Yudhisthir - I do because I must.

Warning: This is a long post.

The other day, a friend of mine told me how her mother responded when she discussed with her that Mahabharata ends with Yudhishthir achieving Swarga. (It was a surprise for my friend too unless I revealed it to her). The response of her mother was typical - What for? Gambling away his wife and kingdom?

This response that came as a question crossed my ears, stirred my mind and made me seek answers, recalling all that Yudhishthir did throughout his life; from attempting to balance the brotherhood of Kauravs and Pandavs during childhood to transforming the forest of Khandavaprastha to the heavenly city of Indraprastha, from controlling the reigns of an almost devastated Hastinapur to finally climbing the Himalayas leaving everything behind. After reading the epic and leaning about its characters, we usually come to the common conclusion that Yudhishthir was a mighty, truthful, righteous, kind king who gambled away his wife. Sure enough, it's a pity that Alanis Morissette forgot to include our Dharmaraj in "Ironic".

Yudhishir is that character of Mahabharata whose complexity lies in the utter simplicity and predictability of his conduct. Even the thought that somebody could be so compliant with his dharma that not a word left his mouth without righteous self-brainstorming seems fantastically impractical. Yet, that is what we know Yudhishthir for. The one who lived his life in adherence to the rule-books of the society, always saying and doing what the learned preached (except when he gambled away his wife). His brothers who, at times, disagreed with him, also followed him religiously in every step of his life. Collectively, the five Pandavs were considered to be the upholders of Dharma in the Dwapar Yug.

Then what went wrong? Why did he suffer so much throughout his life when he was trying to live his life the ideal way setting examples in righteousness for future generations? And why even after all this righteousness we still recall him as the king who gambled away his wife?

Throughout the epic, Yudhishthir has been referred to as an epitome of Dharma since he was born to Kunti by Dharma deva. His behaviour was expected to be a man of rectitude in all situations, whatever the cost maybe. At various points, when different characters are in dilemmas, he comes into the frame, quotes some scriptures and gets away after convincing people to do the right thing. That's a different thing what they did and what they didn't!

Some situations where the wisdom of Yudhishthir was noticed by all:

1. At the school of the Pandavas and the palace of Hastinapur, Yudhishthir was always the young boy who was more mature than any of his brothers (and at times his elders too). His being the eldest grandson of Vichitraveerya had almost enrooted in the minds of Bheeshma, Kripa and Vidhur that he should be the rightful heir.
2. When Dhritarashtra was faced with the dilemma of choosing his heir and was suggested by Vidhur to take the decision based on the prince's capabilities and not his parents, he proved his mettle by the sagacious decision-making that was approved by all the wise in the court.
3. Only the rat escapes the forest fire - The riddle by Vidhur to warn Pandavas about the house of lac was solved only by Yudhishthir and only after this the Pandavas could save themselves and their mother.
4. When Kunti ordered Arjun to share what he had won with his five brothers, the entire family went into the dharma-sankat of sharing the wife or obeying the mother. It was at this point when Yudhishthir quoted from the scriptures stories of the past where women had married multiple brothers in a family while upholding the traditions of the society. This ensured that the word of the mother was not broken and that Draupadi's chastity would not be questioned even if she married five brothers.
5. When Dhritarashtra offered him the barren half of Hastinapur (Khandavaprastha), he accepted it with free will, much to the chagrin of his younger brothers, but for the peace of the family at large. Even though he deserved the full kingdom, he did not yearn for anything more than what was offered.
6. After reuniting the small kingdoms of the Indian mainland, Yudhishthir's rajsuya yagya was conducted that established him as an independent monarch (or emperor, whichever word suits you more). 
7. After the gambling episode, while in exile the four younger Pandavas and their wife were infuriated and craving for revenge, it was only Yudhishthir who realized that the calamity had fallen upon them due to his own love for gambling and that he will not go for a massively destructing war just in order to avenge their humiliation. When the younger Pandavas suggested that after thirteen days they were technically allowed to go back to their kingdom according to the scriptures, Yudhishthir affirmed that he would not interpret the scriptures to his convenience. He would keep his word that he accepted at the time of gambling, howsoever long the suffering may be.
8. During the exile, when the gandharavas captured Duryodhan, Yudhishthir sent Bheema and Arjun to rescue him, keeping all the humiliation aside and considering Duryodhan to be their brother, whose protection he felt was the duty of the Pandavas.
9. When the four over-confident Pandavas did not answer Yaksha's questions and died as a result, only Yudhishthir displayed complete patience and wisdom by answering his questions. When asked to resurrect one of his brothers, he chose Nakul and not the powerful Arjun, in order to be fair to Nakul's mother, Madri. Yaksha (Dharma in disguise), finally resurrected the four Pandavas. The family was thus saved once again only for the wisdom of Yudhishthir.
10. After the exile, Yudhishthir came to terms that if Duryodhan kept his word and returned Indraprastha, no blood would flow. He would not wage a war only to avenge his humiliation. He kept the welfare of the family and people above the throne any day. It was only after Duryodhan's dogmatism left no option, that he went for the battle in Kurukshetra.
11. To the last day of the war, Yudhishthir was considerate towards the Kauravs and continued to propose that if Duryodhan kept his word even at the last moment, he would stop the war.
12. Yudhishthir followed the part of righterousness throughout his life which took him to the top of the Himalayas to the door of Swarga before he was confronted by the devas.

In spite of this, we do remember him as the king who gambled away his wife. After knowing the characteristics of Yudhishthir so well, let's consider the gambling episode again.

An ever-obedient son of the family is invited to a game of gamble by his elders, which by the Kshatriya code of that time could not be reverted by any king. Doesn't require much thinking as to what he had to do. During the game of gamble, the first rule was broken by Duryodhan to let Shakuni roll the dice, which should have been rolled by him. Yudhishthir had tried to oppose but on seeing the will of the elders did not leave the game in between to save the blind king from disgrace. What followed was a series of stakes in which he continued to lose everything from his personal possessions to his kingdom to his brothers and then himself. Throughout this game, though his personal fondness for gambling was there, he was also obliged to continue the game as there was no order from the blind king to stop it. It was disgraceful for a player to withdraw from the game on his own will while he was losing. And he could not have won under any circumstances as Shakuni's dice was loaded. Was Yudhishthir left with options?

After losing himself in the stake, Yudhishthir followed what his master Duryodhan ordered him to - stake Draupadi. And he did it. And we know what followed. Don't we?

This clearly indicates what happened was totally against Yudhishthir's will but he didn't raise voice as the code of conduct did not allow him to do so, being the Dharmaraaj that he was. Where did the fault actually lie then? Was it in his stick adherence to the code or in the code of conduct itself? Even when all the rules of the conduct were being followed, Draupadi was not saved from humiliation? So does the blame for this entirely fall on only this king who gambled away his wife? Is no one responsible for what happened after that? Was Yudhishthir the creator of the code or only an obsessed follower? Gurcharan das quoted, "Life is a dice game, with rules known to be deceptive; where the least experienced least adequate player is nevertheless pushed to the point of staking everything he has, with the certainty of losing." I somehow believe that it was absolutely true in Yudhishthir's case.

Throughout the epic, Yudhishthir had been trying to follow the path of the idealistic Ram by sticking to code. But while Ram had brothers who were willing to serve him whole-heartedly, Yudhishthir was faced with a set of cousins who had done everything in their capacity to harm him. Where Ram's actions reflect a strict adherence to the code that generates from the deep love in his heart, Yudhishthir's strict adherence is a result of his belief - I do because I must. He clinged to the correctness of the acts, not the consequences. He never let the suffering of his heart reflect in his actions.

However, after the thirteen-year exile, Yudhishthir transformed to a great extent. He realized that the line of total non-violence had been crossed and if the need be, weapons had to be wielded. The point of this would, still, not be his personal interests but the establishment of Dharma, by ensuring that a prince like Duryodhan who never kept his word never becomes the king.

Yudhishthir, who gambled away his life, did transform. What we want to remember him for is our choice.

Share it amongst yourselves!

“Share it amongst yourselves!” – A mother orders her five sons; with least realization, that this order would change the course of history of an entire nation. Along with history, this would also change the perception and mindset of people (especially men) towards women over generations and for centuries to come. This order, which came from a woman, made a princess a single wife of five warrior brothers. The mother, obviously, is Kunti, the Rakhi Gulzar of Mahabharata, and the five brothers are her five sons (post her marriage to the Kuru King – Pandu). The woman being commoditized by this order is the dark yet radiant beauty, Draupadi, the daughter of the King of Panchal, Dhrupad.

It so happened, that King Dhrupad had organized a swayamvar for his daughter Draupadi and had invited warriors from all over the country to participate (priests were allowed too, though nobody expected them to win in front of the famed warriors of the nation). In this contest, the one who would pierce the eye of the model of a fish rotating on the ceiling by looking into its reflection in the water below would win the Draupadi as his wife. Every man in the arena desired, yet only few could lift the bow, even few could string it but only one could actually hit the target. This “one” was none other than the famed archer, Arjun, the third son of Kunti and the favourite student of Drona. During this period, the Pandav princes were wandering through forests, disguised as priests. They sustained on alms that they gathered during the day.

The epic Mahabharata, which is 99.75% full of serious episodes and heart wrenching descriptions, has very less scope for humour. But poor Pandavs, of course being unaware of that, playfully told their mother that they were back with the day’s alms, alluding at Draupadi. Our dear Rakhi, almost in a reflex, ordered the five brothers to share it amongst themselves. The rest is history! Draupadi had to marry the five brothers and stay with each one for a year; starting with Yudhishthir, and repeating the cycle every five years. The same Draupadi became the queen of Indraprastha and led a life of luxury for years in the Palace of Indraprastha. The same Draupadi gave birth to five sons of the five Pandavs during this period. The same Draupadi was gambled in a treacherous game of dice and was lost. The same Draupadi was pulled with her hair and dragged to the court in one piece. The same Draupadi was disrobed in the court in front of her five husbands and elders of the family.

Vyas surely wanted to explore many aspects of the human character by putting such an intricate character into the epic. Draupadi’s entry is at the time when the seeds of war are being sown in the politics of Hastinapur. Her entry into the Kuru household serves as timely rain that would help the seeds grow into a giant tree that would shower its fruits in the form of blood on the land of Kurukshetra. If it was not for Krishna, one would always consider the Kurukshetra war only a war for Draupadi’s vengeance and not a war for Dharma.

Birth:

Though some versions say that Draupadi was a “free gift” that emerged from the sacrificial fire, along with her brother, others state that Dhrupad had demanded a daughter too who would marry into the Kuru household and bring it to ashes. (The TV saga queen of modern times, Ekta Kapoor, seems to have taken motivation for her vamps from the King of Panchal!) Whatever may be the true case, Draupadi did marry into the Kuru household and it did turn into ashes. But is she to be blamed for this entirely? I have my doubts.

Swayamvar:

What would one call a father who offers his daughter in marriage to the best archer, just because, he is the best archer? (This is like declaring all the IIT and IIM pass-outs of the country as the most eligible bachelors and jeevansathi.com asking only for your CVs.) It was not that Draupadi was forced to marry any winner against her will. She did reject Karna (because he was a charioteer’s son or because Krishna suggested her to do so is for one to wonder) who was a king and gave chance to a Brahmin (…in disguise, Arjun). But does it still justify Dhrupad’s act of making his daughter the trophy of a contest? (The condition was ultimately set by him, not Draupadi). And does the best archer prove to be the best husband? On reading the epic one would rather say, he proves to be the worst!

Note: Though he was defeated by Arjun, Dhrupad developed an extreme liking for his archery skills and designed a contest that, in his opinion, only Arjun could win.

Sharing:

Is sharing such a big virtue? So big, that a woman can be commoditized for its sake? That she can be compared to alms and distributed among brothers equally?

Kunti did put sharing in high regard. Maybe, for her sharing things was equivalent to sharing people (she had shared with Madari her sterile and celibate husband - Pandu and her boons for conceiving sons). But, did this give her the authority to decide on Draupadi’s part whether she was willing to be shared? Agreed, that she ordered out of ignorance and later expressed her repentance on making that statement, but what stopped her from taking her statement back? Was she the Salman Khan of Wanted who could not go back on her commitment? Or maybe, she did not want Draupadi to have a higher moral ground than her in the family - I have conceived sons from four, you conceive from five at least! Maybe, the saas-bahu ego clashes existed even then.

It is suggested that Kunti had seen the liking for Draupadi in the eyes of the five brothers and she feared that her marriage to only Arjun could create rift between the brothers. To avoid a conflict, she ordered them to share Draupadi. (Look sons, here is a wedding cake, cut it into five pieces). Perhaps, this was one of the reasons why even Yudhishthir did not protest against it as one would expect the epitome of righteousness to. The world would see him following his mother’s orders while he would actually be living his biggest fantasy.

Note: It is said that in her previous life, Draupadi had asked a husband who would be righteous, powerful, the best archer, beautiful / handsome and patient. Shiva offered her five husbands, each with one of the above mentioned qualities since one man could not have all these qualities. These, however, appear more as excuses to justify the ironical situation of Draupadi created by Kunti’s order.

Stake:

As if all that had happened before was less and Draupadi deserved still more. Already wronged by her mother-in-law, it was now her turn to be wronged by her husbands. (MS Word raised an objection when I used husbands instead of husband in this sentence. Perhaps, even Word does not approve of Draupadi’s situation that resulted from Kunti’s statement.)

Duryodhan had invited Yudhishthir to a game of gamble which he could not say no to. Shakuni promised Duryodhan that he would win each and every possession of Yudhishthir as Shakuni could never be defeated in dice. From staking his personal possessions to his chariot, from slaves to mistresses, Yudhishthir finally staked everything he had, including Indraprastha. Hold on, there is still more to come. He then staked his brothers one by one and lost each time. He then staked himself and lost again. And then something happened that would raise a question on Yudhishthir’s integrity and stain his reputation forever. He staked Draupadi. (How right was he in staking Draupadi and how wrong, is a different debate and I should take it sometime later.) 

Duryodhan, who had always envied the successful and loved-by-all Pandavs had also hated Draupadi as she had once called him blind son of a blind father, when he had fallen inside an illusionary water-pond in her palace. It was his day to avenge all the insult and insecurity he had ever gone through because of the Pandavs and their wife. He ordered for Draupadi to be dragged to the court and stripped naked in front of the kings and family. The five husbands, the elders of the family and the noblemen present in the court could do nothing more than gritting their teeth.

Note: In her time of crisis, it was Krishna who came to Draupadi's rescue and covered her with a celestial cloth while Dushasan was disrobing her. 

Was Draupadi actually Yudhishthir’s property that could be gambled away? If yes, did he have any right to put her at stake as he had already lost himself? If no, then how did he have any right to gamble her in the first place? These questions were raised in the court by her and the most venerable sages of that time were dumbfounded when asked to answer this. They still haunt every individual when he reads this epic.

But it does not end here! If for the time being, we assume, Yudhishthir had the right and he actually put Draupadi at stake and lost her (though it was Arjun who won her in the Swayamvar), was what followed after that justified? Just because Draupadi became his slave, did it give Duryodhan the right to offend and humiliate her limitlessly? Did a statement like, “Blind father, blind son!” touch such levels of discourteous behavior that to avenge it Draupadi had to be disrobed in public? If we say yes, then are we not inadvertently celebrating the animal within the men who avenge their unfulfilled love or minor insults through heinous crimes like molestation and rapes? Karna unabashedly blurted in the court that a woman who sleeps with five husbands is a whore and deserves no respect. If this were true, would Karna support Kunti’s similar humiliation too (who was married to Pandu but gave birth two four sons from four different gods?), especially on knowing that she was his mother? Does knowledge of somebody’s personal life (howsoever screwed it is) give one the right to violate the already unfortunate’s fundamental rights? I see it as an episode where Draupadi was wronged not only by her husbands, but also by her in-laws, uncles, the entire Kshatriya community; in fact, the entire society.

Note: Karna does repent his decision later and admits that out of over-confidence of the moment and irritation of getting rejected at Draupadi's swayamvar, he had misbehaved. But the damage had been done, and Draupadi did pay a price for it!

When one reads the story of Draupadi, one is indeed filled with surprise, concern and sympathy for her. Post the public humiliation episode, she spends thirteen years in exile longing for revenge. After the war, Bheem does avenge her humiliation but this comes at a loss her five sons and million others.

One wonders why a woman, who was born a princess, was immaculately beautiful and followed the orders of her elders religiously suffered this terrible fate. Was it her unparalleled sensuality that created troubles for her time and again? Did Vyas want to tell us that the desirable qualities of pulchritude if possessed in excess can also go against us? Did he want to direct our attention towards the deterioration of women's status in the society and that it happens not only because men dominate but also because the older women inadvertently create situations that females of future generations have to pay for (like Kunti creates for Draupadi)? Or did he just want us to realize that even the best of people might suffer the worst things for no fault of theirs? 

Did he want to bring to light the coward reticence of our so-called society that sets huge ideals but does little for the helpless at the hour of need? Had Draupadi not been a shared wife, would her fate have been different? If yes, then does this not mean that the evil Duryodhan inside every criminal only seeks an excuse to validate his howsoever ghastly actions against women? These are again some questions that Mahabharata poses with no clear answers. One can just wonder and introspect. But one thing is pretty well-known and I am sure Asaram would agree with it. At the time of getting disrobed, Draupadi did address Dushasan as her brother-in-law. He still went ahead. And he went ahead unashamedly!

The Mother of all confusions - Family-Tree of Mahabharata

Whatever is there in the world is here!

What is not here is nowhere in the world!

This phrase about Mahabharata can be deemed as true as truth itself. This huge epic, with plenty of stories and infinite tales never ceases to fascinate its readers with the dimensions it covers. However, confused in the maze of stories and tales, one actually forgets the actual track. The track of the family-line around which revolves the entire epic. The family-tree of Mahabharata fame Kuru household that ruled over the city of Hastinapur. After my years of understanding the epic, I decided to summarize it. I tried Photoshop, MS Word, Excel, Paint; a combination of these, and many other softwares. I failed. I tried drawing it with pen on a chart paper. I failed there too. Will a blog help to understand it completely? Of course not. But I hope it will still give a better understanding into this confusing maze of relationships.

If there is something more complex and intricate to understand than the nervous system of human beings, it is indeed the family tree of Kurus. Mysterious men and women with weird abilities and interests, confused sexual orientations and impractical desires transform this tree into a labyrinth. Indra, the Emran Hashmi of mythology, and his force comprising of uncountable gods added more to the confusion by fathering sons on women who were either lonely or married to sterile and/or impotent husbands. Besides gods, there were rishis, gandharvs, rakshasas, nagas, asuras, yakshas, nymphs and many more species that married into or provided heirs to the main line of the Kuru clan.

Disclaimer: I have tried my best to keep the flow of the article serial. However, different stories or folk tales may appear here and there depending on the situation. Though the son of each generation had many more sons, I will mention only that son of every generation who was a progeny of the main Kuru bloodline. 

Legend:

God (with capital "G") = The Almighty (Either of the three: Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva)

gods (with small "G") = (Indra, Agni, Vayu, Chandra etc. I might use gods and devtas interchangeably.)

Most of the readers of Mahabharata are interested in knowing about the characters involved in the war only. However, characters that appear in the epic before and after the war were equally interesting. Their passions, their ideals and their decisions go a long way in affecting future generations. It took me three days to decide where to start from. The earliest link of the chain I could find was the guru of the gods, Brihaspati.

....and so begins the mother of all confusions....

Disclaimer: Although I have referred plenty of sources before summarizing this, there can be variations that occur from different narrations and interpolations of the epic over the generations. No offence or spreading of misinformation intended. 

So there was this Rishi called Brishaspati who performed all sorts of yagnas for the gods to help them defeat their eternal enemies, Asuras. His wife was Tara, a young and beautiful woman, who was much exasperated by the indifference of her over-busy husband towards her. As a result, she eloped with Chandra, the Moon-god. A deceived Brishaspati refused to perform any yagna for the gods till Tara returned to him. She returned, but pregnant. On inquiry, she confessed that it was Chandra's son and not Brihaspati’s. In rage, Brishaspati cursed the child in the belly to be born of neutral gender.

The child of neutral gender thus born was Budh. Impossible, as it might have been otherwise, Budh found a woman named Ila and married her. Ila, by the way, was a man before and was transformed to a woman following an accident when she entered a forest where Shiva had cast a spell. Budh's sexuality  varied between the waxing and waning of moon and so did Ila's. Hence, both Budh and Ila complemented each other. They had many sons and daughters. Since Budh emerged from the Moon-god, his lineage was thus known as the Lunar dynasty a.k.a. Chandravansh and his descendants were called Chandravanshis.

One of the sons of Budh, Pururava fell in love with the celestial nymph, Urvashi and married her. She  bore Pururava many sons before she returned to Indra’s abode. After she returned, a heart-broken Pururava became mad and could not rule anymore.

Note: One of the sons of Pururava established the kingdom of Panchala and another one established Gandhar. Over a period of time, the Kuru household accepted wives for their sons from these families transforming the family tree into a family web.

Then there was another descendant named Yayati (great-grandson of Pururava), who was a great fine king but was wronged by circumstances and over-powered by women. He married two women who were best friends turned enemies, one a Brahmin - Devyani; another a royal - Sarmishtha. He bore sons from both and lived happily, but not for long. A curse made him lose his manhood and it could be resolved only if one of his sons would agree to suffer for the father. He  first summoned his elder son Yadu, who stating this was against Dharma, refused. Then he summoned the obedient Puru who agreed. Yayati thus cursed his son Yadu that he and his descendants would never become kings and blessed his son Puru that he and his descendants would. Years later, Yayati released Puru from the curse and went to paradise handing over the throne to  Puru.

Note: Yadu moved away and settled in Mathura. Puru continued to rule in Hastinapur. Generations later, Krishna would be born in the Yadu family and Arjun would be born in the Puru family. Arjun would marry Krishna’s sister, Subhadhra, who would give birth to Abhimanyu. This was, therefore, a wedding within the family.

Moving on, the son of Puru, Dushyanta inherited the throne of Hastinapur. One day, while he was on hunt, he met a woman called Shakuntala in the hermitage of Rishi Kanva. From the union of Dushyanata and Shakuntala was born Bharata, the great king from whom is derived the name of our country, Bhaarat.

Note: Rishi Kanva had adopted Shakuntala when he found her in a forest unattended but sheltered by a flock of birds. Shakuntala was born when the river-nymph Menaka had succeeded in wooing Rishi Kaushik and made him give up his meditation on Indra’s decree. Both Kaushik and Menaka had abandoned Shakuntala as she was the result of no marriage but only momentary passion. Children suffer due to faults of their parents throughout this epic.

Bharata's wives presented many sons to him but he was not satisfied with any of them. He felt his sons did not resemble him, or perhaps, were not as capable as him to inherit his throne. So he adopted a son called Vitatha, who was presented by the gods.

Note: Vitatha was born when Brihaspati (father of Budh) had forced himself upon his younger brother’s wife, Mamata. Both Brishaspati and Mamata had abandoned Vitatha too, just like Shakuntala's parents abandoned her. 

The greatness of Bharata lies in the fact that he gave capability higher priority over blood relations when it came to inheritance. The later kings of the Kuru dynasty would not follow Bharata’s footsteps which will ultimately become the cause of the Great War.

Generations later there was another ruler of the Bharata kingdom, called Shantanu, son of Pratipa and grandson of Kuru, who in turn was the grandson of Bharata. He fell in love with river-goddess, Ganga. Ganga bore Shantanu eight sons. She drowned her first seven sons in river Ganga immediately after their birth and only the last son was kept alive. This son was named Devavrata and for the knowledge and military prowess he possessed he was sure to inherit the throne. Later, Shantanu married an irresistibly attractive fisherwoman, named Satyavati. This marriage was on a condition that Devavrata would renounce the throne and only Satyavati’s children would become the kings. Devavrata happily gave away the throne for his father’s pleasure, much like Puru, and even pledged to stay celibate throughout his life to avoid any conflict between his sons and those of Satyavati. Due to this terrible oath that he took for his father, he was named "Bheeshm". 

Note: Satyavati was the daughter of a King called Uparichara and a cursed-to-be-fish nymph called Girika. How their unison took place defies all scientific logic ever known to mankind and hence, out of scope of this article. Satyavati smelt dreadfully of fish and was also called Matsyagandha. Before her marriage to Shantanu, Satyavati had an encounter with a sage called Parasara who had desired to make love to her in the middle of the river, on an island, keeping her virginity intact yet making the fish-odour to disappear. The son born from this unison was Krishna Dwaipayana, later to be known as Ved Vyas, the compiler of the Vedas and the author of the Mahabharata.

Devavrata's oath to stay celibate is a turning point in the epic as it technically ends the Kuru bloodline. All sons born in the family after this would be through Niyog (explained later) or boons. However, in my opinion, the bloodline ended much earlier when Bharata rejected his sons and adopted Vitatha. But since Vitatha was the son of Brihaspati, who was also the great grand-father of Pururava, probably, the bloodline was back on track!! 

So Satyavati now had three sons: a secret son from Rishi Prasara; VedVyas, and two sons from Shantanu; Chirtrangadha and Vichitryaveer. Chitrangadha died without making much place in the family history. Vichitraveerya however had two wives, Amba and Ambalika, but even he died without giving the Kuru clan an heir.

There was a much prevalent concept of Niyog in those times.

According to this concept, if the man of the family line was impotent, sterile or dead but his wives were fit to bear a child, then a hermit or a god was invited to impregnate the wife. The child thus born would be considered the son of the husband and not of the outsider. These were the laws of marriage. Please note, this was done solely on the will of the woman and was not forced on her. 

Note: As far as I know, the non-husband man who was invited was supposed to be someone who had renounced the world and was less likely to develop any emotional feelings towards the woman he would impregnate. He was not supposed to meet that woman again in life. 

Ideally, this entire lineage should also be named after Brihaspati and not the Moon-god as Tara was Brihaspati’s wife, but I guess it is referred to as Chandravanshi (emerged from the Moon-god) to make readers aware. Or maybe, because Tara's unison with the Moon-god was not Niyog but infidelity.

Coming back to the widows of Vichitraveerya, they had little options left but Niyog. Satyavati requested Bheeshm to be the man but he clearly refused on the grounds that he had taken the vow of celibacy which he would not give up even for the cosmos. Satyavati so summoned her son from Parasara, Ved Vyas to perform Niyog on Amba and Ambalika. Now Vyas was dark, with matted hair and certainly not handsome looking as compared to the earlier Kuru sons who were well-built and were immaculately groomed warriors. During Ambika’s encounter with Vyas, she closed her eyes out of fear and thus was born the blind Dhritarashtra. During Ambalika’s encounter with him, she turned pale and so was born the weak (it was probably a euphemism for impotent/sterile) Pandu. Unsatisfied with the two results, Satyavati wanted another Niyog to take place but Ambika sent her maid instead who gave birth to a perfectly normal Vidur (even though Vidur was perfectly normal and had all the capabilities of a king, he would be denied the throne because he was born of a maid. Such was the irony of the situation!).

Note: I find the involvement of Vyas in Niyog quite controversial as he would re-appear in the epic throughout. However, he was the biggest sage time had ever seen and maybe, he was capable of fathering sons of three women, still being emotionally unattached.

Finally, came the generation that would actually participate in the war at Kurukshetra. Both Dhritarashtra and Pandu wanted their respective wives, Gandhari and Kunti to give birth to sons first so that they would inherit the throne. Dhritarashtra, since was capable and allowed, did his job earlier than Pandu. Pandu, who was sterile and cursed that his unison with his wife will be his moment of death, however had to find another way out. He asked his wife Kunti to summon the gods through the boon she had received as a result of extra-ordinary hospitality she had offered to Rishi Durvasa. Thus gods performed Niyog on Kunti one-by-one and the results were the following:

Dharma: son born was Yudhishthir

Vayu: son born was Bheema

Indra: son born was Arjun

Ashwini Twins (summoned for the second wife of Pandu, Madri): Nakul and Sahadev

Meanwhile, Gandhari’s pregnancy had not resulted in anything and had prolonged unbelievably. An exasperated Gandhari called for her maids and ordered them to hit her belly with an iron rod till a still ball of flesh came out. Rishi Vyas divided this piece into one hundred and one pieces and put them in pots of ghee. Thus were born hundred sons and one daughter of Gandhari.

Note: So one cannot say that test-tube babies are a modern-day invention. The idea does have its roots in this epic.

Collectively, the sons of Pandu-Kunti were called Pandavs and the sons of Dhritarashtra-Gandhari were called Kauravs. 

Altogether, four generations participated in the war at Kurukshetra, with Bheeshm being the oldest Kuru and Abhimanyu (son of the Pandav Arjun) being the youngest. After the war, only the five Pandavs will remain alive and the son of Abhimanyu, in the womb of his mother.

Note: Draupadi had five sons from the five Pandavs: Prativindya from Yudhishthir, Satsoma from Bheem, Shrutakirti from Arjun, Shaitanik from Nakul and Shrutasena from Sahadev. All five sons would be killed at the end of the war by the son of Drona, Ashwatthama.

All said and done, this is how the Kuru family tree would probably look like. Of course, this is highly incomplete with no mention of the sons who resulted from extra-marital affairs or other 'unimportant' marriages. 

Note: This picture is my own hard work. It is still incomplete. And I do realize it can never be completed. Should you still ever want to access this picture in full size, kindly write to me. Displaying it here in full size hampers the look of my blog!

PLEASE DON'T READ THIS: During the thirteenth year of their exile, Pandavs took refuge in the kingdom of Matsya. Matsya was allegedly the kingdom of descendants of a twin brother of Matsyagandha (Satyavati), hence the similarity in names. Uttara from the Matsya kingdom was accepted as Abhimanyu's bride! May God save you from shocks, if any!