The Other Side

Before getting into the real issue, let me mention the "ground statements" first:

1. There are no curses or the element of magic. They are just excuses to make-up certain failures or inherent aspects of heroes which are not accepted by the public. A Hero cannot have flaws; if he has any, he is not accepted
2. Krishna is no God, but, a mere character, at least in the context of the Mahabharata.
3. Most of us are familiar with the story of Sakuni as to why he wants a fight between the brothers. FYI, that probably is a later addition, because, that is not mentioned anywhere in the course of Mahabharata. His dice weren't magical. He probably just good at throwing the dice.
4. I'll try my best to avoid my inherent bias towards Duryodhana out of the way.

Let's begin with the ever-hot and my personal-favourite issue popularly known as Feminism. Duryodhana, Dushyasana and Co., are most infamous for ‘Draupadi Vasthrapaharana’. Most people are convinced, that particular act was responsible for the ignition of the Great War. Little do they know that the war had already begun, long before that dramatic incident; there was a great deal of rivalry ever since they were kids. Anyway, the issue here is, both the Pandavas and the Kauravas had the same attitude towards women, i.e., Objectification of Women. It's not just them; "that" society in which they were born and brought up was the same too. The question in my mind is - What gives the society the right to claim that derobing Draupadi was ethically wrong when they were silent all the while Yudhistira and Co., were placing her as a bet? According to me, both are the same. Duryodhana viewed Draupadi as an object that would heal his bruised ego. Yudhistira viewed her as an object that he'd place as a bet to satisfy his never-ending greed and to a certain extent, his ego. To an extent, there is a justification to this incident - Those were the times when women aren't supposed to laugh publicly. Moreover, you must not laugh at one's own guest when he is in an embarrassing situation; he must be comforted.

‘The Other Side’ of prominent characters of Mahabharata (order being insignificant):

• Krishna - There is no point or need for looking into his entire life. That is a different story altogether. I'd stick to the context of the Mahabharata. Simply put, he is to Pandavas as Sakuni is to the Kauravas. At least, Sakuni had more right assisting the Kauravas as he was their own mamasri. His relation to Kauravas would demand more support socially as to Krishna, being just a brother-in-law to the Pandavas. Truly speaking, he is equally close to both the parties. His behaviour is the same - reactive - as that of Sakuni's. If the ego of both brothers is Uranium-235, Krishna is the high-speed electron who was responsible for the Nuclear Fission reaction - the Great War. At the very end, sensing the possible threat from Karna, just before the war, he convinces Kunti to talk to her "son", with a motive to get him to the side of the Pandavas, that cunning jackal. (Three things I like about Krishna though - His respect for women, his convincing abilities and his strategies at war)

• Yudhistira - As mentioned above, he objectifies women. He lacks self-control, is greedy and is responsible for the fall of Bhishma (which was done in an un-ethical manner).

• Bhima - History has proven many times that mere strength can never beat thinking abilities. So is the case here. Bhima is one arrogant soul, whose ego is not less small as compared to that of Duryodhana's. The motive to seek revenge for the "Draupadi incident" is nothing but egoistic. His ego was hurt since he stood helpless only to watch his "object" getting insulted in front of everyone.

• Arjuna - He was probably a bi-sexual or a hermaphrodite. In Virataparva, this twisted "dude" spends his Agnathavasam (of a period of 1 year) as a woman. What's the necessity of that form of disguise when his other brothers hid themselves perfectly fine? (Refer point 1 in the beginning of the essay)

• Nakula, Sahadeva - There is not much description and tales attributed to these two "stallions". So I guess, there is nothing much to say. They are in the purana only because they are brothers of the "famous" Yudhistira, Bhima, and Arjuna.

• Panchali (, Panchabhartrukha) - She's is a hypocritic slut; yes, you heard me right! A SLUT!!! Either all the 5 Pandavas are impotent and could not satisfy her well and good or she is so raunchy and horny that she has a desire for Karna in her heart. Either way, she is a textbook definition of a lanja.

• Vasusena - Popularly known as Karna. The better name for him would be 'Loser'. (Refer point 1 in the beginning of the essay) He has always got a perfect reason to lose all the time. He is a man of values, a man of virtues, I agree; but, brave, and valorous - No!!! There are many instances where he could prove his valor and abilities. For instance, when Duryodhana is captured by Gandharvas (during Aranyaparva), he and Ashwatthama flee from that place, unable to fight the Gandharvas. Eventually, Pandavas had to free Duryodhana from them. (First, they try negotiation, then Arjuna single-handedly defeats the Gandharva troops, after which, he is presented an asthra from them for his valor)

• Duryodhana – An excellent administrator, a great king, good strategist, diplomatic, strategic fighter with excellent combat skills (as compared to raw beastial power of Bhima's). An unmatched arguing and convincing skills - he was able to shut everyone up all the while. Anyone could've objected him - the revered elders (Dritharasthra, Bhishma, Dronacharya, Vidura ...), his people. He did not lose the faith of his people or his allies even though he resorts to many unethical and unfair means.

The point of this entire rambling is just this. Neither of the sides has played a fair game - both of them have resorted to deceiving and immorality. Everything and everyone fall in the patches of grey. (That's probably the beauty and the negative point of Mahabharata) The war that is claimed as reason for Dharmasamsthapana by Krishna is a failed cause. It is more of an Adharmayuddam than a Dharmayuddam. Had it been the other way around, and the Kauravas had won the war, the Mahabharata would have sounded a lot different in the context of portrayal of characters. This would've been mentioned in the beginning itself, but, I've got this uncontrollable urge to convince people.

P.S: I recently realized the reason behind my bias towards Duryodhana (as a result of an argument with Mohan).