Who do you think is main villian of Mahabharat - Page 4

I don't make Bhishma for making his vow at the time, but I do blame him for turning a blind eye to injustice in the name of his vow. That was not right. He should not have played with Amba's life. He was the reason she was forced to become a spinster, and at that point it was his dharma to break his vow and marry her. Also, when the many injustices happened in Hastinapur, like Duryodhan poisoning Bheema, the Varnavat burning, etc, he should have stepped in as the elder of the family and put a stop to it.

Vows don't mean a thing if they result in adharma. Dharma is more important than anything else.

After Bhishma, I blame Dhritarashtra and Gandhari for being neglectful and indulgent parents. They turned a blind eye to so many things that today would be considered criminal.

Who was NOT the main villain.

SHAKUNI.

He had nothing to do with Bheema's poisoning. After rang bhoomi, he and Karna tried to kill Pandavas by various means, which I'm assuming includes lac house.

Shakuni in fact tells Suyodhana to stop with his jealousy towards Yudhishtira.

Shakuni's main role was as master of dice.

Also to note: NOT A SINGLE PERSON accuses Shakuni of cheating until PANCHALI does.

I think it was clever of her in the situation but am also taking it with a giant helping of salt.

Why I consider Bheeshma the main villain:

Yeah, he was given a raw deal by father and stepmother.

At the death of Shanthanu, Jarasandh was already on the rise. The king of Panchal proposed marriage to Satyavati which would've united the 2 kingdoms against Jarasandh. Bheeshma attacked Panchal, killed that king, and installed Prishata on the throne.

Then, after Vichitraveerya's death, Bheeshma refused to take the throne which would've automatically let Hastinapuri come under Jarasandh as he was emperor by then.

Vyasa came to the rescue and princes were born.

Bheeshma is said to have had spies all over the place. Also, Vidura knew of all the things Kauravas did. If Vidura never told Bheeshma, it had to be because there was no trust. If Vidura did tell Bheeshma, then clearly the patriarch did nothing.

I highly doubt he was unaware of lac house.

The, once the kingdom was divided, he and Vyasa advised Krishna and Arjuna to go on that murderous rampage with the Nagas.

Note Bheeshma's speech during rajasuya. In between all the compliments, Bheeshma also managed to sneak in the suggestion Krishna COULD be considered unworthy by SOME. Bheeshma stopped Bheema from killing Shishupal. As defense minister of Indraprasth, Bheema had that right, and no one would've said anything. There was discontent after Krishna did the killing.

Then, dice hall. Once again, Vidura is aware something is amiss. Once again, I refuse to believe Bheeshma didn't know. Note that not only did he fail to warn Pandavas, he failed to notify Vyasa or Krishna. There is a sentence after with Narada going to Kuru court and glaring at everyone.

During the attack on Panchali. Bheeshma actually argues that she IS a slave in between all the 'I cannot decides.' He says morality is with the strong-armed! This man who is held up as dharmic actually says that.

Fast forward to war. I'll point to a conversation between Karna and Bheeshma where the patriarch urges Karna to kill the Pandavas.

Also, Anushasana Parva. There is lot in there which shows Bheeshma's attitude to women. At one point, he even says cheating women should be eaten by dogs. Kim Jong Un, anyone?

Psychoanalysis: he was immensely affected by father and stepmother's attitudes and decided to be passive aggressive about both Hastinapuri and Satyavati's progeny. He let things happen on purpose, not lifting a finger to turn anything around. He even seems to have aided and abetted some.

The charitable view is that he was a self-indulgent man who was so in love with the idea of himself as dharmic, he was prepared to sacrifice the kingdom and its citizens, his grandsons, and the women who married into the clan to protect that image.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

How is Shakuni a villain when he had no issue with his sister's marriage? He was merely assisting Duryodhana. Moreover, Shakuni favoured peace over war and advised Duryodhana to hand over the kingdom to the Pandavas.

Really? Where is this mentioned. I am hearing this for the first time. 😆

I do not think it is fair to say Bhishma is the villain. His intention was not bad. Infact, what he did shows unbelievable strength. Yes he did make many mistakes later, but I do not think this was the reason he should be considered a villain.

Infact in such a story, his oath stands as a very selfless, strong oath where he did not think about himself at all but put his father's wishes before his. This isn't easy in thia backdrop of greed and jealousy which almost all other characters have.

Yes maybe his oath denied the throne from an able ruler and this was the reason why everything got messed up. But since his intention was never bad, I do not think it's fair to call him the real villain.

Just my views.

Alright, wouldn't call Bheeshma a villain but undoubtedly he is one of the fundamental reasons of war and the unstable Kuru clan.

Blaming one is hard

Each one had a hand in what resulted to the destruction

From Shantanu to Pandavas

I might be in minority but each one is to be blamed for something or the other

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Really? Where is this mentioned. I am hearing this for the first time. 😆

^ Shakuni advises Duryodhana to let go of his follies.

Benefited as thou has been, whence is this unreasonable grief of thine? Do not undo this graceful act done by the sons of Pritha, by indulging in such grief. When thou shouldst joy and reward the Pandavas, thou art grieving, O king? Indeed, this behaviour of thine is inconsistent. Be cheerful, do not cast away thy life; but remember with a pleased heart the good they have done thee. Give back unto the sons of Pritha their kingdom, and win thou both virtue and renown by such conduct. By acting in this way, thou mayst be grateful. Establish brotherly relations with the Pandavas by being friends, and give them their paternal kingdom, for then thou wilt be happy!'"

^ Here he stops Duryodhana from committing suicide and tries to knock some sense.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I do not think it is fair to say Bhishma is the villain. His intention was not bad. Infact, what he did shows unbelievable strength. Yes he did make many mistakes later, but I do not think this was the reason he should be considered a villain.

Infact in such a story, his oath stands as a very selfless, strong oath where he did not think about himself at all but put his father's wishes before his. This isn't easy in thia backdrop of greed and jealousy which almost all other characters have.

Yes maybe his oath denied the throne from an able ruler and this was the reason why everything got messed up. But since his intention was never bad, I do not think it's fair to call him the real villain.

Just my views.

Moreover, Krishna's words stating that without Bhishma this world would be a dark, moonless night speaks volumes of his character.

He committed mistakes and even paid for them. But there are several redeeming aspects and selflessness is one of them. Main villain is a gross exaggeration in my opinion.

Originally posted by: Wistfulness

Well said.

Moreover, Krishna's words stating that without Bhishma this world would be a dark, moonless night speaks volumes of his character.

He committed mistakes and even paid for them. But there are several redeeming aspects and selflessness is one of them. Main villain is a gross exaggeration in my opinion.

Agreed to each and every word

Mistakes were made by everyone

And blaming Bheeshma solely is unfair