Mahabharat, Karna and Paanchali

Mahabharat has always interested me more than any other mythology or so called religious texts. Every Sunday, I would sit and watch the TV series religiously.. But then so did the rest of the country. But the only religious part in it Bhagwat Gita - i only know the bare part of it. Enough to continue the story but no knowledge learnt. Infact I didnt learn anything from Mahabharat. Or may be I did. That nobody was perfect. Everybody made mistakes. Even the winners - Pandavas and they suffered from the war and its destruction as much as the kauravas did. Perhaps thats what was fascinating. This layers and layers of stories and back-stories all showing a side of humans and alleged gods. The good, the bad and the ugly. That inspite of the fact that Pandavas won, they were not gods. The heroes were not perfect.

But reading another version of Mahabharat, I found that the traditional version leaves out so much. It explains the actions but with emphasis on its consequences rather than the complex emotions and causes behind it. How do the characters feel? Sure we read about Kauravas' jealousy and malice, Arjun's indecision at the start of the war and Yudhistar's shame at the lie he was forced to tell. But what about the undercurrents... was Drithrastra more to blame than just the mere overindulgence of his sons and turning a blind eye (pun unintended??) to their faults, how did kunti really feel, did Gandhari really blind herself for her husband or to withdraw from the world which had deceived her, and most importantly.. wat about Karna.. the son who was never recognised, the warrior who was not given the pleasure of battle when he challenged, who was insulted by everyone publicly, decieved by the God who wanted to protect his own son, befriended by a person who finally put him against his brothers. Karna had moral codes... did he hesitate at the selfishness of Duryodhan though he was overcome by the friendship extended to him when he was alone. He has been guilty mainly for being in the wrong side of the war. But then fierce loyalty has been the cause of so much in Mahabharat. Loyalty to their brother meant that the Panadava brothers watched in silence as they and their wife was gambled away and then humiliated. Loyalty to their mother meant they shared a wife as you might share a commodity. Bheeshma's loyalty to his own word meant he couldnt marry Amba and that he would have to side with the Kauravas against Pandavas whom he loved more and believed to have the just cause. Did the Pandavas acknowledge that he was a great warrior and a man who kept his word before they found out that he was their brother? These are interesting characters but they would be even more interesting if their personalities were explored more.

Another character who interests me is Paanchali - how did she feel being married to five men and rotated among them or being gambled away. But when I read 'The Palace of Illusions' - Mahabharat as told by Paanchali, I felt a little disturbed (though I got over it by the time the book finished). I dont know what it was exactly. Was it that the book explored the possibility of feelings of Paanchali towards Karna and vice versa? I dont think so. Or maybe it was that even after being married for so long, she couldnt fall in love with even one of her husbands. But then can one really blame her. Pandavas werent exactly lovable people- they were arrogant, self-righteous, momma's boys. I think I wasnt prepared for the malice, cruelty and vengeance in the thoughts and motives of Paanchali. I wasnt prepared for the friction-filled relationship between Kunti and Paanchali. Though when I think about it, considering that I like Mahabharat mainly because nobody was perfect, why should I be surprised that the women werent perfect either especially Paanchali whose impulsive actions were held to be the cause of the Great War? Or maybe I always imagined that the imperfections were due to the circumstances she had to undergo. But perhaps she was born with jealousy, anger and other human failings. Was I conditioned to believe that women of those times were virtuous and perfect daughter, wife and mother?

PS: I have always wondered why the curses came true. Why was the power to curse given to people who were short tempered and who let it flow freely without even considering why the person acted in the way that they did?

God and Religion

Would I have believed in God if there was no religion?
Seems a little odd but if you think about it, not really.. God and religion are two different beliefs and this concept should not be difficult to understand given the number of religions existing. Imagine that there was no religious superstition and the utter nonsense that is/was being preached. Maybe I would have believed in a divine being if it were not for the trappings of rules of behaviour necessarily attached to it and used for the profit of certain hypocritical class of people and advocating the oppression of others. Maybe the concepts of nature and luck could have been attributed to this divine being and it could be comforting to believe that there was a superior being in this chaos world.

Maybe not. I would still need a justification for believing in the existence of such a being and I see none. I dont believe that god created the world or that He/She controls our destiny and I definately dont believe in any form of heaven/hell and Judgment Day. And I think it would be more discomforting to believe that this chaotic world is existing with the superior being than without it. And as far as I can remember, my athiesm was not a reaction to the religion. It was probably there before my reasoning abilities kicked in.