King Bharat’s Dilemma vis-à-vis Pandavas Paradox

Exclusive to Vedic Management Center by U. Mahesh Prabhu

One of the common questions posed about the Mahabharata is, “How did Yudhishthira, Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva – who weren’t born to Panduall come to be known as Pandavas (sons of Pandu) and claim the throne of Hastinapur over legitimate 100 sons of Dhritarashtra (elder brother of Pandu?” This article answers this question in depth.

Critics of Vedic texts have often posed tough questions to those who claim to follow Vedic philosophy. Often, self-styled scholars of Vedic knowledge take their mythological interpretations of Vedic texts to ridiculous levels, making it difficult for rational people to comprehend their versions.

Vyasa’s Mahabharata is a consummate book of practical wisdom for blissful living. It was written to show people across all times a path of righteous living, or Dharma. It wasn’t meant for mere entertainment. It was neither science nor pulp fiction. It presented facts as it was, without melodrama. While creativity was used, it was for the sake of engaging the audience. And it was written in Sanskrit, a language which most “scholars” of “Hinduism” barely follow. Many admirers of Hinduism are essentially chauvinists who desire to believe what their minds chose to believe – scoptoma. “Blind allegiance to anything or person is sheer ignorance. And the “path of ignorance is verily a guide to Adharma,” said the revered sage Vasistha to then prince of Ayodhya, Rama.

One of the common questions posed about the Mahabharata is, “How did Yudhishthira, Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahadeva – who weren’t born to Panduall come to be known as Pandavas (sons of Pandu) and claim the throne of Hastinapur over legitimate 100 sons of Dhritarashtra (elder brother of Pandu?”

Going by the western perspective, the Pandavas could be interpreted as bastards since they were “…born of parents not married to each other.” Two of Pandu’s wives, Kunti and Madari – according to modern interpreters of the Mahabharata – begot their sons through “blessings” of “gods”. But, was that so? What if Pandu allowed his wives to have children out of wedlock and adopted the kids and brought them up as his own? What if Kunti and Madari did have “affairs”, like many people do? What if it was a custom as well as a tradition that was followed during the time? After all, the Mahabharata also claims that Vyasa was Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura’s father. Vyasa himself was born out of wedlock – through a union between Parashara and a fisherwoman named Matsyagandha. Matsyagandha was eventually named Satyavati. She married Shantanu after his son from his first wife Ganga, Devavrata (also known as Bhishma), promised Satyavati’s father he would never marry of have kids.

So, the Pandavas weren’t the first of their kind to be born out of wedlock. But, the question remains, “How did they claim the throne of Hastinapur?” Additionally, “How did the righteous Krishna support their claim and aid them in winning it through a bloody war?”

These questions are normal. When asked, there is no need for admirers of Vyasa’s Mahabharata to get upset. Most are unaware of the complete story of Mahabharata, since they have read the modern version, not the original one in Sanskrit.

At the beginning of Mahabharata is the story of Vishwamitra, who had a fling with a beautiful damsel named Menaka. Their affair led to the birth of Shakuntala. Disowned by her biological parents, she was brought up by yet another revered sage named Kanva. Shakuntala married King Dushyanta and had a son – again born of out of the modern concept of wedlock – Bharata. This sub-continent – or the land of Bharata – was named after him. King Bharata was an ancestor of the kings of the Kuru Dynasty, which ruled a great part of the subcontinent, with Hastinapur as their capital.

King Bharata had three wives and three sons with each of them – a total of nine children. Yet, when they came of age, he found all of them unfit to be his successors. He was concerned about the welfare of his subjects. A king is father to his subjects first, then his own. Kings’ favouritism towards their progeny often resulted in chaos. This can be seen in the Mahabharata, too. It was Dhritarashtra’s blind love for his sons that led to a violent war. When he was confronted by his sons and courtiers, he cited the Dharma Shastras, mentioning the definition of a father:

Janitaa Chopaneta Cha YastuVidyaam Prayaschati |

Annadaata Bhayatraata Cha Panchai Te Pitaraha Smrutaa ||

Meaning: Our biological father, one who initiates us into the world of education, one who gives us knowledge, who feeds us in times of need as well as the one who protects us from external enemies are our fathers.

A father is not a father just by his act of lust and transmission of his seed into a woman’s womb. We respect fathers more when they educate us, teach us something that lasts a life time; we respect fathers who provide for our sustenance and do everything in their power to protect us, particularly when we are least equipped and during our formative years.

King Bharata was supported in this radical step to pass the baton away from his son to a deserving successor by his Raja Guru Bharadwaja. It was Bharadwaja who helped Bharata find Bhumanyu, who eventually succeeded Bharata after his death.

We instantly connect with anyone who’s related to us by blood. Vedanta calls this mohamaaya – emotional cord – which makes us delusional. Kings are fathers to their subjects. The welfare of their subjects was beyond that of their own sons. It was called Raja Dharma, righteous duties of kings. If a son is unfit and elevated to the position of power only because of his royal lineage, a king is guaranteed to commit a blunder and bring disgrace to himself, while also destroying his people. The welfare of their people was above everything – including a king’s own life. To ensure the wellbeing of his subjects, Bharata’s renunciation of his children’s right to rule was revered by Vyasa as well as various other scholars, sages and seers of Vedic times.

Concerning the term “bastards”, it’s important to note that just because someone is born out of wedlock, it doesn’t mean that he’s unworthy of respect. We’ve so many bastards even in non-Vedic texts who’ve achieved substantially for themselves as well as their people.  

Many would be surprised to know that Confucius, Leonardo da Vinci, Thomas Paine and Lawrence of Arabia were born out of wedlock. Vedic literature identifies people by their own true conscious self (Atman) – it’s the business of the people to judge them based on their character and accomplishments, and not by their parents. Sins of father aren’t sins of their sons – so as their virtues. That’s the reason why the Vedas suggest, Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future, if only he can let go his path of sins.”

0 responses on "King Bharat’s Dilemma vis-à-vis Pandavas Paradox"

Leave a Message

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *