Duryodhan- A Misunderstood Character Or Not? - Page 2

Originally posted by: _Sanjana23_

A) Dritharastra was the legal, rightful first heir to the throne so rightfully the throne SHOULD have been passed on to Duryodhan regardless of his father's shortcomings? How far do you all agree?

Ans. No Duryodhan was never the legal heir of Hastinapur regardless of his father's blindness or his younger age than Yudhishtir. Because having royal blood alone is insufficient for the accession to the throne. A ruler had to prove himself as a worthy king and it was publicly established that Yudhishtir was an abler ruler. This norm was started by Bharat when he found his own sons unworthy of being trusted with the crown.

B)Duryodhan was treated unfairly for very long by the Pandavas and had a close enemity with Bhim when they could have been each others strength so is Duryodhan alone to blame?

Ans. You are right when you say that Duryodhan alone can't be blamed. It is said that Shakuni never forgave Bhishma for getting Gandhari married to the blind Dhritarashtra. He wanted her to be married to Pandu so that Gandhari could be the Empress of India. So he swore that he would destroy Bhishma's clan by poisoning the minds of its youth. Shakuni trained Duryodhan to believe that he is the righfull heir to the throne and Pandavas would snatch his right, just like their father snatched his father's right. He spawned hatred for the Pandavas in Duryodhan's mind and didn't stop till the Kuru clan was destroyed in the Kurukshetra.

C)Gandhari knew her brother's bad influence would cause destruction to her family. So why did she not intervene? Is it not fair to say that Duryodhan was failed as a child by his parents for correct upbringing?

Ans. Actually Gandhari tried more than once to extricate Duryodhan from Shakuni's influence. But Shakuni, the cunning politician he was, convinced Dhritarashtra that after he's gone, nobody will care about Duryodhan's interests. He managed to make him believe that both Vidur and Bhishma were inclined towards the Pandavas, and that Shakuni himself was the sole defender of Duryodhan's interest. Fearing about his son's future, Dhritarashtra requested Shakuni to remain in Hastinapur and even forbade Gandhari from opposing him.

D)Why were Pandavas as children always favoured especially with Pitaamah Bhishma? Did that occur to anyone that the difference would cause hatred between the two?

Ans. This is a misbelief. Bhishma always loved every member of his clan equally. If you read the end of Bhishma Parva when Karna goes to seek Bhishma's permission to enter the war, Bhishma says this to him. Vidur gave extra attention Yudhishtir because he wanted to hone his skills as a future ruler as well as due to the fact that he was fatherless. The only person who could be blamed of partiality was Dronacharya. This is reflected by the fact that Drona gave Pandavas and Kauravas, separately, the task of paying his Gurudakshina. If he had been impartial, he would have ordered his 105 students to pay the Gurudakshina.

And finally E) Draupadi's taunts were distasteful, evil and malicious. Was it fair that he was treated in such a manner? Is there not a line to be drawn were such mockery should not be allowed? Is Duryodhan's anger not justified?

Ans. Whatever Draupadi did was completely wrong, but unfortunately that can never be a justification for Duryodhan's crimes. He wanted revenge, fine. There were worthier ways. According to the Vedas if a married Kshatrani offends another Kshatriya, and that Kshatriya seeks revenge, he must defeat that Kshatrani's husband in a duel and enslave him. (This is what Karna suggested to him, initially. Though later on Karna fully enjoyed and actively participated in the infamous Vastraharan). Duryodhan was a Adharmi and there can be no doubt in that. But there are several instances which shows his qualities as well. He was generous to the poor, he regularly voiced against the then prevalent caste-discrimination, which was not considered unjust even by the noblest of those times. He was a loyal friend as well. But as it is said that its our choices, more than our abilities which truly define us. While Duryodhan chose Shakuni and Karna, Pandavas chose Krishna and that was enough to decide who's Dharmic and who's Adharmi.😃

Originally posted by: _Sanjana23_

A) Dritharastra was the legal, rightful first heir to the throne so rightfully the throne SHOULD have been passed on to Duryodhan regardless of his father's shortcomings? How far do you all agree? Actually, Dhritarastra was not legal heir....it says in shastras that the first son is rightful heir as long as he is capable of ruling the Kingdom. In any situation, the praja come first and if the King is unable to care for the Praja because of some disability, he is unfit for the throne despite his situation being pitiable. After all, the King should be the strongest person in the Kingdom and if he himself is forced to physically depend on others, he cannot rule the Kingdom. Therefore, Pandu was the rightful heir since he was next eldest after Dhritarastra, and also fully capable of shouldering the Kingdom and ruling it righteously. In this manner, Yudhisthira actually WAS the rightful heir, because he was both the eldest son of King Pandu and also capable of ruling. Even had he been not, Bhima would have been the next heir because he also was capable and older than Duryodhan. Like Rehan said, King Bharata himself displayed this principle of the most capable son being heir overriding the eldest, because he overlooked all nine of his sons for the betterment of his Kingdom and praja. He was truly a great King and the complete opposite of Dhritarastra, because he did not let Putra Moh cloud his judgment.👏

B)Duryodhan was treated unfairly for very long by the Pandavas and had a close enemity with Bhim when they could have been each others strength so is Duryodhan alone to blame? Actually, the Pandavas were always treated unfairly by Duryodhan, never the other way around. They first entered Hastinapur fatherless, and they never felt any enmity with their Uncle's children. Duryodhan was always jealous of their skills and wisdom, so he tried a countless number of times to dispose of them. I have never heard or read of a moment where the Pandavas were unfair to Duryodhan, so this accusation is rather surprising to me. Also, Duryodhan alone is not to blame, but I do believe he is at least 85% blameworthy, because once a person reaches a certain age, they know what is right and wrong despite their wishes and interests. If they yet persist in wrongdoing, there are completely responsible for their actions. Shakuni is also to blame, yes, but he never physically forced Duryodhan to do what he did. In the end, it was Duryodhan himself who carried out the misdeeds.

C)Gandhari knew her brother's bad influence would cause destruction to her family. So why did she not intervene? Is it not fair to say that Duryodhan was failed as a child by his parents for correct upbringing? Gandhari did intervene many times, but her words were powerless against those of her husband and brother. Shakuni and Dhritarastra never listened to her, so why would Duryodhan give any importance to his mother's words when his father and uncle supported him? Again, full blame does not lie on him since he did have a bad upbringing, but most of it does for the reason I explained above.

D)Why were Pandavas as children always favoured especially with Pitaamah Bhishma? Did that occur to anyone that the difference would cause hatred between the two? I guess I already answered this in my previous post....but to add to it, I don't think Bhishma really favored anyone for being so and so's son...he favored Dharma, and the Pandavas always had Dharma behind their actions...so it may seem to people that he favored the Pandavas, but had Duryodhan ever done something that was towards Dharma instead of against it, I don't doubt Bhishma would have favored him too...and he did in one instance. When Duryodhan did the Aswamedha Yagna, Bhishma was proud of him and praised his actions since it was for the betterment of society, so that proves to us that had Duryodhan been a better person who did good deeds, Bhishma would have praised him as well. Bhishma actually was a better parent than Dhritarastra, despite not having any children of his own, because he never needlessly praised the Pandavas or Kauravas when they misbehaved. He criticized them when they did something wrong and praised them when they did something right. That is what a parent should do, even if it seems like favoritism to some people.

And finally E) Draupadi's taunts were distasteful, evil and malicious. Was it fair that he was treated in such a manner? Is there not a line to be drawn were such mockery should not be allowed? Is Duryodhan's anger not justified? I am not actually of the opinion that Draupadi's taunts were distasteful, evil, and malicious. In my opinion, that is actually going way too far, because while laughing at someone who falls is considered rude, it is not evil. Evil is what Duryodhan did, because he tried to kill his own cousins many times and felt no remorse whatsoever. Draupadi's actions may be called rude (though I gave my opinion in that matter as well - Duryodhan (the "evil little cockroach" - thanks Hermione) deserved it and I would have laughed at him too), but definitely not evil or malicious. Duryodhan's anger is defnitely not justified. Yes, a person who's been laughed at is allowed to feel angry and hurt, but going to the extent of robbing his own cousins and disrobing their wife is plain....satanic. I really hate Duryodhan for this, and I can never justify his actions.😡 Draupadi's vastraharan is an incident in Mahabharat where we should all feel anger at the injustice done to an innocent woman, not feel she deserve it. No woman deserves to be disrobed and insulted in such a manner. Even had she deserved some kind of punishment (though I do not agree to that as I wrote above), it should have been carried out in a humane and heroic manner like Karna initially suggested, not the vile deceitful way Duryodhan and Dushashan did it.

Originally posted by: Ankita_88

i just wanna say one thing here.......some people here are saying that draupadi was disrespectful towards Duryodhan and his father Dhritarashtra.....excuse me can you please tell me how to keep respect when you will see that your husband has been sent to a patthar ka nagar to enjoy their so called rajya which was khandavprastha at that time???can any woman respect such person???i am sorry i really can't....And Duryodhan being an evil tried to kill her husbands many times...so what if she says that "andha ka putra andha"????whast so wrong in that>??that blindness has become an excuse for Dhritarashtra in everything....i will come up in this matter later....!!!!! as of nwo feeling tooooo sleepy....

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

Is that true Lalitha? That dialogue was inserted by BRC? Please confirm this. Though I have read several versions, mostly in English, I have found Draupadi passing that derisive comment in almost every version.

But its still undeniable that Draupadi had a certain streak of arrogance in her. That is both good and bad. In fact that is the beauty of this epic. Every character other than Krishna is gray. No one is perfect, while in Ramayan, most people are either completely good or completely bad. That is why the difference between Dharma and Adharma can not be surmised properly from Ramayan. For that we need Mahabharat, where even idealists like Bhishma, scholars like Drona and philanthropists like Karna were doomed to defeat as they were Adharmis. Every character is a blend of ego, pride, envy, love, hatred, patriotism and loyalty. That's why Mahabharat is called the fifth Veda, and in my opinion more important than the four Vedas.

Originally posted by: Darklord_Rehan

But its still undeniable that Draupadi had a certain streak of arrogance in her. That is both good and bad. In fact that is the beauty of this epic. Every character other than Krishna is gray. No one is perfect, while in Ramayan, most people are either completely good or completely bad. That is why the difference between Dharma and Adharma can not be surmised properly from Ramayan. For that we need Mahabharat, where even idealists like Bhishma, scholars like Drona and philanthropists like Karna were doomed to defeat as they were Adharmis. Every character is a blend of ego, pride, envy, love, hatred, patriotism and loyalty. That's why Mahabharat is called the fifth Veda, and in my opinion more important than the four Vedas.