Duryodhanization Page 6

  Shantanu asked her what kind of a woman she was, devoid of motherly instinct, sensitivity and generosity. She replied by saying that she was a woman who liked materialistic things.28 She equated herself to mother earth who has the desire to enjoy everything in nature. Likewise, Kohli’s Satyavati desires to enjoy and have rights over wealth, prosperity and politics. She dislikes anything related to spirituality, sacrifice and selflessness, and wishes the same for her sons. These characteristics of Satyavati are negative in every sense. At this instance, Shantanu repented marrying her. This discord between husband and wife shows how dissatisfied they were when it came to marital bliss. He even contemplated abandoning her or leaving the palace himself.29 But he feared she would tarnish his image by lying about him. If she gained the trust of his subjects and blamed him for her misery, she could give the Kuru dynasty a bad name. In order to avoid this situation, Shantanu put up with Satyavati and never went against her wishes.30 He even suggested that Bhishma should forcefully take over the kingdom, as he was the best king Hastinapur could get. Otherwise, his other sons along with their mother would destroy the kingdom with their greed for power and wealth.

  If we look at contemporary literature to analyse the dynamics of their relationship, it is easy to assume that they were happily married at the outset but difficult to ascertain whether they were actually satisfied later in their lives. In literature, a robust correlation is found between marital quality and personality traits. Personality plays an important role in a relationship, beginning with the selection of one’s partner, to the way the partners perceive, communicate with, and behave towards one another.31 (Vollrath et al, 2010) The psychological approach focuses on the predictive power of stable, personal characteristics in explaining marital satisfaction. And as a consequence, the risk of divorce in current times has increased relatively. If we apply the same approach in the era of the Mahabharata, where divorce was not a known concept, we can easily imply that dissatisfaction in marriage can lead to separation or abandonment. Then why did Shantanu and Satyavati stay together till he died? Was it a compromise on both sides, where Shantanu’s lust was satisfied upon fulfillment of Satyavati’s wishes (despite his affection for his son Bhishma who suffered injustice due to Satyavati’s unfair demands)? Or was there a social stigma involved as a consequence of their separation?

  A greater proportion of a woman’s life is family-related. Her interests and activities tend to be more family-centred than her husband’s. Since our culture tends to define her role as revolving around her family, there may be greater pressure on her to develop an accommodative attitude in relation to other members of the family.32 (Siriamaki, 1948) In this case, Satyavati was doing the same thing when it came to differentiating between her husbands and sons. Therefore, a difference in the understanding of their duties may detract from marital satisfaction if two married partners have widely differing expectations from the roles of husband and wife. Such disputes can lead to poor psychological development of their children.

  Such was the case of Chitrangada and Vichitravirya. They grew up to be pampered, disrespectful, arrogant and psychologically ill. Such children may grow up with the idea that one parent is at fault and the other deserves hatred for the wrongs committed towards the other. This can result in an unhealthy relationship between the parent and the children as well. It may lead to adjustment issues along with symptoms of psychological problems.33 (Kelly, 2000) Also, children who witness marital disputes in their family tend to be hostile towards the institution of marriage as they never had a good example at home to look up to.34 (Burman, 1995) The risk of child psychopathology is even greater among children who are exposed to stressful lives of their parents. The adverse effects of that on the development of children’s behavioural or emotional problems are prevalent.35 (Conger, 1997).

  This shows how two individuals, with prominent negative personality traits come together in a marriage. And what the outcome of such a union can be.

  References

  Camara, K., and G. Resnick. (1989). Styles of Conflict Resolution and Cooperation Between Divorced Parents: Effects on Child Behavior and Adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59(4): 556–75.

  Cowan, P.A., and Cowan, C.P. (2002). Interventions as Tests of Family Systems Theories: Marital and Family Relationships in Children’s Development and Psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology 14: 731–59.

  Cummings, E., and Davies, P.T. (2010). Marital Conflict and Children: An Emotional Security Perspective. New York: Guilford.

  Davies, P.T., and Cummings, E.M. (1994). Marital Conflict and Child Adjustment: An Emotional Security Hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin 116: 387.

  Emery, R.E. (1982). Interparental Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce. Psychological Bulletin 92(2): 310.

  Erel, O., and Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of Marital Relationship and Parent-Child Relations: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin 118(1): 108.

  Grych, J.H., and Fincham, F.D. (1990). Marital Conflict and Children’s Adjustment: A Cognitive-Contextual Framework. Psychological Bulletin 108: 267.

  Harold, G.T., and Conger, R.D. (1997). Marital Conflict and Adolescent Distress: The Role of Adolescent Awareness. Child Development 68: 330.

  Rhoades, K.A. (2008). Children’s Responses to Inter-Parental Conflict: A Meta-Analysis of Their Associations with Child Adjustment. Child Development 79: 1942.

  Towle, C. (1931). The Evaluation and Management of Marital Status in Foster Homes. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1: 271.

  Zimet, D.M., and Jacob, T. (2001). Influences of Marital Conflict on Child Adjustment: Review of Theory and Research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 4(4): 319.

  2

  AMBIKA AND AMBALIKA

  The Reluctant Wives and Mothers

  Not much is found about Ambika and Ambalika in the epic, since their role is insignificant and limited. Nonetheless, they are critical to our inquiry as the mothers of two important characters, Dhritarashtra (son of Ambika) and Pandu (son of Ambalika). It is important to know the personality dispositions of Ambika and Ambalika to see if their traits are transmitted to their sons.

  A swayamvara was organized by the king of Kashi for his three daughters, Amba, Ambika and Ambalika. During the swayamvara, all three were taken by force by Bhishma after he challenged and defeated the assembled kings and princes. He presented the princesses to Satyavati, for marriage to Vichitravirya. Vichitravirya married both Ambika and Ambalika. Amba was freed to go her way after she expressed her reluctance to marry Vichitravirya because she had already accepted King Salva as her husband before the swayamvara. Therefore, Bhishma let her go. As interesting as Amba’s story may be, we do not need to venture into it since she did not add to the lineage of the Kuru dynasty.

  In the Mahabharata, the power of force and abduction was more prized than the sacred ceremonies of a swayamvara. During the swayamvara of Amba, Ambika and Ambalika, Bhishma said:

  Sages have said that, that wife is dearly to be prized who is taken away by force, after the slaughter of opponents, from amidst the concourse of princes and kings invited to a self-choice ceremony.1 (Book 1: Sambhava Parva 219)

  This gives the message that a woman who is abducted or taken by force or through the killing of other opponents is the most-valued possession for a man. So, we see that the entire cultural idea of swayamvara as an emancipation of women’s consent may be overrated. This practice actually validates violence and killing. This social practice is an example of an instance when males failed to dominate the opposite sex. This is why they had to rely on force and violation. Use of force was a strong patriarchal practice, which ensured complete submission from women like Ambika and Ambalika. In such circumstances, it can be said that Ambika and Ambalika never got to express their wills and were always suppressed. Their personalities resembles individuals exhibiting neurotic tendencies more than any other negative personality trait.

  The abduction of these three sisters
by the authoritative Bhishma foregrounds the principle of patriarchal authority. This incident is important in terms of independent choice and the question of consent. These three women were deprived of both at the time. Bhishma abducted all three sisters from their swayamvara so that Vichitravirya could marry them. The noticeable fact here is that the sisters were not abducted by their future husband, Vichitravirya, but by his half-brother. Also, whether they agreed to marry him or were forced to marry him is unrecorded. Moreover, despite being the prince of Hastinapur, Vichitravirya was just a child. He was not mature enough to fulfill the duties of a husband. Ambika and Ambalika were married to him because they were won by Bhishma and no other man would accept them due to that. This shows how helpless they were. This marriage was imposed on them without their will. Vichitravirya did not have the same calibre as his brother Bhishma or the other princes attending the ceremony. But he still possessed the sisters as they were won for him. The princesses were treated like objects and nobody questioned his authority over them. Although young, Ambika and Ambalika were still older than Vichitravirya. They felt helpless and unhappy in this marriage, with no choice but to obey their abductor, and their immature and unworthy husband. They were depressed and melancholic. This eventually led to anxiety and nervousness. These traits are widely acknowledged under neuroticism in personality. Perhaps this was the reason behind their sudden emotional instability or expression of horror when they saw Veda Vyasa in their chambers while submitting themselves to the tradition of niyoga.

  Various evidence in different works on the Mahabharata, including Kohli’s literature, suggest that Vichitravirya possessed some unhealthy habits, such as alcoholism. However, Satyavati was determined to see a great line of kings coming from him. She waited in anticipation for the birth of an heir. Even though Vichitravirya was forbidden to have alcohol and sexual intercourse due to his poor health and young age, he continued to do so. Eventually, he developed tuberculosis and died. Therefore, Ambika and Ambalika were not only deprived of marrying men of their choice, but also of a happy married life.

  As per the Manu Dharma Sastram (applicable to the Treta Yuga and Dwapara Yuga), if a woman was widowed without having any sons she could have a son through her dead husband’s brother. This was the system of niyoga. So, when Vichitravirya died without any sons, his mother Satyavati approached Vichitravirya’s half-brother to cohabit with Ambalika and Ambika to bless them each with a son. Bhishma refused on account of his vow of celibacy. Then she asked her own son Veda Vyasa and he obliged. It is very clear that in this case Ambika and Ambalika were obedient but unhappy to go through with this process.2 It was also legal for a man to approach a Brahman or a deva to give him a son through his wife during those times.3

  When Vyasa visited Ambika, she saw his dreadful, unkempt appearance and burning eyes. In her frightened state, she closed her eyes during the intercourse. Hence, her son Dhritarashtra, the father of the Kauravas, was born blind. In a few versions of the Mahabharata, Ambika is shown to have no strong motherly feelings towards her blind son Dhritarashtra as he was unwanted. Here again, the decisions of the elders were imposed on her sister and her without their permission. Similarly, when Vyasa visited Ambalika she got frightened and became pale during the intercourse. Hence, her son Pandu, the father of the Pandavas, was born pale and weak. Neuroticism signifies the tendency to experience negative effects such as nervousness, depression and fear. It also involves behaviours such as lack of self-acceptance, lack of self-control and a poor ability to manage psychological stress and emotional stability. All of these affects were visible in Ambika and Ambalika who had submitted themselves to their fates in the hands of the Kuru clan.

  After Dhritarashtra’s birth, Satyavati requested Vyasa to visit Ambika for a second time. She dared not go and sent her maid instead. The maid also bore a son, Vidura, who was raised as a brother of Dhritarashtra and Pandu.

  In the Mahabharata, women’s sexuality and sexual relations are dominated by both men and women. When Vichitravirya died without leaving behind an heir, Satyavati took the responsibility of giving an heir to the Kuru dynasty. She did not even inform her daughters-in-law about Vyasa. Instead she just ordered Vyasa and sent him to their chambers. This resulted in unwanted reactions from the two sisters, which bore negative impacts on their sons. These incidents highlight the unhappiness, reluctance and helpless obedience of Ambika and Ambalika due to their marriage to Vichitravirya that was forced upon them. They seem to exhibit neurotic personalities characterized by persistent worrying and anxiety. A person may experience stress as a result of events that are beyond their control, as in this case of Ambika and Ambalika. Neuroticism can also lead an individual to dwell on the negative aspects of a situation, rather than the positives as mentioned earlier. That might be the reason why the two did not raise their voices along with Amba to show their disagreement over their abduction. Rather, they accepted it as their fate and did not resist, even though they remained unhappy and dissatisfied their entire lives.

  III

  KAURAVAS

  DNA Preservers

  1

  THE DYAD

  Gandhari and Dhritarashtra

  Gandhari: The Blind Mother

  Marriage as a social institution plays an essential role in the Mahabharata. The ancestry of royal families lends an even greater significance to it. The main objective of marriage has been to keep the chain of procreation unbroken by producing future generations. The institution of marriage has been vital to keep ethical and moral societal protocols prevalent within a confined sexual union. In fact, marriage and stree-dharma are interrelated. The analysis of stree-dharma from a matrimonial point of view is necessary in the case of the Mahabharata.1 We will analyse this here, in the context of Gandhari and Dhritarashtra.2

  In the case of Gandhari’s marriage, the aspect of consent, just like in the case of Amba, Ambika and Ambalika, was missing. Hers is another example of confinement in the epic. The moment Bhishma heard about her boon of begetting a hundred sons, he could not look at her as anything else but the provider of heirs to the Kuru dynasty. She was immediately thought of as a suitable bride for Dhritarashtra. Vyasa wrote,

  Soon after Bhishma heard from the Brahmanas that Gandhari, the amiable daughter of Subala, having worshipped Hara (Shiva) had obtained from the deity the boon that she should have a century of sons. Bhishma, the grandfather of the Kurus, having heard this, sent messengers unto the king of Gandhara [sic] (Book 1: Sambhava Parva 236).3

  For Bhishma, the most critical issue was to secure the Kaurava lineage. And the most ideal approach to do that was to wed one of the Kaurava princes to Gandhari. Initially, Gandhari’s parents were not ready for the marriage due to Dhritarashtra’s visual impairment, though later on she was offered to Dhritarashtra. The point to note is that she was not once asked for her consent to wed Dhritarashtra.

  The first instance that lays down Gandhari’s personality traits is when she gets to know her future husband is blind. She decides to blindfold herself to show respect and compassion towards her significant other. Her father Subala, the ruler of Gandhara, was coerced by the fearsome warlord Bhishma into giving her away in marriage to a prince of a distant land.4 Despite the fact that she was beautiful and worthy, she didn’t question her parents’ decision and surrendered herself to her visually impaired spouse. However, she took a pledge to parallel her husband’s visual deficiency. So, she covered her own eyes with a piece cloth. Therefore, this woman deprived herself of vision and concealed herself from everyone. Her blindness is symbolic. It is as if she were mocking all the others for overlooking her identity as an individual with rights. This shows her sense of superiority, and excessive need for admiration and attention towards her condition.

  While searching for any covert motive of Gandhari in blindfolding herself, I came across an article where the author believed that this action of hers could have been fueled by more than just devotion.5 This can, in fact, be treated as a valid example of narcissism. S
ome say Gandhari’s voluntary blindfolding was an act of protest and a rebellion against the injustice meted out to her. She was forced to marry a blind man much against her will. Her pride as a woman was hurt and violated. She chose to register her protest in a manner that no other woman had done in the past. She inflicted upon herself the very injustice she rebelled against. It was her way of saying: if they thought that a blind husband was fine for me, then a blindfolded wife is good enough for him. This reveals a side of her character that one does not often come across in the epic. This spotlights her indomitable will to be righteous and moral, and her ability to stand alone and take swift, agonizing decisions, unmindful of the consequences.

  Manita Kahlon describes this as a ‘silent but a strong protest in opposition to the power games and the forced marriage.’6 Gandhari’s blindfold pointed to the fact that women could not have any opinions or desires. They had to prioritize obligation over desire. The covert choice of a blindfold was a symbol of the injustice done to her and thus the anger because of that injustice.7 Despite being an intelligent and beautiful girl of a well-known dynasty, Gandhari was married off to a person who was inferior to her in terms of wit. Her wit was evident from the suggestions she gave to Dhritarashtra about controlling their sons. She also advised Duryodhana to give the Pandavas their share of the kingdom and not engage them in a war. She was well aware that the result would not favour the Kauravas, as the righteousness of the Pandavas would be their strength.