I was reading the book Ajaya by the eminent author Anand Neelkatan and I realised that how contemporary the book was in today's sense. Yes the book is the Mahabharata written in the point of view of Duryodhana. However the book sends you in a mood of questioning "Could this also not have been possible". I mean look at our country how it is divided into castes and creed and sections in the society. It is quite possible that with the elimination of the Kauravas and particularly Duryodhana the fabric of caste discrimination would have been strengthened even more.
After all in the entire epic (Whichever point of view we look at it from) it was Duryodhana who rose from the thinking of a caste based society to a "Karma" or work based society. It was him who wanted to give "Eklavya" a fair chance. It was Duryodhana who fought the entire system so that you have a prominent warrior like "Karna", who finally establishes himself by his merit rather than by his birth.
It was the Pandavas who constantly tried to demean this person in some or the other way citing reasons that he was iconoclastic and was repeatedly commiting sacrilege by crossing the boundaries of the caste system.
Yes he was vanquished, but again not fair and square. Yes there was the Dice game, but he was not the only one playing it, there was somebody else also staking his kingdom, brothers, himself and his wife. He never forced him to play. The person on the other side was addicted to gambling and the proof is evident that even in the icognito period ( Agyatvaas) he decides to take up the role of a gambler (Kank) in the court of Raja Virat.
The poem below is a short poem of my thinkings on Duryodhana.
After all in the entire epic (Whichever point of view we look at it from) it was Duryodhana who rose from the thinking of a caste based society to a "Karma" or work based society. It was him who wanted to give "Eklavya" a fair chance. It was Duryodhana who fought the entire system so that you have a prominent warrior like "Karna", who finally establishes himself by his merit rather than by his birth.
It was the Pandavas who constantly tried to demean this person in some or the other way citing reasons that he was iconoclastic and was repeatedly commiting sacrilege by crossing the boundaries of the caste system.
Yes he was vanquished, but again not fair and square. Yes there was the Dice game, but he was not the only one playing it, there was somebody else also staking his kingdom, brothers, himself and his wife. He never forced him to play. The person on the other side was addicted to gambling and the proof is evident that even in the icognito period ( Agyatvaas) he decides to take up the role of a gambler (Kank) in the court of Raja Virat.
The poem below is a short poem of my thinkings on Duryodhana.
 |
Duryodhana coming out of the Lake for his final Battle. (Image Courtesy: Wikipedia)
|
नफरत से मुझे देखती है क्यों
मेरे देश का इतिहास मुझे
गुनाह तो उस शख्स ने किया जिसने मेरा किरदार बनाया।
मौजूद था मैं हर किसीके दुःख में सुख में
मैं ही था वह की जो उठ सका ऊपर
जात पात की दीवारों से
लगाव मुझे न था अपने ध्येय से पर
प्रेम था मुझे हर परिवार से
हो अगर थोड़ा सा धीरज तो करने तो प्रयास मुझे
न देखो तुम उस किताब को गुनाहों का जिसने सरदार बनाया।
जब दिया किसीने गुरुदक्षिणा तब आंसूं बहे थे मेरे
मैं ही वो था जो बना पात्र हास्य का
किसी अवतार का मैं ही तो लक्ष्य था
विजय के बाद भी क्या कर लिया किसीने राज्य का
मेरे अधर्मो का भी है एहसास मुझे
पर हूँ तो मैं भी उसीका हिस्सा जिसने ये संसार बनाया।
It is not always what we hear or read that is true. Remember these epics were written and documented after years of folklore passing. (Shruti and Smruti). Which means that for generations these stories were spread through word of mouth.
Now it is a well known fact that even if we hear something and it passes through several mouths and is relayed through several people there will be corruption in the information in the terms of bias and personal viewpoint. Finally if this information is documentated after 10,000 relays the information cannot be regarded as fact but "Inference" only.
While I am not saying that The Mahabharata did not happen for real. However, the possibility of Duryodhana to be so negative and Yudhishthira to be so sacrosanct is also remote.
Cheers,
Kalyan
