Who do you think is main villian of Mahabharat - Page 6

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

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

Not letting go of his vow is understandable because back then oaths were important and also his breaking the oath would not really mean things would be fine. Besides, as you said, he was very much a part of politics and he did have a say in decisions.

About the dice hall, cannot in anyway justify anyone out there because everyone knew how Duryodhan was and what could have happened. They obviously knew what could happen if Shakuni was playing. So not only Bhishma but everyone is to be blamed here.

Also, yes, his unfinching loyalty was towards the throne and as per his terms, going against the Hastinapur throne meant wrong for him. Was that his mistake? Yes. I am only saying pinpointing him as a villain is something I don't agree with because his deeds in particular do not point towards destruction like Dhritarashtra or Duryodhan's did. Duryodhan was evil, cunning and due to jealousy he tried poisoning someone as a CHILD, humiliated a woman in open court and planned to burn down his cousins alive. And all this he did in his right mind with clear wrong intentions. Here's the difference.

Bhishma was loyal towards the wrong side, yes. I agree with the fact that he didn't do anything about alot of things he could do something about. But if Karna is considered a loyal friend and that's a good trait because he was loyal to Duryodhan why can't Bhishma's deeds be seen in the same way.

Lastly, about the Dhrit bit. I don't see anything wrong in not letting a blind man be a king because as sad it is, and yes it's not his fault, but he is not capable. It's just harsh but true. Also we did see how bad a king Dhrit was. He was blind metaphorically too.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

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.

It's damn easy for us to break promises. But Ramayana and Mahabharata eras were different.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

This is what I wonder when it's claimed that the vow should have been broken to avoid the war.

It's damn easy for us to break promises. But Ramayana and Mahabharata eras were different.

We always make such mistakes because we judge these people on the basis of today's values. This isn't some I promise I won't leave you Bollywood kinda oath. XD

These things meant serious business and their words had value unlike today. We need to see any piece of literature or even historical events in accordance with the time. If Bhishma could have broken the vow, why not Gandhari when she knew her sons were getting out of hand. And she didn't have other senses working better like a real blind man would.

And we have umpteen examples of what happens due to broken promises from loss of the maiden and terrible curses. Now we can't see Mahabharata completely in isolation to spirituality and strength. 😆

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Not letting go of his vow is understandable because back then oaths were important and also his breaking the oath would not really mean things would be fine. Besides, as you said, he was very much a part of politics and he did have a say in decisions.

About the dice hall, cannot in anyway justify anyone out there because everyone knew how Duryodhan was and what could have happened. They obviously knew what could happen if Shakuni was playing. So not only Bhishma but everyone is to be blamed here.

Also, yes, his unfinching loyalty was towards the throne and as per his terms, going against the Hastinapur throne meant wrong for him. Was that his mistake? Yes. I am only saying pinpointing him as a villain is something I don't agree with because his deeds in particular do not point towards destruction like Dhritarashtra or Duryodhan's did. Duryodhan was evil, cunning and due to jealousy he tried poisoning someone as a CHILD, humiliated a woman in open court and planned to burn down his cousins alive. And all this he did in his right mind with clear wrong intentions. Here's the difference.

Bhishma was loyal towards the wrong side, yes. I agree with the fact that he didn't do anything about alot of things he could do something about. But if Karna is considered a loyal friend and that's a good trait because he was loyal to Duryodhan why can't Bhishma's deeds be seen in the same way.

Lastly, about the Dhrit bit. I don't see anything wrong in not letting a blind man be a king because as sad it is, and yes it's not his fault, but he is not capable. It's just harsh but true. Also we did see how bad a king Dhrit was. He was blind metaphorically too.

We assume back then breaking an oath was a problem. Where does it say so? Bheeshma's actions were pure personal VANITY and self indulgence.

Diff between others in dice hall and Bheeshma was he had the power to stop it, he knew he had the power, and did nothing.

I didn't mean not making Dhritharashtra was a bad thing. I'm saying Bheeshma had the power to make that decision. He then definitely had the power to stop Suyodhana.

Loyalty was not the issue. At best, Bheeshma didn't know what was dharma. At worst, he passive aggressively encouraged injustice.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

We assume back then breaking an oath was a problem. Where does it say so? Bheeshma's actions were pure personal VANITY and self indulgence.

Diff between others in dice hall and Bheeshma was he had the power to stop it, he knew he had the power, and did nothing.

I didn't mean not making Dhritharashtra was a bad thing. I'm saying Bheeshma had the power to make that decision. He then definitely had the power to stop Suyodhana.

Loyalty was not the issue. At best, Bheeshma didn't know what was dharma. At worst, he passive aggressively encouraged injustice.

Because it was a different age and time, and an oath generally isn't broken. There are many such examples in Ramayan as well. I think words had more value back then, than it is now. Everything cannot be stated by law, but that was the way it was. Infact aren't there many examples of promises being broken and the people concerned bearing consequences. Shantanu himself?

Division of kingdom- Well this is a debatable topic. It's like saying Gandhi is the reason for partition. A debate in the same lines. 😆

Dice hall- Even Dhrit could have stopped them. Infact Yudhishthir no matter what is said could have said he doesn't wish to play anymore. None of them did anything of that sort.

About Duryodhan, Dury was not physically disabled, then how can Bhishma stop him? Also I don't think Duryodhan would have listened to Bhishma like Dhrit or Pandu did. He was aggressive and ambitious. He would not let him stop it by his words alone and Bhishma would never ask for war with Dury I guess.

http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_6_श्लोक_1-19http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_4_श्लोक_1-26http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_1_श्लोक_1-11http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_1_श्लोक_12-26

One can read these link

The word which are mention by shakuni in Krishna mohan Ganguly Mahabharata was actually said by Lord Krishna

If one read whole speech of Lord Krishna when he came as peace ambassador then it can understand that shakuni never say such things to return kingdom to yudhistar

It was drona, bhishm vidur and dhrithrashtra asking duryodhan to return kingdom to yudhistar

And Lord Krishna also condemn shakuni for cheating yudhistar

Reading Lord Krishna speech as peace ambassador in udhyog parv one can understand what type of person was shakuni . . .

Originally posted by: surabhi01

http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_6_श्लोक_1-19http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_4_श्लोक_1-26http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_1_श्लोक_1-11http://hi.krishnakosh.org/कृष्ण/महाभारत_उद्योग_पर्व_अध्याय_1_श्लोक_12-26

One can read these link

The word which are mention by shakuni in Krishna mohan Ganguly Mahabharata was actually said by Lord Krishna

If one read whole speech of Lord Krishna when he came as peace ambassador then it can understand that shakuni never say such things to return kingdom to yudhistar

It was drona, bhishm vidur and dhrithrashtra asking duryodhan to return kingdom to yudhistar

And Lord Krishna also condemn shakuni for cheating yudhistar

Reading Lord Krishna speech as peace ambassador in udhyog parv one can understand what type of person was shakuni . . .

Will check the link, which version is this btw?

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Because it was a different age and time, and an oath generally isn't broken. There are many such examples in Ramayan as well. I think words had more value back then, than it is now. Everything cannot be stated by law, but that was the way it was. Infact aren't there many examples of promises being broken and the people concerned bearing consequences. Shantanu himself?

Division of kingdom- Well this is a debatable topic. It's like saying Gandhi is the reason for partition. A debate in the same lines. 😆

Dice hall- Even Dhrit could have stopped them. Infact Yudhishthir no matter what is said could have said he doesn't wish to play anymore. None of them did anything of that sort.

About Duryodhan, Dury was not physically disabled, then how can Bhishma stop him? Also I don't think Duryodhan would have listened to Bhishma like Dhrit or Pandu did. He was aggressive and ambitious. He would not let him stop it by his words alone and Bhishma would never ask for war with Dury I guess.

We will agree to disagree, I think 😆.

If by not breaking oath, he was risking a large scale injustice, and he refused to break it for personal reasons, then at best he was self indulgent, right? Truth demands courage and sacrifice. What Bheeshma sacrificed was external, and that, too, so his father could... (you know the rest😆). He wasn't ready to sacrifice his reputation to prevent an injustice.

Unlike Gandhi who had to comply with demands from Jinnah, the partition of Hastinapuri was Bheeshma's doing. Yudhishtira didn't ask for it, Suyodhana didn't want it.

FYI, Suyodhana later tells Bheeshma he couldn't win without him. I'm sure Bheeshma knew it. All it would've taken was a no from Bheeshma before dice hall. It wouldn't have happened.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

We will agree to disagree, I think 😆.

If by not breaking oath, he was risking a large scale injustice, and he refused to break it for personal reasons, then at best he was self indulgent, right? Truth demands courage and sacrifice. What Bheeshma sacrificed was external, and that, too, so his father could... (you know the rest😆). He wasn't ready to sacrifice his reputation to prevent an injustice.

Unlike Gandhi who had to comply with demands from Jinnah, the partition of Hastinapuri was Bheeshma's doing. Yudhishtira didn't ask for it, Suyodhana didn't want it.

FYI, Suyodhana later tells Bheeshma he couldn't win without him. I'm sure Bheeshma knew it. All it would've taken was a no from Bheeshma before dice hall. It wouldn't have happened.

Yeah I get your POV. You're holding him responsible because his actions seem extremely selfish and only benefiting to his image. I think that's you mean. Maybe in a way I do see what you mean :)

The beauty of the Mahabharata was that there was no main villain

A lot of decisions, oaths taken right from Shantanu to the Kauravas and Pandavas led to the culmination of the 18 day gruesome war with very few survivors.

Post war was a complete rehabilitation of the kingdoms and it was never the same after such a loss and destruction