Do you think our Indian Kings were stupid? - Page 4

though u r rite vibhishna dat 2 4give an enemy is really v.difficult & only a person wid large heart & powerful kingdom cud hav done so. at dat time if  any indian king hav done cheating wid da Khilji type of enemy den may b he wasn't praised but wen history is written nobody "ll question abt it as it is  apparent in 2days history books.even we r saying & discussing abt stupidity. rn't we also saying Indian kings were stupid just bcoz of it

Originally posted by: tiny15

 

and moreover best e.g of it is Mahabharata, everybody knows Pandavas too won by using treacherous methods but we don't criticise dem though sum ppl do but its always likely dat sum ppl hav tendency 2 justify bad ppl like Duryodhana.

 

and wat shud we call Lord Krishna.wasn't he asked Pandavas 2 use such methods bcoz sumtimes its bcum necessary 2 employ evil methods 2 root out evils as da saying goes in hindi"jehar ko jehar hi katata hai" or diamond cuts diamond.if it was wrong den why Lord himself asked ppl 2 not tolerate injustice & give da wrongdoer his own dose of cheating!!!!  

Hadn't thought about this, you are very right! I remember Krishnaji telling Bhim to attack Dushashan or Duryodhan's thighs to defeat him, which isn't allowed in warfare. Thanks for pointing it out tiny!

Originally posted by: tiny15

though u r rite vibhishna dat 2 4give an enemy is really v.difficult & only a person wid large heart & powerful kingdom cud hav done so. at dat time if  any indian king hav done cheating wid da Khilji type of enemy den may b he wasn't praised but wen history is written nobody "ll question abt it as it is  apparent in 2days history books.even we r saying & discussing abt stupidity. rn't we also saying Indian kings were stupid just bcoz of it

 

Good points tiny15 😊

Many consider it as stupidity - sometimes even the kings who did it themselves may have considered so - but I feel the decision was not that simple. Even though they were considered stupid by many they were at peace that they have fought the war bravely and fairly and the enemy had to resort to trickery to defeat them and could not defeat them directly. I think they deserve a praise for being so proud and honourable. But I don't blame the others who did resort to trickery to win only after the enemy had. The decision was the king's and we have to understand in what situations they had to take it. But the thing is I cannot recall reading in any of the history books about a king who used trickery to deal with a back-stabbing enemy. There might have been kings who did that but they were not mentioned.

Originally posted by: sattvik

Hadn't thought about this, you are very right! I remember Krishnaji telling Bhim to attack Dushashan or Duryodhan's thighs to defeat him, which isn't allowed in warfare. Thanks for pointing it out tiny!

That is exactly what I kept saying - Duryodhan is still remembered because he never hit Bheem back on his thigh just because Bheem tricked him. Aren't we still praising him even though he lost his life? Do we call Duryodhan stupid? No - we still remember him for not resorting to unfair means in that last one war. That does not nullyify his past wrongdoings but he is still remembered for fighting fair in that last one battle.

Even if Lord Krishna did not suggest it Bheem would have hit Duryodhan on the thigh as he had vowed to do so when Draupadi was humiliated.

Mahabharat was a huge and historic war but since Lord Krishna was considered God, no one considers it as base trickery. Not only that but Mahabharat needs a deeper understanding than any other epic or history that is ever written.

I had so far thought that Lord Krishna's methods were not trickery but just as close a substitute for being fair. Only Karna's death needed too many preplaned events.

u r rite dat Duryodhana may b remembered 4 it but if u ask any unbiased sane & just person abt him being fair & abt da way he died, nobody"ll b saying dat he didn't deserve da way he died. no doubt he was brave too,even Pandavas said it too.but he never praised Pandavas gudness & rather he used it 4 his selfishness. 

1 more thing , abt Karna though basically he was gud but he supported evil& even wen Draupdi was being humilated he called her prostitute. i know many pply justify it by saying dat she called Karna a Sutaputra but dis was not a big reason 2 call her by such names. also he was involved in treachareous killing of Abhimanyu. 

I agree that Duryodhan was evil and he deserved to be killed in the end. But I was just saying that he is still remembered for being fair in the last battle. As I had said before that does not nullify his previous wrongdoings.

I also agree regarding Karna the only two mistakes he did was to side with evil (and participate in their plans giving them his full support) and humiliate Draupadi. Eventhough Draupadi did humiliate him before that was no reason to abuse her in front of her own family and elders.

The discussion had gone to Mahabharat 😊

What is sutaputra? Is it an insult from Draupadi to Karna?

at her swayamvar Draupdi stopped Karna by saying him dat she didn't want 2 marry a Sutaputra( it means he was son of suta or sarathi or charioteer)bcoz she was afraid of winning by Karna & she didn't want 2 get married 2 him. in earlier times one's occupation  decides one's caste & every caste was not dat much lowly & even  sarathi was considered as  sumwat high but wid time birth decides one's caste & not da occupation as its 2day. though she insulted Karna by stopping him but it was not da reason 2 insult her by calling her prostitute.