4.

6 Leader, Teacher, and Envoy: Kṛṣṇa in the

"Udyogaparvan'
In the preceding sections of this chapter, we have outlined the rise of Krsna from a cowherd boy to a
powerful diplomat with a demigod status, mostly on the basis of sources outside the Mahabharata as well
as stray references in the text itself. However, Krsna emerges as the central diplomatic figure, with the
authority expected of a vasudeva, in the Mahabharata narrative in the fifth book, the 'Udyogaparvan. The
book deals with the deliberations over the upcoming war in the Kuru and the Pandava-Päñcăla camps,
which encompass larger debates regarding militant and pacifist ways of life. Krsna, no longer concerned
only with the issues of the Yadava-Vrsni ganasamgha, came up with the most esteemed voice in those
debates, showing the rise of his stature both as a diplomat and as an ideologue. The new philosophy
propounded by Krsna, merely indicated by some of the episodes discussed earlier and eventually
crystallizing in the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gità, also had their first thorough and mature exposition
in the 'Udyogaparvan. In this section, we shall focus on this particular book, immensely important for
under- standing the position the itihasa takes in a time of transition.

The Udyogaparvan' began in a festive atmosphere, but the mood of the book is hardly festive. The
Pandavas finished their exile and masquerade and revealed their identities to Viräça, the king of Matsya.
In the cattle raid that unveiled the identities of the Pandavas, Arjuna proved in an open skirmish that he
was capable enough to take on the mighty Kuru army. Virața decided to go for an alliance with the
Pandavas, which he ensured by marrying off his daughter Uttara to Abhimanyu. However, the marriage
gathering soon turned into a diplomatic conference where the Pandavas, the Pañcalas, the Matsyas, and
the Yadavas sat down to decide their next course of action.

Right from this initial assembly, the 'Udyogaparvan' presents several ethical dilemmas. After fulfilling their
commitment about the exile, what should the Pandavas do? Did they not deserve their share of the
kingdom back? What if Duryodhana refused to return it? One solution was war. But that would involve
killing of numerous people, including own kinsmen. So, which one was better between war and peace?
Peace and non-violence were eternal virtues. It was a ksatriya's duty to fight for his property. Which one
between one's caste duty and the eternal dharma was to be followed? Then there was another aspect to
the problem. The conflict was not only about a share in the kingdom. Even if the Pandavas sacrificed their
political interest, what about the humiliation of Draupadi? Should it not be avenged? But should a wrong
necessarily be avenged by violence? Was a crime by the opponent enough justification for initiating a war
that would endanger the existence of the entire clan? Draupadi's humiliation was wrong. But how right
was a war that pitted a noble-hearted grandfather against his dear grandchildren, a famous teacher
against his favourite student, and cousins against their equally capable cousins?
In this huge conundrum of ethical questions, everybody would provide an answer and add some more
questions. Yudhisthira and Duryodhana, Arjuna and Karna, Vidura and Sarnjaya, Drupada and Dhṛtarastra,
Kunti and Gandhari-everyone would have a say in the matter. But the final solution had to be provided by
Krsna, no more the rowdy cowherd who had killed Kamsa, no more the mere spectator in Draupadi's
svayamvara, no more the capable leader who was fighting hard against the much stronger Jarasandha, no
more the enigmatic hero the validity of whose position was fiercely debated between Sisupäla and
Bhisma, not even the vasudeva whose vasudeva-ship could be challenged by another leader, but
Vasudeva Krsna-whose charisma was now equally accepted by both the parties and whose divinity was
now a heated speculation. In the very first meeting, Krsna made his stand crystal clear:
This being the case, think of what will profit The Dharma's son and Duryodhana, Consistent with Law,
correct, earning fame And profit the Kurus and Pandavas, King Dharma is not one to covet the realm Of
even the Gods, if it were under Unlaw.He would strive for lordship even in some village If it were
consistent with Law and Profit.

Therefore, we can see that Krsna's primary ambition was a combination of law (dharma) and profit (artha),
the first representing the eternal virtue while the second represented the practical and material interest.
However, while deciding on this ground, Krsna no more intervened as an ally of the Pandavas but
reminded a totally pro-Pandava gathering the need to think of a solution benefitting both the parties. His
sympathy for Yudhisthira was not for their friendship and alliance but because of the latter's dedication
in performing the dharma. That dharma, according to Krsna, focused on the defence of a right rather than
on personal gain. Therefore, even the rulership of heaven was not to be coveted unrighteously, but the
rightful lordship over even a village had to be carefully defended.

Thus, Krsna indicated that Yudhisthira should defend his right to the share in the kingdom but did not
advocate war as the means yet. He, rather, emphasized the interest of both the parties and wanted to
know Duryodhana's stance before taking any decision. Therefore, he suggested the sending of an
ambassador for the purpose. Krsna's idea was supported by Balarama who also reminded the gathering
that Yudhisthira's mindless dicing had a huge role to play behind the crisis.

However, a pro-Pandava gathering hardly showed any patience for such a neutral stance. The following
speeches by Satyaki and Drupada attacked Balarama and strongly advocated for an outright war.
Drupada's stance seemed particularly interesting, since he was not just Draupadi's father but also the king
of the Pañcalas who were the arch-enemies of the Kurus. Krsna no doubt understood that if a war broke
out, it would turn out to be a Kuru-Pancala clash. Therefore, he remained civil to Drupada but did not hide
his disapproval of the bloodthirst. The following statement of Krsna is very much significant in
understanding his stance, which is often misrepresented as that of a pro-Pandava warmonger:

We ourselves owe the Kurus and the Pandus the same loyalty, no matter how the Pandavas and the others
see fit to behave. We all, like you, have been fetched here for the wedding, and now the wedding is over
we shall return happily to our houses. You yourself are the eldest of the kings in age and learning, and we
are like pupils to you, no doubt of that. Dhṛtarastra has always thought highly of you, and you are friendly
with both the teachers, Drona and Krpa. You are the one to send them word in the Pandava's interest,
and whatever word you send will surely be all right with all of us. If then the bull of the Kurus makes peace
as he rightly should, there will be no great loss of brotherly feeling on the part of the Pandus. But if
Dhrtarastra's son out of arrogance and folly does not make peace, then, after you have sent for the others,
summon us too.

Here we see Kṛṣṇa making his stand clear that while Drupada was to be the leader of the Päñcala-Pändava
force, the Yadava-Vrsnis were still neutral outsiders. However, as a friend and well-wisher of the Pandavas,
he also expressed his reluctance towards war before trying hard for peace. He also, through his reference
to Drupada's friendship (which turned out to be an enmity disguised as friendship) with Drona, alluded to
Drupada's responsibility for the upcoming war. Only if all efforts of peace failed, and all other allies were
summoned, was he ready to participate in a war.

However, Krna's advice could not overpower Drupada's warmon- gering, and both the parties were sure
that a war was imminent. Though Krsna expressed his willingness to be the last party to be approached
for the war, he was now too important a figure to be left out like that. Thus we see both Duryodhana and
Arjuna approaching Krna, almost at the same time. Still, Krsna did not leave his stand of neutrality and
satisfied both. While he himself was chosen by Arjuna as an unarmed participant in the Pandava camp,
Duryodhana was provided with his Narayaniya army- his biggest support since the killing of Kamsa and his
only link with his childhood among the cowherds. Balarama, stressing his neutrality, remained out of the
war. Satyaki, a disciple of Arjuna, joined the Pandava camp. However, a large chunk of the Yadavas, under
Krtavarman's leadership, joined Duryodhana. Thus, again we see that Krsna, even when his importance
was recognized equally by both the warring parties, hardly had a complete control over the faction-ridden
Yadavas.

While we see Krsna's importance recognized by all, that importance was often accompanied by
speculations over his divinity. When Arjuna chose unarmed Krsna over an entire army, he had Krsna's
glory (and not his assumed divinity) in mind:

There is no doubt that you are able to kill them alone, and I too can kill them alone, best of men. You are
famous throughout the world, and the glory of this war will go to you. I too aspire glory, therefore I have
chosen you.

Similarly, Arjuna recounted Krsna's military achievements without referring to his divinity in a subsequent
meeting Similar statements were made by Yudhisthira also, without reference to anything divine in Krsna.
However, if Krsna's closest friends and his comrade in the khandavadahana were satisfied with his
remarkable achievements and did not think much about deifying him, there were others who speculated
more. A leading person in this issue seems to be Samjaya, the sûta, whose professional skill was glorifying
the heroes. It was he who repeatedly introduced Krsna's divinity to Dhrtarastra who was overawed by the
mystery. Samjaya said:

Janardana Madhava has, as though in play, defeated Naraka, Sambara, Kamsa and the king of Cedi, all of
gruesome aspect. This Supreme Person, whose soul is superior, has, by a mere act of will, brought earth,
atmosphere and heaven into his power... Put the entire world on one side and Janardana on the other,
and Janardana exceeds the entire world in substance. Janardana could reduce this world to ashes with a
thought, but not the entire universe could render Janardana ashes. Wherever there is truth, wherever
Law, wherever modesty and honesty, there is Govinda. Where Krsna stands there is victory. As though in
play. Janardana, Supreme Person, soul of the creatures, keep earth, atmosphere and heaven running...
The blessed Kesava by his own Yoga makes go around and around, ceaselessly, the Wheel of the World,
The Wheel of the Eons. In truth, I tell you, the blessed Lord alone governs time and death, the standing
and moving creatures. Hari, the great Yogin, though he rules the world, yet undertakes acts like any
powerless peasant.

Dhrtarastra, the patron of the bard Sarjaya, seemed to be unaware of Krsha's divine aspect. In answer to
his surprise on the issue, Samjaya replied:

Sire, you do not have the knowledge, but my knowledge is not wanting. Devoid of the knowledge and
obfuscated by darkness, you do not recognize Kesava. By this knowledge, my friend, I know Madhusudana
of the three Eons as the God who is the unmade Maker, beginning and end of the creatures (vidyayä täta
jänāmi triyugam madhusudanam! kartaram akṛtam devam bhutänam prabhavapy ayam).

He explained to Dhṛtarastra the different names of Krsna and ultimately indoctrinated him in his belief.184
He also explained to him that the way to reach Krsna involved complete control of the senses:
Be consistently and unwearyingly in control of your senses, king, let your spirit not stray, but check it
hither and yon. This mastering of the senses the Brahmins know as constant wisdom. This is the wisdom
and the path by which the wise go forth. Men cannot reach Kelava with unbridled senses, king. The self-
controlled man who is learned in the scriptures finds, by virtue of Yoga, serenity in the truth.

With Samjaya, possibly the earliest bard to have narrated the events of the Bharata War, as the main
protagonist of Krsna's divinity, it is hardly surprising that we find Krsna as already deified in the TA or in
the Aşṭādhyayi.

Some allusion to Krsna's divinity is made also by Vidura while enlisting Kṛṣṇa's achievements, since he
counted some of the achievements of Visnu among Krsna's achievements in the previous births, 186 Thus,
surprisingly enough, Krsna's divinity seems to have been a more popular theory in the Kuru court (with
people like Samjaya, Bhisma, Vidura, and Dhrtarastra himself believing in it) than among the Pandavas
who still respected and loved him as a dear friend and their best advisor.

Therefore, Kṛṣṇa still had to logically resolve the doubts about war and peace in the Pandava camp to
establish his viewpoint. The doubts were bound to be there, particularly with Yudhisthira's obsession in
observing the dharma. Even the Kuru court knew it well and tried to bank on it. Therefore, Dhṛtarastra's
message in reply to the demand of a share of the kingdom for Yudhisthira, by Drupada's ambassador,
turned out to be an ethical quiz. Samjaya, the envoy of Dhṛtarastra, presented war as an evil, a cause of
total devastation, infernal and destructive. A victory in such a war would be equivalent to defeat according
to him. The imminent war was shown as even more evil, since it involved the death of the kinsmen:

If you, Parthas, continue to chastise the Kurus,

Bring down all your foes and subjugate them,
Your life would be the same as death,
For to live with your kinfolk dead is not right

He pointed out that a victory in the war could only come at the cost of the lives of many near and dear
ones, including Bhisma, Drona, and the

Kaurava cousins:

Now who would desire what leads but to evil

(Forgiving is better than hugging your comforts) Where Bhisma Santanava is to succumb
Krpa, Salya, Vikarna, the son of Somadatta, And Dropa is slain along with his son. Vivimiati, Karna,
Duryodhana: Having killed all those, what will be the pleasure You will find in it, Pandava, tell me that!!
Samjaya also suggested that begging in the realms of the Andhaka-Vrsnis would be better than reigning
by undertaking such a war. 190 Here, the choice of the realm of the Andhaka-Vrsnis was certainly a dig at
the posi tion of the Pandavas as the sidekicks of Kṛṣṇa.

However, the ploy did not work. Yudhisthira made it clear that he did not covet any wealth through
adharma191 but referred the matter to Krsna to decide what dharma was at that moment. Kṛṣṇa readily
pointed out how empty the peace proposal was. He expressed his equal care for both the parties again,
which could come only through peace, 192 However, he noted that the Kurus were recommending to the
Pandavas the path of peace without themselves undertaking any effort for the matter. In his long reply to
Dhṛtarastra's message, we find the first clear exposition of Krsna's teachings in the Mahabharata. And
there, Kṛṣṇa emphasized on the concept, just like he once did in Vindavana to oppose the Indra cult, that
dharma lay in performing one's own duties properly and nothing else:

It is only such knowledge as brings about acts That is found to bear fruit and not other knowledge. And
the act itself bears visibly fruit. One's thirst is appeased by the drinking of water.

The rite is enjoined by virtue of action,The act is contained in it, Sarjaya.I do not hold anything higher
than acting: To prate otherwise is feeble and vain...By their acts do the Gods in the other world shine,By
his act does the Wind blow here on earth; Ordaining the days and nights by his acts, The Sun rises daily
unwearyingly.Unwearied the Moon goes through fortnights and months, Through constellations and
asterisms;Indefatigably does the kindled Fire By his act blaze forth for the good of the creatures.

Untiringly does the Goddess Earth With her own strength carry her heavy load;Unwearyingly do the rivers
carry.Their water and sustain all the creatures that be. Untiringly does the Slayer of Vala Of opulent
splendor shower his rains, Making noisy the skies, and he practices Brahman, Desiring the chieftainship
of the Gods. Abandoning pleasure and heart's desires
Has Sakra by acting become the chief Protecting the truth and the Law undistracted;By cultivating the
virtues all

Of self-control, patience, equity, pleasure. Has Maghavat reached the high rule of the Gods. Brhaspati
practices diligently With his spirit honed, the life of the Brahman,Abandoning happiness, mastering
senses, And so he became the guru of the Gods. (for most By their act do the constellations shine,
raatachoubgentinasán The Rudras, Adityas, the Vasus and All-Gods, hikingKing Yama, Kubera Vaisravana,
ti Gandharvas and Yaksas and Apsaras bright;Observing the Brahman, the Vedas and rites The hermits
shine forth in yonder world.

Then, he extended this natural law of action to the fourfold varna system which he understood in terms
of action rather than birth: A Brahmin should study and sacrifice And give and visit the sacred fords and
teach and officiate for those deserving And accept such gifts as are known to him.
A ksatriya should offer the subjects protection, Act under Law, make gifts, be alert, Perform oblations and
learn all the Vedas, Take a wife and virtuously govern his household.

The Vaisya should study undistracted

Earn wealth with farming, cow-herding, and trade And save it, do favours for brahmins and ksatriyas And
by Law and with virtue govern his household.

As the ancient Law of the Sudra is known

That he serve and pay honour to brahmin folk;

Both study and sacrifice are forbidden;

Untiring he always should strive for his welfare.194

Since he understood the varna system in terms of action, Kṛṣṇa envi- sioned a separate set of duties for
the king, beyond the fourfold order:
A king should protect all classes without

Distractions and yoke them each to his task,

Be not given to lusts and be fair to the subjects And not comply with lawless desires 195

Therefore, a king who failed to perform these actions must be considered guilty of adharma. Working out
of lawless desire for the Pandava pro- perty. Duryodhana thus committed such a sin which needed to be
punished:

When one cruelly covets the land of another

And, angering destiny, seizes power Then this shall be a cause of war among the kings;

Where a thief steals property without witness, Whether another steals it by force and in public,

They both are guilty of crime: What sets Dhrtarastra's sons apart?.

Then he reminded Sanjaya of the humiliation of Draupadi 197 The entire speech gives us a clear idea of
the philosophy Krsna was propagating. He believed in action. It was the proper performance of one's own
duty--which we can call svadharma-that sustained the Cosmic Order. Even the significance of the varya
order was viewed in this light. The king's duty was in assuring that everybody could perform his own
duties. Moreover, the king had his duties as well. A king who failed to do that, coveted the wealth of the
others, and was driven by desire was no better than a thief. Only the thief stole secretly, while the
powerful seized what he wanted openly. The nature of the crimes was same. Action was to be performed
as the Cosmic Duty, not out of any desire. A king who was guilty of crime was to be punished.

Based on this ideology, Kṛṣṇa ripped apart Dhṛtarăştra's empty peace proposal that advised the Pandavas
about the evils of war without promising anything for avoiding war. Duryodhana was guilty of theft, but
there was no promise to rectify that. Draupadi was publicly humiliated, no punishment or apology was
promised for that. In such a scenario, it became the kingly duty of the Pandavas to punish the sinners.
However, Kṛṣṇa did not deny the essence of the message that war was an evil. Therefore, he took the
most crucial decision of himself going to the Kuru court for a final attempt at peace. But that peace was
possible only when both the parties were ready to do their duties to avoid war. However, even before
going, Krsna knew that he would fail. Still, he decided to undertake the role of an unsuccessful envoy.
There lay the secret of Krsna's philosophy- performing a duty for the duty's sake, not desiring success, not
thinking of the end result. The war was inevitable. Krsna knew it. But it was his duty to try his best to stop
a war, and that he had to do. When Vidura would suggest to him later that his coming as an envoy was
unwise, futile, and risky, Kṛṣṇa would again expound the same philosophy:

Even if a man, while trying to the best of his ability, cannot accomplish a task of Law, he still-and I have no
doubt of that-gains the merit of the o Law... So I too shall attempt to make peace without dissembling,
Steward, to stop a war between the Kurus and Spñjayas, who are doomed to perish. The wise know that
he who does not run to the rescue of a friend who is plagued by troubles and does not try to help him as
far as he can is guilty of cruelty. Go as far as grabbing him by the hair to keep a friend from committing a
crime, and no one can blame you, for you tried your best.
No, I have come to help the cause of both parties, and having made the attempt I shall be without blame
before all men.

If I can make peace between Kurus and Pandus

Without hurting the cause of the Pandavas, I shall have earned outstanding merit

And set free the Kurus from certain death. The sage and apposite words I speak

And if Dhrtarastra's sons will heed

For their Law and Profit, which save their health. Athos The Kurus shall praise me for having come. 198

With this decision to go as an envoy to the Kuru court, Krsna entered the centre stage in the debate
between war and peace. And the debate was intense. As we can see, there were two polar opposites at
work. At one hand was Yudhisthira, an ardent pacifist who wanted to avoid war at any cost. The dharma
he propounded was the dharma of anṛśamsya. On the other hand stood Duryodhana, with his staunch
belief in the caste duties of a ksatriya, who insisted on fighting. Making the situation more complex, the
mothers of the two main contenders propa- gated doctrines quite opposite to what their sons believed
in. Gandhari consistently advised Duryodhana to follow the eternal dharma for the greater good, while
Kunti fiercely urged Yudhisthira to leave his obsession with peace and perform the duty expected of a
ksatriya war- rior. Krsna stood in the middle. He had made his stand clear that he preferred peace but not
at the cost of tolerating criminal offences. As an envoy, he had the task of persuading the haughty
Duryodhana to accept peace. On the other hand, the ambassador of peace had to keep the peace-loving
Pandavas prepared for the war which he knew as inevitable.

As we have seen, Kṛṣṇa had encountered the stereotypical Vedic religion as a chronic challenge. As an
envoy going to Duryodhana, he again had to encounter the idea of a ksatriya's caste duty being relentless
fighting. We have seen that Krsna's idea of the varṇa system was based on action rather than on birth.
Moreover, that action would be necessarily without desire. On the other hand. Duryodhana believed in
the classical Later Vedic varna order where the hereditary varna duty was to be followed like a ritual and
the aim was the desire for heaven. That ideology explained a ksatriya's task as fighting heroically. In
military capability lay a ksatriya's worth and importance.

Therefore, Yudhisthira's pacifism was unrighteous in Duryodhana's eyes, as his love for fighting was in the
eyes of Yudhisthira. Just as the Pandavas tried hard to make Duryodhana abide by the ethics they
followed, so did Duryodhana try to turn his cousins into 'true' ksatriyas. The sufferings of the Pandavas,
to him, were the punishment for failing to perform their dharma:

I called you barren sesame seeds, and rightly so! For in the city of Virăța the Partha wore a braid and
Bhimasena served as a cook in Virǎța's kitchen. That was my doing! That is the way ksatriyas punish a
kṣatriya who runs from a battle: they condemn him to a gambler's row, to the kitchen, to the braid!199

Therefore, on the verge of the war, after all attempts at peace failed, Duryodhana's message to the
Pandavas would be:

amarzam rajyaharaṇam vanavasam ca pandava/

draupadyas ca pariklesam samsmaran puruso bhava// (Be a man, remember your banishment from the
kingdom, your hard- ships, your forest exile, the molestation of Draupadi, Pandava!)200

War was the purpose for which, Duryodhana thought, a ksatriya lady gave birth. Surprisingly, the same
thought was shared by the lady who actually gave birth to the pacifist Yudhisthira, Kunti:

angavekṣasva dharmam tvam yatha spitaḥ svayambhuväl urastaḥ ksatriyaḥ sto bahuviryopajività//

(Come, heed the Law that was created by the Self-existent; the ksatriya was created from his chest, to live
by the strength of his arms, to act al- ways mercilessly for the protection of his subjects.)
Yudhisthira's deviation from the kṣatradharma was an irritant to Kunti as it was to Duryodhana:

Look to the kingly Laws that befits your heritage, for the conduct by which you wish to stand was not that
of the royal seers. A king infected by cowardice, who does not act ruthlessly, does not win the re- ward
that results from the protection of his subjects. Neither Pandu nor I nor Grandfather has ever prayed that
you be blessed with the wisdom you live by; the blessings I asked were sacrifice, generosity, austerity,
heroism, offspring, greatness of spirit, and the enjoyment of strength forever.

Whether it be Law or not, you are born to it by the very fact of birth... A brahmin should live on alms, a
ksatriya should protect, the vaisya should acquire wealth, the sudra should serve them all. Begging is
forbidden you, farming is unseemly-you are a kṣatriya, the savior from wounds, living by the strength of
your arms, 202

To inspire Yudhisthira to the code of conduct of a kṣatriya, Kunti told him the story of the lady named
Vidura who had forcibly sent her reluctant son Samjaya to a war. Through the mouth of Vidura, Kunti
sends Yudhisthira her message:

Where did you come from?... Too cowardly for anger, barely hanging on to a low branch, you are a man
with the tools of a eunuch.203

To her, manhood meant truculence and unforgivingness. The meek, for- giving man was neither man nor
woman. Contentment, compassion, sloth, and fear only killed off good fortune.204 While Krsna would de-
scribe a greedy king's self-aggrandizement as theft, the exact opposite view would come from Vidură and
Kunti:

yo hi tejo yathasakti na darśayati vikramat! kṣatriyo jivitäkäikşi stena ity eva tam viduḥ!!

(A kṣatriya who clings to life without displaying to the highest degree possible his talent by his feats, him
they know for a thief.)

Life and death did not matter to a ksatriya. It was better for him to flame briefly than to smoke long 206
Irrespective of victory or defeat, a wise person should go ahead with his task-alabdhva yadi va labdhvá
nanusocanti pandital 27 The heart of ksatriyahood (kṣatrahydaya), as de- scribed by Vidură and Kunti, is
expressed in terms identical to those used by Duryodhana. Vidura is quoted as saying:

I indeed know the eternal heart of the ksatriyahood as proclaimed by our forbears and theirs, and our
descendents and theirs. No one born a ksatriya here, and knowing the law of the ksatriyas, will either out
of fear or hope for a living bow to anyone else. "Hold up your head and do not bow! Standing tall means
manhood (pauruça)--rather break in the middle than bend 208

However, irrespective of what his mother thought, Yudhisthira was equally steadfast in his allegiance to
dharma. Challenging the rationale of the varna system time and again, he had hardly any regard for the
notion of kṣatradharma. He clearly stated his disapproval of the idea that a person had to be violent and
unforgiving just because he belonged to a certain caste by birth. War to him was evil by all means and so
was the ksätradharina that endorsed it:

What is pretty in war? It is the evil Law of the ksatriyas... ksatriya kills ksatriya, fish lives on fish, dog kills
dog.209

Therefore, the power struggle of the ksatriyas is as abominous to

Yudhisthira as a brute fight between dogs:

The wise have noticed that it is the same as in a mess of dogs. It starts with a wagging of tails, then a bark,
a bark in reply, backing off, baring the teeth, loud barking, and then the fight; and the stronger one wins
and eats the meat, Krypa-it is the same with people, there is no difference at all. It is always the same
thing that the stronger does to the weaker: disregard and aggressiveness-and the weak man surrenders.
Father, king, and elder always deserve respect, and therefore Dhrtarastra deserves our respect and
homage, Janardana.

Ernestly thinking in this line, Yudhisthira provided us with one of the earliest and strongest statements
against war and violence, standing in an era when heroism was the most respected manly virtue:

War is evil in any form. What killer is not killed in return? To the killed victory and defeat are the same,
Hrşikeša (sarvatha vrjinam yuddham ko ghnana na pratihanyate/ hatasya ca hrşikeša samau
jayaparajayau). The victor too is surely diminished: In the end some others will kill a loved one of his; and
behold, when he has lost his strength and no longer sees his sons and brothers a loathing for life will
engulf him completely. Krypa... There is always remorse after the killing of others, Janardana. Victory
breeds feuds, for the defeated rest uneasy. But easy sleeps the man who serenely has given up both
victory and defeat (jayo vairam prasejati duḥkham äste parajayam/ sukham prašantaḥ svapiti hitvā
jayaparajayau),211

Thus, Yudhisthira viewed heroism as a 'powerful disease that eats up the heart. There were only two ways
to end a feud-total eradication (mulaghata) of the enemy or giving it up. Since the former was a cruel
thing, the second was preferable 212 Yudhisthira, therefore, would prefer peace by subjugation
(pranipata) than either renouncing the kingdom or ruining the family,13 His message to Krsna was thus:

Our first course of action, Madhava, is to assure that we and they may enjoy our common fortune at peace
with one another and on equal footing.

The stage beyond that will cause gruesome disaster and ruin, when we regain our realms by killing the
Kauravas. However unrelated and ignoble an enemy is, Krsna, he does not deserve to be killed, let alone
men such as they, for they are kinsmen mostly, friends and gurus, and to kill them is a most evil thing.214
Yudhisthira's teachings seem to have an impact on his brothers as well, for the usually violent Bhima also
requested Krsna to try for peace at any cost. Even he would prefer bowing before Duryodhana than
causing a dis- aster in the Kuru family, and he claimed that Arjuna thought the same. 215 Arjuna himself
said nothing conclusive except his desire for peace and faith in Krsna's ability to achieve that,216 while
Nakula hoped for success

of the peace mission.217 This entire atmosphere of anti-war sentiment would obviously delight our
modern sensibilities. However, in this grand debate about the sharing of the kingdom, the issue of
Draupadi's humiliation was almost lost. Only the youngest of the Pandavas, Sahadeva, spoke in a different
voice:

What the king has said is the sempiternal Law, but see to it that there be war, enemy-tamer! Even if the
Kurus should want peace with the Pandavas, you should still provoke war with them, Daśarha! How could
my rage with Suyodhana subside after seeing the Princess of Pañcăla manhandled in the hall? If Bhima,
Arjuna and King Dharma stick with the Law, I want to fight him in battle, and begone with the law (yadi
bhimarjunau kṛṇa dharmarajas ca dharmikal dharmam utstjya tendham yoddhum icchami sanyuge),218

It is for this reason precisely that Kunti urged her sons to go for a war:

Not the rape of the kingdom, not the defeat at dice, not the banishment of my sons to the forest grieves
me, as it grieves me that that great dark woman, weeping in the hall, had to listen to insults,219

Above all, there was Draupadi herself, itching for a war that would avenge

her humiliation:

A curse on Bhimasena's strength, a curse on the Partha's bowmanship, if Duryodhana stays alive for
another hour, Krsna! If you find favour in me, if you have pity on me, direct your entire fury at the
Dhärtaristras, Kṛṣṇa.

This hair was pulled by Duhtasana's hands, lotus-eyed Lord; re- member it at all times when you seek
peace with the enemies! If Bhima and Arjuna pitifully hanker after peace, my ancient father will fight, and
his warrior sons, Kṛṣṇa! My five valiant sons will, led by Abhimanyu, fight with the Kurus, Madhusudana!
What peace will my heart know unless I see Duḥsäsana's swarthy arm cut off and covered with dust!
Thirteen years have gone by while I waited, hiding my rage in my heart like a blazing fire. Pierced by the
thorn of Bhima's words, my heart is rent asunder, for now that strong-armed man has eyes for the Law
only 220

Again, in seeking this revenge, Draupadi put stress on the ksätradharma which Yudhisthira disregarded
and Duryodhana held in high esteem:

For a ksatriya, if he follows his own Law, should kill a ksatriya who has become greedy, and a non-ksatriya
too... Those who know the Law know that just as it is sin to kill one who does not deserve it, so a sin is
found in not killing one who does deserve it. So see to it, Krsna, that this sin does not touch you, the
Pandavas, and the Sṛijayas with their troops, Dasarha 221

In such a heated environment, Krsna had to perform his duty of an envoy. His very decision to go as a
messenger of peace was an acceptance of Yudhisthira's pacifism. However, he was almost sure of the
failure of his mission. Therefore, he had to make his stand clear about the subsequent action. Thus, he
also quoted the clichéd terms of kṣatradharma to persuade Yudhisthira:

Mendicancy is not a ksatriya's business, lord of the people. All those who observe the life stages have said
what a ksatriya should beg: victory, or death on the battlefield (jayo vadho và sangräme), as the Placer
has ordained for eternity. That is the kitriya's law, and cowardice is not extolled. For livelihood is
impossible by giving in to cowardice. Yudhisthira. Stride wide, strong-armed king! Kill the foe, enemy-
tamer (jahi Satrun arimdama)1222

As a response to Yudhisthira's hesitation to kill the kinsmen. Kṛṣṇa argued that Duryodhana had already
been killed by his sins. However, interestingly, after the stereotypical exposition of kṣatradharma, Krṇa
accepted that Yudhisthira's understanding of the dharma was what actually pleased him:

That very moment, king, when he stood condemned for his shameless- ness before all the kings on earth,
he was dead, Maharaja!... He should be killed like a snake, that evil-minded man ignoble to all the world.
Kill him, enemy-tamer! Don't hesitate, king! But, in any case it is worthy of you, and pleasing to me, prince
sans blame, that you are ready to pros- trate yourself before your father and Bhisma.223

However, Krsna treated Bhima's pacifism in a totally different manner.If he had respectful admiration for
Yudhisthira's righteousness, he knew that pacifism was not what suited Bhima. Therefore, he provoked
Bhima to bring out his real self:

Aho! Has panic at last found you, Bhima, because now that war is at hand you seem to see signs that point
this way or that way? Aho! Do you see unfavourable portents, Pärtha, in dreams or while awake, and that
is why you want peace? Aho! Are you a eunuch that you dare not hope for manhood in yourself? You are
attacked by cowardice, that is why your mind is awry! Your heart is palpitating, your mind despairs, your
thighs are paralyzed, that is why you want peace!

Look at your own feats, Bharata, and your birth in high family. Riseup. Do not despair, hero, be firm! This
is not like you, this weariness,enemy-tamer! A ksatriya does not obtain what he does not grab by
force.

The provocation had the desired result, as Bhima's anger flared up. But it would be wrong to assume Krsna
as a champion of the ksatradharma on the basis of his advice to Yudhisthira and Bhima. Kṛṣṇa, rather,
appeared in a totally different light in Hastinapura. Dhṛtarastra decided to arrange many luxuries and
lodges for Krsna and thought of offering him a wide variety of gifts, including chariots, elephants, slave
girls, sheep- skins, yak hides, gems, food, and courtesans. While the nature of the gift items no doubt
represents a premonetary economic system, indicating the antiquity of the passage, the typical non-
attachment of Krsna was also displayed in his complete ignoring of these gifts, 225 Vidura, whose house
Krsna would ultimately choose as his residence in Hastinapura, possibly understood Kṛṣṇa better than
Dhṛtarastra and clearly told the latter that Krsna could not be tempted by wealth. He said:

Janardana will want from you no more than a full jar of water, no more

than water to wash his feet, no more than an enquiry after his health. So offer the great-spirited man,
who deserves it, true hospitality, king, for Janardana is worthy of honor. Kesava is coming to the Kurus
hoping for one benefit: so give him that for which he is coming, king. The Däsärha wants peace between
you and Duryodhana and the Pandavas, Indra of kings. Do as he says, 226
Vidura understood Krsna not as a champion of kṣatradharma, which would delight Duryodhana, but as a
serious messenger of peace. Kṛṣṇa also fulfilled Vidura's expectations by refusing Duryodhana's homage,
saying:

Envoys eat and accept homage when they have succeeded. When I have succeeded, you and your
councilors shall honor me, Bharata,227

Pressed further for having a meal with Duryodhana, Kṛṣṇa refused him in a sterner language and bolder
logic that would immediately remind

one of his refusal to accept the homage from Jarǎsamdha:

I would not transgress the Law out of love, fury, hatred, self-interest, argument or greed. Food is to be
accepted either out of affection, or be- cause of need. But neither do I have affection for you, king, nor
am I in need.228

Therefore, Krsna's message to Duryodhana had nothing to do with the latter's favourite ksatradharma.
Rather, it placed the eternal dharma over any pursuit for material benefit around which a ksatriya's life
was expected to revolve:

The undertakings of the wise are consistent with the Three Pursuits, Bharata bull, but when all three are
impossible to carry out at the same time, men follow Law and Profit. If those two cannot be reconciled, a
sagacious person follows the Law, a middling person prefers Profit, a fool the Pleasure of discord. If a man,
driven by his senses, abandons Law out of greed, and strives after Profit and Pleasure by foul means, he
perishes. Even if he strives for Profit and Pleasure he should still practice the Law from the start, for neither
Profit nor Pleasure ever part company with Law, Krsna's message was accompanied by a long speech by
Gandhari who tried to persuade her son to the path of the eternal dharma that depended on control over
senses, particularly lust, anger, and greed,130

However, the speeches on dharma hardly had any effect on Duryodhana who decided to bank on his
power and keep Krṇa as a prisoner.231 The ploy was discovered by Satyaki who was accompanying Krsna.
He informed Krtavarman, who had already joined the Kuru camp but was accompanying Kṛṣṇa as a
Yadava, and asked him to wait at the gate of the hall in full armour. However, Krsna's display of extreme
anger, along with Vidura's spirited speech about the power of Kṛṣṇa, spoiled the plan. Krsna left the court
as an angry, unsuccessful envoy, with Satyaki and Krtavarman. Suddenly a display of Krina's Cosmic Form
is inserted in the episode, which seems to be an extremely late interpolation, at least later than even the
later sections of Bhagavad Gitä which claims that Krsna never showed his Cosmic Form to any- body before
he showed it to Arjuna at Kuruksetra. There was hardly any necessity for the supernatural event here, and
it would be very unnatural for the original poets to make the mission unsuccessful even after Krsna
displayed to all that he was the Supreme God. Before coming for the mission, Krsna told Arjuna:

aham hi tát karisyami param puruṣakārataḥ daivam tu na maya sakyam karma kartum kathamcanal!

(I myself shall do the utmost that human agency allows, but I am unable in any way to take care of fate.)32

Krsna tried for peace to the best of his human ability. He failed to alter the inevitable. There is hardly any
reason to turn him suddenly into the Creator and Controller of the fate over which he accepted to have
no control. Krsna's divinity, by this time, was a popular theme of Samjaya's narration in the Kuru court.
However, the Pandavas did not know him yet as a deity, nor did Krsna himself.

Leaving his deification aside, we may notice an interesting aspect of Krsna's teaching in the entire episode.
To Yudhisthira and Bhima, he valorized war and ksätradharma. To the warmonger Duryodhana, he spoke
of the eternal ethics and peace. What was Krsna's own stand then? To understand the matter, we have
to go back to his exposition of his ideas to Samjaya. He placed action above all. A man's varṇa was to be
based or his action. Therefore, a man chose his own svadharma. What Kṛṣṇa dic was to persuade everyone
to the performance of his own svadharma after offering them several alternatives to choose. The terrible
Bhima, a hard. core warrior, could not be a pacifist, he knew. So he instigated Bhima . his svadharma of
an unflinching warrior. He knew that Duryodhana' svadharma was the kṣatradharma, and he ultimately
let him have the was he wanted, but only after an exposition of the other faces of dharma in front of him.
Yudhisthira was given his choice as well. Krsna extolled the ksätradharma in front of him, but could hardly
move him. At the end, he happily went off as Yudhisthira's messenger of peace.

Why did Kṛṣṇa take up this act of balancing? There lay his own svadharma, the dharma of performing his
duties irrespective of the results and without any attachment. He had to try his best for peace, though in
vain. He had to keep Yudhisthira ready for the war, equally in vain. For the same reason, he had to offer
another person a scope to choose his svadharma. Before leaving Hastinapura, he took Karna on his own
chariot for a private discussion.

Karna, known to be the son of a sûta named Adhiratha, was the closest friend of Duryodhana and the
main antagonist of Arjuna. Right from his childhood, he was insulted several times because of his low
pedigree. It was only Duryodhana who honoured him for his valour and ability. Tied to Duryodhana by
gratefulness, the noble Karna participated in all his deeds and misdeeds many of which he personally
might have disapproved of. It was mainly because of Karna's skill as an archer that Duryodhana was
dreaming of a Kuru victory.

Suddenly, Krsna disclosed to Karna the secret of his birth. He revealed that Karna was not the son of the
lowly Adhiratha but a premarital abandoned son of Kunti. As the first-born son of Kunti, he was the one
entitled to kingship if the Pandavas won. It is understandable that had Karna been the projected king.
Duryodhana might not have objected to share the kingdom. So, this incident was probably Krsna's last
attempt at peace.

Karna had a choice to make, a choice with his real queen-mother and princely brothers, a respectable
pedigree, and the most coveted throne on the one hand, and the lowly but loving foster parents and a
benefactor but unrighteous friend on the other. Karna made his choice. He chose the humble suta couple
who adopted and loved him for no apparent interest and the friend who accepted him on his merit over
the princely connections and future prosperity on offer. However, he also knew that Duryodhana and his
side would probably end up losing and that would serve the cause of righteousness. Therefore, Karna
chose death for his benefactor rather than an unrighteous peace through himself, for he knew that such
a peace would mean something ethically undesirable:

So you should suppress word of our taking counsel here, best of men; that would be best, I think, joy of
all the Yadavas. If the Law-spirited king of strict vows knows that I am Kunti's first-born son, he will not
accept the kingdom: and if I were then to obtain this large, prosperous kingdom, I would hand it over to
Duryodhana, Madhusudana, enemy- tamer! Let the Law-spirited Yudhisthira be king forever.233
Karna's choice decided the fate of the war. Krsna, the failed envoy, re- turned to the Pandavas. The ethical
debate over war and peace was over. It was now time for the real war. However, Krsna's discourse on war
and peace still awaited its culmination. Karna had made his choice. His chief antagonist, Arjuna, was yet
to make his. Standing between the two armies ready for battle, with Krsna as his charioteer, Arjuna would
have to make the choice. And that would bring forth the logical culmination of Krsna's teachings. The
speculations of the 'Udyogaparvan' would melt into the action of the 'Bhismaparvan