Why do we hesitate to call a spade a spade? - Page 2

I just love what you said?? so TRUE i agree to everythig...👏

Mysogonist society like India just needs as execuse to blame women for everything.Seeta is blamed for desiring the golden deer n disobeying laxman rekha.
Draupadi is blamed for mahabharata.As if absence of these women wld hav stopped the invetable.nobody blames men for their lust n greed as if they r innocent babies who r led on by lollypops.

Draupadi's insult surely was among the causes that led to Kurukshetra but she can't be blamed alone! Perhaps the war would have been avoided as the pandavas were ready to settle down with five villages. Duryodhan refused to give a land equal to a pin point and this is what led to the destruction.

Originally posted by: Shailesh_Rathi

1) At age of 5 years, duryodhana had already made an attempt to drown Duryodhana. And what was Yudhisthir's response? He is your brother, let us be loving towards him.

----so even before draupadi came into the picture, duryodhana had already started bullying and targeting the pandavas. To name a few examples, he had them exiled, continually belittled them, constantly battled with bheema. and yet did big brother learn to fight for his rights? No he chose to stay a coward and not take any action.

2) when Karna was being disrespected for his birth order, he did not get up to defend him but chose to stay silent (despite the Pandava's own questionable births).

---In that sense, I respect duryodhana to wholeheartedly accept karna despite his questionable heritage (remember karna had not proved his superiority to arjun around that time, but was only asking for a chance to participate in a duel as a commoner). But yudhisthir did not support him because he saw him as a threat against his brother. Instead, if yudhisthir had supported him on the basis of his right to duel with arjun on the basis of his valor alone, he would have been worthy of greater respect (and lesser antagonism from karna). Pandavas were among the ones who kept mocking Karna as being a lower caste.

---and here's another example of yudhisthir's famous judgment lapses. Upon knowing that Karna was his brother by birth, he immediately forgave him of his sins regarding conduct towards draupadi. What happened to his ideals regarding righteous living?? Now suddenly, all of Karna's sins are forgiven? How come the same person was now acceptable to him?

3) --Now what kind of king gambles away his own hard-fought, newly won kingdom? Duryodhana/Shakuni may have played around with the dice but no one but he himself chose to gamble away. His actions support that of a weak person who did not know how to discipline his mind or use simple common sense. After all this is the very cousin who drowned his brother in childhood, remember? and aimed to murder his family in cold blood. This very cousin who refuses to part with hastinapur.

--so he gambled away himself and his brothers. Again, no one ever references to him as the culprit and a fellow with a penchant for mega-foolish decisions.

--Draupadi gets humilated, the pandavas want to intervene but he uses big brother authority to silence them and does not intervene. Spectacular.

I second most of your thoughts shilesh it is very true yuddhisthir is the one to be blamed in several instances he was the actual culprit (though I am saying the following with a heavy heart) I think it is yuddhisthir's dharma which saved the pandavas and proved them to be victorious Krishna said yato dharmah tato jayah so yuddhi was the only person who abided dharma even in critical situations that's the reason Krishna took their side and talking about his leadership yes he took major dessicions as kunti gave him the right as the eldest of the family and because the very reason of his birth was to protect perishing dharma I think that yuddhisthir was the reason for harmony and prevalance of dharma among the brothers I donot understand the twisted logic of what is dharma and what is adharma but only know one thing since Krishna supported them it means they were correct .And comming to draupadi I think as Arjun stated in brcs version of mahabharat "your insult was one of the many reasons for the war but you are not the only reason for this war" and what happened with karna was most unfortunate only person responsible and to be blamed was kunti .I always hated yuddhi or rather hate him and will be hating him but facts remain facts and we have to accept the truth ps:these are solely my opnions donot intend to hurt anyone's sentiments

Any authors point of view is their interpretation. Be it yugant, poi, mrityunjay, ajay, Arjun, yajnaseni whatever. It is not, I repeat, NOT MB. Original mb does not glorify or gloss over flaws of anyone. Not even krishna. Its an impartial Narration of incidents with deeper philosophical meaning. All other is left for each to interpret. Saying yudi has to be blamed because he wss unnecessarily condoned is wrong. Time and gaian mb shows during vanvaas, through the sulking of bhem, Arjun, nakul, schade and draupadi what they thought about his failure in dice game.

very nice post.

But I believe that in Mahabharat every character played an important role in making of the war, and also every event was one step towards it.

For example Arjun (whom I am a big fan of), was the main cause behind the jealousy created. But yes, one should be proud of his valor and utilize it, and so if he did that, in full service of his brother, I feel happy. Yet he generated personal animosity from Duryodhan by not only winning Draupadi, but by also eloping with Subhadra.

Now For Karna (again a great character, lovable and hate-worthy from VH onwards). He wanted the right things, but not only took the wrong path, he also actively became Adharmi (calling Draupadi names).. May be Vyas wanted to teach us that bad companionship leaves bad effects on our character.

As for Yudhisthir, I agree with what you have written, he confuses me, but the two points I would like to make here are :

1. he was really good from heart, and he could never accept that other people could be bad. He kept on believing in reformation. This made him a weak leader but a good and forgiving human being. Its is unfortunate that in his case there were always too many contradictions in his RAJ DHARMA and his SWA DHARAMA.

2. I think even until the end, when he still wanting for peace, because, in war not only kauravs will die, but "rakt ki nadiyan bahati" rivers of blood would have flown. Crores of sainik would die and their wives will become widow and sons orphans. Today also we understand that war should always be the last option, war rarely brings peace or justice.

Very well said @lead nitrate we just cannot interpret the veiws doctrines and customs that exsisted during dwaparyug in 21st century and everyone has a point of veiw on why it happend and who to be blamed I would rather say playing the blame game is of no use rather learning good inspiring things and not repeating the mistakes done by historians is the best thing to do and that be the best use of the epic as you said regarding caste system.

wonderful post yaar...

Who says warrior shouldn't turn aeay from opponents in war? Then why does the term tactical retreat exist? Going by that logic, anyone who fought in Kurukhestra run away at some point or other..