Who is CGM??? Warrior or Slaughter?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

Abhay

@history_geek

Rocker

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

#21

Originally posted by: deejagi
Hi Abhay, this is what I was expecting Chandra Gupta Maurya to do and not to butcher the heads as if they are tender coconuts. I even loved the way he tortured Padmanand by scratching all over his body and leave him bleed than the way he chopped the heads of 7 Nandas. Yes as a future king he was right to avenge the Nanda for the wrong things he did to his mother land, as a son he had all the rights to take revenge on Padmanand, but as a human, he didn't do well with the way he killed the sons of his enemy. he should have followed the decorum which suits his level. There the CVs dropped him to the level of a animal slaughter which didn't go well with me. They equaled him to the level of Padmanand.

I will write about Chanakya's Rajneeti a little later as today being the 1st day of the month, little busy.

I will wait for your views. Take your time. Even my presence in the forum is very less. Have to read the written updates to understand what all has happened till now. The reason for my presence is Chanakya. I hope he is not sidelined, as happened in CAS.

Quote

Abhay

@history_geek

Rocker

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

#22

@sanju15k

Brother,
Killing all the male members to attain victory in war is a modern construct, and was not a "rule". During some discussions here i have seen - modern thought takes over the code prescribed for ancient warfare. This should not be done.

Our very own ruthless - Chanakya prefers reinstating the defeated king on the throne or in the case of death of king the relative of king should be reinstated on terms of subordinate alliance. This is the same thing which is prescribed by Manu, and the same which was practiced by the Gupta ruler Samudragupta -> defeat the kings, make them prisoners, then set them free, and make them the vassal.

I should add that Chanakya freed all the captive soldiers of the Nanda army, according to Mudra Rakshasha. Chanakya also adds that the victorious king should not interfere in the customs of the local people in the area of the defeated ruler, as that can lead to a mass revolt which can not be quelled easily.

Similarly, we have example of Senguttuvan, given in Silappadikaram, who had set free the defeated rulers of the North. The discussion here is about the method in which the Nanda Clan was extinguished. CGM was completely right in eliminating the Nandas. The point of debate is the method used.

Coming to case of Abhimanyu. His elimination was un-righteous. No second thoughts about it in my mind unless i get some good counter points.

Chakravyuh was created for capturing Yudhisthir after the death of Pitamaha Bhishma. It was for defense, to allure the enemy into it and lead it to self destruction. Pandavas were to follow Abhimanyu in the Chakravyuh but were stopped by Jayadratha, which made Abhimanyu alone in that arena ; as he had a boon from Lord Shiva that he would be able to hold all the Pandavas, except Arjun, at bay, and that day Arjun was not present. Next day, Kauravas created another Chakravyuh which was for saving Jayadrath from Arjun who had vowed to kill him.

The Kauravas were from the beginning shown to be on the side of Adharma. Well! One can argue about the cunning tricks of Sri Krishna too, in favor of Pandavas ; but here i am only talking about the explicit disregard shown to the established rules of warfare by the Kauravas. Remember killing of the young Pandav princes while they were asleep ? The Santi Parva of Mahabharata states explicitly that a person in sleep can not be killed during war.

Abhimanyu, when he was killed had no armor on him, still he was attacked. This is again a violation of rules. The person whose weapon is broken, bow string is broken should not be attacked. The main rule being - only equal fights with equal. Like chariot warrior with a chariot warrior ; horseman with horseman and so on. But nothing was followed in case of Abhimanyu, then how can his death be placed in a doubtful category (whether right or wrong) ?

All these things are mentioned in detail in the epic - Mahabharata. Sanjay, while narrating the course of events to Dhritrashtra, mentions what all "sins" the Kauravas were conducting against the sole fighting Abhimanyu who was eliminating warriors after warriors coming in his way. A brilliant narration is presented. Looks like an action sequence of a best selling novel. Very well written in the epic.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Sanju

@.Karna

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

#23

well abhay , i m highly impressed with your knowledge , but i have different opinion regarding

1.the cgm's method to eliminate the nanad prince ..to vo kya tum show ki baat kar rahe ho ya real history vali. vese lagta hai ki you hates chanakya . but f you know , our government still uses the knowledge of ecomonic given by chankya.

he was not ruthless, vo dur ki sochta tha , aur vo ek do ke baare me nahi , jyada logo ke baare me sochta tha . mujhe uske history ke baare me jyada nhi pata , par uske har plan politically sahi hote the. uske guidance ke nadar mauryan dynasty , indian hystory ki one of the best dynasty rahi hai . aur uss time ki indian economy bhi sabse best rahi hai , pehli baar india ne navy organise ki thi aur largest army bhi .to vo jo bhi karta tha , soch samjh ke karta tha , lamse kam evil plans ke sath nhi

2 abhimanyu's death , to mene kahan na chakrvyuh me hota hhi yahi hai ki enemy ka army ko engulf karke maara jata hai to , abhimanyu ko charo taraf se marna ,kuch galat nhi ha ...

and about that anhimanyu being weopan-less . to rule yeh tha ki agar enemy apne weopon chord de aur armour nikal de to iska matab hai ki vo surrender kar raha hai , tab uspe attack kiya jaa sakta.

par abhimanyu ko to defence less and weopon less kiya gaya tha, aur vo fight karna bhi chahta tha ,to isme kuch galat nhi tha.

Nhi to jab bhi koi warrior kisi ke weopon gira de aur chariot tod de , fir to samne vala keh dega ki ab fight nhi ho sakti kunki hum equal nhi hai , fir to kabhi koi kisi ko maar hi nhi sakta , kunki kabhi na kabhi to vo unequal hunge .

jo galat tha abhimanyu ke death me , vo sirf uska tadpa tadpa ke maarna tha , duryodhan wanted to give pain to pandavas thats why , he order to kill abhimanyu slowly.

and bro , me kaurava ko justify nhi kar raha tha , unhone bahut adharma kiye the ,no doubt .

Edited by sanju15k - 8 years ago

Quote

Kaana

@Kaana

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

#24

Hey there, how have you been?

Nice to read a post from you. I missed you during Ashoka days but glad I missed the show later

I know I am writing on an old thread. But saw a post in your name and coukdb't help reading it Deejagi. And of course cab never keep my mouth shut so have to write too. I am back after a long time - maybe after Sid quit Ashoka. Though I should quit earlier Sid kept me going.

Yep, I did not like CGM removing the dupatta of Nandi. Evil me says not bcos of Nandi (so far I am not find of the portrayal). But I feel CGM is compromised here. A man who could hold his values even when abused by N about his manliness, ideally would not have done this. I don't know about real CGM, but the portrayal in the show is itself contradicted here. I am not sure it could be reasoned out anyway here- unless it's an overboard justification. I felt the same too- he should have knocked off the sword and slapped her hard so that he would have shut her mouth for sometime.

I am fine with the slaughter of the sons - who would also pose danger in future if left. Though I would have loved if they had shown them defeated and beheaded in the battle field. Be glad he didn't slaughter all soldiers and the public!!! But just thinking, did CGM tell Nand that hr woukd kill his sons jn front of his eyes causing him much pain?

And Abhay, this also a reason why I would argue that Chanakya sticks to dharnasastras.

Edited by Kaana - 8 years ago

Quote

Kaana

@Kaana

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

#25

Abhay, I am sooo glad to see you here. Well, I am coming here myself after long but what more could be a treat than seeing you here. Now the greedy me is going to ask you all about CGM.

Abhay, just a small view from my end. I kind of feel Chanakya was not away from dharma sastras. I would like to quote "mayAcAro mayayavartutavyah sAdvAcAro sadunavartitavyah'-meaning, one''s dealing should be according to the person one is dealing with. A man has to be paid in his own coin if he is an evil fellow and a good one has to treated in all goodness. This is the dharma for Kaliyug, where evil is all around. Unlike Satyayuga where there was virtues and goodness all around. One has to adapt to the yuga. In today''s context we cannot keep showing our other cheek to a person who slaps you. He would coolly slap the other cheek, at least half the population?

I have immense regards for Yudhistira, but that would blind my eyes to reality. In my view he did not deal with Laura case they should have been. He was showing only goodness all through and they were only taking advantage. That is why Lord Krishna had to step in and bring the correction. MayAcAro quote is the basis of all Krishna''s acts. If this concept is understood, Krushna''s all trucks would fall in perspective. He even tried to get Bheeshma and Karna out pointing out what is the right thing to do - they were just sticking to the rule book. That is why dharma is subtle. It needs to applied judiciously. That said, Chanakya practises this principle (MayAcAro. ..) in my view. Krishna has shown the path - the path of dharma in Kaliyug context. Actually C himself says this in this show, when CGM asks if it was right to do a particular thing. The greater good is held in mind and put before the conduct. To lie is a sin, but lying to save a life is not a sin. That why the context is important and held in mind.

That said, I am not stating that Chanakya is an embodiment of nobility ... my knowledge here is limited and his revenge is also a pointer.

Quote

Kaana

@Kaana

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

#26

[Hi Sanju, killing Abhimany, rather the way in which it was done, was an act of cowardice and disgust.

One could argue that he cannot be defeated by an individual warrior (even Karna) and it may not be wise to set him free as he could bring about Kauravas destruction later. Chanakya himself says that enemy cannot be set free. We have our Prithviraj Chauhan as a standing example (how I wish he had read Arthasastra). Then what could be done...definitely group butchering is not the only way. They could have captured him alive. Anyway there was no war values for Kauravas, so they could have all together disarmed him. Instead they butchered him and that is the disgusting part. They did this out of sheer hatred and the child in front of them was not seen. This according to me is unpardonable and cannot be justified in anyway.

Quote

Sanju

@.Karna

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

#27

Originally posted by: Kaana
[Hi Sanju, killing Abhimany, rather the way in which it was done, was an act of cowardice and disgust.
One could argue that he cannot be defeated by an individual warrior (even Karna) and it may not be wise to set him free as he could bring about Kauravas destruction later. Chanakya himself says that enemy cannot be set free. We have our Prithviraj Chauhan as a standing example (how I wish he had read Arthasastra). Then what could be done...definitely group butchering is not the only way. They could have captured him alive. Anyway there was no war values for Kauravas, so they could have all together disarmed him. Instead they butchered him and that is the disgusting part. They did this out of sheer hatred and the child in front of them was not seen. This according to me is unpardonable and cannot be justified in anyway.

hi .

well if you do research on chakravyuh , then its clearly mention that the strategy here is to engulf the enemy and finish them . means mass killing. it was never meant for a single person to enter.

so now there was the dilemma for drona ,whether to follow the general warfare rules or to follow the strategy of chakravyuh. First he tred to follow the general rule. thats why everyone tried to stop abhimanyu , but failed . abhimanyu was taking much time , and was becoming hurdle to drona for continuing the chakravyuh to capture yudhister. thats why duryodhan ordered to follow the chakrvyuh strategy . obliging the order karna made abhimanyu armless and drona made him chariotless. then kaurava attacked abhimanyu from all direction.

now , till here nothing was wrong , if you have read any maharbharat books ,then you would come to know that group attacking was very common , bheesma , karna , drona, arjuna,bheema everyone faced that situation .

now the wrong thing here was - the merciless killing .

duryodhan and his brother killed him mercilessly to give pain to pandavas , they did that to take revenge of their dead brothers.

this ' merciless killing' was the reason of arjun getting furious , not that abhimanyu was attacked from all side.

i maybe sound rude ( sorry for that ) but its very stupid to say that kauravas didnt even think that abhimanyu was kid . like really . if he really was then why did pandava brought him in the battlefield , just to get sympathies. NO , he was not a kid , abhmanyu was of 31 year old, well in dwaparyup ,its early age but not that much.

thank you ,

peace

Quote

Kaana

@Kaana

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

#28

Sanju the chakravyuh detail was good. Thanks. And I suppose we both are saying the same thing that the merciless killing is what is condemnable. More than the group attack per say the way they treated Abhimanyu was very disgusting. And Abhimnanyu was a child to the Kuru clan still.

Quote

Sanju

@.Karna

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

#29

Originally posted by: Kaana
Sanju the chakravyuh detail was good. Thanks. And I suppose we both are saying the same thing that the merciless killing is what is condemnable. More than the group attack per say the way they treated Abhimanyu was very disgusting. And Abhimnanyu was a child to the Kuru clan still.

ya , but just giving the excuse of his age , is not the right way to justify the point na...i mean its like an insult for a warrior like abhimanyu 😊. there were warrior much younger than abhimanyu too..so , no one would ever fight if they will think like this.

Quote

deejagi

@deejagi

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 8 years ago

#30

Originally posted by: sanju15k
ya , but just giving the excuse of his age , is not the right way to justify the point na...i mean its like an insult for a warrior like abhimanyu 😊. there were warrior much younger than abhimanyu too..so , no one would ever fight if they will think like this.

Hi she is not talking about his age but his relationship with Kauravas. He was their nephew that means their son

Quote

1 2 3 4

Who is CGM??? Warrior or Slaughter? - Page 3

Related Topics

Explore Topics