Originally posted by: varaali
The kingdom of Hastinapur could not have been rightfully Karna's. Karna was not a descendant of Emperor Bharat. He was not a Kuru vanshi. He was born to Kunti who later entered the Kuru family. Therefore, Karna had no inherent right over the Kuru throne. What Krishna would have meant when trying to persuade karna to switch sides was that once Yudhishthir comes to know that he has an elder brother, he would accede the throne to him (karna), his lineage not withstanding.
Regarding his reign as king of Anga- IIRC, the principality of Anga was conferred to Duryodhan, who later offered it to Karna. Thus, Anga would have been at best a principality, within the Kuru Dominion. I don't think it was an independent kingdom, at this time at least. So Karna's presence would not have been required 24/7. Karna would have been just a titular head.
What should have caused greater worry was Shakuni's presence in Hastinapur. Despite being the king of Gandhar, did he leave the actual running of affairs to his brothers?
I think that is what he did for much of the time. Although, after the Pandavas went into exile, did Shakuni remain in Hastinapur? I thought that he was in Gandhara, and only returned when negotiations were going on over the restoration of the Pandava kingdom.
On Karna's legitimacy to the throne, when Krishna met him, he mentioned that as per shastric law, if a woman has a child out of wedlock and later marries, that child's father is the woman's husband. So Karna's status as a Kaurava wouldn't have been in doubt, had Kunti fessed up at the tournament that Karna was none other than her son. Even when Krishna offered Karna the throne, and have everybody, including himself, as his attendants, it was clear that Karna would trump both Yudhisthir & Duryodhan as Dhritarashtra's yuvraj. I think Duryodhan may have been fine w/ that, but not Dhritarashtra. But as far as the Pandavas went, had Kunti gone public about Karna's identity, he'd automatically have become the chief of the Pandavas, above even Yudhisthir. Only problem, as Karna told Krishna, was that if he was offered the kingdom, he'd turn it over to Duryodhan, and that would be a travesty of justice.
About Anga, my point was that it was nowhere near Hastinapur, even if it was a dependency province: it was North Bengal, whereas Hastinapur is where Meerut is. So the Kauravas would have needed a governor there, and since they had made Karna its ruler, Karna's dutiful place would have been there, not Hastinapur. Maybe Karna turned this job over to his brothers, or sons? Maybe Vrishasena ran it?
Originally posted by: varaali
There is no reason why Vrishketu would not have been given his father's kingdom- Anga, though there is no written evidence. What we have been told is that he accompanied Bhima and Arjuna during the Ashwamedha campaigns. I also read somewhere that he perfected his archery skills under Arjuna- and Arjuna who did not have the chance to teach his own sons,-assuaged his own grief by teaching everything to Vrishketu- including the use of Brahmastra.
But Anga, was even during Dritarashtra's times a vassal state within the Kuru kingdom. The situation wold not have changed after the War, when even more kings accepted Yudhishthir's suzerainity. So even if Vrishketu was crowned king of Anga, he would have remained a vassal of the Pandavas.
I wasn't suggesting that Vrishaketu be made independent, although after the Kurukshetra war, w/ all the kings & princes dead, every kingdom was a vassal of the Pandavas. Anga would have been no different from Kosala, Pragjyotisha, Magadha, Chedi, Madra, Matsya, et al.
Only reason for not giving Angad to Vrishaketu would have been that it would symbolize a non-acceptance into the Pandava clan. After all, Karna was given Anga to get over Kripa's objections to his facing Arjun in battle, since protocol rules dictated that only warriors of compatible status could fight, and b'cos he was not recognized as a Kuru or someone equivalent in status. Had Vrishaketu been given the same kingdom, it may have risked symbolizing the same thing - his non acceptance as a Pandava. Which may be why the Pandavas just adopted him as their own son and kept him w/ them.
Originally posted by: varaali
II don't think it was so bad in practical life. The only serious limitation (which was adhered to) was they could marry only within their caste. Look at the reception which Suta Goswami gets at Naimisharnya where he narrates the Srimad Bhagavatham. He was certainly held in high esteem.
And why weren't Yayati and Devyani's sons referred to as Sutas? Just because Shukracharya exempted their union from the restriction (that a maiden of a higher caste could not marry a Man of lower caste)?
I know that the marriage of Devyani & Yayati was a pratiloma/upaloma marriage (I've forgotten which means which), but I didn't know that the sons would be known as sutas. I thought they automatically assume the caste of the father. Reason Shukracharya allowed this was that Devyani was given a curse by Kacha that no brahmin would ever marry her.
Bade Achche Lagte Hain Naya Season
Bigg Boss 19
Real Estate
