The Throne of Hastinapur - Page 2

Originally posted by: godisone

Good question.👏

Truthfully, if this happened in the present era, I guess I would go with Duryodhan's way of justice, because in this present day and age, social classes/castes are not given much importance, and everyone is equal in the eyes of law. Saying a brahmin or kshatriya gets different punishment compared to a Vaishya or Sudra would be thought racism today, and no one would have respect for you.

But in the Dwapara Yug, society was much much different. Everything was based on caste system, and issues of Dharma/Adharma differed for each caste. Yudhisthira's way of justice was the accepted rule during that time, and was rigth for them, because rules of society change with each age. People's jobs depended on their caste, while today, anyone can have any kind of job as long as they have the appropriate level of education.

Today, Duryodhana's way of justice is the accepted norm, while Yudhisthira's would be considered, "biased" or "racist".

If I was in the Mahabharat times, I would go with Yudhisthira's way of justice, because that was considered "right" then, but today, I would go with Duryodhan's, because while we should keep our epics in mind while we live out our lives, we can't do everything people in our epics did, because our society is so different from how it was back then.

I won't say one is "right" and the other is "wrong" because decisions vary from society to society to time period to time period. Yudhisthira's was right then, and Duryodhan's is right now.

Originally posted by: shyam.rathi

Nice point Charu.. If I remember correctly, there was a murder case in the court with four people being the convicts.. Each one was from a different 'varna', namely Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra.. In this case, Duryodhan considers everyone as equal for justice and punished them with equal penalty.. while Yudhisthir didn't agree with him and declared the penalty based upon each one's respective 'varna'.. and based on this decision, he was considered more capable than Duryodhana.. End of story 😊

Now, something can be discussed about this.. if you face the same situation, what will you do? will you answers be different if you place yourself in the MB era and then in the present era.. will you go with Duryodhan or Yudhisthir for this particular case? who had done more justice? Duryodhan who considered everyone equal in front of justice or Yudhisthir who had based his decision on the convict's 'varna'.. Please consider both the MB era and present era while replying..

Originally posted by: rongna

yeah that is true what happened in the past cannot be measured or judged with present standard. the society and the justice that happened in those days where the differences of castes are very important and thus the punishment given to those who commited crimes even when they are the same crimes were also different. however, the impact of caste system in a bad way had already impacted them back them. this could be presented in the example of karna, even though he was born out of royal birth in ksatriyas caste he was abandoned by his mother upon birth and was adopted by a charioteer and was seen and considered by everyone as a sutputr, one thing that karna really unlike of and was hurt when he was called this. he was also hurt when he was faced with so many injustices just due to his status as a sutputr and was considered incapable of doing this and that just because he was a sutputr. he was denied of being given the rights to compete with arjun just because of his 'lowly' birth, he was rejected by draupadi because of his status as 'sutputr' and the list goes on and on.

duryodhan saw people of what they are capable of doing and their true potential. he oversaw which caste they came from and did not insult them or send them away just because he thought that person was incapable due to his caste. even when bheem insulted karna due to his caste, duryodhan supported karna and said that karna was a capable man even when he came from lower ksatriya race. the friendship that blossomed between karna and duryodhan was also due to the kindness that was shown by duryodhan towards karna, when everybody insulted karna due to his status duryodhan offered karna his friendship and made him king over anga. while yudhistr did not befriend karna because he saw karna as a person of lower status. even when kunti asked him to mourn for karna and did his last rites, yudhistr and his brothers did not want to do it as he was a sutputr and had kunti not told her sons that karna was actually her firstborn and thus the elder brother of yudhistr, the pandavas would not do the mourning for karna.

Originally posted by: luv_khwaish

Obviously Yudhistir was right....It's always said and followed that "brahm hatya" (brahman ki hatya) is sabse bada paap , unforgivable and worst..just as killing of a cow is...Therez a story in I read in Shivpuran n it was shown in Ramanand Sagar's Uttar Ramayan that Ram, Laxman and Hanuman , had brahm hatya dosh and because of that, Ramji did the ashwamedh yagya,..laxman and hanuman also did shiv pooja to free themselves of this dosh...In Hindu culture , there is no paap greater than killing a cow or killing a brahman.....

In the time of Mahabharata, varna and jaati were prominent...not only then, every hindu sacred book says so...i think it has been interpreted in a wrong way....just like we say that "shudra" jaati is untouchable n all tht....it's untrue...every jaati have their own position in the society n their jobs are well defined...I agree with Yudhistir.....the 4 people didn't deserve equal treatment..

In present situation also, Duryodhan was wrong..Although caste system has been abolished , Duryodhan's suggestion was to give them "mrityu dand" (death sentence)..but Yudhistir's reasoning was beautiful..he said shudra ka paap ek agyani ka paap hai that's why his punishment is least, etc. etc. but brahman who is the most respected of them all and the most educated on had maximum responsiblity n he should be given the worst punishment but not death sentence bec. of the reasons cited above...

Charu

Originally posted by: godisone

Interesting Charu...

Yeah, come to think about it, the reasoning you gave on why Yudhisthira was correct sounds right. Even today, if a mentally disabled and a sound person killed someone, the mentally disabled person will be admitted to a mental hospital, where he'll be given treatment and might become better, while the sound person will be given punishment, like some years in jail or even a life sentence (depending on the severity of the murder).

Brahman Hatya is the worst sin of all, as it says in our Vedas, and he could not be given the same punishment as a Sudra, because back in the MB days, a Sudra was not educated, so he did not know right from wrong, but a Brahmin was the most educated of all, so it would be logical to punish a Brahmin (though not by death) more than the Sudra.

Thank you Charu...😊

Umm...I'm trying to sound educated, but its not working :) I understand some of the parts your argueing about, but some other parts are unclear. Even though Duryodhan was using Karna as weapon against Arjun, weren't they still really friends? Please don't mind me if I said something wrong 😕

Originally posted by: godisone

Even today, if a mentally disabled and a sound person killed someone, the mentally disabled person will be admitted to a mental hospital, where he'll be given treatment and might become better, while the sound person will be given punishment, like some years in jail or even a life sentence (depending on the severity of the murder).

Originally posted by: shyam.rathi

A shudra is not always a mentally disabled person and a brahmin is not always a sound person.. As per the story, there was nothing specific about the mental state of all the four convicts.. all four had committed the crime with full knowledge of it and had accepted their crime..

Originally posted by: luv_khwaish

It's not related to caste system ONLY..There r divisions at many levels in the society..from which sector you live, to your city, to your region, to your state, to your country, your color, your sex, your relligion, your individuality, everything!!! ARE WE EQUALS? Does our society treat everybody as equals? If yes then Supreme Court had not passed the reservation bill for SCs and STs....