SIMON BRODBECK
Cardiff University BrodbeckSP@cardiff.ac.uk
THE PLAN TO CAPTURE YUDHIṢṬHIRA IN THE DROṆAPARVAN
After Droṇa is made Kaurava senāpati, Duryodhana asks him to capture Yudhiṣṭhira alive. This paper explains and discusses this. The interpretation offered hinges on one line:
satyapratijñe tv ānīte punardyūtena nirjite |
punar yāsyanty araṇyāya kaunteyās tam anuvratāḥ || MBh 7,11.17 ||
When true-to-his-promise is brought and defeated in again-dicing,
OR Since true-to-his-promise was brought and defeated in again-dicing,
The Kaunteyas, devoted to him, will go to the forest again. Does this line refer to a future dice match that Duryodhana wants to have with Yudhiṣṭhira after Droṇa has captured him, and that Duryodhana would win, thus banishing the Pāṇḍavas into exile again? The southern-recension hyparchetype interpolates an extra line in the middle of the verse to require this interpretation: 91*, tasmiñ jīvati cānīte hy upāyair bahubhiḥ kṛtaiḥ. Nīlakaṇṭha is silent here and does not include this southern-recension interpolation in his text, but nonetheless, the translators Ganguli, Dutt, Pilikian, Smith, and Debroy follow this interpretation. Alternatively, as I argue, the line refers to the second dice match in the Sabhāparvan, which Yudhiṣṭhira was brought back for and defeated in (ānīte, nirjite). The covenant was that if the Pāṇḍavas were discovered during their thirteenth year―the year in disguise―they would go into exile for twelve more years. This interpretation hinges on the fact that Duryodhana knows Arjuna was discovered, after shedding his disguise as Bṛhannaḍā shortly before the thirteenth year finished. In the paper’s first half, this interpretation is supported by reviewing the word punardyūta– in the Mahābhārata, and also “The End of the Pāṇḍavas’ Year in Disguise” in the Virāṭaparvan, as discussed in my article in Journal of Hindu Studies 13.3 (2020). There I showed that Arjuna was discovered, but that Arjuna and Uttara kept this from Yudhiṣṭhira. The issue was ostensibly concluded when Bhīṣma ruled that the thirteenth year was over at that point, and Duryodhana had to defer to Bhīṣma’s ruling. But in the Udyogaparvan, Duryodhana refused to return the Pāṇḍavas’ kingdom because they should first serve another twelve years. Bhīṣma’s death seems now to provide Duryodhana with the option of a dialogue with Yudhiṣṭhira. He wants to gamble that Yudhiṣṭhira is satyapratijña-, “true to his promise”. In the paper’s second half, the Droṇaparvan narrative is reviewed in light of this interpretation. Droṇa prompted Bhīṣma’s false ruling (“Dhanaṃjaya would not have shown himself, if their exile were not over”, 4.46.16, trans. van Buitenen) and is repeatedly accused by Duryodhana of deliberately not capturing Yudhiṣṭhira. This accusation is credible, especially in light of Droṇa’s identity as an avatāra of Bṛhaspati in order to ensure mass slaughter. But the possibility of Yudhiṣṭhira’s capture is thrilling when Yudhiṣṭhira makes himself increasingly vulnerable by sending away first Sātyaki and then Bhīma to support Arjuna. The paper also wonders whether Yudhiṣṭhira (at some level) wants to be captured so that the covenant can be fulfilled; it revisits the Yudhiṣṭhira–Arjuna spat in the Karṇaparvan (8,45–50) in light of Arjuna’s Virāṭaparvan deception and this Droṇaparvan sequel; and it revisits Dharma’s promise that the Pāṇḍavas will be undiscovered during their thirteenth year (at 3,298.15–19) as a possible way out of the ambiguities of this situation.