(CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS OF BHISHMA,DRONA,KRISHNA AND KARNA IN THE MAHABHARATA)
The earth is an interesting place because we all are different than each others. Not only the individuals differ from each others, within an individual also there are different layers of personality which are difficult to understand. We cannot paint the canvas of life entirely black or white. It has different shades and many times these shades cannot be expressed in words. Mahabharata tries to capture this eternal drama of human life very effectively. ‘Bhagavad Gita’ which is a part of Mahabharata tries to explain this complicities and intricacies of human nature as an interplay of three ‘Gunas’ (qualities) i.e. ‘Sattavik’ (Good), ‘Rajasik’ (Passion) and ‘Tamasik’ (Dullness). All these ‘Gunas’ are present in everybody in different combinations. At a particular time one of the ‘Guna’ predominates and under its influence we think and behave.
Under the influence of the ‘Sattavik’, man thinks good thoughts and performs good deeds, which brings peace and happiness. Under the influence of the ‘Rajasik’, man is restless and propelled into action with the selfish desires and the ‘Tamasik’ creates dullness and inertia. As these ‘Gunas’ are present in us in different combinations, we find that the characters in the Mahabharata behaves differently at different times under their influence. An extremely good person like Yudhishthira comes under the influence of ‘Rajasik’ and ‘Tamasik’ and indulges in gambling in spite of the warning and looses everything including his wife.
The present essay is an attempt to study this play of ‘Sattava’, ‘Raja’ and ‘Tama’ in some of the important characters of the ‘Mahabharata’ and how the influence of the different ‘Gunas’ leads to the transgressions of the ‘Dharma’ i.e. righteous duty. Even many times the perception about the ‘Dharma’ also differs.
Bhishma
Bhishma, the sage of sacrifice, was very moral and upright. In spite of his many noble qualities, he had done lot of harm to many by his impractical adherence to his oath as well as by his self imposed blind and slavish dedication to the throne of Hastinapur.
He promises the father of Satyawati that the son of Satyawati will become the king. As a prince did he had a right to do so. It was a spontaneous emotional reaction of a young man. His abduction of the three princess of Kanshi for his half-brother Vichitravirya, spoiled the life of the eldest princess Amba, who was in love with King Salva. Vichtravirya refused to marry her, as she had already given her heart to somebody else. Salva also rejected her as she was won by Bhishma after defeating him. She appealed Bhishma to marry her. But here his oath of remaining ‘Brahmachari’ came in between and he refused. She even appealed to Parshurama, but he also failed to give justice to her. After failing in all the attempts she finally immolated herself. What is important, self imposed high ideals or life of an individual?
It was a practice among the ‘Kshatriyas’ to win a girl after the contest. But Bhishma winning the girls for his half-brother appears to be an exception. He should have allowed his brother to find a match for himself. Being a ‘Brahmachari’ why he should have ventured into a ‘Swyamvara’ and invited the trouble? During abduction Bhishma defeated many kings and even after this Salva challenged Bhishma to dual, putting his life to great risk. Here at least Bhishma should have realized that, Salva have a special tender feeling for Amba and it will be injustice to forcibly take her away to marry her to somebody else. Later during the ‘Rajsuya’ yagya Sishupala criticizes Bhishma for this act. He also says that everybody was aware about the love between Amba and Salva and you still kidnapped her. The journey from Kashi to Hastinapur in chariot must have taken a couple of days. During the journey also he seems to have not made his intension clear and probably the princes were under the impression that they were going to married to Bhishma. But when after reaching Hastinapur Amba realized that she will be married to good for nothing Vichitrvirya, she directly reveled her love for Salva and Bhishma sent her to Salva. Had he reveled his intention of marrying them to Vichitrvirya at Kashi itself, probably the situation would have not become that complicated.
He also deceived Gandhari. She became aware of the fact that she is going to married to a blind prince only after coming to Hastinapur. It was Bhishma who took the initiative for this alliance.
At the time of insult of Draupadi in the assembly of Kurus, Bhishma remains quiet. Was it not his responsibility as an elder of the family to prevent this heinous crime? Instead he hides behind the argument that ‘Dharma’ is subtle and throws the ball in Udhishitira’s court.
During the preparation of the Great War, his attempts of stopping the war seem to be half hearted. Why did he accept the position of the commander-in- chief of the Kaurava army? He should have gone into retirement. He had lived a long life, served and protected the kingdom and race of Kurus for many years.
If he had promised to protect the kingdom to his father, there was no threat to the Kuru kingdom from outside. Whether the Kaurava wins or the Pandava wins, it would have been the decedents of the Kuru, who would have sat on the throne of Hastinapur. If not retirement he should have at least remain neutral in the war like Balrama. After the war he could have come back again to serve the throne of Hastinapur.
His heart was with the Pandavas, but he felt duty bound to serve the Kauravas. Why? Why he did not openly supported the Pandavas? Probably that might have created panic in the heart of Dhritrashtra and Duryodhana. Bhagavad Gita says,
“Yad-yad acharti sresthas
tad-tad eve taro janah
sa yet parmanam kurute
lokas tad anuvartate”
(Whatsoever a great man does, the same is done by others as well. Whatever standard he sets, the world follows.) (‘ Bhagavd Gita’ S. Radhakrishnan P.140.)
Had Bhishma remained absent from the war, probably his example might have been followed by the others like Dronacharya, who was obliged to him. In the absence of these two valiant and experienced warriors, the war would have been much less destructive and probably there would have been no war at all. Probably it was due to the towering personalities like Bhishma, that many other people supported Kauravas.
He loved the Pandavas, but felt duty bound to serve Duryodhana and finally achieved nothing positive. The futility of his life is captured by poet Dinkar when he says,
“ Pyar Pandavopar manse, kauravoki seva tanse,
Sadh payega kaun kam is bikhari hui lagan se”(Hindi)
(Love for the Pandavas and the service for the Kauravas, what can be achieved by this divided loyalty) (Dinkar ‘Kurushetra’ Rajpal and Sons, 2003, P. 50) ( English translation mine)
Bhishma’s life is full of many contrasts. In spite of being ‘Brahmcahri’, (celibate) he was attached to the kingdom. Not for the sake of personal enjoyment, but to serve it. He never sat on the throne, but always wielded the power. It was only when Duryodhana had grown up that his authority has diminished considerably.
The Aryan tradition had divided the life into four ‘Ashramas’ i.e. ‘Brahmcharya’ (Celibate), ‘Grihasta’ (Householder), ‘Vanprastha’ (Forest dweller) and ‘Sanyasa’ (Complete renunciation). These ‘Ashramas’ had evolved over a very long period of time. Our ancestors have realized that the chasing of material possessions and pleasure does not bring an everlasting happiness. So after spending some years in enjoying the pleasures of life and earning wealth, man should retire from the active life and spend time in contemplation and spiritual pursuit. Bhishma’s life does not fit in this advised pattern. By his terrible vow of remaining ‘Brahmachari’ and abandonment of the throne he denied himself the pleasures of life. But he did not retire also, after becoming old. At least when Duryodhana had grown up and the reins of power slept from his hands, Bhishma should have realized that it is a time to retire. But instead he allowed Duryodhana to make use of him in fighting against the Pandavas.
Person who lives life like an average mortal are checked easily, as they are aware of their own limitations. But people, who become larger than life, like living legends, are in a position to do greater harm not only by wrong action but by inaction as well. As Bhishma’s inaction during the episode of Draupadi’s ‘Vastraharan’ shows. By not taking strong stand against the policies of Duryodhana, Bhishma stands partly responsible for the war and destruction.
Drona
Born as a Brahmin, he was well versed in scriptures and warfare. But he forgot the ‘Dharma’ of a Brahmin teacher and assumed the role of a warrior, the Kshatirya and killed many in the battle.
His downfall has started, when he allowed the desire of material comfort for his son to spring in his heart. He himself lived a life of poverty for a long time without compromising his self respect and dignity. But he could not digest that his son Ashwatthama is not getting even milk. It is a weakness of a man who loves his family that he may put up with a life of suffering and deprivation but it is difficult to see your loved ones suffering. May be because of this that many religious philosophies advocates the life of celibacy and renunciation? Wife, husband and children strengthen our bond with the world and make the spiritual progress difficult. Out of this bounds which is called ‘Maya’ i.e. illusion, man commits many sins. It is difficult to break free from this. Janeshwara, the 13th century Maharashtrian saint says,
“Je Vajrapasoni kathin, durdhar ati darun,
tayahuni asadharan he snehnaval”(Marathi)
(‘Jnaneshwari’ First Chapter)
[Arjuna says, “My heart is as strong and hard as the ‘Vajra’( the weapon of Indra), but these bounds of attachments are stronger than that] (Translation mine)
Out of these bounds of attachments, Drona desired comfort for his son even at the cost of compromising his self respect and dignity. He went to the Panchala king Drupada with the hope of material gains. He addressed the king Drupada as a friend and reminded him of their friendship during their childhood in the ‘Ashrama’ of the Guru. The king with the pride of wealth and position did not respond favorably and Drona felt insulted. His expectation of rich reward was not fulfilled and insult was added to injury. His attachment to his son generated the desire for prosperity in his mind. But when this desire was not fulfilled and he was insulted, he became angry and revengeful. Bhagavad Gita says,
“ Krodhad bhavati sammoh
Sammohat smritivibhramah
Smritibhramasad buddhinaso”
(From anger arises bewilderment, from bewilderment loss of memory; and from loss of memory, the destruction of intelligence)
(S. Radhakrishnan P.126.)
Due to the anger, Drona lost the memory of the true nature of a ‘Brahmin’ teacher. He was burning with the desire of revenge. The desire of revenge is unsuitable for a ‘Brahmin’ teacher. ‘Bhagavad Gita’ says,
“Samo damas tapas saucam
Ksantir arjavam eva ca
Jnanam vijnanam astikyam
Brahmakarma svabhavajam”
(Serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, forbearance and uprightness, wisdom, knowledge and faith in religion, these are the duties of the Brahmin, born of his nature) (S. Radhakrishnan P.365).
The desire of burning revenge in the heart of Drona had brought many evils in future. He accepted service in the royal court of Kaurava and became indebted to them. Here he lost his independence. A teacher who is directly obliged to the guardians of the pupils allows his spirit and soul to be corrupted. The Rishis who stayed in their own ‘Ashramas’ had freedom to select their own pupils depending on their qualities. Out of the obligations to Bhishma, who appointed him as teacher, he was forced to give knowledge and training to the evil minded sons of Dritrashtra and also to fight the war on their side although he knew that, this is a side of ‘Adharma’.
As a teacher he had failed on many occasions. He failed to put a check on the ‘Rajoguna’ and ‘Tamoguna’ of the children of Dritrashtra. How can he put a check on them when he had no control over his own ‘Rajoguna’? Now, even though he was leaving in comfort under the patronage of the Kurus, he did not forgive king Draupada. He was only waiting for the right time. Here, we see that the desire of revenge arising out of the ‘Rajoguna’ overpowered the ‘Satvaguna’ of a learned Brahmin. At the end of the completion of the training, he asked his pupils to defeat Drupada. Arjuna and Bhima defeated Drupada and brought him in chains in front of Drona. This also indicates his cunningness, that he is using somebody to take revenge. He did not wanted to come forward and risk his reputation. Drona returned Drupada’s half kingdom but kept half to himself. This was one more transgression of the ‘Dharma’ of a Brahmin teacher. To rule a kingdom was a duty of a Kshatriya and as a Brahmin teacher, Drona should have remained engaged in the pursuit of knowledge. But here Drona was trying to do both the things at the same time. He continued to be the teacher of the Kaurava and the Pandava and at the same time did not leave his share of the Panchala kingdom. He gave southern part of Panchala to king Drupada and kept northern part to himself, thus creating the source of constant irritation to Drupada. The neighboring kingdoms ruled over by those who had insulted each others must have created further conflict. Apart from Drona, his son Ashwthamma was also known as a great warrior.
It was out of this anger, insult and fear that Drupada acquired the son, Dhrishtadhumaya during the ‘Yagya’. The story of birth of Dhrishtadhumaya in ‘Yagya’ might have been a mythologized version. Actually he might have been specially trained to match the might of Drona. As he was born to kill Drona, he killed him violating the code of war. This had created deep hatred in the mind of Ashwatthama, who did not hesitate to kill Dhrishtadhumaya and other members of the Pandava’s army in the night when they least expected. It was Drona’s adaptation of the ‘Dharma’ of Kshatriya that Ashwatthama also got sucked up in this whirlwind of violence and counter violence. Ashwatthama feels sad about this and in ‘Saiptikparva’ of the ‘Mahabharata’ says,
“Though I am born in a highly respected Brahmin family. Unfortunately I am performing the duties of Khastriya”
Dronacharya’s continuation to stay at Hastinapur even after having kingdom of his own also seems to be a part of his strategic move, as he can count on the support of the house of Hastinapur in case of attack by Drupada and Dhrishtadhumaya. This had further traped him in a situation from where it became difficult to escape and he was obliged to fight for the Kauravas.
However, the most repulsive act of Dronacharya was the demand of the thumb of Eklavya. The episode is indicative of the dislike and contempt that the Aryans had for the native aborigines. The Kshatriya Arjuna and his Brahmin master could not tolerate that one aborigine should be able to challenge the position of superiority of Arjuna in archery. Consciously or unconsciously, the same attitude had prevailed through the succeeding period as well. The social distance that the aborigines still maintains from the mainstream Hindu population is indicative of this divide in mind. The Eklavya episode is only one of the examples of this discrimination against the aborigines.
Drona had discarded his austerity for the sake of the comfort of his son. He has not shown forbearance in his dealing with king Drupada nor had he shown uprightness in asking the thumb of Eklavya.
Krishna
In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says to Arjuna,
“Hato va prapsyasi svargam
Jitva va bhoksyase mahim
Tasmad uttistha kaunteya
Yuddhaya krtaniscayah”
{Either slain though shalt go to heaven; or victorious thou shalt enjoy the earth; Therefore arise, O Son of Kunti(Arjuna),resolved on battle} (S. Radhakrishnan P.113)
So, whatever may be the consequences of the war, a Kshastriya should fight a righteous war. If that is the case then why Krishna did tried his best to bring victory to the Pandavas even at the cost of compromising moral values?
He breaks his pledge of not taking a weapon in his hand during the war and rushes to kill Bhishma with his ‘Sudarshan Chakra’. He also conspires to kill Bhishma and Drona. He creates the illusion of dusk to facilitate the killing of Jayadratha. He encourages Arjuna to shoot an arrow at Bhurishrava, when the later was engaged in a dual with Satyaki. It was Krishna again who encouraged Arjuna to shoot an arrow when Karna was struggling to lift the wheel of his chariot, which was stuck in the ground. He signals Bhima to hit on the thigh of Duryodhana, which was against the code of ‘ Gadayudhha’.
Krishna’s transgressions are to be viewed in a broader context. If we take his actions separately and analyses them one by one without relating it to the other episodes of Mahabharata, probably we will not be able to judge him properly. While analyzing someone, we should take into consideration the way an individual has lived throughout his life and not an isolated incident from somebody’s life.
Krishna, though violated many codes during the war, had tried his best to avoid the war in the beginning. The Pandavas were ready to settle for the five villages only, but it was the pride of Durodhana and his hatred for the Pandavas that prevented the settlement. So war was the only option left. Once you decide to fight the righteous war which you are forced to fight, and if you lose it, it is a defeat of the justice and victory of the evil. Imagine, what would have happened to Draupadi and other Pandava women had the Kauravas won and the Pandavas were killed. It sends shivers down the spine to imagine an unprotected Draupadi in the hands of Kaurava. The way they have treated her, even when her powerful husbands were alive was very horrible. But, recollect how Drishtrashtra and Gandhari were treated by the Pandavas. So collectively if we measure the good and bad deeds committed by the Pandavas and put them on a weighing scale, the scale will tilt towards good and it will be vice versa for the Kaurava. The Pandavas and Krishna tried their best to avoid the war. Even the mighty Bhima was willing to digest the poison of insult inflicted upon Draupadi. Here lies the relative goodness of the Pandavas and Krishna.
Krishna was convinced about the relative goodness of the Pandavas. Once he exhausted all the options of peaceful settlement with the Kauravas and forced to fight the war, he tried for their victory. He restored to cunningness when it was absolutely necessary.
Out of the many evil acts of the Kauravas, the most heinous was the attempt of disrobing of Draupadi. Was it not a perverted act of Dushasana to pull her sari and Karna’s encouragement to him? What to speak about the shameless act of Duryodhana to show his thigh to Draupadi signaling her to sit on it in front of everybody including the family elders. Was everybody’s conscious was dead and they all became slave to the whim of evil Duryodhana?
In Ramayana, Rama justifies his killing of Bali, when Bali was fighting a dual with Sugriva on the ground that he had kept Sugriva’s wife forcibly with him and there is no crime in killing such a person by any means. The Kaurava had indulged in a crime more heinous than Bali. They wanted to inflict such an insult on Draupadi that probably no body can do to the women of their own family. What right they had to demand fair play?
The important point here is that victory of Kaurava would have been disastrous for many and would have resulted in the propagation further evils. To avoid the greater evil Krishna had indulged in lesser evil.
Karna
Abandoned at birth by Kunti, raised by a charioteer, Karna turns out to be a great archer, challenging the supremacy of Arjuna. He is devoted to Duryodhana due to his timely help at a young age. The ideals formed during young age remains with us for a very longer period. His tenacity in acquiring the skill in archery is remarkable, but he restore to telling lies to Parshrurama in order to learn a particular skill. His dedication towards his ‘Guru’ is above question. It was due to his extreme devotion that he bears the pain, when an insect bites him and enters in his flesh. Ironically, this reveals his true identity and he is cursed by Parshurama.
He is always eager to prove his dedication towards Duryodhana. As Duryodhana hates the Pandavas, so Karna also imitates him. Imitation is the best form of flattery. It is out of this eagerness that he many times goes overboard in his hatred towards the Pandavas. Probably out of this hatred that he stoops to such a low level as calling Draupadi a slut and encourages Dushasana to pull at Draupadi’s sari. This was his most disgraceful and unchivalrous conduct. It was on the instigation of Karna that Dushasana started pulling at Draupadi’s sari. One of the indicators of nobility is how one treats those who are not in a position to hit back. Draupadi’s situation at that time was very pitiable. It was a quarrel within the family and Karna was an outsider, he should have refrained from passing comments on Draupadi.
Was it Karna’s anger against the dominating high cast that found vent in his outburst against Draupadi? History is full of the incidents of insult and violation inflicted on the women of enemy. Violation of women puts the male of the family to shame and disgrace. It is a proof of their failure to protect the women. Was Karna powering out his anger on Draupadi, which he had accumulated for many years against the higher caste?
If we study his life, we will understand that in spite of his superb capabilities he had been slighted and insulted. He had been punished by Parshurama. Bhishma and Dronacharya had contempt for him. Draupadi rejected him at the time of her ‘Swayamvara’, stating that she will not marry a son of ‘Suta’. One can imagine the hardships that he must have faced while rising high in life, fighting against the discrimination based on birth. The person who is deprived of love and respect in spite of the capacity will naturally feel attached to anyone who gives him due recognition and respect. Probably Duryodhana understood this and by embracing Karna made him his ally. Duryodhana’s friendship soothed the wounds inflicted on Karna by the ‘Varna conscious’ society.
Karna seems to be always eager to prove himself. He comes uninvited to the friendly contest between the princes and boldly challenges Arjuna. This indicates his burning desire to get acknowledged as an expert archer. In his charity also he seems to be impractical and wants to live up to his reputation even at the cost of his life.
Karna, though brought up as a son of ‘Suta’ Adhiratha was suddenly elevated to the high position of the king by Durodhana. This sudden change in the status opened new avenues of progress for Karna and he remained indebted to Duryodhana throughout his life. Though enjoying power and prestige, he must have experienced the discrimination of the contemporary society. It is due to this discrimination that he always feels need to prove and get recognize.He goes overboard to prove himself as a better Kshatriya than those who are born as a Kshatriya. Fighting a war and charity were the two expected noble qualities of a Kshatriya. Karna tries to excel at both. He is always eager to fight with Arjuna, probably the best archer living at that time. He strives hard to match Arjuna by acquiring different weapon. His pride of being a great warrior is deeply wounded when Bhishma categories him as ‘Ardhrathi’ i.e. a warrior of the third order, after Maharathi and Rathi. Karna was so hurt at this, that he refused to fight till the time Bhishma is in command.
Karna also donates his natural armor, though he knows that the final battle is not far away. His promise to Kunti that he will not kill any of her sons other than Arjuna is apparently noble, but here again he shows his contempt for the four of the Pandavas other than Arjuna. Here he was going into the war as a trusted ally of Durodhana but without the intention of killing Durodhana’s arch enemy Bhima. Sounds very strange! Is not it a betrayal to Duryodhana for the sake of personal glory? But probably this is how the human life and human nature is. Very strange and very complex! There is an eternal conflict within the human mind.
Karna’s charity and his chivalrous promise to Kunti display his nobility. But sometimes behind these acts seems to a lurking desire of acknowledgement. His chivalry also loses its shine when he participated in the slaying of lonely Abhimanyua.
Karna struggled for power and prestige throughout his life. At the end Krishna and Kunti offered him both if he joins with the Pandavas. But he refused. According to him this will be a betrayal to Duryodhana. He also fears that this will spoil his reputation. People will think that he had changed the sides out of fear of Krishna and Arjuna. This was an indicator of the goodness in Karna. Majority of us desire better life. However those who have some goodness in them will not take it at the cost of their values. To Krishna he also request that the information about his birth should not be disclosed to Udhishthir. He fears that the the good natured Udhishthir will refuse to fight and hand over everything to Karna and as Karna was under the obligation of Duryodhana, he will hand over everything to Duryodhana. He also acknowledges that Udhishthir is better suitable to become the King. Here Karna comes out at his best.
This sounds very noble, but from the other side Karna also seems to be the victim of the web that he had been weaving along with Duryodhana throughout his life. Karna always added fuel to the fire of hatred for the Pandvas, which Duryodhana carried in his heart. Karna was the important pillar of strength for Duryodhana. Having participated in the conspiracy and hatred for the Pandavas, Karna had to live up to his image as a mighty warrior and arch enemy of the Pandavas. He was aware that the Pandavas are going to succeed in the war, but he willingly embraced death. The death with honor than the life of ignobility.
One general lesson that we can learn from the life of Bhishma, Drona and karna is that taking favors from the evil minded person is very dangerous. It may trap us in a situation from where the escape becomes difficult.
Conclusion
The dilemma of what is good and bad is very confusing. It becomes difficult to define ‘Dharma’ i.e. righteous duty. Even the wise and experienced like Bhishma, Drona and mighty warrior like Karna seems to be bewildered by the notion of ‘Dharma’. Bhishma’s notion of ‘Dharma’ was blind and slavish adherence to the throne of Hastinapur. Karna’s was a fanatic devotion to Duryodhana. Both of them along with Drona propelled Duryodhana towards his destruction. They also carried themselves as well as many others towards destruction like dry leaves and dust is carried by the whirlwind. They appeared like a pawn in the hands of the cruel destiny, which clouded their vision and led them to the altar of sacrifice blindfolded. As the traditional saying goes,
“ Vinashkale wiprit buddhi”(Hindi)
(When the time of destruction comes, we lose our intellect)
There is a story of Rishi Kaushika in the ‘Karna Parva’ of Mahabharata, which make it clear that a person should use his common sense than blind adherence to the accepted code of morality. Once some people, who were chased by the robbers had taken shelter in the forest, where Rishi Kaushika was staying. When the robbers asked him if he had seen anybody entering in the forest. The Rishi spoke the truth as it was his principle to speak the truth. The hiding people were found out by the robbers and they were killed mercilessly. The Rishi was later on punished for this by the God for causing death of so many people.
This story is a very good example that one may justify his action of being good from one point of view, but it may not be the absolute truth. The transgressions in the Mahabharata have to be seen in a border context. We should not form our opinion about someone by an isolated incident. Sometimes circumstances propel a good person to transgress the limit of ‘Dharma’.
The author of the Mahabharata does not spare anybody for their transgression. Udhishthir had to spend some time in hale for the single half-truth that he spoke during the Great War. The Yadava clan of Krishna was destroyed by fighting among themselves. So the important lesson we can learn is that in a given situation one can opt for the best possible option. We have no control over the situations nor can we improvise the options. We have to select what is best out of the available and then we have to face the consequences as well, from which also there is no escape.
The reading of the Mahabharata sometimes generates a feeling that human endeavor is futile and we all are mere pawn in the hands of destiny. Probably everything is predetermined,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References-
1. S. Radhakrishnan, “The Bhagavadgita” HarperCollins, New Delhi, 2004.
2. ‘Mahabharata’, Gita press, Gorakhpur.( Hindi)
3. C. Rajgopalchari, ‘Mahabharata’, Bhavan’s, 2009.
4. ‘Janeshwari’, Sakhre, Nana Maharaj, Sarathi Prakashan, Pune,2001, ( Marathi)
4. Karve Irawati, ‘Yuganta’ , Disha Books,Hrderabad,2008.
5. Dinkar, ‘Rashmirathi’ Rajpal and Sons, N.Delhi, 2003.(Hindi)
6. Dinkar, ‘Kurushetra’ Lokbharati, Allahabad,2005. (Hindi)
7. Sharma TRS, ‘Reflections and variations on The Mahabharata’, Sahitya Akademi, 2009.
8. Das Gurcharan ‘ The difficulty of being good’ Penguin, N.Delhi 2009.
Acknowledgement for pictures (Web Sources)-
1. picasweb.google.com.
2. netra-creative-vision.blogspot.com.
4. shootfighter.wordpress.com.
5. subbanna.sulekha.com.
------------X------------
Submitted By-
Dr. Ravi Khangai
Asst. Prof. & HOD
Department of History
Ambedkar College, Fatikroy
Dist- North Tripura
Tripura-799290
E mail- ravikhangai@gmail.com
M- 9402168854
