Posted:
Something as big as this war (I think this is on par of a World War) cannot be placed on the burden of one single individual (granted Krishna was the mastermind behind this, but it's not fair to include Krishna). My blame goes to adharmi kings who sought personal benefits rather than the welfare of the entire world. It wasn't a single person that sparked the war, it was the result of a series of events colliding in such a manner that there was no other way out.
To start off, the person cannot be a member of the past, they must have been alive and present during the times of the war:
For example: the rivalry between the Kauravas and Pandavas would not have happened if Pandu had not decided to go in the forest. Which also means that if he did not go to the forest, he would not get cursed, which also means that the Pandavas wouldn't really be benedictions of the demigods. The colliding of Pandu and the sage that cursed him in a perfect example of being unable to place the blame. Is it Pandu's fault that he killed the sage, yes. Is it the sage's fault for giving such a curse (considering sages are supposed to be kind and merciful to everyone), yes. But the result is that Kunti and Madri invoke various demigods and get their blessing to have children.
Further, Pandu could not control himself any further and wanted to have sex with Madri. Thus, we can easily point the blame to Pandu. If he didn't give up the throne, kill the sage, leave the forest, want to have some enjoyment with Madri despite knowing he would die... he's a perfect candidate. But then again, what later happened cannot be foreseen, which is why we can't place the blame on the actions of a past character.
That being said - Dhritarastra had no control over himself or his sons. He was a king first which equates him to being a father of the entire population and then he was a family person. Dhriti placed the latter as top priority and hence he literally turned a blind eye every time Duri suggested something cunning to get rid of the Pandavas. So in my opinion, Dhriti had the most influence over the war. At times, he would assert his power (for example giving back Draupadi everything lost in the dice game), and at other times he felt powerless (peace messengers). Was he the actual reason? nope, not even close. And this is because the war was because of a series of interluding / intertwined events that made it difficult to escape. Would it have been possible to avoid the war - most certainly, but Mother Earth's burden would not have been reduced, nor would we get the light of God Realization (Bhagavad Gita), which reminds us of Krishna's mission and purpose.
yes Krishna was responsible because he is responsible for everything, but excluding him - every single person in the MB was the actual reason for Kurukshetra. And by everyone, I mean EVERYONE... including the pandavas too.
Arjun
