‘Krishna was a historical figure who lived towards the end of the Vedic Age.’ this is the picture emerging from a critical study of data from a wide range of sources — from archaeology and ancient literature to the recently deciphered Harappan seals. They allow us to get a fairly complete picture of the man as he lived five thousand years ago. Traditional Indian accounts — including dates — are closer to truth than those of modern ‘Indologists’ and historians, which are colored by colonial and missionary biases and plagued by weak scholarship.

The Historical Krishna was very different from the figure of popular myth. He was a great warrior and serious thinker concerned about social and political stability. He was nothing like the playful figure he is made out to be. Again, contrary to popular view, Krishna was a man of peace who saw war as a last resort. But once embarked on war, he was a ruthless strategist who always fought to a decisive conclusion. His teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita is a manual on resolving conflicts when faced with the prospect fighting evil. To turn it into a pacific text as done in modern times is a grotesque caricature of its true message.

Search for Krishna

The question of the historicity of Krishna has engaged the attention of scholars for nearly two centuries, ever since European scholars began to study India, questioning every belief that the Hindus had held for millennia. They concluded — and their Indian followers faithfully accepted — that Krishna was a myth. In reality, it was a preconceived answer, which they sought to justify by giving it an appearance of scholarship. But in these articles I will present evidence to show that Krishna was indeed a historical figure who lived about 5000 years ago.

As the life and career of Krishna lie within the century or so described in the great historical epic Mahabharata, if we can demonstrate the historicity of the characters and the principal episodes of the epic, we will essentially have established Krishna’s historicity also. And the same goes for the date: once we know the dates of the principal events in the Mahabharata, like the Great War, we automatically have an approximate date for Krishna. If, on the basis of our search, we can ascertain the existence of Krishna, and arrive also at an approximate date for him, we are justified in regarding him as a historical figure.

The approach followed by author here is inspired by the work Sri Krishna Charitra written more than a century ago by the great Bengali author Bankima Chandra Chatterji, supplemented by archaeological and other research that has come to light in the century following his work, culminating in the decipherment of the Harappan seals and writing.

The Evidence

According to ancient sources, Krishna was a Vedic figure. He was a younger contemporary of Krishna-dvaipayana — or ‘Krishna the Island-born’ better known as Veda Vyasa — who by tradition was responsible for the organization of Vedic hymns into their four fold division, the form in which we know them today. Vyasa is also by tradition the author of the earliest version of the Mahabharata. It is worth noting that the names of some of the characters of the period are found in the literature of the period and also on some Harappan seals that Late Natwar Jha and the author have deciphered. For example, words like Paila (Vyasa’s pupil), Akrura (Krishna’s friend), Vrishni (Krishna’s clan), Yadu (Krishna’s ancestor), and Sritirtha (old name for Dwaraka) are found on seals, some of which go back [five thousand years].

The greatest barrier to a rational study of ancient Indian history continues to be a nineteenth century colonial fiction known as the Aryan invasion of India. When the ruins of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were discovered about 70 years ago, this was followed by a new piece of fiction known as the Aryan-Dravidian wars. Science has now fully discredited both. We now know that the Harappan Civilization came at the end of the Vedic Age.

The greatest barrier to a rational study of ancient Indian history continues to be a nineteenth century colonial fiction known as the Aryan invasion of India. When the ruins of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro were discovered about 70 years ago, this was followed by a new piece of fiction known as the Aryan-Dravidian wars. Science has now fully discredited both. We now know that the Harappan Civilization came at the end of the Vedic Age.

As far as the sources are concerned, the great historical epic (itihasa) Mahabharata is the oldest and the most important. Since the Mahabharata is concerned primarily with the history of the Kuru clan (the Pandavas and the Kauravas), it contains only that part of Krishna’s life that has a bearing on the fate of the Kurus. Recognizing this shortfall, a work known as the Harivamsha — literally the ‘Dynasty of Hari (Krishna)’ — was composed to fill gaps in the life of Krishna in the Mahabharata. Another class of ancient works — the Puranas — notably the Vishnupurana and the Bhagavata contain more details. They supply important details not found in the Mahabharata.

We therefore have ample materials from which to reconstruct a historical account of Krishna and his age. When every allowance is made for exaggerations and the introduction of the miraculous and the supernatural, it can safely be said that we know more about Krishna than any other ancient figure in the world — with the arguable exception of Rama. Ancient authors have taken enormous pains to preserve accounts of his life, times and philosophy — even if they have embellished some of the details.

At the same time, beginning with the Mahabharata, all these are works belonging to a single tradition — the great tradition of Itihasa (history) and Puranas (ancient chronicles) — but references to Krishna are not limited to these. We also have references to Krishna and others in works that lie outside the Itihasa-Puranas tradition. They are particularly valuable for providing independent support for his historicity. It is worth looking at a few.

Panini, the great grammarian, came after the Mahabharata War. As a grammarian and linguist unconcerned with religion or history, the references he provides are especially valuable. His masterpiece Ashtadhyayi contains several important sutras (short statements) that use examples showing knowledge of the Mahabharata period. Here is a famous one: Vasudevarjunabhyam vun, which implies that, Vasudeva (Krishna) and Arjuna were regarded as men worthy of worship. There are also others referring to such Mahabharata characters as Kunti, Nakula and Yudhisthira. The word ‘Mahabharata’ is also mentioned by Panini, though whether it refers to the epic or to the Mahabharata War is not clear from the context.

Panini, the great grammarian, came after the Mahabharata War. As a grammarian and linguist unconcerned with religion or history, the references he provides are especially valuable. His masterpiece Ashtadhyayi contains several important sutras (short statements) that use examples showing knowledge of the Mahabharata period. Here is a famous one: Vasudevarjunabhyam vun, which implies that, Vasudeva (Krishna) and Arjuna were regarded as men worthy of worship. There are also others referring to such Mahabharata characters as Kunti, Nakula and Yudhisthira. The word ‘Mahabharata’ is also mentioned by Panini, though whether it refers to the epic or to the Mahabharata War is not clear from the context.

Ashvalayana, another very ancient Sutra author tells us that in his time, Jaimini was known as the author of a work called Bharata and Vaishampayana as the author of the Mahabharata. Ashvalayana also mentions Paila, another of Vyasa’s pupils. This is interesting because Paila’s name appears also on at least one Harappan seal. The message on the seal is adi-sarge paila. This means ‘Paila (appears) in the first ‘sarga’ or chapter, as indeed he does in the Adi-parva of the Mahabharata. So we have also the evidence of inscriptions, dating perhaps to before 2300 BC, attesting to the existence of the epic and its characters. So there cannot be the slightest doubt that a work by the name Mahabharata was known in his time, narrated by Vyasa’s pupil Vaishampayana.

This identification of Vaishampayana as the narrator of the Mahabharata is also in agreement with the tradition as found in the epic itself. He had learnt the epic from Shuka, the son of Vyasa who is recognized as the first author of the work. It is stated that Vaisampayana first recited the epic to the Kuru king Janamejaya, son of Parikshit; Parikshit was the grandson of Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna’s sister. This shows that even in Ashvalayana’s time the same tradition was current. Ashvalayana himself is placed some five generations or so after the Mahabharata War. We shall see later that he gives astronomical positions that allow us to date him and therefore date the War.

Nor are these isolated references. We have profuse references to these and other personalities of the age in late Vedic and even the Buddhist literature. They include the names of Dhritarashtra, son of Vicitravirya in Kathaka Samhita; Sikhandin Yajnasena in Kaushitaki Brahmana; Janamejaya the grandson of Abhimanyu in Aitareya Brahmana; and Pariksita in Shatapatha Brahmana. And the list is far from exhaustive.

Among Buddhist works Kunala Jataka mentions Krishnaa (i.e., Draupadi) in addition to Bhimasena, Arjuna, Nakula, Sahadeva and Yudhittila (Pali for Yudhisthira). Dhananjaya of the Kuru race (Arjuna) and Draupadi Svayamvara are referred to in Dhumakari Jataka. The same work refers also to Yudhisthira as an ancestor of the Kurus of Indapattana (i.e., Indraprastha) and also to Vidurapandita. In addition to these Mahabharata characters, Krishna himself is mentioned in Buddhist works such as Sutrapitaka and Lalitavistara. These works are often hostile to Krishna and his teachings, but the very fact they found it necessary to try to discredit him (and his teachings) shows that he was accepted as a historical figure even by them. They did not try to deny his historical existence.

Among Buddhist works Kunala Jataka mentions Krishnaa (i.e., Draupadi) in addition to Bhimasena, Arjuna, Nakula, Sahadeva and Yudhittila (Pali for Yudhisthira). Dhananjaya of the Kuru race (Arjuna) and Draupadi Svayamvara are referred to in Dhumakari Jataka. The same work refers also to Yudhisthira as an ancestor of the Kurus of Indapattana (i.e., Indraprastha) and also to Vidurapandita. In addition to these Mahabharata characters, Krishna himself is mentioned in Buddhist works such as Sutrapitaka and Lalitavistara. These works are often hostile to Krishna and his teachings, but the very fact they found it necessary to try to discredit him (and his teachings) shows that he was accepted as a historical figure even by them. They did not try to deny his historical existence.

Returning to the late Vedic literature, one of the most interesting references to Krishna is to be found in the ancient Chandogya Upanishad. It goes (author’s translation): “Ghora of the Angirasas spoke thus to Krishna, son of Devaki (Krishna Devaki-putra) — “Hearing your words I too am now free of thirst.” And till the end of life he sought refuge in these three principles: “Thou art indestructible (akshita). Thou art eternal (acyuta). Thou art the flow of life (prana samhita).”

Krishna Devaki-putra is of course Krishna of the Mahabharata. It is worth noting that Krishna studied the Vedas under Ghora of the Angirasa clan, who seems to have inspired Krishna to develop ideas that later went into the Bhagavad-Gita. The Gita is essentially a summary of the Upanishads combined with the rationalism of the Sankhya philosophy. No less remarkable is the fact that there is a reference to this episode — of Ghora providing the seed of the Gita — on one of the Harappan seals. The message is ‘ghorah datah dvayuh varcah’ — meaning ‘Two essences given by Ghora’, the two essences being the Upanishads (Vedanta) and Sankhya. So in the third millennium BC, Ghora was recognized as the inspirer of this synthesis of Vedanta and Sankhya affected by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita.

The important thing to note is that unlike the Harivamsha or the Bhagavata, these works — the Upanishads, the Jatakas, the Sutras or the Brahmanas — are not part of the historical tradition and had therefore no reason to use these names except familiarity. With such profuse references to Krishna and other Mahabharata characters in so many unrelated works of diverse kinds, written in different periods, there cannot be the slightest doubt that they refer to historical characters in a historical era. What remains now is to fix an approximate date for Krishna or the Mahabharata War.

Krishna’s Era

Traditional scholars have always held that Kaliyuga — the Age of Kali — began in 3102 BC. Whether this refers to the date of the eighteen-day Mahabharata War or of the death of Krishna is unclear and also unimportant at this time. This results in a discrepancy of about 35 years between the two, which is small in comparison with the very great age of the events we are speaking about. Several astronomers and astrologers of great eminence have attempted to arrive at the date based on astronomical references found in the epics.

Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan, perhaps the foremost authority on the topic, even determined November 22, 3067 BC as the day on which the Mahabharata War began. Others, including some European students of Indian astronomy have arrived at February 18, 3102 BC as the day on which the Kali Age began. The two dates should be seen as mutually supporting in view of observational errors inevitable in that age. (The difference may also account for the 35 years that Krishna lived after the War.)

Professor K. Srinivasaraghavan, perhaps the foremost authority on the topic, even determined November 22, 3067 BC as the day on which the Mahabharata War began. Others, including some European students of Indian astronomy have arrived at February 18, 3102 BC as the day on which the Kali Age began. The two dates should be seen as mutually supporting in view of observational errors inevitable in that age. (The difference may also account for the 35 years that Krishna lived after the War.)

Some modern historians, however, do not accept these dates and opt for a date around 1400 BC or 900 BC. These are based on the belief that the Aryans came to India only in 1500 BC and Krishna and the Mahabharata War must therefore be later. As noted the Aryan invasion theory has been discredited by science. Also, our decipherment of Harappan and pre-Harappan scripts has taken the Vedas to long before 3500 BC. So these objections can be dismissed.

The one arguable issue is the discovery of an ancient submerged city at the island of Dwaraka by the renowned archaeologist S.R. Rao. Rao, who identifies it with Krishna’s Dwaraka, dates it to about 1500 BC. But his identification rests on insufficient grounds based on ambiguous literary interpretations. In any event, the historical references in the deciphered Harappan seals, some of which are over a thousand years older than 1500 BC make it impossible that the site found by Rao is Krishna’s Dwaraka. We can next look at Krishna’s date, from two different directions.

The one arguable issue is the discovery of an ancient submerged city at the island of Dwaraka by the renowned archaeologist S.R. Rao. Rao, who identifies it with Krishna’s Dwaraka, dates it to about 1500 BC. But his identification rests on insufficient grounds based on ambiguous literary interpretations. In any event, the historical references in the deciphered Harappan seals, some of which are over a thousand years older than 1500 BC make it impossible that the site found by Rao is Krishna’s Dwaraka. We can next look at Krishna’s date, from two different directions.

Since Ashvalayana mentions the Mahabharata and its authors Jaimini and Vaisampayana as ancient, at least a century must have elapsed between the War and his time. He records that in his time plants sprouted after the beginning of monsoon rains in the Hindu month of Bhadrapada. This now takes place in Jyestha or Ashadha. This goes to show that the monsoon in his time used to start in the month of Shravana instead of Jyestha as it does today — a difference of about seventy days. This is due to a well-known astronomical phenomenon called the ‘precession of the equinoxes’. Seasons fall back relative to the fixed stars (and the Hindu calendar which is based on the fixed stars) by about one day every 72 years. What this means is that the beginning of monsoon noted by Ashvalayana must have been taking place close to 5000 years ago or about 3000 BC.

Further, Ashvalayana pays homage to his teacher Kahola Kaushitaki who was the sage of the Kaushitaki Brahmana. It mentions several Mahabharata characters. It also mentions that the winter solstice — as the first day of winter is called — took place on the day on which we now celebrate the Maha-Shivaratri festival. The winter solstice now falls on December 21, and the Maha-Shivaratri comes around March 1. This is due to the precession of the equinoxes. This again means that from the time of Kahola Kausitaki, the seasons have moved by about 70 days. So, 70 times 72 or about 5000 years must have passed. This also supports a date of about 3100 BC for the Mahabharata War. It is important to note that the two totally independent references — by Asvalayana and Kaushitaki — are mutually consistent.

Amazingly, we even have Greek records pointing to the same approximate date. Greek travellers who came to India following Alexander’s invasion have left us some tantalizing references to Krishna and also to Indian historical records as they existed in their time. Authors like Pliny referred to Krishna as Heracles, derived from Hari-Krishna. They record that the Indian Heracles — our Krishna — was held in special honour by the Sourseni tribe one of whose major cities was Methora. We can recognize them as Shuraseni and Mathura. (Shura was the father of Vasudeva and the grandfather of Krishna.)

Amazingly, we even have Greek records pointing to the same approximate date. Greek travellers who came to India following Alexander’s invasion have left us some tantalizing references to Krishna and also to Indian historical records as they existed in their time. Authors like Pliny referred to Krishna as Heracles, derived from Hari-Krishna. They record that the Indian Heracles — our Krishna — was held in special honour by the Sourseni tribe one of whose major cities was Methora. We can recognize them as Shuraseni and Mathura. (Shura was the father of Vasudeva and the grandfather of Krishna.)

Indian Heracles (Krishna) is recorded by the Greeks as having lived 138 generations before the time of Alexander and Sandracottos which we may take to be c. 330 BC. Taking 20 years per generation, which is known to be a good average when ancient Indian dynasties are involved, we are led to the computation 2760 + 330 = 3090 BC which is remarkably close to the Kali date of 3102 BC. So a reckoning based on ancient Greek records takes us again to the traditional date of c. 3100 BC.

In summary, we may safely conclude that technical and literary evidence from several independent sources point to the traditional Kali date of 3102 BC as being close to the actual date of the Mahabharata War. We have therefore overwhelming evidence showing that Krishna was a historical figure who must have lived within a century on either side of that date, i.e., in the 3200-3000 BC period. Author will next present a summary of his life and achievements.

Krishna: The Man

The sum total of our investigation so far is that there is now ample evidence to conclude that Krishna was a historical figure who lived in the late Vedic Age that saw the rise of the great urban civilization we call the Harappan. Krishna and the Mahabharata War can now be placed in the early Harappan period of c. 3100 BC. This corresponds also to the society described in the Mahabharata with its numerous urban centres. This society is strikingly different from the one described in the Ramayana, which is less urbanized. This is also what tradition tells us: from Kashmir in the north to Kanyakumari in the south knows no tradition for the Kali Date but the 3102 BC. With this historical picture firmly in place, we can begin to look at Krishna – the man and his achievements.

Reading beyond the myth accumulated over millennia, Krishna is seen to be a many sided man who lived a rich and varied life. He is of course best known as friend and counsellor to the Pandavas, especially close to his cousin Arjuna who was also his relative by marriage. While he chose to remain a non-combatant, he was nevertheless the architect of the Pandavas’ victory over the Kauravas in the great Kurukshetra battle. In fact, but for Krishna’s leadership and strategy, Pandavas may not have prevailed.

Then there is Krishna, the Vrishni prince of Dwaraka, the uncrowned king of the turbulent Yadu clan. In his capacity as their leader, he freed them from the tyranny of Kamsa and protected them against the attacks of Jarasandha, the mighty ruler of Magadha. Later, finding his people heavily outnumbered by Jarasandha’s hordes he led them in a migration west to the easily defensible Dwaraka.

Krishna also left for posterity a message that has never lost its relevance — the message embodied in his philosophy of karma yoga, the principle of action. This is his transcendent legacy, the Bhagavad-Gita, the greatest poem ever written. Its central message imparted to Dhanajaya (Arjuna) at the climactic moment before the battle, is well known but still worth repeating:

Your right is to your duty, never ever to its fruits;

Avoid distraction by seeking fruits of action, but seek also not avoidance of duty.

Abandon self-interest, O Dhananjaya! Act with detached singleness of purpose;

Treating success and failure the same — this is balance, called yoga of action.

When we study the life of Krishna, it is impossible to separate his career from his main worldly achievement — his guidance of the Pandavas in the Mahabharata War leading to their final victory. The story is too well known to be repeated in detail, so I will highlight some aspects of his life that are not as widely known as they should be.

Early Life and Personality

Krishna was the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. Krishna’s parents had been imprisoned by Devaki’s elder brother Kamsa who had allied himself with Jarasandha, the powerful ruler of Magadha and an enemy of the Yadavas of Mathura. Kamsa had usurped leadership of the Yadavas of Mathura by overthrowing the legitimate chief Ugrasena. There was said to be a prophecy about Kamsa being killed by the son of Devaki and Vasudeva, which supposedly was the reason for their imprisonment. More likely, the real reason was that the marriage of Vasudeva and Devaki had united two powerful Yadava tribes, and their son Krishna would have posed a threat to Kamsa’s hegemonic ambitions.

Krishna was born in prison but his father somehow managed to have the newborn child smuggled out to be placed under the care of his close friend Nanda who was the chief of a pastoral tribe of cowherds. Krishna’s childhood and early youth were spent in exile, out of reach of Kamsa. He was brought up in the household of the cowherd chief Nanda whose wife Yashoda became his foster mother. He was a great favourite with the people of Gokula, especially the young girls of the pastoral tribe. In the later literature this was wildly exaggerated to turn Krishna into some sort of a romantic hero.

Krishna was born in prison but his father somehow managed to have the newborn child smuggled out to be placed under the care of his close friend Nanda who was the chief of a pastoral tribe of cowherds. Krishna’s childhood and early youth were spent in exile, out of reach of Kamsa. He was brought up in the household of the cowherd chief Nanda whose wife Yashoda became his foster mother. He was a great favourite with the people of Gokula, especially the young girls of the pastoral tribe. In the later literature this was wildly exaggerated to turn Krishna into some sort of a romantic hero.

Considering that boys were sent to hermitages for study at the age of seven, it is possible to see this as the expression of their own unfulfilled fantasies by some later authors. Krishna as a romantic hero is a later creation that receives no support from early and reliable sources like the Mahabharata. The Historical Krishna is the very antithesis of his portrayal in the later literature. In fact, as Sri Bankima Chandra showed, it is doubtful that Krishna had any wife other than Rukmini. (Radha, the divine consort of Krishna, is not historical figure. Early works like the Mahabharata, Harivamsha, Bhagavata and Vishnu Purana — all are silent about Radha.)

Krishna was an introspective and philosophic man, profoundly concerned about his role in history making. Many years later he volunteered to go on a mission to prevent a calamitous war between his cousins the Kauravas and the Pandavas. Its failure was a foregone conclusion and Krishna knew it. When Vidura, a wise old man, asked Krishna why he bothered, at all, considering that war was inevitable, Krishna told him: “I am thinking not of my place and my time, but of the future — centuries and millennia hence. Future generations will think that I allowed a great calamity to befall the world without my lifting a finger to prevent it. Failure is not an excuse for lack of effort.”

Returning to his early life, his uncle Kamsa had released Krishna’s parents Devaki and Vasudeva as harmless. But he kept sending his agents to look for Krishna who represented the real threat in efforts to eliminate him. But he and his equally formidable elder brother Balarama managed to dispatch them in short order. Before long, when they felt strong enough to challenge him, Krishna and Balarama stormed Kamsa’s citadel and killed him, releasing the people from his oppressive rule. Krishna was still short of twenty, but showed his great sagacity by restoring the legitimate ruler Ugrasena to his former position. And ever after, the Yadavas of Mathura looked to Krishna for leadership and guidance.

This angered the powerful Magadhan and ruler and Kamsa’s father-in-law Jarasandha, who conducted several campaigns against Krishna. He was each time repulsed by Krishna’s superior strategy and tactics. Nonetheless Krishna realized that he and his Yadava tribes could not prevail in a battle of attrition against Jarasandha’s hordes. Out of concern for his kith and kin, Krishna finally led an exodus of his people from Mathura in the Gangetic plain to Dwaraka on the west coast of India — the seat of the Yadu country since time immemorial.

Krishna and Pandavas

After his move to Dwaraka, Krishna’s life was inextricably tied to the fate of the five Pandava brothers and their rivalry with their cousins of the House of Kurus. In Krishna’s time, the Kurus with their seat in Hastinapura had been ruled by two brothers Dhritarashtra and Pandu. Pandu’s wife Kunti was the sister of Krishna’s father Vasudeva. She had three sons — Yudhisthira (or Dharma Raja), Bhima and Arjuna; Madri had twin sons Nakula and Sahadeva. All of them were born during Pandu’s exile. He died in exile and his junior wife Madri voluntarily immolated herself on his funeral pyre. The care of all the five sons now devolved upon the young widow Kunti.

Following this calamity, Kunti decided to head back to her husband’s clan and seek protection. Although the blind Dhritarashtra was nominally the king of the Kurus, the real ruler was his uncle Bhisma. And Bhisma, a noble soul, welcomed Kunti and her sons into the palace and arranged for the care and education of the princes.

Dhritarashtra himself had numerous sons (‘a hundred’ is not to be taken literally). The eldest of his sons was Duryodhana, a proud and headstrong prince. The return of Pandu’s sons — known as the Pandavas — introduced complications in the royal succession since the eldest Pandava Yudhisthira was senior to Duryodhana, and his own father Pandu had been ruling before his exile. All the five brothers were considered outstanding warriors especially Bhima and Arjuna. Yudhisthira was known for his sense of justice and compassion, and was recognized as heir apparent, which aroused the jealousy of Duryodhana. (In ancient India, heirs were chosen based on fitness to rule; succession did not automatically go to the senior most members.)

Kunti had also a premarital son by name Karna (though he was unaware of the fact), who received the patronage of Duryodhana. He was considered an exceptional warrior — the peer of Arjuna. This was the beginning of the rivalry between Arjuna and Karna on the one hand, and the great friendship that was to blossom between Duryodhana and Karna on the other. There were several attempts to eliminate the Pandavas, and finally, fearing for their life, Kunti with her five sons again went into exile. The Pandavas were entirely isolated and led a precarious existence concerned mainly with survival against heavy odds. This helps explain the willingness of Yudhisthira to swallow humiliations when the odds were heavily against him and his brothers.

The Pandavas were forced to lead an itinerant life disguised as poor Brahmins. Their greatest need of the moment was a powerful ally who could protect them against Duryodhana and his father Dhritarashtra. In the course of their wanderings they learnt that the powerful Pancala king Drupada was to hold a contest for the hand of his daughter, the beautiful and strong willed Draupadi. The Pandavas decided to attend the contest, the svayamvara of princess Draupadi. Much to everyone’s surprise, Arjuna, disguised as a Brahmin won the contest and the hand of Draupadi. Princess Draupadi did not object and freely chose Arjuna, disguised as a poor Brahmin, as her husband.

Krishna also attended the event, but neither he nor any of the Yadavas contested for her hand. The astute and observant Krishna had seen through their disguise and recognized the five Brahmins as none other than his own cousins, the famous Pandava princes. This is the first recorded meeting between Krishna and the Pandavas. This is also the first scene in which Krishna appears in the Mahabharata.

For whatever reason, at Kunti’s insistence, the five Pandava brothers married Draupadi as their common wife. Polyandry was not unknown but looked down upon, but Kunti’s own experience probably made her feel that there was greater security in it for Draupadi. During their years of exile, Kunti and her husband had lived in the Himalayan regions where the practice of polyandry — brothers marrying a common wife — was quite common. King Drupada also was persuaded to go along with this strange marriage of his daughter. Polygamy was then common, and all the Pandavas married other women. Later Arjuna was to marry Krishna’s half sister Subhadra. Their son Abhimanyu was to attain fame as Arjuna’s peer as a warrior. But Draupadi was always recognized as the queen.

Following their marriage to Draupadi, the Pandavas felt strong enough to return to Hastinapura and demand a share of the ancestral kingdom. Duryodhana refused, but the grandfather Bhisma, who still had some influence at the court, advised partitioning the kingdom. They were granted some largely undeveloped territory that included a wilderness called Khandavaprastha. Arjuna and Krishna cleared the forest and a new city called Indraprastha (modern Delhi) was built as their capital. Following spectacular conquests, especially by Arjuna, their territories also expanded. Yudhisthira now had ambitions to be recognized as the greatest monarch of the age. But this was impossible as long as the great Jarasandha of Magadha — Krishna’s old rival — was still ruling. He would never acknowledge anyone. Yudhisthira therefore turned to Krishna for help.

Krishna, accompanied by Arjuna and his elder brother Bhima went to his old rival, Jarasandha of Magadha, and challenged him to a duel. The proud Jarasandha chose to fight with Bhima, a giant of a man generally regarded as the strongest man of the age and the most formidable in individual combat. Jarasandha was also renowned for his physical powers, but proved no match for Bhima. Bhima killed him in the duel. Jarasandha had imprisoned many princes and was thought to be an oppressive ruler. Krishna freed all the prisoners and placed Jarasandha’s son Sahadeva on the throne of Magadha. The Pandava ruler Yudhisthira could now claim to be the greatest, but Krishna wanted nothing for himself. Krishna’s greatest strength as a statesman was freedom from personal ambition.

Pandava’s Exile

Following Jarasandha’s death, Yudhisthira felt bold enough to perform the Rajasuya — a ceremony to have himself annointed the first monarch of the age. This was an occasion to which all the leading princes in the land were invited, including his cousins the Kauravas of Hastinapura. The Rajasuya aroused the envy of Duryodhana who also felt slighted by the extraordinary honours bestowed on his cousin Yudhisthira whom he regarded as an upstart. With his uncle Shakuni — the brother of his mother Gandhari — he began to scheme of ways to deprive the Pandavas of their kingdom.

[ad#Google Adsense]

Despite the honour conferred by the Rajasuya, the Pandavas’ position was far from secure. The Pandavas’ rapid rise from relative obscurity threatened the old order headed by the elder Kuru branch. Duryodhana, who seems to have been chronically suspicious by nature, sensed a threat to his own position as the king of Hastinapura. He felt that he himself would some day have to face his formidable Pandava cousins in battle and possibly even lose his kingdom. After consulting with his father, he invited Yudhisthira to Hastinapura and challenged him to a game of dice. It is not clear why Yudhisthira accepted the challenge. It is possible that Yudhisthira found it politically expedient. In the contest itself Duryodhona was represented by his crafty uncle Shakuni. Yudhisthira staked and lost everything including the freedom of all the Pandavas and their wife Draupadi.

It is unnecessary to get into the details of the humiliation of Draupadi and the Pandavas; I will only note that the story of the endless sari supplied by Krishna’s blessing that saved Draupadi’s honours is a much later interpolation found only in some southern versions of the Mahabharata. From the oldest version, I conclude that her invoking Krishna as a threat, though the Pandavas had lost their freedom, was enough to persuade Dhritarshtra to release them. The upshot was that the Pandavas had to give up their kingdom and spend twelve years in the forest followed by a year in hiding; if discovered in the thirteenth year, it was to be more of the same.

Once again the Pandavas were exiled and left for the forest with their queen Draupadi. Their mother Kunti remained in Hastinapura staying with their uncle Vidura. Krishna took Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu with him to Dwaraka, and Draupadi’s brother Dhristhadymna took her five sons with him to her father’s house in Pancala. For the next thirteen years Abhimanyu was to live with his uncle Krishna to be brought up under his tutelage as a warrior to almost equal Arjuna.

After twelve years spent wandering in the forests, the Pandavas and Draupadi went to the Matsya country ruled by Virata. Disguised as servants, they found employment in various capacities in the royal household. At the end of their year spent incognito Virata was delighted to learn that these were the great Pandava brothers. A marriage alliance was also concluded with Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu — now a dashing young prince of eighteen years — and princess Uttara, the daughter of Virata and queen Sudeshna.

Now with some firm alliances — with Virata, Drupada and, of course Krishna — Yudhisthira asked for his share of the kingdom. But Duryodhana refused to honour his commitment. Even though he offered some lame excuses, it was a brutal breaking of a solemn agreement. Krishna again enters the scene, first to prevent the war, and then to guide the Pandavas to victory. This is what I will discuss in my next article.

Prelude to War

War seemed inevitable, but Krishna tried to bring about a peaceful resolution. After preliminary negotiations failed, he decided to visit the court of Hastinapura and make a personal appeal to the Kuru elders to honor their promise and avoid a terrible war. Krishna’s fruitless embassy to the Kaurava court exemplifies his philosophy of selfless action. He knew well that Duryodhana was not the man to see reason, but he tried nonetheless. As he explained it: “It is greatly meritorious to prevent bloodshed — to save the lives of numberless soldiers and horsemen, of animals — of horses and elephants — and all kinds of life. Duryodhana will suspect me, but so be it. He who fails to try his utmost to save misguided friends from impending calamity — such a man is no better than an enemy. A friend is not a true if he fails to give proper advice to kinsmen bent on the wrong course.”

Krishna’s visit created great excitement in the capital city of Hastinapura. He was the most celebrated figure of his day and people had lined the streets to catch a glimpse of the great man. He went straight to the modest dwelling of Vidura where Kunti had been staying during her sons’ exile, declining the royal hospitality offered by the Kauravas. Bhisma was particularly distressed. Despite being much the senior in age, he had always regarded Krishna as his master and superior.

“A mansion has been kept in readiness for you,” Bhisma told him. “Why won’t you accept our hospitality?”

Krishna shook his head. “My lord Bhisma!” the great man replied, “you have blessed me, and that is hospitality enough for me from those I respect. I shall be staying with Vidura — a good friend and a righteous man. His modest abode is made grand by the qualities of the people who live in it.” And he said something else that shows his sense of purpose no less than his impish sense of humour.

Krishna shook his head. “My lord Bhisma!” the great man replied, “you have blessed me, and that is hospitality enough for me from those I respect. I shall be staying with Vidura — a good friend and a righteous man. His modest abode is made grand by the qualities of the people who live in it.” And he said something else that shows his sense of purpose no less than his impish sense of humour.

“I am here on a definite mission — to bring peace between two parties bent on war. A man on a mission accepts the hospitality of others for one of two reasons: to celebrate the accomplishment of his mission, or because he is in dire need. My mission has not been accomplished, nor am I in any particular need. Agree to a peaceful resolution and give back the Pandavas their share of the kingdom. I shall then join you in the celebration.”

But his advice fell on deaf years. He made one last attempt to prevent war by trying to win away Karna, the greatest warrior on the Kaurava side. He pointed out that as their eldest brother, the Pandavas would honour him as their leader. But Karna refused. “Living in the family of the Kauravas, I have freely enjoyed their hospitality. On my strength alone has Duryodhana sought this conflict with the Pandavas. I cannot now desert him.”

Krishna left Hastinapura with a foreboding of calamity. Upon his return from the failed embassy, he reported to the Pandavas speaking in beautiful rhythmic tones:

Maya nagapuram gatva sabhayam dhritarastrajah

Tathyam pathyam hitam cokto na ca grihnati durmatih

(In my visit to Hastinapura, in the assembly, Duryodhana was told what was truthful, helpful and beneficial, but that fool does not want to grasp anything sensible.)

There would be no happy warriors now, only men resigned to their fate. The result of the Mahabharata War is well known. The Kauravas and their eleven armies were totally destroyed by the smaller Pandava force of seven armies. The war lasted eighteen days, but for the first ten days, with Bhisma in command of the Kaurava forces, it was more an armed demonstration than earnest warfare. After the fall of Bhisma on the tenth day, the war began in earnest when Drona assumed command of the Kaurava forces. This was a disaster for the Kaurava side: the war for all practical purposes was decided on the fourteenth day when Arjuna, Bhima and the Yadava prince Satyaki (Krishna’s cousin) coordinated their forces to destroy seven of the eleven Kaurava armies. This is often overlooked even though Parvasangraha — a chapter briefly summarizing all the major episodes of the Mahabharata — records the defeat and destruction of the seven Kaurava armies on the fourteenth day of war. It shows that the Kauravas, despite their superior numbers proved no match for the Pandavas in fighting effectiveness and strategy. And Krishna, though he had sworn not to bear arms, was constantly at Arjuna’s side as his charioteer and counselor. In addition, there was little unity among the Kaurava warriors.

The Great Kurukshetra War

The stage was now set for war. It was part of the historic land known as Kurukshetra, known also as Samantapancaka, lying between the Vedic rivers Sarasvati and Drishadvati — both now dry. The land, however, still goes by the same name, lying in the present state of Haryana north of Delhi. Samantapancaka is believed to be the field where Parasurama, the son of Jamadagni had finally destroyed the Haihaya ruler Kartavirya and his horde after their depredations all over the land. More likely it was Sagara, emperor of Ayodhya (and Rama’s ancestor) who had vanquished them and brought peace to the land. This is said to have brought the Krita Yuga, the first of four ages, to a close.

The four war books of the epic are named after the four Kaurava commanders — Bhisma, Drona, Karna and Shalya. Bhisma repeatedly appealed to Duryodhana to make peace with his cousins. But this was not to be. At the same time none of the Pandavas wanted to be the one to kill him. Bhisma led the troops for ten uneventful days. The most notable event of the Bhismaparva — Book of Bhisma — is the declaration of the Gita (The Bhagavad-Gita) by Krishna to Arjuna who recoiled from the horrors of this war. The Gita of course uses this as the setting for expounding on a new philosophy — away from the ritual of the later Vedas towards a new one emphasizing action. This is not the place to go into its philosophy, but the scene does show the agonizing dilemma in which Arjuna and other warriors on the Pandava side were placed. It might have been Bhisma’s hope also, to keep stalling until cooler heads could prevail resulting in a treaty.

Krishna was opposed to this. As one who had tried everything to prevent war, he felt it should now be vigorously prosecuted. With his transcendent genius he saw that it was impossible to make a lasting peace with a man like Duryodhana. It was now a fight to the finish. Finally, on the tenth day, the Pancala prince Shikhandin (Draupadi’s half brother) brought Bhisma down with a stream of arrows. Although not dead, Bhisma, the grand old man of the ancient Kuru clan, was seriously wounded and laid waiting for death to release him. Drona replaced the fallen Bhisma as the Kaurava commander-in-chief, and the war suddenly took a new and deadly turn.

Drona was the most celebrated teacher of his day. His name is still synonymous with excellence in teaching athletics and martial arts. Arjuna was his greatest and most favourite pupil. As a Brahmin, it was not entirely proper for him to be taking part in war, but he felt a certain obligation towards Duryodhana for his generosity. There was another reason: Drona was fond of money. Although Arjuna treated him with utmost respect, his elder brother, the formidable Bhima had seen through the old Brahmin’s weakness and held him in low esteem. In the heat of battle, Bhima once derided Drona: “For us Kshatriyas [warriors], warfare is our duty. We incur no sin for we fight in the defence of others. But for men like you — pious Brahmins — it is your duty to teach the world to move away from the path of violence. And yet you! — honoured Brahmin — have resorted to bloodshed for enriching yourself.”

Drona was the most celebrated teacher of his day. His name is still synonymous with excellence in teaching athletics and martial arts. Arjuna was his greatest and most favourite pupil. As a Brahmin, it was not entirely proper for him to be taking part in war, but he felt a certain obligation towards Duryodhana for his generosity. There was another reason: Drona was fond of money. Although Arjuna treated him with utmost respect, his elder brother, the formidable Bhima had seen through the old Brahmin’s weakness and held him in low esteem. In the heat of battle, Bhima once derided Drona: “For us Kshatriyas [warriors], warfare is our duty. We incur no sin for we fight in the defence of others. But for men like you — pious Brahmins — it is your duty to teach the world to move away from the path of violence. And yet you! — honoured Brahmin — have resorted to bloodshed for enriching yourself.”

Drona, through his inept leadership in the field, led the Kauravas to disaster. Not only the veterans Bhima, Arjuna and Satyaki, but also the young Abhimanyu began to decimate the Kaurava army in large numbers. Now, the Kauravas, throwing all sense of decency to the wind, ambushed Abhimanyu and killed him, with several warriors surrounding him when he was single and disarmed. The killing of Abhimanyu — single and unarmed — was the most heinous act committed in this war marked by hatred. It truly marked the dawn of a new age — the Age of Kali — in which force and cunning replaced truth and justice as the arbiter of disputes. The unholy death of Abhimanyu was the real divide. He was the first martyr of the Kali Age.

The killing of his son Abhimnyu convinced Arjuna that this was now a fight to finish in which his adversaries would stop at nothing. The real and substantive outcome of the fourteenth day of battle — the day after Abhmanyu’s death — was that Arjuna, Satyaki and Bhima had destroyed seven of the eleven Kaurava armies. For all practical purposes the war was over.

On the fifteenth day Drona himself was killed by Draupadi’s brother Dhrishtadyumna. There are several accounts of how Drona died. All these are contradictory and filled with supernatural elements, but a very ancient authentic account is preserved in the Ashwamedha Parva. Upon his return to Dwaraka after the war, Krishna gave a brief account of the main episodes of the war to his father Vasudeva. According to Krishna, who actually was an eyewitness to the proceedings, “Drona was extremely tired after the fifth day. He was being harried all this while by Dhrishtadyumna who finally killed him.” Drona was advanced in years while his adversary was in the prime of his life.

That was the end of Drona, a great teacher but a man of ambivalent morals. With Drona’s death, Karna at long last was made commander of the Kaurava army. He was now to lead the Kauravas against his own brothers. Karna was the ablest of the warriors on the Kaurava side. He assumed command at a time when the situation was beyond retrieval. He was further burdened by his knowledge that he was now fighting his own brothers, while the Pandavas, ignorant of the fact, suffered from no such handicap.

The war books (the war Parvas) of the Mahabharata are confused, heavily over laden with interpolations. But it still possible to see that under Karna, the Kaurava army — what was left of it — performed much better than it had under Drona. On the evening of the sixteenth day, following his first day in command, Karna realized that the situation had become desperate. He decided that he would have to meet Arjuna in battle the next day and force the issue. He also recognized that Arjuna derived much of his effectiveness from Krishna’s direction and skill as charioteer. He always kept the chariot in motion while Arjuna concentrated on his quarry. This shows that Krishna had evolved a new form of warfare that allowed him to overcome numerically superior forces. To counter this advantage, Karna asked Shalya to be his charioteer. After much persuasion, Shalya agreed.

Karna took the field the next day against the Pandavas, but did not last long. As he saw Arjuna’s chariot, he asked Shalya take him towards Arjuna. Karna’s was a cruel fate. The first of the Pandavas, he was soon to be locked in a life and death battle with Arjuna, the greatest of them. While Arjuna fought him with a clear conscience, Karna knew he was fighting his own brother. His agony was soon to end. In his fight with Arjuna, Karna never had a chance. On the seventeenth day, the second day after assuming command of what was left of the Kaurava army, Karna fell. Everything that could go wrong had gone wrong. His charioteer, the volatile Shalya, had not been much help. His own chariot became stuck in the mud. Immobilized, a solitary figure struggling to extricate his chariot, Arjuna dispatched him with a single arrow. In skill and dash he was Arjuna’s peer, but emotionally was unequal to the task.

That was the fate of Karna, the noblest warrior on the Kaurava side who was actually fighting his own brothers. He could easily have saved himself by changing sides and joining his brothers. They would have honoured him as their king. As their chief he could have ruled the Kuru Empire. But that would mean going back on his word to Duryodhana. The great Karna never went back on his word – Death before dishonour. In death at his brother’s hand Karna had at last found the peace that was denied him in life.

Shalya was now appointed the Kaurava commander. On the eighteenth day of the war, Shalya led what was left of the Kaurava army. Yudhisthira advanced to meet him. At first, Shalya had the upper hand. Yudhisthira had to temporarily withdraw to regroup himself. Shalya now had to face Bhima. And now it was Shalya’s turn to be overpowered. He too retreated to regain his forces. When he returned, he met an extremely determined Yudhisthira. Finally Shalya fell, pierced by a spear hurled by Yudhisthira.

Now only the mopping up of the Kaurava forces remained. The sinister Shakuni, the evil genius behind Duryodhana’s schemes, was checked by Sahadeva as he was trying to run away from the battlefield. Sahadeva killed him. The whole Kaurava army had been annihilated. Out of eleven armies, only some two hundred chariots, five hundred horses, a hundred elephants and some three thousand foot soldiers remained. The Pandavas had also suffered heavy losses, but most of their leaders had survived; Abhimanyu was the only important warrior lost on the Pandava side. Duryodhana left the field and escaped to a hiding place in the nearby Dvaipayana Lake. The Pandavas accompanied by Krishna went looking for him. There could be no peace as long as Duryodhana was alive.

They located his hiding place, probably a cave on a small island in the lake. They called out to him to come out and fight. Then Yudhisthira in his anger made a very foolish offer. “I will give you a chance to fight us and go to heaven. Choose any weapon you want and fight any of us. If you win, the kingdom is yours. I will fight you personally if you want.”   Yudhisthira had committed a gallant blunder.  Duryodhana’s favourite weapon was the mace or the club at which he had few equals. In a man-to-man combat only Bhima was a match for him. Krishna admonished Yudhisthira: “This is foolhardiness. You should not have given him this choice. You know that Bhima is the only one who can fight him. With you as their leader, the Pandavas are fated to live in exile for ever.”

Fortunately Yudhisthira’s folly was erased by Duryodhana’s arrogance. He accepted Bhima’s challenge ignoring all others. The deadly mace duel began. The rules of combat specified that no blows were to be struck below the waist. Fourteen years ago, following Draupadi’s humiliation in the Kaurava court, Bhima had sworn to kill Duryodhana by smashing his thighs. Now in the heat of the battle he seemed to have forgotten all about his vow. During a momentary break in the fighting, Arjuna caught Bhima’s attention and sent him a signal by conspicuously slapping his own thigh. Reminded of his oath, Bhima feinted and then with all his might struck a tremendous blow that smashed his adversary’s thighs. Duryodhana fell mortally wounded.

This is the most widely accepted view, but there are problems. There are reasons to think that Bhima’s striking Duryodhana below the belt was unintended, the result of Duryodhana leaping to avoid a particularly fierce blow. The result was the same; Duryodhana fell with both his thighs broken. The Pandavas were finally victorious. There were more tragedies, like Aswhatthama’s night attack on the Pancala camp, which need not detain us here. For all practical purposes, Krishna’s work with the Pandavas was over and he returned to Dwaraka.

End of an Era

The end of Krishna was somewhat ignominious. There was a calamitous internecine war in which almost the whole Vrishni clan had perished. Krishna had survived the holocaust and decided to spend the rest of his life in prayer and contemplation in the forest. While sleeping in the forest, a hunter by name Jara accidentally shot him with an arrow, mistaking him for a deer. He realized his terrible mistake and begged Krishna’s forgiveness. Krishna, fatally wounded, forgave his assailant and gave up his life. That was the end of the grandest figure perhaps in all of history. He is God incarnate to many, but for everyone the following words of Bhisma give a true measure of the man and his life:

Krishna is the greatest warrior and the greatest scholar. In the entire world it is not possible to find another man endowed with such an abundance of virtues. And yet he is modest, compassionate and generous. … Where there is Krishna, there is victory. Victory is second nature with Krishna. It follows him like a shadow.

Krishna is the greatest warrior and the greatest scholar. In the entire world it is not possible to find another man endowed with such an abundance of virtues. And yet he is modest, compassionate and generous. … Where there is Krishna, there is victory. Victory is second nature with Krishna. It follows him like a shadow.

And in the words of the noble Gandhari: Where there is Krishna there is justice, where there is justice there is victory.

[ad#Google Adsense]