In economics, path dependency is useful tool to understand complex systems. Implied in path dependence is history matters. Current actions by humans either individual or as a society is often hostage to the outcomes of the past actions. Therefore even though the current actions might seem imperfect or below Pareto optimal, these actions are rational given the historical antecedents to the current backdrop. At times, in history, rulers, administrators, warriors, kingdoms, countries, societies manifest an action that might deviate from normal. Yet at that moment of time, it might have been observed as small compromise or small adjustment and unlikely to have long term ramifications. Yet the outcome of these actions amplify with time and deviate significantly from the normal. Thus the present gets held up or become hostage to the past.
The thought of path dependency comes to the mind as Doordarshan began re-telecasting Mahabharata ostensibly to keep people occupied during the 21 day lockdown. As one analyses Mahabharata, there are numerous instances which at the moment of occurrence might have been deemed innocuous or slight departure from normal yet over a period of time become a root cause for Great War at Kurukshetra. These actions literally ended up in the long run a destruction of a society or at least the manner in which the society was organised then.
The story begins with Shantanu, the king of Hastinapur falls in love with Satyawati, a daughter of local chieftain. The chieftain agrees for the marriage on only one condition, Satywati’s children would get the throne of Hastinapur. It would not have been possible since Shatanu already had a son Devrata who was the rightful heir. Listening to this predicament, Devrata takes the vow of not just relinquishing the throne but also of life long celibacy precluding the possibility of his children ascending the throne. For this vow, he comes to be known as Bheeshma. This vow by Bheeshma might have seemed contextual to enable his father get married to the love of his life. Interestingly, Bheeshma’s birth was preceded by alleged drowning of his seven brothers at time of their birth. Shantanu had married Ganga, Bheeshma’s mother in another ‘love’ marriage which is a story in itself.
Bheeshma not marrying, seemed a non-issue though ethically numerous questions can be raised. While the moral question of whether a father should have put his love interest ahead of his son’s future is debatable, that is not a story for today. The story is how this seemingly contextual action laid the roots for War.
Post Shatanu’s death, Satywati’s children Vichitraveerya and Chitrangada ascend the throne in succession but both do not live long enough to produce children. They were weak rulers protected by the strength and guile of Bheeshma who even found them three brides, one of whom is sent back. Apparently, Amba one of the three wives brought for these two brothers wanted to marry another ruler whom Bheeshma defeated. She was sent back but her former fiancé refused to accept her. She wanted to marry Bheeshma, but he refuse citing the vow. She commits suicide to take rebirth as Shikhandi whom one will see later.
The other two brides, Ambika and Ambalika bore children through Maharishi Vyasa. The elder Dhritarastra was blind by birth and hence was overruled for the throne by the younger Pandu who too was medically unfit. Vidura the youngest and born to a maid servant was the most intellectual yet being the maid’s son was ineligible for the throne. Pandu, unknowing murdered a sage and his wife thus receiving a curse and as a punishment banished himself into the forest. It was in the forest that the five Pandavas were born. Meanwhile Dhritarastra ruled over Hastinapura and by extension, his eldest son Duryodhana was to be next in line of succession. Pandu’s death brings back the Pandavas into Hastinapura resulting in the conflict.
Duryodhana could never stomach Yudhistira as a heir apparent and engaged in numerous conspiracies to kill them. The solution was partition of the kingdom with Indraprastha being given to Pandavas. As the Pandavas celebrated Indraprastha with Rajasuya Yagna, Draupadi laughed at Duryodhana’s attempts to walk in the palace. He apparently thought it was clear land and as he walked into it, it was a slippery with water and thus fell down. At another point, the surface looked slippery with water, he became careful in navigating the same and found it to be dry invoking Draupadi and her maid-servants’ laughter. This seemingly another innocuous moment turned into a situation for revenge for Duryodhana who left no opportunity to humiliate her, the cause of the war.
In the war it was Shikandi who became the reason for Bheeshma’s fall. Without Drapuadi laughing at Duryodhana, it would have been possible for the two princely lineages to coexist in their respective kingdoms. In fact post exile, Duryodhana stuck to a corner solution and refused to listen to the requests of Pandavas. As an aside, Kunti abandoning Karna and refusing to acknowledge him as her son till the very end too created the complications.
If one observes, the epic, Bheeshma’s vow not to marry, Dhristratra being overruled by Pandu for the throne, consequent regaining the throne, Kunti abandoning her son Karna in fear, Draupadi’s laughter on Duryodhana, Bheeshma defeating Gandhara and humiliating them to bring Gandhari as a bride for the blind Dhritarasthra and consequent imprisonment of Gandhara princes all were actions rooted in a context, anchored in a backdrop serving immediate needs yet with time amplified sufficiently enough to create a Great War that ended with destruction all over. The path dependency in tracing the course of history in Mahabharata thus becomes quite illuminating. It certainly gives a lot points ot ponder about.
Thoughts on Theory and Practice 