Preamble
I recently came across a fascinating insight while revisiting the Mahabharata. The 5 core war books (Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Shalya, Sauptika) are all named after Kaurava commanders—not the Pandavas, who ultimately win.
At first, this feels counterintuitive. But it reveals something deeper.
The Mahabharata is not narrating victory. It is documenting the progressive failure of leadership and institutions.Even more interesting—many of these commanders knew the Kaurava cause was flawed, yet continued to enable it.
That raises a powerful question relevant even today:
Which is the bigger driver for the failure of institutions:
- Changes in external environment: competition, introduction of new products, regulatory impact etc.; or
- Changes in internal team: Right people, wrong with intent/actions or wrong people at the helm.
I’ve explored this theme of leadership, incentives, and institutional collapse in the context of learning from the chapters on war in the Mahabharata.
Mahabharata’s Chapters on War: A Study in Leadership Failure
The Mahabharata consists of 18 Parvas, i.e. books, with the central 5 being called the Books of War (Note: Quick 1-line summary of what happens in each of these Books in the Appendix). It is often approached as a story of good versus evil, culminating in a decisive war. Yet, a closer structural reading reveals something far more sophisticated: the war is not narrated as a celebration of victory, but as a diagnosis of institutional failure.
This becomes particularly evident in Parvas 6 through 10—the core war books that are titled:
- Bhishma Parva
- Drona Parva
- Karna Parva
- Shalya Parva
- Sauptika* Parva
*The first 4 are named after the commanders of the Kaurava army, but the last one is not named after Ashwatthama since he was never formally appointed as one. After the Kaurava army was totally defeated and all their senior leadership killed, Ashwatthama led a night raid on the Pandava camp, something that was totally against every rule of the war: attack at night + on an unarmed opponent + who is also sleeping.
At first glance, the naming appears counterintuitive. These Parvas are named not after the eventual victors, the Pandavas, but after successive commanders of the Kaurava army—the losing side.
Interestingly, the victorious Pandavas are not given Parva naming during the war phase.
Why that matters:
- Their role is framed as restorative, not dominant
- The spotlight remains on those misusing power, not those reclaiming it
Even Krishna, Pandavas’ & in the war Arjuna’s strategy ‘driver’, whose Shrimad Bhagvad Geeta forms a central theme of the Mahabharata, doesn’t get a Parva named after him – not even the one containing the Geeta!
That’s a strong signal:
The epic is less about victory, more about the anatomy of failure.
This is not incidental. It is structural intent.
The Mahabharata does not frame the war as a simple “Pandavas vs Kauravas” moral binary. Instead, it tracks the institutional holders of power—which, at that time, are the Kauravas.
Narrating Collapse, Not Triumph
Each Parva marks a transition in leadership within the Kaurava command structure. The war is therefore framed not as a binary contest, but as a sequence of leadership regimes under stress.
The 5 commanders of the Kaurava forces during the Mahabharata and what they stand for:
- Bhishma (10 days) represents moral authority constrained by allegiance
- Drona (5 days)embodies technical excellence compromised by incentives
- Karna (2 days) reflects loyalty overriding judgment
- Shalya signals (1 day) misalignment and passive resistance
- Ashwatthama* (1 night) culminates in unrestrained destruction
While
What emerges is a clear degradation arc:
Legitimacy → Competence → Loyalty → Alignment → Breakdown
The epic is not documenting how the Pandavas won. It is showing how the Kaurava system failed.
The Missing Lens: Intelligent Individuals in a Failing System
A deeper—and more uncomfortable—theme runs beneath this structure.
Each of these commanders was not only capable, but also aware, at varying levels, of the ethical ambiguity or outright weakness of the Kaurava position. Yet, they chose to stay, support, and lead.
- Bhishma knew the injustice, yet remained bound by his vow
- Drona recognized the imbalance, yet was tied to patronage and obligation
- Karna understood the moral tension, yet prioritized personal loyalty
- Shalya was misaligned from the outset, yet participated
- Ashwatthama abandoned all restraint when the system collapsed
This introduces a critical insight:
Institutions rarely fail because of a lack of intelligence. They fail because intelligent individuals continue to enable flawed systems.
The Mahabharata, therefore, is not merely a story of conflict. It is a study in collective complicity.
Why the Pandavas Are Not the Narrative Center
Another striking choice reinforces this interpretation: the Pandavas do not have Parvas named after them during the war.
Even Krishna—arguably the most strategic actor in the epic—does not lend his name to a war book.
This is deliberate. The narrative refuses to frame the war as a heroic ascent. Instead, it keeps the analytical focus on those in power and how they misused it.
Victory, in this telling, is almost incidental. The emphasis is on the anatomy of decline or failure.
From War to Collapse
By the time the narrative reaches the Sauptika Parva, the transformation is complete. War is no longer governed by rules, ethics, or daylight. It descends into nocturnal violence and revenge.
This is not escalation. It is disintegration.
A Contemporary Reading
Viewed through a modern institutional or strategic lens, the sequence is strikingly familiar:
- Bhishma Phase: Legacy leadership constrained by legacy commitments
- Drona Phase: Professional management compromised by misaligned incentives
- Karna Phase: High-performing individuals anchored by personal loyalties
- Shalya Phase: Cultural misfits creating internal friction
- Sauptika/Ashwatthama Phase: Unchecked actors triggering terminal events leading to self-destruction & damage to the ecosystem
The decline in the number of days that each commander was in charge 10→5→2→1→0 (0 as self-initiative; never formally appointed) is an excellent metaphor for what happens when the old leadership hangs on to outdated strategy and puts the organisation on the wrong path; each successive leader leads with personality, and he reacts to immediate priorities rather than some long-term strategic vision.
The Mahabharata’s war books thus read less like history and more like a case study in organisational collapse under stress.
Conclusion
The naming of Parvas 6–10 is not a narrative quirk. It is a philosophical statement.
The Mahabharata chooses to tell the story of war not through the rise of the victors, but through the failure of those who held power.
And in doing so, it offers a timeless reminder:
The greatest risks to any system are not external threats, but internal choices made by capable people who know better—and stay anyway.
:::
Appendix: Overview of the Books of War
Book 6: Bhishma Parva (War Begins)
War starts; Bhishma leads the Kaurava army; includes the Bhagavad Gita
Theme: Duty vs morality crystallises
Book7: Drona Parva
Drona commands; brutal escalation Death of Abhimanyu
Theme: Rules erode under pressure
Book 8: Karna Parva
Karna takes command; Climactic duel with Arjuna; Karna dies
Theme: Tragedy of misplaced loyalty
Book 9: Shalya Parva
Final battles; Shalya leads briefly, Duryodhana defeated
Theme: Collapse of the losing side
Book 10: Sauptika Parva
Ashwatthama kills sleeping warriors in Pandava
Theme: War’s ethics completely disintegrate
Dharma Decoded 