Originally posted by: Kulasya.
I feel no one is painted as white or black in original MBH. Everyone has a shade of gray. But I feel what separates Pandvas and Kauravas is Duryodhan trying to burn Pandvas alive (In some versions there is written that Pandavas tricked innocent five sons and their mother to stay with them to show Duryodhan that Pandavas and Kunti are dead after they fleed) and Draupadi Vastraharan. Both these crimes are heinous crimes imo and that's what separates both parties for me.
Originally posted by: Kulasya.
Ya but as a leader he can't shy away from his responsiblities. He let that happen. He could have easily stopped it. Plus Duryodhan also ordered Draupadi to sit on her lap and that's why Bhim vowed to break his lap. I don't know if it is authentic MBH though
You can read about the innocent victims of the lac-house (jatu-gṛha) in the critical edition at Ādiparvan 136.7-8 and 137.7. Bhīma set fire to the house while the Niṣādī and her five sons were inside, passed out drunk (suṣvāpa vigata-jñānā mṛta-kalpā). We would call it murder, but it wasn't a trick. It was already the plan to set fire to the house and escape that night, and the narrator's view is that the inoffensive (anāgasam) Niṣādī came by chance (yadṛcchayā), prompted by her time (kāla-coditā).
At Sabhāparvan 63.10-12, Duryodhana lifted his garment to show his left thigh to Kṛṣṇā Draupadī, and smiled at her, silently suggesting that she should sit there. Without ignoring all of the abuse that Duryodhana allowed Karṇa to order and Duḥśāsana to inflict upon her as a slave, at this point, Duryodhana's action is not an order to a slave; it's an invitation to escape slavery by marrying him, as Karṇa has just suggested that Kṛṣṇā could choose another husband who will not gamble her into slavery (anyaṃ vṛṇīṣva patim āśu bhāmini yasmād dāsyaṃ na labhase devanena; Sabhāparvan 63.3).
Anupamaa
1.4k