Duryodhana-not just a villain - Page 3

Originally posted by: disha15

One could argue that his crowing Karna as the King of Anga was just to ensure that a worthy rival is fielded to face Arjuna. If it was so, he would have ditched Karna later. It was Karna's death that Duryodhana mourns more than that of even his brothers - a true testimony of the friendship.

Yes the job assigned to Karna was never done so may be he did not ditch him.. But at the same time, we do not find anywhere that he planned to ditch him later.. Like we knew his back of mind plans for Pandavas.. I find this friendship very much valuable.. everything needs a background to start so this start is ok too.. isn't friendship between people of different levels to be highly appreciated? we know what Drupad did..

He has also taken more than his share of blame for many events. For example, when he lured the Pandavas for a game of dice, Yudhishtira accepted the challenge saying that it is unbecoming of Kings to refuse a game of dice. Using the same logic, Duryodhana is well within the dharma to throw that challenge.

I differ here.. game as a game is fine.. but to acquire wealth/kingdom of the Pandavas a war would have been appreciated more..

We should also recognize that Duryodhana faced prejudice of all elders all through his life. The bad omens at the time of his birth created prejudice in the mind of Bheeshma and Vidura who recommended that the child be abandoned. Drona was strongly biased towards Arjuna and dead against Karna who was identified with Duryodhana.

Though am not sure about this, it sounds valid.. added to this there was some favouritism towards Pandavas also because they did not enjoy royal life in their early life (but Drid supplied all needs to Pandu) and also they lost their Father and one of their mothers..

In the course of the great war, Duryodhana was more fair than his cousins. Yudhishtira made the most stupid offer to Duryodhana that he could pick any of the five Pandavas for a duel (gada yudha). And should Duryodhana win, it would be deemed as having won the Kurukshetra war. It was impossible for any of the four Pandavas other than Bheema to even give a challenge to Duryodhana. Even Bheema's ability to win a duel was uncertain. Duryodhana, as a true and fair warrior, did not take advantage of the offer. He chose Bheema because that would make the duel even and fair.

Ok this is what I thought until I came into IF.. but got to know that both were adharmic and determining who was more adharmic is not feasible.

I can not say he din't want to take advantage of the offer.. well, one can name it ego, self-dignity or dharma as per their POV.. but the problem arises when POV changes between Kauravas and Pandavas.. If Dury picks Bhim it is tagged ego and when Yudi continues to roll the dice inspite of successive failures and makes unethical stakes, it is marked as dharma.. which I don't find is fair

Duryodhana is always portrayed by story-tellers as the ultimate embodiment of all conceivable evil. Indian mythology is strongly footed in character creation- there are no perfect' heroes nor perfect' villains. All heroes have erred and all villains have excelled at some point in time or the other. Duryodhana is a very good example of this. He was indeed a perfect villain when it came to dealing with his cousins, but far from it on many other occasions.

His best quality was the character of his friendship. One could argue that his crowing Karna as the King of Anga was just to ensure that a worthy rival is fielded to face Arjuna. If it was so, he would have ditched Karna later. But we see Duryodhana and Karna sharing an unbreakable bond of friendship through their successes and failures. It was Karna's death that Duryodhana mourns more than that of even his brothers - a true testimony of the friendship.

yes Duryodhana developed strong friendship with Karna, and Ashvadhama, but his reasons for this friendship were for the sole purpose of using them to defeat the Pandavas who he considered enemies. so his friendship were founded on selfishness. not selfless love and camaraderie

Duryodhana's claim to the throne is not entirely unfounded. Duryodhana had a genuine right for the throne as the son of Dhritharashtra, the eldest of his generation. Dhritarashtra did not get the first right to the throne only because blindness rendered him ineligible. But that cannot be held against his children. Dhritarashtra may not have been the first king, but he was indisputably the elder brother. And it is the offspring of the elder brother, who has the first claim on the crown. Moreover, the Pandavas were not truly the children of Pandu. They were born to five different Devas who have no lineage connected to Hastinapura. So their claim was suspect, if not void. So, was Duryodhana wrong in staking his claim?

You say that the Pandaves were not pandu biological children, they were born of five different Devas and had no linage connect to Hastinapur. but Dhritarashta and Pandu were not sons of vichitraveer who was the son of king Shantanu, but born from Risha Vyas after Vichitaveer died childless. so in that case Dhritarashtra and Pandu too had no claim to the throne. and by default neither any for their children did . Dhritarashtra though being elder was not fit to be king because he was blind. and Bheesma and vidurs fear that a blind king would make a bad and unjust king were not groundless. Dhritarashtra proved their fears right. and Duryodhana was not the oldest of the kuru princes Yudhishtira and Bheem were older then him.

Duryodhana was accepted as a fair administrator. It is evident on many occasions except when his cousins were present - their presence always clouded the vision of Duryodhana. He has also taken more than his share of blame for many events. For example, when he lured the Pandavas for a game of dice, Yudhishtira accepted the challenge saying that it is unbecoming of Kings to refuse a game of dice. Using the same logic, Duryodhana is well within the dharma to throw that challenge.

Duryodhana intention was not to have a playful, harmless game of dice. he didn't want to fight them in and honorable manner. the game was rigged by shakuni so that the pandavas loose. duryodhana was cheating all the time. is that honorable? was he well within his dharma to insult and taunt his cousin by calling them slaves, and dishonor their wife, and the kul vadu, of Hastinapur by dragging her into public and disrobing her. calling her a hoer and making indecent propositioning to their sister in law.

We should also recognize that Duryodhana faced prejudice of all elders all through his life. The bad omens at the time of his birth created prejudice in the mind of Bheeshma and Vidura who recommended that the child be abandoned. Drona was strongly biased towards Arjuna and dead against Karna who was identified with Duryodhana.

Duryodhana was given the opportunity to prove his worth like all the pandav princes. but duryodhan choose to cheat and scheme, instead for fighting honorable. if he was a just and righteous man he would have gotten the support of both Bheeshma and Vidura. for Duryodhan his ego and his ambition kept him for being a righteous man. his deeds spoke of his character. if Drona was so strongly biased towards Arjuna, he would have fought alongside him in the kurshetra war not against him. Bheeshma and Drona had vowed frailty to the throne of Hastinapur. both disapproved of Duryodhana and as you say were prejudice towards him. then why were they fighting alongside him against the pandavas who they knew were right.

In the course of the great war, Duryodhana was more fair than his cousins. The most notable of the events that prove this happened on the 18th day of the war. When the Pandavas traced Duryodhana at the fag end of the war, he was staring at certain defeat. At that point, Yudhishtira made the most stupid offer to Duryodhana that he could pick any of the five Pandavas for a duel (gada yudha). And should Duryodhana win, it would be deemed as having won the Kurukshetra war. It was impossible for any of the four Pandavas other than Bheema to even give a challenge to Duryodhana. Even Bheema's ability to win a duel was uncertain. Duryodhana, as a true and fair warrior, did not take advantage of the offer. He chose Bheema because that would make the duel even and fair. Of course, the Pandavas did not respond in the same way. Bheema killed Duryodhana by smashing his thigh - unfair means to down an enemy in gada yudha in which hitting below the waist is not allowed.

was Duryodhana fair when he and his cronies surrounded 15 year old Abhimanu, trapped him within the chakraview and pounced on him like a pack of dogs laughed at his challenge to fight him one at a time. seasoned and experienced warriors that they were choose to break the rule of combat and killed him by attacking him at the same time.

was Duryodhana honorable and fair when he set the tent on fire in which the thought that five Pandav brothers were sleeping, but killed their sons instead. when attacking after dark was against the law of combat. was this no villainy

Duryodhana was more fair than his cousins. i say hogwash

Duryodhana choose Bheem because he wanted to save face, if he had picked any of the other brothers, and defeated them. he would have only faced ridicule that he chose a weak opponent. if any of them had bested him he would still loose face. that he understatement the strength of any pandav brother. and would have faced ridicule anyways.

the pandav brothers were powerful warriors. and nobody can say for sure that all of them didnt have the skill to beat duryodhan.

Bheem had taken an oath that he would smash Duryodhana thigh. duryodhana did not fight fair even then. he had received divine protection form Gandhari. that made his body invincible, except for the potion below his waist and knees. and death was his destiny one way or the other. it was on Shri Krishna signals that Bheem struck Duryodhan on the thigh. if god approved who is man to disapprove.

Duryodhana never proved his worth, he always made the wrong choices, he was only driven by his greed, envy, jealously, ego and hunger of power. and all these are vices that leads to a mans downfall.

As Mark Antony says "The evil that men do lives after them, The good is oft interred with their bones" (Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare)

Tail piece : Duryodhana was originally named "Suyodhana" meaning great warrior. Duryodhana means one who cannot be fought against