Do you agree with the partition of Hastinapur...

Page

Poll

... and giving the Kauravas & Pandavas different kingdoms?

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

Okay, this was one of my major beefs w/ BRC's Mahabharata, and now this serial is repeating it - how the division of the kingdom is the worst sin a ruler can do.

Uh, sorry, but that was very much consistent w/ tradition. For instance, Rama had all his 8 sons & nephews bestowed 8 different cities to rule - they weren't all put under Kush. In the Chandravansh itself, Yayati's 5 sons each got different kingdoms, and then the empires did further subdivide as time went on. Like Pratisthana (later Prayag) was certainly not a part of the Kuru kingdom, even though Yayati & Puru ruled it.

This is what the MB actually says about the decision to partition the kingdom

At last the Pandavas, on arriving at the place, worshipped the feet of Dhritarashtra, as also those of the illustrious Bhishma. They also worshipped the feet of everybody else that deserved that honour. And they enquired after the welfare of every citizen (there present). At last, at the command of Dhritarashtra they entered the chambers that had been assigned to them."After they had rested there for some time, they were summoned (to the court) by king Dhritarashtra and Bhishma, the son of Santanu. When they came, king Dhritarashtra addressing Yudhishthira, said, 'Listen, O son of Kunti, with thy brothers, to what I say. Repair ye to Khandavaprastha so that no difference may arise again (between you and your cousins). If you take up your quarters there no one will be able to do you any injury. Protected by Partha (Arjuna), like the celestials by the thunderbolt, reside ye at Khandavaprastha, taking half of the kingdom.'"Vaisampayana continued, 'Agreeing to what Dhritarashtra said, those bulls among men worshipping the king set out from Hastinapura. And content with half the kingdom, they removed to Khandavaprastha, which was in unreclaimed desert. Then those heroes of unfading splendour, viz., the Pandavas, with Krishna at their head, arriving there, beautified the place and made it a second heaven

Quote

Frequent Posters

RosChel.Lobster

@RosChel.Lobster

Rocker

Posted: 11 years ago

True they r over dramatizing this partition...Bheeshma n Vidur broke in tears in yday epi with all those 'Purvaj' crap 🤢

It is a practical decision of course u can't ask Kauravas n Pandavas to reside peacefully under one roof when u very well know they all r thirsty to quench their thirst with each other's blood! God knows y this exaggeration n mallow drama 🤔

Anyways thnks for the excerpt Vrish...again quite an enlightening one 😊

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Cotswolds

@Cotswolds

Voyager

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

Again a nice topic. My thinking was all tainted due to overdramatic tele shows .but based on your arguments and citations it is a no brainer to me that division was not such a horrific , unjust decision after all.

Edited by Cotswolds - 11 years ago

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

Maybe it's a Royal family's imperative in this case. But on the lines the doubts raised, I have a long standing question over an important precedent- in this case it's not 'within'.
Was Anga Duryodhan's personal property to give away? Or it was Hastinapur's? What was Duryodhan's right? Can a royal prince cleave away state such impetuously- largely to bolster his personal clout?

Answer, a regal viceroyship is falling short. Remember, Duryodhan was not even designate crown prince at the moment...why no objection from any quarter then?

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

The original text simply stated Duryodhan announcing that he'd make Karna the king of Anga. Obviously, it must have been his to give.

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
The original text simply stated Duryodhan announcing that he'd make Karna the king of Anga. Obviously, it must have been his to give.

By what account? Any other reference bearing this supposition?

As per the descriptions, most of the Hastinapur's acquisitions were either by previous Kings or conquests of Bhishma.

Edited by smrth - 11 years ago

Quote

Vrish

@Vr15h

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 11 years ago

True, but the king could gift it to anybody, and Dhritarashtra must have previously gifted it to Duryodhan, who on that opportunity gifted it to Karna.

Quote

smrth

@smrth

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: .Vrish.
True, but the king could gift it to anybody, and Dhritarashtra must have previously gifted it to Duryodhan, who on that opportunity gifted it to Karna.

As was explained in main post; the 'tradition' was always a precaution to pre-empt civil war; in each case 'within' the royal family. Here too, Dhrit says, "so that no difference arise again".

What Duryodhan was wedging was an exact opposite. He was imposing a rank 'out-sider' challenging part of Royal clan. Why not even Bhishma or Vidura objected such partition then?!!

But the Question is what was his right to act so? Above proposals are reasonable guesses. But facts are pointing an unethical seizure by Dury. It appears, territory was won by Pandu while his campaign in East India! Then neither it was a 'gift right' of Dhrit- an acting 'trustee'- nor Dury's to give it away and take 'credit' perhaps.

Anyways, things were done and written. So moot. 😆

Quote

Do you agree with the partition of Hastinapur...

Poll

Related Topics

Explore Topics