Klaus wrote:Krishna's decision was also based on his knowledge of future events, he did not wish to have the Pandava army in full strength at the end of the war. The end goal was the rebuilding of society, the leadership decision also seems to have come from a realisation that he (Krishna) might have altered the strategic balance of Bharata by weakening strong east-west Magadha-Kuru-Gandhaara links. At the same time, Dhristadyumna was not an obvious leadership candidate.
But the lesson for modern India could lie in the fact that a pool of able leaders needs to be created by organisations. The org could have some serious faults if it is able to project only one face consistently.
We are attributing too much power to character of Krishna here, IMO (if we set aside his Vishnu avatara role and think of him as "baap of Chanakya" but human nonetheless).
The game changer was usage of brahmastra by Ashwatthama. Nobody had predicted such drastic step by Ashwatthama. It was this launch (along with Arjuna's brahmastra in response) which decimated remaining Pandava-Kaurava army and foetal Parikshita in womb of Uttaraa (whom Krishna later saved).
After killing sons of Pandavas in sleep, Ashwatthama had signed his own death-warrant any ways (again keeping aside the Chiranjeevi legend). When Bhima followed by other Pandavas approach the hiding Ashwatthama, he panics and launches Brahmastra. While Arjuna is forced by Dvaipayana-Krishna (Ved Vyaas) and Naarada to abort the launch (he has technology to stop the explosive reaction mid-way), the weapon of Ashwatthama has no such feature as "abort" and astra explodes..
It is after this event that only 8 Maharathi live. Rest everybody (18 Akshauhini elite Kshatriya army which is roughly equal to 40 lakhs) on both sides is decimated.
I do not think it was in Krishna's game plan to have weakened Pandavas in post-war scenario. After death of Karna, Yudhishthira and Krishna emphasize on one-to-one battle combats to save the unnecessary deaths of elite Kshatriyas. The deployment of huge Akshauhini level army manoeuvres (Vyuha-Rachana) is stopped immediately by Pandavas. They go on to kill remaining kauravas, Shalya in small skirmishes and challenge Duryodhana et al for personal combat. This again shows Pandava strategy to save lives. Krishna endorses (or perhaps comes up with) this strategy.
The society completely collapses in matter of 40 years after this event. The wives of Krishna are abducted by waves of invading tribals pouring in India from west and Arjuna can do zilch to stop it. There are many things which do not fit in Krishna's vision, but they happened nonetheless. That is because he did not have absolute control, partially due to the fact that he chose to act through proxy forces and refused to take on the mantle himself, unlike Bhaargava Raama and Daasharathi Raama.
The Mahabharat is both greatest success and greatest failure of Krishna. I rate Sri Raama as far better politician, diplomat and visionary than Sri Krishna. The calibre of Sri Raama is very very high. While Sri Rama leaves behind a consolidated India with huge and common market extending from gaandhara to Lanka and Sindh to Vanga, Krishna leaves behind a phucked-up India with entire defensive social structure collapsed. My views are further elaborated on
this link.
The politics and symbolism of Bhaargava-Raama, Daasharathi-Raama and Vaasudeva-Krishna is a classic sinosoidal wave function. Bhaargava-Raama is beginning of Rise, Daasharathi-Raama is the zenith and Vaasudeva-Krishna is beginning of falling in abyss.
) from a Paki (weapons and raison d'etre) and there he falls into the shadow of nothingness. of course one cannot reason with a Paki. He uses his brahmastra any ways. that is something dharma and dharmiks have to suffer, if they were negligent and allowed a paki to get hold of brahmastra.