Yudhisthira vs Duryodhana: The Legitimacy of the Claim to Throne - Page 5

Originally posted by: NoraSM

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

We're talking about their rights over the throne before the dice game happened, as Duryodhana too gambled Hastinapura in the dice game, same as Yudhisthira. Only difference is that Yudi lost, but both of them gambled their respective kingdoms, so if we're going to blame one, then blame the other also. Duryodhana gambled everything that Yudhisthira gambled, which people seem to forget, including his own brothers, wife and wealth. He only did not lose because of Shakuni's cheating, otherwise he too may have lost some to Yudhisthira. So we cannot blame one and hail the other as a great King. If we take the dice game out of the quotient and judge solely based on how the epic describes their Kingship, then yes Yudhisthira was a superior King. You can read about why he was a good King during the whole chapter preceding the Rajasuya yagna, which describes how Yudhisthira turned the barren Khandavaprastha into a flouring kingdom with happy people.

Vidura was not selected as King, because he had even lesser claim than Pandu and Dhrit. Both Pandu and Dhrit were biological sons of the Queens of Hastinapura, so they had claim to the throne. Vidura on the other hand was neither the son of the King or Queen. So in reality he had no claim over the throne. Moreover, Pandu was elder to Vidura, so once they deemed him capable, he became King.

Dhrit never officially became King after Pandu's death. He was only the regent until Pandu's heirs returned to the Kingdom. Moreover, he ruled under Bhishma and Vidura's guidance as he could fight no wars or take no major decisions being blind. Same as he ruled under Duryodhana's guidance during the exile. So if we say Duryodhana was the unofficial King during exile, then Bhishma/Vidur were the unofficial Kings after Pandu's death. Dhrit merely sat on the throne, but he never really ruled in the true sense. He wasn't only blind, he was also politically incapable of taking any decisions as he was weak-minded. He was an incapable King both physically and politically.

So yes, as Pandu's eldest recognized son, Yudhisthira had greater claim to the throne, also because he was capable. Even IF we take Duryodhana to be capable, Yudhisthira was still elder to him, so out of all the capable heirs (including the other Pandavas and any 'capable' Kauravas), Yudhisthira was elder to them all.

Surabhi makes a lot of good points. Duryodhana was too hotheaded and lacked levelheaded thinking to make a "good" King. In comparison to him, had situations been different, Karna vs. Yudhsithira would have been a better comparison as Karna had Kingly qualities. He was levelheaded, able to think clearly, and not obsessed with revenge.

Duryodhana was too hotheaded and obsessed with revenge to truly be a "good" King.

Originally posted by: AnkitaPurka66

Enjoyed all the points made here.

I also strongly think that it was not as one-sided as most people believe.

Duryodhana did have a strong claim to the throne.

Just to add one point, about the Vajra body thing, this was later addition.

In the original version, Duryodhana was simply better than Bhima in mace fighting and hence Bhima had to adopt unfair means ( hit him on the thighs) to win. Duryodhana did not have iron body or Gandhari any special power.

This folklore was probably added in later to justify the unfair killing.

It's 1 am almost. I will check tomorrow the KMG source. I am pretty sure that Vajra story is not there.

Vajra body or not, I feel hitting below the belt was justified if you ask me, he had asked Draupadi to sit on his thighs, so his thighs had to go

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Vajra body or not, I feel hitting below the belt was justified if you ask me, he had asked Draupadi to sit on his thighs, so his thighs had to go

Oh no arguments there. Duryodhana had to die in order to pay for his life sins.

I only mentioned that the story was added in later.

Blood: Neither Dhritharashtra nor Pandu was biologically Kuru. Suyodhana's claim to throne was as strong or as weak as Yudhishtira's

Male primogeniture: As King Pandu's son, Yudhishtira had the right. Readers might think it unfair that Suyodhana got punished for his father's disability, but it was what it was. Rules said Yudhishtira got the kingdom.

Capability: Both are actually stated to be equally capable in the pre lac house portions.

It's a tough choice to make actually, which is probably one of the reasons why Hastinapuri ended up getting divided.

To the person who said Suyodhana gambled his kingdom: no, he didn't. After Yudhishtira lost the first dice throw, all the gambles were based on him getting his property back or not. Suyodhana didn't gamble his wife, but Panchali was.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Lastly, I'd like to point out a vital difference between Yudhisthira and Duryodhana. The former's best quality was his ability to forgive. Choked by desolation, he was inconsolable post the war. Duryodhana, on the other hand, seeked pleasure in the miseries he subjected the Pandavas and Draupadi to. Did he care for his subjects before going for the war? He didn't.

So before starting with the responses I would like to state a joke which I had read a few days back.

Someone asked a lawyer that if he is watching Ramayana n Mahabharata on television. To this he replied that yes and I understood that Ramayana was an abduction case while Mahabharata was a property dispute.

Yes Mahabharata indeed was a property dispute of the highest order.

The direct blood lineage was never any contention because neither Pandu nor Dhritrashtra were biologically kuruvanshi.

Again it was no where necessary that the eldest born of the king becomes the next king because Devrat decided otherwise and no one objected his decision especially since by then none of the sons of Satyavati were born and no one knew if ever one would be born.

So now coming to the generation of Pandu and Dhritrashtra. Both of them were ready to become the king and were happy at this idea. None of them had an objection to become the king. So Ideally had everything been normal Dhritrashtra would have been made the king, however he was blind so taking into account his physical incapability the next in line for the throne, Pandu was handed over the throne, but it nowhere meant that the Dhritrashtra progeny had lost their claim on the throne. (Remember in Treta Yug Ramji had made Bharatji as his Yuvraj so it's no where necessary that only elder son of the king gets the throne that was a common practice but not a rule)

Bheeshm had actually felt bad for Dhritrashtra for he was being punished for a sin not actually done by him, so he wanted that his son succeeds the throne, that was a reason he got Dhritrashtra married to Gandhari who had the boon to beget 100 sons. He had felt that his son would be born early and things will get sorted. Had Duryodhan been the eldest Kuruvanshi of his generation, Bheeshm would have probably supported his claim. But that never happened

Anyhow meanwhile the Pandu killing episode happened and he decided to go for Vanwaas with his wives to repent. The throne needed someone they got Dhritrashtra sit on it, but he never had a proper Rajyabhishek. He was more a representative of the king that being the king himself, however he was more than Bharatji was because unlike the latter he was allowed to sit on the throne. He had all the rights which any king had( remember this point) only excluding his claim to the throne over Pandu, it was clear that if Pandu returned he would be made the king. Aside by now they were aware that Pandu can not have a son(probably they didn't consider the option of Niyog back then), so things seemed finally sorted Dhritrashtra would be on the king till Pandu returns. On his return Pandu will become the king and maybe after that Dhritrashtra's sons will succeed.

But then Gandhari got a long pregnancy and didn't deliver on time, instead during that time Pandu n family decided to go for Niyog and Yudhishtir was born before Duryodhan (in fact even Bheem was a day elder to Duryodhan)

Had Pandu returned there wouldn't have been any confusion, he would have become the king, but unfortunately he died, and never returned to claim his crown. Now Kunti returned to Hastinapur along with the Pandavas. The ones to return were Pandavas and not Pandu so Dhritrashtra was not needed to vacate the throne for them(it's a stupid argument people made and Dhritrashtra continued because Pandavas were kids, Yudhishtir was over ten years of age back then and people did ascend the throne in young ages. Three generations later Janamejay was made the king at the age of 5) he continued to reign.

Now coming to the dispute

1) This is clear that Pandu was the king and Dhritrashtra was just an acting king in his absence. But in his absence he had all the rights excluding that over the throne in case of Pandu returned. Nominating and selecting the next king or the Yuvraj is the duty and right of the king, Pandu never appointed Yudhishtir for it, so shouldn't this duty and right now be bestowed upon Dhritrashtra since he was given practically all the powers and rights of the actual king? Does deciding on the next Yuvraj come under those rights and duties? No one had thought over it and hence didn't decide over this earlier.

2) Yudhishtir was supposed to have a more rights because he was elder. But how to calculate who was elder? Yudhishtir was undoubtedly born earlier, but Duryodhan was conceived earlier (I don't buy this long pregnancy point but since we are discussing epic so will have to go with whatever is mentioned) so which among these constitute for being elder

3) If being elder made Yudhishtir more entitled for the throne, why not being the son of elder brother make Duryodhan one. Dhritrashtra was not given throne because his wasn't abled but there wasn't any such disqualification for Duryodhan. If we are making the point that Dhritrashtra sat on the throne only because Pandu left, we can not ignore that Pandu was made the king only because Dhritrashtra was blind, so again who had more rights on the throne?

As far as the capability is concerned as someone already mentioned both were considered equally competent till the Varnavrat episode. Infact the citizens of Hastinapur liked Duryodhan more since he was with them since childhood.

At that point of time division of the state was the easiest task although it was an escapist method but the best way out. However then the Dyut happened. Yudhishtir staked everything and lost. @Janki no it's not that Duryodhan had staked kingdom or family. In fact he couldn't have done that, kingdom belonged to his father and his father had rights on the brothers. Yudhishtir had right over his brothers since their father was dead else the right should have been with the father. The game doesn't go that way. To give ab example Suppose two people are playing A and B, both of them stake Rs.100, A wins the game, now A simply stakes the amount on the board (200), but B has to stake new 200, if A again wins now B will have to stake 400 and so on. Similarly since Yudhishtir was losing, it was always he who had to stake something to equate with the things already on the board like once he lost his chariot, that was now considered staked by Duryodhan so Yudhishtir had to stake his n his brothers weapons and so forth. Duryodhan didn't stake his wife and couldn't have staked his kingdom and brothers so this son is only on Yudhishtir.

Anyhow now coming to the second dice game, the rules stated the the one who is defeated had to remain out for 13 years-12 Saal Vanwaas n 13wa Saal Agyatwaas, however they hadn't decided which calendar to use while calculation of this timeframe. Arjun disclosed himself the moment 13 years passed as per his calendar but as per Duryodhan's calendar there were still a few days remaining (I think it was a confusion of 365 days year and 365.23 days year), while Bheeshm was right in saying that since the calendar wasn't decided hence Pandavas are right to be out after the passage of time by the calendar they used, Duryodhan said no his calendar must have been considered so a again a technical glitch. Legality is all about being technically correct and they had left many technical loopholes throughout

So as someone has already pointed out the claim wasn't unilateral like most believe, both of them were right in their claims and were equally capable. I guess even Supreme court would have taken years to come to a judgement for this

If we discuss how could have Duryodhan ruled after having done so many crimes, then others might say how could Yudhishtir turn out to be a good ruler after having let his family become slaves, when he did not have the power to chose between two wrongs and two rights or to keep it cool during pressure situation

Sorry for the long post but it needed one

After watching today episode I don't know how duryodhan is eligible for king

First if duryodhan is so eager to become king then he should perform duty of king. What duty he has performed for hastinapur that he should become king

Ok duryodhan has send pandav to forest. Now duryodhan path is clear for 13 years to become king so at least duryodhan should start doing duty for hastinapur to become eligible for king

But no duryodhan was still obsessed with pandav and laughing saying to karn that Arjun would be cutting wood and draupadi would be burning chulha

Why was duryodhan so interesed what pandav is doing in forest . Why didn't not focus on welfare of hastinapur

I feel if duryodhan would have king he would have still obsessed with pandav and try to harm them in possible way

And instead of focusing on welfare of hastinapur duryodhan just seeing woman dancing in tent and duryodhan just drinking alcohol

When duryodhan just want kingdom for his own pleasure only interested in drinking alcohol and seeing woman dancing and forcibly touching gandharv girl and ordering her to come to tent and doing no responsibility duty toward hastinapur so how in what way duryodhan can become king

Moreover what is fault of duryodhan bodyguard that duryodhan go on insulting his body guard by calling him coward and instigate body guard to fight and then finally duryodhan killing his own body guard

What does body guard do that duryodhan killed him. His fault was that that he go to pandav and ask help from them to protect duryodhan from gandharv ???

Is this such big reason that duryodhan should kill body guard

Ok duryodhan didn't not like it that body guard went to yudhistar for duryodhan help. Duryodhan could tell his body guard that is next time don't go to pandav for my help. But killing body guard??

So duryodhan who have such short temper and don't have 1 percent patience and just kill people for no reason and even small then how could duryodhan become king

When duryodhan didn't not show obligation to body guard and yudhistar who send his brother Arjun and bheem to save duryodhan life from gandharv instead he get angry and killing body guard then how duryodhan can become king

When duryodhan ego his anger is above anything then how duryodhan become king

This type of mentality keeping ego and anger above all things would have certain destroyer hastinapur if duryodhan would have become king

Coming to yudhistar why he eligible for king. Because

First he already show he can be good king when he become king of indraprasth . He did his work honestly toward welfare of indraprasth

Secondly yudhistar is not short temper and he did not kill or punished people without any reason like duryodhan

Thirdly yudhistar don't believe in running a kingdom by creating fear in kingdom. Where as duryodhan want to run kingdom by creating a fear in kingdom

A king first responsibility to maintain peace not kill people with out any reason so here yudhistar eligible for king because he would have maintain peace and would have work for welfare for hastinapur not like duryodhan who just want kingdom for their own pleasure and killing people with out any reason

. Even today Vedas told dhrithrashtra that make ur son duryodhan understand that he can't become king yudhistar will become king as yudhistar is eldest among all

Secondly Vedvyas told dhrithrashtra that if duryodhan disobey ur order then punish him

Today Vedvyas give strict suggestions to dhrithrashtra to control ur duryodhan other it will ruin everything

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Thank You For The Post 🤗

I do not deny Yudhishtira's claim to the Throne however I do support Duryodhana's claim

Drithrashtra couldn't become a King because he was blind, His younger brother Pandu's lineage was ascended to the Throne but they made him King in Pandu's absence and he ruled for years shows a blind man is not incapable of ruling a Kingdom.

Pandu did not nominate Dhrut as a regent King, I don't think he nominated anyone, he went for forest expedition and never returned (I am not really sure about this one though)

Yudhishtira's only claim was his being Pandu's son but he wasn't biological son of Pandu, The King, Pandu was crowned the King so him being someone's son or not doesn't really matter as the crowning took place and he was declared the King, next in line would be his son and if he did not have any son then the next heir ie Duryodhana

Bheeshma did not challenge Duryodhana's claim to the Throne

@FlauntPessimism,

We can go round and round discussing why Duryodhan was not eligible or why Yudi was, so I'm going to stop that discussion now, lol as we both made all our points.

But regarding Bharat being made Yuvraj, VR mentions that he was made Yuvraj only because Rama had no progeny yet. Once Luv Kush were born, they were referred to as the heirs of Ayodhya. If Bharat was still yuvraj, his sons would have been made King of Ayodhya after Rama, but Rama found different kingdoms for them.

Ramayan was more clear cut regarding inheritance laws. The eldest brother always inherited (hence why even Bharat refused the throne) regardless of merit (remember King Sagar's story and his sadistic son Asamanjas). The only time younger brother would inherit was if eldest brother did not have children. That is why Manthara tells Kaikeyi that if Bharat isn't made King, his children will never be made King and Kaikeyi's bloodline will cease to exist after her. Once Luv Kush were born, they were the yuvraj of Ayodhya and thus Kosala was divided in half since as twins, both had equal right over the kingdom.

Only the Kuru Vansh had such vague/subjective laws regarding inheritance. The war may never have happened if they were more clear cut lol.