There are essentially two ways of looking at Mahabharatha.One that of a literary view.Second is that of a true believer.If one is the former any type of interpretation is acceptable.One can claim it is the poets imagination and we can interpret it as a simple matter of the mood of the poet.

On the contrary if we look at it with the mind of a believer then the things get bit ambiguous.There are questions raised right in Mahabharatha about the very doubts raised by 'bharatborn' Actually Pandavas do not have right to the Hastinavathi throne.Because 1).They are really not the true descendents of 'kuruvamsha' as is known to all.2).They belong to the Pandu branch and Pandu being the younger of the two brothers is not in line to the throne.3).Since Dhrtharashtra cannot see he is not eligible to rule the kingdom.This is the original argument in favor of Pandavas to the throne in the first place.The real reason for the believer is Bhagavan ShreeKrishna whose intention it is to eradicate evil who are great burden to mother earth.That is why HE is behind the Pandavas who are everything He stands for.

As to the question of whether Dharmaraya is right in gambling away Draupadi,there is enough to contemplate.Accept that Dharmaraya has lost Draupadi. A servant is sent to fetch her to the court.Draupadi asks him whether she was offered in bet before Dharmaraya lost himself or after.Hearing this Dushvasana himself drags her to the court.Here again she repeats her reservations regarding Dharmaraya's right to bet herein the game of Dice.She actually confronts the wisdom of Bheeshma Pitamaha.Actually he evades the question.One of the Kaurava brothers Vikarna in fact rejects Dharmaraya's right to offer her in bet.This also is properly discussed in that great epic.It certainly does not give any opinion.

In fact this is the greatness of my religion.I am free to make my own judgement.