Which MAHABHARTA character is most liked by you and why?

[amritameerut01]

I heard for the first time that Duryodhana fought for his RIGHT ... Right for what ? Right of greed, right of power, right of corruption, right of deception, right of selfishness, right of ..... oooops i am running out of words about his RIGHTS.

Why the hell on this Earth people like Bheeshma had to fight for Duryodhana ? Bheeshma was loyal to the throne of Hastinapur and he fought for that bravely and honestly. Nobody can doubt his loyality towards the Kuru Dynasty.

Duryodhana’s Right to the throne of Hastinapur. Don’t you think that Duryodhana should be crowned as the next king of Hastinapur, being the eldest son of the King Dhritrashtra. (as per the custom that time).
Just think for a while why Mahabharat happened at all. The reason was the Throne. Pandavas are not suppose to make so hue and cry for the throne...

Duryodhana was not a bad man. I don’t know how many of us know his real name. His name was Suyodhana but to portray him as a negative character, all start calling him Duryodhan...

Bheeshma, Drona have a soft corner for Pandavas from the beginning. Suyodhan had to bear partiality since his childhood. Bheeshma had the power and courage to kill Pandavas but he didn’t…….why????......Bcz he was partial

 

[chandra16]

Duryodhana’s Right to the throne of Hastinapur. Don’t you think that Duryodhana should be crowned as the next king of Hastinapur, being the eldest son of the King Dhritrashtra. (as per the custom that time).
Just think for a while why Mahabharat happened at all. The reason was the Throne. Pandavas are not suppose to make so hue and cry for the throne...

Duryodhana was not a bad man. I don’t know how many of us know his real name. His name was Suyodhana but to portray him as a negative character, all start calling him Duryodhan...

Bheeshma, Drona have a soft corner for Pandavas from the beginning. Suyodhan had to bear partiality since his childhood. Bheeshma had the power and courage to kill Pandavas but he didn’t…….why????......Bcz he was partial

I beg to differ with you on two points:
· Duryodhana’s Right to the throne of Hastinapur- Duryodhana was never the right candidate. Reason being his father's incompetence for the throne. As per the shastras, a prince who is handicap (physically/mentally) is never supposed to be crowned as king. That was the only reason why Pandu was crowned. But unfortunately destiny did not favour Pandu and he had to return the crown to Duryodhana’s father. Bhishma could have taken the decision to serve the Hastinapur without the king but he knew that if he did so then there were strong chances that the entire bharatvansh would be in trouble. It was Dhritrasthra’s blind love for his son and his ambitions which made Duryodhana an all time villain.
· Reason of Mahabharat- Draupadi was the sole reason.

 

[vijay]

Duryodhana’s Right to the throne of Hastinapur. Don’t you think that Duryodhana should be crowned as the next king of Hastinapur, being the eldest son of the King Dhritrashtra. (as per the custom that time).
Just think for a while why Mahabharat happened at all. The reason was the Throne. Pandavas are not suppose to make so hue and cry for the throne...

Duryodhana was not a bad man. I don’t know how many of us know his real name. His name was Suyodhana but to portray him as a negative character, all start calling him Duryodhan...

Bheeshma, Drona have a soft corner for Pandavas from the beginning. Suyodhan had to bear partiality since his childhood. Bheeshma had the power and courage to kill Pandavas but he didn’t…….why????......Bcz he was partial

Duryodhana's father Dharitrashtra was not the King but was a temporary replacement for the King Pandu. Dharitrashtra was supposed to hand over the throne when eldest Son of Pandu ( Yudhishtra ) grow up. But he didn't. Instead of handling over the throne to the actual successor, blind father and his greedy son ( Suyodhana ) started playing tricks and plans to kill the Pandavas. Yudhishtra had the right for the crown but Duryodhana wanted to sit on the throne by hook or crook. I would like to suggest you to read the whole Mahabharta again. if you like to read then i can recommend few books.

Suyodhana beared partiallity ????? that's amazing ... where Kunti and her son's were treated with the statuts below than a royal family and were insulted by Duryodhana and his father. I seriously advise you to read Mahabharta once again and penned down by a well known Historian/writers.

Bheeshma had the loyality towards the throne only and didn't had any personal preferences and that's why he fought for the officail army of the Hastinapur against the Pandavas. It is ridiculous to question about the loyality of a person who dedicated and sacrificed his whole life to the throne.

 

[bagamalik]

i like BHIM mast banda tha

 

[chandra16]

Bheeshma had the loyality towards the throne only and didn't had any personal preferences and that's why he fought for the officail army of the Hastinapur against the Pandavas. It is ridiculous to question about the loyality of a person who dedicated and sacrificed his whole life to the throne.

I agree that Pitamah was loyal to the throne but it would be wrong to say that he dedicated and sacrificed everything for thr throne. He did all these because of the promise given to his mother Ganga. It was Ganga who asked Pitamah to be loyal to the throne. Thats why he was blessed with "Icha Mrityu"

 

[bagamalik]

Bheeshma had the loyality towards the throne only and didn't had any personal preferences and that's why he fought for the officail army of the Hastinapur against the Pandavas. It is ridiculous to question about the loyality of a person who dedicated and sacrificed his whole life to the throne.

I agree that Pitamah was loyal to the throne but it would be wrong to say that he dedicated and sacrificed everything for thr throne. He did all these because of the promise given to his mother Ganga. It was Ganga who asked Pitamah to be loyal to the throne. Thats why he was blessed with "Icha Mrityu"

i think u r right

 

[vijay]

I agree that Pitamah was loyal to the throne but it would be wrong to say that he dedicated and sacrificed everything for thr throne. He did all these because of the promise given to his mother Ganga. It was Ganga who asked Pitamah to be loyal to the throne. Thats why he was blessed with "Icha Mrityu"

Well .... whomever he had given the promise is not the issue but the issue is that he dedicated and sacrificed his life for the throne. Is it right or wrong ?

I suppose that Ganga didn't asked him not to marry. Ganga didn't asked him to Kidnap princess for Chtraganda and Vichitraveerya. Ganda didn't asked him to fought for Blind and selfish King by taking side of unjustice. There are other lot of things which Ganga never asked him to do.

 

[amritameerut01]

Duryodhana's father Dharitrashtra was not the King but was a temporary replacement for the King Pandu. Dharitrashtra was supposed to hand over the throne when eldest Son of Pandu ( Yudhishtra ) grow up. But he didn't. Instead of handling over the throne to the actual successor, blind father and his greedy son ( Suyodhana ) started playing tricks and plans to kill the Pandavas. Yudhishtra had the right for the crown but Duryodhana wanted to sit on the throne by hook or crook. I would like to suggest you to read the whole Mahabharta again. if you like to read then i can recommend few books.

Suyodhana beared partiallity ????? that's amazing ... where Kunti and her son's were treated with the statuts below than a royal family and were insulted by Duryodhana and his father. I seriously advise you to read Mahabharta once again and penned down by a well known Historian/writers.

Bheeshma had the loyality towards the throne only and didn't had any personal preferences and that's why he fought for the officail army of the Hastinapur against the Pandavas. It is ridiculous to question about the loyality of a person who dedicated and sacrificed his whole life to the throne.

Thanks for your suggestion. But those books too carry the story the way you know or most of us know. But nobody thinks the other way round.

Firstly, Pandu was the replacement for his elder brother Dhritrashtra due to his blindness as Dhritrashtra was the eldest son of Vichitravirya.. But again, when Pandu was dethrowned (as he killed a Bhrahmin couple), Dhritrashtra was crowned as the King. Now Dhritrashtra’s elder son was Suyodhan. So automatically, he was suppose to be the king. (not saying that he was the right candidate or not)

Shantanu (King of Hastinapur)
His Sons : Elder : Chitrangada (Throwned but dies childless )
Younger : Vichitravirya (Who was then crowned)

Vichitravirya’s Sons Elder : Dhritrashtra
Younger : Pandu


Dhritrashtra’s Son Elder : Suyodhna/ Duryodhana

 

[ajayrohtak]

my personal favorite
Bheeshma

 

[chandra16]

Well .... whomever he had given the promise is not the issue but the issue is that he dedicated and sacrificed his life for the throne. Is it right or wrong ?

I suppose that Ganga didn't asked him not to marry. Ganga didn't asked him to Kidnap princess for Chtraganda and Vichitraveerya. Ganda didn't asked him to fought for Blind and selfish King by taking side of unjustice. There are other lot of things which Ganga never asked him to do.

I partially agree with you. I just wanted to highlight the point that whatever pitamh did for Hastinapur was not his wish. It was his mother's promise which kept him serving the throne throughout his life.

Whatever good deeds Pitamah did was because of his loyalty. But whatever bad deeds he did was nothing but the side effects of his loyalty. Hope now you would agree with me...

 

[amritameerut01]

I beg to differ with you on two points:
· Duryodhana’s Right to the throne of Hastinapur


· Reason of Mahabharat-Draupadi was the sole reason.

Though he may not be the right candidate, but being the eldest son it was his right.

And if Draupadi was the sole reason, then that means Pandavas themselves are responsible for Mahabharat. They put Draupadi on stake, used her as a thing and played gamble on her and ultimately lost her......she was their wife....is it right for them to do this.?

And dont forget how Draupadi insulted Duryodhan by saying " Andhe ka putra andha".

 

[vijay]

Shantanu (King of Hastinapur)
His Sons : Elder : Chitrangada (Throwned but dies childless )
Younger : Vichitravirya (Who was then crowned)

For your information, i would like to update this :

Devvart ( Bheeshma ) was the eldest son of Shantanu

And yes, if even after reading Mahabharta you think like this ... then ... well .... I am off.

 

[vijay]

I partially agree with you. I just wanted to highlight the point that whatever pitamh did for Hastinapur was not his wish. It was his mother's promise which kept him serving the throne throughout his life.

Whatever good deeds Pitamah did was because of his loyalty. But whatever bad deeds he did was nothing but the side effects of his loyalty. Hope now you would agree with me...

Agree .... Absolutely

 

[chandra16]

Thanks for your suggestion. But those books too carry the story the way you know or most of us know. But nobody thinks the other way round.

Firstly, Pandu was the replacement for his elder brother Dhritrashtra due to his blindness as Dhritrashtra was the eldest son of Vichitravirya.. But again, when Pandu was dethrowned (as he killed a Bhrahmin couple), Dhritrashtra was crowned as the King. Now Dhritrashtra’s elder son was Suyodhan. So automatically, he was suppose to be the king. (not saying that he was the right candidate or not)

Shantanu (King of Hastinapur)
His Sons : Elder : Chitrangada (Throwned but dies childless )
Younger : Vichitravirya (Who was then crowned)

Vichitravirya’s Sons Elder : Dhritrashtra
Younger : Pandu


Dhritrashtra’s Son Elder : Suyodhna/ Duryodhana

Dhritrashtra was only the replacement or in other words a dummy. Nothing more than that. Pandu was the actual king so as per the rule after pandu his elder son was supposed to be the king of Hastinapur...

 

[amritameerut01]

For your information, i would like to update this :

Devvart ( Bheeshma ) was the eldest son of Shantanu

And yes, if even after reading Mahabharta you think like this ... then ... well .... I am off.

Yes .......Bheeshma was the eldest son. But he was nothing to do with the crown...... means rest of his two sons among whom Chitrangada was elder......for the thrown.

Well.........things are different if angles are different.....

 

[chandra16]

Though he may not be the right candidate, but being the eldest son it was his right.

And if Draupadi was the sole reason, then that means Pandavas themselves are responsible for Mahabharat. They put Draupadi on stake, used her as a thing and played gamble on her and ultimately lost her......she was their wife....is it right for them to do this.?

And dont forget how Draupadi insulted Duryodhan by saying " Andhe ka putra andha".[/quote]

Hey, here you come. This very statement of draupadi was the reason of Mahabharat...If you go through all the chapters carefully then you will find that the rift between pandavas and kauravas became worst after " Andhe ka putra andha"

 

[anilsinghd]

Well.........things are different if angles are different.....

Hi Amrita ,

You wrote in continuation of the poem!

but the first lines were like this :
to de do keval paanch graam
hum wahi khushi se khaayenge
parijan par asi na uthaayenge
duryodhan woh bhi de na saka
aashish samaaj ki le na saka
ulta hari ko baandhne chala
jo tha asaadhya saadhne chala



Guess if Duryodhan would have been kind enough to give just 5 villages etc , which was not that great as at least the pandavas belonged to the royal family , we could have been fine!

Logical ?

 

[amritameerut01]

Hi Amrita ,

You wrote in continuation of the poem!

but the first lines were like this :
to de do keval paanch graam
hum wahi khushi se khaayenge
parijan par asi na uthaayenge
duryodhan woh bhi de na saka
aashish samaaj ki le na saka
ulta hari ko baandhne chala
jo tha asaadhya saadhne chala



Guess if Duryodhan would have been kind enough to give just 5 villages etc , which was not that great as at least the pandavas belonged to the royal family , we could have been fine!

Logical ?

Hi Anil ,

Do u know what were those 5 villages Pandavas asked for?
wo hamare gaam jaise gaam naa maang rahe the. Chhote chhote....

Do u know the names......well one demanded was Indraprasth which covers major part of their kingdom.
Un paanch gaon me Pandavon ne lagbhag unka saara Rajya hi maang daala tha aur kahne ko kaha jaata hai ki "de do keval paanch graam".

 

[vijay]

Hi Anil ,

Do u know what were those 5 villages Pandavas asked for?
wo hamare gaam jaise gaam naa maang rahe the. Chhote chhote....

Do u know the names......well one demanded was Indraprasth which covers major part of their kingdom.
Un paanch gaon me Pandavon ne lagbhag unka saara Rajya hi maang daala tha aur kahne ko kaha jaata hai ki "de do keval paanch graam".

Please recommend me the books you have read. Your History Knowledge is so vast, factful and very informative.
I shall be thankful to you

 

[amritameerut01]

Please recommend me the books you have read. Your History Knowledge is so vast, factful and very informative.
I shall be thankful to you

Books are the same which u might have also read but nazariya alag hai....which is particular...

I am not asking you to agree with me....u may or u may not......its upto you.

Its not necessary to argue for agreements. Agree to Disagreements.