Originally posted by: dey.bh
Who told you that Atominis ? It was not a property dispute. A state is not a King's property. That made Bhisma repent in the end . He said,' A state cannot be distributed to settle family matters. It was one wrong decision he made while giving away Indraprastha to the Pandavas. He thought this way he could save the brothers but a state is always superior to family matters.
Duryodhan was such a bad administrator that the writer had to change his name. He was orginally named Suryodhan but writer himself was tired of describing his actions and his name was changed midway to Duryodhan. Not to forget one who could not save the grace of a family , one who tried to kill Bheema while they were still kids and one who tried to kill all the Pandavas by a trick cannot be a king.
Dhritarastra had all the qualities of a ruler but he was bling that refrained him from taking the post of a king. Also, Pandu could not have a child. Dritarastra rested all his last hopes on his son. Gndhari therefore is believed to have asked for 100 sons who will be as powerful as her husband. Duryodhan was powerful of course but was born with all the jealosy and other weakness his own father had.
I read a blog that Duryodhan was not a bad king. Even Gurcharan Das book says so.
If state is not property then why Yudhistra staked it in a gamble?
How was a guy like him worthy of throne?
I am sorry. I don't consider Pandavas great harbingers of Dharma.