Mahabharata, as I see, was the greatest drama ever created, narrated and played by three Krishna(a)s.

These three Krishnas together, through, Mahabharata - call it an epic, myth, war, history - outlined the essence of creation, life and dissolution. While doing this they played with several characters, situations, responsibilities, consequences, rules, regulations, economics, politics, ethics, morals, strategies, war techniques and tactics, humanity, divinity, tantras, following the dharma, being the dharma everything and anything that would explain the very essence of birth, life and death. Superficial message of Mahabharata might be good prevails over bad. I say superficial because that is not even a message, that is a fact. Mahabharata merely reinforces that fact. It actually tells how good wins over bad through righteousness. Righteousness should not be mistaken as non-violence and that does not mean that Mahabharata preaches violence either. Mahabharata does not defend or attack anyones opinion but, to me, it just explains the choices and consequences that are applicable to every day to day life the rest is left to the very reader. Yeah there is nothing it offers to one who comes with questions like did Mahabharata ever take place? Mahabharata was viewed before by many in many different ways. The beauty of Mahabharata as a matter of observation any good book or article shows different meaning every single time one reads it. The meaning greatly depends on the mind set of the reader. With hundreds of different characters and thousands of different issues in many several situations the great epic, Mahabharata is a kalpavriksha of Knowledge and wisdom. As I mentioned in very beginning the credit, in one of my points of view, goes to the three Krishnas for structuring Mahabharata the way it is. The three Krishnas are Vasudeva Krishna, Dvaipayana Vyasa Krishna, and Yajnaseni Draupadi Krishnaa. These three mighty personalities dwell in the rest of the characters and make up the Mahabharata. They are the creators, narrators and destroyers. Yajnaseni Draupadi- Panchaali Krishna, was a very rare woman. It is very difficult to understand this particular character. The difficulty does not arise from this great woman but it really emanates from us. She does not fit into the so called frame of society. Unfortunately it so became with human race that anything deviant from our normal path has to be dangerous and feared, scrutinized and criticized and finally by some means condemned.

The main issue that gets in the way of understanding Draupadi, is our concept of Love. We somehow got the idea incorporated into our minds that love is a relationship. When one thinks of love as a relationship, one thinks it has to be confined, directed to only one. The fact is love is not a relationship. It is an emotion, a feeling or a state of mind. It can happen with one or many or none at the same time. There is nothing wrong with this and in fact it is only natural. We love parents, children, spouse, job, money, car, house etc. Is it not happening all at the same time? Who says that marriage is the destiny of love? Let us say two individuals are in love and they got married. So according to us their love reached the destiny. So whats next? Rule of thumb, once again according to us, it should seize which it does in most cases. May be that is the reason most marriages become never ending compromising. Once married there no way one can fall in love, as it is wrong, forbidden and even a sin. This is our frame for love. Well Draupadi does not fit in it. She loved all her five husbands and may be she even had hearts for Karna, as some say. So what? Oh, no, it cant be. This is the main hurdle for us to understand her character. Draupadi is a true lover. She understood love for what exactly it is. So she never objected the proposal of being a common beloved for five men. She new herself so well and she knew that she has plenty of love to give to all five of them. Our intellectual, wise and intelligent ancestors recognized Draupadi as one of the five most virtuous ladies. We did not dare to challenge them. We needed further explanation for this so we can, not only fit Draupadi into the frame of society, but also make her an ideal she. So we came up with the story/theory that she remains as a constant virgin. This, to me, is just to satisfy our super ego and justify Draupadis sacredness. Let me ask one question here even after all the explanations that Mahabharata and so many critics gave on behalf of Druapadi, even after she was accepted as one of the most virtuous women ever, how many of us (both men and women) accept/approve if you find a woman in similar situation now? We are at point that we have to possess what we love. We forgot that obsession/possession and love are very different things. Draupadi did not need this explanation. She rose above the normal levels. She did not have any problem with all her husbands having individual wives, where as Arjuna needed her approval to marry Subhadra. This it self is an example of the elevated levels of Draupadis personality.

Draupadi, to begin with, was a very abnormal character. She was not born as everyone else. She was manufactured, if may I dare to say. She was created with a purpose. As lots of us know, Panchaali means one who belongs to panchala kingdom. But there is another meaning, which is puppet. It so appears that she was treated as a puppet in many instances. First of she was not asked for by her father. He did the homa for a son. She came in as a bonus, which was utilized to full extent all through Mahabharata or so it may appear. You see, strong characters, such as Draupadi, may let one think that one is controlling her, while the fact is she is letting one think that way so she can get things her way. Swayamvaram by definition means to choose a husband of ones own, according to ones likings. So when Draupadis swayamvaram was announced, it should have had been her choice. It was not. Drupada designed the puzzle to be solved solely by Arjuna. It was a set up to begin with. Only Kshatriyas were allowed to enter the contest. Draupadi did not have anything to say about it. Then came Karna, who could have solved it. Surprisingly at this moment Draupadi became active and rejected him saying that he was not a Kshatriya it was not Drupada or Drishtadyumna who rejected or objected Karna, it was Draupadi. But she did not have a problem with a Brahmin (pandavas were in disguise as Brahmins at that time) winning her. This particular instance has a lot to tell about Draupadi. She was created with a purpose and she was fully aware of it. For her purpose to serve she had to reject Karna in the middle of the gathering and accept Arjuna, disguised as a Brahmin. She needed Karna to be insulted, for future purposes. Now there are some who say that she had hearts for Karna. If that was true then she should not have stopped him. But she did. If she indeed did have feelings for Karna, rejecting him shows how determined she had to be to achieve her goal. Women being naturally very sensitive to their emotions, it should have been particularly difficult for Draupadi to reject Karna. Draupadi was won by Arjuna and without her consent was shared by all five brothers. She did not question. She might appear as if she had no personality at this instance. But I see it in a different way. She did not obey Yudhishtara, but she obeyed Kunti. Yudhishtara in Draupadis life brought nothing but trouble. She did not care much for his so called Dharma sukshmas which was evident in many situations. Her disregard towards him in the case of Kichaka, was an example. She accepted this unusual arrangement for Kunti. Draupadi recognized the powerful

character of Kunti and her intentions. She showed her respect to Kunti all through, even in the way of dressing. She never surpassed Kunti, as long as they were together. Kunti, had her own intriguing past - having been abandoned by birth father, was, in a way, given away to Muni Durvasa, then had to give up her first born, was forced to bear children with three men, was trusted upon with the duty of her husbands second wife, and then her kids loose the kingdom and were on run. The alliance with Panchaala kingdom politically was very important at that point for Pandavas. She also had to make sure that the sons would not end up fighting with each other for any reason. She treated Sahadeva very dearly of all the children. She wanted to make sure that no one of her sons will have the pride having a strong alliance. So she made it in such a way that they all become part of it, by sharing Draupadi among them. She was a true politician and Draupadi knew that. She followed her mother in laws footsteps all the way to treating Sahadeva with motherly love. Yeah- now who appears to be puppet(s)to me pandavas do. Panchaali came from a royal family and got adjusted right away into a poor Brahmin family. The ease with which she allowed herself to be shred between five men shows not only how much she had to offer but also shows how detached she was (when she was with one husband the others were not allowed to even go to that building). Then why did she let the opinion of her favoring Arjuna float around? Even so called level-headed Yudhishtara thought that she favored Arjuna. I think, I kind of understood why. She let it be, so she could use it with Bhima as a trump card. When ever she had to provoke Bhima to do something (anything I may say) for her she brought up Arjunas name and compared - let it be in the case of saugandhika pushpas, or murdering kichaka and his brothers. Yajnaseni was a perfect being, perfect in all senses. Even with the inner jealous of sharing and having their individual wives, the Pandavas were very much in love with her. She summoned their respect and utmost devotion. She was a perfect daughter, yet knows exactly when to go over her father. She was a perfect wife, loved very dearly by all her five husbands, yet when was detached to four of them at any given time. She was described by none other than Karna himself, as the boat which always rescued Pandavas for even after she was greatly humiliated right in front of the dumb stuck husbands, she asked for their freedom, and got their kingdom back as boons from Dhritarashtra. Even under those circumstances she declined the

third boon offered by Dhritarashtra showing a great dignity. She again demonstrated her respect and control over emotions by not cursing the Kauravas when asked by Gandhari. She secured her place very well. Yajnaseni was described by Vyasa as Priya cha darshaniya cha pativrata.sarvadharmopachayinam. Draupadi was a very wise and learned person. Draupadi when was humiliated, in that terrifying situation her personality towers way over all the learned elders in royal court, including Bhishma, and Vidura. Her very question Did Yudhishtara loose himself first and lost me or did he loose me first and lost himself itself, shows her intellectual superiority. It is beyond my imagination how courageous this great lady was. In the whole Mahabharata, to me it appears that she was the only one who followed Krishnas Geeta, even since before it was narrated. Her goal was clear to her. She never deviated from her path. She made sure that her husbands along with Lord Krishna stay on her path too. She went along with them into aranyavas, ajnatavas, served even as a maid, so that she can be with her husbands at all times. She constantly reminded the peace loving Yudhishtara of the kingdom he was deceitfully deprived of. She reminded Bhima of his pratignas (may be to certain extent divide and rule policy?) It is worth noting her relation with Krishna. These two Krishnas shared a very special bond, not just as brotherly love. When Yudhishtara asked Krishna to represent them to Dhritarashtra and try to make peace, it was Krishna whom Draupadi persuaded. She mentioned her terrific humiliation. Towards the end she said to Krishna, if he could promise her that that kind of humiliation would never be repeated again in future with any woman she would not have a problem for making peace. Krishna remained silent. That was what she wanted. She made the doer of the universe agree with her. She sealed the fate of Kauravas when Krishna promised her (when Arjuna failed to save Yadava women after Dvaraka was submerged) saying Consider those you disfavor as already dead. The Himalayas may move, the earth may shatter and heavens fall, my promise stands. Your enemies will be killed. Thus she decided the course of the great Mahabharata. Addressing Yajnaseni socially is also challenging. Starting from the very swayamvara, where she first makes her presence felt in Mahabharata, all the way to swargarohana parva she

was deviant from the so called normal frame of the society. She represented all the sufferings, humiliations and ill fates that are earthly possible for a woman. Whats important is that she showed how to face them and still be sane to do what one has to do. She gracefully converted having five husbands into an honor. Never once was it shown that she regretted being wedded to five men at the same time. She did not fit into the typical definition of pativrata, yet managed with ease to be considered as one. Even Satyabhama asking her to reveal the secrets of having such strong hold on five husbands shows how high she was held socially. Politically she was very advanced. Not once that in the epic it was mentioned that the kingdom was unhappy with kauravas as rulers. It was solely a family conflict. It was a power game and Draupadi played her to the fullest. Draupadi was dark skinned. She was Dravidian. At times it appears to me that Vasudeva Krishna and Draupadi had this planned all along to wipe off the Aryan race, as much as they could. None of the Kuaravas as of I could see, was married to a Dravidian. Only pandavas were married to Dravidians. Draupadi did give birth to five upapandavas, none of who survived. Draupadi did not even ask for help from Krishna in this matter. She was devastated, but she did not pursue this matter. Her offspring was only half Dravidians. As cruel it might sound she appears to have given up her motherhood for the grater purpose of having Dravidians brought back into the political picture. Draupadi a woman who was born out of holy fire, married to five great worriers in which case never asked for her opinion, was split among the five husbands, a year with each, regardless of her emotions or feelings, was played off in the game of dice, just as piece of object, suffered the most horrifying humiliation, with her five great worrier husbands dumb stuck, went off to live in the forests and disguises ,was abducted and watched her husband forgive jayadrada, the abductor, even worked as a maid, was molested and was almost burnt alive, was even criticized by her husband for making a scene while asking for justice , had to almost fight every day so her husbands will not forget to avenge her humiliation and make peace, was left childless stayed focused to achieve her goal, the purpose for which she was born she was a great politician, pandita (was merely shown in the royal court), great organizer (she was the only with full account of her husbands wealth and managed their lives), never forgetting, never forgiving - this Draupadi was one of the three who decided and directed the course of Mahabharata.

The second Krishna, I want to address, is Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa. The starter of both Kauravas and Pandavas. Dhritarashtra, Pandu and Vidura were his sons. So much for Duryodhana thinking that his birth was all legitimate. His father was born not to Vichitravirya and Ambika, but to Vyasa and Ambika. Vyasa was the first born of Satyavathi. His father, Parasara, pretty much forced himself on Satyavathi. Mahabharata says that Vyasa grew up immediately after he was born and left his mother for Tapsya. To me its more about his psyche. He was a result of a forced relationship of an unmarried woman with a sage. So he had to grow up pretty fast. I see it as; he had to understand the world very fast. His tapasya, as I see it, was to find the answers that will pacify his inner self. Vyasa, literally, means divider/organizer. He was called veda vyasa, because he divided, veda into four parts. Imagine how deeply he must have read, understood and applied veda to be able to sort it out into four parts. Here, I think, it is worth to be noted that Veda was basis of Hindu culture/traditions and mend the social life of Hindus. I think, Vyasa needed answers and way to explain his birth, if not for anyone else, at least to himself. What better way than to work with the highest regarded Veda itself? He read it, mastered it, organized it, mended it, and applied it. Finally he came up with Mahabharata, which is considered as panchama veda. To me it appears as if through out Mahabharata, Vyasa sympathized and favored his mother and himself, through several characters. I think he favored Kunti and Draupadi for they remind him of his mother. He favored Pandavas as his own images. Vyasa administered great care and depth in molding every character of Mahabharata. No one character of Mahabharata was without a purpose and every character is interlinked with many others. His mother Satyavathi married the king of hasthinapura after he left her for tapasya. Her son Vichitravirya died without a successor. Vyasa was summoned by his mother to impregnate her daughters-in-law so Hasthinapur can have a king. He was not very happy about this but obliged his mothers wish. He fathered three sons in this course. It is very interesting to see how Vyasa presented and molded the characters of his sons, which in turn shapes the Mahabharata. Dhritarashtra was a physically strong person. But he was blind, making him not eligible for being the king. I am not sure if Dhritarashtra was literally blind. I think Vyasa wanted to

convey his personality through his blindness. Dhritarastra was blind to reality. He had no problem sitting on the throne even though Pandu was the one who fought the battles, and did the administration. He was blinded by his greed for power. Then his love for his sons blinded him. It looks as if he felt that his sons were rightfully the successors of Hasthinapura. I wonder why did not stop the betting of the kingdom in a dice game. I would guess as a king he should have had that right and responsibility. Vyasa intervened in many of the important decisions in Mahabharata. He fathered the main two brothers. He played a role in making Pandu as the King disqualifying Dhritarashtra for he was blind. How did every on eels know abut the fathers of the Pandavas? I am certain that neither Kunti nor Madri propagated this. Then how did the rest of the world come to know about this? He got involved in the decision of sharing Draupadi between five brothers. He said that it was meant to be that way. Vyasa had no inhibitions in mentioning in detail about how his mother was n=born or he was born. It is as if he almost wanted the rest of the world to know about the ravaging against the women in those days and the consequences of those exploitations. The illegitimate children of these women were born almost in every instance when these women were helpless. But then he described how the same women with tremendous strength of personality and will power raised their kids and wanted to achieve something through the kids. Vyasas mother was a result of force of Uparichara Vasu on Adrika, Vyasa was a result of Parasaras force on Satyavathi, Dhritarashtra and Pandu were born due to a forceful ritual of Vyasa himself with his dead half-brothers wives and pandavas were resulted due to forceful relations of Kunti and Madri with other men.