Originally posted by: IDontEvenKnow
Very tangent question - has left me awake at night for years 😂 - why were the Pandavs not considered Kauravs?? Why are Dhritrashtra putras only called this, but Pandu putras not?? If Pandavs are derived from Pandu, why not Dhritravs for Dhritrashtra??
Thank you!!!!!!
The convention at the time was to give the family title to the eldest son. Exception was Yayati declaring that his fourth son would continue his lineage in return for agreeing to swap his youth. But otherwise, if a king had multiple sons, the eldest would continue the branch. This was not just in the Chandravansh, but in general: for instance, Kush was the one who continued the Raghukul in Ayodhya, even though others - the sons of Shatrughan, Bharat, Lakshman as well as Luv all had kingdoms of their own.
In the case of the Mahabharat, after the Pandavas retired, Parikshit and his descendants were known as Purus, since they were the only strand left of the descendants of Puru. Note that this term wasn't used for anybody else, not the Kauravas, since there were several descendants of Puru ruling myriad kingdoms. All of them got wiped out in the Kurukshetra war.
Also, in Vyasa's Mahabharat, the ones where we occasionally site KMG, Yudhisthir and his brothers are occasionally referred to as Kauravas. Only problem this causes is when it's also mentioned during the war: like in a battle b/w Yudhisthir and Shalya, the text refers to Yudhisthir as the Kaurava while describing him fighting Shalya. Very poor penmanship, and probably one of the twists that Vyasa did to force Ganesh to stop and think so that he too could pause to compose his verses
Cricket
Current Affairs
Anupamaa
