Bhishma's pratigya - His decision to stick to his vow

Why do you think that Bhishma resolutely stuck to his vow when he was faced with the situation when the kingdom needed an able king? Do you think he should have broken his vow and accepted kingship for his kingdom and the well-being of the subjects? 

His vow (and reputation?) versus the good of the state? 

Did he act selflessly or selfishly? 

Opinions.. 

Bhishm act selflessly  as he take vow for  satyavati children so that satyavati children become king  and if he has not taken vow then satyavati and  shantanu would have never married  because satyavati father would have never allow   unless bhishm  give assurance 

So bhishm don't want to separate shantanu and satyavati. So he take vow 

At that time  promise vow are taken seriously 

Thought bhishm act selflessly but  he should not make such big decision in hurry  . He should have think before making such decision 

Ganga putra Devrath acted selflessly as a good son to ensure his father's happiness.

 But as a crown Prince he didn't think twice before giving up the throne and gambling away the future of his kingdom and it's subjects. That was a thoughtless act. 

When the situation arose and the kingdom needed an able king it was selfish of him to not break the vow to accept the throne. But it may have been because he never needed the title of king to take care of the subjects or to defend the boundaries. He was always in control of the administration.

Further on when Dhirudrashtr and Duruyodhan were incharge and were taking decisions which harmed the kingdom, he couldn't do anything because he had given up that right to intervene long ago. 

Even though he would have been a better king than most, his one impulsive selfless decision harmed many generations of people. 

This is probably a grey zone which I myself ponder about many times.

At the time when he took that bhishan pratigya for his fathers sake, that was probably a selfless decision for his father. He obviously didnt know what future has in store for him and Hastinapur and that none of the heirs would be suitable for the kingdom. Even Dhritrashtra and Pandu were born with Rishi Vyas's help. Pandu was an able ruler but he didnt survive for long to take care of the kingdom. 

Now looking at the situation if we think that he should have broken his vows and accept the responsibility as the king, then he gets a bad reputation to himself and broken his vows given to his dead Father and Satyavati. But in my opinion too a kingdom is always above any one individual and because of his own vows, the entire kingdom suffered and thousands of people lost their lives in the mahabharata battle. He could have prevented that but he chose to abide by his own vows and not think about anything else.... not even once he tried to stop kauravas when Draupadi was going through that heinious crime at the hands of Dushasan and Duryodhan. This was his biggest mistake in my opinion and he couldnt forgive himself for being a part of that. 

So in my opinion he knew that his vows were preventing him from taking any strong step but he could have prevented this.... but he chose not to...

Incidentally, in the original epic, there's just Bheeshma's vow to remain a brahmachari.  There's nothing there about standing by the throne of Hastinapur, no matter who was on it.  So it's not clear why he agreed to take sides in the war, contrary to what this serial shows

Well because he was Bhishma,  MB is the story of rigid vows no matter how stupid it made them look under certain circumstances. 

What time he should have stake his claim?  When Ps and Ks were at each others throat?  Then it was too late. 

Before, it was somehow convinent to just be counseling.... Most of the time the HP elders did just roll with the scenes. 

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Incidentally, in the original epic, there's just Bheeshma's vow to remain a brahmachari.  There's nothing there about standing by the throne of Hastinapur, no matter who was on it.  So it's not clear why he agreed to take sides in the war, contrary to what this serial shows

Due to his sense of loyalty towards his dead father, it's possible na I mean he took a vow so that his father gets married or maybe that was said without being said.  In between the lines reading or something 😕

Even if bhishm break vow then it will not also going to help  because when when  satyavati   son died then at time bhishm starting becoming old  and when pandav and  kaurav born then  old age of  bhishm will not permit  to rule as king for longer time as he become very old when paundav and kaurav born 

Actually it was gandhari fault who made such a stupid decision who keep tieng cloth in her eyes inspite of knowing that her sons are going on wrong path  

She knows that her son going on wrong path she till did not remove clothe from her eyes  which was very wrong part of it. . 

As a mother it was gandhari responsibility to remove  clothe from eyes and teach her children a right path  but she doesn't not do it  

As a result behaving  due to irresponsible   behavior of gandhari as mother kaurav become more and more arrogant  more and more stubborn  which lead to Mahabharata 

Gandhari Tieng clothes on her eyes was so uncessary 

Originally posted by: braveheartdoc

This is probably a grey zone which I myself ponder about many times.

At the time when he took that bhishan pratigya for his fathers sake, that was probably a selfless decision for his father. He obviously didnt know what future has in store for him and Hastinapur and that none of the heirs would be suitable for the kingdom. Even Dhritrashtra and Pandu were born with Rishi Vyas's help. Pandu was an able ruler but he didnt survive for long to take care of the kingdom. 

Now looking at the situation if we think that he should have broken his vows and accept the responsibility as the king, then he gets a bad reputation to himself and broken his vows given to his dead Father and Satyavati. But in my opinion too a kingdom is always above any one individual and because of his own vows, the entire kingdom suffered and thousands of people lost their lives in the mahabharata battle. He could have prevented that but he chose to abide by his own vows and not think about anything else.... not even once he tried to stop kauravas when Draupadi was going through that heinious crime at the hands of Dushasan and Duryodhan. This was his biggest mistake in my opinion and he couldnt forgive himself for being a part of that. 

So in my opinion he knew that his vows were preventing him from taking any strong step but he could have prevented this.... but he chose not to...

@bold - This! 

Originally posted by: surabhi01

Bhishm act selflessly  as he take vow for  satyavati children so that satyavati children become king  and if he has not taken vow then satyavati and  shantanu would have never married  because satyavati father would have never allow   unless bhishm  give assurance 

So bhishm don't want to separate shantanu and satyavati. So he take vow 

At that time  promise vow are taken seriously 

Though bhishm act selflessly but  he should not make such big decision in hurry  . He should have think before making such decision 

@bold - Exactly! For a person who had the responsibility for the kingdom, to act in a hurry even if it was selfless is problematic. He was a son in his personal capacity but he was also the crown-prince and he gave that up for the future progeny of Satyawati who were not even born. 

Giving up the kingdom knowing that you are more than capable to take care of it versus your father's desire for a woman? 

But of course we can always debate that he did not know what was coming in future.