This review contains spoilers. 
 

I won’t bother with the summary. The book is supposed to be a retelling of Mahabharata from Ma Ganga’s POV. However, calling it a mockery of the original would be more apt. 

 

***

Gangavataranam (the arrival of Ma Ganga) is one of the most beautiful events detailed in Ramayana and Mahabharata. It is my favorite event. Each time I read or watch the scene, I end up teary-eyed. 

Ma Ganga is power. Ganga is life. Ganga is a blessing. She symbolizes divine feminine. Shiva plays her counterpart, the divine masculine, the much-needed equal to balance the equation. When Ma Ganga rushes from heaven to earth, it’s like being hit by an asteroid ten times the size of the planet. That’s her power. Shiva absorbs her impact so that it doesn’t shatter the earth. He eases her arrival on the earth, that too at her demand. Ma Ganga knows her power. She knows she can destroy the planet she is supposed to nurture. Her strength is her ability to let Shiva stand in her path to prevent destruction. 

Instead, we get a victimized Ganga ranting about Shiva binding her, chaining her, and whatnot. Mahabharata has many instances where feminism is necessary. This is NOT one of those. This is a celebration of power and balance; of Ganga’s power and Shiva’s balance. 

I see no bhakti for Ma Ganga. Rather, she has been demeaned and insulted by making her sound pathetic. Such a shame! 
 

Read more here: https://sri-lovenature.blogspot.com/2024/04/g-for-gangavataranam-arrival-of-ganga.html 

The Vasus are called Godlings (cringe max pro) in the book. They are described as a blend of Celtic creatures like puca and brownies. 

The Vasus are not Godlings. They are gods. They are not mischievous kids who need Ma Ganga’s protection. They control the elements. They are fully grown adults (with life partners) and immortal who live in heaven and visit earth for entertainment. 

Read more here: https://sri-lovenature.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-for-ashta-vasus-mahabharata-mashup.html

***

Hindus are nature worshippers. We don’t follow the Western Abrahamic concepts like, 'man is greater than nature' or that man should take care of nature. For us, it is the other way around. Nature is our nurturer. Nature takes care of us. She is our mother. 

However, this book repeatedly superimposes colonial concepts on indigenous beliefs. Over and over, they are shown as people who abuse nature. 

In fact, at one point in Chapter 14 – “…To achieve dominion over man and nature.”

Apparently, this aligns with a Biblical quote from Genesis 1:28 (Thanks to Kundan for highlighting this). 

Chapter 9: “We serve the gods and they serve us. Surely you do not think otherwise?”

Absolutely not! Gods don’t serve us. They bless us. We don’t subscribe to this form of worship. 

Chapter 22: Arjuna gave a nasty laugh. “Now I understand your matted hair, your dirty clothes. You are a tribal! You should not be here.”

The Pandavas were born in an ashram at the Himalayan foothills. They lived their first ten+ years in a forest (like the tribals) until their father died. After escaping the House of Lac, they lived in a forest again. After losing the dice game, they were in exile and lived in a forest for twelve years. They literally were described with matted hair and dirty clothes. Why would Arjuna use it as an insult to Ekalavya? It makes zero sense! 

Chapter 12: … Even though I did not deserve it, my child loved me. I repeated this mantra to myself as I rose to my feet”.

A goddess wouldn’t mean the word mantra by using it causally like this. A mantra is powerful and not whatever nonsense the New Age people preach everywhere. (Thanks to Kundan for highlighting this). 

***

Chapter 7: “After a few too many miraculous births, the village began to gossip. They decided I was more likely than not a dayyan and cast me out.”

Chapter 9: Kavita rubbed a hand across her eyes. “I grow tired of this place. Lately I have been harassed by claims I am performing witchcraft. I am thinking of leaving here.”

Where did the witch hunt originate? It started in Europe and spread to colonies in the Americas and other countries between the 14th and 18th centuries. It is rooted in hatred for indigenous gods and beliefs. The Church started it. 

Shall we talk about the Portuguese Saint Xavier and the use of European torture devices (the ones used on ‘witches’) to torture Hindu women in Goa because they refused to convert? 

Hindus are indigenous. Our existence cannot be separated from magic and nature. Moreover, midwives are cherished and respected in our land. A midwife with such powers would have people flocking to her house for help. 

My ancestors were faith healers in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were not cast out. Their skills were in demand, especially to save people from snake bites. 

***

Long story short, Shikandin was a reincarnation of Amba, the princess who vowed to take revenge on Bhishma (Ganga’s son). Shikandin was born a FEMALE and transitioned into a male. Shikandin is one of the earliest examples of FTM (female-to-male). 

In this book, the author chose an obscure ‘oral version’ to make Shikandin a male by birth. There is no mention of his trans identity or the story related to it. Shikandin before the sex change had a ‘she’ pronoun. Afterward, Shikandin was addressed only as ‘he’. Why was this erased? Is it not necessary to acknowledge trans people? 

Also, Ganga didn’t make Bhishma promise not to fight Shikandin. Bhishma himself was adamant about it since he knew Shikandin as a woman before the transition and it went against his code to raise a weapon at him. 

Arjuna became Brihannala, a trans woman, for a year (the thirteenth year of exile). Throughout Virata Parva, Arjuna was referred to as he, and Brihannala was addressed as she. The pronouns were specific, highlighting gender fluidity. Why is there no mention of this? 

***

Time and again, Kurus were called destroyers, savages, animals, monsters, and demons. Even the king is shown as a barbarian and heathen, the terms colonizers used to justify their savagery on us (the same template was followed in India, across Africa, the US, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and more). All the native people were dehumanized as barbarians who needed to be civilized by the colonizers. 

Even today, Hindus are targeted as Satan worshippers, our temples demolished and our identities shamed. How is the book any different from those attackers? 

Chapter 9: “I did not care if he might try to burn me alive and claim it an accident or poison my food and punish the cook…” 

Chapter 14: Shantanu raged at my banks. He screamed and shouted, sent soldiers out to my waters, but he could do nothing to harm a river. In one inspired moment, he ordered oil to be poured into my water and set aflame... 

Chapter 18: The rest of the Kurus… They are like animals. 

Chapter 23: “Perhaps Yudhishthira would listen to my claim if I did so, but Arjuna and Bhima would slay me in my sleep…” 

These are such shameful statements and characterizations of our ancestors. 

After demonizing the Kurus multiple times and reinforcing the idea that they are the worst people on earth, this is what the book says. How is this not different from the colonial superiority complex in that they decide who gets to live? 

Chapter 24: Would the world be better off without the Kuru line? If my son died, he would come home to me. And the rest of them… I did not believe them worth saving, worth ruling.

In Kaikeyi, Rama was called a warmonger. In Goddess of the River, Shantanu was said to be always at war. 

The Kurukshetra War happened when peace talks failed multiple times. Krishna himself tried his best to prevent the war.  

***

Our Vedas and Shastras have several guidelines for administration, law & justice, warfare, medicine & healing, livelihood, etc. 

We have Nyaya Shastra for law and justice, Dhanurveda for archery and weaponry, Yudh Dharma (guidelines for war), and more. Ayurveda (traditional natural medicine) is also a part of our ancient scriptures. 

Chanakya’s Arthashastra and Chanakya Neeti were based on these guidelines. 

However, the book shows Hindus as primitive barbarians with bloodlust and power lust when they spent years of their lives studying and gaining knowledge. 

The Bhagavad Gita, the most important part of Mahabharata, was mentioned only in passing as if it is an inconvenient item she is forced to talk about. 

Chapter 18: The foreign soldiers were at the far end of the village by now, but his friends and neighbors had not been spared. He saw his uncle slumped in the street, the top of his skull missing.

The author seemed to have gotten confused about invaders butchering Hindus. According to Yudh Dharma, one cannot attack villages. Only bandits attacked helpless people (heck even some of them followed dharma by taking care to not harm children, women, and seniors). 

If soldiers violated the rules, they were punished by the generals. Ethics were important even in war. (If you want to know more about war in ancient Bharat, read the Battle of Vatapi trilogy by Arun Krishnan). 

The author has doubled down and reinforced the negative idea that Hindus were savages. What happened was the opposite of it. By making Ganga a victim of everything, she is falsely accusing others of being villains. She did the same in Kaikeyi by calling Rama a manipulator, and warmonger, and hinting that he was an abuser who hit his wife. In the same breath, she whitewashed a rapist like Ravana. An asura who raped countless women was portrayed as a gentle and intelligent king who respected women. 

So what does this do? 

People who have no idea about the original wonder why Hindus glorify Shiva and Rama and burn the effigy of Ravana. They are not aware that we burn the effigy of a kidnapper and a rapist. They jump to conclusions and attack us for being who we are, all because they can’t even be bothered to separate fact from fiction. The author gets away calling it her right to creative liberty while painting big targets on our backs. 

***

Shantanu DID NOT insult Ma Ganga or take the baby. In fact, Ganga left with the child promising to reunite Shantanu with his son at the right time. For the first sixteen years, Ganga had her son with her. She decided he was old enough to be prince and let him go to his father. During those years, Ganga made sure her son was trained by two of the best rishis – Vashishta and Parasurama. (And oh, she villainized Vashistha and reduced him to a fake godman without naming him). 

Is it feminism if you take away this choice someone already had and make them a helpless victim? 

***

Chapter 16: “… He could be the child of a latrine cleaner, cursing us all with his presence, but we bear that insult because we bow to your judgment, Raja Yudhishthira. But this—this is too much.”

While Sishupala hated Krishna, the deliberate and malicious use of the word ‘latrine cleaner’ reinforces the harmful caste stereotype as integral to Hinduism. This is beyond vile! 

Chapter 23: “Now you too would betray me?” Duryodhana demanded. “Perhaps it is your low birth, your shudra mother, that makes you feel such affinity for—”

Duryodhana was bloody bully but he never abused Vidura using his mother’s birth. In fact, Vidura called Duryodhana a lowborn for his jealousy and greed. There was no caste. It was varna and not birth-based but guna-based. That’s why Vidura was an advisor and minister of the Kuru kingdom and was acclaimed as a well-learned man. 

Chapter 30: Why valor was the domain of only Kshatriya, and menial labor the domain of only shudra, and whether he had been wrong to believe birth mattered all along.

This is a back-projection of the caste narrative into an era when it was a guna-based hierarchy. There are many valorous Shudra kings in our history. 

***

Creative liberty should never come at the cost of ruining the core of the original. Unfortunately, many events (apart from the above discussed) were distorted. 

It wasn’t Karna who fell into a pool in Indraprastha. It was Duryodhana. This matters because Duryodhana was so jealous of his cousins’ wealth that he wanted to destroy them at any cost. 

Karna was NOT his birth name. Karna was named Vasusena (the one born with wealth since he had armor and earrings since birth). He became Vaikartana and Karna later on. This is the bare minimum knowledge one needs to have when retelling an epic. 

When Draupadi was disrobed in Kaurava sabha, Karna called her a harlot for having five husbands and said she deserved to be stripped naked. Also, Draupadi wasn’t meek. She didn’t mind knocking sense into her husbands’ minds. She loved them sure, but she was never blind to their flaws. 

Karna NEVER won a challenge/ duel with Arjuna. He was called an equal to Arjuna but was never his superior. The hate for Arjuna in this book is unreal and nauseating. 

Ganga had no role in ALLOWING Shiva to give a boon to Amba. In fact, Ganga advised Amba to stop thirsting for revenge as it would destroy her. A classic example of Main Character Syndrome where Ganga in this book wants all the credit for things she didn’t even do! 

Krishna’s birth and timeline are WRONG. Krishna was decades younger than Bhishma. He was in his 40s like Arjuna when Bhishma was in his 100s. It makes no sense for Krishna to be 25 years older than Bhishma and yet look like a young man (and no one bats an eyelid). 

The soap opera between Bhishma and Shikandin DID NOT happen. I don’t think even Ekta Kapoor would make it that cringe. Also, Bhishma wasn’t killed by a single arrow. His body was so riddled with arrows shot by Arjuna that they created an arrow bed when he fell from the chariot. Bhishma was very particular that he wanted to be killed by Arjuna, his favorite grandson. 

Ganga’s (author’s) delulu reaches the next level when she shoots from the earth and quenches Bhishma’s thirst. Wanting the spotlight for everything makes her character so immature and pathetic. Bhishma wanted pure water and asked Arjuna to do something about it. Arjuna understood and shot an arrow into the earth. Once again, Bhishma didn’t want anyone except Arjuna for this. 

Karna never looked up to Bhishma or respected him. He always hated the old man for taking the Pandava side and called him a traitor openly in the Kaurava sabha many times. Also, Karna decided to put his ego over his best friend. Karna CHOSE not to fight until Bhishma either stepped down as the commander or died. 

Bhishma did not kill the Gandhara princess to get Gandhari married to Dhritarashtra. Shakuni’s brothers were healthy and alive. They participated in the Kurukshetra war and got killed on the battlefield. 

Arjuna did not send a beggar to take Karna’s flesh armor. Heck, the Pandavas were in exile when this happened. Arjuna’s birth father decided on this, and Karna’s birth father tried to prevent it. But then Karna was like, ‘I’d rather die than say no to a request’. Even then, Karna got a celestial weapon in return. He saved it to kill Arjuna (Krishna foiled this plan). 

This is just a summary of what all is wrong in the book. My original review was three times long. Yeah, I could get a PhD just by submitting the review as a thesis. 

Anyhoo, there really isn’t anything worth mentioning in this book. Ma Ganga has been reduced to a whiny and petulant teenager with an inflated sense of self-righteousness while everyone else is a villain. All that hate for Shiva is just sad.