The first signs of confl ict between the Pandavas and the Kauravas become visible right in their childhood, before Drona is made their preceptor. This is the period in which the gamboling of this band of hundred-plus boys is largely unsupervised. And, like we know from William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, it doesn’t take long for childhood competitiveness to transform into murderous rage. But like with all fi ghts between children, the question of “who started it” is of considerable importance. In the case of a single bully dominating proceedings, it is not diffi cult to foresee the bullied ones fi nally venting out through a particularly violent response.
In the Mahabharata, there is a strong suggestion that Bhim started it, and also that he was a bully with his cousins. Before any mention of any wrongdoing by the Kauravas, the text says this about Bhim: “Playfully, he grabbed them (the Kauravas) by the hair above their ears.” The Kaurava princes must have resisted, so: “He caught them by the heads when they fought with the Pandavas.” Bhim is alone in responding to these ‘fi ghts’. Yudhistira, with all his goodness and righteousness, doesn’t step in, and doesn’t even get a mention among all this. It is no doubt that Bhim’s violence is excessive, and also that he derives some pleasure from it: “He would throw them down on the ground and break their thighs, heads and shoulders. When playing in the water, he would sometimes catch ten of them in his arms and hold them down in the water, letting them go only when they were about to drown.”
Imagine being a boy and facing this torture day after day from another who is physically stronger. Imagine being a band of princes who are collectively bullied by a single strong adversary. Imagine the shame. Bhim doesn’t grab any of his Pandava brothers by ‘the hair above their ears’. The differentiation between the two bands of brothers is already there, and Bhim, with his selective bullying, establishes it. The text tries to qualify Bhim’s position by specifying that ‘he bore no ill will towards them, since he was only a child’. One sees the ridiculousness of this qualifi cation when immediately afterwards, Duryodhana is described as ‘wicked and inclined towards evil’ even before any of his actions are provided to us.
Why is the text so sure about Duryodhana at this stage? Duryodhana does make attempts to kill Bhim, fi rst by drowning and then by poisoning. Being the eldest among the Kauravas, one can understand why he fi nds it necessary to respond to Bhim’s bullying. His responses are, indeed, excessive. But if one’s starting position is to see Duryodhana as a normal, decent boy, then his transformation into a murderer also suggests that Bhim’s bullying was severe and unrelenting. Note, again, that at this time Duryodhana’s father is king, and he must believe that he and his brothers should not be taking any sh*t. (The writer’s fi rst novel ‘Neon Noon’ is now available)