The Indian Hindu epic, the Mahabharata, offers the first written discussions of a "just war" (dharma-

yuddha or "righteous war"). In it, one of five ruling brothers (Pandavas) asks if the suffering caused by
war can ever be justified. A long discussion then ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria
like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots; no attacking people in
distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of rage), and fair
treatment of captives and the wounded.[9]

In Sikhism, the term dharamyudh describes a war that is fought for just, righteous or religious reasons,
especially in defence of one's own beliefs. Though some core tenets in the Sikh religion are understood
to emphasise peace and nonviolence, especially before the 1606 execution of Guru
Arjan by Mughal emperor Jahangir,[10] military force may be justified if all peaceful means to settle a
conflict have been exhausted, thus resulting in a dharamyudh.[11]

Ancient Greece and Rome[edit]

The notion of just war in Europe originates and is developed first in ancient Greece and then in
the Roman Empire.[13][14][15]

It was Aristotle who first introduced the concept and terminology to the Hellenic world that called war a
last resort requiring conduct that would allow the restoration of peace. Aristotle argues that the
cultivation of a military is necessary and good for the purpose of self-defense, not for conquering: "The
proper object of practising military training is not in order that men may enslave those who do not
deserve slavery, but in order that first they may themselves avoid becoming enslaved to others"
(Politics, Book 7).[16]

In ancient Rome, a "just cause" for war might include the necessity of repelling an invasion, or
retaliation for pillaging or a breach of treaty.[17] War was always potentially nefas ("wrong, forbidden"),
and risked religious pollution and divine disfavor.[18] A "just war" (bellum iustum) thus required a
ritualized declaration by the fetial priests.[19] More broadly, conventions of war and treaty-making were
part of the ius gentium, the "law of nations", the customary moral obligations regarded as innate and
universal to human beings.[20]
Just War Theory is an ethical framework used to determine when it is permissible to go to war. It
originated with Catholic moral theologians like Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, though it has
had a variety of different forms over time. Notable figures such as Erasmus and Hugo Grotius have also
contributed to its development. Just war theory provides the basis for exercising ‘ethical restraint’ in
war. Without restraint, philosopher Michael Ignatieff (2007), argues there is no way to tell the
difference between a ‘warrior’ and a ‘barbarian’. Today, Just War Theory is divided into three categories,
each with its own set of ethical principles. The categories are jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post
bellum. These Latin terms translate roughly as ‘justice towards war’, ‘justice in war’, and ‘justice after
war

Desiderius Erasmus is a Dutch humanist who was the greatest scholar of the northern Renaissance, the
first editor of the New Testament, and also an important figure in patristics and classical literature.
“Only by some effort of the historical imagination is it possible for those who are not professed
scholars and students to realize the enormous force which he was at a critical period in the history of
civilization. “( Mackail 1907). His work "Dulce Bellum Inexpertis" ("War is sweet to those who have not
experienced it") was published in 1515. This piece is a part of Erasmus' broader critique of war,
highlighting the naive enthusiasm for war among those who have never faced its horrors. It forms part
of his advocacy for peace and his criticism of the moral and ethical implications of warfare.

Erasmus is known for his strong pacifist stance, condemning war as incompatible with Christian values.
Despite his pacifism, Erasmus expresses doubt about the possibility of any war being just due to the
inherent self-interest of rulers. "No one could doubt his genuine hatred of war. But neither can it be
denied that his fear of internal dissension and revolution is equally overwhelming. And this is the
tangled web trapping would-be pacifists". (Fernandez 1973). He reluctantly admits that war might be
justified under certain conditions. "Perchance sometimes it is fitting for a prince to wage war; but only
when reduced to extreme need and if all other means have failed. Our Lord Jesus Christ took the
sword away from Peter, but not from the princes". This discussion falls Erasmus into the fold of those
thinkers who accept that war may under certain circumstances be just". (Fernandez 1973)

Jus ad Bellum (Justice of Going to War)

1. Just Cause: War should respond to serious wrongs, typically in self-defense or defending another
innocent nation. Erasmus outlines that war must be conducted with the right intention, and aimed at
the defense of public well-being and the safety of the state. "War, if it is to be war and not latrocinium,
must be waged with recta intentio and no thought for self-aggrandizement. Erasmus questions the
sanctity of claims and titles used to justify war, suggesting that peace should be prioritized even if it
means accepting an unjust peace over a just war.

2. Legitimate Authority: War needs legitimate declaration at the last resort. It must be declared by
recognized leaders following political requirements. A good prince should never go to war at all unless,
after trying every other means, he cannot possibly avoid it" It must be the last resort. War must always
be the last remedy, to be resorted to only when mediation and the utmost forebearance have utterly
failed" Erasmus as a thinker deeply troubled by war yet pragmatically accepting its necessity in extreme
cases, illustrating the enduring tension between pacifism and political realism in Christian ethics.
Grotius identifies three justifiable causes for war: self-defense, the recovery of property, and the
punishment of wrongs. Even if the right to go to war exists, Grotius emphasizes the necessity of
exercising moral restraint and moderation in deciding to go to war. Grotius, a dutch jurist of 16 th
century, stresses the importance of moderation and moral restraint in warfare, echoing the Erasmian
perspective that "warfare has no place among the useful arts" and should only be considered under
extreme necessity (Nelson 1985)

Jus in Bello (Justice in the Conduct of War)

1. Proportionality Both sides must use the minimum force necessary to achieve military aims. No
Intrinsically Unethical Means should be employed. Grotius argues for the conduct of war to be
moderated by natural law principles to ensure just actions during conflict. Grotius distinguishes
between what is permitted by the law of nations (jus gentium) and what is forbidden by natural law
(jus naturale), advocating for moderation to align them. (Nelson 1985)

2. Human Conduct on Civillians: Even if a war is prosecuted with moderation, Erasmus insists that it still
results in immense suffering and crimes. He emphasizes minimizing harm, especially to innocents.
"There is no war,…that will not carry in its wake an immense amount of crimes and calamities; and
these evils are always most grievously shared by innocent and harmless folk who never deserved to
be visited with such a plague" (Nelson) Only legitimate targets, not civilians, should be attacked. Civilian
casualties may be permissible if necessary and proportionate.

Jus Post Bellum (Justice After War)

1. End to hostilities: While not explicitly labeled as jus post bellum, Erasmus highlights the lasting
negative impacts of war, emphasizing the need to consider the aftermath and the suffering inflicted on
innocents. "More serious and equally frequent is the tyrannical ambition of some princes whose
passions find freedom and fulfillment in discord"

2. Prisoners treatment: Grotius emphasizes the humane treatment of prisoners and the rejection of
their enslavement, advocating for ethical conduct even during war【21:5†source】.

Moreover, Restore rights, property, and borders to pre-war conditions, though this can be problematic;
Bring serious offenders on both sides to justice; Compensate innocent victims as much as possible and
Ensure treaties are just for all parties involved.

TROJAN WAR
The concept of a just war has been a topic of philosophical and ethical debate throughout history. The
Trojan War, one of the most legendary conflicts in ancient history, serves as a significant case study for
analyzing the justness of war through different lenses: Jus ad Bellum criteria.

To determine the justness of the Trojan War, one must first understand its origins. The conflict began
when Paris, a Trojan prince, was enticed by the goddess Aphrodite with the promise of Helen, the most
beautiful woman in the world, as his wife. Helen, however, was already married to Menelaos, the
younger brother of Agamemnon, the King of the Achaeans. Paris's abduction of Helen incited Menelaos
to seek his brother's assistance in retrieving her, leading to the decade-long Trojan War.

JUS AD BELLUM

The principles of Jus ad Bellum provide a framework to evaluate whether a war is just. These principles
include: just cause, right intention, proper authority, last resort, probability of success, and
proportionality. Applying these criteria to the Greeks' actions, the just cause could be seen in their aim
to retrieve Helen, a legitimate grievance. However, their right intention is questionable since the
Greek forces were motivated by the prospect of looting Troy's riches. (Pearson 2015). Moreover At the
heart of the Iliad is the warrior's pursuit of *kleos* (glory). This pursuit is exemplified by
Achilles, whose martial prowess and desire for recognition drive much of the plot. It is the place, as
Homer says, "where men win glory." Like the heroes fighting the war,
Achilleus soon realizes that his dispute transcends the question of the
theft of a woman and involves fundamental issues of heroic honor.
(Bartlett 2007)

Proper authority and public declaration were satisfied, as Agamemnon and Menelaos were legitimate
rulers. Agamemnon, as the leader of the Greek coalition, declares war on Troy after diplomatic efforts
fail. He represents legitimate authority within the Greek context: "Agamemnon, he of the mighty heart,
/ King of kings, that overlorded all / The host of Argos." (Book II) However, his authority is challenged,
we are not all of us of one mind with thee; thyself hast wrought the beginning of this quarrel." The
Greeks did attempt negotiations before resorting to war, thus meeting the last resort criterion. They
had a reasonable chance of success given their formidable allies, such as Odysseus and Achilles.

Examining the Trojan side under Jus ad Bellum, several conditions remain unmet. Paris's initial act of
taking Helen lacks just cause, primarily driven by personal desire rather than a defensive necessity.
Priam, the Trojan king, had the authority to command Helen's return but chose not to, indirectly leading
to war. The probability of success for the Trojans was slim against the superior Greek forces, and the
expected losses were disproportionate to the cause. Consequently, the Trojan side also fails to satisfy
the Jus ad Bellum criteria for a just war. The war's primary motives—pride and greed—are considered
sinful, making the conflict unjust by Christian doctrine. (Victoria Pearson 2015)

JUS AD BELLO

he conduct of war in the Iliad involves intense battles and strategies aimed at achieving military
objectives, often resulting in significant casualties on both sides. While rules of engagement and honor
are observed to some extent, the sheer scale and brutality of the conflict suggest a lack of
proportionality. Bernard Knox notes this aspect, “ Both by humans and gods in
the *Iliad*, barbarity of war is routinely accepted and executed.”
(1991) The description of
Patroclus killing Thestor:
he flung a rock and it struck between his eyes
and the man's whole skull split in his heavy helmut,
Achilles captures 12 Trojan men whom he will sacrifice on Patroclus's pyre – again, even by the
standards of The Iliad, a horrific act; today, we would call it a war crime. T he siege of Troy
undoubtedly brought suffering to non-combatants, illustrating the broader consequences of armed
conflict: "Trojans and Greeks were mixed in strife, nor knew one another at the first, for all was hidden
in smoke, and night rushed down from heaven." (Book VIII)

- IPHIGENIA

JUS POST BELLO

End to Hostilities: The Iliad ends before the war's resolution, focusing on the climax of the conflict
rather than its aftermath. However, the lasting impact of war on both Greek and Trojan societies is
hinted at, suggesting prolonged suffering and upheaval. While some honor is shown to fallen warriors,
the fate of prisoners is often tied to the fortune of war and individual heroism.

Hector recognizes this test of humanity before he is slain. He

says to Achilles:
I beg you, beg you by your life, your parents -
don't let the dogs devour me—
But give my body to friends to carry home

Of course, Achilles is having none of it. After killing Hector, Achilles proceeds to desecrate the body .
Having strung Hector to his chariot, Achilles proceeds to "haul him three times around Patroclus's
tomb;" and then keeps the corpse in this degraded state for good measure while Patroclus's funeral is
being prepared. This outrages the gods even as Burgess (2003) says, “ Achilles dishonoring Hector can
be paralleled in modern discussions about the respect due to combatants and non-combatants in war,
underscoring that even in the brutality of war, there are lines that when crossed, evoke a universal
sense of outrage”

Spoils of the war – crises, brises, Cassandra

In conclusion, both Jus ad Bellum criteria and Christian ethical standards deem the Trojan War unjust.
The Greeks, although partially meeting some criteria, ultimately fought for selfish gains. The Trojans, on
the other hand, defended an indefensible act without proper justification. Pride and greed drove both
sides, making the war sinful and unjustifiable from both ethical perspectives.
Hinduism is based on a concept known as dharma. The essence of dharma is the distinction between
good, supporting the cosmic order, and evil, which poses a threat to this order.

However, when it came to fighting a war certain laws of war had to be observed. A ruler or a king
who did not observe the laws of war had no place in the galaxy of virtuous and victorious kings. As
are the laws of war in modern international law, the laws of war in Hinduism were designed to make
the conduct of war as humane as possible. The Hindu laws of war included rules to ensure that
warfare was conducted in a fair manner and by open means. The rules governed issues ranging from
general prohibition on the use of weapons that caused unnecessary pain or more suffering than was
indispensable to overcoming the enemy to the treatment of enemy property and persons in conquered
territory. The essence of the Hindu laws of war was to prohibit inequality in fighting and to protect
those who exhibit helplessness. If the modern laws of war were to require that when war breaks out
fighting must be conducted on the basis of ‘like with like’ or by using like weapons, it would not
only minimise the impact of war but would also deter aggression and make war more humane. The
world would be a better place to live in if the modern laws of war based on the Geneva Conventions
were to incorporate some of the rules of Hindu laws of war.

MAHABHARATA

To comprehensively evaluate the war in the Mahabharata through Erasmus' Just War Theory, we should
include specific instances of adharma (unrighteous acts) such as the disrobement of Draupadi and other
unethical actions by the Kauravas. Additionally, we will assess the conflict according to the three
traditional criteria of just war theory: jus ad bellum (justice of war), jus in bello (justice in war), and jus
post bellum (justice after war).

Jus ad Bellum (Justice of War)

The Pandavas have a just cause in seeking to reclaim their rightful kingdom and restore dharma after
being deceitfully deprived of it. The Kauravas, especially Duryodhana, repeatedly attempt to kill the
Pandavas, including the plot to burn them alive in the house of lac. Purochana, the agent of
Duryodhana, had the house built with highly inflammable materials These attempts on their lives
further highlight the Kauravas' disregard for righteousness. The Kauravas, particularly Shakuni,
deceitfully manipulate the game of dice to strip the Pandavas of their kingdom and wealth. This act of
cheating undermines the principles of fair play and justice. The dice were loaded, and Yudhishthira lost
everything: his kingdom, his wealth, his brothers, and finally himself and Draupadi.” One of the most
egregious acts of adharma is the public disrobement of Draupadi by Dushasana, instigated by
Duryodhana, after Yudhishthira loses her in a game of dice. Dushasana caught her by the hair and
dragged her forward…Dushasana, laughing, began to pull at her sari.” This act is a severe violation of
her dignity and honor and exemplifies the moral depravity of the Kauravas. The disrobement of
Draupadi and other injustices perpetrated by the Kauravas further justify their cause.

Yudhishthira, as the eldest Pandava and legitimate heir to the throne, has the authority to
declare war. Krishna’s guidance, viewed as divine, also legitimizes their cause. “Yudhishthira spoke with
determination, ‘We have been wronged. It is our duty to restore dharma and reclaim our rightful
place.’” The primary intention of the Pandavas, especially Yudhishthira, is to establish justice and moral
order. However, personal vengeance (e.g., Bhima's vow to kill Duryodhana and Dushasana: “Bhima
swore, ‘I will drink Dushasana’s blood and smash Duryodhana’s thigh,’”) complicates the purity of their
intentions.

All peaceful alternatives, including negotiations and compromise, are exhausted before the war
is declared. Despite Krishna’s diplomatic efforts to secure peace by asking for just five villages for the
Pandavas, Duryodhana's obstinate refusal even to part with a needlepoint of land underscores his
unrighteousness and intransigence. The obstinate refusal of Duryodhana to any settlement justifies the
war as a last resort. “Duryodhana arrogantly rejected the offer of five villages... ‘I will not yield to
them as much land as could be covered by the point of a needle,’ he declared.” The Pandavas, with
their military prowess and Krishna's strategic advice, have a reasonable chance of success. This criterion
is met, ensuring the war is not a futile endeavor. “With Krishna’s strategy and their own prowess, the
Pandavas believed they could triumph.”

Jus in Bello (Justice in War)

Some actions during the war, such as the killing of unarmed warriors or attacks on non-combatants,
violate proportionality. For instance, the killing of Abhimanyu and the night raid on the Pandava camp
are examples of excessive and unjust violence. After the war, Yudhishthira walked through the
battlefield, seeing the carnage, and questioned whether the price of victory was too high.”

The code of conduct observed by the warriors, such as not attacking after sunset and honoring
individual duels, aligns with the principle of discrimination. However, instances of violations, like the
unethical killing of Bhishma and Drona, undermine this criterion. “Surrounded and attacked unfairly,
Abhimanyu fell. It was a moment of great injustice.” The warriors followed certain codes, but
moments of treachery, such as the killing of Bhishma and Drona, stained the battle’s honor.”

Jus Post Bello (Justice after War)

 - The Pandavas strive to restore dharma and justice post-war, with Yudhishthira's rule aimed at
righteous governance. The eventual crowning of Yudhishthira symbolizes the establishment of a just
and moral order. “Yudhishthira ascended the throne, determined to rule with justice and
righteousness.”

Efforts to heal the wounds of war and reconcile with the survivors, including the Kauravas'
family members, are seen. However, the scale of loss and the deep scars left by the war complicate
complete reconciliation. Despite their victory, the Pandavas faced the daunting task of reconciling
with the remnants of the Kaurava family and rebuilding the kingdom.”

HINDUISM Accordingly, the preservation of good at the cost of a war was justified in ancient Vedic
society. However, unlike the Christian concept of ‘crusade’ or ‘bellum justissimum’ and its counterpart
‘Jihad’ in Islam, there is no justification in Hinduism for any war against foreigners or people of other
faiths. The concept of dharma in its original sense means the maintenance of peace and security
through the law and order within the larger cosmic order. Thus, the concept of just war in Hinduism is
against the evil characters of the day, whether national or alien. It is based on right and wrong and on
justice and injustice in the everyday life of all mortals, whether Hindus or non ‐Hindus. Unlawful and
unjust actions, e.g. the denial of the rights to which one was entitled, gave rise to just wars.

Just war

The Mahābhārata offers one of the first instances of theorizing about dharmayuddha, "just war",
illustrating many of the standards that would be debated later across the world. In the story, one of five
brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified. A long discussion ensues between the
siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality (chariots cannot attack cavalry, only other chariots; no
attacking people in distress), just means (no poisoned or barbed arrows), just cause (no attacking out of
rage), and fair treatment of captives and the wounded.[69]

ALLEN (2006)

SUBEDI (2003)

Sharma (2023)
 SIGNIFICANCE OF NAMING MAHABHARATA
The Indian epic known as the Mahabharata was originally named "Jaya." The transition from "Jaya" to
"Mahabharata" and the significance of "maha" in this context are rooted in the evolution of the epic
itself and its increasing scope, complexity, and cultural significance.

1. Jaya: The Original Name

- The epic was initially called "Jaya Sanhita," meaning "victory" or "triumph." This name is attributed to
the work of the sage Vyasa, who is traditionally credited with composing the core of the epic. "Jaya"
consisted of 8,800 verses and focused primarily on the battle between the Kauravas and the Pandavas,
encapsulating the themes of dharma (duty/righteousness) and the moral dilemmas faced by the
characters.

2. Bharata: The Expanded Version

- As the narrative was handed down through generations, it expanded significantly. It grew from "Jaya"
to "Bharata," incorporating more stories, genealogies, and teachings.

- "Bharata" had 24,000 verses and covered a broader spectrum of the ancient Indian landscape,
weaving in the history and legends of the Bharata dynasty, of which the Kauravas and Pandavas were a
part.

3. Mahabharata: The Great Epic

- Eventually, the epic evolved into the "Mahabharata," meaning "Great Bharata." This final form
consists of approximately 100,000 verses, making it one of the longest epics in world literature.

- The addition of "maha" (meaning "great" or "grand") signifies the immense scale and grandeur of the
epic. It reflects not only the expanded content but also the epic’s comprehensive nature, encompassing
various aspects of life, philosophy, politics, and spirituality.

Significance of "Maha"
This work opens the eyes of the world blinded by ignorance. As the sun dispels darkness, so does
Bharata by its exposition of religion, duty, action, contemplation, and so forth. As the full moon by
shedding soft light helps the buds of the lotus to open, so this Purana by its exposition expands the
human intellect. The lamp of history illumines the 'whole mansion of the womb of Nature.'
-Vyasa
1. Vastness: The term "maha" underscores the epic's vast scope, both in terms of its narrative and its
thematic complexity. It covers a wide range of human experiences, from individual struggles and family
conflicts to cosmic and divine interactions. The Mahābhārata is the longest epic poem known and has
been described as "the longest poem ever written". Its longest version consists of over 100,000 śloka or
over 200,000 individual verse lines (each shloka is a couplet), and long prose passages. At about
1.8 million words in total, the Mahābhārata is roughly ten times the length of the Iliad and
the Odyssey combined, or about four times the length of the Rāmāyaṇa. Within the Indian tradition it is
sometimes called the fifth Veda. The Mahabharata is an incredibly vast epic, consisting of 18 books or
Parvas, with over 200,000 verses. It is one of the longest epic poems in the world and covers a wide
range of topics including mythology, history, philosophy, and moral teachings.

2. Story of the Kurukshetra War: At its core, the Mahabharata revolves around the epic Kurukshetra
War fought between two factions of the Kuru dynasty, the Pandavas and the Kauravas. The war is a
culmination of a complex and intricate plot involving political rivalry, family disputes, and moral
dilemmas. Alf Hiltebeitel (1999), "The Kurukshetra War in the Mahabharata represents not only a
climactic battle but also a moral and ethical watershed. It serves as a canvas on which the epic's
profound themes of duty, righteousness, and the consequences of actions are vividly portrayed."

3. Characters: The Mahabharata is renowned for its rich and diverse cast of characters. The main
characters include the five Pandava brothers (Yudhishthira, Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula, and Sahadeva), their
common wife Draupadi, and the Kaurava brothers led by Duryodhana. Other notable characters include
Lord Krishna, the supreme deity who acts as a guide and advisor, and Bhishma, the wise and honorable
patriarch. Wendy Doniger (2009) notes, "The Mahabharata's characters are more than mere players in
a narrative; they embody complex moral and psychological dimensions. Each character, from the
virtuous Yudhishthira to the enigmatic Krishna and the tragic Karna, symbolizes different facets of
human existence and moral dilemmas."

4. Moral and Philosophical Teachings: The Mahabharata offers profound moral, ethical, and
philosophical teachings. It explores various themes such as righteousness (dharma), duty, loyalty, the
consequences of actions, and the nature of good and evil. The dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna in
the Bhagavad Gita, a section of the Mahabharata, delves into deep philosophical concepts. Sarbadhikary
(2015) argues that the Mahabharata's portrayal of dharma and karma reflects a sophisticated
understanding of ethical dilemmas and existential truths, making it a timeless philosophical
masterpiece." It was all fated thus," replied Krishna. "This was all the consequence of your sons'
karma.

5. Bhagavad Gita: The Bhagavad Gita, considered a philosophical and spiritual treasure, is a significant
part of the Mahabharata. It is a conversation between Prince Arjuna and Lord Krishna on the
battlefield of Kurukshetra, where Krishna imparts profound wisdom and guidance to Arjuna regarding
his moral dilemmas and life's purpose. Vivekananda (1899) remarked, "The Bhagavad Gita's inclusion
within the Mahabharata is not just a philosophical discourse but a profound dialogue on the nature of
existence and the paths to spiritual enlightenment. It remains a timeless guide to navigating life's
challenges with wisdom and inner strength."

6. The Code of Conduct: The Mahabharata reflects the complex social and ethical codes of ancient
Indian society. It explores the intricate dynamics of family, society, and politics, highlighting the
importance of upholding one's duties and responsibilities in various roles such as kings, warriors,
brothers, and spouses. Maha" also denotes the epic's profound cultural and religious significance. The
Mahabharata is not just a story but a sacred text, offering insights into Hindu beliefs, rituals, and the
principles of dharma. t also contains philosophical and devotional material, such as a discussion of the
four "goals of life" or puruṣārtha. It is your duty to rule and enjoy. support the poor, support sacrifices,
and maintain God's justice as a ruler.

7. Divine Interventions: Throughout the Mahabharata, numerous gods, demigods, and celestial
beings interact with mortal characters, influencing their actions and the course of events. These divine
interventions showcase the interconnectedness of the mortal and divine realms. Kees Bolle (1979)
observes, "The Mahabharata's incorporation of divine interventions underscores its vision of a
universe where gods and mortals interact, influencing each other's destinies. These celestial
interactions serve as a reminder of the interconnectedness of spiritual and earthly realms. Arjuna
immediately answered, "You must be on my side, even if you do not fight. I do not want the million
soldiers.

8. Lessons through Stories and Subplots: The Mahabharata is not solely focused on the Kurukshetra
War but also includes numerous subplots and stories. These narratives, such as the story of Ekalavya,
Karna's tragic tale, and the tales of the Pandavas' adventures during their exile, offer valuable lessons
and insights into human nature, virtues, and vices. The epic includes detailed genealogies, sub-stories,
philosophical discourses (such as the Bhagavad Gita), and moral dilemmas, making it an encyclopedic
compilation of ancient Indian knowledge and wisdom. Among the principal works and stories in
the Mahābhārata are the Bhagavad Gita, the story of Damayanti, the story of Shakuntala, the story
of Pururava and Urvashi, the story of Savitri and Satyavan, the story of Kacha and Devayani, the story
of Rishyasringa and an abbreviated version of the Rāmāyaṇa, often considered as works in their own
right.

9. Cultural Significance: The Mahabharata has played a vital role in shaping Indian culture, traditions,
and values. It has inspired countless adaptations, interpretations, and artistic representations across
different art forms, including literature, theater, dance, music, and visual arts. Ramanujan (1991) states,
"The Mahabharata's profound influence on Indian culture is evident in its pervasive presence across
literature, art, and performance traditions. Its enduring themes and characters continue to inspire
diverse interpretations and artistic expressions, shaping the cultural identity of the Indian
subcontinent." Krishna distributed presents to the Pandavas: severa measures of gems, gold, and
robes, and a large number of female slaves. (Grand and pompous way)

10. Relevance and Timelessness: Despite being composed thousands of years ago, the Mahabharata
remains highly relevant today. Its exploration of complex human emotions, moral dilemmas, and ethical
choices resonates with people across cultures and generations, making it a timeless epic with enduring
lessons. Quarrels and differences of opinion have their place even in heaven among the gods. When
this is so, what is wrong if, in our human society too, there are also differ- ences and fights

Without piercing, no fisherman can ever succeed in catching a fish. Without slaughter noth- ing can be
achieved. Those among the gods who are fierce are most respected-Rudra, Skanda, Agni, and Varuna
are all slaughterers. All people quail before them.

I see no creature in this world that supports life without injuring an- other. Animals live upon animals,
the stronger upon the weaker. The cat devours the mouse, the dog devours the cat, the dog is eaten
by the leopard, and all things again are devoured by Death. Even ascetics can never support their lives
without killing creatures. In water, on earth and vegetables there are many lives which are minute
and invisible, but they are killed when the ascetic takes his nourishment.

The transition from "Jaya" to "Mahabharata" reflects the epic's growth from a relatively concise war
story to an extensive and multifaceted text of great significance. The addition of "maha" emphasizes the
epic's grandeur, depth, and comprehensive nature, encapsulating its role as a monumental literary and
cultural masterpiece in the Indian tradition.

- He agreed readily but added, "On the condi- tion that the son born to her will be your successor."
- This rare being, Yudhistira, engaged himself in an un wholesome game, steeped himself in it, staked
everything- including Draupadi-at the instigation of the wily Sakuni.

- The god responded. As one piece of garment was un- wound and pulled off, another appeared in its
place, and another, and another, endlessly

Rao(1981)

Lath (1982)

Mora (2005)

Mohanty (2005)
 SIGNIFICANCE OF DHRITARASHTRAS BLINDNESS
A central character of Indian epic, The Mahabharatha is the blind king Dhritarashtra, who is largely
viewed in a negative light. In fact, it is because of his ambition to crown his son Duryodhana as king as
opposed to his more deserving nephew Yudistira that the epic battle between the cousins- the Kauravas
and Pandavas was fought. Dhritarashtra becomes a metaphor for the whole dilemma of The
Mahabharata, and Dhritarashtra the blind king seemed to have ruled over a kingdom or people who
were also affected by this mental blindness, which in turn leads to ethical paralysis. (Jamuna 2021)

Literal Blindness:
Dhritarashtra's blindness was a physical limitation from birth, a result of his mother Ambika
closing her eyes in fear during conception by Ved Vyasa.This physical blindness was used as a primary
reason by Vidur and others to argue against his suitability as a king, citing that a ruler must see the plight
of his people and lead them in battle.

Vidur and Bhishma opposed his coronation because they believed a blind king could not
effectively protect the kingdom or gain the people's trust. Despite his strength and desire to rule,
Dhritarashtra's blindness was seen as a major impediment, leading to his feelings of insecurity and
rejection. His sense of incompleteness is highlighted when he "was denied in front of everyone and
was stated incomplete to be a king according to dharma".

Dhritarashtra's blindness serves as a symbol for the struggle between dharma (righteousness)
and adharma (unrighteousness). His life illustrates how turning a blind eye to adharma, even
unintentionally, can lead to significant harm. The paper questions whether it was fair to deny
Dhritarashtra kingship based on his blindness, juxtaposing physical limitations against moral and ethical
blindness. The contrast between physical sight and moral insight is used to question what truly makes a
good ruler. The paper notes, "Was it dharma or adharma that happened to Dhritarashtra? Though he
was as strong as he could defeat over thousands of elephants he was denied in front of everyone.
When Pandu died due to a curse, he was approached by Bhishma to be the king! Now dharma doesn’t
say anything about him being blind?" (Jetir 2018)

When Gandhari came to know that Dhritarashtra was blind from birth she decided to be blind
fold for rest of her life to share grieve and sufferings of her husband. But Dhritarashtra felt insulted and
offended. He was annoyed to an extent that he didn’t accept her as his wife. Gandhari was beautiful,
righteous, ethical and she was trained in Kshatriya arts. She made a huge sacrifice of being blind fold
but, she was not understood rather she was insulted and pained for her sacrifice. When people are in
any of relationship they always tend to change the other person rather than understanding them.
Dhritarashtra didn’t try to understand her sacrifice.

Metaphorical Blindness:
“Dhritarashtra’s blindness becomes metaphorical, suggestive of his inability to judge between right
and wrong.” (Jamuna 2021)
1. Emotional Blindness:

His excessive love and indulgence for his children, particularly Duryodhan, blinded him to the ethical and
moral implications of their actions. Dhritarashtra's inability to see beyond his emotional attachment
resulted in poor decisions, furthering the family's and kingdom's downfall. Inspite of realising that
Duryodhana has taken the side of falsehood and injustice, he as the king, refuses to see the truth.
Dhritarashtra’s blindness is not a case of mere physical blindness; it is actually a reference to his
failure to see the ‘Truth’ of Duryodhana’s wickedness.(Jamuna 2021) He was not only blind, but he was
blinded by his love for his son to see the truth as it emerged and act in an impartial and objective way.

Dhritarashtra was upset. Immediately he sent for his son Duryodhana and questioned him. "I learn
that you have grown pale, and some worry is gnawing you inside. Tell me what it is. We will make you
happy again.

When he heard of the Hall of Marbles at Indraprastha, he decided to build one for Duryodhana
immediately.

2. Blindness to Injustice:

- Dhritarashtra often turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of his sons, especially Duryodhan. His inability
to discipline or guide them properly contributed to their immoral actions. This metaphorical blindness to
the faults and wrongdoings within his family led to numerous injustices, including the attempted
murder of the Pandavas and the humiliation of Draupadi.

Trying to burn

Shakuni and Dhuryodhan planned to kill all Pandavas including kunti by burning them alive with the help
of purochana. Purochana was a trusted associate of Dhuryodhan and an architect. Dhritarashtra was
also involved in it and he sends them to Varanavat. He had already decided, on the advice of
Duryodhana, to send Yudhistira to a place named Varanavata, at a safe distance from the capital
It was because of Vidhur the Pandavas escaped at right time.

The Game of Dice

The fateful game of dice, orchestrated by Shakuni and Duryodhana, marked a turning point in
Dhritarashtra’s life. The Pandavas lost their kingdom, wealth, and honor, leading to their thirteen-year
exile. Draupadi, the wife of the Pandavas, faced humiliation in court, exposing Dhritarashtra’s failure to
intervene despite counsel from Gandhari. Though surrounded by dissenting voices, Dhritarashtra’s
attachment to his son clouded his judgment. Dhuryodhan orders Dushasan to drag her into the court
and undress in front of everyone. Dhritarashtra being the king could have stopped this bad incident but
he decided to be silent. He was blinded by the love for his children.

At this point, Vidura said to Dhritarashtra, "This has gone too far. Stop it, and if you are not obeyed,
get that jackal in our midst, your son, destroyed.
All right, I will leave now," he stated. "You are fickle minded and partial to this jackal in your family....
Dhritarashta remained silent.
The Kurukshetra War

As the Kurukshetra War loomed, Krishna attempted to mediate peace between the Kauravas and
Pandavas, only to face opposition from Duryodhana. Dhritarashtra, unwilling to witness the massacre of
his kin, received a divine vision through his charioteer, Sanjaya. Though initially rejoicing in the Kaurava
camp’s victories, Dhritarashtra’s joy turned to despair as he witnessed the tragic demise of his sons and
grandsons.

Advise me properly, Vidura. What course should I adopt now, in justice to the Pandavas and beneficial
to the Kauravas?
Disown Duryodhana and you will be happy." Dhritarashtra, somehow, did not mind this advice, but
changed the topic.

When confronted by Vidura, the wise one, about his inability to stop the war, Dhritarashtra says;
“Vidhura, try to understand I was born blind, how could I have discerned the real world or recognized
the social codes”.

Dhritarashtra’s metaphorical blindness reflects a broader societal issue where parents fail to discipline
their children, leading to larger problems. The narrative encourages self-awareness and ethical vigilance,
urging individuals to recognize and address wrongdoings rather than ignore them. Dhritarashtra
accepted everything his children wanted but he couldn’t become a proper father, he didn’t teach
them what is wrong and right rather he just kept watching his children turn in to demons.

3. Consequences of Ignorance:

- The narrative shows how Dhritarashtra's metaphorical blindness had disastrous consequences. His
failure to act justly and his reluctance to prevent his children's wrongdoings led to the catastrophic war
of Kurukshetra. Even after the war, his grief and realization came too late to reverse the damage caused
by his earlier blindness to moral and ethical responsibilities.

Crushing of Bhima’s Metal Statue

But while greeting Bhima, Dhritarashtra remembers the death of his children and he tries to kill him. But
Krishna senses his evil thought and replaces bhima with the metal statue that was used by duryodhana
for practice. Dhritarashtra crushed the metal statue into pieces and broke down into tears This act
symbolized his release from anger and resentment, leading to a heartfelt reconciliation with the
Pandavas.

His story is a lesson in leadership and the qualities essential for a ruler. It underscores the
importance of vision—not just physical sight but also the ability to perceive and act upon moral truths.
The paper suggests that true blindness lies in the failure to uphold dharma and justice, more so than in
the lack of physical sight.

The story of Dhritarashtra serves as a cautionary tale of blind ambition and the destructive
consequences it can unleash. Dhritarashtra’s inability to overcome his attachment to power and his
biased favoritism towards his own children ultimately led to the downfall of his dynasty.
In essence, Dhritarashtra's blindness in the paper is not just a physical attribute but a powerful
metaphor for moral and ethical shortcomings. It serves as a critical lens through which the
consequences of ignoring dharma and indulging in emotional biases are examined.