The book was widely welcomed by several Indologists, columnists, commentators and several businessmen.
Sanjaya Baru, writing for
Outlook India had commented that the book reflects a new Gurcharan Das who is reflective, humane, deeply spiritual and
secular—a
renaissance man. Desai also criticised Indian university system for not having good library for studying
Sanskrit, in the context that author had to go
Chicago for an year to study Sanskrit to prepare this book. In the column for
Business Standard, Bhattacharya wrote:So, Krishna, as Das has argued in a different context, was using “evil” to fight “evil”. The question is: Was that really evil and whether it was not Dharma? Debating the relevance or irrelevance of Dharma in such a battle indeed became a little meaningless. There is little doubt that
Mahabharata as an epic raises intricate issues pertaining to the relevance of human action in a given role and in the context of pre-ordained fate. The debate over Dharma is also relevant. But Das would have done better if he had narrated the story of
Mahabharata in all its details, instead of grappling with the ideas of Dharma or Nishkama Karma Yoga. == Translation ==