Originally posted by: Rehanism
This is something I wrote about Duryodhan's character in another forum :
Nice take!
"Certain aspects
of Duryodhan's hatred towards Pandavas were understandable from the POV
of ancient kingdoms and politics. Mortal rivalry among siblings and
cousins was the most common thing to the point where queens employed
maids and eunuchs to poison and abort the children of the rival queens
to ensure a clean way for themselves and their kids. The great Ashoka
born to a lesser queen murdered each one of his siblings and
step-brothers and their children before ascending the throne of Magadh.
Yes sibling rivalries especially for power and throne is not uncommon , even today we do see such cases happening on a daily basis but can "an attempt to murder" or molestation be ever justified by these reason. I personally don't think so. Ashoka unlike Duryodhan realized his folly and gave up the throne and violence , took a lifestyle which in his view was atonement of his sins. Like I previously mentioned - acceptance and regret is a good start and they separate the Great Ashoka from Duryodhana.
In
such an age there's a kid whose father has been denied the kingdom for
his physical handicap and his uncle Pandu, the king, dies in a forest under
mysterious conditions. His other uncle, Vidur, forced his father to stand down
the throne and wanted him killed as an infant because of the supposed
bad omens. He has no good reason to trust his family elders.
A kid whoses father was the ruling King and an Uncle Shakuni who was the state consultant to his father , who guided him throughout doesn't seem to be a case where he would be wary of Vidhur, a mere minister when he had powerful people protecting him? If we count the numbers, Bhisma would always be loyal to the throne which his father occupied, barring say Vidhur - he didn't face much disapproval.
Everyone
knew Pandu was impotent but one day his wife turns up with 5 kids who
are now deemed as the heirs with Duryodhan himself being pushed to the
same oblivion his father was, second fiddle to those who for all he knew
were not his brothers at all (How many would buy Kunti's story of
Pandavas being the magically procured children of gods?). What if it was a ploy by Vidur and Bhishma to take over the kingdom by installing a puppet ruler?
You mean Bhishma would have resorted to installing a puppet ruler when he could have ruled the kingdom himself. If that was the case then why was he sympathetic to Pandu - who was more accomplished compared to Duryodhan's father. The questionable status of Kunti's children should have made the royal court more wary. I doubt a court full of ministers would have preferred the "so called progeny of God " as their leaders, if the intent was to support a puppet govt. Won't continuing the line of Kaurava be a better prospect?
Its not unheard of that priests and ministers often overthrew kings and installed a puppet king in their place who would do their bidding. His parents are blind and must depend
on external support for daily chores as well as the running of the state affairs. His elders and teachers favour the
pandavas.
Contradiction - if the priests and ministers preferred the blind King then why would they favor Pandavas?
He has no real mentor to turn to. But he won't swallow the
insults the way his blind father did. He is determined to fight and take
back what he believes to be his by hook or by crook.
He had mentors like Shakuni who taught him to be selfish and grab whatever he wants without any moral considerations. He had the elders who continued telling him to shun the part of greed like his Gurus , yet he refused to listen to him. Two ways, one choice. He made his own mistakes. Why did he not stop when he already got what he wanted -not once but multiple times. The sole intent of killing Pandavas later for reasons beyond the throne , makes him a cold blooded murder in my book. Hook or crook would never be right when a public stripping of a female is organized.
And the only person who he can trust and connect with more than any of his family is Karna, a man who shares similar dark past and hunger to find his rightful place in the world. And with Karna and Shakuni, he takes back control of the kingdom from Vidur and Bhishma, who in times of Dhritarashtra were the de facto rulers.
So if I think this through, his main enemies were Vidhur and Bhisma, shouldn't he had concentrated on eliminating them to stop the internal politics. Atleast thats what every angst ridden revengeful ruler did in History.Also why would Bhisma and Vidhura two power hungry ministers lost their lives for a "de facto ruler" or his vengeful son. what kind of power Vdhur and Bhisma were seeking? How would they pull the strings of any puppet govt from their graves? Was Duryodhan that dumb to make Bhisma the military General for a good part of the war? Also why fill the ranks of his army with Pandav sympathizers?
Also it must be noted, contrary to what ⭐️bharat
shows, Duryodhan was never a tyrant or exploiter.
Apologies , I don't understand the literal reference to Bharat. But usually they call him the molester, murder , cheater . Though won't the credit to his governance go to the two power hungry ministers- Vidhur and Bhisma who held the same positions under him too.
His venom was
directed solely against the Pandavas and hardly against anyone else.
So its ok if he cheats Pandavas , plot to kill them again and again. Humiliate their wife in a public audience , because well cousins did that during that time? Does it make him sound any better.
When he was struck down unfairly by Bhim and Balram declared him as a
nobler warrior than the Pandavas and blessed him with eternal bliss in
heaven, the gods showered flowers on him (sorry, ⭐️Bhishma). Following which Krishna and Pandavas withdrew from the place with their heads hung in shame"
Umm from what I have read and understood, Bhim had to hit Duryodhan in that region because of his vow, it was a clash to kill. The vow was made after Draupadi's humiliation. This is what Krishna ,serene but not ashamed at all told Blaram - "Yes, the letter of the law was broken," says Krishna, "but the spirit of the law was upheld so that victims are protected, not villains." This spirit is what we all currently feel when we read the news of rapes and molestation. The want to hang the culprits and stone them to death. We today curse the same laws, and feel they are preventive to capture the spirit of the crime - it is this very spirit which Krishna reminded to Balram, and the later , calmed down and understood.
comment:
p_commentcount