Do you think Vidur was right to suggest Dhuryodhan be thrown out?

At Birth there were many inauspicious signs including the howling of Jackals. It was suggested by Vidur, that Dhuryodhan should be thrown out as he would be have "asuri prakruti" (demonic traits).

Is this bias against Dhuryodhan, what shaped his future? This bias against him turned him into the person he became? Was Vidur right to suggest an innocent new born should be thrown away?

Is it fair to punish a baby before a crime has been committed?

Vidur is portrayed as a mahatma. I don't think a mahatma would suggest throwing away children.

The larger good takes precedence over individual good. If he was confident that the child would bring destruction of the kingdom and itspeople he would have been within his rights to suggest such a drastic measure. The parents and others who did not believe in such signs or forecast of doom would obviously disagree with vidur.

actually in the original he orders the son to be killed! this view was supported by bhishma and kripa also. no matter how advanced, people were highly superstitious those times.
It was foretold that this child will destroy the kuru race, hence the extreme decision.

I think vidur was right.Duryodhna became what he became not becuase he was treated unfairly infact he was never treated unfairly he got everything he wished for by blackmailing his father.He didnt become unrighteous becuase he was treated unfairly it is becuase he was too spoilt

I think vidur was right about Duryodhan..

Now I ask this question:

People often ask: If you could travel back in time and Kill Hitler when he was a baby. Would you?

I don't think its fair to kill a baby just because an astrologer said something.


Its the upbringing that matters most. If Dhritarasthra had put in effort and taught Duryodhan to be nice to his cousins Duryodhan would never have been what he was. Plus there was Shakuni's brain washing.

A baby is innocent...pure...there is no malice or hatred in a baby's heart. Its not at all good to kill a baby.

Originally posted by: Manojie

Now I ask this question:

People often ask: If you could travel back in time and Kill Hitler when he was a baby. Would you?

is vidhur wants to killed the child??? or he was just interested to send duryadhan somewhere else???
acctually i missed epinions and precap too...
PS: if answer is yes about killing a child then definitely stand with that child...a child who just born does not deserve this at all...

See there is difference in taking decision in present and same decision in future.For example if could go back in time i would probably not kill hitler as a baby i would probably let him live and try to avoid all the reasons due to which he had such hatered for jews.Since i know the reason why be came what he became.Similarly if i could go back i will probably not ask them to kill duryodhan as a baby but tell them to keep him far away from shakuni ,probably ask gandhari to take greator intrest in her son's upbrigigng becuase in future we know the reasons why duryodhan became unreighteous.But vidur didnt see the future neither he came from the future he had no idea why duryodhana would end kuru clan so there was no way he could have avoided the reasons so he took the best desion he could with the resources available.Like i said there is a difference in taking a decision in future and in present.

Did Vidur want the baby killed? I don't think so. 😕 As far as I remember reading, he wanted Dhritarastra to abandon the baby and give him up to another couple so that he is not brought up as a prince of Hastinapur. Vidur was a righteous man. I cannot see him ordering a baby to be killed before it has grown up and committed sins.

In my opinion, Dhritarastra should either have given up the baby since he had 99 more sons and 1 daughter, or taken a greater interest in Duryodhana's upbringing. But he did neither. He let his attachment for his child blind him to his faults, and he never once criticized Duryodhan for his selfish motives. He just left him to Shakuni's whims.