Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#11 - Page 14

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Arthashastra manusmriti etc are all pretty clear on inheritance

If two sons eldest gets family name and half of the property. While younger gets second half.

If three sons then eldest gets family name and half while remaining two sons get 1/4 each.

If more than 3 sons then again eldest gets half and family name while remaining sons get equal portion of remaining half.

Daughters do not get a share in wealth

A man is supposed to earn and keep aside 1/5 of wealth for taxes, 1/5 of wealth for charity. But if he had a daughter then the 1/5 of wealth kept for charity was to be given to daughter's husband during marriage (the root cause of dowry problem in India)

Remember Rama the Purshottam rule follower divided the kingdom into 2 and gave half each to lava and kusa.

If eldest takes the entire property then he has to accept his younger brothers as his son it becomes his responsibility to earn and arrange for wealth for all his brothers. Rama when he became King of Ayodhya he gave the territory conquered from Tadaka to Lakshmana, since Bharat recieved maternal kingdom as inheritance Rama gave his army to Shatrughana to conquer Mathura and take it over.

So Duryodhan never had full rights on Hastinapur as per Arthashastra and manusmriti he only had half. Remember Yudhishtir had 5 brothers who lived with him as his sons. Draupadi as common wife prevented the split in IP or brothers moving out to become kings

The problem in case of Yudhishtir and Duryodhan was that Pandu had been King and Dhritrashtea was never made a king and Yudhishtir was older.

A split would have happened in HP even if Pandu lived where after Duryodhan was born Pandu would have had to give him half of kuru territory.

The above is as per Arthashastra.

Chandravanshi followed a different rule.

King decides the next king. Whether it was his eldest son or younger or adopted. This was so from the time of Yayati. Yayati chose the third son. Bharat adopted. Santanu was youngest son.

Pandu died without declaring Yudhishtir Yuvaraj. Bhishma Drona Kripacharya (the elders of family didn't want him to be Yuvaraj they wanted Duryodhan. They hoped Pandu would adopt Dury. But Pandu did Niyoga because he didn't want Dhritrashtra's son.) hence the fight.

OK thanks for clarification,

@Bold I think even Duryodhan took his younger brothers (how so many they were) as his sons and therefore there was no talks about the division of his side of the kingdom.

So going by this law Duryodhan had the complete right of the Kuru lineage (family name) and half the kingdom while Yudhisthir had the right to other half without family name. Something how it happened after the partition (although Yudhisthir got lesser than what he deserved)

@Bold italics that's what their point was probably. A person seated on the throne is the king there is no doubt about it whether or not rituals were performed is immaterial.(Not sure how true this is)

Now since the king had the right to declare a Yuvaraj, he had full rights to appoint his son as one.

IMO even if we deny that logic, Pandu had not declared anyone as Yuvaraj, Dhritrashtra was given all the rights and duties of the king(irrespective of if he was or wasn't the king) and since the declaration of Yuvaraj was the duty/right of the king, I think Dhritrashtra had those irrespective of his actual status because no limit was prescribed to his rights/duties.

CE doesn't have Yuvarajabhishek of Yudhisthir so it's not like Dhritrashtra had promised/made him the same. Till the time of partition the claim of Duryodhan seems pretty strong to me (now after reading your inputs it seems stronger than that of Yudhisthir)

The actual issue then I think was the activities of Duryodhan post dice game (not just Pandav humiliation but also later denial of Indraprasth return etc.)

@last line but obviously Yudhishtir was born before Duryodhan right. Then how could they expect Pandu adopting Dury? The birth of Yudhisthir should have made them confirm about Pandu's intentions. Can't believe that people like him didn't know that Kunti had a child.

I don't dislike Bheeshm but I guess he should have raised Dury with an idea that Dury might not inherit the kingdom/will have to share it (unless Of course HRM's conspiracy theory is true and Bheeshm wanted a bloodbath and destruction of Kuru clan)

Mahabharata war was not just about the throne of Hastinapur. Because if it has been millions wouldn't have died for it.

It was a war of ideology something like the World War II and subsequent coldwar

Fascism Socialism and Communism on one side and capitalist liberal democracies on the other side.

It was in reverse in case of MB. Cold War that resulted in World War.

While kshtriaya were the ones who fought the war and died. There was a cabal of Brahmins on either side who were also fighting.

Remember Pandu abdicated and joined a group of Rishis in Rishyashringa who supported his orphaned sons get a foothold in Hastinapur. These Brahmins moved with Yudhishtir in IP and then joined him in his exile too all the way till agyatwas.

Vyasa was the main guy and Dhaumya his point man, but Rishi Maitreya, Kanva, Devala etc were there too.

Similarly Drona and Kripacharya were not the only Brahmins on the side of Duryodhan. Drona's brother Kanika was Dhritrashtra's chief advisor. Garga Parshuram Durvasa as well etc aided Dury even if not openly.

Infact the 12 year exile was just that a Cold War preceding the World War.

As Duryodhan through Karna was amassing Kings on his side. Yudhishtir visited every major Rishi and weaned them over to his side.

Is US good or evil was USSR good or evil, how was it to be decided. (victory and subsequent propaganda)

Balram makes the most significant statement just before the war which if reversed sums up my point

Where there Dharma there is Krishna and where there is Krishna there is Jaya.

Reverse this

Where there was Jaya, there was Krishna and then eventually Dharma

^^ There is a very nice saying

"Till lions learn to write, we will only have the stories of might of the hunter"

However taking into account can't say Hitler was better than Allied forces. Wouldn't you take Mahabharat in that way?

I mean post dice hall obviously Duryodhan was doing was definitely inhumane

Mahabharat was at its core a brahmin v brahmin conflict. Vasishta Varuni vs. Angirasa.

It was also a Kuru Panchal conflict.

Panchali's wedding to Yudhishtira did not happen to keep them together. It was an alliance between nations and between 2 rishi clans. Vasishta Varunis were dominating Aryavarta by then, leaving Angirasas behind. It was an attempted comeback and also an alliance to oust Jarasandh and build an empire extending sea to sea. Panchali was the linchpin holding them together.

Also, Draupadi as common wife preventing the split is merely an excuse. They could still continue under as separate kings with her traveling every year if that were the case. Madhavi did so, IIRC. not between brothers, but between kings.

Otherwise, every royal parent in Aryavarta would've been doing it. Every royal elder brother would be doing it to keep the property intact.

There is every evidence in MBh texts, polyandry was gossip first, then a tool to tear down Panchali.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Hmm true

They actually gave rules from Arthashastra that the family wealth is inherited by the eldest son of the eldest son unless this person has any deformity (it's not about capability and obviously we know Duryodhan wasn't less capable an administrator than Yudhisthir)

Aside they said that one who sits on the throne is the king, king regents aren't allowed on throne(while answering someone who said that Dhritrashtra was made king for time being in absence of the real king without any ritual).

(I personally think that this was then probably the reason why Bharat denied sitting on the throne while administrating the kingdom independently, probably he wanted to avoid such confusions later)

There were other rules too that they got, but obviously it was their view, many of us have different view and even they asked us judge for ourselves (I haven't completely read Arthashastra so can't comment as of now)

However our discussions here and then their explanations so make me wonder

Sometimes I do feel was Duryodhana really the biggest of all times? Or was he just the biggest looser made into the villain. May be he was just trying to get his own kingdom for himself

Yes obviously I don't get too much into it. My statement was partially to appreciate the writer of the epic who made it such that even after multiple iterations we still feel connected to the characters and that too after ages of its composition

Are you referring to “Arthshastra” by Kautilya?

Duryodhan lived like a king for most of his life and died in a battle, He wasn’t a loser if you look at his life, he didnt face any hardship, I don’t think he was as bad as Karna or Yudi, I don’t even hate him and yes, the throne was rightfully his as his father was the king

People small confusion, please share the citation if possible

Did Duryodhan himself chose Bheem as his opponent in the final battle or was it Krishna who suggested that it should be Bheem if it's the mace fight should happen?

If it's the latter then Duryodhan uselessly appreciated for choosing an equal opponent. He would have been definitely willing to chose Nakul/Sahdev

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Are you referring to “Arthshastra” by Kautilya?

Duryodhan lived like a king for most of his life and died in a battle, He wasn’t a loser if you look at his life, he didnt face any hardship, I don’t think he was as bad as Karna or Yudi, I don’t even hate him and yes, the throne was rightfully his as his father was the king

Dhritharashtra was never king. King's eldest son doesn't automatically become king. He needs to be coronated, which never happened. Krishna acrually points it out.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

People small confusion, please share the citation if possible

Did Duryodhan himself chose Bheem as his opponent in the final battle or was it Krishna who suggested that it should be Bheem if it's the mace fight should happen?

If it's the latter then Duryodhan uselessly appreciated for choosing an equal opponent. He would have been definitely willing to chose Nakul/Sahdev

Yudhishtira offered whoever Duryodhan picked would fight him.

Krishna got really angry and called Yudhishtira a fool finally.

Thanks to Duryodhan wanting a glorious victory, he picked Bheema.

None of it was out of any good intentions. He knew he was done for anyway and wanted the glory of defeating Bheema finally.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Are you referring to “Arthshastra” by Kautilya?

Duryodhan lived like a king for most of his life and died in a battle, He wasn’t a loser if you look at his life, he didnt face any hardship, I don’t think he was as bad as Karna or Yudi, I don’t even hate him and yes, the throne was rightfully his as his father was the king

Yes Kautilya's Arthashastra. Chiillii explained the things better and that clears much of my confusion

Coming to Duryodhan I wouldn't have called him a loser if it was till Karna Parva, yes he kept his zeal alive and everything but the Shalya Parva and especially his end.....

He fled the battlefield (worst thing for a warrior to do) hid himself in water not coming out despite his general's insistence. Asked Yudhisthir to take away the kingdom since he didn't want it anymore (like come on your insistence killed so many and now when it's about your life you want to save yourself)

And not just that his end wasn't that of someone great either. The fall of Bheeshm, death of Drona, Karna and even Shalya was filled with Valor, what about Duryodhan--He wasn't killed but was left bleeding and injured in midst of a forest all alone. No one was there to cater to him. Even his own team members (Ashwathama Kritvarma and Kripacharya) didn't find it important to at least take him from there and at least provide him a death of honor. They just left him bleeding.

He might have lived like a king but definitely died a loser (IMO)

People generally say that this one Parva shows the greatness of Duryodhan (probably because the supposed Pushpvarsha by gods at his fall) but I actually feel that this one Parva is in contrast to his character of someone who might have been bad but always confident about his deeds.

He was someone who always felt that he was doing the right thing and from his side stood up for what he felt was right, and seemed like someone ready to give up his life for something he considered was right, fought for his brothers, made friends and remained selfless for them.

But the end changed it all, he genuinely seems like some escapist who was extremely selfish

Mayb its only me, but I didn't dislike him till now, but his end actually made me dislke him