When Gandhari tried to burn Yudhi, blamed Bheem and cursed Krishna

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

starsshinex

@starsshinex

Stunner

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#21

Great post! :) Didn't know that Gandhari had grey shades. Thanks for enlightening me.

Quote

Medha.S

@Medha.S

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#22

@Bhas Where have I said that any of those women were happy with Draupdi's VH?😲 OMG!

I was pointing out about their Possessions and Kingdom which they were jealous of.

Neither have I said that she was evil or anything like her sons.

And I do not make assumptions about how much she or her husband or her brother were responsible for how Duryodhana turned out to be.

What i do know is that Shakuni wasn't the one who was raising her children, it was their parents who did it [At least I hope they did]

And her first two sons turned out to be like that.

Again, by the time they were grown up enough, they made their decisions on their own. Gandhari's word were not important and neither were Dhritarashtra's.

Well, after they are adults, it is not really any use trying to correct their morals. Especially not when they are arrogant and stubborn.

And her Sons did not listen to her or their Father who was too weak minded to begin with.

But do not parents have at least "some" hand in how children turn out to be at all?

Her sons were Adults with a developed functioning brains who ignored their parents suggestion most of the time.

Neither did i say that She is the Mother so she is responsible, lets hate her.

What I pointed out was that just because she thought that Krishna was responsible for her Son's death, she cursed him.

She accused him of being Partial, as if he was another Human capable of doing so.

And if we are going with " he was not god, just a great man", then why accuse him of being partial towards his Aunts kids when she was a Mother who knew how it is to be partial towards her own?

Just like Mother, Father shouldn't be blamed for how child turned out, the same way God [ or a distant relative younger than your elder son] shouldn't be blamed for it either when he had not even met them before they were getting married and having kids.

She tried to put some sense in her Sons and Krishna applauded her for it.

How does that matter when Krishna saying that -- Gandhari shouldnt put her own faults on him It was her own fault that the destruction took place--, does not hold any weight.

He says that she "applauded" her Sons on the wrongs they did or ignored it. We do not see her applauding them most of the time, but perhaps when they were kids she mostly decided not to "see" what was going on. When Parents do not stop children from doing wrong, they are only encouraging it. Or perhaps it means something else.

"Applauding his wicked acts, thou regardest them to be good. Exceedingly cruel, he was the embodiment of hostilities, and disobedient to the injunctions of the old. Why dost thou wish to ascribe thy own faults to me?"

I do not blame Duryodhana or Dushasana turning out as they were on Gandhari, or Dhritarashtra. Their misdeeds were not indirectly their parents fault.

But I do believe that they turned out like that not because they were born evil, or Shakuni since he had his own kids to look after. Some how parents are always involved, and that does not make parents evil.

They dont really even have to be doing anything, neglect and ignorance is enough sometimes.

And it is written that she was having "evil intention" towards Yudhishtira. I can't do anything about that.😆

But as i said, i do not believe she was evil or did black magic or anything.

We all have our different opinions on each character and mine differs from yours. It is just that.

Quote

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

Medha.S

@Medha.S

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#23

Originally posted by: devashree_h
I did not know Dhrit had planned to crush Bhim.😲

Yeah Deva ... Like This :

Quote

Khyati

@cherryberry293

Dazzler

Posted: 11 years ago

#24

Great post medha.
I knew abt Gandhari cursing Vasudev Krishna but Dhrit attempt murder of Bheema was a shocking truth to me.

Quote

bangles

@bangles

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#25

Originally posted by: Rehanism
It seems you are simply not prepared to forgive even the most obvious human traits of the Kaurava parents like anger (in the midst of a pile of rotting filial corpses) at the person who personally killed each one of their 100 sons or a person who claims to be god, therefore above human flaws, and thus may have prevented the massacre! Its not as if Gandhari, or even Dhritarashtra, never censured their children at all or that they had no conscience. Jealousy, anger, pride, helplessness, preference of one's own children's interest etc are perfectly understandable aspects of human nature. This is the reason I find this form of 'social' Platonic idealism to be ridiculous, because when you have such unrealistic ideas of 'Ideal parent' or 'Ideal woman' or 'Ideal man' etc etc, even the most basic human traits become inexcusable crimes.

Clearly, Drit displayed 'the most obvious human traits' in large measure. So much so that it blinded his perception , judgement and sense of right and wrong. He aspired to become 'king' and this requires one to rise above 'obvious human traits' to maintain a sense of neutrality, fairness and a wide and long term perspective.

If his 100 sons get killed in the future, he has only himself to blame for this. As the King he was the only person who could have prevented the series of unfortunate events . Rather he encouraged and abetted Dury through all the injustices and deceit meted out to the Pandavas and showed the world that he failed to rise above common human frailties. Not a hallmark of a King!

When all the ' perfectly understandable' aspects of human nature are exercised to such an extent that they cause suffering and distress to or ignores the suffering and distress of those around you, then these traits are seen as pathological. They are are no longer 'perfectly understandable'.

In Drit and sons we saw examples of pathalogical anger, jealousy, insecurity...

By abetting Dury's actions actively, Drit is guilty.

By looking the other way and passively abetting this, Gandhari is guilty too.

Edited by bangles - 11 years ago

Quote

Bhaskari

@bhas1066

Navigator

Posted: 11 years ago

#26

@ Medha
please dont take my post in any wrong way. i did not say to only your post but some others also who are believing what is shown in precap is the real gandhari.
i myself totally blame Dhrit for projecting his ambitions on Duri but i feel quite bad for Gandhari as a character.

Quote

Srishti

@srishtisingh

Voyager

Posted: 11 years ago

#27

first of all why this post is taken as post to prove gandhari evil? as I read I do find gandhari nature human.why can't we accept any kind of human weaknesses in her? she did suffer and nobody is denying that. from what I got and understood she being a mother would never wish "death " for her sons and would like to have her children better in all aspects. yes death of her sons was painful for her and she did lose everything she ever had. u can like her or not thats something different but obviously she was not above emotions and "putramoh"

Quote

Medha.S

@Medha.S

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#28

Originally posted by: Paro95
Very nice post👏 Gandhari being an innocent sati savitri is a misconception. But I really hope they dint turn her into a serial vamp...I want her to be desperate, but not evil in today's episode

Agreed! That would truly suck. If they start that thing where the character goes from goody-goody to the evil mastermind that would be too much.

I won't be able to take a whole family of evil lot.

Evil daddy, evil mommy, evil sons, evil uncle ... *sigh*

But this desperation is something which should always have been there ... but I guess she didn't have a Bhimsena after all her sons before.

Quote

tootiefrootie11

@tootiefrootie11

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 11 years ago

#29

Really insightful post Medha and well researched as ever:). I always felt Gandhari was often too "whitewashed" in screen versions, exactly as pointed out because the KMG translation for instance does very clearly highlight both her and Dhritrashtra's dual natures. The latter's is worse/ more pronounced than hers as I felt she wanted to bind herself by dharma more firmly and even when she gave into her "putra moh" she recognised in some corner of her heart and soul what was right and wrong, so her sense was justice in that sense possibly stayed more pronounced than her husbands. However, I always think of her as a person who wilfully wanted to stay blind, thus her assuming blindness in her life, a sacrifice sure, but also a way of divorcing responsibility too rather than assuming it on her husband's behalf.

I read a very interesting blog and also article on Gandhari (on another thread in the forum) and I believe the article was by Devdutt Patnaik. A line in it got me thinking- the 100 sons- 100 desires of Gandhari and Dhrit? Their unrealised sum of their ambitions and greed and unfulfilled desires? The cruel slaying of them, dharma in every sense no matter how cruel and their grief- totally understandable as it was the destruction of every dream they had (the discussion interoperation is mine- the article indicated towards the sons being their desires). Thus whilst she consciously censures Duryodhana, in her heart he too is the sum of her desires and wants so she can never totally disown him and neither can she/ did she control/ stop him. I take note that people sympathise with her a parent- natural and I have no issue with that but at the same time, wilfully remaining blind to gross injustice meted by your own is also wrong and she had to pay for that karma.

I find it credible that this same woman, torn between understanding the concept of right and wrong but wanting her race not to be annihilated as per Bheem's oath would want the Pandavas down trodden and not just her, I like that this version of the MB shows the women in a more dimensional light. Be that Gandhari,Kunti, Draupadi, Satyavati- they were queens and cognisant of "the hand that rocks the cradle..." so it is very conceivable they were politically inclined in varying degrees and would often exercise that "raajneeti" when and if they could.

It's just my two pennies worth, not intended to disrespect anyone's viewpoint but really liking the different views, which is the only way to get debate going:)

Edited by ccolkat - 11 years ago

Quote

Medha.S

@Medha.S

Rocker

+ 2

Posted: 11 years ago

#30

Originally posted by: ccolkat
Really insightful post Medha and well researched as ever:). I always felt Gandhari was often too "whitewashed" in screen versions, exactly as pointed out because the KMG translation for instance does very clearly highlight both her and Dhritrashtra's dual natures. The latter's is worse/ more pronounced than hers as I felt she wanted to bind herself by dharma more firmly and even when she gave into her "putra moh" she recognised in some corner of her heart and soul what was right and wrong, so her sense was justice in that sense possibly stayed more pronounced than her husbands. However, I always think of her as a person who wilfully wanted to stay blind, thus her assuming blindness in her life, a sacrifice sure, but also a way of divorcing responsibility too rather than assuming it on her husband's behalf.
I read a very interesting blog and also article on Gandhari (on another thread in the forum) and I believe the article was by Devdutt Patnaik. A line in it got me thinking- the 100 sons- 100 desires of Gandhari and Dhrit? Their unrealised sum of their ambitions and greed and unfulfilled desires? The cruel slaying of them, dharma in every sense no matter how cruel and their grief- totally understandable as it was the destruction of every dream they had (the discussion interoperation is mine- the article indicated towards the sons being their desires). Thus whilst she consciously censures Duryodhana, in her heart he too is the sum of her desires and wants so she can never totally disown him and neither can she/ did she control/ stop him. I take note that people sympathise with her a parent- natural and I have no issue with that but at the same time, wilfully remaining blind to gross injustice meted by your own is also wrong and she had to pay for that karma.

I find it credible that this same woman, torn between understanding the concept of right and wrong but wanting her race not to be annihilated as per Bheem's oath would want the Pandavas down trodden and not just her, I like that this version of the MB shows the women in a more dimensional light. Be that Gandhari,Kunti, Draupadi, Satyavati- they were queens and cognisant of "the hand that rocks the cradle..." so it is very conceivable they were politically inclined in varying degrees and would often exercise that "raajneeti" when and if they could.

It's just my two pennies worth, not intended to disrespect anyone's viewpoint but really liking the different views, which is the only way to get debate going:)

Look I do not believe that she was more evil than the other woman standing beside her - her DILFS in this case.

You see in 12th Std. History we are given a whole passage by Gandhari trying to pacify her sons and telling them to give up their egos and stubbornness, make up with the Pandavas and all that .. It was from Udyog Parva.

It was mostly asks questions like what do you think Gandhari wants here? What does this tell you about woman's condition in that period did women have power in Royal or Public courts?

Obvious answer is that No! woman did not have much power in political goings. It was mostly a man dominated world( oh shocker) but women like Draupadi, Kunti, Gandhari did wield a lot of power over the leaders of the politics world and swaying your Men to give up or buck up has always been seen. Now, only if they would use it right. Kunti and Draupadi were dear to Krishna. That is a whole lot of political power right there.

Gandhari too was involved in the court goings. When Dhritarashtra failed, he called her to knock some sense in Duryodhana. She came, she chided, gave the right advice and tried to persuade.

So how can I say that she is evil? Even Shakuni, after the partition had advised Duryodhana that he should be content with what he has got since Pandavas have acquired whatever they have today by their own work.

Duryodhana cared? No.

If he can ignore Shakuni's advice then he will ignore hers too. I do not have problem with it.

However I do know that all these women wanted their sons and husbands to be happy. How much will they actually protest if the husbands and Sons are convinced that they cannot be happy after doing this and having that?

What I am pointing out is that if we should not be blaming the parents for how the children turned out, so the parents shouldn't be blaming some other man who was younger than her own son. Did Krishna not try to pacify the situation? He wasn't there to act like a god, because that is what he had to do than why an Avatar? He could be doing it from his own home. He is here on earth, so he behaves like he is earthly. God doesn't really control our deeds, he let us make choices and deals with us accordingly. It is up to as to what path we chose and what decisions we make.

And if we are going with, he is not god then there you go ... he is not responsible for anything anyone does or doesn't.

That Yaksha had asked Yudhishthira that what is the supreme dharma? Yudhishthira replied that it is non-cruelty.

Also the famous lines he said, " You kill Dharma, Dharma will Kill you. You protect it, it will save you"

Yudhishthira's answers were right and his brothers were revived.