Janmayey's Nagmedh Yagya

People I know we often ignore the AdiParva and focus more the Kaurav Pandav war and their causes

But I want to know your opinion about Janmayey's Nagmedh Yagya. What do you think it was?

Going through the texts I feel that it was a kind of cultural/religious genocide (something like what Hitler or Stalin had done) the Nagas don't seem to be some serpents who were killed, rather were most probably the humans who followed the Naga Totem/Gotta(till date there are people who call themselves Nagas) Uloopi was definitely a human (Naga princess) I think these people had different set of gods/religious practices/systems. One of the followers of this ideology killed Parikshit and Janmayey on knowing about it started killing all the Nagas he could encounter

If Pandavas were necessary to ensure Dharma on land, does their own great grandson doing such act has any justification?? I don't think Kauravas or Duryodhan could have done much worse!!

No, he was avenging the unfair death of his father. Although I do think that the focus should have been on Takshak, rather than all the Nagas, and that it was unfair that he escaped in the end.

But if we take out the symbolism of the curse, the worm that became a snake that bit Parikshit, then this was probably a war b/w Parikshit and the Nagas, in which Parikshit was killed, and Janamejaya kept up the war to eliminate the Naga threat. Rishi Asanga probably mediated b/w the 2 sides and brought about a lasting peace

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

No, he was avenging the unfair death of his father. Although I do think that the focus should have been on Takshak, rather than all the Nagas, and that it was unfair that he escaped in the end.

But if we take out the symbolism of the curse, the worm that became a snake that bit Parikshit, then this was probably a war b/w Parikshit and the Nagas, in which Parikshit was killed, and Janamejaya kept up the war to eliminate the Naga threat. Rishi Asanga probably mediated b/w the 2 sides and brought about a lasting peace

Avenging unfair death could not mean killing random men women and kids of the community you encounter! That's how the communal riots start these days. He was literally sacrificing any Naga he encountered. And you are right, the actual murderer escaped

I do think the second part/opinion is true but then that's exactly what a genocide is. Ending a community to eliminate threat is exactly what Hitler was planning to do. Rishi Asanga/Asteek has a great contribution to his name.

But anyway I don't find this action justified at all, no wonder the great Kurus nearly ended after Janmayey. We don't know much about the kings that followed

This part is a truly little uncomfortable to read.

I feel the worm was just a metaphor for a mercenary hired by the son of Rishi who Parikshit has insulted and that guy just happened to be from the Naga clan.

To be honest, Takshak did have a bone to pick with the Ps especially Arjun (two defeats/humiliations as far as I remember). Also another prominent Naga supporter Balram also was consistently on Dury's side. Most of the Nagas at the time of Kurkshetra supported the Ks.

Janmejay probably held that against them and used his father's demise to unleash the hell on them.

I'm about to read all about the Snake Sacrifice in the CE 😆

More or less for me, it is a tale of irony: after the grand tale of Mahabharata war, we have the fire of revenge consuming subsequent generations.

Because one side commits some wrongs on the other, the other retaliates & so on & the saga continues.

It's funny how this is captured as a morality lesson in how not to avenge whereas the Kurukshetra war is painted as "Dharmayuddha" when ultimately both are comparable as revenge tales.

Originally posted by: Eloquent

I'm about to read all about the Snake Sacrifice in the CE 😆

More or less for me, it is a tale of irony: after the grand tale of Mahabharata war, we have the fire of revenge consuming subsequent generations.

Because one side commits some wrongs on the other, the other retaliates & so on & the saga continues.

It's funny how this is captured as a morality lesson in how not to avenge whereas the Kurukshetra war is painted as "Dharmayuddha" when ultimately both are comparable as revenge tales.

@Bold. I beg to disagree. I forget which author said there was a multiplicity of motives meeting in Kurukshetra. For the Pandavas, it was about their property/land, even for Bheema though he does manage to get his revenge during the war. But revenge was not their primary aim. They were willing to give up the idea if the Kauravas gave up the empire.

For Kauravas, it was about keeping the empire.

Krishna talked about justice but he, too, seemed willing to give it up for land. Something in his words in Udyoga Parva makes me think he deliberately maneuvered Kauravas to a position where they would refuse any offer. He did admit to Vidura he was simply making sure there was no room to criticize later that he didn't actually offer truce for return of land.

Panchali talked about justice, crime & punishment, and duties of rulers. She never wavered.

Vyasa advised Pandavas, but he never declared his motive. I think he wanted justice as well given how hard he worked to establish a unified nation.