Who do you think is main villian of Mahabharat - Page 5

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

"Sakuni said, 'O king, O lord of the earth, what folly hath taken possession of thee! The Pandavas have gone to the forest, having given a particular pledge, so that what thou apprehendest can never take place! O bull of the Bharata race, the Pandavas ever abide by the truth. They will never, therefore, accept the words of thy father! If however, accepting the commands of the king, they come back to the capital, violating their vow, even this would be our conduct, viz., assuming, an aspect of neutrality, and in apparent obedience to the will of the monarch, we will closely watch the Pandavas, keeping our counsels!'

^ Shakuni advises Duryodhana to let go of his follies.

Benefited as thou has been, whence is this unreasonable grief of thine? Do not undo this graceful act done by the sons of Pritha, by indulging in such grief. When thou shouldst joy and reward the Pandavas, thou art grieving, O king? Indeed, this behaviour of thine is inconsistent. Be cheerful, do not cast away thy life; but remember with a pleased heart the good they have done thee. Give back unto the sons of Pritha their kingdom, and win thou both virtue and renown by such conduct. By acting in this way, thou mayst be grateful. Establish brotherly relations with the Pandavas by being friends, and give them their paternal kingdom, for then thou wilt be happy!'"

^ Here he stops Duryodhana from committing suicide and tries to knock some sense.

Whoa. Btw, the end bit is from which part? Is this during the war?

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Well said.

Moreover, Krishna's words stating that without Bhishma this world would be a dark, moonless night speaks volumes of his character.

He committed mistakes and even paid for them. But there are several redeeming aspects and selflessness is one of them. Main villain is a gross exaggeration in my opinion.

In this logic alot of things alot of people did are wrong and led to the war. When he was taking the oath, he could not foresee the future and what kind of songs Satya would have or how Duryodhan will be such a trouble. He did what he did because of his father. Had Satya already had incapable sons and yet he chose to stay away from throne then I would still have understood.

I haven't seen another fictional/historical character who did so much for the throne despite not being one in line to have it. I don't see how he is the villain because by villain I see someone who purposely did wrong which led to bad consequences.

Like Duryodhan. Like Dhritarashtra.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Whoa. Btw, the end bit is from which part? Is this during the war?

In Krishna mohan Ganguly lot of things are interpolate

Even shakuni asking duryodhan for peace is interpolate

Shakuni did not ask duryodhan to return king dom to pandav

Shakuni said to duryodhan to leave ur arrogant and go to Lord Krishna and ask him take ur side in war

And when duryodhan went he was standing near head of Krishna and arjun was standing near feet of Lord Krishna

Here is link

https://www.hindi-web.com/stories/shri-krishna-shanti-doot-mahabharat-story-hindi/

When shakuni main purpose to make her sister happy and by making duryodhan king he want to make his sister happy so why would shakuni ask duryodhan to return kingdom to pandav

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

In this logic alot of things alot of people did are wrong and led to the war. When he was taking the oath, he could not foresee the future and what kind of songs Satya would have or how Duryodhan will be such a trouble. He did what he did because of his father. Had Satya already had incapable sons and yet he chose to stay away from throne then I would still have understood.

I haven't seen another fictional/historical character who did so much for the throne despite not being one in line to have it. I don't see how he is the villain because by villain I see someone who purposely did wrong which led to bad consequences.

Like Duryodhan. Like Dhritarashtra.

How was he supposed to know that the throne would be cursed with incapable and capable but inconsistent rulers? The next two generations produced two competent rulers who couldn't last long by fate's play. What exactly guarantees that the breaking of the vow wouldn't have led to deaths or curses?

Had Devavrat been crowned, he'd have ruled and retired to the forest. But, as an uncrowned guide, he stayed until the very end and guided his state in the darkest times.

Originally posted by: surabhi01

In Krishna mohan Ganguly lot of things are interpolate

Even shakuni asking duryodhan for peace is interpolate

Shakuni did not ask duryodhan to return king dom to pandav

Shakuni said to duryodhan to leave ur arrogant and go to Lord Krishna and ask him take ur side in war

And when duryodhan went he was standing near head of Krishna and arjun was standing near feet of Lord Krishna

Here is link

https://www.hindi-web.com/stories/shri-krishna-shanti-doot-mahabharat-story-hindi/

When shakuni main purpose to make her sister happy and by making duryodhan king he want to make his sister happy so why would shakuni ask duryodhan to return kingdom to pandav

I have read all these things in school book too even Krishna mohan Ganguly also is not actual sources

Translation may vary

^ Then what's an actual source?

KMG is deemed authentic along with some other versions and they all debunk Shakuni's alleged revenge, scheming and bad influence.

Point was not to say Bheeshma's oath was wrong. But he refused to let go even when he saw how badly things were going wrong. The most charitable interp possible here is that he put personal VANITY over the greater good.

In fact, there is no way he didn't know about some things and remained completely passive and LET things happen. Not just talking about dice hall here.

The man was prepared to let Hastinapuri go to Jarasandh. If Vyasa didn't come to the rescue, that's exactly what would've happened.

The man who refused crown to Dhritharashtra, the man who forced Yudhishtira as yuvraj, the man who forced division of the kingdom, THAT man had no power to stop lac house and the sexual assault on Panchali? The man who had spies in every corner by his own admission, the man whose minister, Vidura, knew of every Kaurava plot, didn't know about them? No way.

The man about whom Suyodhana said he couldn't fight without had no power to stop dice hall? No way.

The man who specifically told Karna to kill the Pandavas was their well wisher? No way

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Precisely.

How was he supposed to know that the throne would be cursed with incapable and capable but inconsistent rulers? The next two generations produced two competent rulers who couldn't last long by fate's play. What exactly guarantees that the breaking of the vow wouldn't have led to deaths or curses?

Had Devavrat been crowned, he'd have ruled and retired to the forest. But, as an uncrowned guide, he stayed until the very end and guided his state in the darkest times.

Also what guarantees his sons would be Completely capable. I mean the woman he would marry would also have a part to play here. He cannot be blamed for the misfortune and bad luck of the Kuru dynasty. Also breaking a vow would give all kingdoms a chance to not take Kurus seriously anymore because back then promises meant promises.