Yudhisthira vs Duryodhana: The Legitimacy of the Claim to Throne - Page 7

I have heard recently that it was balram king of dwariika not Lord Krishna though I am hearing from long time it was Lord Krishna was king of dwariika

Originally posted by: surabhi01

I have heard recently that it was balram king of dwariika not Lord Krishna though I am hearing from long time it was Lord Krishna was king of dwariika

That is right. Krishna was never King, as he was the younger brother. Balarama as the elder brother was the heir to Dwaraka. However, it was still King Ugrasena who ruled Dwaraka until the end of Mahabharat. Clearly he enjoyed a very very long life lol. After him, Vasudeva was the heir, followed by Balarama.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Alright, but then why was the "thigh" the point that led to his downfall? I mean unless the rest of the body is different, why is the thigh so special?

Fractured thigh could kill, and one of the rules of mace fighting was no below the belt hits. No idea why the rule when hits above belt were also meant to kill but undoubtedly there is one.

For ex, Ganga first approached King Pratipa for marriage and sat on his thigh. Apparently, the side she sat on was considered daughter side so she was asked to marry Shanthanu.

Now, I thought it was one of those strange and meaningless rules followed by Aryas. Then, I was told wife side was where male plumbing rests when they wear dhoti😆.

So if Ganga had picked the correct side, Bheeshma might've been Shanthanu's brother. Who knows how MBh would've turned out?😆

So I'm sure there is a reason like that for mace fighting rule also.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Fractured thigh could kill, and one of the rules of mace fighting was no below the belt hits. No idea why the rule when hits above belt were also meant to kill but undoubtly there is one.

For ex, Ganga first approached King Pratipa for marriage and sat on his thigh. Apparently, the side she sat on was considered daughter side so she was asked to marry Shanthanu.

Now, I thought it was one of those strange and meaningless rules followed by Aryas. Then, I was told wife side was where male plumbing rests when they wear dhoti😆.

So if Ganga had picked the correct side, Bheeshma might've been Shanthanu's brother. Who knows how MBh would've turned out?😆

So I'm sure there is a reason like that for mace fighting rule also.

I think if you hit below the belt, there are possibilities of hitting that spot.

Sometimes I feel weren't these stupid laws a reason for our loss to the invaders

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Duryodhan could have been a capable ruler, but if it was MERIT first, who decides who is meritous? Who decides what is merit? These terms are subjective.

For example, we know of many kings who are bad human beings but good rules. So what exactly is merit? Administrative skills, or skills of dharma/being a good human being?

Duryodhana might have had administrative skills, but this was not democracy but monarchy. In monarchy, as per the law of primogeniture, the eldest son of the KING becomes a king no?

In case of Dhritarashtra and Pandu, this was an exceptional case. When he was denied kingship I don't think it was done due to merit (we cannot consider a physical disability as part of merit). He was blind and as per the laws of the state, a blind man could not have been a king because he simply would be incapable of ruling. It is harsh but that makes sense. This doesn't make him any less capable in administrative skills. Pandu was also ill but he did not lack a sense organ and hence he was made king. I don't think Pandu was chosen because he was a more able king.

How is blindness, deafness etc be part of merit?

Aren't king supposed to be good judge of character and situations ?? If the king is blind i don't think he will able to judge the person or situation properly both visual and hearing powers are equal importance to see and listen simultaneously and then take the decision .the king cannot really rely just on his prime minister what if the kings own men were involved then what ??? he himself has to have atleast some idea of his own. So ofcourse having the visual capacity tilts the scale more in Pandu s favour

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

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.

How was karna not obessed with revenge when his prime motive was always to kill arjuna so that he could be the best archerr ?? How obessed he was for revenge can be seen when he persisted duryodhan for that hunting trip to forest gloating and laughing at someone else misery And levelheaded ?? Giving away a promise to not kill four of the pandavas - including yudhishtra who was the king. Knowing fully well that yudhishtra s death could have tilted the result in their favour ?? I don't think it was a very good decision made by cool mind or out of any brotherly affection neither do i believe in dharma adharma theory. It was decision made by pure selfish person whose only aim in life was to prove he is the best does not matter if he betrayed his best friend while doing so. Can such a person be a king ??? It was war it means do or die kill or get killed

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

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.

Did he really gambled his brothers and wife ??? I thought that is star Mahabharata s brainchild but why should he ?? When he was winning all he nees to do is gamble all that he won in previous round ?? That what he did didn't he ??

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Did he really gambled his brothers and wife ??? I thought that is star Mahabharata s brainchild but why should he ?? When he was winning all he nees to do is gamble all that he won in previous round ?? That what he did didn't he ??

No he didn't stake him

He couldn't have anyway staked his brothers and they belonged to his father.

He did exactly what you said

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Alright, but then why was the "thigh" the point that led to his downfall? I mean unless the rest of the body is different, why is the thigh so special?

I think that the thigh region is weaker than the upper body anyway. I may be wrong but that was my impression. 😊

Correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. They all had to die for their sins. I just mentioned that the Vajra body was a later addition

So ugrsen is dwariika king not mathura king after kansa killed?