Interesting!!!! Is it really Moral?

Hey All,

Don't get mad on me.......... please.............. I am also the biggest fan of PRC and Rajat. It's just that a thought occured to me that is this way of making enemy weaker with disguise and fraud moral approach? As just before few days we were praising Vanraj for not attacking Ajmer when Prithvi wasn't around. He was true Rajput and they attack only in Yuddh.......... Now, Prithvi himself is attacking silently and killing Bhimdev's strength........

Personally I feel this is not what our great and noble king such as Prithvi Raj Chauhan should do..............

Does anyone agree to me?

well isn't that what bhimdev did to prithiv and he is just getting him back for killing his father behind his back and i think that he is noble and ture king still bceause remmber what that prisoner said that if someone play dirty tricks then you should do the same

hmmm what you have brought about is a very good debate and a very good point. i agree with you that, prithvi is not taking the straightforward path this time - whatever points anyone makes and mentions both ways, the simple fact is that prithvi is not taking the straightforward path! However, i do think he is doing this (as i would guess any righteous king in the past would have when they wanted to take revenge) to avenge his father's death. 😊

In the battles of Ramayan and Mahabharat i am sure there are numerous incidents that we can pinpoint of this sort that were justified in a battle of good against evil.. yet we hail Shri Ram and Krishna as lords. Prithvi raj was only a human being and a king at that too! 😊

its left to us to decide how good/evil is doing evil against the EVIL? - a debate that will probably never cease? we also compare this because we live in a mordern world where law today is a completely different entity as to what it was in the 12th century. 😊

if someone had killed bhimdev by cheating on him at night i dont know how far vanraj would have stuck to his rajput ideologies while taking revenge! 😉

its strange that when prithvi and his friends used to slash throats of unwitting soldiers from behind, this though never struck any of us - its now that this debate has arisen for the second time.. but it is a good thought..
👏

Originally posted by: sabailla

well isn't that what bhimdev did to prithiv and he is just getting him back for killing his father behind his back and i think that he is noble and ture king still bceause remmber what that prisoner said that if someone play dirty tricks then you should do the same

coudn't say better myself👏

CHing😃

Originally posted by: sabailla

well isn't that what bhimdev did to prithiv and he is just getting him back for killing his father behind his back and i think that he is noble and ture king still bceause remmber what that prisoner said that if someone play dirty tricks then you should do the same

well i agree, we need no proofs about prithvi's nobleness or kindness. it's very well written through his forgiveness to ghori for what 16 times????????? no one else can dare to do that............ but i just thought that if Bhimdev was bad and using bad tricks, could Prithvi still not follow right path? phir dono me farak kya rah gaya????????

wl i guess i my myself confused........ but may b u r right, duniya me jaise ke sath taisa kabhi kabhi banana padata hi hai!!!!!!!!!

Well, this thing is controversial. Wen Bhimdev implemented his 5-step plan..v thought it wasnt rite. To kill Someshwar thru a chal was wrong in our eyes. Wen Vanraj talked abt fighting a one on one war with PRC..v praised him. V also criticised Ghori's move to attack Ajmer during night in spite of knowing that Rajputs dont fight during d night.

The point is that those times were such wen anything which a king wud do was rite n justified if it was done for welfare of his ppl.

A King who is idolized at one place may be thought of as an evil at another..coz everyone liked to put their king at d highest stature possible..it was infact considered a duty of praja.

As regards morality and ethics...well, there r different notions for these things in different eras. In d 21st century one may say that this is immoral, inethical, it may/may not be in the 12th century...personally i now feel that Sagars r a bit confused abt morality now.

Originally posted by: lashy

hmmm what you have brought about is a very good debate and a very good point. i agree with you that, prithvi is not taking the straightforward path this time - whatever points anyone makes and mentions both ways, the simple fact is that prithvi is not taking the straightforward path! However, i do think he is doing this (as i would guess any righteous king in the past would have when they wanted to take revenge) to avenge his father's death. 😊

In the battles of Ramayan and Mahabharat i am sure there are numerous incidents that we can pinpoint of this sort that were justified in a battle of good against evil.. yet we hail Shri Ram and Krishna as lords. Prithvi raj was only a human being and a king at that too! 😊

its left to us to decide how good/evil is doing evil against the EVIL? - a debate that will probably never cease? we also compare this because we live in a mordern world where law today is a completely different entity as to what it was in the 12th century. 😊

if someone had killed bhimdev by cheating on him at night i dont know how far vanraj would have stuck to his rajput ideologies while taking revenge! 😉

its strange that when prithvi and his friends used to slash throats of unwitting soldiers from behind, this though never struck any of us - its now that this debate has arisen for the second time.. but it is a good thought..
👏

as usual lashy.......... u always come up with good explanation. it's true even in gita it's said that if u lie or do bad, for doing sth good......... that deed is not considered bad. so may be killing soldiers from behind in this case, i don't consider bad as many times, they were the ones who had done bad things......... but in real war, he fought like real Rajputs would

Now, going back to my point, it's good only when the purpose is good......... but as it's told since ages, revenge is never good.....in my eyes i dont think it's straightforward or right approach to take revenge....... btw, i dont really think Bhimdev was that wrong here as Prithvi would be. cause Bhimdev had just sent Prithvi to some other place (he didnt kill Prithvi) but fought like real king. but Prithvi is attacking in the back. well i dont intend to say Bhimdev was right........ but BOTH are wrong........

but u also raise interesting point, we have to see how Vanraj would have reacted if Prithvi killed Bhimdev stealthily....... 😉

I agree with lashy that sometimes to win against evil you have to bend the rules like in Mahabharat. In the end the truth should always win.

I know that prithvi is killing bhimdev's strength but that is also to avoid death and loss of ajmer soldiers. He will come face to face with bhimdev in battle and not strike from behind like bhimdev did by trying to kidnap prithvi's mum.

Originally posted by: universe_megha

Well, this thing is controversial. Wen Bhimdev implemented his 5-step plan..v thought it wasnt rite. To kill Someshwar thru a chal was wrong in our eyes. Wen Vanraj talked abt fighting a one on one war with PRC..v praised him. V also criticised Ghori's move to attack Ajmer during night in spite of knowing that Rajputs dont fight during d night.

The point is that those times were such wen anything which a king wud do was rite n justified if it was done for welfare of his ppl.

A King who is idolized at one place may be thought of as an evil at another..coz everyone liked to put their king at d highest stature possible..it was infact considered a duty of praja.

As regards morality and ethics...well, there r different notions for these things in different eras. In d 21st century one may say that this is immoral, inethical, it may/may not be in the 12th century...personally i now feel that Sagars r a bit confused abt morality now.

wow!!!!!!!!! i couldn't have said this better!!!!!!!!!!!! even once before i myself had mentioned that we shouldn't think any king is bad........ cause every king does such things to save his kingdom and for his praja. it's considered bad only when he crosses his boundaries of morality somehow........ it's considered bad when he harasses his own Praja....... else, when the world is not good and is following such approaches of fraud, if u don't start doing it, someone would come and kill you in your sleep.

Biggest task of any king is towards his Praja and if he just thinks about honesty and morality, then he may neglect his biggest duty........... welfare of his kingdom........... wow!!!!!!!!!! wellsaid universe_megha.....

wow!!!!!! i can speak on both sides 😆

Originally posted by: dee7

I agree with lashy that sometimes to win against evil you have to bend the rules like in Mahabharat. In the end the truth should always win.

I know that prithvi is killing bhimdev's strength but that is also to avoid death and loss of ajmer soldiers. He will come face to face with bhimdev in battle and not strike from behind like bhimdev did by trying to kidnap prithvi's mum.

oh!!!!!!!!! bhimdev tried to kidnap Prithvi's mom????????? i missed that episode i guess😭