The untold story of how the Kauravas shaped the post-war narrative
For centuries after Kurukshetra, Aryavarta lived with an odd tension:
- Everyone remembered the war, but no one agreed on who won it.
In certain Western kingdoms, scribes thought that Duryodhana may have prevailed. In a Central kingdom, scholars were certain the Pandavas had taken the throne deceitfully, after losing on the battlefield.
And in the Eastern kingdoms, the official line was more diplomatic: “The outcome is subject to interpretation.”
How could a single war fracture into three separate histories?
- It took centuries to discover the truth.
- The fractured view wasn’t accidental.
- It was scripted.
The Kauravas’ Invisible Army
In the years after the war, while the great kings rebuilt, a quieter army moved across the land – unnoticed, unarmed, unthreatening.
Unpaid Interns
They arrived in fourteen kingdoms, humble and scholarly, seeking ‘experience’ in the ministerial and palace offices. Their expenses were mysteriously funded by merchants with no clear origin.Conspiracy theories that they were paid through hawala by the Kaurava descendents had no proof.
No one cared to find out, anyway.
The Ministers and Kings welcomed them eagerly: free labour, sharp minds, diligent hands.
What harm could interns do?
These interns drafted the memos, prepared the foreign-policy briefs, compiled intelligence digests, and wrote the summaries that travelled upward:
- From Clerks to Ministers,
- From Ministers to Kings,
- From Kings to Policy documents.
The kings relied on what the interns drafted and in every draft, they planted 3 seeds.
1. “The Kauravas Held The Field”
Always phrased cleverly:
- “Some accounts suggest the Kaurava forces remained intact.”
- “Kuru formations maintained superiority.”
- “Eyewitness scrolls hint the Pandava advance was inconclusive.”
Technically unverifiable.
Conveniently irrefutable.
2. “The Pandava Coronation Was A Political Arrangement”
Just a single line in a ministerial brief:
“Transfer of power post-conflict may not have directly mirrored battlefield realities.”
- Elegant.
- Ambiguous.
It didn’t assert. It implied.
Implication is the lowest cost weapon in politics.
3. “The Final Outcome Remains Disputed”
Inserted into foreign-policy memos:
“Multiple sources describe the war’s conclusion divergently; caution advised.”
- It sounded scholarly and neutral.
- It produced maximum doubt.
- It spread uncertainty like wildfire.
How It Panned Out
Within a decade:
- A popular Kaurava narrative claimed that the Pandavas lost 7 divine Divya-Rathas, a story repeated so often that it now required the Pandavas to prove otherwise.
- Gandhara archived a Kaurava victory.
- Kamboja taught young officers that Karna never fell.
- Avanti treated the Pandava rule as a temporary settlement.
- Magadha insisted the Pandavas won through ‘superior strategy’.
- Matsya declared the truth ‘complex and evolving’.
The Resulting Geopolitical Drift
- 5 major kingdoms declared, the Kauravas had been the rightful victors.
- 3 maintained, the Pandavas triumphed.
- One powerful King even claimed: “I stopped it through mediation, with no side winning yet.”
- Several silently concurred, to be on the same side as the powerful.
Trade treaties began referencing the ‘Kuru victory’. Everyone was certain.
No two were certain the same way.
Diplomats cited contradictory sources.Scholars wrote competing epics.
Kings shaped their policies and alliances based on the ‘version’ of Kurukshetra war result they wanted to believe.
Then Who Won?
- Military academies in the western kingdoms taught cadets that Karna’s final duel ended with him standing.
- Eastern academies insisted Arjuna prevailed.
- Both sides quoted ‘primary sources’.
- Both were convinced the other was peddling propaganda.
And thus, a single civilisational event fractured into two incompatible realities.
Each was sustained by sophisticated machinery:
- Briefings and footnotes,
- Ministerial notes,
- Scholarly revisions.
All rooted in the quiet labour of ‘unpaid interns’ whose loyalties lay in a hidden patronage network. In time, people stopped asking who won. They began believing the version that best served their interests.
And that is how the Kauravas won.
In this fractured landscape, one conclusion emerged:
- The Kauravas surely won the narrative war.
- The Pandavas may have won it on the battlefield, but it was less consequential.
The war was no longer a decided event. It was a contested story.
Or, was it?
In the geopolitical world of policies, economics and alliances, what matters more? Winning the battle or winning the narrative war?
I wasn’t sure.
The Alarm
- A sudden sound.
- Piercing.
- My alarm.
I jolted awake. Only then did I realize the source of this story.
My dream was fed by the PGurus podcast I’d listened to the previous night.
In it, the ‘3 Good Generals’ were explaining how China, Pakistan, and the US operate today [1]:
- They plant and amplify each others’ narratives.
- They manufacture doubt.
- They rewrite even the factual outcomes of wars (like Op Sindoor).
History is written not based on facts, but based on convenience. In my dream, Kurukshetra had turned into a 21st-century information battle.
I sat up, relieved:
The Mahabharata was fought long before geopolitics became a laboratory of narrative warfare. Thankfully, truth survived in this case, because nobody back then had an army of interns rewriting history.
In our world of today, the lesson is unmistakable:
If truth does not speak up, one day, truth will need an alarm clock to wake us from the stories others write about us.
Hope someone is listening.
References:
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/live/CAF4Vy_497g?si=3ZkLYH0LOv1BBffm
For all the latest updates, download PGurus App.
- How Kauravas won the Mahabharata war - November 24, 2025
- Can India’s crisis be Bihar’s economic opportunity? - November 18, 2025
- A common pill for health-agro-water-fiscal illness? - November 13, 2025
