THE WAR CODE: ANOTHER VIEW

 

War between the Pandavas and the Kauravas was imminent. In the assembly of the warriors who had joined him, Duryodhana appealed to them to give him victory. They assured him that they would fight for him with utmost commitment but would not be able to win the war for him. The Pandavas themselves were great warriors and with Krishna on their side, they had become invincible.

 

Duryodhana turned to Bhishma. He told him that there were many great warriors on his side and his army was huge. In contrast Yudhisthira’s army was small. Would the huge Kaurava army, he asked Bhishma, not vanquish the small Pandava army easily? Bhishma said the question was not how large his army was and how small the enemy’s but who were fighting on which side and how capable they were. It was within Bhurishrava’s power, said Bhishma, to kill them all in three days, Shalya in two, and Aswasthama, in one. Karna could do so in three praharas (three quarters of a day) and guru Drona, in two. As for himself, said Bhishma, he could end it in one prahara but Arjuna, in just a muhurta (moment).

 

Arjuna had defeated Bhagawan Shiva and pleased with him, the greatest of the gods had given him the infallible arrow, named Pashupata. Arjuna had defeated Indra, the king of the gods along with some other powerful gods in the forest of Khandava. He had defeated the incomparable Balarama and later, Krishna himself. Only the other day, he had defeated, single-handed, the entire Kaurava army in the Virata war. Arjuna was unconquerable, said Bhishma.

 

Duryodhana asked him if there was a way to neutralize him. Bhishma said there was. A rule could be made with the consent of all the warriors to the effect that weapons received from the gods must not be used in the Kurukshetra war. He suggested to Duryodhana that he must invite the Pandavas to Hastinapura. They all would persuade them to accept a war code, which would include the above-mentioned constraint. Both sides must work out the code together and both sides must commit themselves to it. Sakuni was entrusted with the task of bringing the Pandavas from Jayanta (pronounced as jayantaa), where they were staying, to Hastinapura.

 

Bhishma knew that wars are not always won or lost in the battlefields. Victory could be manipulated; victory could be assured even before stepping on the war field. Now, in such a situation, a “heroic” performance on the battlefield loses authenticity and victory and defeat become meaningless. How fettered, for instance, was the defeated - by a curse or a promise made to someone dear or revered, or to self or by a rule or a personal value and the like? Bhishma lost in the Kurukshetra War because he had promised to himself that he would not fight a woman. Yudhisthira lived because Karna had promised Kunti that he would not harm any of her sons except Arjuna.

 

Sakuni went to Jayanta and told Yudhisthira that he had come at Duryodhana’s behest to invite them to Hastinapura where they and the other warriors would work out a war code. Bhima asked him why Duryodhana did not come to them. Sakuni said that in Hastinapura, there were the Kuru elders, kings from many kingdoms and many others; the war code could be made in the presence of them all.

 

So the Pandavas went to Hastinapura with Krishna. They were fondly welcomed at Hastinapura and there was bonhomie among the Kauravas and the Pandavas. In the presence of all, Yudhisthira asked Sahadeva when the war should start. Sahadeva said the very next day – Tuesday, the dwithiya tithi (the second day) of the month of Magha - would be good for the purpose. Everyone agreed.

 

Duryodhana told Yudhisthira that since brothers would be fighting with brothers, they must fight without malice or hatred towards each other and there must be no bitterness or hypocrisy. He said that this would be the war of dharma and the witness would be the Avatara Himself! He said dharma would win.

 

Now, would Duryodhana have said all those things if he did not believe that he had done nothing adharmik (morally wrong) in not sharing the kingdom of Hastinapura with the Pandavas, no matter who all had said things to the contrary? In Duryodhana’s tone there was no insincerity. And for him, giving half the kingdom would be sharing the kingdom, as would be giving one village. No one goes to war under the banner of adharma. Duryodhana was certain that he wasn’t.

 

Then he said, “Let no one use weapons the use of which one hasn’t learnt from one’s guru (preceptor). Let Arjuna not use manavedi arrow. Let the warriors kill during the day but be cordial to one another when the fighting stops at sunset and they must then sit together as close friends and enjoy the togetherness.” Everyone agreed.  “No one must violate the code”, said Duryodhana, “Narayana will be the witness. The one who does, will suffer”. The Pandavas and the Kauravas solemnly promised to abide by the Code.

 

Bhishma’s objective was to disempower Arjuna; King Duryodhana said what he wanted. The Pandavas could not have failed to understand Duryodhana’s motive, although they would not have guessed that the idea was Bhishma’s. In any case, they did not say anything. The meeting ended. The Pandavas returned to Jayanta. They had to make preparations for the war that would start the following morning.

 

No one, neither the Pandavas nor the Kauravas, mentioned the infallible weapon Karna had received from god Indra. Everyone in both sides knew that he had decided to use it against Arjuna alone. With that weapon, Karna could have effectively won the war for Duryodhana. With Arjuna killed, his four brothers would not have survived. Now, the code disempowered Karna too. One could guess why the Indra-given weapon was not mentioned, but one guess would be as good as another since there is nothing in the narrative that offers a clue to why it was ignored in the making of the War Code.  True, Pashupata astra was not mentioned either but it was in everyone’s mind.

 

Now, was it ethical for the virtuous Bhishma to plan with Duryodhana as to how to disempower Arjuna? Was the idea of War Code not essentially camouflage? In our view, Bhishma was right about constraining Arjuna with respect to the use of Pashupata ashtra, the all-destroying divine arrow. Since brothers were to going to fight with their brothers, he wanted there to be a level battlefield. He was also justified to have Duryodhana propose the condition. A King declares a war; so it’s for the king to make statements about it. And Duryodhana was the king.

 

But what was unethical for Bhishma, in our view, is that he did not say it during the Code- making that it was his idea and that he was being fair to both sides. He loved Arjuna most dearly and knew it very well that Arjuna loved him and revered him profoundly. So hiding the truth about the War Code from Arjuna reduces, in our opinion, his moral stature in the narrative.

 

Talking about manipulating disempowerment, in Sarala Mahabharata, Karna has been the victim more than anyone else, one would think. He was disempowered by Indra and later, by his mother, Kunti. Both had trapped him. There is no place here for those fascinating details. 

 

To conclude, the War Code did not survive; it was violated repeatedly by both sides. Those who had made it together, destroyed it together. But the Code, the poet Sarala’s creation, has lived, in a manner of speaking, in a different way. The narrative has given it permanence; in the entire puranic literature, it is the only instance of adversaries in a war sitting together and formulating a moral Code to follow during the war.

Notes: (a) This essay was published in Samachar Just Click under the title: "The War Code in Sarala Mahabharata: A Tale of Strategy, Ethics and Disempowerment" on January 9, 2025.

(b) The story of this post and the post on September 13, 2024, namely, "Politics of the War Code", is the same. But here, the perspective is different; as such different issues have been raised and discussed. Thus this post is not a repetition of the post of September 13, 2024.