Fate

I think the author's usage of foreshadowing helps to reinforce the inevitability of fate and show that no matter what Panchaali does to try to change things, fate will twists events in such a way as to make things happen the way they the gods intended. For example, when she is warned by Vyasa to "hold back [her] laughter" (40), it is actually her attendants that laugh and directly cause the damage to Duryodhan's pride, which Panchaali has no control over. Panchaali plays an entirely different role in the whole debacle with Duryodhan: it is her preoccupation with Karna that first keeps her from warning the rival prince, and then prevents her from apologizing (172-173). Throughout the novel, Panchaali's love for Karna and her attempts to hide that love through her mistreatment of him seem to seal both their fates. It is her longing for him that causes her to go against her better judgment and accept the invitation to the imitation palace (177) and then her fear of Kunti's judgment when they meet in their matching white garb that makes her treat him like a nobody instead of taking the one opportunity that he gives her to make amends (187). If there hadn't been this accumulation of bad experiences between them, which have resulted in the repressed feelings they both have for each other, then maybe Karna would have helped her without her having to beg for it and she wouldn't have been humiliated by him and declared war on the Kauravas. I think Divakaruni really wants us to consider the what if's of the story, to ask ourselves why things had to happen the way they did. It shows us what Panchaali and Dhri knew at the very beginning of the story: that a story can have a certain sequence of events, but the meaning of those events and the motivations of the people that shape them are multiple and varied.
In the second part of the story, it seems like Panchaali is more by duty that anything else, and that it is the duty she feels owed by her husbands that keeps her on the path to vengeance. This is dangerous, because in being consumed by the obligations that bind her and her husbands together, she begins to lose sight of herself. In the year of hiding when Panchaali becomes the servant of a queen, she thinks to herself, "It seemed that everything I'd lived until now had been a role. The princess who longed for acceptance, the guilty girl whose heart wouldn't listen, the wife who balanced her fivefold role precariously, the rebellious daughter-in-law, the queen who ruled in the most magical of palaces, the distracted mother, the beloved compoanion of Krishna, who refused to learn the lessons he offered, the woman obsessed with vengeance--none of them were the true Panchaali. If not, who was I?" (229). I don't know if this is Divakaruni's comment on something that happens to Indian women, who are often pulled into the role of caring for the men in their lives, or if this is just another way for Divakaruni to emphasize fate in Panchaali's life by undermining her free will and thus her sense of self. As I was reading, I also asked the question "Who is Panchaali?" There seems to be no constancy in her sense of self; it's always changing to suit the particular role that she is required to fill. The only time that I get the sense that she is truly herself is when she is alone in one of her gardens in the Palace of Illusions, or she is thinking about Karna because those are two things that are strongly connected to her own desires. It seems like her fate is just a huge denial of her own wants and needs, and that the one thing that she is allowed to have (the war) will destroy what little happiness she has left.