Duryodhana-not just a villain - Page 9

@John

excellent post ya duryodhana character was really shadow in mahabarth .ya he even last time was maintained as good friend and good son. and good warrior.. good enemy. in mahabartha 👍🏼

Originally posted by: amritat

Completely agree with each n every point of yours Medha.

The only good thing Duryodhan ever did was that he was nice to Karna, n cried after Karna's death.

He befriended Karna only bcoz he saw a powerful ally in him, n not bcoz he was against caste-system.

I don't see Duryodhan making friends with any other "Sutaputra" throughout the epic.

Someone, who emotionally blackmails his "friend" Karna n ever-loyal uncle Shakuni in fear of having the Pandavas back, n goes to the forest to enjoy watching the Pandavas living in poverty, after all the things he had already done to them...he can be anything but good.

And he died like a true warrior? Really?

After a life-time of cheating n then causing the molestation of his own sister-in-law, he gets credit for being fair in the end?

He may have been a great warrior, but his life is full of sins.

Karna had reasons to be bitter in his life, for he was deprived of a lot of things.

But what was Duryodhan deprived of?

Whatever he wanted, he had eventually.

He had Hastinapur initially, n then the whole of Kuru kingdom, while the Pandavas were in exile.

Yet he was not satisfied. After acquiring the whole kingdom, he went to the forest to see the plight of the Pandavas, n was unhappy. Why?

Bcoz the Pandavas still had the copper vessel given to them by Surya Dev.

How much jealousy and insecurity can one have?

Originally posted by: john909

oh i didnt know. just googled it and i find the whole thing outrageous.. duryodhan a hero??in what universe? you know there was a show called ravan which showed ramayana from ravan's perspective and it still did justice to the real story without making the good guys look like bad guys but here in this novel just for sake of publicity a guy like duri is made a hero. u should read about the author who claimed that ravana use to come this dreams to make him write ramayana from ravan's perspective. wonder what he has to say about his novel ajaya. did duri come and haunted his dreams too??

Originally posted by: panchaali

Well you got me wrong, by "Sadly" I wanted to mean luckily

The writer's work is a great piece of literature

why he wrote a book on Duryadhan to learn about that you need to read the preface of the book, or you can talk to him directly in twitter.

P.S:- I don't think he wrote the book just for publicity

And the fact that there is so much wrong with that one line in the preface.
I guess anyone would think that su and dur are opposite so duryodhana is derogatory and suyodhana is all good and raibows.
And even though the author claims that pandavas coined the term to mock him, it is usually them (esp. Yudhi bhaiya) who keeps calling him suyodhana.
While the daddy himself is happy with the "mockery" durdyodhana and seems to use it the most.
As if adding su & dur will change the person and his deeds magically.

Originally posted by: shyam09

[QU

one line from the preface:

"Though named Suyodhana, the Pandavas used the derogatory 'Dur' to slander him as 'one who does not know how to wield power or arms'."

Duryodhan means unconquerable one. 😭

But I'll admit his preface sort of wanted me to continue reading ... then I just went dead when I came across that sentence. But this is a pro-Duryodhan story so I'm not that surprised with that sentence in the preface.

After reading 12 pages, I have noticed that all misdeeds of Duryodhan are blamed on Shakuni... I would say one thing...Duri was no kid...he was a mature man...he shud be alone held responsible for his misdeeds... even if Shakuni tried to brainwash him to do bad stuff, Duri would be considered as adharmi coz he was the actor... however much you blame shakuni, Duri's wrongs were his own misdeeds...not shakuni's... Though Shakuni did assist him in it...

Duryodhan's claim to the throne is not at all right. Now yes. Even if we say Pandavas did not carry Kuru clan blood, as they are sons of Kunti with each God, then Dhritarashtra and Pandu are not from the Kuru Clan either. That is not the way to see the claim to the throne. Kunti asks for a son, and she was married to Pandu. The respective god gives the child as a boon to the Luru Clan. It was sort of a blessing as a child to the clan itself. Yudhishtir was the first born. He is the one who has claim to the throne after Pandu. According to me, this is correct. Just coz Pandavs were demigods, doesn't mean they don't get their right based on their human father. And one more point, every character of Mahabharata is grey. There is no character without any flaws.(includes Krishna in my opinion. No offence.) Bad characters/negative ones also possess good qualities. Duryodhan is no exception. He has many good points. But what kind of a person are you depends a great deal on your choices. Duryodhan chose wrong. But I have great objection on the order that he should have been killed coz his birth signified evil omen. No. Nobody is born bad. According to me. It's your choices that make you what you are far more than abilities. But abilities are important. So, I do supprt Duryodhan in some cases. And now about the war cheating, I think Pandavs were capable enough to win the war. Krishna was in their side too. They did not need to cheat. Especially the Bheem and Duryodhan yudh. I don't support the breaking of the rule. Duryodhan was a great warrior. It's a good point. But sadly, he is far much more negative than positive.