160 of 282

selected as his son. He was named ‘Bhumanyu’. Bharadvaja, it is noticed in Kautilyan

Arthasastra would not hesitate to get the rebellious princes killed secretly.

Bharata installed Bhumanyu as crown prince. Bhumanyu however does not seem tohave succeeded Bharata as king. Bhumanyu was senior to Bharata and was ‘selected’ to

guide the destiny of the new empire built up by Bharata. He did not belong to any royal

family. On Bhumanyu’s death, his eldest son too was overlooked and his ‘son’ by

Pushkarani, Suhotra, became emperor.

To be precise, Suhotra headed an oligarchy of five chieftains with Suhotra ruling

from the capital and the other the four provinces around it. This was a typical federal

state of the Vedic times. He took over the countries of former rulers. It is implied that

wherever the post of king fell vacant Suhotra stepped in as conqueror and annexed it and

performed ra jasuya and asvamedha sacrifices to legitimise such annexation. Though his

empire was claimed to be a vast one extending up to the seas it was primarily a rich state

exploiting its vast human resources (manushyas) for its military ventures. Suhotra

governed the subjects ( prajas) of his expanded state on the basis of the

provisions of the social code, dharma. Those were times when the practice of yajnas,

had become popular and attracted the masses.

The masses were kept together by their devotion to the local benevolent chieftains,

isvaras, who had a status equal to the gentle nobles (devas) and held their sessions in

open halls that later were hallowed as abodes of gods (devalaya). Suhotra was a

protégé of the soft speaking, Ikshvaku of the ‘solar’ group of kings. [He married

Ikshvaku’s daughter.] Ikshvaku was a protégé of Manu Vaivasvata and according to Krshna

was trained in Ra jayoga, methods of political administration prescribed by the Rajarshi

constitution.

Ajamida, a famous Rajarshi , was the eldest of the three ‘sons’ of Suhotra. In

such triumvirates, the king was assisted by the two others one of whom looked after the

affairs of the nobility and the other those of the commonalty from their positions as Indra

and Brhaspati respectively. In the Ra jarshi constitution, the Rajarshi who headedthe state had to follow the guidance that the Rajapurohita gave. The latter was like

Brhaspati an expert in the socio-political constitution described in Atharvaveda

(Brahma). Indra headed the eight member ministry. Ajamida must have accepted the

proto-Rajarshi constitution with the king being guided by two equally powerful

officials, Indra and Brhaspati , as recommended by Bharadvaja.

Bhumanyu, Suhotra and Ajamida were not Bharata’s successors. They were

considerably senior to Bharata but the chroniclers described them as Bharatas. Ajamida



161 of 282

had six ‘sons’, Riksha, Janana, Rushi, Dushyanta, Parameshti and Jahnu. They must have

been his vassals, rather than his ‘sons’. The rulers of Panchala followed the system of

oligarchy whose members had equal status. They owed allegiance to Dushyanta andParameshti. The Kusikas, of whom Gadhi and Visvamitra were well known, owed allegiance

to Jahnu. Dushyanta’s marriage with Sakuntala, a daughter of Visvamitra should have

weakened the position of Jahnu. The highly charismatic chieftain, Parameshti , might have

been Bharata.

Samvarana and Bharata

Samvarana, the son of Riksha, was a coparcener of Bharata, as Riksha and

Dushyanta were brothers. Janamejaya and Bharata were both sons of Dushyanta.

Vaishampayana brought these facts of history to the notice of Janamejaya and his guides. It

was heard that when Samvarana was placed in charge of the commonalty (bhumi ), the

country was afflicted by drought and famine and death by starvation and disease. The

enemy armies defeated Ajamida’s governors who were later described as ‘Bharatas’. The

Panchalas under the leadership of Bharata appear to have asserted their independence and

led a huge army with all four wings, (cavalry, chariots, elephants and infantry) to defeat

Samvarana. Samvarana, son of Riksha, fled his country with his wife, daughters, ministers

and friends. Samvarana and his men formed a branch of ‘Bharatas’. They went

westward and lived in the bushes beside the river Sindhu. Then they moved to a

mountain-fort in Sindhudesa.

Samvarana sought the support and guidance of the sage Vasishta who

happened to come to his country and accepted him as Ra japurohita. Vasishta

recognised Samvarana as the successor of Puru and as the chakravarti , emperor

over all Kshatriyas. This challenged the authority claimed by his cousin, Bharata who had

Bharadva ja as his Rajapurohita. Bharata also enjoyed the support of his mother’s father,

Visvamitra. All these three sages were members of the council of seven sages convened by

Manu Vaivasvata. They were also major contributors to the Rgvedic anthology. Vasishta

escorted triumphant Samvarana to Hastinapura where Bharata had his capital before heretired as a sullen man disappointed in his sons and required to step down for want of a son

who would fit in as a worthy successor.

Samvarana, Tapati and Kuru

Samvarana subjugated many rulers and made them pay tributes to him. Samvarana

had married the princess of Tapati, a daughter of Surya Samvarni, a contemporary of Manu

Vaivasvata who himself became a Manu with his headquarters in the Western Ghats, the

region of the setting sun. Manu Vaivasvata had his headquarters in Gaya in the east.



162 of 282

Kuru founded Kurukshetra in the midst of the woods of Kurujangala. The chronicler

praised Kuru as a pious man who by his endeavour converted Kurukshetra into

Dharmakshetra, a place where people followed the ethics advocated bydharmasastra. According to earlier chroniclers, Janamejaya and four others were ‘sons’ of

Kuru. Political alliance with Janamejaya, brother of Bharata, and other vassals of Bharata

led to Kuru increasing his influence. Parikshit was Kuru’s grandson by Avikshit (also

known as Asvavan), a general who had not seen defeat. According to this description

Janamejaya was Parikshit’s uncle which is not likely. The chronicles mentioned Janamejaya

and seven others as famous generals.

The eight-member oligarchy, Dhrtarashtra and Janamejaya

Parikshit’s five sons were all theoreticians, experts in socio-cultural code,

dharmasastra and in political policy, ra janiti . Dhrtarashtra was the eldest son of

Janamejaya and Pandu was next to him. Bahlika and five others were junior to them.

They too were experts in dharmasastra and rajaniti . It may be inferred that these six

were not involved in the struggles for power. Like Parikshit (a descendant of Kuru),

Janamejaya (a stepbrother of Bharata and cousin of Samvarana) did not come to the

throne till far later. These chronicles give the impression that Dhrtarashtra who

was younger than Janamejaya was installed as king as he headed an oligarchy of

eight members. He was assisted by a group of eight members of whom Hasti was

one. [It may be cautioned here that it is not sound to infer that there were many persons

with the same name, Parikshit, Janamejaya, Dhrtarashtra and Pandu.]

According to these chronicles, Dhrtarashtra and Pandu (who were passed on as

the sons of Vichitravirya, an impotent son of Santanu), were in fact members of the

oligarchy that supported the claims of Janamejaya, son of Dushyanta, against Parikshit,

grandson of Samvarana with the lineage of Bharata not taking roots. Janamejaya,

Samvarana and Bharata were contemporaries. They were senior to Dhrtarashtra,

Pandu and Kuru. Dhrtarashtra had three ‘sons’ of whom Pradipa was popular among the

commoners. Dharmanetra and Sunetra must have assisted this blind ruler. Pradipa couldnot have been a grandson of Riksha (son of Ajamida). Pradipa and the other two assistants

of Dhrtarashtra must have been administering the country on behalf of the blind ruler,

Dhrtarashtra. He was definitely not a ‘son’ of Dhrtarashtra.

Pratipa must have been a contemporary of Bhagiratha. Lakshi, wife of Dushyanta

and mother of Janamejaya was a daughter of Bhagiratha. Ganga, another

daughter of Bhagiratha was the wife of Santanu and mother of Bhishma. Pratipa

had three ‘sons’, Devapi, Santanu and Bahlika. Of these Bahlika joined



163 of 282

Dhrtarashtra’s oligarchy. One of the chronicles holds that Santanu and Bahlika inherited

Pratipa’s kingdom and Devapi went to the forest on voluntary exile. A reappraisal of the

chronology is necessary. It is not helpful to leave the enigmas unsolved.

Bhumanyu IkshvaKu Amsuman

Suhotra (Bhumanyu’s son) +Daughter of Ikshvaku Dilipa

Ajamida Ilila Pratipa Bhagiratha

Riksha Dushyanta Devapi, Santanu, Bahlika

Samvarana Bharata Janamejaya Bhishma, Vichitravirya

Kuru Dhrtarashtra, Pandu, Vidura

Parikshit Pradipa Kauravas Pandavas

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya (who had taken over the kingdom after Parikshit’s

death) that many kings born in the Bharata lineage were great generals and were like

nobles (devas) and equivalent to Brahma, that is intellectual aristocrats and jurists.

Janamejaya too could be head of the state, a legislator and a judge in his status as

a mahara ja. His lineage was traced to Pururavas and his predecessors were highly

experienced persons. The chronicler told him how Sakuntala’s son, Bharata, performed

numerous sacrifices and financed and honoured the Brahmans (jurists) and bestowed huge

wealth on his guide, Kanva. Vaishampayana took care to address Janamejaya as Bharata to

indicate that after the death of Parikshit the lineage of Samvarana and Kuru had ended and

that the lineage of Bharata had been reinstated with his appointment. (Ch.101 Adiparva)

Santanu

After Bharata’s exit from the scene, Samvarana returned to the Ganga-Yamuna basin

and took over Hastinapura. But his son, Kuru opted to found a new capital, Kurukshetra,

and stay away from all struggles for power. Meanwhile Hastinapura fell to the lot of

Santanu who was also known as Mahabhishak, destroyer of a great empire. Pratipa, the

father of this arrogant and shameless ruler was connected with the Ikshvakus of the solarlineage. He was however a scrupulous adherent of the laws based on truth. Santanu

performed several asvamedha and ra jasuya sacrifices to mark his status as a conqueror

and a high judge. He could please Indra and get access to the house of nobles. When the

latter were honouring Brahma, the head of the constitution bench the nobles (devas) had

invited the Ra jarshis too.

As Ganga, an apsaras, and a socio-political thinker of the sober Soma school

entered the hall, skimpily dressed, the nobles (devas) and the Rajarshis looked downward



164 of 282

but Mahabhishak (Santanu) did not hesitate to look at her and admire her beauty. This

angered Brahma , the high judge , who dismissed him to the social world of commoners

(manushyaloka). Ganga whose modesty Santanu had offended would do unpleasantthings for him, Brahma declared, according to the chronicler. But Ganga had become

enamoured of that bold king. As she returned from the session of nobles (devas), jurists

and Rajarshis and political thinkers, Ganga saw eight Vasus who had offended Vasishta

and been reduced to the level of commoners from that of nobles. [Vasus, Adityas, Maruts

and Rudras were the four groups of traditional nobles.]

Santanu, Ganga and the eight Vasus

The Vasus requested that she should join the commonalty and adopt them as her

‘sons’. Ganga was an apsaras and had access to the nobility. Gandharvas and apsarases

ranked higher than the commoners (manushyas) but could mingle with both nobles

(devas) and commoners (manushyas). The Vasus opted to be ‘born’ to Ganga and

Santanu. Ganga agreed to do what was acceptable to that king and to the Vasus. The

Vasus knew that Ganga as an apsaras could move amongst all the three social worlds,

nobility, commonalty and the frontier society (divam, prthvi and antariksham).

According to the legend, the Vasus would be ‘born’ to her by Santanu but she

should throw them away in water immediately after their birth, as they did not want to be in

the world of commoners for a long time. She agreed but would allow Santanu to retain one

of the children from being discarded. His purpose in uniting with her should not be defeated,

she insisted. The Vasus however said that Santanu’s lineage would not continue in the

social world of commoners (manushyas) by that son. That is, that son would function

more as an aristocrat than as a commoner. The legends must be interpreted rationally and

not discarded as reflective of a society deeply immersed in superstitious beliefs.

The Vasus were representatives of the agro-pastoral population and instead of

protecting men and cattle they became greedy and snatched for themselves the ‘cow’ that

Vasishta, a Brahmarshi , looked after. It was an offence against the privileges that

the senior judge of the constitution bench enjoyed. As a result the Vasus whoadministered the commonalty lost their status and privileges as nobles and were treated as

but commoners though for a brief period. The Vasus would implement the socio-

political policies advocated by the school of thought represented by Ganga,

daughter of Bagiratha. But the new administration would have only one-fourth of the

powers that the eight Vasus had when they were deputed by the nobility to look after the

affairs of the commonalty.



165 of 282

Incidentally, it may be noted that the apsara school of thought reflected in the

Arthasastra of Pracetas Manu was satisfied with the head of the state receiving counsel

from a single outstanding thinker, Pracetas who would also be in charge of protection ofthe sovereignty of the ruler, Purusha, while he was on his mission of personal exploits. It

was not obligatory to have a ministry of eight Vasus. This was the stand that

Bhishma, the veteran statesman, took. (Ch.102 Adiparva)

According to the legend, Ganga, as an apsaras, volunteered to marry Pratipa, a

member of the oligarchy to which her father, Bhagiratha, belonged. But Pratipa who

followed the Ra jarshi constitution and was a stoic devoted to the purposes of dharma had

little interest in pursuit of sexual pleasure. He persuaded her to marry his son and become

his daughter-in-law and produce the children that she sought. Ganga respected him for his

knowledge of the provisions of the social and ethical code, dharma, and confided in him her

objective and mission and requested him not to let Santanu know about it. As Pratipa

agreed she disappeared from the scene. Santanu was certainly considerably junior to

Ganga. When she came in contact with him he was a well-educated youth devoted to the

principles of truth and well-trained in martial arts, including archery. But he was not a

conqueror. By his good works he had won a place among the cadres of benefactors

( punyaloka).

Pratipa directed Santanu to accept Ganga without putting any question about her

motives if that lady from the nobility approached him. After installing Santanu as his

successor, Pratipa retired to the forest. It was an age when the laws based on truth

( satya) were in force and the king had to follow them and implement them. The

social laws based on dharma were supplementary to them. Santanu honoured

both. He was popular among all the social worlds (lokas) as one who kept his word and

adhered to the laws based on truth ( satya). As a king he knew and followed the special

duties prescribed for Kshatriyas. He took the counsel of his ministers in administration and

did not use the state army for conquest. He went as an ekavira (lone warrior) on his

exploits and conquered and annexed several agro-pastoral regions (bhumi ). Hehad studied Ra jadharma besides other dharmas. His subordinate kings made him king of

kings. Rajadharma was in vogue even before Bhishma expounded it to Yudhishtira.

It was an age of peace and security. The new scheme of four classes (varnas) had

been introduced in some regions and the Brahmans were accepted as superior to the other

classes. Kshatriyas were favourable to them; in other words there was no conflict between

the judiciary and the executive. There was no conflict between the bourgeoisie, Vaisyas,

and the state controlled by Kshatriyas. Shudras served the Vaisyas who were a united



166 of 282

class rather than an aggregate of groups with diverse economic interests. The workers were

not drafted to serve the other classes, the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas. The Brahmans

were essentially jurists and were not then viewed as a sacerdotal class. Santanu adopted apolicy of compassion and banned killing of birds and domestic animals.

He had spent his boyhood in the city known as Hasti. The annotators have treated all

rulers of Hastinapura as having belonged to the Kuru lineage. Only the descendants of Kuru

who established himself in Kurukshetra rather than in Hastinapura were Kurus. Santanu was

patient though he was resolute, valorous and mighty and could be angry with the offenders.

He became popular with his subjects ( prajas).

Santanu was attracted by the beauty of Ganga but could not guess whether she

belonged to the aristocracy (devas) and exercised her right to choose her spouse or was

the daughter of a feudal chieftain (asura) and was bound by her father’s dictates. He was

not sure whether she followed the gandharva ways, which insisted on mutual consent

between lovers or the apsara ways, which allowed polyandry. Did she belong to the

plutocrats (yakshas) or to the technocrats (nagas), that is, to the industrial frontier

society, which had cultural, social and economic orientations different from those of the core

society of the nobles and commoners? Perhaps she was but a commoner (manushya). She

seemed to have the status of a devata, marginally lower than a noble, deva. But there

was no flaw in her. Hence he decided to treat her as a girl equal to a girl in an aristocratic

family (devakanya) and requested her to become his wife. (Ch.103 Adiparva)

The famous lady, Ganga, then approached him in his own interest. She had been

requestedby the Vasus to unite with him and relieve them from the ‘curse’ that they were

under. She offered herself to Santanu and asked him to accept her as his queen. She

stipulated that none including Santanu should try to know anything about her or interfere in

her actions or say what she did not like. If this condition were violated she would leave him,

she said.

As his father had approved her, Santanu should become her husband. He had to

function as a commoner who was bound by the instructions issued by the head of his family.[Students who protest against the absence of freedom for women in the Hindu family may

note that men too were not free. But these restrictions were prevalent only among the

organised commonalty and not among the intelligentsia or among the higher social strata.]

Santanu was a senior king closer to the plutocrats, a ra jasreshta but was not connected

with the Bharatas. However Janamejaya was addressed as Bharatasreshta to indicate that

he was a prominent member of the Bharatas.



167 of 282

The chronicler, Vaishampayana, was eager to remove the impression that Santanu

was lustful, a womaniser. He was a jitendriya, one who had conquered his sense organs,

Vaishampayana says. Ganga who looked like a devata (a lady who looked like one of anupper class) enjoyed the freedom that a lady of the aristocracy (devi ) had and could move

along all the three routes (to nobility, commonalty and the frontier society, divam, prthvi

and antariksham) as a member of the free intelligentsia to which class the apsarases

belonged. But after her marriage with Santanu she dressed and looked like a woman of the

commonalty (manushyas). Santanu as a ra jasreshta, a plutocratic ruler , had powers

equal to those of Indra and was also Prabhu, the head of the larger society.

(Ch.104 Adiparva)

The chronicler told Janamejaya whom he addresses as Bharata that Santanu who,

rather than Indra and the house of nobles (devas) controlled the national exchequer

(ra jalakshmi ) (as his personal wealth rather than as state wealth, rajyalakshmi ) enjoyed

in the company of Ganga all the happiness and privileges that were available in the social

world of nobles (devas) as well as to commoners (manushyas).

Ganga threw the first seven sons born to her in the river. In other words they were

to be brought up in the ways of life of the apsarases to whose school she belonged. They

would live on riverine economy moving from place to place. She is not to be accused of

having been guilty of infanticide. Santanu refrained from stopping her lest he should violate

the social code, dharma, by which she as an apsaras enjoyed total freedom to deal with

her offspring as she thought it fit. But he could restrain himself no more when she was

about to ‘kill’ the eighth child. He then broke his word and asked her who she was and why

she threw the infants in the river.

Ganga told him that she was the ‘daughter’ of Janhu, a great sage (maharshi ) and

one revered in assemblies of legislators (maharshis). [Bhagiratha had sought Jahnu’s help

in taming the river, Ganga.] She told Santanu about her promise to the Vasus who were

nobles and how he was selected as the medium best fit in the commonalty (bhumi ) for

their regaining the status of nobles. No woman in the commonalty could be a mother ofthese boys who would evolve in due course as nobles (devas). She asked Santanu to

protect and bring up the eighth son who had the power of all the eight social administrators

in charge of wealth, the Vasus. She named him as Gangadatta, one given by Ganga. She

predicted that he would make his clan famous and would accomplish tasks not possible for

ordinary men (manushyas). (Ch.105 Adiparva)

Santanu wanted to know who the sage of the water (a pava) was because of whose

‘curse’ the Vasus were born in the womb of a commoner (manushyas). What was their



168 of 282

offence that led to that curse? What had that boy done that required him to stay back in the

social world (loka) of the commoners (manushyas)? How were the Vasus who were

benevolent chieftains (isvaras) of all social worlds (lokas) born to commoners? [Theannotator of the later times was not carried away by the legend that they were all born to

Ganga and Santanu.]

The new liberal administrators had been drawn from the ranks of the

commonalty while the earlier ones represented all the social worlds and were

drawn from the nobility. While seven of these Vasus followed the training given by

the apsara school to which Ganga belonged the eighth received training in that

school of thought and also in the traditional system followed by Santanu and later

in the school of Pracetas. Bhishma was the eighth Vasu.

Addressing Janamejaya as Purushasreshta (a prominent dynamic leader) the

chronicler recalled what Ganga, daughter of Sage Jahnu, told Santanu. She addressed

Santanu as Bharatasreshta, indicating that he had ‘inherited’ the lands that were earlier

with Bharata, but was senior to Bharata. She told him about Vasishta whose father had

held the position of Varuna ( Apa, water in common parlance) in the Vedic polity.

Vasishta had his abode on the slopes of the Himalayas. He had with him a cow whose milk

he used in his sacrifices. It moved about without fear in his grove. Once Prthu and other

Vasus and other nobles (devas) and their ladies visited that grove. One of the ladies

pointed out that cow, Nandini, to ‘Dhyo’, one of the Vasus.

‘Dhyo’ told his wife that a man who drank its milk could live for several thousand

years without losing his youth. She wanted her husband to bring that cow with its calf for

her friend, a daughter of Rajarshi Usinara. To please his wife, ‘Dhyo’, along with Prthu and

other Vasus took it away. When Vasishta noticed the absence of his favourite cow he

cursed all the Vasus that would be ‘born’ as commoners. The Vasus returned to seek his

pardon. He told them that after staying one year in the world of commoners they could

return to their earlier status. Vasishta pardoned all except ‘Dhyo’ who he said would stay in

the social world of commoners (manushyas) for a long time. ‘Dhyo’ would however be childless. But he would have mastered all sastras

and be a follower of dharma. He would be a celibate, giving up sex. [It is claimed in

the chronicle that it happened so, as Vasishta had said so and his words never went wrong.]

Ganga explained that she ‘threw’ the Vasus in the river only at their request. She claimed

that she did so to free them from the world of the commoners (manushyas) and that it

was just and proper. She was defending herself against the charge that it was merciless

infanticide. Addressing Santanu as rajasreshta , a prominent king, Ganga said that ‘Dhyo’



169 of 282

would stay in the social world of commoners for a long time (away from the attractions of

the palace) and would return to him (as Devavrata).

Meanwhile he would be under her training, she implied. Bhishma belonged to theschool of Ambhas patronised by Ganga. She too would return to him whenever he

invited her. She disappeared with the boy, known also as Gangeya. He was superior to

Santanu in every respect. Santanu returned from the forest to the town after this

mysterious experience. The chronicler states that the traits and exploits of Santanu who

belonged to the Bharata lineage form the impressive history of Mahabharata. Instead of

emphasising the exploits of Bharata, the epic dilates on the careers of Santanu and his

successors. (Ch.106 Adiparva)

It may be easy to pass by several passages in the epic as poetic exaggeration. But it

is not easy to explain the shifts in emphases that we come across at every stage while

dealing with issues of social and political importance. Santanu, a Maharaja, who had several

minor kings paying tributes to him, was well educated and honoured by the nobles, kings

and sages. We cannot say the same about rulers like Dushyanta who lacked the support of

the nobles (devas) and sages (rshis).

Santanu was devoted to the principles of dharma and also adhered to the

laws based on truth ( satya). He belonged to the age of transition from the

puritanical laws that upheld satya to the liberal laws, dharma, of the later Vedic

times that tried to accommodate diverse orientations of the larger society.

Conquest of sense organs, generosity, patience, intellect, humility, valour and domineering

marked the traits of this prominent social leader ( purushasreshta). He was an expert in

the interpretation of social and moral laws (dharma) and in political policy

(ra janiti ). It was a stage when dandaniti and arthasastra and even dharmasastra texts

had not yet come into vogue. But there were other works that dwelt on the themes later

developed and systemised and incorporated in these works. He had the ability to protect the

Bharata lineage and also all the subjects ( prajas). [The epic also notes that not all were his

admirers.]According to the chronicler, the disciplined conduct of that famous king made the

commoners believe strongly that pursuit of morality and ethics (dharma) was superior to

the pursuit of happiness (kama) and wealth (artha). This orientation and preference has

marked the functioning of all sane and good societies. The chronicler told Janamejaya who

too was a prominent member of the Bharatas that Santanu was by nature of a high moral

standard. He was eager to cut down the impression that like most kings Santanu too was

after wealth, women and sex.



170 of 282

No other king, according to the chronicler, equalled Santanu in his devotion to

dharma. He strictly adhered to the social and moral codes based on dharma and was the

best among the kings who protected dharma. Those kings honoured him as Ra jaraja. WithSantanu at the head of the polity, those kings were able to breathe freely and stay fearless,

unworried by troubles. They slept comfortably but were also alert and aware of their duties.

The kings who were subordinate to Santanu who was equal to Indra in prowess offered

gifts and performed sacrifices. In other words, they did not resort to exploitation of the

people.

The state and its head were recipients of gifts (dana) from the junior kings and

voluntary contribution (as yajna) by the subjects (of one-fourth) from their earnings. Most

of these kings were in fact administrators of discrete units of the state. Neither the system

of forced surrender of earnings as bali nor the system of taxes, kara, was in force then.

Santanu belonged to the final decades of the long Vedic era when the state

administration was kept in place through voluntary contributions collected by the

officials from the commonalty. His was not an economic (artha) state claiming a

prescribed share as tax (kara) from the earnings of the people or a feudal state coercing

(danda) the people to part with (bali ) a large portion of their earnings but a social state

(dharma) accepting whatever little that was offered (dana) voluntarily (yajna).

When the social world (loka) of commoners was protected by kings who were in fact

administrators functioning under the overlord, Santanu, the scheme of four classes

(varnas) was introduced. For all the classes the instituted respective duties and

rights ( svadharma) were treated as the best to be followed. In other words, one

should not follow the duties meant for other classes. The hierarchical arrangement required

the Kshatriyas, the members of the executive and the army to nurse and tend ( susrusha)

the Brahmans, teachers and jurists, and the Vaisyas, the traders and the landlords to

follow the instructions given by the executive (Kshatriyas). The Shudras (workers) should

serve the Vaisyas and be friendly with the Brahmans and the Kshatriyas. Shudras were

not the personal servants (dasas) of Brahmans and Kshatriyas. The proletariat wasadvised to treat the judiciary and the executive as its friends while it functioned under the

bourgeoisie and the landed gentry. The social state (dharmara jya) did not claim any right

to the services of the (agrarian as well as industrial) proletariat whether organised or not.

Unlike the feudal state, far from denying the workers any rights and exploiting them the

social state ensured that they were not exploited by their employers, the landed gentry and

the bourgeoisie.



171 of 282

Santanu stayed in Hastinapura, the capital of the Kauravas and ruled the entire

plains (bhumi ) up to the seas. He was equal to Indra in status and knew the socio-cultural

laws (dharma) that were then on the anvil and did not depart from the laws based on truth ( satya) of the later Vedic times. There was no contradiction between what he was and

what he appeared to be (that is, a truly kind king). As he was generous and adhered to

righteousness and exerted in performing his duties perfectly he secured huge wealth.

He performed his duties dispassionately whenever he was required to carry out the

duties of Chandra (who had to be gentle and have a pleasant appearance), or those of

Surya (who had to be severe and harsh in enforcing his authority), or those of Vayu (who

insisted on expeditious performance of duties), or those of Yama (who would be angry with

those who violated the prohibitory orders) or those of Prthvi or Bhumi (who would bear

patiently all responsibilities and hardships). The post of Indra had been taken over by

Santanu who was according to the socio-political legislation (dharma) then in force

Maharaja exercising control over the rajas, assertive heads of departments and regions.

All the ministers who wore the Vedic designations functioned directly under the king.

The Atharvan king (raja) was a mere titular head of the state with Indra heading the all-

powerful eight-member ministry. Santanu had the treasury and the army under his control

after easing out Indra. As Indra he could preside over the house of nobles (devas). He

might even take over the duties of the other ministers also when necessary as he was a

trained administrator. The expanded neo-Vedic social polity had a smaller

administrative board. Soma was an intellectual representing the frontier industrial

society of the forests and mountains (antariksham). Surya controlled general

administration including collection of revenue.

Vayu looked after the dispersed and unorganised and unsettled population of the

open areas (akasa) most of which were at the bare subsistence level. Prthvi represented

the autonomous commonalty (manushyas) of the agro-pastoral plains. Yama looked after

the affairs of the magistracy and ensured that violation of prohibitory orders was punished.

Vaishampayana was briefing Janamejaya on the different roles that the king of the laterVedic times had to perform. Santanu appears to have retained with him the powers

of Indra, Agni and Varuna and directly controlled the treasury, the civil judiciary

and the authority to punish those who did not fulfil their legal and constitutional

obligations.

When Santanu was ruler over the commonalty, both domestic and wild animals and

birds were protected from harassment. The legislation which was based on the

Atharvan constitution was called Brahmanadharma. [This expression did not mean



172 of 282

duties and rights of Brahmans as teachers and priests.] It guaranteed equal protection

to all beings, whether human or non-human, that came under the jurisdiction of

the state (rajya). Manava Dharmasastra acknowledged that the constitution,Brahma was superior to the executive (the state) and to the legislation, dharma.

But during the times of Santanu, the distinction between constitution and

legislation was absent. Santanu as the head of the state retained in his hands the

authority to interpret both of them and he governed his empire without the aid of

the house of nobles. Santanu was not after the pleasures of the senses. Even when he

was but a youth he conducted himself in a dignified manner and had considered views on all

issues of the state and was also brave.

This social constitution required that the people should contribute through sacrifices

(yajna) for the maintenance of the three non-economic cadres, nobles (devas), sages

(rshis) and the elders ( pitrs). The king ensured that the people maintained the three

cadres. [It is not sound to interpret that devayajna , rshiyajna and pitryajna meant

performance of rites known as agnihotra, studying and teaching Vedas and performing

annual sraddha sacrifices.]

It is not to be construed that Santanu was required to implement the provisions of a

puritanical constitution. Brahmanadharma was against unauthorised killing of any living

being. It required that all beings, human and non-human, who had no guardians and who

were weak, should be protected by the state. The king was to conduct himself as the ‘father’

of the weaker sections of the larger society. When Santanu, the best of the Kurus was the

ruler, all commitments by (words of) the people were honoured. They did not go against the

laws based on truth ( satya).

All thoughts were tuned to offering generous gifts and performance of duties

(dharma). Breeding of cattle was meant for giving them away at sacrifices and was not

meant for enriching oneself through possession of livestock. Similarly sex was meant only

for reproduction of the species. Brahmanadharma recognised the right to sex for

procreation and for continuance of the family and not for sexual pleasure (kama). [Thisterm is not to be interpreted as giving the authority to the Brahmans to impose the

provisions of the legislation, known as dharma.]

Satyavati, Santanu and Bhishma

Santanu completed his primary education by the age of sixteen and was a trainee in

higher academies for eight, four and eight years after that. Till the age of thirty-six he

stayed a celibate and was wandering in the forest. The chronicler is keen to assert that

Bhishma (Devavrata) was born to Santanu and Ganga and to present him as the



173 of 282

representative of the Vasus. Bhishma who was brought up by Ganga resembled Santanu in

appearance, deeds, conduct and education, he says. The great valorous and aristocratic

general, Devavrata, had mastered by then all weapons available to the commonalty(bhumi ) and also those not available to them. Santanu could not recognise his former

ladylove, Ganga, who presented to him the trained lad. She told him that the lad had learnt

Vedas and their branches from Vasishta and was well trained in archery and missiles and

was equal to (Sakra) Indra in war.

Bhishma had learnt all the political codes ( sastras) that Usanas (Sukra) knew. In

other words, the Apsara (Ambha) school of political thought to which Ganga

introduced young Devavrata covered all the fields that Sukra emphasised in his

dandaniti . He had also mastered the science of political economy (varta and

lokayata) advocated by Brhaspati (follower of Angirasa, one of the major contributors to

Atharvaveda) who was revered by the nobles (devas) as well as by the feudal lords

(asuras). It was an age when the two rival sections of the elite had briefly buried the

hatchets and agreed to follow a common civil and economic code. Devavrata had

mastered all the martial arts known to invincible Parasurama. Ganga presented to

Santanu, a lad who was a great warrior and expert in political conduct (ra jadharma) and

political policy (rajaniti ). Santanu was required to accept that lad as his son. Bhishma was

junior to Parasurama, Usanas and Brhaspati.

Santanu installed Bhishma as crown prince. That famous son of Santanu who gave

asylum to all who sought him and accepted them as the subjects ( prajas) of the state

(rajyam) and was endowed with noble traits, delighted the Purus, his father and the people

of his country (desa) with his discipline. Four years elapsed before Santanu came across

Satyavati, daughter of a chieftain of the fishermen on the banks of Yamuna. She was plying

a boat as directed by her father. As suggested by her Santanu approached her father for her

hand. Nishadas (fishermen) who were on the social periphery were not natives

( jana) of the kingdom and had become subjects ( prajas) of the new state under

certain conditions. The king as an Isvara was to them a protector and granter ofcertain benefits (boons) agreed upon.

The chieftain agreed that he had to give away his daughter on her birth to a groom,

according to his social custom that was protected by the state. The king could take under

his protection all unprotected beings including unmarried girls. But the father was eligible to

stipulate his own conditions. It would be a contract between the overlord and a vassal under

the provisions of the laws based on truth ( satya). If Santanu wanted to adopt Satyavati as

his wife he should fulfil those conditions.



174 of 282

Santanu would treat him as but a subordinate (dasa) and would give the

boon (vara) only after knowing the conditions. He would grant it only if it accorded

with the rules. He was not prepared to treat the marriage as an alliance between twopolitical chieftains. The fisherman who ruled the waters (apa) told the king who

ruled the plains (bhumi ) that only the son born to her (Satyavati) should be

installed as king after him (after his death or retirement). Addressing Janamejaya as

Bharata, the chronicler told him that though Santanu loved Satyavati intensely he was not

willing to grant this boon which in fact was a condition stipulated for the marital alliance.

Devavrata noticed that Santanu was depressed and withdrawn and wanted to know

what ailed the king. He would find a cure for it. Santanu sought to rationalise his amour for

Satyavati as intent to provide the great clan of Bharatas an additional offspring for however

great a warrior Devavrata might be his death in battle would else bring an end to his

lineage. According to the counsellors on socio-cultural code, dharma, having only

one son was equal to having no son, Santanu argued. According to that (later Vedic )

code having only one son was like having only one eye. It is a serious handicap. If the only

son predeceased the father, the clan (kula) would be ruined.

The performance of the three duties, protecting the nobles, sages and elders

(devas, rshis and pitrs) through agnihotra rites, studying and teaching Vedas and

performing annual sraddha rites would not be equal in merit to one sixteenth of that of

having an issue. This principle was applicable to all ‘beings’, whether ‘human’ or ‘non-

human’, to be precise, for all sections of the population whether they were

commoners, manushyas, or not. Santanu was drawing attention to the stand taken by

Brahmanadharma. (Brahmanadharma had nothing to do with varnasramadharma

upheld later by Manava Dharmasastra.) He had implicit faith in this stand. It is not to be

construed as describing the rights and duties of Brahman priests and teachers.

In the social world (loka) of (unclassified) commonalty only one who had a son could

discharge the debts incurred by his elders (predecessors). This rule was applicable also to

the sages (rshis) and nobles (devas) in the past according to the eternal ( sasvata) Veda. In other words sasvata dharma , Manava Dharmasastra , the permanent legislation drew

its principles from the eternal Vedas, according to the chronicler. Santanu had a genuine

fear that Bhishma might die young.

Bhishma learned from Santanu’s charioteer that the king was enamoured of

Satyavati, daughter of a chieftain of fishermen and that her father had stipulated the

condition that Santanu’s son by her should succeed Santanu as king. Bhishma who knew

and followed the then socio-political code , Dharma, (that is, Rajadharma) went along with



175 of 282

senior Kshatriyas (administrators) who too followed its provisions, to the fisherman and

asked him to give his daughter in kanyadana to his father, Santanu. The practice of

kanyadana, giving away a virgin in marriage before she attained puberty was later madevalid only for marriages between girls and boys whose fathers belonged to the class of

Brahmans. Neither the fisherman nor Bhishma was a Brahman. Besides he was seeking

Satyavati for his father. This was against the norm. Further Satyavati was not a virgin then.

The chieftain of the fishermen set up a royal assembly (ra jasabha) to receive

Bhishma, the crown prince, and discuss with him the details of the agreement. He noted

that Bhishma was entitled to produce a son who would continue Santanu’s lineage. The

kingdom should be offered as sulka (marriage fees) if Santanu were to marry her. This was

a feudal (asura) practice, which Manava Dharmasastra deprecated. But the reign of

Santanu was marked by equal treatment for devas and asuras. The chieftain pointed out

that even Indra who headed the house of nobles (devas) would not like to miss that

chance.

The Nishada chieftain told Bhishma that Satyavati was in fact the daughter of a

great person who was equal in status and learning to the latter. He was referring to the

famous king, Uparicara Vasu of Cedi. The Nishada leader claimed that Uparicara (her

genetic father) had told him many times about Santanu being a suitable husband for her.

She too had told Uparicara that she should get the kingdom (ra jyam) as bride-money

( sulka). Vaishampayana was drawing the attention of Janamejaya and the members of his

court to the dilemma that the Nishada chieftain, Bhishma and Santanu were in. The

Nishada leader refused to give her to Santanu, who was functioning under the Ra jarshi

constitution and was not entitled to give away the kingdom to one of his choice.

Only a successor duly selected by a committee of three senior authorities

(Ra japurohita, incumbent Rajarshi and Prime Minister, or Brhaspati , Raja and Indra)

could select the successor to the throne. The chieftain was aware of this provision. But

as the father of a girl the Nishada leader told Bhishma that in his mission of marriage there

was a serious flaw. There was a powerful enemy who would prevent its success. He wasreferring to Bhishma himself whose interests would be affected by that marriage. He knew

that Bhishma’s opponent whether a gandharva or an asura would not be able to withstand

his anger. Of course no noble (deva) would like to challenge Bhishma who himself belonged

to the nobility as a Vasu. It was a stage when the members of the ruling class of Ra janyas

belonged to one of the three cadres, devas, asuras and gandharvas and not to the

commonalty, manushyas.



176 of 282

Bhishma should know why that leader, a vassal of Santanu (and Bhishma who had

the status of a king, raja) was not prepared to give her in marriage to Santanu who had

sought her hand. Bhishma assured the chieftain that Satyavati’s son would become theking. But the chieftain was not satisfied with this unusual step in the matter of the state

(ra jyam) that Bhishma proposed to take, that is, stepping aside in favour of Satyavati’s son.

The chieftain pointed out that Bhishma had come there as the guardian (natha) of

Santanu and that according to the political code (dharma) he was as a Vasu the

overlord ( prabhu) of that virgin (kanya) who was separated from her father

(Uparicara Vasu) and was entitled to give her away. The enigma is deep.

The chieftain however wanted Bhishma to note his word and his action. As it was the

nature of one associated with women he would draw attention to a particular aspect.

Bhishma followed the laws based on satya and the dharma code. He had in the midst

of ra janyas pledged that he would not come in the way of Satyavati’s son becoming king.

The chieftain did not doubt his sincerity and ability to fulfil that word. But he had doubts

about what Bhishma’s sons would do.

Accepting that the fears of the chieftain were genuine, Bhishma took a vow in the

midst of (the representatives of) the native people ( jana) of the state of Hastinapura and in

the presence of the sages (rshis) and nobles (devas) and administrators (ra jans) present

there and calling upon the population of the periphery (bhutas) who were not present there

physically but were subjects of his state to note that he had already given up the entire

state (ra jyam) and that thenceforth he would be bound by the pledge (vrata) of celibacy

(brahmacarya). This would be a pledge on the issue of having no offspring. This

would meet the fears entertained by the chieftain.

As Bhishma promised to give up his claim to the throne and the duty and right to

marry and procreate an offspring and thus cleared the way for the marriage, the Nishada

chieftain who was a vassal (dasa) of Santanu agreed to give his foster-daughter, Satyavati,

in marriage to Santanu. The kings praised this rare act of sacrifice and the apsarases (to

whose cadre Satyavati belonged) of the open space (akasa) and nobles (devas) andgroups of sages (rshis) (who belonged to the higher social strata) strew flowers over

Bhishma in appreciation of his act. This was a man whom everyone should fear (bhishma),

they declared.

Bhishma then escorted Satyavati to Hastinapura and handed over his mother to his

father, Santanu. Santanu as Isvara (a charismatic benevolent ruler) granted him the boon

(vara) that until he wished to die, the officer of the judiciary, Yama, who had the power to

pronounce death would not have jurisdiction in matters pertaining to Bhishma’s conduct.



177 of 282

Only with the permission of Bhishma, Yama would be able to take any action. Thus

Bhishma was appointed as the highest officer of the judiciary. (It is inane to hold that

Bhishma was given the boon to choose the date of his death.) This account does notindicate that Bhishma had courted Satyavati before his father did. (Ch.107 Adiparva)

Santanu married Satyavati, daughter of Uparicara Vasu, king of Cedi and foster-

daughter of a chieftain of fishermen, according to rites prescribed in the (state) code.

Chitrangada was the first son born to them. Uparicara was an intellectual and was noted for

his gandharva orientation. Chitrangada too was granted the status of a gandharva, a

status in between nobles (devas) and commoners (manushyas). The intellectuals

(Brahmans) and warriors (Kshatriyas) of the later Vedic period were drafted mainly from

this class. Chitrangada was an intellectual and had high leadership traits. He was a

purushasreshta. But he fell at the hands of another Chitrangada who too was a

gandharva. The duel between the two took place at Kurukshetra, it is said. It was a way to

settle one’s claims to the status aspired for. The claims of the son of Santanu and Satyavati

to the lands of the Kurus must have been challenged.

To be precise, the ra janya status that was given to Chitrangada was challenged by

the new cadre of kshatriyas who would be independent warriors rather than administrators

of the state bound by state codes. It may be noted that the prefix, Chitra and the suffix,

Asva were used to denote the essentially gandharva status of the person concerned.

Chitras were known for intellectualism and a gentle feminine touch in conduct and pursuits

and Asvas for aggressiveness and enterprise.

Vichitravirya was the second son of Satyavati. Though he was given training in

archery, the main war-weapon, Vichitravirya lacked manliness as his name indicated.

Santanu had passed away even when Vichitravirya was but a lad. Bhishma

controlled the affairs of the state as regent after the coronation of Vichitravirya as

the ruler of the Kuru state (Kauravara jya). The chronicler told Janamejaya that

Vichitravirya ruled the kingdom, which he had inherited from his father and grandfather. It

is implied that the new code (dharmasastra) legitimised such succession. (Ch.108Adiparva)



178 of 282

12

BHISHMA’S REGENCY

Bhishma functioned as regent with the consent of Satyavati as her son, Vicitravirya,

was minor. He could be administrator (karta) being the eldest of the three sons of Santanu.

The new code did not recognise the dowager queen as the regent. [It may be noted herethat after Vena died sonless his mother, Sunita, functioned as regent until Prthu was elected

as king under the new constitution.] When Vicitravirya came of age, Bhishma deliberated

with officials concerned about his marriage. [Bhishma because of his vow of celibacy could

not be installed as king.]

Bhishma had heard about the svayamvara that the three daughters of the king of

Kasi had arranged. They were apsarases and hence were not required to get the

permission of their parents for their marriage. To be precise the latter were only foster-

parents of the three foundlings and these girls were free to choose their spouses from

among those who sought their hands. They would surrender themselves to the heroes who

overcame their rivals in the contests arranged. The great general, Bhishma, with the

permission of Satyavati (whom he had accepted as his mother) went alone to Kasi to win

those girls for Vicitravirya.

Princes from the eastern states like Kasi, Kosala, Vanga, Kalinga and Pundra had

assembled with their followers for taking part in the contests. The princesses of Kasi out of

respect for the age of Bhishma, son of Santanu who sat alone, kept away from him. The

princes spoke derisively of Bhishma and accused him of having taken a false oath of



179 of 282

celibacy. Angered by their comments Bhishma took hold of the three princesses and

challenged the assembled princes to battle with him. He had to defend his conduct. If he

won, the girls would be his and he would be free to deal with them as he pleased.This introduces a discourse on the different types of marriages then in vogue. The

sages (rshis) had stated in the then socio-cultural codes (dharmasastras) that qualified

grooms were to be invited and the girls given to them adorned and with adequate wealth.

[The chronicler was referring to the provisions in the social codes that were in vogue before

Manava Dharmasastra was drafted by Bhrgu and other members of the editorial board

appointed by the first Manu, Svayambhuva.] This practice has later been wrongly called

Brahma marriage and treated to be the best of the eight types. It was earlier practised by

all sections of the population but later became restricted to the intellectuals and the middle

class. It was in fact the aristocratic (daiva) type in which endowments were made on the

bride to ensure a secure future for her.

The rule of giving (dana) a virgin (kanya) in marriage is not attached to this

practice of the aristocrats (daiva). It is however attached to the Arsha (rshi , sage) type of

marriage where the groom had to give two cows in return. Bhishma does not use the terms,

Brahma and Arsha. He throws this type too open to all. However it was almost on par with

the marriages where there was exchange of girls for money. This has later been condemned

as asura type of marriage and prohibited. Bhishma noted that some by their skills

impressed the virgins (kanya) and made them give their consent for marriage with them.

In this type the girls must have attained the age of consent. This gandharva type

has been the most commonly practised one and has been permitted for all classes. Bhishma

noticed the incidence of kidnapping girls (virgins) while they were asleep or were under

sedatives. This paisaca marriage has been condemned by all the codes. Some married the

girls (virgins) with the permission of the parents. There was no selection of the grooms by

the parents of the girls or of the brides by those of the grooms. This was known as

Praja patya marriage and had not been approved by some sages.

Bhishma told the assembled princes and others that some married in order to beable to be able to fulfil the duty of performing sacrifices as prescribed in the Vedas. It is not

correct to describe this as daiva type of marriage. It was closer to the Brahma marriage

where there was no consideration other than acquiring competence to perform the

prescribed Vedic sacrifices. This was restricted to a few among the priests.

Bhishma then drew their attention to the Rakshasa type of marriage, which he said

the ‘clever’ preferred. He also noted that princes (ra japutras) praised and followed

‘ svayamvara’ (girls choosing their spouses). [This statement seems to be a considerably



180 of 282

later interpolation.] Bhishma however noted that according to dharmasastra (then in

vogue) only the bride who was forcibly taken away was the best. He told the assembled

princes that he hence proposed to take the three girls away by force. He challenged them tofight and prepare for victory or defeat. But the princes could not prevent him from taking

away the three princesses of Kasi to the country of the Bharatas. Only the prince of Salva

continued to chase him and fight while the others dropped out. But Bhishma spared his life.

Salva went back to his country to administer it in accordance with kshatriyadharma.

Meanwhile, Vichitrvirya was ruling the Kuru land from Hastinapura on the lines of

Santanu. Bhishma treated the princesses as his daughters-in-law and as his sisters and in

consultation with Satyavati arranged for their marriage with Vichitravirya. But the eldest of

them told him that she had already planned to marry the prince of Salva and that her father

too wanted that. She asked Bhishma who knew dharma and was in the midst the

assembled jurists (Brahmanasabha) to act according to what was just and according to

the code (dharma). Bhishma deliberated on the matter and noted that a girl who had been

promised to another man or had been thought of for or by another man or had already gone

through marriage rituals (mantra) or loved another should be given up.

With the permission of his brother, Vichitravirya, and after consulting the experts in

Vedas, Bhishma who knew the provisions of the dharma code sent Ambha back. He

assured Ambha that he would never come in contact with her. Vicitravirya was attracted by

the beauty of Ambha but requested Bhishma not to order him to marry her. Bhishma was

pleased with his request, which indicated that he was not under the influence of lust

(kama). [Vicitravirya addresses his elder brother and guardian, Bhishma as an Arya, as a

respectable person. Vicitravirya was keenly aware of the status distinction between him

whose mother, Satyavati, was the ‘daughter’ of a dasa (vassal) and Bhishma who was a

free and independent personage, an Arya.]

Then Bhishma, assuming the position of guardian, gave away the other two girls,

Ambika and Ambalika (in kanyadan), to his younger brother, Vicitravirya who took their

hands ( panigraha). Ambha went to the capital of the ruler of Salva and asked him to marryher. But Salva refused to accept her as she had come from the house of her captor rather

than from that of her father and asked her to return to Bhishma. She did so and claimed

that according to kshatriyadharma as he was her captor he should marry her. But

Bhishma pleaded inability to marry her as he had vowed to lead the life of a celibate as one

who had conquered his senses ( jitendriya). He also refused to accept her as wife of

Vicitravirya as she had loved another earlier. Ambha went to the prince of Salva once again

and was rebuffed again.



181 of 282

The chronicler notes that after spending ‘six’ years in going to and fro, between

Bhishma and Salva, Ambha performed penance for ‘twelve’ years. This frightened the

nobles (devas) for they had not intervened to protect her interests. However Senapati Shanmukha who was later raised to the status of Isvara, a benevolent ‘god’ and

who headed an indestructible army gave her a garland on behalf of the social

world of nobles (devaloka) and assured her that the garland would remove the afflictions

she was going through as a commoner (bhumi ). One who wore it would be the cause of

Bhishma’s death, he said. Shanmukha (known also as Kartikeya, Subrahmaniya, Skanda

and Senapati) was present on the scene then. This intervention by him has to be explained.

Some identify Skanda with the great thinker, Sanatkumara.

Bhishma tried to justify his conquest of the princesses on behalf of his impotent

brother by distorting the provisions in the socio-political code that treated conquest as

kshatriyadharma. He was riding roughshod over the wishes of those princesses and was

cruel in the case of Ambha who represented a school of thought that demanded that no

woman should be coerced to act against her will or against her personal interests.

Bhishma had not conducted himself as a just administrator. He had shown scant regard for

the views of the enlightened liberal nobles (devas) whose views were then put forth

forcefully by Sena pati Shanmukha. (Ch.109 Adiparva)

Ambha found that no prince of the kshatriya cadres was prepared to marry and

protect her, for she was openly wailing that Bhishma had made dark her present and future.

Kshatriya cadres, which belonged to the agro-pastoral commonalty, did not dare to

antagonise him and so too the princes, Rajanyas, who were closer to the nobility (devas)

were not ready to do anything that would irk Bhishma. She then approached Yajnasena of

Panchala who was a senior member of the Ikshvaku group of kings and was however

essentially a Somaka. Ikshvakus have been considered to be followers of Prajapati

Vivasvan and Manu Vaivasvata and were known as the solar ( surya) group of kings.

Somas known as the lunar group stood apart from them. Most of them had emerged from

the population of the forests and mountains rather than from the agro-pastoral plains orfrom the nobility of the core society.

Ambha, an apsaras, expected this ruler of Panchala, a province in the Ganga-

Yamuna doab noted for its apsara culture to uphold her cause. But he pleaded inability to

protect her against Bhishma and enable her to enjoy the rights and perform the duties that

she claimed under the apsara-kshatriya cultural code, dharma. It granted the girl the

right to choose her spouse and be protected by him and to stay with him as long

as she pleased and have offspring by him. She was however not required to follow the



182 of 282

rule of monogamy or constrained to bring up those offspring. Yajnasena was not bold to

defend these rights that she claimed as Bhishma had different views on this matter.

Bhishma’s concept of kshatriya dharma asserted the rights and duties of strongmen to dominate and the need of the weak including the women to accept that

domination. The latter portion was not acceptable to the school of Ambhas to which

Bhishma’s mother, Ganga, belonged.

Ambha left the garland behind at the entrance to the palace. Drupada a leading

member of the oligarchy of Pancala requested her to take it away lest his state should invite

the enmity of Bhishma. But she refused stating that hers was not the act of an ordinary

human being and that whoever accepted that garland was destined to kill Bhishma in battle.

Drupada overlooked its implications while his daughter, Sikhandini, took up the challenge.

Sikhandini, like some apsarases , got training in martial arts under a gandharva chieftain,

Tumburu. It is likely that this fact had later become a victim of undue eulogy of Bhishma

and the fiction that Sikhandi who killed Bhishma was a eunuch whom that general refused

to fight with came to take root. (Ch.110 Adiparva)

Vichitravirya married Ambika and Ambalika in the presence of Agni. During the

Vedic times, ‘ Agni’ was the designation of the head of the samiti , the council of scholars

and represented the interests of the commonalty. He was also the civil judge. The

procedure of grasping the hand ( panigraha) was gone through and it was declared to be a

dharma marriage. It was not a marriage motivated by lust (kama) or by considerations of

wealth and power (artha). The chronicler treated Vichitravirya as one who had the status of

Asvins. Asvins though they belonged to the lower rungs of the commonalty as

Nasatyas and Dasas (Shudras) had been admitted to the enlarged house of nobles

(devas). Vicitravirya’s mother, Satyavati, was the daughter of a fisherman, a Nishada and

a vassal (dasa) of Santanu.

The chronicler would remove the impression that Vicitravirya was a coward and

hence Bhishma had to fight for him. He claimed that the king was valorous like the nobles

(devas). Devas were not warriors though they had to take up arms in self-defence or todefend the weak. Though the married life of Vicitravirya lasted seven years he had no

issues. He died of consumption. Bhishma performed his last rites in accordance with the

prescribed socio-political code (dharma). He was the administrator (karta) of the joint

family. He took the views of the priests and elder members of the Kuru clan and those of

Satyavati. He became regent again as all concerned conceded his right as ‘karta’ . (Ch.111

Adiparva)



183 of 282

Though according to Bhishma’s kshatriyadharma, an unmarried girl did not have

the right to act independently she gained rights equal to her husband after marriage and

undisputed right as mother after the demise of her husband. Satyavati called upon Bhishmato procreate sons for her son, Vicitravirya, on the wives of the latter. She took into account

the kuladharma, the practice prevalent in the clan of the Kurus, while calling upon him to

resort to the provisions of niyoga.

It is interesting to note that the concept of ‘rnamukti’ , liberation from debts and

liabilities, requires every man to marry and procreate a son on his wife or resort to other

methods to acquire a son who will shoulder this burden, has led to the perpetuation of

patrilinear succession to property and domination by the male members of the family into

which the wife has married. Niyoga required the widow to yield to her brother-in-law

or an appointed person and procreate a son for her husband who had died sonless.

This orientation led to the denial of any share to the daughters in the family assets

and to exploitation of the sonless wives and widows. This position was not palatable to

Satyavati who was brought up in the apsara orientation of the fishermen, Nishadas.

Satyavati herself had plied boats. She wanted that the interests of the two lineages, the

mother’s and the father’s, should be protected. Vicitravirya’s widows should be able to

protect the interests and uphold the orientations of their mothers as well as their deceased

father.

Vichitravirya was a gandharva like his deceased brother Chitrangada and his

mother was an apsaras while his father, Santanu, was a kshatriya ruler. Satyavati would

like his issues to uphold this kshatriya orientation of Santanu as well as the apsara

orientations that she and Ambika and Ambalika were brought up in. Satyavati would not

insist on birth of sons only whether by normal course or by the non-normative methods like

niyoga. The rules of kuladharma that he honoured required that Bhishma undertook to

procreate a son who would continue the Kuru clan of Santanu.

According to Satyavati one could rise in the social ladder and enter the aristocracy

( svargaloka) through good deeds. The gandharvas and apsarases constituted a socialworld of persons who had done noble deeds ( punyakarma). They were superior to the

commoners (manushyas) who did only the duties prescribed for them. The laws of the

later Vedic era, which were based on truth ( satya), promised every one only a long and

permanent tenure in his present position. They did not promise social ascent, she noted.

Bhishma however adhered to the socio-political laws (dharma). He had classified and

compiled the social codes of different groups (dharma) and had studied all the different

Vedas and their branches (angas).



184 of 282

Satyavati knew these and admired Bhishma’s firm faith in dharma and his

adherence to the practices of his clan (kula) and his firm intellectual stand on issues

involving dilemmas in executive duties, which placed him on par with Brhaspati andUsanas (Sukra) as an expert in principles and practice of political economy. She told

him that she was appointing him to procreate sons for his brother who had died issueless,

on the widows of the latter. She claimed it to be an act of dharma. She also asked Bhishma

to declare himself as king and rule the country that had belonged to Bharata. She asked

him to marry the widows of Vichitravirya.

The social code of dharma permitted such remarriage of widows provided the new

husband was a brother of the deceased husband or belonged to the same ‘gotra’ . This had

been allowed in laws of succession that Brhaspati had drafted for property and Usanas for

state. He should not allow the souls of the ancestors to go down to hell. Their souls should

be saved and lifted to the shore of that river of hell. His kinsmen endorsed this appeal of

Satyavati. But Bhishma politely and firmly refused to accept the offer. He reminded

Satyavati that he had already surrendered the kingdom (ra jya) to her as kanyasulka when

she agreed to marry his father, Santanu. He again took the pledge openly (in front of

the assembly) under the laws based on satya that he would ease his control over

the three social worlds (lokas) (nobility, commonalty and frontier society) and give up

his claims to devara jya , that is, to administrative powers as a noble (deva).

He might give up access to the two higher cadres, legislators (mahaloka) and

people’s representatives ( janaloka) but would not give up his adherence to the policies

dictated by the highest cadre of jurists ( satyaloka). The other officials (of the larger Vedic

polity) like, Bhumi , Apa , Kubera , Vayu , Surya , Agni , Akasa , Chandra , Indra and

Dharma might deviate from their duties but he would not, he declared. These posts

continued to exist in Hastinapura during Bhishma’s regency. Even if the three social

worlds were threatened with disaster and even if he were offered the status of a devata or

wealth he would not go against his word.

Satyavati realised that he was firm in adhering to his word ( satya) and also knewthat he was capable of creating three new social cadres (lokas) if the existing ones were

lost. She asked him to utilise the provisions of the laws of emergency (a paddharma) and

bear the responsibilities of the state that his dayadas had borne till then. She requested

him to ensure the continuance of his lineage and do what would please her and his kinsmen

and what would be to his good. Then Bhishma told the queen to observe dharma and not

to cause the destruction of his clan (kula). The codes of dharma did not approve a



185 of 282

kshatriya (an executive) failing to adhere to the laws based on truth ( satya), Bhishma

declared.

For ensuring the continuance of the lineage of Santanu he would cite to her theprovisions of the ancient kshatriya dharma. (Bhishma’s Ra jadharma drew its

authority and legitimacy from Kshatriya dharma , the ancient code of

administration and protection.) She should consult the learned ( jnanavan) and the

counsellors ( purohitas) who were experts in the laws of emergency (a paddharma) and in

political policy (ra janiti ) and reply, the regent told the queen mother. (Ch.112. Adiparva)

Bhishma who wanted to restore the kshatriyas their status and power, reminded

the assembled scholars how Parasurama took revenge for the killing of his father by killing

Kartavirya Arjuna ruler of the Haihayas with his axe. Parasurama had for the benefit of the

people ( jana) performed rare tapas that required strenuous endeavour. To conquer all the

lands (bhumi ) of the native commonalty ( jana) he went about alone on his chariot with his

bow and opposed the kshatriyas twenty-one times and rid the plains (bhumi ) of all

kshatriyas.

When the great sage and legislator (maharshi ) Parasurama, abolished the

cadres of kshatriyas from the social world of commonalty (bhumi ), the kshatriya

women of all countries united with Brahmans who were Vedic scholars in order to

procreate sons who would protect them. It was then determined in the Vedas that only

one who grasped the hands of a woman (by panigraha), that is, the protector, could own

their son ( putra). Those Kshatriya women copulated with Brahman men for purpose of

fulfilment of socio-religious duties (dharma) and not for sex. Bhishma pointed out that they

had witnessed in the world (loka) adoption of such methods of creation of new kshatriya

cadres. The kshatriya community ( jati ) re-emerged after Parasurama had

destroyed it.

There were some instances where prominent personages had resorted to procreating

sons on wives of others. These were not treated as adultery. One such instance brings into

picture Brhaspati who was the counsellor ( purohita) of the nobles (devas), his elderbrother, Uchatya, and his wife, Mamata. Brhaspati, the expounder of a treatise on political

economy, has been accused of having advocated pursuit of wealth and worldly pleasures to

the exclusion of observance of morality and ethics. According to the legends, he was

enamoured of Mamata when she was bearing Uchatya’s son. It was said that this son had

mastered all the Vedas and their branches even when he was but an embryo.

A rational interpretation would be that Mamata’s young and educated son,

Dirghatamas, stopped Brhaspati from copulating with his brother’s wife. Annoyed with that



186 of 282

boy, Brhaspati might have blinded that boy who later grew into a great scholar. (Or

Dirghatamas might have been born blind.) According to the legend, Gautama was a ‘son’ of

this great Vedic poet-sage.Dirghatamas, an expert in Vedas and their branches and a great individual who

knew the social laws (dharma) had learnt from the ‘son’ of Kamadhenu how and when the

cattle were copulated and bred. He recommended these methods, pasudharma, for

adoption by human beings for continuance of their respective lineages and for procreating

through select studs intelligent and powerful offspring. The other sages in his school

disapproved his theory of genetics and left him. Bhrgu and other sages who drafted the

Manava Dharmasastra were against ‘niyoga’ and condemned it as ‘ pasudharma’

that lowered the level of men to those of animals. They noted that Vena had to be

overthrown because he legalised it.

Dirghatamas’s wife too abandoned this sage who held heterodox views. He then

pronounced the law of monogamy that required a woman to be dependent on her spouse till

the end. She would be declared as a fallen woman ( patita) if she thought of another man

while her husband was alive or even after death. Such pronouncement against remarriage

of women was fortified with the declaration that such remarried women would not be

eligible for any wealth and that their offspring by their second marriage would be declared

bastards. But his wife did not take this pronouncement lightly. She directed her son,

Gautama, to throw her blind husband in the river.

Dirghatamas was picked up by a powerful king, Bali, who knew all social laws

(dharma). He learnt from the sage how his advocacy of pasudharma and banning of

remarriage had led to his isolation. Bali, a Ra jarshi , had no offspring. He requested

Dirghatamas to procreate for him on his wives, sons who were experts in dharmasastra

and rajaniti . But Bali’s wife did not want to have intercourse with that blind sage and

deputed her maid in her place. Kaksivan and ten others were born to that attendant (dasi ,

shudra) by the blind and old sage. (Kaksivan too became a prominent Vedic poet.)

Dirghatamas refused to treat them as belonging to Bali and claimed them to be his sons forthey were born not to Bali’s wife but to her maid. Bali then ordered his wife to procreate

sons for him by copulating with Dirghatamas.

[This Bali was not the son of Virocana. He was the father of the Rajarshi of Anga

who was killed by Vena. Vena was accused of flaunting the title, Rajarshi and legalising

niyoga, which was but pasudharma.] It is said that the rulers of the eastern states, Anga,

Vanga, Kalinga, Pundra and Sumha were the descendants of such copulation. They were

held in low esteem. Bhishma told Satyavati that many great warriors and powerful rulers



187 of 282

who knew social laws (dharma) were ones procreated by Brahmans. To be precise the

constitution bench of the judiciary whose members were called Brahmans

recognised as kings only those persons who consented to honour the legislativebodies that were entitled to grant legal status to the practices of the different

clans and communities and sectors as ‘dharma’ . He asked Satyavati to consider this

position before deciding on whom Vicitravirya’s widows should copulate with for bearing his

‘sons’. (Ch.113 Adiparva)

Then he offered to propose the correct step that would ensure the continuance of the

Bharata lineage. Vicitravirya’s wives should pay wealth to a Brahman who had good traits

and pray to him for intercourse with them that would lead to the birth of the desired

offspring. This was within the rules of the social code (dharma) and there would be direct

relation between cause (karana) and effect (karya). Procreation was not left to chance. It

was within the frame of rational steps. Satyavati treated the episode involving Ucatya,

Dirghatamas and Anga as a fiction pertaining to the past. But it was but a recent past and

not a remote one.

She asked Bhishma to suggest a method that would be valid for her times. The

daughters of the king of Kasi were young and were eager to have offspring. She ordered

Bhishma to produce children on them but he declined though he agreed that her argument

that according to the social laws (dharma) orders given by the mother were as binding as

those given by the father. For his pledge to remain a celibate could not be violated, he

argued.

While Satyavati argued that, as Bhishma was best acquainted with the provisions of

the dharma code and as he adhered to the path of satya, he should do what would best

please his clan (kula). Bhishma said that as she was the eldest member of the family it was

her duty to find out a way. He hinted that like all women she was hiding certain secrets. He

accused that women tried to attract men through many types of deception. As she was

committed to the principles of truth ( satya) Satyavati should examine the dharma code

and ensure that his clan (kula) would not die away. This forced her to concede that beforeher marriage with Santanu she had had sex with the sage, Parasara, and that a son was

born to them on an islet. He was named Krshna Dvaipayana as he was dark in colour and

was born in an isle. Satyavati said that that son could procreate for his brother, offspring on

his wives. If Bhishma agreed she would request him to come to their help.

Bhishma agreed that what she suggested could be resorted to as it was within the

framework of the laws of exigency. One had to take into account the three values of life

( purusharthas), dharma, artha and kama, and the methods of earning wealth that



188 of 282

would be continuously beneficial, resort to a dharma step that would ensure continuous

adherence to dharma and pleasurable act that would ensure continued pleasure (kama).

One had to also consider the ways, which were contrary to continuance of the three gainsand keep away from them. Bhishma insisted that the laws of exigency gave one-time

permission to deviate from the norm but required early return to the norms in all the three

respects.

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya who was born in the Kuru lineage that after

Bhishma gave his approval to her proposal, Satyavati sent for Krshna Dvaipayana who was

then engaged in classifying the Vedic hymns. She had not met her son for several years and

no one knew about him being her son though Bhishma had suspected that she had a son

before her marriage with Santanu. Dvaipayana agreed to fulfil her request. She pointed out

that both mother and father had equal rights. Dvaipayana was the eldest of her sons and

Vicitravirya the youngest. Bhishma was the eldest of Santanu’s sons and Vicitravirya the

youngest. Vyasa (Krshna Dvaipayana) agreed to fulfil her request as it was motivated by

dharma considerations. He pointed out that niyoga as a method of procreation of a son

was recognised by the social code ( sastra) that had been legislated for all times ( sasvata).

[Bhrgu’s sasvata dharma refused to accept it.]

He promised that he would present for his brother two sons who would be equal to

Surya and Varuna in influence. In the later Vedic polity, Surya ( Aditya) was the head

of the executive (kshatras) and Varuna was the guardian of the constitution.

Satyavati was anxious that he should impregnate the royal wives immediately as there was

no one then to protect the people as king and to regulate their activities. Ambika who was

born in Kosala would be the first to become a mother. Her son would have a ‘hundred’ sons

who would protect the Kuru lineage, Vyasa said. Satyavati convinced Kausalya who adhered

to the provisions of dharma code that niyoga was a method sanctioned by it and made her

agree to submit to Krshna Dvaipayana of whom none would have been enamoured.

Vyasa told Satyavati that Ambika would give birth to a strong but blind son and that

Ambalika to a son who would be pale in colour. The latter would have five sons, he said. Hetold Satyavati that if Kausalya responded properly she might have another son who had no

handicap and who would be a scholar in social laws, dharmasastra and in political policy,

ra janiti . But Kausalya would not yield to Vyasa again and deputed her maid (dasi ) to have

intercourse with Vyasa. A dasi who was a bonded labourer became free if she had been

required to have intercourse with her master. Vyasa declared her to be free.

Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura were the three sons born to Dvaipayana by niyoga.

Vidura who emerged as an official (devata) of the state, upholding and



189 of 282

implementing the provisions of the code of dharma, was a protégé of the sage,

Animandavya. Vyasa reported to Satyavati how Kausalya had played a ‘trick’ on him. It

appears that of the three princesses of Kasi whom Bhishma brought to Hastinapura onlyAmbalika, mother of Pandu, was the daughter of the king of Kasi. (Ch.114, 115 Adiparva)

Janamejaya was curious to know why Animandavya was ‘crucified’ and why that

official, Dharma, was declared to have been born to a Shudra woman. Mandavya was a

Brahman who knew all dharmas. He was resolute in mind and was engaged in penance

(tapas). He moved freely in the holy places (tirthas) near villages and lived in his abode

there. When he was engaged in tapas and was observing silence, some robbers who had

huge wealth with them and were being chased by the guards entered his abode and hid

themselves there.

The sage was then observing the vow of silence and did not answer the questions of

the guards about the thieves. They handed over the sage and the thieves to the king. He

was fixed to a spear and left there without food for many days. He invited other sages who

too observed silence (munis) while engaged in tapas (strenuous search for the truth about

the ultimate) to witness his plight. The sages wanted to know why he was required to

suffer. (Ch.116. Adiparva)

Mandavya told them that he had not thought of harming anyone and that none had

harmed him. After some days the king hearing that he was a sage came out with his

ministers to where he had been fixed to a spear and requested him to pardon him. That

Brahman (a scholar who knew the Vedas, Brahma , the socio-political constitution of the

Vedic times) went to the residence of the official (devata) who was in charge of justice

(dharma) and asked him what he had done that justified his being hoisted on the spear as

punishment. That official pointed out that in his boyhood he had caused pain to birds by

fixing them to sharp spears.

Mandavya said that the deeds of one done till the age of twelve did not

qualify to be sins that could be punished, as he was then not aware of the

teachings of the codes ( sastras). That official had levied a punishment on him that wasdisproportionate to his minor offence. It had resulted in the character assassination and

harassment of a Brahman, an offence more serious than any other offence. Mandavya was

a member of the constitution bench as a Brahman jurist and ranked higher than

that official in charge of dharma. He deposed that official from the status of a devata to

that of a commoner (manushya) and declared that his son would be (equal to one) born to

a Shudra woman. Mandavya declared that one would not become a sinner until he

attained the age of fourteen. This limit for legal liability was more realistic than the



190 of 282

earlier limit of twelve years. Vaishampayana claimed that dharma was reborn as Vidura,

though a Shudra by birth, an expert in dharmasastra and ra janiti . Vidura was the new

official implementing the liberal laws. (Ch.117 Adiparva)After the birth of the three brothers, Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura, Kurujangala,

Kurudesa and the town of Kurukshetra began to develop economically. Kurujangala was

mainly a forest tract. Kurudesa was the core agro-pastoral area and Kurukshetra its central

capital. It is not clear who of these three brothers had jurisdiction over which of these three

areas of the Kuru country. The chronicler notes that the population of the cities was mainly

of traders and workers. The warriors and scholars and the pious led a comfortable life.

Among the natives ( jana) of these three autonomous provinces there were no

thieves or sinners. It was as though it was krtayuga when there was no need for a

state. The subjects ( prajas) of this integrated social polity were engaged in performing

their respective duties (dharmas) and sacrifices (yajnas) and committed to the laws based

on the principles of truth ( satya). It would not be off the mark to state here that the social

laws, defining the rights and duties, dharma, of every citizen (subject, praja)

whether native ( jana) or not, were introduced first in the Kuru land. It was an

ideal community based on fraternity of all. The common people (manushyas) were

free from egotism, rage and greed.

Hastinapura, which controlled this new integrated janapada, was a city resembling

that of Indra, the head of the nobles. The people of north Kuru and those of south Kuru

moved about freely competing with the nobles (devas), sages (rshis) and charanas

(scouts, policemen who could move everywhere to collect information needed for

administration) for all facilities and importance. They were under the governance of

Bhishma who ensured that it was free from poverty and disease and had a rich economy.

He had instituted the dharma chakra, the wheel of dharma by which duties were

assigned in rotation among the eligible members of every cadre.

Bhishma brought up Dhrtarashtra, Pandu and Vidura as his own sons. They were

given formal education both in social codes ( sastras) and in physical training and in martialarts. They were trained in political policy (ra janiti ), history and chronicles and music and in

Vedas and their branches and gained knowledge in pragmatism. Pandu was superior to the

other two in archery and Dhrtarashtra in physical strength. Vidura had a better grasp of

dharma than the others did. Hastinapura and Kurujangaladesa and their governor,

Bhishma and the mothers of the warriors who were daughters of the king of Kasi became

popular in all countries. As Vidura was born to a Shudra mother and Dhrtarashtra

was born blind, they were declared ineligible to inherit the kingdom and Pandu



191 of 282

became king. Bhishma then consulted Vidura on the issue of the marriage of his two

brothers. (Ch.118 Adiparva)

Bhishma felt that they had the duty to ensure the continuance of their clan. He hadin view the daughters of Kuntibhoja, a Yadu ruler, Subala of Gandhara and a Madra ruler.

They were all born in good families and beautiful and their parents were Kshatriya chieftains

with whom the Kurus could have marital alliances. Vidura left the choice to Bhishma as he

was like mother, father and teacher to all the three brothers. Bhishma learnt from the

Brahmans (scholars and interpreters of the constitution) that Gandhari, daughter of Subala

had been granted a boon by Isvara who had gouged the eyes of Bhaga, an Aditya and

one of the officials of the Vedic social polity that she would get one hundred ‘sons’.

Obviously they would ensure that she was not harmed for her act which was to defend self

against molestation by that official.

That Isvara gave her a boon might have been a ‘fact’ ( satya) but the number of

sons as one hundred could not have been. Isvaras were charismatic benevolent

leaders of the social periphery. [Only during the middle ages the term, Isvara, was

used to refer exclusively to Siva, one of the trinity.] Subala weighed the merits and

demerits of the proposed marital alliance for Dhrtarashtra and agreed to it. Gandhari

feared that she might at some stage be tempted to become disloyal to her husband and to

protect her duty of unwavering loyalty to husband ( pativrata dharma) tied a cloth round

her eyes. She would not see anything that her husband could not see and resolved not to

speak low of him. She was brought up in the Gandhara (gandharva) orientations that gave

equality in status to husband and wife.

Her brother, Sakuni, escorted her with due honour to the land of the Kurus. Among

the Gandharvas, it was not the father but the brother who was the guardian of the

unmarried girl and who gave away his sister to the groom of her choice. This Gandharva

orientation required that the wife should treat the husband ( pati ) as equal to Isvara (one’s

chosen benefactor). [It has later been interpreted that a wife should worship her husband

as ‘god’.] It is wrong to claim that orthodoxy required the wife to worship her husband as ‘god’. Only a woman who voluntarily married a man under the provisions of gandharva

marriage looked upon the latter as her benefactor and protector. An apsaras who married

one of her choice did not look upon him as such. Neither was a daiva or aristocratic

approach which granted the lady a status higher than that of her spouse. It is interesting to

note that Subala gave his ten other daughters also in marriage to Dhrtarashtra. It seems

that they were sent to assist Gandhari who had deliberately assumed ‘blindness’. Many of

the ‘hundred’ Kauravas must have been born to these girls.



192 of 282

The chronicler says that Bhishma, son of Santanu, brought more than a hundred

princes from different areas for Dhrtarashtra. There was an attempt to assert that the

warriors who stood by Duryodhana, the eldest son of Dhrtarashtra were drawn from theranks of rajanyas and were not mercenaries drafted from the masses. This contingent had

Gandharas at its head and could hence be easily manipulated by Sakuni for his ulterior

ends. Hence Bhishma must have introduced princes drawn from other areas to contain the

Gandhara influence. (Ch. 119 Adiparva)

13

HASTINAPRA FEUDS

After performing the last rites for Pandu and his wife, Madri, Vidura, Bhishma, Vyasa,

Dhrtarashtra and others returned to the capital with the young Pandavas. The people of thecapital ( pura) and the rural areas (desa) mourned as though they had lost one of their

kinsmen. Vyasa felt for them and feared that their future would not be bright. The earth had

lost its innocent youth, he felt. An era of deceit and sins would set in and the dharmas like

varnasrama and pious deeds and noble conduct would be on the wane, he feared.

He advised his mother, Satyavati, to leave the scene and go in for tapas in a

secluded grove. She told Ambika what had been prophesied about her grandsons, the

Kauravas, and advised her and Ambalika to accompany her to the forest resort. With the

consent of Bhishma the queens went away to perform tapas and then entered the

community (of intellectuals) of their choice.

The Pandavas resided in the house of their father and grew up comfortably studying

the Vedas and enjoying sports with the sons of Dhrtarashtra. Bhimasena proved stronger

than others and he delighted in teasing the Kaurava brothers. The chronicler says that it

was innocent childish delight and had no bad motive behind it. But Duryodhana was not

innocent. He resolved to eliminate Bhimasena and then capture and imprison Arjuna and

Yudhishtira and become the sole ruler of the earth (bhumi , commonalty).



193 of 282

Once, Duryodhana and his brothers tried to kill Bhima by drowning him in the river;

and on another occasion by poisoning him. But the Pandava survived the attempts at his

life. Then he hatched plans with Karna and Sakuni to kill Bhima and the other Pandavas.However their stepbrother, Yuyutsu, warned the Pandavas about the plots. The Pandavas

took Vidura into confidence. (Ch.137 Adiparva)

Duryodhana and his associates poisoned Bhima’s food and threw him into a river in

unconscious state. But the Pandava was rescued by the young mariners (nagas) who plied

boats in that river and removed the toxin from his body. But Bhima assaulted his rescuers

who then requested their chief, Vasuki, to find out who he was. In the community of the

mariners, Vasuki had the same status as Indra had in the social world of nobles (devas).

He was also addressed as Nagaraja, king of the Nagas.

Accompanied by Aryaka, he went to meet Bhima. Kunti’s father was a grandson of

Aryaka, a naga who had the status of a free citizen, Arya, and a rank ( Aryaka) marginally

lower than that of a Vaisya ( Arya) landlord. The nagas were also rich miners. Vasuki

wanted to honour Bhima with jewels and wealth. But Aryaka pointed out to him that these

were not of any use to that Pandava who needed only drinks that would give him energy.

(Ch.138 Adiparva)

Kunti was upset when Bhima did not return home and feared that Duryodhana might

have killed him. But Vidura, her guardian, advised her not to express such suspicions

openly. She should protect her other sons from Duryodhana. Meanwhile, the mariners and

miners (nagas) raised him from the water of the river and left him in the forest area where

Kunti and her sons had camped.

Yudhishtira told his brothers not to talk about the incident and directed them to

protect one another and especially Bhima. Duryodhana was annoyed with the failure of his

attempt to kill Bhima. The king, Dhrtarashtra then arranged for the training of his sons and

those of Pandu under Krpacharya. Krpa who was a foundling (found in the midst of reeds)

was a teacher of Vedas and social codes ( sastras) and also of archery. The students had to

stay in the teacher’s residence and learnt the arts and sciences from him. (Ch.139 Adiparva)

Janamejaya wanted to know from Vaishampayana about the birth of Krpa and about

how he secured the missiles. The chronicler said that Saradvan was born to the great sage

(maharshi ), Gautama. He was said to have been born with arrows. It is likely that he must

have been born in the residence of a warrior and archer. Saradvan was interested in archery

rather than in Vedas and formal education. His mastery over this science upset Indra who



194 of 282

sent an apsaras to distract him. Krpa and his sister, Krpi, were born to that archer and that

apsaras.

But they left the babes in the reeds with a bow and case of arrows and went away.Santanu (son of Pratipa) came across them and took them home and brought them up.

They were called Krpa and Krpi to indicate that they were recipients of Santanu’s

compassion and favour. Saradvan later identified and recognised them as his offspring. He

also taught Krpa the four sections of the science of archery. Krpa continued to be attached

to the Kuru royal family even after Santanu’s death. Bhishma entrusted his grandsons

to Krpa who was teaching in his private academy Yadava princes and princes from

different countries. Bhishma wanted to get his grandsons trained under experts in

archery and selected Drona, son of Bharadvaja, as their tutor. Janamejaya wanted to know

about the birth and career of Drona. Drona was born to the sage, Bharadvaja, by an

apsaras.

The sage, Kashyapa, had ‘learnt’ from Agni , the Vedic official who headed the

intelligentsia ( samiti , council of scholars), the use of some highly powerful weapons that

could protect the commoners. Bharadvaja obtained from Kashyapa these weapons,

that is, the authority needed to help the nobles (devas) against their opponents.

He had given this high authority to Agnivesya, a Ra jarshi and chief of the

commonalty. It may be noted here that Kashyapa headed the council of seven sages

convened by Manu Vaivasvata. Atri, Vasishta, Visvamitra, Gautama, Jamadagni and

Bharadvaja were its other members.

Drupada, a Kshatriya prince of north Pancala, and Drona were students of

Bharadvaja. Drona married Krpi, daughter of Saradvan, and Gautami and Asvattama (one

who neighed like a horse) were born to them. Drona heard that Parasurama proposed

to distribute his weapons among the deserving Brahmans. He wanted to get some

of those powerful missiles and Parasurama’s knowledge in Rajaniti , political

policy. Drona told that sage, a Bhargava, who had earlier been bent on destroying the

Kshatriyas that he was born in the lineage of Angiras. Parasurama told him that he hadalready given away all the lands that he had conquered from the Kshatriyas to Kashyapa

and that he could give Drona only the weapons. Drona received them along with the

knowledge of how to use them and went to meet Drupada. (Ch.140 Adiparva)

Drona tried to remind him that they were old friends but Drupada would not respond

positively. Drupada said that it was impossible for affluent kings to be friends of luckless

and poor commoners like Drona. He pointed out that there could be friendship only between

equals. Offended by Drupada’s curt behaviour, Drona resolved to punish him and went to



195 of 282

Hastinapura, the capital of the Kuru rulers and stayed there incognito at Krpa’s residence.

Under Krpa’s instructions, Asvattama who too stayed incognito taught Pandavas archery

and the use of missiles.The Pandavas were surprised to watch the skills of Drona and as directed by him

informed Bhishma about their meeting with that master of archery. Bhishma understood

that they had met Drona and learnt from the latter how Drupada had insulted him.

Drupada was known as Yajnasena, when he and Drona were students of

Agnivesya. Drupada had then promised his friend half his kingdom. When Drona went to

meet Drupada none in Pancala came to his help and Drona had to bring up his son in painful

poverty. People teased him and his son and Drona resolved not to do any low service for

wealth though Brahmans might disrespect him.

He went to Drupada and reminded him of their past friendship and his promise but

Drupada did not acknowledge it. He denied having given Drona any promise. Drona said

that he had come to Hastinapura to get the help of the Kauravas against Drupada and that

he was prepared to do as Bhishma directed him. Bhishma offered Drona the services of

Hastinapura and its subordinate states against Pancala and told him that he would be

treated as the first king of that state. (Ch.141 Adiparva)

Bhishma appointed Drona as the teacher of the princes, Kauravas and Pandavas. But

Drona hesitated as Krpa was already teaching them archery. Drona became the head of the

royal academy and member of the royal council of political guides. When he was alone with

the princes he asked them to assure him that after they had mastered the weapons they

would carry out his personal objective. Only Arjuna was prepared to give the word he

sought from them. Drona then asked Asvattama to accept Arjuna as his personal friend.

Drona taught the Pandavas the use of many weapons that were connected

with the privileged nobles (devas) and with the commoners (manushyas). Princes

from many states including those of the Yadavas joined that royal academy. Karna too

joined it. He was envious of Arjuna and joined Duryodhana to belittle the Pandavas. Drona

treated all the princes and Karna on par but gave Asvattama secret coaching in advancedtechniques of war. Arjuna could guess Drona’s plan and managed to be with Asvattama for

special instructions. Drona took special interest in Arjuna and trained him not only in

archery but also in battles, riding horses, elephants and chariots and as an ordinary soldier

on foot. He trained the Kauravas in wielding maces and swords and wooden sticks and

spears. His fame spread far and wide and princes came from different directions to join his

academy and get trained in warfare. He did not discriminate amongst them.



196 of 282

It was said that Drona refused to entertain Ekalavya as his student as he

was the son of a hunter and was not a prince born in a royal family. But Ekalavya

learnt all methods even while staying away from the academy and claimed to be adisciple of Drona. As he excelled even Arjuna in his mastery over the bow Drona resorted

to an unjust method to disable that hunter’s son. Drona asked him for his right thumb as

fees due to the teacher and the hunter gave it readily. This handicap gave Arjuna an

advantage over him. There is no indication that Drona discriminated against

Ekalavya because he belonged to the class of Nishadas who ranked lower than the

agricultural workers, Shudras. Ekalavya’s father was not poor nor was he an outcast

though his vocation required him to stay on the socio-economic periphery away from towns

and villages. Fishermen too had to similarly live outside the boundaries of the core agrarian

society. They too were described as ‘Nishadas’ , though this term meant ‘social rejects’ and

later indicated individuals born to Shudra women by men of higher classes. Arjuna proved

better than his brothers and the Kauravas. (Ch.142 Adiparva) [I have pointed out in my

work, Origins of Hindu Social System that among the forty-two social strata, the

Nishadas occupied the mean position of 20 and were at a far higher level than the

Shudras who were in the 37th level and the Chandalas the 40th.]

Drona’s partiality for Arjuna increased when the latter saved him from an alligator

while bathing in the river. Drona trained him in how to hit several objects with a single

discharge of arrows from his bow. He gave him a missile known as the knob of

Brahma, ‘Brahmasiras’ which he could use against opponents other than the

commoners (manushyas). He might use them against even nobles (devas).

‘Brahmasiras’ must have been an important provision of the socio-political

constitution that could be drawn upon to countermand the immunities that were

enjoyed by certain higher classes including the aristocrats and the mobile

populations. Drona did not want the immunities that the commoners had been given by

the constitution, to be withdrawn. Every missile (astra) was a political weapon too in

addition to being a weapon of war. (Ch.143 Adiparva)When the training was yet on the way, noticing the progress made by the sons of

Dhrtarashtra and Pandu, Drona invited Krpa, Somadatta, Bahlika, Bhishma, Vyasa and

Vidura and the king, Dhrtarashtra to witness the exhibition of their skills in the arena

attached to the royal academy. But Dhrtarashtra was sad that he could not witness the

exhibition and asked Vidura to provide all the facilities asked for by Drona. The leaders of

Hastinapura and their womenfolk and the commoners too were invited to witness the show

held in the vast plains outside the city. The princes showed their different skills in duels and



197 of 282

in archery. Then Duryodhana and Bhimasena clashed with their maces. (Ch.144 Adiparva)

This duel split the people into two factions, one supporting the Kuru ruler (Duryodhana) and

the other Bhima. Drona asked his son, Asvattama to intervene and check the two ferociousfighters lest peace among the spectators in the arena should be disturbed.

Drona then asked the gathering to witness the skills of Arjuna whom he introduced

as his friend who was dearer to him than his son. He praised Arjuna as one equal to

Vishnu, the Upendra, in mastery over weapons. Upendra was deputy to Indra who

headed the army and controlled the treasury and was the chief of the house of nobles.

When the system of two equally important houses of legislature, sabha and samiti , headed

by Indra and Agni , declined Indra had to be restrained by creating the post of Upendra.

Vamana or Urukrama who humbled the asura chieftain, Bali, occupied this position but he

was dwarfish. He was also identified with Vishnu and Trivikrama, a tall figure. Drona was

referring to Arjuna’s status as the son of an Indra.

The spectators who were divided earlier between Duryodhana and Bhima praised

Arjuna unanimously as the best among the princes, who could protect the Kurus and as one

who strictly adhered to all codes (dharma) and who was known for his discipline and

knowledge. Arjuna delighted the spectators with his mastery over different types of

missiles. When the exhibition was about to end, the princes had split into two groups,

the five Pandavas encircling Drona and the Kauravas along with Asvattama encircling

Duryodhana. The chronicler hints that the split was like the one between two social

worlds (lokas), the frontier society, headed by Soma or Chandra and the ruling

nobility headed by Indra. (Ch.145 Adiparva)

As the commoners (manushyas) of the population of the janapada who had

assembled to witness the rival contestants exhibiting their skills noted the arrival of Karna,

they gave passage to him. Karna was born with earrings and chest-guard. He was born to

Kunti when she was yet unmarried, by the official who was designated as Surya ( Aditya,

general).

The people of Hastinapura had not seen him earlier. He saluted Drona and Krpa whileignoring others who had assembled there and then confronted Arjuna. Karna, the son of

Surya, and Arjuna, son of Indra, had not met earlier. Karna claimed that he could

perform all the feats that Arjuna had done and do even better. With the permission of Drona

he exhibited his mastery. Duryodhana was delighted and offered him the use of his

kingdom, as he wanted. Karna then challenged Arjuna to a duel. As Arjuna disparaged

Karna for having come uninvited, Karna claimed that the arena was open to all (though it

was attached to a royal academy) and that Arjuna had no special rights there. Karna



198 of 282

claimed that kings acquired greatness by their prowess and that the code,

Rajadharma favoured might.

With the permission of Drona Arjuna got ready for the duel. While Duryodhana andhis brothers encouraged Karna, besides the Pandavas, Drona, Krpa and Bhishma favoured

Arjuna. It split the house of nobles ( sabha) and the women into two groups. Kunti

who alone knew that the two were brothers fainted. Vidura who knew all dharmas and her

attendants comforted her. Krpa, who knew the rules of duels and was also acquainted with

all dharmas, then introduced to Karna Arjuna, younger son of Kunti and of Pandu and a

member of the Kuru clan. Krpa asked Karna to declare who his mother and father were and

asked him to which royal family he belonged. Whether Arjuna would fight with him

after knowing Karna’s antecedents or not, princes were not permitted to fight on

equal terms with persons who had no clan or tradition. This made Karna lower his

head in shame.

But Duryodhana would not let Arjuna have the final say. He pointed out to

Krpacharya that there were three categories among the kings (ra jas), Some were born in

noble families. These might not have been warriors or generals. Some were warriors

(and took part in battles) and some were generals who led the army (but did not take

part in battles). Duryodhana cited the saying that as fire (agni ) emerged from water

(apa), and metals from stone, Kshatriyas rose from Brahmans and said that Agni,

metals and Kshatriyas had their own wide influence and their influence waned on

their own. In other words, Brahmans could not check the influence of the Kshatriyas, he

asserted.

If Arjuna would not like to fight with one who was not a prince, Duryodhana

would make Karna a king. With the permission of Dhrtarashtra, king of Hastinapura and

of Bhishma he arranged for the coronation of Karna as the king of Anga. The Brahman

jurists could not object to his move, as the throne of Anga (near Mathura) was

then vacant. He bestowed munificent gifts on the Brahmans and made them

declare that Karna was eligible to be a king. This move won for Duryodhana thefriendship and loyalty of Karna, the main rival of Arjuna. (Ch.146 Adiparva)

After Karna had been installed as king on the throne of Anga, his foster-father, a

charioteer, came to meet him. When Karna bowed to him, Bhima inferred that Karna was a

son of that charioteer and teased him. Karna hoped that his father, a Surya, would come to

his rescue and reveal whose son he was. When Bhima declared that Arjuna would not

battle with a charioteer and that Karna was not fit to be installed as a king,

Duryodhana came to Karna’s support. Duryodhana said that it was not proper to notice



199 of 282

the origin of a warrior even as it was not proper to decide the merit and might of a river on

the basis of its weak source. He pointed out that the vajra , which could kill asuras , was

made of Dadhichi’s bones.He also drew attention to the indefiniteness that surrounded the birth and

origin of Subrahmaniya who was the head (bhagavan) of an academy and had the

status of a noble (deva) and was a treasure of all secrets and mysteries.

Subrahmaniya was variously described as the son of ‘ Agni’ , the son of Krttika, the

son of Rudra and the son of Ganga. To be precise, it was Vyasa who was trying to make

Bhima and his brothers desist from assessing the merits of Karna without knowing all the

facts about his birth and nurture.

There were some Brahmans who had been Kshatriyas earlier. Visvamitra was a

classic example of this social ascent and acquisition of the eligibility (varchas) of a

Brahman (jurist) through persistence. He drew attention to the birth of the great teacher,

Drona, in a pot and of Krpa in a bundle of reeds. Duryodhana (to be precise, Vyasa)

said that he knew about how the Pandavas were born to the different officials and

not to Pandu. This must have silenced Bhima.

After challenging the critics to a battle with Karna, Duryodhana escorted Karna out of

the hall. The Pandavas returned to their homes with Drona, Bhishma and Krpa while the

people were split amongst the three, Arjuna, Karna and Duryodhana. While

Duryodhana with Karna beside him had no fear about the Pandavas overcoming him,

Yudhishtira felt that Karna was the best archer among the commoners (bhumi ). (Ch.147

Adiparva)

After the graduation ended with the exhibition of skills by Drona’s students, the

teacher asked them to present Drupada of Pancala before him as his tuition fees

(gurudakshina). Duryodhana, Karna, Yuyutsu, Duhsasana, Vikarna, Jalasandha and

Surocana and many of their friends went to Pancala with a huge army but were routed by

Drupada and his brothers. [Pancala was governed by a Kshatriya oligarchy.] On their way

back the citizens ( paura) and people of the rural areas ( janapada) of Pancala harassedthem. The citizens of Kampilya who patronised the Pancalas confronted the fleeing Kauravas

and decimated their forces. Then the Pandavas offered to go to battle with Drupada. Arjuna

requested Yudhishtira to stay back. He appointed Nakula and Sahadeva as guards for the

chariot. They too would not be engaged in battle.

Bhima led the army with his mace. But the main battle was between Arjuna and the

Pancalas. The army of the Srnjayas supported the latter. One Satyajit tried to keep him

away from Drupada but could not prevent the confrontation between the two. The chronicler



200 of 282

compares this fight with that between Indra and Bali, an asura chieftain. After forcing

Satyajit to flee, Arjuna overcame Drupada. He dissuaded Bhima from destroying the city of

the Pancalas and took Drupada and his minister as prisoners and presented them to Drona. Drona offered him the southern portion of Pancala, and kept the northern portion

with himself as it was not possible for a king to treat a commoner as his equal. Drona

offered him his hand of friendship and Drupada realised his past errors and asked for his

fast friendship. Drona was satisfied and released him and returned most of the kingdom

taken by him to Drupada who reorganised his kingdom. He retained only the area

known as ‘Ahichatra’. (This might have been a place where troops drawn from the

dreaded sarpas, proletariat were being trained.) Drupada realised that he had lost because

he did not enjoy constitutional immunity that would protect his authority. The intellectuals

(Brahmans), especially the jurists were not with him. As he had no sons who would

undertake to discharge the liabilities entertained by him his reign did not enjoy

rational legitimacy. (Ch.148 Adiparva)

Drupada continued to nurture dislike for Drona whose disciple, Arjuna, had humbled

him. He realised that it was not possible to score over Drona through military (kshatriya)

might. He needed constitutional immunity (brahmatejas) lest his rivals should overthrow

him. Pancala was known for its gandharva-apsaras culture, which had not yet recognised

the institution of marriage and patrilinear descent. Drupada searched amongst the

commoners (manushyas, bhumi ) for a suitable youth who could be selected as his

son and successor and who would fulfil his objective of killing Drona but he found

none. Most of the gandharvas had opted for the new class of warriors (kshatriyas) and

very few for the class of intellectuals (brahmans, scholars, jurists and priests). Pancala

was going through a major change in social structure and social orientations.

Drupada located a village on the banks of the Ganga, which was inhabited

exclusively by Brahmans ( snatakas) who were engaged in studies and tapas. He came

across two brothers, Yaja and Upayaja, who were Brahmarshis and were attachedto the school of Kashyapa. He offered to appoint them as his political counsellors

( purohitas) and give them munificent gifts. Only, Upayaja, the younger of them, was

attracted by his proposal but declined to help him, as Drupada’s objective was to procreate

a son who would kill Drona.

Upaya ja suggested that his elder brother, Yaja, who was wandering in uninhabited

areas, was not particular about purity of the food he ate and might accept Drupada’s offer.

Yaja had performed the five sacrifices to meet the needs of the nobles (devas),



201 of 282

elders ( pitrs), scholars (brahmans), discrete individuals on the periphery (bhutas)

and the commoners of the plains (manushyas) and eaten what remained on the

floor as his alms. Upayaja interpreted that Yaja cared for utility and might obligethe king.

Drupada told Yaja that Drona though a Brahman had proved to be superior

to all Kshatriyas and had humbled him. He was equal to Katvanga and Kartavirya in

fighting and was like Parasurama meant for destroying the Kshatriyas. Drona had the

might of Kshatriyas and also the influence of Brahmans. Drupada wanted a son

(who would kill Drona), and also a daughter (who would marry the great warrior, Arjuna).

[Drupada might not have then aspired for two children. He belonged to Pancala where

daughters were not discriminated against.]

Yaja arranged for a sacrifice and requested the queens to copulate with him and

produce children by niyoga. But they declined. [Gandharva-apsara culture of Pancala

did not give the husband the authority to require his wife to surrender to another

person.] Then Yaja continued to perform the sacrifice and a brave armed warrior appeared

on the scene. It was ‘prophesied’ that he would help the Pancalas to live without fear and

raise them to great glory.

Agni , the civil judge and head of the council of scholars must have located

this youth, Drshtadyumna and his sister, Draupadi, whom Drupada adopted as his

son and daughter. It was decided that that youth should become Drona’s disciple and

later kill Drona in a duel. It was also ‘prophesied’ that the dark (krshna) but beautiful girl,

Draupadi would be the cause of a human catastrophe. [‘Prophesies’ were introduced to

prepare the audience for receiving the future events and for whetting their curiosity.]

(Ch.149 Adiparva)

Janamejaya was eager to know more about the Pancalas, especially about Drupada

who had secured many powerful weapons. The chronicler told him that Drupada was born to

a Pancala ruler and the famous apsaras, Menaka. Sakuntala was born to Visvamitra by

Menaka. This would lead us to infer that Drupada was a brother of Sakuntala and acontemporary of Dushyanta. Janamejaya was a stepbrother of Bharata, son of Dushyanta.

Vaishampayana insisted that Drupada’s father was a Ra jarshi who spent several

years in tapas. As that sage had set his foot in the abode where the child was born, the

sages called the latter, Drupada. The king of Pancala handed over that child to Bharadva ja

for training in Vedas and in martial arts. Drupada was selected by the Pancala oligarchy to

succeed his father as their head. (Ch.150 Adiparva)



202 of 282

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that Dhrtarashtra in consultation with his

ministers decided to install Yudhishtira as crown prince (yuvaraja) as the latter

was capable of protecting the state (rajyam). Soon Yudhishtira emerged as morepopular than his father, Pandu. Meanwhile, Bhima received training in mace under

Balarama, brother of Krshna. Arjuna too acquired mastery in archery under Drona. Drona

while teaching him the use of the weapon, Brahmasiras, announced in the

assembly of the nobles of the Kuru country that he had learnt it from Agnivesya

and the latter from Agastya.

Agnivesya (a rich personage and representative of the commonalty of the Vedic

times) had taken a promise from Drona, ‘son’ of Bharadvaja, that he would not use it

against commoners (manushyas). Drona asked Arjuna to give an undertaking that he too

would not use it against commoners. It could be used against nobles (devas) and feudal

lords (asuras , daityas) and plutocrats (yakshas, danavas), three sections of the ruling

elite. Drona pronounced that only Krshna who was born in a Yadava clan could

conquer all social worlds and was superior to Arjuna. He acknowledged that Arjuna

was better than him in war.

Drona was aware of the relationship between Arjuna and Krshna and knew about

Krshna’s assurance to Indra that he would protect and look after the interests of Arjuna

(son of Kunti and Vasava). This Indra like Krshna belonged to the Vasus. Drona advised

Arjuna to seek Krshna’s protection. The chronicler narrates how the ruler of Sauvira,

whom Gandharvas could not humble even after three years of siege, was defeated and

killed by Arjuna and other Pandavas. Pandu himself could not subdue that ruler. [Annotators

of the later times have tended to identify this ruler of a province in Saurashtra as one of

Greek origin and as one harassed by the rulers of Gandhara. Such later interpolations are

not to be used to determine when the Battle of Kurukshetra took place.]

The ruler of Sauvira might have been a devotee of Siva. He was against the rulers of

the Kuru land. This must be a reference to the harassment that Samvarana had to undergo

as an exile in the Sindhu delta. Kuru was the son of Samvarana and the princess of Tapati,a province south of that west-flowing river. Along with Bhima, as a lone charioteer,

Arjuna conquered many kings of the eastern provinces. He was not eligible to lead

the state army which was then under Bhishma. These exploits rattled the sons of

Dhrtarashtra. Dhrtarashtra too began to develop dislike for the Pandavas though

they enriched his treasury. (Ch.151 Adiparva)

While Duryodhana had a grudge against Bhima and Karna against Arjuna, Sakuni

suggested to them many ways to kill the Pandavas but as Vidura advised the latter did not



203 of 282

show any reaction. Meanwhile, the Pandavas had become popular among the citizens and in

their assemblies the people urged that Yudhishtira should be appointed as king. They held

that Dhrtarashtra had been earlier bypassed, as he was blind and that hence Duryodhanacould not be made king.

Bhishma son of Santanu, as a satyavrata, stood by his word not to become king.

Hence the eldest of the Pandavas who stood by truth and compassion should be

immediately crowned, they said. Yudhishtira thus enjoyed charismatic legitimacy.

They expected Yudhishtira to give due respect to Bhishma and Dhrtarashtra and all

comforts to the sons of Dhrtarashtra. The latter persuaded their father to undo the injustice

done to him and to protect their interests. They did not want to be deprived of their share in

the kingdom, which was due to them under the dayabhaga scheme. But Dhrtarashtra was

pragmatic in his approach.

He knew that Pandu, a Kaurava, did not deviate from the social laws, dharma and

that he was friendly with his elder brother and the in-laws of the latter. Pandu was unselfish

and always kept his brother informed about the affairs of the state. Like Pandu, his son,

Yudhishtira, always adhered to those laws, dharma and had good traits and was

popular in the social world (loka) of the commoners and was rooted in the city

too.

Dhrtarashtra was cautioning Duryodhana against underestimating Yudhishtira’s

influence. It was not possible to find any flaw in Yudhishtira who was the best among the

commoners. The Pandava was not behaving like an aristocrat or a feudal chieftain, the

chronicler implied. Besides he was already in control of the Kuru kingdom as crown prince

and had specialists as his assistants. Pandu had always received the support of his

ministers. Under the Ra jarshi constitution, the institution of assistants ( sahayasampada)

and the council of ministers (mantriparishad ) were independent organs of the state and

no wise king would dare to manipulate them. They ran the bureaucracy under the provisions

of the constitution without deviating from the procedures set in the codes.

The troops too enjoyed respect. They were not mercenary troops that could bedisbanded at the king’s pleasure. Their constitutional status as an independent organ of the

state had to be honoured. The sons and grandsons of Kshatriya soldiers enjoyed

special privileges. Pandu ensured that this arrangement was not disturbed. The

commoners of the country who were associated with Pandu would not hesitate to kill

Dhrtarashtra and his sons if Pandu’s sons were denied their due place, the blind ruler

warned. Pandu’s regime enjoyed rational legitimacy.



204 of 282

If Dhrtarashtra and his sons gave up adhering to the socio-political laws, dharma,

(ra jadharma) the natives ( jana) would not like to live in that country (desa) under them.

All the local administrators (ra jas) of the Kuru kingdom and the commoners wouldblame Dhrtarashtra and his sons for the consequent emigration of the

discontented populace. They should avoid incurring such blame, the king said.

Duryodhana claimed that Bhishma would remain neutral in the struggle between him

and the Pandavas and that Drona’s son was on his side. Hence Drona too was expected to

support him. He expected Krpa too to fall in line with him. He did not expect Vidura to

support him and Dhrtarashtra. But Vidura would not be able to oppose them, he said.

Duryodhana urged that the Pandavas and their mother should be sent to

Varanavata. (Ch.152 Adiparva)



205 of 282

16

14

KANIKA'S POLITICAL POLICY

Dhrtarashtra was worried, as the sons of Pandu were valorous and mighty. He

summoned Kanika, a senior minister, who was an expert in political counselling and in

political policy, to learn how the methods of peace and hostility ( samdhi -vigraha) could be

used against the Pandavas. These two were methods used in interstate relations. But the

king planned to use them against the sons of his brothers who were subordinate to him.

Duryodhana, Sakuni, Karna and Duhsasana too joined the deliberations with Kanika (a

student of Bharadva ja) on how to tackle the Pandavas.

Dhrtarashtra wanted to know what they should do to protect themselves against the

Pandavas who were always cautious and of whom they were all afraid. Kanika, who was

diminutive in size, needs to be given credit for his shrewdness. (Kautilya, a contemporary of

Bharadvaja, Visalaksha, Pisuna, Bhishma, Dvaipayana and Krpa, was aware of his activities

and approach.) Kanika requested the king to listen to his exposition without getting angry

with him. A king (ra ja) should always exert himself in his duty to use coercive power

(danda). (The term, ‘danda’ is not to be used to indicate only punishing the offender.)Without keeping open any way by which others are allowed to intrude into his jurisdiction

exhibiting their prowess, he should find out the way by which he can enter their areas.

Kanika was for the king being always on the offensive. The jana who constituted the

largely agrarian native population of the rural areas always feared a king who always tried

to use political power (danda). (Kanika would advise the king to avoid the other three

methods, peaceful talks, gifts and rifts among the opponents, sama, dana and bheda and

resort to threat of use of coercive power.) Kanika was for a tough administration and

decried the concept of a soft state. The king should get instituted all his purposes, that

is, get fulfilled all his objectives through use of coercive power (danda). He should keep

hidden from others his shortcomings, Kanika advised. One should attack others when they

falter. Even as a tortoise keeps its limbs hidden under its shell, a king should keep secret

the traits of the organs (angas) of his state. He should ensure that he is never short of his

requirements. Kanika advised the king who sought his welfare to always respect the

Brahmans (intellectuals, jurists and counsellors). The king should realise that the post of

king had been created to protect the Brahmans and to punish the scoundrels. In other

words political authority with coercive powers had been created to protect the judiciary and



206 of 282

the intelligentsia who were unarmed and could not defend themselves against mischievous

elements.

Kanika who was a Vaisya and an expert in economic affairs, pointed out toDhrtarashtra that the king could not afford to ignore the interests of the Brahmans. He

pointed out that the spread of dharma was possible only if the vicious were put down and

the virtuous were protected. If dharma is spread the king (and his subjects) can win both

social worlds (lokas), the one (commonalty) of which he is presently a member and the

higher one (that of nobles) that he seeks to join. Hence it is imperative that one does what

falls within the framework of dharma.

Kanika warned that a king who pardoned a commoner who was guilty would be

disrespected in this social world (loka) of commoners and would be consigned to the ghetto

after being thrown out of the present position. Naraloka referred to the cadres of free

men who had parted company with their social groups like clans and communities

and did not enjoy social protection. Some of them were confined to the ghettoes

(naraka) as they tended to indulge in acts smacking moral turpitude. They were fallen

men.

One who obtains wealth from the king but harms his benefactor should be killed and

his wealth distributed among the poor, Kanika urged. He was not urging only confiscation by

the king of the wealth given by him. Kanika would insist on the poor being treated as the

deserving beneficiary of state favours. If the administrators appointed to manage the

execution of state projects went beyond the control of the king, the king should dismiss

them and should appoint in their place experts in dharmasastra and arthasastra who

would not utter lies.

But the activities of even these experts should not go unwatched. The king should

depute his personal servants in disguise to find out if those activities afflicted the country

(desa, rural areas) or the city or the village. The pura-desa pattern, similar to the paura-

janapada pattern of administration was in force. In the city-country ( pura-rashtra)

pattern, the head of the state directly controlled the administration of both the units. But inthe paura- janapada pattern, the urban council and the basic units ( pada) of the natives

( jana) were autonomous in their administration. After testing the undesirable employee and

proving his guilt, he should be deprived of his wealth and discharged. The king is told that a

work once commenced should never be allowed to remain incomplete or executed in a

shabby manner. Kanika was for an efficient administration.

Kanika pointed out that a thorn removed in a wrong manner would leave a sore for a

long time. Hence it is best to kill the enemies who harm one. When faced with a danger, the



207 of 282

enemy known for his prowess and fighting talents should be trounced and chased away

without hesitation. Kanika advised the king not to ignore the enemy even if the latter was

weak for even a small spark if it gets a hold is capable of burning down the entire forest.The king should turn a blind eye or keep a deaf ear when that is necessary. He may

leave the bow lie idle like a reed but he should be always alert like the deer. Kanika would

not recommend consideration for the enemy who has been subdued by means like peace

( sama), gift (dana), rift (bheda) and force (danda). The enemy has to be killed. No

compassion is to be shown even to the enemy who has surrendered. Only then the victor

can remain without fear, for one need not fear the dead.

Kanika is seen to be unethical and merciless unlike most other political

grammarians. One must kill one’s enemy and the one who has harmed him by gifting

(dana) him any object that would be a dangerous liability to that person. Kanika advocated

that all those who provide the three sources of strength of the enemy should be destroyed.

The three forms of strength are prabhusakti (popular support), mantrasakti (political

counsel) and utsahasakti (enthusiasm of the people and the different organs of the state).

Some annotators treat the term, ‘three’ as referring to the king, the minister and the ally. It

is more likely that Kanika referred to the three basic units of the state, the king

(including the ministry and his secretaries of the state, amatyas and sachivas), the rich

autonomous capital ( pura) and the commonalty of the rural areas (rashtra).

The king should kill the heads and officers of the five organs (angas)

(amatya , janapada, fort, treasury and army) of the state (ra jyam) of the enemy. If

the state of the enemy has seven units ( prakrtis), raja , amatya , janapada , durga ,

kosha , danda and mitra (king, ministry, rural administration, fortified capital, treasury,

army and political ally) all the seven should be destroyed. Kanika was for total

destruction of the enemy’s sources of strength and state organs whatever structural pattern

they had adopted. Always the king who is the root of the inimical state has to be cut off

first. Then his assistants and then all their allies are to be killed. Kanika seems to

endorse dependence on the sahayasampada rather than on mantris, amatyas and sachivas. This was a government through a cabal rather than a duly constituted ministry or

a rational bureaucracy.

If the root of the kingdom, that is, the king, is destroyed all those who hang on to

him like creepers will wither away. The branches of a tree cannot survive if the root is cut

off. The king is advised to be always enthusiastic in concealing his secrets and in

learning the secrets of the enemy. He has to be ever cautious about those who were

always inimical. There can be no complacency. [Those who criticise Kautilya as crooked and



208 of 282

cruel may note that he did not share the traits of Kanika Bharadvaja and functioned within

the framework of dharma, morality and humanity.]

Kanika used piety as a camouflage to make the enemy complacent and then topounce on him like a hyena. Agnihotra sacrifices, yajnas and clothes and tresses

indicating renunciation were meant to deceive and trap the enemy. These practices were

tools meant to achieve the intended political objectives. The intelligent (buddhiman)

leaders ( purushas) in the world should adopt the following method to attain their desired

goals, he said. ‘Till the fortune turns in one’s favour, one should carry the enemy on one’s

shoulders. And when the time comes he should drop him and break him like a pot thrown

on a stone.”

Kanika counsels that even if the enemy says words evoking pity he should never be

let off. There can be no compassion for him. One who harms should be killed. All the four

methods, sama, dana, bheda and danda, should be used to destroy the enemy.

Dhrtarashtra asked Kanika to explain how those methods were to be used. Kanika narrated

the tale of how a clever jackal used a mouse to bite the leg of the deer and a tiger to kill it

and then deceived them both and a wolf and a mongoose and warded them off to be able to

eat the venison all by itself. It fooled others to give the impression that it was stronger than

them.

Kanika told Dhrtarashtra that a king who adopted such a method of playing one

against another of his rivals would always be able to flourish. He said that the timid should

be kept off through terror and the valorous through respect and submission. The greedy

opponent and one equal in strength should be kept off through gift of wealth and one weak

through prowess. Kanika held that one who was inimical was to be killed by one who seeks

his good, even if that enemy was his son or an ally or a brother or his father or teacher. He

should promise to protect that an enemy and kill him by offering wealth to the killer or by

poison or by deceit. The enemy should never be spared, Kanika urged. If the two, the king

and his enemy are equal in strength and neither is sure of winning, the one who is more

cautious will win, according to Kanika. Kanika Bharadvaja who like Pisuna wasacquainted with Kautilya had unlike them no place for scruples in political policy.

It is just to punish one who does not distinguish between a good purpose and a bad

one and goes by the wrong path, even if he is one’s teacher. The king even if he is angry

should converse with a smile in his lips without letting his anger be noticed. None should

know that he is indeed angry. An angry person should never speak with his enemy

disparagingly. Kanika was giving tips to be kept in mind while confronting an enemy. While

sending off the enemy or beating him, the king should use only soft words. Even after



209 of 282

beating the enemy should speak softly as though he regretted his act. One should make

even the enemy believe that the former is a disciplined adherent of the principles of peace

( sama), and codes of dharma and artha. When the enemy loses his path, at theappropriate time he should be assaulted.

Kanika Bharadvaja had no scruples in counselling that one might safely commit the

most heinous crimes if he always ostensibly adheres to the codes of dharma. His reputation

as an adherent of dharma would hide his crimes, he told Dhrtarashtra. The house of one

who deserves to be killed may be burnt down. The poor and the atheists and robbers may

be employed to poison the enemy. Kanika did not believe that the poor would prefer

to be pious and innocent rather than be greedy and sinful. The king may kill his

opponent who trusts him even while receiving him with courtesy. One should always doubt

others whether they doubt his intents or not. One should not trust one who does not trust

him. One should not trust too much even one who trusts him. The fear caused by trust will

cut off the root (of the state, that is, the king’s life).

The king should appoint in his own country and abroad well-tested spies and scouts.

He is advised to appoint heretics and sages (rshis) as envoys to other countries. (Kautilya

did not draft the services of the sages for such purposes.) Kanika did not have any regard

or preference for pious persons. He cared only for whether the envoy served the interests

and purposes of the king who had deputed him. He did not care whether the envoy

succeeded through noble methods or through immoral ones.

The Mahabharata is laced with numerous interpolations. The advice to the

king to employ his informers in Buddhist temples (bouddhalayas) and in (Hindu) temples

(devalayas), in addition to other meeting places like parks, schools, streets, squares and

holy places, founts, mounts and forests and rivers and people’s assemblies is obviously the

hand of later annotators. Neither Buddha vihars nor Hindu temples had come up during the

decades preceding the battle of Kurukshetra though there were centres of education

(tirthas) where ethics were taught in addition to other fields of study. The eighteen

departments (tirthas) of the administration might not have been meant here for they werenot referred to as ‘holy centres’ ( punyakshetras).

The later annotator enumerates these departments as: minister (mantri ),

political counsellor ( purohita), crown prince (yuvaraja), general ( senapati ), guard of the

palace gate (dvarapalaka), chamberlain of the harem (antapura), jailor, revenue officer

( samaharta), finance minister ( sannidhata), officer in execution of royal commands, city

commissioner, officer assigning duties, dharmastha, chief of the legislative assembly

( sabha), magistrate and chief of the police (dandapala), chief of the fort, chief of the



210 of 282

border areas (antapala). This enumeration is not identical with that given by Kautilyan

Arthasastra but is similar to it and may have been in force in some areas when Kautilya

outlined his scheme.Sharp and gentle collection of data about the goings-on in different countries and

within the country was important. Even while resolving to do a cruel act the king (and the

administrator) should speak to his victim favourably and with a smile on his lips. One who

seeks riches should greet his victim, extend promises, speak kind words, bow to him, offer

him gifts and lure him. The king is asked to be attractive like a tree in blossoms but without

fruits. In other words he should not be useful to others though they admire him. Even if

there are fruits on the tree, none should be able to climb it. The wealth of the king should

not be accessible to his admirers and opponents even if he flaunts them. The benefits that

he promises them should never ripen though they appear to be ripe. Even if they eat those

fruits, advantages, promised and given they should be such that the victim could not digest

them.

Kanika was well versed in the then categorisation of the values of life

( purusharthas) but he approached them not as ideals worth striving for but as

political expedients. He pointed out that in pursuit of the three fields, dharma, artha and

kama, the difficulties that confront one and the fruits that they promise are of three types.

One should recognise the favourable fruits and keep out the difficulties, he advised. For one

who is engaged in doing in excess what is in accordance with justice, dharma, the benefits

due from the fields of wealth (artha) and of sex (kama) are affected adversely causing him

grief. Similarly intense pursuit of wealth (artha) to the exclusion of morality and justice

(dharma) and sex (kama) causes another type of grief. So too being ever given to lust

(kama) deprives one of the advantages of a morally satisfying (dharma) and economically

(artha) sound life, Kanika knew.

Kanika was crooked and would not stoop to inflict the worst type of cruelty

on his opponent. Yet he did not depart from the wholesome counsel that one

should adopt a balanced approach in his pursuits. Of course like other politico-economic thinkers, he did not pay attention to the fourth pursuit, salvation through

renunciation of worldly goals. He told the king to eschew egotism (ahamkara) and to be

careful in every act and speech. He should be soft-spoken and avoid rage. He should look to

the utility of every step that he undertakes and should with a pure intellect deliberate with

the scholars (brahmans, jurists) on counsel.

He should raise himself whenever he is weak by gentle or even harsh acts. When he

has regained strength ( sakti ) he may devote himself to performance of duties of a pious



211 of 282

and generous nature (dharma). One could be a king devoted to dharma, a

dharmara ja, only from a position of strength, Kanika told Dhrtarashtra. Kanika was

not totally demoniac in his outlook. (It may be remarked here that of all the ancientIndian political thinkers of India, Kautilya was the most pragmatic and yet never swerved

from the path of ethics and morality except while dealing with downright crooks.)

Kanika was more earnest in amassing wealth. For that one had to remain alive and

hence one should have no doubt about whether he would survive in the struggle for

existence and for power. One whose intellect is wearied has to be consoled narrating to him

the careers of the earlier rulers like Rama and encouraged. The chronicler was referring to

Rama of Kosala who preceded Krshna and Balarama. The sceptic should be encouraged and

made optimistic. One who is a realist and knows all should be given immediate aid and

comforted.

Kanika warned that one who was complacent in his friendship with his enemy was

like one who slept on the tip of the branch of a tree. He might fall any time and would wake

up only after falling down. Kanika was urging the king not to trust the enemy. Without

getting angry the king should always hide the counsel that he had sought through

deliberations, he said. One should not disclose his views in the presence of the scout.

The king should never deliberate with others during night. He should not deliberate

when watched by others. The meetings with the counsellors should be held on tops of hills

or in uninhabited but guarded open space. In those spots there should be no lovebirds or

parrots or children or idiots or mad persons. All the inmates of the house should be sent out

and then deliberations with scholars (Brahmans) who followed dharma and knew political

science (ra janiti ) and logic (tarkasastra) and were experts in history (itihasa) should be

conducted. At the end of the deliberations, protecting their secrecy the king should take the

decisions on his own. The counsel given would be recommendatory and not

mandatory.

Kanika insisted that the king should follow the advice given earlier by the brave and

then assess by himself its merit with reference to morality and economic gains (dharmartha) or in consultation with a jurist (Brahman) who was a perfect intellectual

and who was known to him. A clever person (buddhiman) should not consult any

third person. Kanika implied that the king might consult the Ra japurohita but not

any one else. A counsel that reaches six ears, that is, three persons, is ‘shattered’, it is

said in policy sciences (nitisastra). A counsel revealed will destroy the wealth already

acquired, Kanika, the economist, cautioned the king. One who knows ( jnanavan) should



212 of 282

reconsider his and others’ views several times and accept the word that has merit (guna).

He should never remain satisfied, Kanika urged his king.

Without exposing the secrets of others and without doing cruel deeds and withoutcruel baits as used by an angler, one can never gain huge wealth, Kanika opined. The army

of an enemy, which has been weakened and diseased and parched and starved and has lost

its virility because of complacency, should be harassed. “One who has no wealth (artha)

does not approach one who has wealth.” A friend who has already got his work

accomplished will no longer be friendly. Hence no help should ever be completed without

leaving something yet to be done.

One who seeks wealth should give up anger and try to acquire friends and continue

to show enmity to enemies. Persistence will increase one’s zeal, Kanika pointed out. One’s

proposed acts should not be known either to friends or to enemies. Others should know only

those works that are started and have been completed perfectly.

Before the threat comes one should act like a person afraid and seek methods to

ward it off. After the threat comes one should behave like a fearless person. One who helps

an enemy who has been ruined by the nobles (daiva) like a ‘pregnant’ mule invites death

(mrtyu), that is, the enmity of the commonalty. What has not taken place so far and

what will soon happen have to be foreseen, Kanika advised. No benefit should be

missed through ignorance. One who desires wealth (aisvarya) should know the time and

place and the power ( sakti ) of the nobles (daiva) and analyse and weigh the dharma,

artha and kama (social, economic and emotional) factors and exert oneself and increase

one’s zeal, that is, the zeal of one’s followers. It needs to be realised that when and where a

particular project is undertaken are important for accomplishment of the intent

(karyasiddhi ).

Kanika warned Dhrtarashtra that an enemy who was sprouting if neglected would get

rooted like a palm tree. Hence in the very beginning he should be lured with sweet words of

promise of huge wealth and the king should prolong his expectation and cite reasons for

delay in extending aid and justify the delay. Even as a sharp razor kept hidden in itssheathe is drawn at the appropriate time to kill the enemy, one should take advantage of

time and hiding one’s views grasp those of others. The enemy should be ruined and

killed, Kanika told Dhrtarashtra. He advised the Kuru ruler not to get sunk while

rendering justice to the Pandavas and others. Only one who has all types of wealth is a

wealthy person, the king should know.



213 of 282

Hence Dhrtarashtra should guard himself against the sons of Pandu. They were the

sons of his brother and were very powerful. He should adopt such means that would not

allow him to regret later, Kanika advised the king. (Ch.153 Adiparva)

15

VIDURA AND THE GREAT ESCAPE

After hearing Kanika’s counsel with the permission of the king, Duryodhana, Karna,

Sakuni and Duhsasana decided to get Kunti and her sons burnt down. Vidura, who guessed

their plan and learnt its details, prepared a strong barge by which Kunti and her sons could

cross the Ganga and escape being killed by their enemies. After disembarking from the

barge as suggested by Vidura with the riches given by the Kauravas, they went to a forest

that was safe for them. Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that a huntress who was staying in

the house built of lac was inexplicably burnt along with her five sons in that house.

Purocana, a pilot and an alien too got burnt down. There is an attempt to absolve the

Pandavas of the charge that they had got innocent persons killed to save themselves.

The sons of Dhrtarashtra and their allies were tricked. As advised by Vidura, Kunti

and her sons disappeared safely without being noticed by the natives ( jana) of Varanavata.

The people only wept that the palace had been burnt down. Vidura’s men sent message

to the king that his object had been fulfilled and that he and his sons could enjoy

the kingdom, as they desired. The king along with Duryodhana arranged for the

performance of the last rites of the Pandavas and their mother. Vidura and Bhishma too



214 of 282

took part in that programme, Vaishampayana told Janamejaya. The latter wanted to hear

the true account of the burning of the house of lac and the escape of the Pandavas.

According to Vaishampayana, Dhrtarashtra held Yudhishtira in high esteemeven as he had regard for Pandu who always adhered to dharma and was just to

all. Pandu kept Dhrtarashtra informed about all state affairs and the latter had no

complaints against him. So too, Yudhishtira enjoyed the support of all the descendants of

Puru. And it was not possible to forcibly evict him from the state, which he had inherited.

Besides he had many assistants and was being aided by Pandu’s ministers. Pandu’s army

too was ever nurtured by Yudhishtira; and the sons and grandsons of the soldiers supported

him. Dhrtarashtra warned Duryodhana that if they took any action against Yudhishtira and

his brothers the natives of that city might kill them. But Duryodhana argued that he had

won over the ministers with riches and rewards and that the Pandavas must be persuaded

to go to Varanavata.

Dhrtarashtra too had this plan in mind but hesitated as Bhishma, Drona, Krpa and

Vidura would never agree to this proposal as for them the Pandavas too belonged to the

Kuru lineage and were on par with the Dhartarashtras and those who respected dharma

would not discriminate between the two. Duryodhana claimed that Bhishma would remain

neutral while Drona’s son was his supporter. He hence expected Drona and Krpa too to

support him while Vidura was dependent on his brother for his economic needs. These

arguments persuaded Dhrtarashtra to send the Pandavas away to Varanavata.

(Ch.154 Adiparva)

Dhrtarashtra through his confidantes made them believe that they were being sent

there to attend a grand festival in honour of Siva. He complimented them for having

mastered all sciences and martial arts and offered to look after the protection of the state

and after economic affairs and social welfare activities while they went there with the troops

and kinsmen and enjoyed like nobles. He gave the impression that they were being

sent there as autonomous governors and that they could return to the capital after

some time. The Pandavas took leave of Bhishma and others and went there assured thatthey would regain their state. Yudhishtira told Vidura that it was at Dhrtarashtra’s instance

they were going to Varanavata. (Ch.155 Adiparva)

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that Duryodhana plotted with Karna and Sakuni and

employed Purocana to construct the house of lac where the Pandavas were to be made to

stay while at Varanavata and get burnt down with that building while the people were

engaged in the festival. [It needs to be remarked here that during the last decades of the

long Vedic era, Siva was the most charismatic of the leaders of the social periphery



215 of 282

including the forests and mountains. He had not yet been raised to the level of God.]

Purocana had to ensure that the people of that forest town entertained no doubts about how

the Pandavas were got killed. Purocana was given liberal gifts for this task. (Ch. 156 Adiparva)

The Pandavas left for Varanavata after paying their regards to Bhishma and others

and were given due send-off by the people of the capital. They asked the few citizens who

accompanied them to return to their homes. Vaishampayana held that Dhrtarashtra was

unable to reconcile with the Pandavas inheriting the kingdom ruled by their father and had

hence taken part in the plot to kill them. Why did Bhishma approve this exiling of the

Pandavas from the capital without any cause? The son of Santanu (and brother of

Vicitravirya) was like a father to them.

The people held that after the death of Pandu, Dhrtarashtra had become jealous of

his children. But Yudhishtira advised them to return home and be ready to help them when

required. After the people who were supporters of Pandu and the Pandavas left Vidura told

Yudhishtira how to protect himself against his enemies who had plotted to kill him. One who

follows the science ( sastra) of political policy (ra janiti ) and learns the mind of the enemy

should after knowing the threat adopt the means to overcome it. One who knows the sharp

weapon, which is not made of metal but yet can sever the body, should learn the method to

defeat it. Enemies cannot kill such a person, Vidura pointed out. One who guards oneself

like the rat, which hides itself in its hole, while the forest around is burning, will survive, he

said. Vidura hinted that if there was an attempt to burn down his house he should hide

himself in a tunnel.

Vidura advised him to keep his eyes open for a blind man does not know the path by

which or the direction in which he goes. A coward cannot gain wealth, he warned. Vidura

said that a commoner (unarmed manushya) received from the enemy a weapon that was

not made of metal and used it to hit him back. Vidura hinted that the Pandavas would be

facing not weapons like daggers but other threats like fire and poison and they should

escape these and use the same methods to kill the enemy. The porcupine hides itself in itshole and escapes from the fire, he pointed out. A pedestrian learns the direction in

which he goes by looking at the stars above. Vidura counselled that one who restrained

his five senses would never be afflicted by any harm. Yudhishtira replied that he had

understood the advice. Yudhishtira then told Kunti what advice Vidura had given him.

The Pandava explained to her that Vidura had hinted in his terse remarks what

threats they had to face and how to guard their selves. (Ch.158 Adiparva)



216 of 282

Yudhishtira and the other Pandavas were received enthusiastically when they

reached Varanavata. The chronicler told Janamejaya that when the people of that town

surrounded him, Yudhishtira appeared like Indra surrounded by the nobles (devas).Vaishampayana implied that with respect to Varanavata, a small town located in the forest,

Yudhishtira had the status and power of Indra, the head of the nobility. The Pandavas

entered their house in that town. Vaishampayana said that the rich and respected

leaders ( purushasreshtas), the Pandavas, who came on their chariots visited the

houses of the Brahmans (jurists) who were engaged in their duties and of the officers of

that town and also those of the rich and the poor (Vaisyas and Shudras). The autonomous

forest town did not have any troops of its own. The four-varna system had not yet come

into force there. [It is unsound to hold that the Brahmans referred to here were priests or

teachers.]

But ten days later Purocana shifted them to the new house that he had built for

them. Yudhishtira could smell that it was built of inflammable lac. He told his brother,

Bhimasena, that Vidura had already alerted him about Purocana’s plan to kill them at the

instance of Duryodhana. Bhima replied that if so they should quit that place early. Bhima

had reservations about the approach that Yudhishtira adopted. He was against the move to

leave Hastinapura and set up the new capital at Varanavata in the forest. He had argued for

staying back in Hastinapura with the Kauravas and facing all days, bad and good. He did not

want to permit Duryodhana to get a strong foothold there as king, during their absence.

There was a danger of Duryodhana becoming king and the people joining his side. He

wanted the Pandavas to live there but giving the Kauravas blows. He wanted that the

Pandavas should snatch the kingdom at the favourable time and benefit from their father’s

legacy uninterrupted.

Bhima was against following Dhrtarashtra’s instructions. It was a sign of

weakness to agree to go away from the Kauravas. He expected besides Vidura, Drona

too to be favourable to them. He expected Bhishma and Bahlika and other elders to remain

neutral. He reminded Yudhishtira of the attempts that Duryodhana had made to kill him.Bhima had lost faith in ‘god’ (isvara). [This remark must have been a later

interpolation.] He would observe patience but not for all times. When unable to bear the

harassment they should seek their own welfare, Bhima argued. He was not advocating

going to war immediately. They should use friendly talks ( sama), gifts (dana) and rift

(bheda) before going to war with the Kauravas, he agreed. Hence they should stay with the

Kauravas in Hastinapura, he had argued. Bhima was against being timid.



217 of 282

Yudhishtira however advised that they should find out a safe way to stay in that

house of lac carefully. They should not let Purocana realise that they had found out his plan.

He might resort to violence any time and he was one who did not care for public criticism orfor sin. Yudhishtira did not expect Bhishma to speak in their favour after they were

killed in fire. Bhishma would not antagonise the Kauravas. He and other Kaurava elders

might be angry that the codes of dharma had been violated but it would be of no use if

they were dead. Hence the Pandavas should live to fight.

Open flight was not advisable, as Duryodhana was in control of the state

and they, Pandavas, were not. He had supporters while they had no wealth. Hence to

deceive the sinner, Duryodhana, they should be constantly shifting their residence. They

should be wandering on the earth as hunters and learn all the routes of escape.

Yudhishtira proposed that a tunnel be dug and they escape under cover of smoke

unknown to the people of that town. Vidura had deputed a miner (kanaka) with

instructions to save the Pandavas from the burning house of lac. He knew about

Duryodhana’s instructions to Purocana. Yudhishtira was delighted to learn that the miner

was a confidante of Vidura. The miner told him about the tunnel that he proposed to

dig secretly from that house to a safe place in the forest. The Pandavas took care to

ensure that Purocana did not discover their plan to escape. (Ch.158, 159 Adiparva)

They arranged a programme for feeding the poor. A huntress who was in the pay

books of Purocana stayed back in the house of lac with her five sons, while the Pandavas

and their mother, Kunti, escaped through the tunnel. Purocana, the huntress and her five

sons were burnt down when the Pandavas set that house of lac on fire and escaped. The

people of Varanavata suspected that Duryodhana had plotted to kill the Pandavas and their

mother and condemned him. Bhima who took the initiative in getting the house burnt along

with the huntress and her sons and Purocana carried his mother and brothers to safety

swiftly through the thick forest. The chronicler was eager to protect Yudhishtira while the

Pandavas were charged with having caused the death of innocent and unwary persons to

save their own lives. The blame was cast on Bhima who would have preferred open war tosecret means. (Ch.160 Adiparva)

Vidura, a scholar and legislator (kavi ) of Hastinapura, deputed one of his confidantes

to that forest to transport them by a ship across the Ganga. Vidura used fables and

anagrams, metaphors and allegories to convey his messages to the Pandavas and

his followers. As the mariner and fisherman mentioned one such metaphor with a code,

Yudhishtira was convinced that he was Vidura’s man and went with him to a forest across

the Ganga. (Ch.161 Adiparva)



218 of 282

The people of the autonomous forest town, Varanavata, sent messengers to

Hastinapura to inform the king how Kunti and her sons and Purocana had perished

in the forest fire that enveloped their house. They accused Duryodhana of havingcaused their death and alleged that Dhrtarashtra was an accomplice in that crime.

Dhrtarashtra pretended innocence and shed (crocodile) tears for the death of the Pandavas.

He was happy that Pandu’s regime and lineage had ended. He directed that men be sent to

Varanavata to honour Kunti and her sons.

Along with his sons and Bhishma and Vidura, he went to Varanavata to

perform the last rites of his brother’s sons and wife on the banks of Ganga. Vidura

too behaved like one who believed that the Pandavas and Kunti had died. He knew how

vicious Dhrtarashtra was. The statement that Vidura thought that ‘Brahmadeva’ had

created Dhrtarashtra as a vicious person must have been a later interpolation. The

concept of the trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva as gods of creation, protection and

destruction came into vogue only later during the medieval times.

Vidura wondered how far away the Pandavas could have gone. Bhishma said that he

could not believe that Kunti and the Pandavas had died. He had a high opinion about

Yudhishtira who had been installed as crown prince in his father’s state and who never

violated the laws based on truth ( satya) and morality and justice (dharma). Yudhishtira

liked the Brahmans (jurists) and was an expert in analysing every issue, according

to Bhishma. The Pandavas were born to Kunti by nobles (devas). Bhishma was

disappointed that this birth in nobility (daivam) had gone waste. Kunti had not died with

her husband, as she loved her sons deeply. She had died without her dreams about them

fulfilled.

Bhishma could not believe that Bhima a powerful warrior had died. Similarly he could

not believe that Arjuna, the great charioteer and archer who had defeated the kings in all

areas, east, west and south, and had brought under his control all the three social worlds

(lokas) who was equal to Indra had passed away. Similarly he could not believe that the

twins too had died. He lamented the death of his daughter-in-law, Kunti, the daughter of aYadu king and his grandsons who were still in their boyhood while performing the last rites

for them. Vidura then consoled him and told him that the Pandavas and their mother had

not died and that he had arranged for their escape and safety. Vidura told him in

confidence about how he foiled the plan hatched by Duryodhana with the consent

of Dhrtarashtra and how he had sent them by ship to the other side of Ganga.

He assured Bhishma that they would resurface and the commoners (manushyas) of

the plains (bhumi ) would be able to see Yudhishtira at the appropriate time. One who had



219 of 282

Bhima and Arjuna and the sons of Madri, as his brothers could not be destroyed, Vidura

said. Bhishma was happy that Vidura had saved them. But Dhrtarashtra was complacent

that the Pandavas and their mother had died. Drona and others had no idea of the escape ofthe Pandavas. The people could not believe that the Pandavas had died in the forest fire.

According to Vaishampayana, though he was sore that Yudhishtira had not permitted him to

fight against their enemies and destroy them, Bhima submitted to his orders and carried his

mother and brothers across the forest to the side of a lake close to a town. (Ch.162, 163

Adiparva)

While they slept out of fatigue and Bhima stood guard, Hidimba, a ferocious

forest guard (rakshasa) chanced to see them. Later annotators have presented these

unruly guards as cannibals. Hidimba knew that his sister, Hidimba, was not afraid of the

commoners (manushyas) who often intruded into the forest areas. He asked her to bring

them to him. Hidimba got enamoured of the mighty youth, Bhima and decided not

to allow him to be killed by her brother. She told him why she had been sent to fetch

them and also about her liking for him. She promised to save him and his mother from the

cannibal and asked him to marry her. She claimed to be one who could move freely in

the open space (akasa) over the mountains.

Bhima however refused to abandon his brothers as victims to be killed by the guard

(rakshasa). He claimed that the cruel forest guards (rakshasas), commoners of the plains

(manushyas), free intellectuals and independent warriors (gandharvas) and plutocratic

rulers (yakshas) of the frontier society would not be able to withstand his prowess. He

however did not claim to be stronger than the nobles (devas). During the last decades of

the Vedic era, the feudal lords (asuras) had been pushed out of the core society of the

plains and it was not easy for the later annotators to distinguish between them and the

rakshasas who were confined to the forests and the social periphery. (Ch.164 Adiparva)

Hidimba became impatient when his sister did not return and got down from his post

of observation on the tree and went towards where the Pandavas were sleeping. Hidimba

urged Bhima to escape with her. But Bhima refused saying that he was as powerful as Indraand that she could see his strength when he fought with her brother. She agreed that he

looked like a ‘devata’ (a powerful noble of the forest area, marginally lower than an

aristocrat, ‘deva’ , of the core society of the plains in status) and that she had seen the

might of a forest guard (rakshasa) in some commoners (manushyas). She knew that

Bhima was not a deva or devata but was only a commoner (manushya) and

submitted that she did not try to underestimate Bhima’s might.



220 of 282

When Hidimba, the rakshasa, who was against the commoners (manushyas)

heard this conversation and found that his sister was dressed like a commoner

and was a manushya in fact and at heart he became angry with her. He accused herof having insulted the earlier rakshasa rulers by her love for a commoner and threatened

to kill all the Pandavas and her too. Vaishampayana was interpreting to Janamejaya the

conflict in outlook between the rulers of the forest and their guards and the commoners of

the plains. Bhimasena told Hidimba that it did not behove him to kill women,

especially his sister. Hidimba was enamoured of his body and it was not love born

of intellect.

She was acting urged by a formless amour moving within her body and it was not an

expression of the feelings in her heart. She was the victim of Eros and should not be

disparaged, Bhima told her brother. He challenged Hidimba to a duel and said that he

would rid the forest of cannibals like him and make it safe for the commoners

(manushyas) who were residing in the forest. But Hidimba had only contempt for

them. The duel with bare hands and trees and rocks, between the two looked like the

battles between Indra and Vrtra, between Indra and Bali, that took place in the prolonged

war between the nobles (devas) and the feudal warlords (asuras). The din of the duel

woke up the Pandavas and their mother who saw Hidimba standing in front of them.

(Ch.165 Adiparva)

The Pandavas who were leading personages ( purushasreshtas) in the core society

and their mother, Kunti, were struck by the extraordinary beauty of Hidimba, a

beauty that was rarely seen amongst commoners (manushyas). Kunti wondered

whether she was a girl who belonged to the aristocracy (daivam) of the core society or to

the aristocracy (devata) of the forest or was an apsaras, member of the free intelligentsia

devoted to fine arts and beauty. Hidimba said that she was the sister of the chief (ra ja) of

the guards, rakshasas and that she had been sent to entice them to his lair.

She asked Kunti to witness the duel between her son, Bhima who was a free man

(nara) and Hidimba who was a rakshasa, a guard. Naras were engaged by the rulersof the rural areas as volunteers to keep out the forest brigands and to maintain

law and order. Bhima (a nara) was battling Hidimba, the unruly forest guard (a

rakshasa). Arjuna asked Bhima to take rest while his brothers fought against the guard but

Bhima was bent on killing the latter. He was the son of Vayu, a mighty storm trooper. After

Bhima killed Hidimba, Yudhisht ira suggested that they should go to the neighbouring town.

Hidimba accompanied them. (Ch.166 Adiparva)



221 of 282

She told Kunti and Yudhishtira that she was in love with Bhima and that it was not

different from the love that in the social world (loka) of commonalty women feel for men.

Hidimba told her that she had given up her supporters and her dharma as the sister of arakshasa and adopted Kunti’s son as her husband. She would not survive if he and Kunti

rejected her. Kunti was required to show compassion for her as an ignorant woman or as

one who loved the former or as one who followed her ways.

If Kunti got Hidimba united with her son, she would go away in her path as

a devata with Bhima’s son. The aristocrats (devas) either of the core society or of the

frontier society were not known to have procreated sons and daughters on women of their

own class. They were required to have union with the apsarases or commoners

(manushyas) for producing children. The women of the aristocracy united with

gandharvas and commoners for bearing children.

Hidimba said that she would have surrendered to Bhima earlier but the arrival of her

brother had prevented it. She claimed that she was not a rakshasi and was not one

who roamed at night. She said that she was an isvari , known as ‘ salaka tankati’ .

Isvaras and isvaris were charismatic figures who were held in great regard by the

population of the social periphery. Hidimba must have let her tresses down unable to

bear separation from the person she had loved. She was not born as Hidimba’s sister

and the latter had no hold over her. She was prepared to marry Bhima and serve the

Pandavas and their mother. She was acquainted with the principles of dharma and

the four purusharthas, dharma, artha, kama and moksha. She appealed to Bhima to

save her who was afflicted by lust. Hidimba claimed that she had the ability to recall the

past events and foretell the future.

She predicted that they would come across Vyasa the next day near the pond and

that he would remove their grief. She claimed that Vyasa knew all that had happened since

Duryodhana exiled them and that Vyasa would arrange for their stay at the abode of the

Saligrama sage. It is obvious that the chronicler was introducing Vyasa in the scene and

used her extraordinary skill to foretell the future to create suspense.After hearing her words, Kunti told Yudhishtira who knew all dharmas to listen to

her views. Kunti held that Hidimba, though a rakshasi , had expounded all dharmas

correctly and that she should be permitted to unite with Bhima for procreating a son.

Yudhishtira permitted her to be with Bhima during daytime but she should bring him back at

night. For, while the commoners and sages could move about anywhere during the daytime,

only nobles (devas), gandharvas and apsarases, yakshas and rakshas were free to



222 of 282

move about during night. She should be ever alert about his safety, he stipulated. (Ch.167

Adiparva)

Hidimba escorted the Pandavas and Kunti to the pond near the transit point,Saligrama and arranged for their stay under a tree. They talked about the events since

they reached the house of lac. Kunti advised Bhima to treat Yudhishtira as equal to his

father and hoped that she and the Pandavas would soon come across good days. She

directed Bhima to give Hidimba a son as it was within the framework of dharma. She

expected that son to help them. Bhima asked her to behave with him like a girl

belonging to a noble community. She sported with him in beautiful spots during the day

and returned him to his brothers at night. It was then that Krshna Dvaipayana appeared

before them and advised them to stay there for a few months and then reach the

abode of the Saligrama sage. He told Kunti that her sons would certainly regain their

kingdom through dharma. He predicted that Hidimba would bear a son by Bhima and that

that son would save them in times of need. (Ch.168 Adiparva)

Hidimba (Kamalapalika, one who wore lotuses in her ears) wore ornaments that

were rare among men (manushyas) and could appear in different forms. She stayed

with Bhima for seven months until she became pregnant. The son born to them was huge

and hideous to look at. He was powerful and mastered all martial arts including archery.

Gatotkaca was taught to greet Kunti and the Pandavas in the due order. He assured them

that he would return to them like a person equal to Ravana and his son, Indrajit, in might.

He was destined to fight against Karna. Bhima then asked Hidimba to withdraw from the

scene as her object was fulfilled and that she might meet him after he returned to power.

(Ch.169 Adiparva)

The Saligrama sage welcomed the Pandavas and helped them to dress

themselves like sages of the forest and appear like Brahmans and study Vedas and

their branches. He helped them to gain the knowledge ( jnana) of the science

( sastra) of political policy (ra janiti ) and logic (tarkasastra). He told them how to

go from one forest to another. Saligrama was located at the intersection of four states,Matsya, Trikartta, Pancala and Kicaka (in the Ganga-Yamuna doab) and was a point where

travellers exchanged horses. It was also a centre where the tired got treatment. The

Saligrama sage was a veterinarian and also ran a maternity home beside the pond where

Hidimba delivered her son. The Pandavas met Vyasa on the way. He escorted them to the

nearby town, Ekacakrapura and lodged them in the house of a Brahman and then went

away. (Ch.170 Adiparva)



223 of 282

16

THE TOWN WITH A SINGLE COUNCIL

Ekacakrapura

Janamejaya was eager to know the events that took place after the Pandavas

reached Ekacakrapura. While Yudhishtira and Kunti stayed all the time in the house of the

Brahman, the other Pandavas went out daily dressed as Brahman students to seek alms.

Some of their neighbours felt that they deserved to be princes and some doubted whether

they were really Brahmans. They thought that the lads who were moving about observing

silence must be spies in disguise. Half of the food collected was given to Bhima while Kunti

and her other sons shared the rest.

Once while others went for begging alms, Bhimasena was staying at the Brahman’s

house with Kunti when he heard loud wailing. Kunti told him that she wanted to help the

Brahman in return for the help the latter had given. Bhima asked her to find out why the

Brahman and the other members of his family were in distress. Kunti listened to the



224 of 282

conversation between the Brahman and his wife. He considered his domestic life as

one uninteresting and fruitless, as cause of pain and submission to others and as

one to be despised. He found only grief in surviving. He found surviving caused onlyincrease in desire. The life of one who barely lives cannot escape the dualities like pain and

pleasure. He knew that only the soul (atma) experienced the benefits of the three

values, dharma, artha and kama. Separation from these experiences causes endless and

great sorrow. Some praised the pursuit of salvation, moksha.

But that Brahman did not believe that one could ever attain salvation and escape

from the cycle of births and deaths. By gaining wealth (artha) one invites only sins

that lead him to hell (naraka). Earning wealth is a painful process. Wealth gained causes

more pain. One who has developed love for wealth experiences great grief when it leaves

him. For one who gains the riches that he sought, sorrow is like a nail thrust deep in his

heart, he moaned. That Brahman regretted that he had not been able to develop vairagya,

dispassion required to overcome his difficulties.

For, domestic life with his wife would last only for a short period and it was full of

fears. He did not know how he could become free from this fear. He wanted to run away

with his wife and children to a place where he would not be troubled. He told his Brahman

wife that she knew how he had tried once earlier to do so, but she did not want to leave the

place where she was born and where her parents lived. Even after the death of her parents

and her kinsmen she refused to move out. He held that one should go to that country even

if it was far off where he would not lack food and where his wife’s kinsmen would not

interfere in his life. As she wanted to be with her kinsmen, they were facing the danger of

losing their son, he said. It meant his death. For he could not like a cruel person

allow any of his kinsmen to die while he lived.

That Brahman held his marital life having been an ideal one that followed

the rules prescribed in the dharma code. The wife had to always perform all rites along

with her husband, control her five senses, and be like a mother and friend to her husband.

She should provide him the support stipulated by the nobles (devas) and should have beennominated as wife by the husband’s parents and have a share in the domestic life. He was

referring to the provisions of the daiva pattern of marriage, which he had entered

into with her after having been directed by his patron noble and his parents.

The daiva pattern did not permit him to take any step without her consent. The wife

should have been born in a good clan and be of good conduct and should have a male issue

and be chaste. She should never harm others and should ever agree with her husband and

should have been married duly with marital mantras (formulae). That Brahman said that



225 of 282

he was not able to give up his life, as his wife was such an ideal one. He could not leave in

lurch his daughter who had not yet attained puberty. Vaishampayana pointed out to his

audience that it was wrong to hold that the Vedic society was partial to men andsons and neglected the women and the daughters. The Brahman held that according

to the social constitution, Brahma, the young daughter whose sex organs were not yet fully

developed was to be protected like a treasure by the parents and was meant for the use of

her husband.

The parents were her guardians. This did not give them the right to extract

labour from her while she was at their home or to give her away in marriage without her

consent before she attained the age of consent. In other words, Brahma marriage was a

later development. A father could gain salvation after death not only through his son

and the son’s son but also through the daughter and her son. Not only the father but

his ancestors too were eligible to become free from their debts by both lineages. The

concept that only the son’s lineage came to the rescue of a father is a later

development.

A father loved his son and his daughter equally, the Brahman (a jurist) insisted. The

father cannot abandon the girl who is flawless and who is capable of bearing a grandson for

him to enable him to enjoy the life of a blessed person. The question of abandoning the

son did not arise. For, it was on the birth of that son his grandfather and other ancestors

ascended to the community of aristocrats ( svargaloka). By the birth of the son, the father

was discharged of his debts.

This beloved son, especially the eldest son was the saviour of the clan

(kula). Hence the Brahman found it difficult to digest the prospect of his having to lose

that son. One member of the family, the husband or the wife, the son or the daughter had

to be sacrificed then. The Brahman was in a dilemma and did not know whether to

sacrifice his life or that of one of the other members of his family. His sacrifice would

lead to their death by removing their protector. He felt that it was better to die along with

all of them. (Ch.171 Adiparva)Kunti heard the Brahman’s wife criticising him for expressing like an ordinary

commoner (manushya) his pity for his wife and children. For a scholar (vidvan) like him, it

was not the time to show pity. All manushyas of this social world have to die. There is no

need to feel grief for this inevitable happening. Man thinks that wife, son and daughter and

all things are meant for him. She did not appreciate man’s possessiveness that lay hidden in

the claim that he was required to protect the rest of his family or die instead of them. She

offered to go there (the den of the raksha). It was an ancient dharma of women of



226 of 282

this social world (loka) to give their lives for the good of their husbands, she said.

Such sacrifice was a duty to be performed to attain the other higher world (of nobility). It

makes the present career of the husband comfortable and gives permanent benefit in hisfuture career ( paraloka). It gives him renown in the present life, she claimed.

She told him that what she proposed to tell him too was within the

framework of dharma. She finds in that proposal benefit for him both in economic terms

(artha) and in cultural terms (dharma). Man desires to have a wife to have offspring and

her husband had secured them in the form of a son and a daughter. He had thus freed her

from her debts. A father is able to bring up and protect his daughter and son, but the

mother is not capable of doing so to the extent. It is the husband (as isvara, charismatic

benefactor) who grants her, her breath, life ( prana) and wealth (dana).

A woman cannot produce offspring without union with a man. She cannot protect

them without his aid. It would be difficult for a young widow without a guardian to bring up

the two children even while going along the path of the honest and the pious, she said. A

woman without a husband is desired and pounced on by all people like birds pouncing on

meat thrown on the earth. She would not be able to stand in the path of the pious widows

after losing her steadfastness, desired by evil men. The author was bringing out succinctly

the plight of young widows who had to bring up their children without aid.

The jurist’s (Brahman’s) wife felt that a woman born in the social world of

commonalty (manushyas), which is full of evil men, is deemed to be low. [She would not

say the same of the status that women had amidst the nobles (devas) and the free

intelligentsia (gandharvas and apsarases), the two other major sectors of the core

society.] When a virgin she was under the influence of her parents and after

marriage under that of her husband and when they were absent under that of her

son. This was the norm only in the social world of commoners who were bound by

the laws of their clans and communities. This was not the norm amongst the aristocrats

and the free intelligentsia where women were as independent as men were.

In the social world of commonalty (manushyas) a woman who remainedindependent ( svatantra) determining the course of her life by herself was spoken ill of.

[This has been so till recent times.] For the woman who has no guardian, it is like opening

the door to evil men to drag her to pieces even as dogs tear a cloth soaked in ghee. This is

a note on how men take liberties with unguarded women. The safety of women in a

community where men dictate terms requires their being provided domestic protection at all

stages in their lives. She was diffident of her ability to bring up and educate all alone his

only son in the traditions of his ancestors. She feared that evil persons would desire her



227 of 282

young daughter in preference to her. [The note that it would be as violating of the norm as

Shudras seeking to study Vedas is obviously a later undesirable interpolation.] They would

take her away forcibly polluting her life.She warned her husband who offered to die to save the other members of his family

that if her daughter was violated by scoundrels leading to her being insulted by arrogant

men (manushyas) of the commonalty she would swoon and die. The children given up by

their parents would die like fish in a dry pond, she feared. If he abandoned them it

would lead to the ruin and death of all the other three, wife, son and daughter.

Hence it was advisable that she should be given up (to the cruel guard, rakshasa), the wife

said.

Vaishampayana then explains the orientation of a married woman desiring

to predecease her husband. The Brahman’s wife who too was acquainted with the

contents of dharmasastra pointed out to her learned husband that experts in that socio-

cultural code considered it a great fortune for a woman who had a son, to go to the other

world before her husband did. In their view it was not comfortable for mothers to

lead an unsettled life in this world depending on their sons. The ancients by the

term, ‘ paraloka’ referred to the cadre of aristocracy (devas) including intellectual

aristocracy.

The scholars, both men and women of the commonalty expected to become

part of that aristocracy on completion of their domestic duties. They did not want

to remain dependent on their sons. A woman who dies in front of her husband with all

insignia of a married woman ( sumangali ) is said to reach the company of Parvati, the

consort of Siva and daughter of the king of the mountains. Vaishampayana says that such a

wife became a companion of Parvati and led a happy life. [This is a Saivaite orientation and

is of later origin.]

According to Vaishampayana, a woman receives gifts from her father and mother

and also from her son. But these are meagre compared to the unlimited gifts that she

receives from her husband and hence cannot but worship him. On the issue ofperformance of duties pertaining to the different asramas, stages of life, he says

that a woman was not entitled to perform those rites without her honoured

husband. It is implied that a concubine or a widow or a separated woman is not eligible to

perform them. Such women might only remain patient and pure and observe fasts. The

Brahman’s wife told her husband that she was giving up her son and daughter and kinsmen

and was retaining her life in expectation of being sent to her fate.



228 of 282

For women, not to give up the wishes and good of the husband is better

than performing social duties like yajna, tapas, rules of prescription (niyamas) and

charity (dana), she argued. Hence she wanted to predecease her husband, an act thatthe social code, dharma, had agreed to, according to her. It was not mere death wish or

act of suicide. What she proposed was in his favour and that of his clan (kula) and

the children that they loved. She argued that in the opinion of the pious ( sadhu), sons

and riches and friends and wife are desired but may be given up under the rules of

emergency (a paddharma).

According to the rules of emergency, accumulation of riches is meant for tiding over

an emergency and through such wealth the woman has to be protected (after the death of

the husband). For protecting oneself, one may always draw on his accumulated wealth and

that with his wife, Vaishampayana explained through the arguments advanced by the wife

of the Brahman of Ekacakrapura.

The scholars (vidvan) had decided that wife, son, wealth and house were to

be acquired as both visible and invisible assets, fruits of labour. The benefit of the

entire clan is one of the two plates of the scale and the benefit of the one who makes that

clan continue to flourish is the other. According to these scholars, an individual is more

important than his clan. The wife hence exhorted her Brahman husband to protect

himself. When he is not present in his settled community (loka) there is nothing for him.

In other words, a free man, nara, was not entitled to have any possession. He was

not eligible to set up a family.

Even if he were to merge in the vast undefined social universe ( jagat ), it

would not be equal to him with an identity in this social world ( loka). [It appears

that she was warding off the suggestion that he was not going to his death but was going

out to merge in the vast universe and hence his departure was not to be prevented.] She

asked him to get his purpose fulfilled through her. She asked him to save himself from

‘drowning’. She requested him to permit her to go and he should protect her children.

Those who know the principles of social laws (dharma) have said in the social codes (dharmasastras) that women should not be killed. They say that the rakshasas too knew

them (dharma). The rakshasa whom she would meet on behalf of her family might not kill

her. There was no doubt that he would kill men. But it was doubtful whether he would kill

women. She told her husband who knew dharma that it was fit that she was sent to meet

that rakshasa. As she had enjoyed all joys and obtained whatever she desired and had

followed the code of dharma and obtained fame by attending on him and had secured

offspring by him, death would not pain her, she claimed.



229 of 282

After he had let her go, he could marry another woman and that would enable him to

be back in the path of dharma. A widower was not permitted to perform many rituals and

could not be head of the family. He had to marry again. She also claimed that it was notagainst social laws, dharma, for a man to have many wives. Only for women, it was a sin

to supersede the first husband and marry another. [The practice of divorce had not

yet come into force but the practice of superseding of husband was in vogue even as that of

wife.]

Giving up one’s life clears off all these sins. Hence he should save himself, his

children and his clan (kula), she urged. But the husband embraced her and said that he

realised that one should not abandon a wife who knows ( jnana) (who is learned) and his

children. A husband who is an intellectual in this social world (of commonalty) should always

protect his wife first. (She too was an intellectual.) If a husband should live abandoning his

wife and children who should never be abandoned it means that he has not understood the

principles of any of the four pursuits of life, dharma, artha, kama and moksha , the

scholar said. (Ch.172 Adiparva)

When the Brahman and his wife were discussing the issue of who of them should go

to meet the rakshasa , their daughter told them that the social laws, dharma, required that

they should give her up. By abandoning her who deserved to be given up they should save

all of them, she urged. One desires an offspring to save him (from hell) and they should use

her to cross the danger, even as one uses a float to cross the river. She told the Brahman

scholar that her sacrifice would help them to cross the danger either in their present career

(this loka) or in the other (future) one ( paraloka). Only a son who makes his parents cross

the danger is called a putra, she said. The ancestors, who are described as pitrs and

dayadas , always desire only grandsons (sons of sons) to survive and not the grandsons by

daughters whom the latter would take away with them, she noticed. [There is an

undercurrent of sadness that a daughter is neglected while a son is preferred.] Hence she

would save her father’s life, by giving up hers, if necessary.

Her brother was yet a child. Hence if the father went away to the other world (thatis, if he died), that child’s life would be cut short, she lamented. If the father was dead and

the son too died, the desires of the ancestors for salvation would remain unfulfilled and that

would make them despair, for there would be no one in the family to continue the tradition

of offering pindas to the ancestors ( pitrs). She who was not accustomed to grieving too

would die soon without her parents and brother.

If her father got free from the disease that afflicted his mind then her mother and

her brother and his offspring would ensure the continuity of their lineage and satisfy their



230 of 282

ancestors, she said. The Brahman’s daughter was voicing the views of the younger

generation of the women who were being discriminated against by the society when she

cited the saying, “One is one’s son; wife is one’s companion; daughter is sorrow”. Hence he should get free from his sorrow and make her act according to the intents of the

social laws, dharma, she urged. If she survived and her father was away she would be

constrained to stay somewhere as an orphan always in grief. But if she aided him to make

her clan (kula) attain salvation, she would get the reward for doing a rare feat. Instead if

he went away leaving her behind, she would be afflicted adversely. Hence she appealed to

that pious man ( sadhu) to save himself for the sake of the members of his family,

of dharma and of his lineage. He should not lose this chance to carry out this essential

purpose.

If he went away to the other world of autonomous individuals ( svargaloka , heaven

in common parlance), the other members of his family would be constrained to beg for food

and would be chased away like dogs, she wept. If he got free with his family and kinsmen

unharmed, she would be living in the other world comfortably like a person who was not

dead. The young girl (like a heretic) interpreted that in the world the cadres of

nobles and elders, devas and pitrs, are present only to induce the commoners to

perform their duty of giving (dana). If she died and her last rites were performed she

would be benefited.

She asked her father to weigh all the arguments and do what was the best for him,

her mother and his son. The parents may get other sons in place of the dead sons but the

sons can never get parents. As she wept, her parents too wept and their innocent son asked

them not to weep. Kunti thought that it was the appropriate time to intervene and know

what caused their anxiety and give them hope of survival. (Ch.173 Adiparva)

Kunti told the Brahman that she wanted to know the exact cause of their grief so

that she might try to find a remedy and if she could, remove that grief. The Brahman

thought that she was an ascetic engaged in tapas and told her that what she said might be

apt for pious persons ( sadhus) but it was not possible for commoners (manushyas) toremove the cause of their grief. Yet he would tell her how their sorrow began and she might

hear it, whether it was possible for her to remedy it or not.

Ekacakrapura was located near the source of Yamuna. A forest guard (rakshasa),

Baka, lived in a cave near that town. He was a sadist and cruel person and was believed to

be a cannibal. The powerful chieftain, Baka, was the head of that town ( pura) and the

country (desa) around it. It was believed that he grew up on human flesh and was huge in

size and capable of taking any form. It was thirteen years since he began controlling that



231 of 282

town. Because of him that town was like an orphan without a protector. From his cave he

was harassing all the natives ( jana) of the rural areas, including women, children, the aged

and the young. He was extolled and worshipped by the senior Brahmans (jurists andintellectuals) of that town.

To stop him from harassing and killing the people indiscriminately, these Brahmans

entered into an agreement with him. They undertook that the residents would offer him all

the food that he (and his men) needed and every house would send to him daily one man

and two bulls as protection share (rakshasa bhaga). This militant, a sadist, was appointed

to protect the people of that town who did not have a government or an army of their own.

Baka agreed to it and followed it strictly and protected that town from the troops of others

and from wild animals. He had to be paid one man (manushya) per week as wages. This

payment, a difficult one for the people ( jana) to meet, was going on for several years, the

Brahman said.

Ekacakrapura, which was administered by intellectuals and jurists

(Brahmans), did not have an army of its own and did not have a king. The rebel

militant who was not allowed entry into the town and was required to stay on the periphery

was in a position to prevent the townsmen from having access to the rural areas. He could

starve the people of the town. They agreed to his terms in return for the protection

he offered. His food needs had to be met and his work force was strengthened by the

addition of one earning member per week surrendered by the townsmen.

It was short-sighted to have agreed to his terms. It also exhibited lack of

community-spirit among the intellectuals who recommended governance along non-coercive

lines. This led to the strange dependence on inhuman militants (rakshasas) for protection

and strengthening their economy at the expense of that of the commoners (manushyas).

If any commoner tried to free the town of this abominable agreement, he would destroy his

entire family.

The Brahman told Kunti that the people of the autonomous town, Ekacakrapura,

where every family took charge of administration by rotation for a week, once approachedthe ruler who lived in Vetrakiyagrha (a house made of reeds) for help. That dull king could

not find out a way for their becoming free from the inhuman agreements, which the

Brahmans of Ekachakrapura had entered into with the militant chief, Baka. [No cause is

served by accusing Baka of having been a cannibal and by giving the impressing that all

insurgents, rakshasas, were cannibals.] The Brahman charged that the king failed to

adopt a method by which there would be long-term benefit for the people ( jana) of that

autonomous town, Ekacakrapura.



232 of 282

The Brahman lamented that the people, especially, Brahmans of the autonomous

town, Ekacakrapura, who resided in the country of a weak king permanently and who

were dependent on a low type of ‘king’ (like Baka) deserved living such a miserable life.Brahmans were not to obey any one and were not expected to follow the desires

of any one. By nature they moved about freely as they willed, like birds. The Brahman

told Kunti that a free intellectual should first acquire the protection of a king and then marry

and earn wealth. If in the social world of commonalty there is no king one should not aspire

to have a wife or wealth, as they will remain unprotected. Only with the protection given by

the king and the assistance given by the wife and with the wealth earned one will be able to

protect his kinsmen and children.

This Brahman did not endorse the decision taken by the jurists (Brahmans)

and people of Ekacakrapura that the town should be administered by a body of

intellectuals and need not have a separate kshatriya cadre to function as

administrators-cum-protectors. He was against the anarchist constitution that the

intellectuals and commoners of Ekacakrapura had adopted in the name of

autonomy leading to surrender to the highly coercive militant chieftain (rakshasa).

What the Brahman (like others of the town) had earned was the opposite of what he

should have earned. He had agreed to stay under an immoral and exploitative chieftain,

Baka, and then married and set up a home and begun to earn what he and his family

required. He and his family were facing the threat of destruction during that week.

He had to provide the militant with food and one man (as a slave). And he did not

have the wealth to purchase a man (slave) to be surrendered to Baka. He could not part

with any member of his family. He did not find any way by which he could save himself from

that militant (rakshasa). Hence he was immersed in grief. He planned to go to Baka with

his entire family, the Brahman told Kunti. (Ch.174 Adiparva)

Kunti told the Brahman that she had five sons and that one of them would go to

meet the militant chief, rakshasa , with the promised ‘meat’. But the Brahman rejected

that offer, as it would be availing the life and services of one of his Brahman guests for hispersonal use. He noticed that women, who were not born in higher clans and did not follow

the (new) socio-cultural orientations, dharma, were not found to sacrifice oneself or one’s

son for the sake of a Brahman. He implied that Kunti must have been born in a high family

and was not an ordinary Brahman guest.

He preferred a Brahman committing suicide to causing the death of another

Brahman. Brahmahati meant ‘killing a Brahman’ , to be precise, ‘destroying the

reputation of a judge’. It was a major sin and there was no penance for it. Even if it is



233 of 282

committed in ignorance, it is a sin. He was not committing the offence of trying to

voluntarily commit suicide; another person would kill him and that was not a sin affecting

him, the Brahman (a judge) argued. Allowing her son to die would amount tointending to cause the death of a Brahman and it had no penance. It was cruel and

mean. It is cruel to kill a guest, one who has sought asylum and a beggar and has been

despised by the learned.

The great persons (mahatmas, legislators) of the past who knew the laws of

emergency (a paddharma) had not permitted doing despised acts under any

circumstances, the Brahman judge pointed out. Hence he felt that for him to die with his

wife was the best solution. He would never consent to the killing of a Brahman. Kunti told

him that her son had learnt a method to overcome the rakshasas and that she was

confident that she would defeat this rakshasa also even as he had killed many rakshasas

earlier. He would not say, without the permission of his teacher how he would defeat the

enemy for many persons would like to know that method and that would weaken him. Then

Kunti and the Brahman (a jurist) asked Bhima to act (as required). (Ch.175 Adiparva)

Yudhishtira found Bhimasena happy and asked Kunti what his brother, Bhimasena,

proposed to do and whether he was acting on his own or with her permission. Kunti replied

that under her direction he was going to do a great feat that would help the Brahman and

liberate that town. Bhima would eat whatever food was meant for Baka that day. But

Yudhishtira did not appreciate her move to give up her son for the sake of another’s son. He

said that she was doing a deed that was against the practice in the world and against the

social code, sastra.

It was on Bhima that she and the Pandavas were depending to retrieve their

kingdom from the Kauravas and it was unwise to lose him, he said. He wondered whether

she had lost her intellect. Kunti explained that her decision to depute him to meet Baka and

confront him was a confident and deliberate move and not that of weak thinking or of

mental fatigue. She explained that they were staying in the house of the Brahman

unknown to the Kauravas and they had to help the Brahman and his family in return, shehas found. That was the sign of a human being. One has to return many times more than

the aid he has received. Socio-cultural law (dharma) holds that one’s indebtedness

to a Brahman is immense.

She was aware that Bhima had the ability to confront Baka for he was mighty like a

tusker, and none was his equal in physical strength. He had the ability to defeat Indra too

even if the latter used his weapon, vajra. After careful deliberation she had offered the



234 of 282

Brahman the services of Bhima. She was fulfilling two objectives, helping the

Brahman in return for his help to them and protecting the Brahman.

In her view a Kshatriya who helped a Brahman in his work (like being apriest or a counsellor or a judge) was bound to rise to higher social cadres (lokas).

A kshatriya who saves another kshatriya from death will get wide fame in this world of

commoners and in the other world (loka) of nobility. A kshatriya who helps a vaisya

(landlord or trader) in this social world of commonalty will certainly get the love of his

subjects ( prajas) in all social communities. A king who frees a Shudra who seeks asylum

with him will be (treated as one) born in a respectable clan. Kunti told Yudhishtira that she

had learnt these from Vyasa. She was dwelling on the duties that rulers had by the

four social classes. It was an age when the dasas were liberated by the state.

Shudras were free workers. (Ch.176 Adiparva)

Yudhishtira did not want the people of that town to know that Bhima was being sent

to kill Baka. They thought that he was being sent as a victim to be ‘eaten’ by that

‘rakshasa’ . They contributed liberally necessary food for being handed over to Baka. When

they saw Bhima eating plenty of food they thought that Bhima was indeed a rakshasa like

Baka and was not a Brahman student. The duel between the two ended in the death of

that powerful militant chieftain, Baka. (Ch.177 Adiparva)

After Baka fell, the people came out with their servants to see what had happened.

Baka’s brother and other militants, rakshasas, surrendered to Bhima. [According to the

then practice, the victor entered into a treaty of peace with the brother of the chieftain after

the latter was killed or gave up.] Baka was the leader of the unruly militants stationed

outside the town. The Brahman administrators had entered into an agreement with him.

He and his armed men would not harass the villagers or the people of the town provided the

administrators of Ekacakrapura met their economic needs including provision for labourers

as slaves. Bhima pacified them and made them agree not to harm the commoners

again and warned that those who troubled the commoners would meet the same

fate as Baka did. They agreed to this condition and the people ( jana) of that town foundthe rakshasas peaceful thereafter.

Bhima brought the body of Baka to show the people what had happened to him. He

handed over the cart and the two bullocks to the Brahman and asked him to retire

peacefully. The next morning the people saw the dead body of Baka and made offerings to

the devatas for having saved them. The Brahman told them that Bhima, one of his guests,

who took the food to Baka, must have killed that rakshasa. The Pandavas continued to



235 of 282

stay in that town for a few days more as Brahman students engaged in severe tapas.

None knew who they were. (Ch.178 Adiparva)

17

Adoption of Draupadi and Drshtadyumna by Drupada

Janamejaya was curious to know what the Pandavas did after killing Baka, the rebel

militant (rakshasa). Vaishampayana told the king that a few days after that event a

Brahman ascetic came to their house as a guest and told them and Kunti several episodes

connected with the different countries, towns and holy places he had visited. He told them

about the svayamvara of Draupadi that was slated to take place soon in Pancala. He told

them about how Drshtadyumna, Sikhandi and Draupadi were ‘born’ to Drupada, ruler of

Pancala. He also told them at their request about how Drupada and Drona became friends

and whose act had separated the two. (Ch.179 Adiparva)

The ascetic told the Pandavas that when the sage, Bharadvaja, was young he saw

Krtasi, an apsaras, when he went to the Ganga for bathing and was attracted to her.

Drona was born of their union (in a cup). Drona studied all the Vedas and their

branches. Bharadvaja was one of the major contributors to the Rgvedic anthology. He

educated in his abode along with his son, Drona, Drupada, son of his friend, Prushadana, a

rajanya. It is likely that this king, Prushadana, was a first generation kshatriya who had

emerged from the ranks of gandharvas. Drupada was trained as a kshatriya warrior

and studied Vedas along with Drona. When Prushadana passed away, Drupada

succeeded him as king. Drona must have been taught martial arts and principles of

administration also besides Vedas. There was no major difference then in the courses

taught to Brahmans and those taught to Kshatriyas. Both these cadres were drafted from

the larger free class of gandharvas.

Drona heard that Parasurama intended to retire from all political and social

activities and go to the forest after giving away all his wealth. Drona, son of

Bharadva ja, went to meet that great thinker and activist and told him that he had come to

receive his wealth. But Parasurama had already surrendered them to Kashyapa and told

Drona that he had only his body left with him. Drona could choose between Parasurama’s

‘body’ and his skill in and knowledge of archery. Drona asked for his weapons and

knowledge of how to use them. Bhargava Parasurama agreed and gave him his



236 of 282

weapons, especially the Brahmastra. This missile symbolised the superiority of the

power of the intellectuals (Brahmans), especially of the judiciary, over the

executive (Kshatriyas), of Brahmadanda over Rajadanda. The possession ofBrahmastra made Drona superior to all others in the commonalty (manushyas).

Armed with that weapon, Drona went to Drupada and asked him to recognise his

superior powers. But Drupada refused to acknowledge him as a friend arguing that one

ignorant of Vedas could not be a friend of a Vedic scholar, one who did not know how to

battle from a chariot could not be a friend of one who had that skill and one who did not

have a kingdom of his own could not be a friend of one who had a kingdom. Drona decided

to teach the king of Pancala a lesson for insulting him and went to Hastinapura, the capital

of the eminent Kurus. Bhishma received that scholar with honour and entrusted the

education of his grandsons to him. Later Drona told them that they should extend him a

particular help as fees due to the teacher (gurudakshina) after they had mastered the

science of missiles. Arjuna and other students agreed to help him.

After their course of training was over, Drona told them to deprive Drupada,

ruler of Chatravati, of his kingdom and give it to the former as gurudakshina. While

Duryodhana and other sons of Dhrtarashtra and their friend, Karna, failed to defeat

Drupada, the Pandavas led by Arjuna were able to capture him and produce him before

their teacher. The people ( jana) who followed Yajnasena (Drupada) accepted that there

was no prince who could equal Arjuna in valour. Drona retained the portion of Pancala north

of Ganga and allowed Drupada to rule the southern portion to prove to him that Drona too

was a king like him and had a status equal to his. Though Drupada promised Drona lasting

friendship the king never forgot the insult heaped on him. (Ch.180 Adiparva)

Drupada who had no issues of his own searched in the enclaves of Brahman

scholars for experts who would help him to ‘procreate’ offspring. His objective was

to have sons who would help him to overcome Drona known for his scholarship, training in

martial arts and extraordinary feats. Drupada located two Brahman sages, Yaja and

Upayaja, in an educational (Brahman) enclave on the banks of Yamuna. They belonged tothe school (gotra) of Kashyapa, a leading Atharvan scholar, socio-political ideologue and

activist. Drupada offered the younger brother, Upayaja, whatever wealth he desired if he

could fulfil his expectations. Drupada wanted a son who could cause the death of

Drona and a daughter who would marry Arjuna. Upaya ja pleaded his inability to help

the king and suggested that he should meet Yaja who unlike him was not particular about

the purity of the fruits that he ate and would not hesitate to take the alms discarded by



237 of 282

others. Upayaja hinted that Yaja could help Drupada to adopt children who had

been abandoned by their parents.

Drupada told Yaja about his desire for a son who would destroy Drona who dressedas a Brahman was with his skill in archery and martial arts, able to defeat the might of

Kshatriyas, even as Parasurama did. Drupada claimed that both influences (tejas),

Brahma and Kshatriya, had been ‘created’, that is, were valid constitutional

features. The socio-cultural influence that the Brahmans exercised was superior to

the raw might and coercive power that the Kshatriyas used to make the people

conform to the laws. Vaishampayana also pointed out that a king who did not have a

strong army took refuge in the influence (tejas) that the constitution had

empowered the judiciary (and educationists) to exercise.

Drupada submitted to Yaja that he did not question the superiority of the

judiciary (brahmatejas) over the executive and coercive power of the state

(kshatriyatejas). His objective was limited to getting a son who would humble Drona

whose conduct indicated exercising raw coercive power under the guise of righteousness

(dharma) and wholesome socio-cultural influence (brahmatejas). Ya ja directed his

assistant, Upayaja, to perform the necessary sacrificial rites. At the end of those rites,

Yaja presented to the rajarshi , an armed youth as his son. It was declared that the

youth was ‘born’ for killing Drona. This lad was indeed presented to the king by the

nobles (devas).

Yaja also presented to the king a beautiful girl. This princess, Panchali, was

a girl belonging to the nobility (devas) but was dressed as a commoner

(manushya). She was one whom both aristocrats (devas) and rich plutocrats (danavas,

yakshas) liked. It was predicted that this girl, Krshna, would destroy the kshatriyas and

would be a threat to the Kauravas. Drupada accepted her as Pandu’s daughter-in-law.

Drupada’s wife accepted the two, the lad and the girl, as her son and daughter. The boy

was named Drshta as he was proud and happy and as Dyumna as he was valorous and rich.

As the girl was dark, she was called Krshna. Drona undertook to teach Drshtadyumna thescience of missiles. He had already studied the Vedas when Drona took him as his student.

(Ch.181 Adiparva)

Drupada’s counsellors (Brahmans who followed the prescribed rules and procedures

rigorously) told him about how the Kauravas hatched the plan to get the Pandavas burnt

alive in the house of lac at Varanavata and how Vidura and Bhishma had performed the last

rites of the Pandavas. Drupada conveyed this news to his ministers and the people of his

city. He feared that his plan to get his adopted daughter married to Arjuna had been



238 of 282

frustrated by this event. But his chief counsellor ( purohita) who was gentle and calm

( sattva) and knew the subtleties of knowledge needed to carry out his assignment told him

that the Pandavas who zealously followed the counsel of their elders and observed thesocio-cultural laws (dharma) could not have been destroyed or defeated.

He swore that he had seen rare escapes. He cited an episode mentioned by scholars

(Brahmans) in the Vedas of how Indra who had disappeared was discovered by his

consort in the root stem of a lotus. Brhaspati had told her whom to approach to locate her

missing spouse. The counsellor ( purohita) said that he had heard indirectly that the

Pandavas were alive and that they would reach Panchala. He encouraged Drupada to

arrange for the contest where Draupadi would select her spouse ( svayamvara).

Svayamvara was the method prescribed for the Kshatriyas to give away their

daughters to suitable grooms, he explained. Drupada announced when the

svayamvara programme would take place.

The Brahman ascetic informed Kunti and the Pandavas about this programme and

told them that nobles (devas), free intellectuals-cum-warriors (gandharvas), plutocrats

(yakshas) and sages (rshis) (and he himself) were going to Pancala to witness that event.

He invited them to accompany him. By chance Draupadi might obtain one of the Pandavas

as her spouse, he said. Of course he was not predicting for none in this world knows the

good intent of the socio-political constitution (Brahma), he said. [We are avoiding the

interpretation that the intent of Brahma the creator is undecipherable.] The ascetic extolled

Pancala and its people and their king and induced them to accompany him. (Ch.182

Adiparva)



239 of 282

18

DRAUPADI, PANDAVAS, POLYANDRY

Guided by Dhoumya the Pandavas went to attend the svayamvara of Pancali and

see that country, Pancala. On their way they met the great flawless sage, Dvaipayana. After

saluting him they went to Drupada’s house in Pancala. There they stayed in the workshop ofa potter but brought alms to show that they followed the ways of life of Brahmans. No

commoner identified them as warriors. Yajnasena (Drupada) knew that he had offended

Bhishma and Drona and began to do the things necessary for his protection. After securing

Drshtadyumna (as his son and general) Drupada did not worry about Drona but was afraid

of Bhishma as the old enmity between the Kurus and the Pancalas continued.

He thought of setting that enmity at naught by giving the virgin (kanya) to

the Kurus. Yajnasena wanted to give Krshna to the Pandava, Arjuna, but did not tell his

view to anyone. He hoped that the strength of his son-in-law would add to his strength.

Addressing Janamejaya as Bharata, the chronicler told him that the king of Pancala who was

searching for the Pandavas had arranged for the bending of a strong bow as the test . It had

been given to Srnjaya, son of Vyagrapada (one whose feet were like those of a tiger), by

devatas, nobles of the social periphery. It had an iron string which none else could draw.

The great thinker and socio-political activist, Samkara, had given it to Srnjaya, as

a boon.

For the test of skill, Drupada had arranged a novel device by which the arrow

released from that bow should hit a mobile target, a golden fish. As he advertised the



240 of 282

contest for the svayamvara of Draupadi, many kings and sages arrived in Pancala. Among

them were Karna, Duryodhana and other Kauravas, Krshna and Yadavas, Antakas

(governors of border lands) and Vrshnis. And many prominent Brahmans (scholars) hadcome from different countries and the Pandavas sat along with them. The nobles (devas)

observed the proceedings from a high gallery. Separate areas in that fortified and decorated

city hall had been assigned to the kings. The commoners and women too had their places

from where they could observe the events and also see Draupadi.

Drshtadyumna seated on his horse led the decorated elephant carrying Draupadi to

the hall guarded by Drupada and his troops. The political counsellor ( purohita) of the

Somaka kings (kings of the lunar group) prepared the pulpit of the holy fire. Drshtadyumna

announced the conditions set for the hand of Draupadi, his sister. Among the gandharvas

the brother had the right to give away his sister to the eligible groom but it was the girl who

selected her spouse. Neither her parents nor her brother could determine whom she should

marry. Drshtadyumna told his sister the names and careers of the princes and others

assembled there and about their clans and might. (Ch.200 Adiparva) He directed her to

accept as her husband whoever of them hit the target. (Ch.201 Adiparva)

As the nobles (devas), kings, sages, feudal lords (asuras), technocrats (nagas)

and their opponents (garudas), siddhas, apsarases, gandharvas, yakshas and other

approved sections of the larger society witnessed the proceedings, the aspirants enchanted

by her beauty readied to take part in the contest. [It may be noted here that at this stage

only the rebel militants, rakshasas, were kept out of the civilised society.] The ruler of

Cedi, Sisupala, came forward to try his hand at the bow but failed to draw its string. Salya

of Madra and Duryodhana (son of Dhrtarashtra) too failed to handle it. As Karna, the great

archer too failed, all the princes became disenchanted.

As the people assembled in the hall grew restless Arjuna thought of drawing its

string. This delighted Balarama and the great Yadu warrior, Vasudeva, who was superior to

feudal lords (asuras) and nobles (devas). They thought that Draupadi would reach the

hands of the great warrior, Arjuna (son of Kunti). None of the kings and Brahmans (jurists)among the people assembled there then except Balarama, Krshna, Dhoumya, Dharmaputra

(Yudhishtira, son of an official who was in charge of implementing the social laws, dharma)

and his brothers recognised the Pandavas who were in disguise. (Ch.202 Adiparva)

When Arjuna got up from among the Brahmans to draw the string of that great bow

some of them suggested that he should not attempt to do what great archers like Karna and

Salya could not. They did not want that young boy bringing disrepute to the class of

Brahmans by his misadventure. But some other Brahmans were impressed by his



241 of 282

personality and hoped that he would succeed in his venture. They claimed that though

compared to the Kshatriyas, Brahmans were physically weak they had the power of

tapas and hence could overcome the Kshatriyas as Parasurama, son of Jamadagni, hadproved. None should underestimate the strength of one because he was short.

(Vamana who overcame Bali was a dwarf.) They cited the exploits of dwarfish Agastya and

encouraged the ‘Brahman’ youth. (Was Arjuna too short in stature?)

Arjuna asked Drshtadyumna whether Brahmans were eligible to draw the string of

that bow. Drshtadyumna promised that whoever drew its string, whether he was a

Brahman or Kshatriya or Vaisya or Shudra, he would give him his sister. A girl who was

entitled to or required to follow the rules of gandharva marriage was free to choose her

spouse from any community or cadre or class and her brother and guardian would not

restrain her from exercising that freedom. After paying respect to the bow and praying to

Isvara (Siva), a ‘devata’ and ‘ prabhu’ and thinking about Krshna Arjuna lifted the bow.

[The bow was a boon (vara) given by Samkara who was known also as Isvara, Siva and

Mahadeva.] What great archers, Rukma, Sunita, Karna, Duryodhana, Salya and Salva could

not do, Arjuna did. He hit the target with five arrows from that bow.

The nobles (devas) in the gallery showered petals on him and all in the hall

applauded him. The Brahmans were happy with his success. (They did not know that he

was not a Brahman.) Trumpets and drums and other instruments were played to honour

him. Drupada was delighted with the success of that youth. He wanted to help the winner

with his army. As the applause grew in intensity Yudhishtira and his brothers went back to

their seats. Krshna (Draupadi), surrounded by Kshatriya warriors went smiling towards

Arjuna who was seated amidst Brahmans and garlanded him. Arjuna left the hall with his

wife feted by Brahmans. (Ch.203 Adiparva)

When Drupada wanted to hand over ‘his daughter’ formally to the ‘Brahmana’ the

princes became angry. They felt that he had insulted them and threatened to kill him. They

argued that Drupada did not deserve to be respected as a senior king. They said that only

Kshatriyas were eligible to take part, as contenders in ‘ svayamvara’ and Brahmans werenot. If that girl did not like any Kshatriya she deserved to be thrown in fire, (that is, she

should be taken to task by the civil judge, Agni ), they said. Some princes argued that if the

Brahman had out of necessity or out of desire done that deed which was not to the liking of

the senior kings it was not proper to kill him. For the lives of the kings and their wealth and

their sons and grandsons were meant for the benefit of the Brahmans.

The senior kings should fear being put to shame and should protect their rights and

duties (dharma) and ensure that other svayamvaras too did not come to such an end.



242 of 282

They wanted a legislation that would entitle only recognised rajanyas to

participate in a svayamvara contest. As they went against Drupada, the latter requested

the Brahmans for protection. Drupada sought protection from the higher judiciary,which was entitled to interpret the provisions of the constitution (Brahma).

Brahma (constitution) is superior to Dharma (legislation). While Dharmasastra

defined the powers, rights and duties of the individual in accordance with the class

(varna) to which he belonged, the constitution, Brahma, dealt with the relations

among the different communities and cadres and social sectors and was to be

referred to for resolution of conflicts in class orientations, interests and privileges.

The chronicler, Vaishampayana, clarifies that Drupada sought protection by the

Brahmans not because he was afraid or was weak or for saving his life. He went to the

Brahmans (judiciary) to request them to pacify the kings. As the enraged kings rushed at

him like mad elephants, Bhima and Arjuna went towards them. When they attacked Bhima,

the latter took up in his hands a tree. He appeared like Yama (the Vedic official entitled to

enforce compliance with the laws), with his weapon, a stick (danda). According to

dandaniti , the magistrates (yamas) could discipline even kings.

Arjuna who was armed with his bow was surprised. Meanwhile Krshna who had

knowledge (insight) not attainable by commoners and the ability to perform rare exploits

told his brother, Balarama (Samkarshana), that he (son of Vasudeva) was sure that the two

warriors were Bhima and Arjuna. He also pointed out Yudhishtira, Nakula and Sahadeva to

Balarama. The chronicler compares the twins who were born to the two Asvins, with

Subrahmaniya who was brought up by the (six) Krttika sisters as their son. Krshna said that

he had heard that the Pandavas had escaped from the house of lac when it was set on fire.

Balarama was glad that his ‘aunt’, Kunti and her sons had been saved. (Ch.204 Adiparva)

Arjuna asked the Brahmans to stay back as observers while he and his brothers

would keep the princes back. He took up the strong bow, which he had received as

kanyasulka, fees for marrying a virgin (kanya) and stood his ground with his brother,

Bhima. The two Pandavas defeated Karna, Duryodhana, Salya and other opponents. But thelatter did not know that they were fighting against Pandavas. They presumed that they were

Brahmans. Karna wondered whether his opponent was Parasurama or Indra or Vishnu. He

knew that no one except Indra and Arjuna was capable of fighting against him. But the

Pandavas including Arjuna had died in the house of lac, he believed. If so, who was his

opponent?

Arjuna, hiding his identity, said that he was a Brahman superior to all armed

warriors and who had mastered the Brahma and Indra missiles. He had the



243 of 282

support of the judiciary and the aristocracy, he implied. Karna realising that he would

not be able to overcome the superior Brahma influence (tejas) of Arjuna withdrew from

the battle. At the same time Bhima defeated Salya in wrestling. Yudhishtira signalled to himnot to kill Salya. Yudhishtira defeated Duryodhana while Sahadeva defeated Duhsasana and

Nakula another brother of Duryodhana’s ‘brothers’.

While the Brahmans applauded the victorious Pandavas, the Kshatriya princes

wondered who those Brahman warriors were. They knew that only Parasurama, Drona,

Arjuna, Krshna and Krpacharya were capable of defeating Karna (son of Radha, a

charioteer). They also knew that only Balarama, Bhima and Duryodhana could bring down

Salya of Madra in wrestling. Krshna was convinced that the two were sons of Kunti and told

the assembled kings that Draupadi had been secured in accordance with the provisions of

dharma, (that is, only kshatriyas had won her) and asked those kings to withdraw from

battle. The other spectators went back saying that Brahmans who had attained greatness

had obtained Panchali. Led by Arjuna, the Pandavas and Draupadi reached the potter’s

house where Kunti was waiting anxiously for the return of her sons with alms. She feared

for a while that her sons despite the assurance given by Vyasa might have been killed by

rakshasas. (Ch. 205 Adiparva)

Bhima and Arjuna told their mother in a lighter vein that they had brought Draupadi

as ‘alms’ for they were in the guise of Brahmans who could receive only alms from others.

Without noticing what they had brought she asked them to eat together what they had

brought. Then on seeing Krshna she realised her mistake and asked Yudhishtira to find a

way by which she would be saved from having directed them to do something that was

against dharma. She did not want her word to be proved false and the princess of Panchali

to be made to do a wrong act. This was obviously an attempt of the later annotators to

defend Kunti from the charge of having compelled Draupadi to yield to the advances of all

her sons, being unable to favour any one of them against others.

Yudhishtira noticed that his younger brothers had placed the daughter of King

Drupada in the charge of their mother. As a king (ra ja) who adhered to the sociallaws, dharma, he told Arjuna that as the latter had won Draupadi in the contest

and as he would be making her future bright he should take her hands ( panigraha)

in the presence of Agni . In his capacity as a ‘father’, Drupada had gifted her as a virgin

(kanyadana) to Arjuna and performed the necessary rites in sign of that. As she was a

Gandharva, her brother Drshtadyumna had handed her over to Arjuna on his victory as the

person selected by her as her spouse ( svayamvara). These did not require the presence of



244 of 282

the priest (official, Agni ). But the marriage would have been completed only with

panigraha, which required attestation by the civil judge, Agni .

Arjuna did not want to violate the code by jumping the order of precedence ingetting married. As he and his brothers had to obey the orders of Yudhishtira, he should do

what would make dharma glorious and what would be good to the king of Pancala. The

beauty of Draupadi had enchanted every one of the Pandavas. Yudhishtira, remembering

Vyasa’s counsel and to prevent rise of mutual enmity among the brothers,

declared that Draupadi should become the wife of all of them, Vaishampayana

explained.

Janamejaya wanted to know why Krshna did not draw the string of the bow though

he was capable of doing so. Vaishampayana told him that Krshna did not do so as he

wanted to identify the Pandavas about whose escape he had heard but was not sure. Along

with Balarama he went to the potter’s house and met the Pandavas and saluted Yudhishtira,

a king belonging to the lineage of Ajamida and introduced himself as Krshna. The two Yadu

brothers saluted their aunt, Kunti. She asked Vasudeva how he discovered them who were

staying incognito there. He congratulated them for having escaped from arson. He advised

them to keep their identity secret and left for their hostel. It would appear that Krshna

revealed his identity only to Kunti and Yudhishtira and did not meet the other

Pandavas or Draupadi during this visit. (Ch. 206 Adiparva)

When Bhima and Arjuna went to the potter’s house, Drshtadyumna followed them.

From his hiding he observed the goings-on in that house. He heard the Pandavas talking

about weapons and armies and battles. He went back at night to report to Drupada what he

had seen and heard. The ruler of Panchala was anxious to know where Draupadi was

living and under what conditions. One who belonged to a higher class, Brahmana,

had won her. The king wanted to be assured that this did not lead to her being

treated with contempt. He wanted to know who that Brahman was. Drupada had

desired that she should marry Arjuna who belonged to the Kurus. Was the archer who hit

the target Arjuna? He asked Drshtadyumna to tell him what he had learnt. (Ch.207 Adiparva)

Drshtadyumna, the first of the Somakas, younger generals of the lunar groups of

kings, told him with delight that the warrior who led away Krshna (Draupadi) after defeating

Karna was Arjuna and that the strong youth who plucked the tree for fighting was Bhima.

He told Drupada that they had taken her to a potter’s house outside the town. He guessed

that the other three Brahman youths were Arjuna’s brothers and that the lady there was

their mother, Kunti. They all slept on the floor on dry grass. Their conversation indicated



245 of 282

that they were Kshatriyas and not Brahmans or Vaisyas or Shudras. Drshtadyumna

was sure that they were Pandavas who were wandering incognito.

Then Drupada sent his counsellor ( purohita) to ask them directly on his behalfwhether they were Pandavas. He told them that Drupada was always eager that his

daughter should become the daughter-in-law of his friend, Pandu, by marrying Arjuna.

Yudhishtira without acknowledging openly that they were Pandavas assured the counsellor

that he did not want the Somaka king to feel hurt and that what Drupada desired would

take place. Yudhishtira told Drupada’s counsellor and envoy that Draupadi had

followed the rules set for the contest. He pointed out to the counsellor that the Pancala

king had not stipulated any eligibility condition, whether varna or gotra or discipline

(acara), and had announced that he would give his daughter to one who hit the target.

However, one who did not have mastery over archery or by one born in a lower

community or by a commoner could not bring down that target, he said. He indicated that

a trained Kshatriya warrior had won Draupadi. Yudhishtira wanted that counsellor

to convey to the king this assurance. While Yudhishtira and the counsellor were talking

an envoy from Drupada arrived to invite the Pandavas for a dinner arranged by the king.

(Ch.208 Adiparva)

The Pandavas, Kunti and Krshna went to Drupada’s palace by the chariots he had

sent. They were escorted ceremoniously. Meanwhile the counsellor deputed by the king told

him what Yudhishtira had said. Drupada arranged a Kshatriya style welcome to be assured

that they were indeed Kshatriyas and Pandavas. The warriors occupied their high seats

without feeling shyness or surprise. After eating what they liked they bypassed the tables

where rich jewels had been kept and went to where different types of weapons were kept.

This indicated their Kshatriya orientation. Drupada and his ministers concluded that the

youths were indeed Pandavas. (Ch. 209 Adiparva)

Drupada asked Yudhishtira whether he had to think that they were

Kshatriyas or were they Brahmans, Vaisyas or Shudras or wandering Siddhas. To

seek Krshna’s hands even nobles (devas) had come. Drupada wanted to knowwhether Yudhishtira and his brothers had been formally inducted into one of these classes

(varnas) and if so to which one or whether they claimed exemption like siddhas who had

attained perfection in their careers and were no longer bound by the codes of any clan or

community or country or class. He asked Yudhishtira to tell him the truth. He pointed out

that kings valued truth ( satya). In addition to performing sacrifices and digging ponds, not

saying lies was a duty of kings, he said. He said that Yudhishtira had a status equal to that

of a devata (a noble of the forests marginally lower than an aristocrat, deva, of the



246 of 282

agrarian core society). After hearing Yudhishtira’s reply he would begin performing the

marriage according to the rules prescribed in the code ( sastra), Drupada told him.

Yudhishtira then acknowledged that they were Kshatriyas and sons ofPandu. He also introduced to him their mother as Kunti. He said that he was the eldest son

of Kunti. He also introduced Bhima and Arjuna as the ones by whom his daughter was won

in the contest in the royal hall. He told that his daughter would be going from one royal

family to another royal family. Drupada thanked him for this information and asked him how

they had escaped from their town. On hearing Yudhishtira’s report, Drupada condemned

Dhrtarashtra and promised that he would help him to regain his kingdom. Then Kunti,

Krshna and the other Pandavas entered the big palace arranged for them by Drupada.

Vaishampayana then narrated to Janamejaya how the Pandavas married Draupadi.

Drupada suggested to Yudhishtira after they had their partaken the feast that as it was an

auspicious date, Arjuna should take the hand of ( panigraha) Draupadi that day itself in

conformity with the code ( sastra). Yudhishtira said that he was not yet married and that

the convention required that he should get married first before his younger brothers did. He

asked Drupada for permission to get married first. Drupada then said that he might take

her hand ( panigraha), marry his daughter or give her (Krshna) to any one

nominated by him (Yudhishtira).

Yudhishtira told him that his mother had already said that Draupadi would

be the wife of all the Pandavas. Both Yudhishtira and Bhima were not yet married while

Arjuna had won her. It was their agreement that would enjoy together whatever they got.

They could not break that agreement. They knew that marrying without caring for

procedure would harm dharma. Draupadi becoming the wife of all of them was

within the framework of dharma, he said. She should marry them all in order of

precedence with Agni (the civil judge) as witness. [Bhima had already got united with

Hidimba but that was not a ‘valid’ marriage as it was not conducted in the presence of

Agni .]

Drupada told him that the social code ( sastra) approved a man having manywives. But there was no precedent known of a woman having many husbands. He

pointed out that what Yudhishtira had proposed had never been accepted as

dharma in practice or in the Vedic code ( sastra). He did not expect Yudhishtira who

knew dharma and was pure to do something that was against social customs and against

Veda and was adharma. Drupada wondered how Yudhishtira got that idea.

Yudhishtira pointed out to Drupada (Vaishampayana told Janamejaya and

others), addressing him as ‘mahara ja’ , as a king who had legislative powers also, that



247 of 282

dharma was subtle. “We do not know how it proceeds. We only follow the traditional path

that our ancestors followed.” He was referring to kuladharma. His lips would not utter

lies and his mind would not go along the path of adharma , he asserted. His mother alsohad said what he said. He too was for all the brothers marrying Draupadi.

Yudhishtira claimed that he had heard of this method when he was in the

asrama (abode of the sage) from Vyasa whom Rudra had sent. He was sure that

what he had proposed was within the framework of dharma. [Vaishampayana, a

disciple of Dvaipayana, claimed that polyandry was permitted by the Rudra school of

thought.] Drupada might conduct the rites without having any doubt in his mind about the

validity of this polyandrous marriage, he said.

Drupada who belonged to the Somakas could not question the views

expressed by Rudra. Then Drupada asked him to consult Kunti and Drshtadyumna and

decide what rites were to be performed and Drupada would get them done the next

morning. Drupada, it is obvious, was not convinced that polyandrous marriage was a valid

practice and was not prepared to give away Draupadi in marriage to the five princes. His

doubts could not be cleared until Vyasa arrived on the scene. (Ch.210 Adiparva)

The Pandavas and Drupada welcomed that great sage, Dvaipayana. Drupada

requested Vyasa to tell him the exact position about the practice of polyandry to which his

foster-daughter was being subjected. Vyasa wanted to know first from each of them his or

her view about this social law, dharma , which was against the views of the social world

(loka) of commonalty and against the directions given in the Veda and which was still not

given a definite status. Drupada said that in his view it was against the views of the world

and Veda , and hence it was adharma. A woman did not become the wife of many.

Polyandry was not followed by the ancestors and by great persons. Those who knew laws

and traditions should never do what was against dharma. Hence he had not decided to

conduct the marriage. He was leaving it to others to decide. He said that this practice had

always been suspect.

Drshtadyumna, addressing Vyasa as a Brahmajnani (one who knew the socialconstitution, Brahma, which was superior to social law, dharma) asked how an elder

brother whose conduct was good have union with the wife of his younger brother. As

dharma was subtle they would not be able to know by any method its conclusion. He and

his like could not decide whether it was within the framework of dharma or was adharma.

Hence they could not accept that Krshna could be the wife of all the five.

Yudhishtira said that he would not utter lies and would not think of doing anything

that was adharma. As his mind has thought of it, it could not be against dharma in any



248 of 282

way. He cited the example of Jatila of Gautama clan who was with seven sages according to

the legends and of Varkshi who was with ten Pracetas brothers. He requested Vyasa who

knew the provisions of social laws, dharma, to say how he could ignore the directive of hismother that they should enjoy Draupadi together even as they ate together the food

received by them as alms.

Kunti said that things had happened as narrated by Yudhishtira who never deviated

from dharma. She had directed Arjuna to ‘eat the alms’ with his brothers. She was afraid of

being trapped in lie. She wanted to know how she could escape the sin of lie. She wanted to

function within the framework of the laws based on truth ( satya) which had not been

repudiated by the rational and liberal laws (dharma). Vyasa then told the king of

Pancala that polyandry was a dharma, a valid practice that had been there always.

In other words it was not to be treated as an aberration that was cropping up anew. He

endorsed Yudhishtira’s stand that it was a valid social practice and had a place in the social

code ( sastra). Then he told Drupada how polyandry was valid and how Draupadi had been

given earlier a ‘boon’ that would make that princess, wife of five nobles (devas). (Was it a

boon or a curse?) He was referring to her tapas before he adopted her as his daughter and

to the boon given to her by Isvara (Samkara). (Ch.211 Adiparva)

Vyasa advised Drupada not to be upset by his daughter being required to have five

husbands. It was the result of what her mother had prayed for when Drupada adopted this

girl at the ‘yajna’ , sacrifice conducted by Yaja and his assistant, Upayaja, who did not

deviate from dharma. The two scholars had prescribed for her five husbands. Hence five

obtained Krshna as wife, Vyasa said. This was another explanation that laid the blame on

the ‘priests’ who officiated on the occasion when Draupadi was given in adoption to

Drupada. Then Vyasa told Drupada another reason for Draupadi becoming the wife

of five.

Nalayani, a beautiful girl, was attending on Maudgalya, an aged sage, who was

suffering from leprosy. She would be eating what he left uneaten. Pleased with her service

he permitted her to seek a boon. She expressed the desire that he should divide his bodyinto five parts and get re-formed into one body and enjoy her. He agreed to grant that

boon. This story may not be interpreted as one based on the concept of rebirth. Nalayani

and Maudgalya roamed as a young attractive couple. Besides the abodes of sages, they

visited the enclave of nobles (devaloka) and enjoyed the company of the sages

(devarshis) there.

When they were at the abode of Indra, the head of the nobles, his consort,

Indrani , called Nalayani as Indrasena. Maudgalya left her there to go away to the



249 of 282

mountains. But she followed him as a commoner whatever guise he took to shed her. Vyasa

implied that the different forms that Maudgalya took indicated his diverse (five) traits and

powers. Nalayani had a spouse who could fit in different social cadres but likeArundati and Sita was an adherent of the rigorous rules of monogamy. According to

Vyasa, Nalayani was greater than her mother, Damayanti who was wife of Nala. It was

this girl who was presented to Drupada as his daughter. Krshna was presented to him

as the daughter of a noble (devakanya). (Ch.212 Adiparva)

Drupada wanted to know from Vyasa why Nalayani emerged in his sacrifice as

Krshna. Vyasa said that Maudgalya who was tired of roaming with Nalayani abandoned her

to follow the path of salvation, moksha, and was contemplating about the Ultimate

(Brahma). As Nalayani continued to seek pleasure from that jurist (brahmarshi ) he

directed her to go to the world of commoners (manushyas) and become the daughter of

Drupada, king of Pancala. He told her that as a princess she would have five famous and

handsome husbands from whom she would get pleasure for a long time. What she sought

was not sexual pleasure. Vaishampayana held this offer to be a curse rather than a boon.

Nalayani went to the forest to pray to Samkara whom the nobles (deva) too

worshipped as their superior authority. Giving up all desires and all food she prayed to

him facing Surya ( Aditya) even while standing in the midst of the five domestic ‘fires’.

Samkara who was the chief of all domestic animals (Pasupati ) and the charismatic

benevolent chief ( Isvara) of all the social worlds (lokas) was pleased with her strenuous

effort, ‘tapas’ , and told her that she would have in her next career ( janma) five husbands

who would be equal to Indra of the nobles (devas) in appearance and prowess. The

chronicler in a lighter vein explains that as she had prayed five times for a husband she was

granted five husbands.

Nalayani protested that monogamy was an ancient law, dharma, prescribed

for women while polygamy was permissible for men and many men practised

polygamy. A wife was to perform all socio-cultural acts (dharma) only along with one

husband. This was the dharma prescribed by the ancient sages for women. Vyasadisapproved a girl being required to marry an old man. The husband should be young (at

the time of marriage). Social legislators like Vyasa did not overlook the emotions and

desires of women. The laws of exigency provided for a second husband provided the first

husband directed her to have another husband (and procreate a son for the first). It was in

fact a directive that women should not be subjected to live as wife with a diseased or

impotent husband for all time.



250 of 282

Nalayani noted that a woman should never have intercourse with a third

man. If she violated this rule she would have to perform penance. If she joined with a

fourth person she would be declared a ‘fallen woman’ ( patita) and cast out of thecommunity. If she united with a fifth man she would be declared to be a prostitute . As the

social laws (dharma) had prescribed this approach she did not like to be the wife of many

men. She asked Samkara how she could escape from the consequences of the act that was

adharma and was not practised in the world (of commoners).

Mahesvara (the great benefactor who had powers of legislators) told her that earlier

women were not under any (social) restraint and that the laws of nature ( rta), which were

in force then held that a union, which a woman entered into when she had to get her urge

for sex fulfilled was valid and no guilt would be attached to it. If she followed that procedure

she would not be doing anything against the principles of social laws, that is, any adharma

act.

The laws of nature, rta , were in force during the pre-Vedic and early Vedic times.

Puritanical laws based on truth, satya, superseded these permissive laws during the middle

and later Vedic times. By the end of the Vedic era, the laws based on dharma, which took

into account the existence of diverse practices supplemented these laws based on truth,

satya. The issue of ‘polyandry and morality’ needs to be debated in the

background of the shift in emphasis, from Rta to Satya and then from Satya to

Dharma. The principles of Dharma accommodated both the laws based on nature,

Rta, and those based on truth, Satya. They were considerate to the needs and practices

of every section of the larger society.

Nalayani agreed that she would indulge in sex only she was yet young and would

have sex only with one husband at a time and not yield to sex orgy of being required to

have sex with all husbands at the same time. She had only nursed her previous husband,

Maudgalya, a patient of leprosy, and not had sexual union with him though they were

joyous in the company of each other. Addressing her as one who was virtuous and not

guilty of any sin, Samkara told her that the pleasure of sex did not accord with the fruits ofstrenuous search (tapas) for truth. But in her new career she should try to obtain both and

also realise the greatness of yoga (which required self-restraint in all acts).

Samkara ‘predicted’ that she would be fortunate and have five handsome youths. He

asked her to bring to him the man whom she would see while standing in the waters of

Ganga and who would have the dignity of Indra. As that benefactor ( Isvara) directed her

thus, she went around Rudra and then to Ganga, which flows from the high mountains to

the deep seas through the plains. It may be noted here that Siva, Samkara,



251 of 282

Visalaksha, or Mahadeva or Mahesvara belonged to the Rudra school of thought

that flourished in the woods around the core society. Rudra had by the end of the

Vedic times ceased to be an activist. The term, Isvara, was used to indicate thecharismatic benefactor who had his seat in the woods and mountains rather than in the

agro-pastoral plains. Later all these were deified and Siva (Rudra) was described as the

furious god of destruction. [In Krshna’s view, Samkara was the best among the thinkers

belonging to the school of Rudras.] (Ch.213 Adiparva)

The debate in Drupada’s court then veered round the role of Rudra in

promoting a new outlook during the Vedic times. Vyasa told Drupada (to be precise,

Vaishampayana then told the king, Janamejaya) that the nobles were once performing in

the Naimisha forest a joint sacrifice ( satrayajna) on completion of their course of studies.

In that sacrifice, the Vedic official designated as Yama who ensured that there was no

violation of the rules, killed the animals that entered the protected area. [This was not

sacrifice of animals including cows.]

But this official, Yama, who was authorised to regulate the entry of men did not

harm any one who was recognised as the subject ( praja) of the organised janapada. Most

of these prajas belonged to the social periphery and to the woods. Of course the natives

( jana) of the rural plains could not attend the sacrifice conducted by the nobles who like

them belonged to the core society and lived in devapuras.

While the natives of a given territory were referred to as ‘ jana’ and their birth-rights

and the restrictions on their movements could not be tampered with, the new citizens of the

expanded janapada were referred to as ‘ prajas’ . The latter could visit their old homes and

get attenuated in the orientations prescribed for such entrants by which they followed the

codes of the janapada concerned without losing their rights to follow the best of the

traditions of their earlier regions, whether of aristocratic enclaves (devapuras) or industrial

areas (antariksham) or of nomadic groups including those of the free intelligentsia (nagas

and sarpas, gandharvas, apsarases etc.)

The new citizens, prajas who had been given permission to stay for a limitedduration away from their janapada and attended this ‘sacrifice’ ( attenuation programme)

were not treated as intruders and absentees from their duties. More of such new citizens

were encouraged to attend this course so that the social polity might benefit. But this

upset the then prevalent ratio in strength and difference in quality between the

elite (devas) and the commonalty (manushyas), the two sections of the core

society.



252 of 282

Vedic officials like Indra, Soma, Varuna and Kubera (representing the

population of the four regions, east, north, west and south) and elite cadres like

Saddhyas, Rudras, Vasus and Asvins (directing the intellectuals, soldiers-cum-administrators, bourgeoisie and landlords and agrarian proletariat respectively) and others

approached Brahma who had prescribed the social structure and the relations

among the different social worlds (lokas). [Brahma was the designation of the head of

the constitution bench.] They sought protection against the threat emanating from the

increase in the population of the commonalty, which was composed mainly of workers.

Brahma (the chief judge of the constitution bench) asked why the nobles (devas)

feared the commoners (manushyas). The nobles said that attending that course for

cultural orientation had improved the standards of the commoners and hence the distinction

between the privileged like the nobles who enjoyed several immunities and were known as

amaras and the new commonalty earlier known as martya, the insentient, had almost

disappeared. They wanted Brahma to introduce in the constitution a distinction

between the nobles (devas) and the new trained commonalty ( prajas), recognised

citizens (distinct from jana and manushyas, natives and commoners).

Brahma, the chief judge and great intellectual, explained that Manu Vaivasvata (also

known as Yama, the controller) had taken charge of the seminar, satrayajna, and hence

the commoners could not be subjected to death sentence for any offence. Earlier, only the

nobles enjoyed this immunity. Vaivasvata had a purpose behind such declaration and

after that purpose was served the very class of commonalty would disappear. The

new legislation approved by Manu Vaivasvata had brought all the commoners

(manushyas, prthvi ) under the scheme of four varnas and granted them all equal

protection and equal rights provided they paid one sixth of their earnings as tax.

They were no longer required to pay tributes (bali ) to the mighty or offer sacrifices (yajna)

to the nobles.

Brahma (the head of the constitution bench) told the nobles that the new legislation

approved by Vaivasvata had divided the insentient society of commoners into classes andthat they had been strengthened by the inclusion of the nobles in them. He did not welcome

this move and feared that it would not work in the interests of the commoners and that the

new system of classes would ultimately cause the annihilation or withering away of the

commonalty (loka, of manushyas), which had no class (varna) distinctions.

When the commonalty (manushyas) which stood distinct from the nobility ceased to

exist as a structure that could coerce all its members to follow the traditions of the clans

and communities and protected them against coercion by the ruling elite (devas) and the



253 of 282

latter was merged in the new structure based on four classes, there would be no power left

with the commoners to coerce the elite. The four varnas would be composed only of

those nobles and commoners who had opted to join them and follow the rulesprescribed for those classes. With the assurance that the sections of the masses who did

not come under the scheme of social classes (varnas) would not be able to resist the orders

and desires of the elite, the nobles were satisfied and went to attend the seminar.

While the nobles sat at the place near the Ganga where the course was being

conducted, Indra saw a white lotus and a girl in distress. When he enquired why she was

weeping she took him to a mountain cave where a young girl was playing dice with a young

boy. As that boy did not notice him, Indra scolded him for not showing respect to him who

with the status of Isvara controlled that commune (loka). But the ‘boy’ who he was talking

to was Isvara and on realising it Indra stood still. When Isvara, the short charismatic

chief of the social periphery touched Indra, the chief of the nobles, the latter fell

down. He told Indra to enter the mountain cave. Indra saw there four other personages

like him. Isvara had restricted their movements. Indra feared that he too might meet

with the same fate.

Siva as Girisa was the charismatic benefactor and ruler of the peoples of the

mountains. He warned Sakra Indra (who had a hundred exploits to his credit as Satakratu)

against belittling Isvara. Indra then acknowledged to Isvara who had taken the form of a

chief controlling the entire varied social cosmos, Visvaru pa, that the latter had the first

place amongst all social chiefs. Isvara told him that the chiefs who had earlier behaved in

an arrogant manner had been deposed and kept in that cave. According to the legend Siva

condemned Sakra Indra to imprisonment there until he and the four others married the girl

who had escorted him there. In other words, the proponents of the elitist school of

thought were forced to work in unison with the commonalty and not despise the

latter as weaklings.

Sakra and those four other Indras were fit only to be commoners (manushyas),

Siva pronounced. But they would be eligible to use the missiles that belonged to the nobility (devas) and defeat the enemies who belonged to the commonalty (manushyas) and would

return to the world of nobles headed by Indra. Isvara also directed them to perform

certain other useful acts. The four persons who had held the position of Indra earlier

accepted their demotion to the social world (loka) of commonalty (manushyas).

They however desired to be treated as persons whose mother belonged to the commonalty

but their father an official belonging to the nobility, as a Dharma or Vayu or Indra or an



254 of 282

Asvinideva. Sakra told Isvara that he would give his son by a commoner as their junior

brother.

Vyasa told Drupada that Isvara ordained that the woman in distress who escortedSakra Indra to the cave would marry all these five persons, Visvabuk, Bhutadama, Sibi,

Santi and Tejasvi. With them, Isvara (Siva) went to the sage, Narayana. They all went to

the first of the nobles, Nara (a sage who was intimately associated with Narayana) and

declared him to be a commoner born to Indra. Nara had the status of a free man

and belonged to the lower stratum of gandharvas almost equal to the commoners,

manushyas. The chronicler implied that the nobles could not expect their offspring to be

granted the status of nobles. It was not birth in an aristocratic family but merit acquired

through deeds performed as a free man (nara) that would enable such offspring to rise to

the nobility.

The five Pandavas were expected to assume the position of Indra held

earlier by the four deposed Indras who were imprisoned in the northern mountain

cave and by Sakra Indra. Vyasa also told Drupada who continued to be sceptical that

Draupadi who was adorned and dressed like a devakanya, a girl belonging to the nobility,

was earlier known as ‘ra jalakshmi’ , symbolising the wealth of the state or king, authority

over which was vested in Indra. He pointed out to Drupada that unless the nobles had

issued the necessary orders she could not have risen from the commonalty (bhumi ) at the

sacrifice performed by him.

She enjoyed the patronage of the Vedic officials, Surya and Chandra, the class of

warriors-cum-administrators (Kshatras) and the class of sober intellectuals (Brahmans).

Vyasa enabled Drupada to observe all happenings from the standpoint of the

nobles (divyadrshti ). He also enabled Drupada to see the earlier Indras whose roles the

Pandavas were expected to play. Vyasa presented the Pandavas dressed like Indra, Agni

and Aditya. As Vyasa presented the Pandavas and Draupadi in the form of members of the

nobility Drupada lauded his ability to present such a wonderful new scene.

Vyasa also narrated to Drupada the episode of five sons, all famous archers, of anearlier aged Ra jarshi who were friendly with each other and functioned in unison and had

all married the daughter of Sibi, a famous emperor. [They were gandharvas for whom

polyandry was not barred.] Bhaumasvi, who belonged to the cadres of manushya-

gandharvas, had done so voluntarily at a svayamvara programme. Her offspring

established five separate lineages. Vyasa told Drupada that Krshna who was in the

form of a devata (a member of the nobility who had a status less than that of a deva or

devi and who belonged to the social periphery) was required similarly to be the wife of



255 of 282

five persons. Vyasa took care not to refer to her as Draupadi, the daughter of Drupada,

thereby underlining the fact that Drupada was only her foster-father and his rights were

limited.He told Drupada how Samkara had told Nalayani, his devotee, who attended on the

ailing sage, Maudgalya, that she would have another career ( janma) as the wife of five

persons. It was what she had earned by her act (karma). This was the position that

Brahma, the highest intellectual and jurist had assigned to her. Vyasa then asked Drupada

to do, as he desired. (Ch.214 Adiparva)

Drupada confessed that he had begun to arrange for the marriage of Draupadi

because he had not heard the episodes narrated by Vyasa. He agreed that destiny could not

be set at naught and that in this case too it was what was destined that had taken place.

The knot that nobility had tied, others could not untie, that is, commoners could

not overrule. The Pandavas and Draupadi were both under the jurisdiction of nobles and

she was being given to the five brothers in marriage under the rules of daiva marriage that

did not look at polyandry as obnoxious. Daiva marriage could not however be annulled.

Drupada wondered whether the concept of faith in destiny indicated lack of faith in

human efforts leading to their logical results. He rationalised that what was termed as

‘destined’ result, was what human act (karma) of the past resulted in the future

act or event. [This approach seems to be more rational than the version that nothing is

accomplished in this world (of commoners) by one’s efforts and that every objective is pre-

determined.] Drupada would not blame Samkara for determining that Draupadi would have

five husbands. She was to be blamed for making an absurd request or for failing to make

the correct request.

Samkara, the head (bhagavan) of the academy, had acceded to her request.

That Isvara (charismatic benefactor) knew what solution was the best. Drupada would not

dare to blame Samkara or hold him to have promised any boon thoughtlessly. He gave the

boon as she sought earlier. If Samkara had determined so, whether it was within the

framework of the socio-cultural code (dharma) or not, Drupada would not be in the wrongby following that great ideologue. He permitted Krshna to marry the Pandavas as

determined in accordance with the code ( sastra).

Dharmasastras deal with the types of marriages that members of the different social

classes (varnas) are advised to follow. Brahma, Arsha, Daiva, Praja patya have been

declared to be Dharma marriages. In these marriages there is no economic transaction

(artha) or element of sexual attraction (kama). Brahmans are entitled to follow them.

Of these Brahma marriage involved giving away to the suitable groom of a girl by her



256 of 282

father before she attained the age of consent, that is, three years after puberty, by

kanyadana. Arsha marriage, which the sages followed, had this feature of kanyadana but

the girl was not necessarily the daughter of a sage and the groom was often his formerdisciple. It was a social welfare system. As the groom offered a cow and a cow in return

this type was similar to asura type of marriage and disapproved by most of the legislators.

Daiva marriage too was a social welfare step but the groom to whom the noble gave

away as wife the girl in his charge was induced with liberal gifts to accept her. Often such

girls were not virgins and they could express whether they consented to marry the selected

grooms. Praja patya marriage was meant to ensure that the girl became a mother by

accepting as her husband the person appointed by the chief of the community as her

husband. She could not express her view though she was an adult. Asura marriage was

virtual sale and purchase of girls as wives mainly to serve the husbands and their parents.

It was condemned and banned. Gandharva marriage was voluntary union of two adults

and it was open to all classes. Rakshasa marriage involved abduction of the girl and

Paisaca marriage was enticing the girl. These two were not approved.

Vyasa and Drupada were dealing with the types of marriages that were in vogue

before the commonalty was brought under the system of four social classes (varnas). The

pre-varna Vedic core society had nobles (devas), feudal lords (asuras), free

intellectuals and warriors (gandharvas) and commoners (manushyas) as the four

classes. Drupada’s was an age of transition from the pre-varna Vedic social order to the

post-Vedic varna social system. With the feudal lords (asuras) no longer in a dominant

position in the society, the nobles (devas), the sages (rshis), gandharvas and

manushyas were the main social strata in the agro-pastoral plains before the four-

varnas scheme was introduced.

The commoners (manushyas) were organised in clans (kulas) and communities

( jatis) and followed their respective practices, kuladharmas and jatidharmas. The

commoners (manushyas) would not be justified in practising what the elite

(devas) practised, Vyasa told Drupada. Draupadi and the Pandavas had been born tomembers of the nobility and were closer to the elite than to the commonalty. Draupadi was

a ra jalakshmi before Drupada adopted her as his daughter. She became the wife of all the

Pandavas because Samkara had directed her to become so. This polyandrous marriage

was not within the methods prescribed or permitted by Manu Vaivasvata as valid

social law (dharma).

Draupadi’s was Daiva marriage. It was not Praja patya or Brahma or Arsha

marriage, which did not permit a woman to have more than one husband at a time. Men



257 of 282

and women of the commonalty were not to resort to polyandry. Only for members of the

elite (daivam) a marriage of the type between Draupadi and the Pandavas was valid

according to the code ( sastra), Vyasa pronounced. Then Vyasa and Drupada went to theplace where the Pandavas and Kunti and Drshtadyumna were staying. Vyasa directed first

Yudhishtira to take the hand of Krshna. Then he asked Bhima and others to take her hand

in the order of seniority in age. Vyasa told them that he had witnessed the earlier

incidents of polyandrous marriages. After this marriage was over the king’s friends,

ministers and Brahmans (jurists) and the people of the city were allowed to witness the

other proceedings of the marriage.

Dhoumya, the r a japurohita (political counsellor) of the Pandavas,

supervised the marriage proceedings. He brought together Yudhishtira and Draupadi

together in marriage in the presence of sages who were equal to Agni in status and then

with the permission of Yudhishtira took other Brahmans to Drupada and requested him for

permission to conduct the marriage of the other Pandavas with Draupadi by taking the hand

of the virgin (kanya), for panigrahana. Drupada gave the permission to the delight of the

princes. The marriage programme lasted five days with each prince needing one day to go

through the proceedings.

Narada, a devarshi, later described a significant feature of this polyandrous

marriage of persons who did not belong to the commonalty (manushyas). This feature was

not objectionable in the case of a marriage involving nobles (devas) or gandharvas.

Draupadi treated the eldest brother (Yudhishtira) of her husband (Arjuna) as her maternal

uncle and his youngest brother (Sahadeva) as her brother-in-law. She treated the other

brothers in between (Bhima and Nakula) as being in the status of maternal uncle as well as

brother-in-law. [This orientation continues to dominate marriages in many households.]

The annotator draws on this report to assert that she treated only Arjuna as her

husband though she was required to accept all the five as her husbands. What she

thought of each of them (and how she behaved with them) was what was

significant according to Narada. After receiving the rich gifts given by Drupada, thePandavas stayed there for a few days. (Ch.215 Adiparva) Krshna who did not attend the

marriage sent his rich presents including elephants and attendants to the Pandavas and

their wife. (Ch. 216 Adiparva)



258 of 282

19

VIDURA AND THE PANDAVAS

Trusted envoys told their kings assembled in Drupada’s court how Draupadi of

Panchala married the Pandavas. They also told the kings the identities of each of the

Pandavas. The kings were surprised to learn that the Pandavas remained humble in the

guise of Brahmans. The kings and the people of the city were all surprised for kings and

people of all countries had heard that Kunti and her sons had perished in the fire at the

house of lac. They thought that it was a rebirth for the Pandavas. They disparaged Bhishma

and Dhrtarashtra for having attempted to kill through Purocana the Pandavas who were

known for their adherence to dharma, good conduct, and zeal in fulfilling the wishes of

their mother.

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that after the svayamvara of Draupadi, Karna,

Sakuni and the sons of Dhrtarashtra deliberated on the course they should adopt. Sakuni

said that there was a class of enemies who had to be weakened and another who had to be

harassed. But in the case of the sons of Kunti, all those warriors, Kshatriyas, must be

wiped out, he opined. He warned them that if they went back after their failure in thecontest their minds would certainly be pained later. It was the place and the time to capture

the Pandavas. If they did not do so the world would laugh at them, he warned. He held

Drupada on whom the Pandavas depended was a weak king.

Karna said that it was the appropriate time for the Kauravas to attack Drupada and

the Pandavas, as Sisupala, the powerful ruler of Cedi, with whom Drupada had an alliance

was not aware that the Pandavas were yet alive. The Kauravas did not expect the

Yadavas to support the former. Before they became invincible and before they came to a

decision about their future course of action, the Pandavas should be attacked and killed,

Sakuni, the strategist, suggested.

The view of polity of Somadatta’s son

If the Pandavas who escaped from the house of lac were let free, it would pose a

great threat to the Kauravas, he warned. If the Yadava (Sisupala) and other kings arrived to

help and the Pandavas stayed for a long time in Pancala and got sure footing there it would

be like standing between two great elephants for the Kauravas. Before the troops of the

Pandavas pounced on them they should be killed, Sakuni advised. The Kauravas, Karna and

Sakuni and their allies should together attack that town, he told Duryodhana. But the son



259 of 282

of Somadatta counselled against that move. Somadatta’s father, Bahlika, was a

brother of Santanu. He stayed away from the intrigues of that city. Somadatta and his

son were sober scholars who knew the science of polity and the intricacies of political affairsintimately.

Though there are several interpolations made in the text of the epic, Mahabharata,

from time to time, down the ages, it is not advisable to treat the outline of the principles of

interstate relations presented by Somadatta’s son as an interpolation. [It of course has

suffered at the hands of hacks.] According to this scholar, Ra jan, Amatya, Mitra, Kosa,

Desa, Durga and Sena (King, Ministry, Ally, Treasury, Country, Fort, and Army) are

the seven organs (angas) of the state (rajyam). He held ‘ally’ to be next in importance

only to the ministry. The Kautilyan school of Arthasastra gave it the least importance.

Somadatta’s son gives the treasury more importance than Kautilya and other

scholars who place it after the fort (durga) in importance. He uses the conventional term,

‘desa’ , instead of the term, ‘ janapada’ to indicate the areas outside the capital. The polity

of Somadatta’s son reflects the partially plutocratic state that depended more on political

alliances than on its inherent strength emanating from its native population. It asks the king

to take into account the strength and weaknesses of his supporters ( paksha) and those of

others ( para). After examining the advantages of place and time of action, he

should resort to the six policies ( shadguna), peace ( samdhi ), hostility (vigra),

movement of mobilised forces (yana), static position (asana), dual policy (dvaidibhava),

and seeking protection of his equal ( samasraya). Somadattaputra did not envisage the

conqueror or any other king seeking protection of a superior power.

Like the school of Kautilya, he advised the king to watch the three aspects,

stagnation, growth and deterioration on his side ( svapaksha) and those of others

( parapaksha). But he did not insist that every one of the seven organs of his and the

others’ states should be scrutinised with respect to these three aspects. The king should

examine the trends with respect to these three levels (neutral, ascending,

descending) of the land and commonalty (bhumi ), allies (mitra) and power( sakti ). The enemy should be attacked when he is cornered by the afflictions caused by

lust (kama) and gambling.

Somadattaputra noticed that with respect to the above factors, the Pandavas had

friends and wealth and many exploits to their credit and because of their good deeds were

popular among the native people ( jana). Arjuna by his handsome personality attracted the

eyes and minds of all beings even at the level of bare existence ( pranis). His sweet words

won for him the ears of the commoners (manushyas). The native people (jana) sided



260 of 282

with Arjuna not merely because he signified fortune but also because he

accomplished whatever they desired. The sweet words of Partha were never impolitic or

self-centred or false. The son of Somadatta said that he did not see any one capable offorcibly destroying those Pandavas who were full of good traits (gunas) and had all marks

(lakshana) of royalty.

Somadattaputra who was acquainted with the politico-economic code ( Arthasastra)

noticed that the Pandavas excelled in all the three powers ( saktis), prabhu (ability to

command the expanded core society), mantra (benefit of political counsel) and utsaha

(personal zeal and mass enthusiasm). Yudhishtira would act at the appropriate time in the

matters of basic strength (mulabala) and strength acquired through friends (mitra-bala).

Somadatta’s son must have observed his approach from closer quarters. He felt that

Yudhishtira knew how to calmly resort to the four means, persuasion ( sama), gift (dana),

rift (bheda) and coercion (danda) at the appropriate time to score over the opponents. As

Dharmara ja, Yudhishtira, the son of Pandu would use wealth to buy the enemies

and friends and armies and maintain his basic strength in order and rule over the

commoners, according to Somadattaputra.

Vaishampayana did not consider getting political strength through economic power

as obnoxious. Somadatta’s son said that one for whom Balarama and Krshna were ever

enthusiastic could not be conquered even by Indra and other nobles (devas). If the

Kauravas sought their benefit they should arrive at a treaty of peace ( samdhi ) with the

Pandavas, even if they did not like his view, he said. He said that Drupada’s capital was well

fortified and manned and the people were loyal to their king. He had been generous to the

citizens and the people outside. If the kings attacked him the Yadavas would rush to their

rescue. Somadattaputra exhorted Duryodhana and others to arrive at a treaty of

peace with the Pandavas and return to their states. (Ch.217 Adiparva)

Karna conceded that the counsel given by Somadatta’s son was based mainly on the

science of policy (nitisastra) and politico-economic theory (arthasastra). He was not

envious of that counsel but would suggest that his views too might be heard. Thecommoners (manushyas) should never entertain diverse opinions on any tasks that they

had undertaken to perform, he said. If they had differences in their outlooks no task of

them would be fulfilled, he pointed out. They would not be able to capture the city of

Drupada by marching against it or staying put or by harassing it. A huge battle was

also not advisable, Karna said. Before the Yadavas occupied positions to the rear, they had

to be destroyed. He noticed that the kings assembled were eager to fight. He encouraged

them to destroy the fortifications and fill the moats.



261 of 282

Karna suggested that announcements be made offering huge gifts to those who

killed the elephants, horses and soldiers of the enemy and destroyed his chariots. He

declared that those who were after joy and comfort, children and the old and those who didnot want to fight should not be harmed. None should move without orders. He encouraged

the kings and their soldiers to fight for their glory. He said that the wind and the omens

were favourable. After hearing Karna’s exhortation the kings who followed Duryodhana

proceeded to chase the enemies in battle.

As the two armies clashed, the Pandavas came out of the city on their chariots with

their bows. Their sight unnerved the kings supporting Duryodhana while it encouraged

Drupada’s army. In the battle Bhima and Arjuna, along with Drshtadyumna and

Sikhandi trounced the enemies who were led by Duryodhana, Karna, Jayadratha

and Sakuni. As the Kauravas and their supporters retreated, the army of Drupada returned

to the fortified city. The Pandavas sent messengers to Krshna to report that they were safe.

Krshna too reached Panchala to greet his aunt, Kunti, and give suitable gifts to Draupadi

and the Pandavas. (Ch.218 Adiparva)

Duryodhana returned to Hastinapura with his brothers and Karna, Sakuni, Asvattama

and Krpacharya. His brother, Duhsasana argued that as no Kshatriya could perform the

tough feat and win Draupadi, Arjuna who won her must have been superior to Kshatriyas,

that is, must have been a noble. He also argued that human effort was of no use and

that the views of the nobles (daivam) were superior to it. [The later annotator was

putting across to his audience the attitude towards ‘god’ (divine pleasure) that the defeated

adopt.] The escape of the Pandavas from the house of lac signified the failure of the efforts,

zeal and intellect of the Kauravas, Duhsasana felt. He told Sakuni that the Pandavas had

proved that they were cleverer than them and had no fear of death.

The Kauravas abused Vidura and feared Drshtadyumna and Sikhandi, sons of

Drupada, as they returned to Hastinapura. Vidura (who had the status of a kshatta,

reliever of pains) told Dhrtarashtra that his sons had arrived to prosper. The king

thought that they had succeeded in winning Draupadi. Vidura explained that he meant thesons of his brother, Pandu, by the term, ‘sons’. He described to the king how the Pandavas

won Draupadi in the svayamvara contest and married her, duly honoured by Drupada. The

king, Dhrtarashtra hid his disappointment and complimented the Pandavas and Drupada

who belonged to the lineage of Uparicara of the Matsyas who was noted for his noble

conduct and scholarship and was a revered king.

He pretended that he had the same affection for the sons of Pandu as he had for his

sons. He also pretended that he had been uneasy since he heard that the Pandavas had



262 of 282

perished in the forest fire. Vidura wished that his brother, Dhrtarashtra, should always treat

the success of the Pandavas as that of his sons. The king hoped that his lordship over all the

lunar ( soma, chandra) lineages would be stabilised by the acquisition of a powerful ally,Drupada. Drupada too was a Somaka.

Dhrtarashtra did not know then that his sons had assaulted Drupada’s fort and had

been beaten back. After Vidura went home, Duryodhana and Karna met the king alone and

told him not to consider the success and prosperity of his enemies as his. They held that

they should plan to ensure that the power of the Pandavas should be checked so that the

king and his sons and their troops were not ‘swallowed’ by their enemies. (Ch.219 Adiparva)

Since Vyasa and Vaishampayana strongly disliked the approaches of Dhrtarashtra

and his sons, they described the king as a blind man and his sons as vicious. Admirers of

the Pandavas have presented Suyodhana (a good warrior) and Susasana (a good

administrator) as Duryodhana, a vicious warrior and Duhsasana, an administrator who

resorted to improper methods. Dhrtarashtra confessed to his sons and Karna that as he did

not want Vidura to know his plans he had spoken in the vein he did. Duryodhana proposed

that they should through able and trusted counsellors (Brahmans) who would not reveal

their purpose but would accomplish the task, create rift between the sons of Kunti and

those of Madri. Else they should through offer of huge wealth draw to their side Drupada

and his sons and ministers. Or the counsellors should make the Pandavas to stay in Pancala

itself. They should explain to the Pandavas the dangers in living in Hastinapura.

Some clever persons who were experts in the four means should disturb the

friendship among the Pandava brothers. They should isolate Draupadi from them. As it was

a polyandrous marriage it was easy to disturb their unity, the Kaurava said. They should

create differences between the Pandavas and Draupadi, Duryodhana suggested. Through

secret spies who were experts in strategy they should cause the death of Bhimasena who

was the strongest among the Pandavas. Because of Bhima’s support Yudhishtira had

ignored the Kauravas, he felt. After Bhima’s death, Yudhishtira would be weakened and

would refrain from trying to get back the kingdom. Duryodhana held that Arjuna could nothave stood against Karna but for Bhima’s backing. In the absence of Bhima the other

Pandavas would not make efforts at war, he calculated.

Duryodhana also suggested an alternative. If the Pandavas reached Hastinapura and

came under the King’s command the Kauravas and the king might begin to harass them

using the methods sanctioned by the science of policy (nitisastra). This was a valid

peaceful ( sama) method. If the Pandavas spoke arrogantly the proud sons of Drupada

might be induced to quarrel (bheda) with them. Each of the Pandavas might be enticed by



263 of 282

beautiful girls, making Draupadi dislike them all. Duryodhana suggested that Karna be sent

to invite them to Hastinapura. After they came near reliable persons could destroy them

through tricks. He asked the king to decide before it became too late which method was thebest. He felt that before the Pandavas developed close attachment to Drupada they should

be destroyed. It would not be possible after they got his support, Duryodhana feared.

(Ch.220 Adiparva)

Karna did not find Duryodhana’s suggestions proper. According to him they would

not be able to score over the Pandavas by such tricks and methods. Duryodhana had failed

to do so in the past when they were fledglings and were close at hand. Now they were

grown up and away in another country. As they were strong there they could not be

afflicted by lust (kama) and other weaknesses. Besides they had the support of unseen

(adrshta) forces. [This term is not to be interpreted as ‘being lucky’.] They were desirous

of getting their ancestral kingdom. It was impossible to create rift among them. As they

loved the same wife they would not quarrel with each other. [Polyandrous marriage was a

source of strength for the Pandavas.] She had married them when they were weak and now

that they are powerful she could not be expected to dislike them. Karna held that women

liked to have many husbands. Krshna had gained many husbands and it was not possible

to separate her from them.

Drupada was honest and not one who was after wealth. He would not abandon the

Pandavas even if he were to lose his kingdom. So too was his son, Drshtadyumna. Hence

the Pandavas could not be defeated by any of the (four) means ( sama, dana, bheda,

danda), he opined. Karna suggested that the Pandavas should be conquered in war before

they got rooted. The Kauravas should go to war with them when the former was strong and

the army of Drupada was weak. He advised Duryodhana (son of Gandhari) to launch the

attack before the Pandavas became strong in vehicles, friends and offspring. They should be

attacked before Drupada resolved to enter the battle in their support and before Krshna

took his Yadava army to Pancala in their support. Karna warned that Krshna would sacrifice

not only wealth and comforts but also even his state for the Pandavas.He pointed out that it was through prowess that Bharata became an emperor

(chakravarti ) over the bhumi (social world of commonalty) and Indra conquered the

three social worlds (lokas) (commonalty, nobility and frontier society). Prowess is the

special trait of Kshatriyas. Use of valour was the svadharma prescribed for warriors

( suras). Karna insisted that they should lead their four-fold army (elephants, chariots,

cavalry and infantry) and harassing Drupada should bring the Pandavas to Hastinapura.

They could not be captured by peaceful methods ( sama) or by gifts (dana) or by rift



264 of 282

among friends (bheda), he averred. They had to be killed through valour. Karna found no

other way for Duryodhana to become a ruler. Dhrtarashtra lauded him for his counsel as a

brave warrior but advised that he and Duryodhana should deliberate with Bhishma, Dronaand Vidura and arrive at the best decision. Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that the king

invited Bhishma and the classes (varga) of ministers (of both cabinet rank and other ranks)

for deliberation. (Ch.211 Adiparva)

Bhishma said that he was against enmity with the sons of Pandu and that he treated

Dhrtarashtra and Pandu alike and the sons of Kunti and those of Gandhari alike. It was his

duty to protect the sons of Pandu and so was it the duty of Dhrtarashtra. It was the duty of

Duryodhana and other Kauravas also. He did not approve their quarrelling with the

Pandavas. He proposed that they should enter into peace with the Pandavas and give them

half the kingdom. They too had inherited it from their father (Pandu), grandfather

(Vichitravirya) and great-grandfather (Santanu). Like Duryodhana they too looked at their

kingdom as ancestral property. If they were not eligible for it Duryodhana too was not

eligible for it, he pointed out.

Any challenge to the eligibility of the Pandavas would affect Duryodhana too

adversely. It would affect also all those who belonged to the Bharata lineage.

[Vaishampayana implied that Janamejaya too would be declared ineligible to be the ruler of

Hastinapura and the Kuru state.] Bhishma pointed out that Duryodhana had come in

possession of the kingdom wrongly. The order of precedence favoured the Pandavas in

Bhishma’s view. According to the positive policy (naya) as opined by the nobles,

giving half the kingdom to them was the just solution. This was also the wish of all

the peoples ( jana), he pointed out. All decisions had to be approved by the ruling elite

(devas) and the commoners (manushyas). Bhishma declared that it would not be to the

liking of the ruling elite to do otherwise. He was cautioning the king against overruling this

opinion. Such contrary action would bring the king and his sons, bad name.

Bhishma urged him to do what would bring him fame. Fame was man’s strength. The

life of a man who had lost his fame was said to be useless, he pointed out to Duryodhana. Aman lives only until his fame lasts. This was the kuladharma, orientation of the Kuru clan.

Bhishma was taking into account the silent refusal of the Kauravas to identify with the

Santanu and Bharata legacies and asserting that they were Kurus who had a historic and

natural right to rule the Kuru country. They were denying this right to the Pandavas.

Bhishma took care not to reveal that Duryodhana had attempted to burn the Pandavas and

their mother and said that it was fortunate that they had escaped death in the fire.



265 of 282

But Bhishma pointed out that the escape of the Pandavas had undone the ‘error’ of

the Kauravas. The social world (loka) (of nobles) would have held Duryodhana guilty and

not Purocana if the Pandavas had died. He warned Duryodhana that even Indra (the headof the nobility) who wielded the powerful weapon, vajra , would not be able to annex the

half share of their ancestral kingdom when the Pandavas were alive. For they all adhered to

dharma and thought alike. When the kingdom belonged to both the Pandavas and the

Kauravas Duryodhana was trying to keep the former out. It was against the principles of the

social laws, dharma. If Duryodhana desired to honour dharma, Bhishma’s desire and his

own welfare he should give the Pandavas half the kingdom, he counselled the Kaurava

leader. (Ch. 222 Adiparva)

Drona endorsing Bhishma’s stand told the king, Dhrtarashtra, (who was the head of

the state and the judiciary as ‘Mahara ja’) that the confidantes were invited for

deliberations on state issues were required to state what accorded with socio-cultural

(dharma) and politico-economic (artha) codes and with the ways of getting fame (that

kings desired). He said that according to the ancient ( puratana) social code

(dharma) the Pandavas had to be given their share. Addressing the king as Bharata

and thereby indicating that the state that he ruled had come down to his lineage from

Chakravarti Bharata, Drona said that a commoner (manushya) who spoke softly should be

sent to Drupada with rich gifts. He should keep his purpose secret and tell Drupada

that association with him had led to greatness (of the Kuru country and its king and

people).

The envoy should tell Drupada and his son, Drshtadyumna, that Dhrtarashtra and his

son, Duryodhana were happy to be associated with him. He must convey the king’s

greetings to the Pandavas and Kunti and please them. The envoy should then talk to

Drupada about their return to Hastinapura. After Drupada permitted the Pandavas to go,

Duhsasana and Vikarna might be sent with the Kuru army to bring them. The Pandavas

honoured by Dhrtarashtra and with the permission of the board (varga) of ministers, might

take charge of their father’s kingdom. This was the just way that Dhrtarashtra should followwith respect to his and Pandu’s sons, Drona said.

Karna charged that even after receiving wealth and honour from the king,

Dhrtarashtra, his confidantes, Bhishma and Drona, were not giving counsel that would

benefit the king. One, who without revealing the evil that he had in his mind spoke as

though it was for his good, could not practise the policy of the noble leaders

( satpurushas), Karna said. Karna held that when one faced difficulties in carrying out his

purposes, friends were of no avail whether the purposes were to help or to harm others .



266 of 282

Whether one got enjoyment or suffered depended on fate, he argued. Whether one had

perfect knowledge or not, was young or old, had assistance or not he obtains everywhere

every thing in accordance with his fate, he argued. Karna was convinced that destinycould not be annulled.

Karna drew attention to the highly austere king of Rajagrha in Magadha who

depended on his ministers while he was engaged in severe fasting. But his minister,

Mahakarni, appropriated all power and wealth and women of the king and thought of taking

over the kingdom also. But he failed because destiny had nominated that austere sage as

the king. Karna was denying any role to human (manushya) effort as well as to the will of

the nobles (devas) and attributed all events to destiny. He told the king that if destiny had

nominated him as the king even if all the people were active to deprive him of it he would

not lose it. But if it were not so destined he would not obtain that kingdom, he said.

Acts that were within the framework of the rules and laws that were

legislated earlier and which could not be overruled later by bodies of legislature

(like sabha and samiti or paura and janapada) whether of the nobles (devas) or of

the commoners (manushyas) were referred to as ones guided by vidhi . In the

political lexicon vidhi did not imply fate or destiny even as daivam did not imply ‘divine’

intent. According to the socio-political constitution, Brahma, certain duties that were to be

performed by an individual and the scheme of rewards and penalties had been determined

and they could not be amended or taken liberties with by any individual or social body.

Karna urged the king to find out the suitability or unsuitability of his ministers and

know whether the words uttered (vak ) were of the bad persons or of good persons. Drona

was incensed and said that Karna spoke like that with some evil intent. Karna was against

the Pandavas, he charged. Drona claimed that he was speaking for the good of the

Kuru clan. He asked Karna what was better than his suggestion. He warned that if the

Kauravas acted contrary to what he had said in their interest they would be soon destroyed.

(Ch.223 Adiparva)

Vidura’s Counsel to DhrtarashtraVidura told the king that his kinsmen were bound to tell him what was in his

interest. But if he did not like what they said their counsel would not stand. He told the

king that Bhishma, son of Santanu and a senior Kaurava, had told him what was desirable

and good for him. But the king had not accepted it. Drona too said many times what was

good for him. Karna son of Radha (a charioteer) did not consider that too to be good

counsel. Vidura said that Dhrtarashtra could have no reliable counsellor who was better than

Bhishma and Drona. Both were senior to him in age and were superior (to Karna and



267 of 282

others) in wisdom and education. They treated him and the sons of Pandu alike. In

Vidura’s view, these two counsellors were undoubtedly not inferior to Rama, son

of Dasaratha, and Gaya (patron of Manu Vaivasvata) in their commitment to thesocial laws based on dharma and those based on truth ( satya). [The two, Rama and

Gaya, might have been alive when these deliberations took place in Hastinapura. They were

among the prominent personages who had died intestate.]

Refuting Karna, Vidura said that Bhishma and Drona had not in the past said any

thing harmful. They had not harmed Dhrtarashtra’s interests in any way. Why would not the

two great leaders ( purusha sreshtas) who had never been defeated, counsel him for his

good when he was king and was not guilty, Vidura asked? Vidura did not give out his

suspicion about Dhrtarashtra’s hand in the attempt to burn the Pandavas to death, an

attempt, which he had frustrated. Vidura assured the Kuru ruler that the two scholars,

Bhishma and Drona, who were very great men and knew dharma and were not greedy for

wealth, would not speak in favour of one of the two groups. He asked Dhrtarashtra to treat

the Pandavas as his sons like Duryodhana and others. If the ministers who knew the facts

counselled anything harmful to the Pandavas they would not be thinking of his good.

If Dhrtarashtra had great affection for his sons, the ministers who exposed that

hidden affection would not be doing him good, Vidura said. Hence it was the two highly

powerful and great persons, Bhishma and Drona, were not speaking openly, he pointed out.

He told Dhrtarashtra that what they said about the invincibility of the Pandavas was true.

Even Indra would not be able to defeat Dhananjaya (Arjuna) who could cast arrows with

both hands. Bhima was mighty and was a terror to the rakshasas. He had killed with bare

arms Hidimba and Baka who was equal to Ravana in strength. The nobles (devas) would

not be able to overcome him when he fought with valour. Yudhishtira, Nakula and Sahadeva

too were great fighters. Vidura pointed out to the king that the Pandavas enjoyed the

support of Balarama, Krshna, Satyaki, Drupada and Drshtadyumna and his brothers and

Sisupala of Cedi and that it was impossible to defeat them.

The Pandavas had been from the beginning claimants to their territory, hepointed out to the king. Hence the king should act correctly according to social and

political laws, dharma. He warned the king that because of the action of Purocana he was

bearing a stain of infamy. By favouring the Pandavas he could get rid of that stain, Vidura

suggested. It would save and protect the lives of the members of his clan (kula) and work

for the prosperity of the kshatriya community ( jati ). [Vidura was not describing the

kshatriyas as a class, varna.] He recommended alliance with Drupada who had not

harmed Dhrtarashtra in the past. He warned against antagonising the Yadavas. He pointed



268 of 282

out that one whom Krshna supported would win and he supported the Pandavas. [This is

obviously a later interpolation.]

What could be done with kind words should not be done in a spirit ofenmity, Vidura counselled. The people of the capital and the rural areas had learnt that

the Pandavas were alive and were eager to see those mighty men, Vidura told him. He

should fulfil their wish, Vidura advised. He held that Duryodhana, Karna and Sakuni were

engaged in sinful activities and were crooked and young. The king should not follow their

suggestions, Vidura said. He recalled his earlier warning to Dhrtarashtra that Duryodhana’s

crime would destroy all the people. Vidura took care to praise the king and not to openly

condemn him. (Ch.224 Adiparva) Dhrtarashtra too was shrewd and did not want to oppose

Vidura who knew his hand in the attempt to eliminate the sons of their brother, Pandu. He

praised and thanked Bhishma (son of Santanu) and Drona for their valuable advice that was

in accordance with the laws based on truth ( satya). He agreed that the great warriors,

Pandavas, were according to the social laws (dharma) his sons even as they were the sons

of Pandu.

Vaishampayana, the chronicler, drew a subtle distinction between the two

sets of laws, the puritanical laws of the Vedic period based on satya which were

mandatory and the more lenient laws, dharma, of the post-Vedic period which

were based on consensus and compromise. Dhrtarashtra had no reservations on going

by the latter for they did not carry threat of deposition for non-conformity. He agreed that

his sons and the sons of Pandu had undoubtedly equal claims to the kingdom. The

puritanical laws based on truth ( satya) would not accept any one except the

natural son, aurasa, as bound to fulfil the duties left unfulfilled by his father. None

of the other eleven types of sons were ‘sons’ ( putra).

Then he despatched Vidura to bring Krshna (who appeared like an aristocratic lady

(devata), the Pandavas and Kunti. He said that it was fortunate that the Pandavas and

Kunti were alive and Purocana was dead. He said that he was happy that the Pandavas had

won Draupadi. Dhrtarashtra took care to give Vidura the impression that herecognised the latter as a Bharata, as one who had a share in the legacy left

behind by Bharata. Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that under the orders of

Dhrtarashtra, Vidura went with rich gifts to Draupadi, Pandavas and Drupada. Vidura knew

the procedures detailed in the treatise on Ra jadharma. He knew the social laws (dharma)

and was an expert in all codes ( sastra). He took care to approach Drupada with respect due

to a powerful king and to a sambandhi (a ‘brother’ by marital relations). The former was a



269 of 282

political alliance and the latter a social alliance. Vidura took care that no faux pas

diluted either relation. Drupada received him with due honour.

Vidura conveyed to Drupada and his ministers, the greetings from Dhrtarashtra andhis sons, ministers and kinsmen. He told Drupada that Dhrtarashtra was happy with his

alliance with the latter. He also conveyed the greetings from the great scholar, Bhishma,

son of Santanu. Vidura also said that he was conveying greetings from his friend and

scholar, Drona, son of Bharadvaja. Vidura knew that Drupada was no friend of Drona but

had to follow propriety. Drupada too knew it to be so. Dhrtarashtra and other Kauravas

were grateful for securing alliance with him, Vidura said. Drupada knew that it was

nothing more than a formality.

Vidura added that they valued his friendship more than acquisition of kingdoms.

Then he requested Drupada to send the Pandavas with him to Hastinapura, as the Kauravas

were eager to receive them. Drupada must have been laughing within himself. Besides the

Pandavas and Kunti who had been away from the capital would be eager to return, he said.

The Kaurava women wanted to see Pancali, he said. The people of the city and the country

too were expecting them, he said. Vidura asked Drupada to permit the Pandavas to go there

immediately with their wife. He would send messengers to Dhrtarashtra to report their

coming after Drupada permitted the sons of Kunti, Kunti and Krshna to go. (Ch.225

Adiparva)

Drupada told Vidura that he agreed with the views of the latter but it was improper

for him to ask the Pandavas to go. They and Krshna and Balarama who knew social laws,

dharma, might decide when the Pandavas should leave and act accordingly. Krshna and

Balarama, the great leaders, cared for the desires of the Pandavas and their welfare, he

said. Yudhishtira submitted that they would do as directed by the king under whom they

were functioning then. Krshna agreed with Drupada’s stand and asked what Drupada who

knew all dharmas (social and political) opined. Drupada replied that he would accept

whatever Krshna thought was the appropriate step to be taken then. Krshna was in the

same position as he was with respect to the Pandavas, Drupada pointed out. Yudhishtiracould not think in the same way as Krshna did about the interests of the Pandavas, he said,

suggesting that they should follow Krshna, who was an expert in strategy rather

than Yudhishtira who stuck to morality.

Then Vidura went to meet Kunti and pay his regards to her. He was Vicitravirya’s son

and Kunti’s brother-in-law. She thanked him for arranging for the escape of his sons, the

Pandavas, from the house of lac and his counsel on safety hidden in allegories. Kunti said

that she did not know how to protect them further and asked Vidura to take charge of their



270 of 282

further career. Vidura assured her that they would soon get their kingdom and be happy

with their relatives.

Then the Pandavas and Kunti and Draupadi and Krshna took leave of Drupada whohad gifted the Pandavas a huge army and riches to his sons-law and daughter and went to

Hastinapura. Vaishampayana told Janamejaya, a Bharata, that Dhrtarashtra (son of

Ambika) received them with due honour. He had deputed the archers, Vikarna and

Chitrasena, and the best of the archers, Drona and Krpa, a disciple of Gautama to receive

them as they entered the town. The citizens too came out to welcome them. Of course they

condemned Dhrtarashtra for having sent Kunti and the Pandavas away from the town and

were happy that they had returned. They praised Yudhishtira who protected them even as

he protected dharma. It was like the return of Pandu himself from the forest. Then the

Pandavas saluted Dhrtarashtra, Bhishma and other elders and greeted all the citizens. Then

as directed by Dhrtarashtra they went to their house. (Ch.226 Adiparva)

20

FROM HASTINAPURA TO INDRAPRASTHA

While the Pandavas went to meet Dhrtarashtra and Bhishma, the wives of the sons

of Dhrtarashtra escorted Draupadi who had come like a second Lakshmi, guardian and

distributor (goddess) of wealth, and as Indrani, the consort of Indra (the chief of the house

of nobles with control over the army and the treasury), to Gandhari. Vaishampayana implied

that Arjuna would have the status of a noble and be the official, Indra. He also

hinted that Duryodhana’s wife, a daughter of the king of Kasi, would be senior to Draupadi.

Though Gandhari (daughter of Subala and wife of Dhrtarashtra) received Krshna properly

she feared that the latter would be the cause of the death of her sons. She advised Vidura

to arrange for the accommodation of the Pandavas, Kunti and Draupadi in Pandu’s house.

The kinsmen and the citizens and the leaders of the guilds of workers,

samghas, welcomed this acknowledgement of the status of the Pandavas as a

separate political authority. It appears Hastinapura gave importance to the people of the

city by inviting their representatives ( paura) to important state and domestic functions of

the rulers. The leaders of the guilds too were invited. The Hastis were technocrats. But the

commoners of the rural areas do not appear to have been given such importance. It was

an economic state as well as a political state and not an elitist or feudal state.

Economic states were dominated by technocrats and plutocrats while political states were



271 of 282

directed by intelligentsia on behalf of the commonalty. States could be dominated by liberal

aristocrats or by authoritarian feudal lords.

Bhishma, Drona, Krpa, Karna, Bahlika and Somadatta were directed by Dhrtarashtrato install the Pandavas in their position as successors to Pandu. These officials were in

charge of Aditya, the central administrative authority who welcomed the kings

from abroad and entered into treaties with them on behalf of the state.

Dhrtarashtra nominated Vidura to look after the duties of the Pandavas while they were

enjoying their new life. He wanted to avoid clashes with them. If the Pandavas had not been

shunted to Khandavaprastha, they would have been in charge of the portfolios held by

Dharma, Vayu, Indra, Nasatya and Dasra, that is, social laws, open space and moors,

treasury and army, agriculture and labour.

Dhrtarashtra later told Yudhishtira that Pandu developed the kingdom under

his direction. He emphasized that Pandu did all his exploits under his direction and

not independently and so too Yudhishtira should follow his instructions. He

acknowledged that his sons were sinners and egotistic, proud and selfish and advised

Yudhishtira and his brothers to go to Khandavaprastha. There the Pandavas guarded

by Arjuna (like the nobles guarded by Indra) would be safe. None would be able to harm

them there, he said. He would give them half the kingdom if they would go to

Khandavaprastha. If Krshna agreed it could be done, Dhrtarashtra said. The Pandavas

agreed to the proposal made by Dhrtarashtra in his capacity as arbitrator and legislator,

maharaja. Then they entered into deliberations with Krshna.

Meanwhile Dhrtarashtra directed Vidura to arrange immediately for the

coronation of Yudhishtira, son of Kunti and a descendant of Ajamida as king.

Brahmans (jurists), prominent citizens and leaders of guilds (samghas), ministers and

kinsmen were invited to attend the programme. Dhrtarashtra tried to give the impression

that he was giving the kingdom to Yudhishtira in gratitude to the help that Pandu had

rendered him. He did not acknowledge that Yudhishtira had a right to it. Bhishma, Drona,

Krpa and Vidura agreed with him. Krshna declared that Yudhishtira deserved to becrowned and urged Dhrtarashtra to do so immediately. The chronicler told

Janamejaya that as told by Krshna, Krshna Dvaipayana conducted the ceremony in

accordance with the code (sastra). In the presence of Krpa, Drona, Bhishma, Dhoumya,

Vyasa, Krshna, Bahlika and Somadatta and the Brahmans (jurists) who knew all the four

Vedas, Yudhishtira was crowned.

Kings (ra jans) did not have the same status and power, immunities and

privileges, as the nobles (devas) had. The nobles elected one from among them as



272 of 282

the head of their assembly ( sabha). In the Atharvan polity, the rajanyas who were

powerful chieftains and members of the electoral college elected one from among

them as the king. In Hastinapura Yudhishtira was nominated by Dhrtarashtra as the head(King) of half of the kingdom. When he was crowned, the kings who had been similarly

crowned honoured him. Vaishampayana suggests that no constitutional body elected

Yudhishtira as king. This was the normal feature in many states. The born aristocrats

must not have elected even Indra from among their ranks. He might not have belonged to

any of the traditional groups of nobles but was approved and honoured by them. But he had

to be honoured by them if he were to have rational legitimacy.

Yudhishtira acquired this rational legitimacy when his equals honoured him

on his coronation as king. His being granted charismatic legitimacy when the citizens

applauded him on his entry into the palace followed this rational legitimacy. But traditional

legitimacy was not fully endorsed as he acquired his kingdom only in gratefulness to his

father and not as having legitimately inherited it. As Yudhishtira crowned himself in

accordance with the provisions of the social laws, dharma, as ‘dharmara ja’ the sons of

Gandhari and their kinsmen felt unhappy.

Dhrtarashtra who saw their mood advised Yudhishtira in the presence of Krshna and

the Kurus to immediately go away to Khandavaprastha where Pururavas, Nahusha and

Yayati (the ancestors of Puru) had resided and ruled from as their capital. The sages had

once destroyed it, as Pururavas was greedy. Dhrtarashtra advised Yudhishtira to develop

that town ( pura) and the country (desa) around it.

Dhrtarashtra spoke in a rational manner despite his inability to hide his partiality for

his sons. He expected the members of the new classes (varnas), Brahmanas, Kshatriyas,

Vaisyas and Shudras, selected on the basis of their natural traits (gunas, sattva, rajas and

tamas) who reserved the right to select the regime of their liking, opting to migrate to

Yudhishtira’s capital because of their devotion to the latter. He expected even the other

people who were at the bare subsistence level ( pranis, beings who but breathed) to move to

that city as it would be a social welfare state. Dhrtarashtra expected the Pandavas todevelop that region that was then lying neglected economically as it had the necessary

natural resources. As the citizens of Hastinapura prepared to accompany the

Pandavas to their new capital, Duryodhana and Sakuni announced a ban on

emigration.

Guided by Krshna, the Pandavas decorated Khandavaprastha like an urban enclave

of the aristocrats (devapura). Krshna, guardian of the commonalty (lokanatha) expressed

his wish that the nobles headed by Indra should undertake to develop the town and the



273 of 282

latter deputed Visvakarma, the architect (who could construct the residential quarters and

other buildings for the different ranks and sectors of the larger society) to build the city of

Indraprastha that looked like such an enclave in the terrain (bhumi ) of the commoners(manushyas). In other words, in Indraprastha, the commoners had all the comforts

that the nobles had. It was a town modelled on the city of Amaravati (the city of the

immortals) of (Sakra) Indra, as desired by Krshna.

Visvakarma (architect) took care not to introduce the features of that

exclusive urban enclave of Amaravati of the aristocrats while designing

Indraprastha. The commoners would not be barred from entering any area including that

where aristocrats lived. It was modelled on the fortified city of Bhogavati (the city of

affluence) of the technocrats (nagas) though the nobles met the expenses of

construction. Its grandeur gave it the impression of the city of Kubera (the chief of the

plutocrats).

Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that Indraprastha attracted the best of the scholars

(Brahmans) who knew the Vedas and the languages of different countries (were linguists).

The scheme of four classes (varnas) envisaged that the intellectuals (Brahmans), warriors-

cum-administrators (Kshatriyas), merchants (Vaisyas) and workers (Shudras) would be free

to move to any country of their choice and ply their vocation there. Besides the Brahmans,

traders and artisans from different countries settled in Indraprastha to earn wealth,

Vaishampayana said. It was the capital of an affluent economic state. The city

accommodated all the four classes (varnas) and the artisans who had a status higher than

the workers and were later distinguished as mixed classes (samkaravarnas). (Vide

Foundations of Hindu Economic State for the demography of the Kautilyan town,

nagara.) Yudhishtira, the first of the Pauravas (descendants of Puru) and the other

Pandavas entered the city with eminent scholars after Vyasa and their counsellor, Dhoumya

sanctified it, while the people gave the king a rousing reception.

Sakuni, Karna, Krpa, Bhishma and Dhrtarashtra and his sons felicitated the Pandavas

who resided in Khandavaprastha, the old area of that city. Vaishampayana emphasised thatthe modified city looked like that of an affluent society of the captains of industry and

technology (nagas). After seeing off Visvakarma and Vyasa, Yudhishtira asked Krshna to

guide them on what they were expected to do. It was because of him they were able to

get that town which was in ruins. Krshna told the Pandavas that by their prowess they

had secured a large state in accordance with dharma. It was their ancestral property and

nothing could prevent them from getting it.



274 of 282

Krshna advised Yudhishtira to bear the duties of the state and the duties prescribed

in the code of dharma and administer the social world (loka) as the native people ( jana)

desired. He asked the king to protect the Brahmans (jurists and scholars) and keepthem happy. He then asked them to act according to Narada’s advice. Narada was an

expert in political economy and was an outstanding diplomat. After saluting Kunti and taking

leave of the Pandavas he went with Balarama to Dwaraka. Kunti praised him as the

guardian (natha) of the orphans and of the poor. Only because he thought about their

welfare her sons were alive, she said. They too had no guardian. (Ch. 227 Adiparva)

Janamejaya was curious to know what his co-parceners (dayadas) and prominent

personages ( purushasreshtas), the Pandavas did after they took over state power at

Indraprastha. How did they conduct themselves with respect to their wife, Draupadi? Was

there no mutual conflict amongst them especially with respect to her? Before answering

these questions, Vaishampayana said that Yudhishtira who stood by the laws based on truth

( satya) after getting the state (ra jyam) administered the country (desa) along with his

brothers without deviating from the social and political laws (dharma) that were based on

consensus. The Pandavas did not deviate from the rigorous laws based on satya and the

liberal ones based on dharma.

The Pandavas resided in Indraprastha after putting down the enemies. One day while

these chiefs belonging to the Bharatas were seated on their thrones and conducting the

economic affairs (vyavahara) based on civil laws, of the city, Narada (who was an expert

in civil laws) came to meet Yudhishtira who had the status of Dharmara ja (a king

functioned in accordance with the social and political laws, dharma, that were based on

consensus). Narada, whom all beings ( pranis) at the basic level of the society (where

there were no social distinctions) worshipped, was a great tapasvi who was constantly on

the search through intuition, for truth behind the manifest events. He knew all the then

latest findings recorded in the concluding portions of the Vedas (that is, in Vedantas) and

had mastered the Vedas and their branches.

Narada never gave up his quest for truth and knew the socio-political constitution (brahma) and was interested in strategy (yukti ) and the science ( sastra) of state policy

(ra janiti ). Narada knew what wealth was distinct from and superior to that of the

aristocrats. He knew perfectly all the social laws (dharmas) and had a pure ‘soul’ (was a

pure individual not thinking of his physical interests, not attached to any social group). He

had given up desires and restrained his five senses and was a Brahman (intellectual and

jurist) free from rage and deceit.



275 of 282

Travelling through the open space (akasa) occupied by the great sages, he reached

the palace of the Pandavas. On his way he saw in the plains (bhumi ) many countries

(desas) and houses. His adherence to his duties (dharma) made liberal nobles (devas) feudal lords (asuras) and commoners (manushyas) revere him. He belonged to the cadre

of sages (rshis), like these to the Vedic core society. Vaishampayana noted that Narada had

systematised the rights and duties (dharma) for the sinners who were not performing their

duties and for the different cadres of beings ( pranis) who belonged to the subaltern and not

to the organised society. Before prescribing them the duties suitable to them he gave them

counsel based on the Vedas.

The chronicler lauded Narada as one who knew the three Vedas (Rg, Yajur and

Sama) and as an expert in the sciences ( sastras) of Nyaya and Dharma, jurisprudence

and socio-cultural laws. He omits Atharvaveda indicating that Narada did not belong to the

school of Brahmavadis like Angirasa, Atharvacharya, Bhrgu, Sukra and Kashyapa. He

considered Narada to be an advocate of dharmasastra rather than arthasastra. But

Narada did not overlook the importance of conventional economy (varta) and polity

(dandaniti ).

Vaishampayana says that Narada arrived as a ‘second’ Brhaspati at the assembly

( sabha) of nobles of Dharmara ja (Yudhishtira) who gave his verdicts on the basis of the

social laws (dharma). That is, Narada would help Yudhishtira to determine issues pertaining

to civil and economic transactions (vyavahara) [that Yudhishtira was then trying to wrestle

with on the basis of the principles and ideals adopted by dharmasastra] by resorting to the

theorems advocated by Brhaspati who was pragmatic in approach.

Vaishampayana then dilated on the talents of Narada in different academic

disciplines and skills. Narada identified two aspects of dharma, one that was relevant to the

economic and other activities ( pravrtti ) of man and the other to his withdrawal from them

(nivrtti ) to be able to attain salvation. He had mastered varnasrama dharma. Yudhishtira

went forward to receive that sage. He gave that devarshi (a sage who had access to the

assembly of nobles) a high seat and placed his country at his disposal. Then he askedDraupadi to offer her respects to that sage. After blessing her he asked her to withdraw

while he counselled the Pandavas on how to conduct themselves with respect to their

spouse so that they did not quarrel among themselves. They had to arrange for themselves

a suitable system.

Narada related to them an episode involving the two intimate brothers, Sunda and

Upasunda, who were feudal lords (asuras) and killed each other because of the apsaras,

Tilottama. He advised the Pandavas that they should protect their affection for and



276 of 282

friendship with one another. Yudhishtira wanted to know whose sons the two asuras

(Sunda and Upasunda) were and why they became enemies and how they killed each other

out of love for the same girl. He wanted to know whose daughter the apsaras (Tilottama)and girl belonging to the aristocracy (devakanya) was. He wanted to know whether she

belonged to the cadre of apsarases or to devas. He expected the sage to narrate the

incidents as they happened. (Ch.228 Adiparva)

Sunda and Upasunda were the sons of Nikumba, a powerful feudal warlord and aide

of Hiranyakasipu. They were contemporaries of Virocana, son of Prahlada. The two asura

youths were engaged in strenuous search (tapas) for secret powers that would enable them

to conquer all the three social worlds (lokas), nobility, commonalty, and industrial frontier

society (divam, prthvi and antariksham). Their experiments in secluded mountain caves in

the Vindhyas came to the notice of the nobles (devas) who tried to interrupt them. The

intruding nobles and their womenfolk were kept back by the armed guards (rakshas). The

youths could not be enticed or induced to give up their quest.

The jurist (Brahma) who governed all the social sectors (as prabhu, overlord) in an

impartial manner and with brotherliness (bandhu) appeared before them and asked them

what they wanted. The two feudal chieftains prayed that they should be permitted

knowledge of creating illusions and weapons and the right to appear in any form and mingle

with all sectors of the larger society and also immunity from death (sentence). In other

words they wanted to be treated on par with the nobles (devas). The jurist who interpreted

the socio-political constitution (brahma) told the young warlords that they could exercise

all the rights and powers including acquisition of wealth that the nobles had, except

enjoying immunity from death (sentence).

Earlier the liberal lords (devas) and the feudal warlords (asuras) were on par but

the defeat of the latter in the prolonged conflict between the two sections of the ruling class

led to their being deprived of this immunity. The asuras would not be allowed to

conquer all the three social worlds (lokas), Brahma declared. Sunda and Upasunda

then on behalf of the feudal lords (asuras) sought protection against being attacked by anysector of the larger society comprising the three social worlds (lokas , nobles, commoners

and frontier society). The constitution did give them that protection, Brahma said but it did

not guarantee that no social sector would collapse as a result of internal rivalries and

conflicts. The asuras were not exempt from this threat, the two young chieftains knew and

hence did not ask for immunity against death caused by such mutual conflict. Brahma (the

socio-political constitution) did not allow them (or any other cadre) to secure total control

over the larger society and total exemption from death.



277 of 282

The feudal lords who had been banished from the core society of nobles and

commoners (devas and manushyas) and kept out of the industrial frontier society of

forests and mountains would be free to move about safely everywhere provided they gaveup their quest for total power. If their orientations and authority over the rural areas

suffered a setback it would be because of internal rivalries amongst them. The jurist and

interpreter of the constitution (brahma) of the Vedic epoch returned to his enclave (loka)

of jurists who followed the codes based on truth ( satya). [It is unsound to hold that

Brahma was the god who determined the destinies of men and other beings.] It was an

epoch when the laws based on dharma had not yet superseded the laws based on truth

( satya). Sunda and Upasunda returned to their country as invincible rulers and kept their

people ( jana) happy. The two were confident that their diarchy could not be weakened as

they lived together and thought alike. (Ch.229 Adiparva)

This complacency induced them to seek lordship over all the three social worlds

(lokas) in violation of the provisions of the then constitution that ensured autonomy for the

commoners as well as nobles, for the agrarian core society as well as the industrial frontier

society. The two youths, Sunda and Upasunda, took leave of their friends and elders and

ministers and led their army around in all areas to prove their invincibility.

When they threatened the aristocrats and entered their exclusive enclave

(devaloka), the latter sought the protection of the constitution and the council of jurists

(brahmaloka). The social world of nobles led by Indra did not put up resistance. The two

warlords then attacked the plutocrats (yakshas) and their guards (rakshas) of the frontier

society and the weak individuals who moved about in the open areas and the operators of

mines (nagas) and the communities of aliens residing in isolated islands.

Then they targeted the commonalty (bhumi ). The two feudal lords told their troops

that the Ra jarshis and their counsellors (Brahmans) through their sacrifices and offerings

were contributing to the increase in the influence and power and wealth of the nobles

(devas) and hence should be killed. At one stage when the asuras withdrew from the polity

of the core society, it was agreed upon that like the nobles (devas) and sages (rshis) theretired feudal lords ( pitrs) should be treated as non-economic sectors of the society and

maintained through voluntary contributions by the commoners (manushyas), especially by

the rich among them.

The new constitution that placed a dynamic intellectual at the head of this polity as

Ra jarshi guided by Atharvan scholars (Brahmans) modified this arrangement. The

asuras were replaced by retired elders as pitrs, eligible for a share in the voluntary

contribution (yajna). The feudal lords viewed this change as an attempt to starve



278 of 282

them out though they had laid down arms and accepted governance by civil polity.

This change in social policy worked against the assurance given the socio-political

constitution (brahma) that they would be free to pursue their peaceful way of life withoutinterference by the state or by any other sector of the larger society. The introduction of

the Ra jarshi constitution was viewed as a breach of the assurance that the head of

the constitution bench (Brahma) had given to the feudal lords (asuras) who had

consented to give up coercive methods.

While the asura troops ‘killed’ the Brahman counsellors (whether they performed

sacrifices or officiated as priests at sacrifices performed by others), the two chieftains went

towards the southern seashores. Even the curses of the sages could not negate the

immunity that the jurist (Brahma) had proclaimed for the feudal lords, who did not use

violence against the harmless. The Brahman counsellors (priests) and the sages had to

give up their social and personal activities and withdraw from the scene as the asuras

asserted their rights with vehemence. Their withdrawal led to the ruin of the social world of

commonalty. The troops of the asuras destroyed the abodes of the sages and killed those

who had hid themselves in mountain caves.

The institutions of sacrifice (yajna) and study of Vedas collapsed with the

resurgence of the feudal order. All economic activities connected with the duties

pertaining to the nobles (devakarya), to marriage and generosity came to a standstill. The

world was littered with skeletons of the dead, as starvation could not be warded off. The

nobles (devas) and the seven sages and the heads of the two large socio-political sectors

(Soma and Surya) and the nine minor sectors (navagrahas) and the leaders of the non-

combatant (nakshatra) sections of the commonalty were deeply pained at this

development. Sunda and Upasunda conquered the peoples in all directions and settled in

Kurukshetra as rulers. This development should have taken place during the tenure of the

sixth Manu, Chakshusha. (Ch.230 Adiparva)

All the sages who were members of the nobility (devarshis) and the scholars who

had attained perfection in their endeavours ( siddhas) and also the sages (rshis) who wereexperts in socio-political constitution (brahma) were distressed by this great suffering of

the masses. Compassion for the commoners led these persons who had restrained their

anger, and had conquered their mind and senses, to the academy of the jurists

(brahmaloka). They saw the head of that academy (Brahma) seated surrounded by

nobles.

According to Narada, in that assembly the great socio-political thinker,

Samkara who had the status of Isvara, the charismatic benefactor, especially of



279 of 282

the people of the social periphery and the Vedic officials, Agni , who represented the

commonalty, Vayu who represented the people of the open space, Soma who spoke for the

intellectuals and others of the forests (antariksham), Surya ( Aditya) who headed theKshatriya army-cum-administration and Indra who headed the house of nobles were

present. Also present were sages of Brahmaloka like the vanaprasthas and

valakhilyas. They were all reporting to Brahmadeva the hardships they were put to by

Sunda and Upasunda. It is significant that in that assembly, Varuna, Mitra and Yama

were not present. These were prominent members of the Vedic governing body and could

take into custody the offenders.

According to the legend, Brahma asked Visvakarma to create a beautiful woman

whom all would desire and that he created Tilottama who had the essence of all gems and

jewels. ‘Visvakarma’ produced before Brahma a woman who looked like a rich commoner

(manushya). She asked Brahma (whom she addressed as Lokesvara, the benefactor of

the social world of commonalty) what her mission was. Brahma directed her to entice

the two asura lads and create mutual enmity between the two! When she went

round them before leaving on her mission, even Indra and Bhagavan lost themselves to

her beauty. [Some have treated the term ‘Bhagavan’ as a reference to Samkara who was

the head of an academy.] Only Brahma who knew that she was the handiwork of an

artisan did not fall to her ‘beauty’. (Ch. 231 Adiparva)

The two feudal lords lived without enemies and without anxiety having conquered

the plains (bhumi ) and annexed the three social worlds (lokas). They appropriated the

best of the wealth of the nobles (devas), the free middle class (gandharvas), the

plutocrats (yakshas), the kings and the forest guards (rakshasas) on the periphery and

lived happily. It was then that Tilottama entered their lives and the two quarrelled over who

should have her as wife. The duel with maces ended in the two generals ( suryas) killing

each other. The men and women who followed the two feudal warlords (asuras) left the

scene to merge in the subaltern of unruly and uncivilised fallen class ( patalaloka).

Brahma, the jurist, then appeared on the scene and told Tilottama that she couldmove about freely in all the social worlds (lokas) where Aditya had jurisdiction, that is, in

the areas under the core society of nobles and commoners. It implied that she would not be

free to mingle amongst the populace of the forests and mountains, which came under the

jurisdiction of Soma or in the open space that was under Vayu.

The jurist also made Indra have jurisdiction over all the three social worlds. Earlier

he could speak only for the nobles (devas). Narada was drawing attention to the absorption

in the core society, of the class of apsarases and gandharvas who could earlier as



280 of 282

members of a social universe ( jagat ) wander in all areas without being settled anywhere.

This middle class of gandharvas and apsarases, free men and women, could come into its

own only after feudalism was thwarted and a liberal aristocracy came to power. Narada advised the Pandavas to ensure that no enmity arose amongst them because

of Draupadi. Vaishampayana told Janamejaya that the Pandavas came to an agreement in

the presence of Narada that Krshna (Draupadi) would stay in the residence of each of the

five Pandava brothers for one year and that any one of them who violated the privacy of

another would be required to stay as a celibate for twelve months. This arrangement helped

them to be friendly with one another. (Ch. 232 Adiparva)

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Atharvaveda Translation by W.D.Whitney

Text by Dayananda Samstha

2.Rgveda Translation by Griffith

Text by Dayananda Samstha

3.Bhagavad-Gita Translation by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan

Text and Translation by J.Goyandka for Gita Press

Text and Translation by A Kuppuswami Iyer

Text and Translation by B.G. Tilak

4. Manusmrti Text and Translation bh G.N. Jha

Text by Mirajkar, Pune

Translation by Wiiliam Jones

Translation by Buhler

Translation by Burnell

5. Kautilyan Arhasastra Text and Translation by Shama Sastry

Text and Translation by R.P.Kangle

6. The Upanishads Text and Translation by Dr.S.Radhakrishnan

7. Bhagavatam Text and Translation by Bhakti Vedanta Trust8. Vedanta Sutra Text By Dr.K.L.Daftari 1943

9.Brahmasutras: Swami Vireswarananda (1977): Ramanuja’s Commentary

10. Vedanta Sutra German Translation and Commentary by Max Muller

Translated into English by G.Thibaut 1904

Works of Dr. V. Nagarajan

Published by Dattsons, J.N. Road, Sadar, Nagpur

1.Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient India (Two Vols) (1992)



281 of 282

2.Origins of Hindu Social System (1994)

3. Foundations of Hindu Economic State (1997)

Aishma Publications, 402 Savitri Apartments. Laxmi Nagar Nagpur4. Hindu Social Dynamics (Three Vols) (1999)

www.geocities.com/vnagarajana402

5. Prologue to Hindu Political Political Sociology 2000

6. Krshna’s Gita as Rajavidya 2001

7. Manusmrti as Socio-Political Constitution 2002

8. The Upanishads and Hindu Political Sociology 2004

9. Brahma-sutras and Neo-Vedic Socio-political Constitution

THE AUTHOR

V. Nagarajan (b.1930) after his graduation from University of Madras migrated to Nagpur where he

did his post-graduation in Sociology. He was on the faculty of Hislop College from 1955 to 1966. His

thesis in Political Sociology, Society Under an Imperial State with special reference to

Kautilya’s Arthasastra was awarded Ph.D. In 1966 he joined Porwal College, Kamptee, Nagpur as

Principal. Till his retirement in 1990 he was engaged in examining the studies in Indology from the

perspective of Political Sociology. His thesis, Evolution of Social Polity of Ancient India From

Manu To Kautilya was awarded D.Litt. in 1990. This work published in 1992 was followed in 1994 by

his work, Origins of Hindu Social System, an analysis of the social classification and stratification

prescribed in Manusmrti. In 1997, he came out with his work, Foundations of Hindu Economic

State, which was a radical departure from his 1965 thesis based on Kautilya’s Arthasastra. In 1999

his work, Hindu Social Dynamics which was published in three volumes drew its data from the epics

and ancient chronicles and traced the transition of the Hindu Society from the pre-varna Vedic social

order to the post-Vedic social system based on four varnas. Prologue to Hindu Political Sociology

finalized in 2000 retraced the ground covered in the earlier works and redefined many of the concepts

and postulates advanced in them while examining those advanced by the western Indologists during

the last three centuries and adopted almost uncritically by most of the Indian scholars. In 2001 his

thesis on Krshna’s Gita as Rajavidya was finalized. In it he brought out Krshna’s Theory of

Administration of the Polity and his counsel to the school that was drafting Manava Dharmasastra.

Manusmrti had to be re-examined and its Social Polity and Institution of Justice presented in a

rational manner as a study in Socio-Political Constitution (2022) devoid of biases and prejudices

that have marked most of the studies on this important work. This treatise is followed by an intense

study of the major Upanishads from the point of view of Hindu Political Sociology (2004). This is

the first time that the Upanishads have been drawn on for tracing the salient features and orientations

of Hindu Political Sociology without passing any adverse remarks against the interpretations that have

been made by others from the point of view of metaphysics. This work is further examined from the

constitutional angle in Brahma-sutras and Neo-Vedic Socio-Political Constitution (2005).

Meanwhile the intensive studies that have been made of the great epic, the Mahabharata, while

dharmarajya1

Documents