There is a famous line in Sanskrit about the Mahabharata epic- "Yad ihāsti tad anyatra, yannehāsti na tat kvacit", which translates to, "What is here is found elsewhere; what is not here is nowhere else." This powerful statement says about the comprehensive nature of the Mahabharata.
It implies that any significant event, theme, or moral dilemma in the world has already been portrayed in this ancient epic, and whatever does not find mention in it likely does not exist anywhere.
In fact, nearly every meaningful story or human experience can be linked in some way to an episode from the Mahabharata.
One striking modern example is the acclaimed Korean film Parasite by Bong Joon-ho. In a survey conducted by The New York Times, 500 critics ranked Parasite as the greatest film of the 21st century. What’s particularly fascinating is that Parasite bears an uncanny thematic resemblance to the Nartanasala episode of the Mahabharata.
While not a direct adaptation, Parasite and the Nartanasala episode in Mahabharata share deep underlying ideas — disguise, deception, class roles, and concealed identities.
In Parasite, the impoverished Kim family infiltrates the wealthy Park household by pretending to be unrelated professionals. Each member hides their background in order to secure a job- the father becomes a chauffeur, the mother a housekeeper, the son an English tutor, and the daughter an art therapist. Their deception is driven by desperation and the desire for upward mobility.
Similarly, in the Nartanasala episode of Mahabharata, the Pandavas, during their incognito exile, take up disguised identities to survive unnoticed in the court of King Virata. Yudhishthira acts as a courtier and dice player, Bhima works as a cook, Arjuna disguises himself as a transgender dance teacher, Nakula tends horses, and Sahadeva becomes a cowherd. Their deception is not driven by greed but by a sacred vow and the need to protect their lives.
Both stories present deception as a tool of survival. The characters in each narrative are forced by circumstances to hide who they are in order to navigate a hostile world. Yet, the outcomes differ significantly. Parasite ends in tragedy—their charade collapses, identities are exposed, and violence erupts.
One of the most compelling parallels lies in the pivotal act of violence committed within the very household that offered them refuge. In Parasite, Kim kills Mr. Park for subtly but repeatedly insulting him, particularly with the notion of a "poor man’s smell." In Nartanasala of Mahabharata, Bhima kills Keechaka, a powerful and corrupt figure in the court, for attempting to dishonor Draupadi. Although the motivations are different — personal insult versus the defense of a woman’s honor—the act of killing an influential figure within a host household is a critical turning point in both stories. It marks the beginning of the unraveling of their hidden identities.
The contrast at the end is striking. Parasite culminates in destruction, exposing the deep-rooted inequalities and hopelessness of class struggle. The Mahabharata’s Nartanasala, on the other hand, ends in revelation and justice, reinforcing the dharmic ideals that underpin the epic.
In conclusion, Parasite carries a clear thematic echo of the Nartanasala episode of the Mahabharata. While it is not known if Bong Joon-ho intentionally based his story on the epic, the universal nature of the Mahabharata ensures that its themes find resonance even in modern storytelling. Had those 500 critics been familiar with the Mahabharata, they might have acknowledged this timeless source of narrative and philosophical depth.
