Quote:
Originally Posted by Sudhaama
Thanks Sudhama Sir. Thanks for being patient and bearing with me. You surely stand apart from Srivatsan and lot. You are knowledgeable and wise indeed. No doubt about it.
But my believes and understanding contradicts yours. I look forward to hear your contentions. I may not agree with you. But we still will respect each other correct ? But anywhere if I had misquoted Mahabharath please correct me.
The following points sum-up views. If you find it too abstract, please let me know and I will explain elaborately.
First, Is the story of Mahabharatha applicable today ?
I feel that not everything in Mhabharatha is applicable today. First of all the story is not about "us". It is a story about "them". "They" do not even mean "all the people" who lived in the countries that were supposed to have existed those days. It is simply about "some brothers" who faught against an establishment or civilization to gain a luxurious life for themselves. I simply cannot understand how they can be venerated as heroes and their story as applicable and followed todate. Today the world regimes are supposed to be people centric. That belief is not emphasised in Mahabharath. They did not fight for the people, but only for themselves. The story ends as the greatest tragedy of all times. No one is happy in the end. If there is something we must learn from Mahabharath, it is only how evil can Monarchy go. These monarchs call for innocent people's sacrifices as their dury. Rule of dynasties in India today is still tolerated in India perhaps because of these old stories religously re-told even today. This story is just the selfish aspirations of some xyz family and feuds between them. Nothing more seems to be in its core theme. They might have served as valuable lessons for other monarchs but not for ordinary men like us. So I believe this story should be read simply for the sake of pleasure of reading it but not as a source for morals. So I am afraid you can call it Fifth Veda, as Vedas are supposed to be universal in space and time.
Simply about brothers who faught and killed for the throne and not for people's welfare:
The establishment the Pandavas faught against happened to be headed by their own cousins. The result was destruction and death everywhere. The people who faught and lost their lives in the war, can only be fools or their salves who must obey the commands of their bosses. There is no mention in Mahabharath that people suffered during Dhuryodhan's or Dhridhirashtra's rule. Dhuryodhan is not mentioned as an "unjust king" anywhere. Pandavas did not for the people's liberation or something.
Pandavas were not that honorable :
What Dhuryodhan was NOT is, he was NOT cunning like Arjuna. If he was so, he could have very well made Arjuna a Yeghalaiv. Since they were fatherless orphans with no money, Dhuryodhan could have ordered Dhrona to collect his guru dhakshana from the Pandavas as thumb, fingers or legs. But he or his family did not do that. They simply paid for the Pandava's education and growth, which was their only mistake. They had forgotten that they were themselves the descendants of a fisher-woman. Dhuryodhan had passed on that memory by making Karna as King Of Angh.
The Pandavas were smart and wicked not to do so. They called the nanny and demanded the thumb of Yeghaiva through Dhrona. Did Dhrona did that cruel act for himself? Did he want the thumb as a souveneir for himself ? Was it not the Pandavas' greed and selfish nature behind this gruesome act? Were they "tactful" or "cunning" with Yeghaliv ? They had also called the nanny when Karna won the swyamwara cermony. Here you cannot say it was Draupadi who refused Karna. If that was so, how did she accept five Pandavas as husbands when her mother-in-law suggested ? So she was not an all-independent woman. I suspect the the Pandava lobby to have played a big-role in Karna's denial of Draupadi.
Pandavas' lack of virtue was the main reason for Kauravas hatred :
Such gruesome attitude of the Pandavas should have been the main cause for the hatred Dhuryodhana developed in his childhood. Duryodhana's family paid for the Pandava's education only for them to destroy their family after they grew-up. Contrast them with the nature and attitude of Karna or Yeghalaiv. Look at their devoted, unconditional loyalty to the King. But he never saw that unconditional devotion from the Pandavas. As orphans, Dhuryodhana and Co paid for their food and education. Even otherwise, according to the Dharma of those days, one cannot insult the King. These orphans had insulted the Prince several times during the Guru Kula. Well, orphans living at the expense of someone and dis-respecting them ! So his hatred to them is justifiable.
Who was the rightful heir to the throne ? The Pandavas or Kauravas ?
First of all people are not a King's belongings as described in Mahabhrath. They are not slaves to be owned and ruled. The current view about the Head Of The State as the First Servant is far superior to the views given in Mahabharath where the King owns the people. Husbands owned their wives. Compare that to the modern trend that people own the servant and the women count no less than men to decide who will rule and who will not. In modern view, no one has the right to gamble and lose the country or wife. So much was the Pandava'sr love for their people and women, they gambled them. And we are venerating them as heroes ! So be it. Even then, are the Pandavas really the heir to the throne ?
Are the Pandavas heirs on moral grounds ?
Sorry for going all over the place. Ok. Coming to the point. Even if we accept (little hard for me though ?) the old-age idea that men and women could be owned, sold or gambled, how can the Pandavas be the rightful heirs of Bharath ? It was Bhishma who was the real heir morally speaking. (And you call him wicked too! ) Pandavas' forefathers had taken the Kingdom though treachery, selfishness and seduction. So morally, he deserved to be the King. But he himself was, till the end, loyal to Dhuryodhan, however bad he might have been. So on ethical grounds Pandavas should not have claimed for the Kingdom against Bhishma's own wishes. When Bhishma himself serves Dhridhrashtr how can can they claim the throne on moral grounds ?
Are Pandavas heirs on legal grounds ?
So we all understand ethics and Pandavas do not go together ? So let us consider who is the legal heir. The Dhridh's father had some three sons. Dhridh was the oldest. So he was the legal heir. Though he was blind, he was quite an able administrator unlike Pandu who was not capable of ruling owing to health reasons. So Dhridh was THE KING. Period. And it is upto him and his son to give the Kingdom to Pandavas or not. (Remember it is not a living space that they were denied. They were denied the right to rule. Is it so difficult for them to live a ordinary man's life ?)
So if Dhridh and Co. wished not to give a pin-head space to the Pandavas to rule, so must it be. Period. Simply that was the law of the land those days. I feel Dhuryodhan should have been a little tactful and eliminated the siblings of Pandu even when they were kids. But the benevolent Dhuryodhan did not do that. Had it been the Pandavas in his position, they would have given horrible deaths to the Kaurava kids. After-all see how they took the thumb of Yeghaliva when they saw him as a potential threat !
Pandavas' lived at the mercy of Dhuryodhan; Paid by the poor for their luxories, in Indraprast:
During the time they were given the rule of Indra-Prastha how did they live ? Lazy and luxurious. Their palace was more luxurious than the one at Hastinapur. Dhuryodhan, the King Of Kings, at Hastinapur, the capital of Bharath, did not live such a life ! What does it ring in your head ? Could not the Emperor Dhuryodhan who owned the Pandavas themselves, built 100 such palaces a year if he wanted ? Could it not be Dhuryodhan's people-centric tendency that could have prompted him to plan and take back Indraprastha from them ? It was not from the Central Hastinapur's funds, so the only other way they could have got is by extorting the poor people of Indraprasta.
As if that was not enough, they insulted the rightful heir of the empire, when he made a visit to Indraprast. If the President of India is insulted in Punjab will you not consider it as an act of rebellion or Raj drogh ? Does this not stand as a proof of their rebellious intentions ? And what did you expect Dhuryodhana to do with them ? The orphans had repaid the mercy showered upon them by insulting the benevolent Dhuryodhana and Co.
If you lose something in gamble, can you call nanny and ask it back ?
In anycase, after losing their Kingdom and Wife to Kauravas in the gamble, what right they had got to ask for it after 14 years ? If you lose something in gambling, will you ask for it after umpteen years ? Did they pledge their belongings just for 14 years ? They had pledged it forever isn't it ? So Dhuryodhan had the right to keep them out of the Kingdom forever. It is shame and unethical on Pandavas to expect they will be given back the Kingdom they had lost so they can live a lavish life forever afterwards.
Who started the bloody war ?
Dhuryodhana did not start the war.The war was called-upon by Pandavas. He could have killed them when they were kids. But he did not. Thus he had proved he was virtuous. But see what they did to him. They killed each one of the Kauravas and his supporters, including Bhishma, who was the moral heir to the throne.
Dhuryodhana was a great leader:
See the loyalty Dhuryodhana secured from his brothers and others. Everyone of them was a patriot. They knew who was a better King and a person. A cunning, greedy and jealous person can never command loyalty of the people to their death. A cunning person will not be able to secure the support of his own brothers. Simply his leadership was amazing and adorable. The image and nature of the leader is very vital for the morale of his people. See how Karna, Bhishma, Dhrona, Shakuni and Kripacharya one by one laid their life for the Charismatic Dhuryodhana. Simply Pandava and Co. did not demonstrate that leadership or adorability anywhere in Mahabharath.
On Krishna's support to Pandavas :He sided the Pandavas owing to the relationship he had with Arjuna through Subhatra. Not really based on righteousness. Remember, his brother was siding Dhuryodhana for the same reason. So also was Shakuni. In anyway you see, it was an internal fratricidal feud. Nothing was for the cause of "righteousness".
Winners are always "good" in history :In short it is really the winning of the war seems to have made the Pandavas heroes. Was any winner of war ever was bad in history ? Just because the pento-group won, they were acclaimed as heroes subsequently. Who would have paid the bills for Vyasa if he was sitting and praising the lost Kauravas ? But today, we are not in any compulsion to acknowledge them as heroes . So why are we praising them and condemning Kauravas ?
Mahabharatha, the greatest tragedy ever told:
You call a drama as "tragedy" based on who you consider as a hero. Here Dhuryodhan should be the hero. That way Mahabharatha is the greatest tragedy ever told, todate.
Pandavas need to be seen as anti-establishment elements and nothingelse. The bad men can be forgiven. But no one will forgive us if we condemn and curse the good. For the Pandavas , Kauravas & Co were bad. But not for the common people of those days and today correct ? Why should we curse Dhuryodhana and praise the Pandavas ? If anything, we must do vice-a-versa.
