Yudhisthira vs Duryodhana: The Legitimacy of the Claim to Throne - Page 2

Having Kuru blood was never required to become a King in that dynasty. It was always based on merit first, and in the case of sons, the elder son must have merit and be eligible to be King, only then was he made King.

King Bharata, an ancestor of the Pandavas and Kauravas, had 7 sons but all seven lacked merit, so he chose a commoner to become his heir. This proves that the Kurus always chose a merit based King over one who lacked it.

King Dhritarashtra was never entitled to be King just because he was elder. As he was blind, Pandu became next in line and thus his sons (as long as they held merit) would be King after him. When Pandu went on exile, Dhritarashtra was only the regent. He was never actually crowned the King. He was only officially crowned when the Pandavas received Khandavaprastha and denied any claim to Hastinapura.

Duryodhana had no claim simply because he was "blood" related. Neither Dhrit nor Pandu shared blood with Vichitraveerya and yet they were heirs, so blood never mattered.

Also, Duryodhana was never King even when the Pandavas were on exile. Dhrit was still King then, and Duryodhana may have made some decisions, but Dhrit was still the King and had ultimate decision making power, and his advisers were always Bhishma and Vidura before Duryodhana. People greatly overstate Duryodhana's "ruling capabilities" during exile, but the fact is, he never ruled, and in fact he was obsessed with spying on the Pandavas and figuring out what they were up to. Twice he attacked them and lost, and during the 13th year he spent all his time trying to track them down. So I doubt he ever did much ruling. It was Dhrit, advised by Vidura and Bhishma as always.

Originally posted by: surabhi01

It is not folkflore

U can check this link and this link is reliable

https://bharatdiscovery.org/india/भीष्म_पर्व_महाभारत

The link is broken, but if you are saying it's mentioned in the book I will agree to it.

However as I said it still remains Adharma.

Yudhishtir had more rights on the throne and was s more capable king for sure but that doesn't mean that Duryodhan had no rights or was incapable as a king

Say if Yudhishtir had 70% rights Duryodhan had 30% and if Yudhishtir scored 90% in capability Duryodhan scored 75%

I am giving another direct link of bhishm parva from same reliable site

https://m.bharatdiscovery.org/india/भीष्म_पर्व_महाभारत?page=5

This is also broken link as half link is not working

But however.

When u type bhishm parva in Google

A web address of bhishm parva Bharat discovery will come and when u click that Bharat discovery bhishm parva link u will find bhishm telling about secret

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

Having Kuru blood was never required to become a King in that dynasty. It was always based on merit first, and in the case of sons, the elder son must have merit and be eligible to be King, only then was he made King.

King Bharata, an ancestor of the Pandavas and Kauravas, had 7 sons but all seven lacked merit, so he chose a commoner to become his heir. This proves that the Kurus always chose a merit based King over one who lacked it.

King Dhritarashtra was never entitled to be King just because he was elder. As he was blind, Pandu became next in line and thus his sons (as long as they held merit) would be King after him. When Pandu went on exile, Dhritarashtra was only the regent. He was never actually crowned the King. He was only officially crowned when the Pandavas received Khandavaprastha and denied any claim to Hastinapura.

Duryodhana had no claim simply because he was "blood" related. Neither Dhrit nor Pandu shared blood with Vichitraveerya and yet they were heirs, so blood never mattered.

Also, Duryodhana was never King even when the Pandavas were on exile. Dhrit was still King then, and Duryodhana may have made some decisions, but Dhrit was still the King and had ultimate decision making power, and his advisers were always Bhishma and Vidura before Duryodhana. People greatly overstate Duryodhana's "ruling capabilities" during exile, but the fact is, he never ruled, and in fact he was obsessed with spying on the Pandavas and figuring out what they were up to. Twice he attacked them and lost, and during the 13th year he spent all his time trying to track them down. So I doubt he ever did much ruling. It was Dhrit, advised by Vidura and Bhishma as always.

Nothing in the epic suggests that Duryodhan was incapable as a ruler. In fact it's mentioned that people liked Duryodhan as their Yuvraj (I guess Lakhshagrih mastermind was never revealed in public)

Not being a king doesn't mean one can not know the administrative skills. Duryodhan didn't become the king during the exile but not his influence over the state affairs was high, since Vidur ji and Bheeshm had taken a back seat during this time after the mahem that had occurred, he had ordered Karna to go for the Vijay Yatra and win over the states

Plus I don't find any reason in the epic to believe that Duryodhan would have been a bad ruler for the citizens

Rest I agree to the pointers

Originally posted by: surabhi01

I am giving another direct link of bhishm parva from same reliable site

https://m.bharatdiscovery.org/india/भीष्म_पर्व_महाभारत?page=5

I guess the Hindi words in the link are being read so the site is not opening anyhow I believed that you are right, I might have missed it

"Arjuna said, 'Sikhandin, O Krishna, will certainly be the cause of Bhishma's death, for Bhishma, as soon as he beholds the prince of the Panchalas, abstains from striking. Therefore, keeping Sikhandin before him and at our head, we will, by that means, overthrow the son of Ganga. Even this is what I think. I will hold in check other great bowmen with my shafts. As regards Sikhandin, he will fight with Bhishma alone, that foremost of all warriors. I have heard from that chief of the Kurus that he would not strike Sikhandin, for having been born before as a woman he subsequently became a male person.'

Sanjaya continued, "Having settled this with Bhishma's permission, the Pandavas, along with Madhava, went away with rejoicing hearts. And then those bulls among men retired to their respective beds."

-KMG, Bheeshma Parva, Section 108.

In the Kaliprasanna version, the Ps with Kanha go to Bheeshma's tent and he himself tells them to bring a woman beech mein, and he only points out Shikhandi and tells them about his/her past.

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

Having Kuru blood was never required to become a King in that dynasty. It was always based on merit first, and in the case of sons, the elder son must have merit and be eligible to be King, only then was he made King.

King Bharata, an ancestor of the Pandavas and Kauravas, had 7 sons but all seven lacked merit, so he chose a commoner to become his heir. This proves that the Kurus always chose a merit based King over one who lacked it.

King Dhritarashtra was never entitled to be King just because he was elder. As he was blind, Pandu became next in line and thus his sons (as long as they held merit) would be King after him. When Pandu went on exile, Dhritarashtra was only the regent. He was never actually crowned the King. He was only officially crowned when the Pandavas received Khandavaprastha and denied any claim to Hastinapura.

Duryodhana had no claim simply because he was "blood" related. Neither Dhrit nor Pandu shared blood with Vichitraveerya and yet they were heirs, so blood never mattered.

Also, Duryodhana was never King even when the Pandavas were on exile. Dhrit was still King then, and Duryodhana may have made some decisions, but Dhrit was still the King and had ultimate decision making power, and his advisers were always Bhishma and Vidura before Duryodhana. People greatly overstate Duryodhana's "ruling capabilities" during exile, but the fact is, he never ruled, and in fact he was obsessed with spying on the Pandavas and figuring out what they were up to. Twice he attacked them and lost, and during the 13th year he spent all his time trying to track them down. So I doubt he ever did much ruling. It was Dhrit, advised by Vidura and Bhishma as always.

If it was based on merit then how can someone who gambles away his Kingdom over a game of dice is a good King?

If merit was the most important thing then why didn't they select Vidur after Pandu's death? Dhritrastra was blind before and after, why he could rule after Pandu's death and not before it?

Blind doesn't mean someone is not good enough to rule as Dhritrastra did rule for years from Pandu's death to the great war.

Yudhishtira had no other claim than his being the eldest son

Originally posted by: proteeti

"Arjuna said, 'Sikhandin, O Krishna, will certainly be the cause of Bhishma's death, for Bhishma, as soon as he beholds the prince of the Panchalas, abstains from striking. Therefore, keeping Sikhandin before him and at our head, we will, by that means, overthrow the son of Ganga. Even this is what I think. I will hold in check other great bowmen with my shafts. As regards Sikhandin, he will fight with Bhishma alone, that foremost of all warriors. I have heard from that chief of the Kurus that he would not strike Sikhandin, for having been born before as a woman he subsequently became a male person.'

Sanjaya continued, "Having settled this with Bhishma's permission, the Pandavas, along with Madhava, went away with rejoicing hearts. And then those bulls among men retired to their respective beds."

-KMG, Bheeshma Parva, Section 108.

In the Kaliprasanna version, the Ps with Kanha go to Bheeshma's tent and he himself tells them to bring a woman beech mein, and he only points out Shikhandi and tells them about his/her past.

Thanks for giving the quote was searching for it

Yudhistar did not like dice game but as duryodhan invite so yudhistar didn't not want to insult duryodhan invitation

Originally posted by: surabhi01

Yudhistar did not like dice game but as duryodhan invite so yudhistar didn't not want to insult duryodhan invitation

Not insulting the invitation was so necessary that you stake your state? I am not even discussing what he did post that