Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 723

84 | Indian Literature
so, or should he kill Bhisma and safeguard the interest of the Pandavas? Similarly Karna could be said to have faced a dilemma when Indra asked for his armour and kundalas: Should he keep his vow and part with the armour or should he not do so in the interest of Duryodhana (3.285.1)? It has, however, to be observed that Karna compromised his vow when he asked for Indra's sakıi in return (3.294. 17.23). Dubey chooses to pick up the Ambā-episode to point out a moral dilemma for Bhişma but he does not state it correctly. The moral dilemma before Bhisma was not whether he should marry her or send her back to Salva as Dubey seems to make out. The dilemma, if at all, before Bhişma arose when Paraśurāma, his teacher, asked him to marry Ambi or be ready for a fight. Dubey's narration of the episode is not in keeping with the critically edited text of the Mahabharata. Dubey, at one stage, observes: "Ambă insists on marrying Bhişma himself as it was he who abducted her..." (p.41). But Ambā never does this.
Not only this, there are many other statements in Dubey's article for which there is no justification in the epic. On p. 39 he says that Karna was jealous of Bhisma, and that he decided to stay away from the battle while Bhīşma led the army because of this jealousy. This is not the whole truth. Karna stayed away from the battle because he was underrated by Bhisma (5.165.27). According to Bhişma, Karna was not an atirathi, not even a rathi, but just an ardharathi (5.165.5-6). Karna stayed away also because Bhisma agreed to lead the army of Duryodhana on condition that either Karna fights first or Bhişma fights first (5.153.24). Karna was jealous of Arjuna no doubt, but that was not because of Draupadi, but because Arjuna was a match for him and, on occasions, had proved himself superior to him. It is incorrect to say that Karna was not allowed to participate in the swayamvara of Draupadi (p.39), because he was a sūtapurra. The passage in which Draupadi is supposed to have said nilam varayumi sūtam occurs only in one Nepali, one Kāśmiri allied to Devanagari, and partly in the Devanigari version (including that of Nilkanțha). It is totally absent in the Kasmiri, the oldest
Nov.-Dec. 1990
Madhu Vidyā/698