Huge ambitions but...

Dhridurashtra is no doubt a strong warrior but that his just his strength. A question always has bugged me.. Would Dhridrashtra not be the person he was if he had been made King? Was his need to hold on to the throne only because he lost it to Pandu?

I do not think so. Dhridrashtra was always weak.. in mind and in his confidence about his abilities. He was too much worried about what others thought of him to actually do the right thing. The way he felt slighted by Gandhari's act of blindfolding herself is just the tip of the ice.. Anything that Dhridhrashtra feels is mocking him, he acts without reason and without thinking things through..

That is what happened.

However it was very short sighted of Rajmatha to want to make him king only because... as she herself accepts, what will Dhridurashtra do otherwise? He is blind. He cannot be made a Senathipathi to the army.. Nor is he as learned as Vidura to become the chief minister/adviser to the king..
So by rejecting of the roles available, Dhridurashtra is to be pronounced king..

But is that correct when taking a kingdom into account? A king defines the Kingdom. It cannot be expected that Bhishm will always be there (he will be, but Satyavati does not know that😊). Her decision to make her grandson happy only makes him worse.. It makes him hungry for the throne which was never his..

Now coming to Dhridhrashtra.. This man is someone who can face the greatest of fighters but still has doubts about his own abilities. He has a huge dose of self pity and the confidence he has in himself is completely overshadowed by the doubts that assail him about what others think of his blindness and how they react to it..

Like Bhishm so well said, a king who cannot come to terms with his own blindness will never be able to be able to come to terms with his subjects.. Dhridhrashtra considers anything that goes against what he wanted as a slight to him.. He is afraid that people are always mocking him and his disability behind his back. He is emotional and often stubborn when it comes to rationalizing things..

Considering this, will making Pandu his Senathipathi and Vidhur, his minister before making him King be of any use? A King is the Supreme.. If Dhridhrashtra is king, his words will be supreme, no matter what..
Will he accept Vidhura who he considers beneath him (or is he actually frightened that Vidura is a threat to him? ). Will he accept and acknowledge Pandu and his abilities?

Nope.. Even if Dhridrashtra had been made King, he would still be the insecure and weak person that he was.. Nothing would have changed that fact.

So wasn't Satyavati too short sighted to suggest and insist on something that would only ruin her entire family?

Originally posted by: Justlikethat1

Dhridurashtra is no doubt a strong warrior but that his just his strength. A question always has bugged me.. Would Dhridrashtra not be the person he was if he had been made King? Was his need to hold on to the throne only because he lost it to Pandu?

I do not think so. Dhridrashtra was always weak.. in mind and in his confidence about his abilities. He was too much worried about what others thought of him to actually do the right thing. The way he felt slighted by Gandhari's act of blindfolding herself is just the tip of the ice.. Anything that Dhridhrashtra feels is mocking him, he acts without reason and without thinking things through..

That is what happened.

However it was very short sighted of Rajmatha to want to make him king only because... as she herself accepts, what will Dhridurashtra do otherwise? He is blind. He cannot be made a Senathipathi to the army.. Nor is he as learned as Vidura to become the chief minister/adviser to the king..
So by rejecting of the roles available, Dhridurashtra is to be pronounced king..

But is that correct when taking a kingdom into account? A king defines the Kingdom. It cannot be expected that Bhishm will always be there (he will be, but Satyavati does not know that😊). Her decision to make her grandson happy only makes him worse.. It makes him hungry for the throne which was never his..

Now coming to Dhridhrashtra.. This man is someone who can face the greatest of fighters but still has doubts about his own abilities. He has a huge dose of self pity and the confidence he has in himself is completely overshadowed by the doubts that assail him about what others think of his blindness and how they react to it..

Like Bhishm so well said, a king who cannot come to terms with his own blindness will never be able to be able to come to terms with his subjects.. Dhridhrashtra considers anything that goes against what he wanted as a slight to him.. He is afraid that people are always mocking him and his disability behind his back. He is emotional and often stubborn when it comes to rationalizing things..

Considering this, will making Pandu his Senathipathi and Vidhur, his minister before making him King be of any use? A King is the Supreme.. If Dhridhrashtra is king, his words will be supreme, no matter what..
Will he accept Vidhura who he considers beneath him (or is he actually frightened that Vidura is a threat to him? ). Will he accept and acknowledge Pandu and his abilities?

Nope.. Even if Dhridrashtra had been made King, he would still be the insecure and weak person that he was.. Nothing would have changed that fact.

So wasn't Satyavati too short sighted to suggest and insist on something that would only ruin her entire family?

beautifully put 👏 you said it so perfectly

But don't go by this Mahabharat and read actual Mahabharat
they have exaggerate every point they are showing and twisted the story to suit their purpose. When it cam to politics Bheeshm was the one who took decision and not Raj mata she would always consult with Bheeshm and not thrust her orders on him.

And it was always with advise of sages things would happen and yes everyone wanted Dhritrashtra to be the king but vidhur stopped it according to the shaastra

Today while watching Mahabharat I felt so bad that Bheeshm put his own life in this woman's hands and she ruined it and redused him as a mere servant but in actual Mahabharat Bheeshm was a pillar of strength 😊

Originally posted by: rasyafan

beautifully put 👏 you said it so perfectly

But don't go by this Mahabharat and read actual Mahabharat
they have exaggerate every point they are showing and twisted the story to suit their purpose. When it cam to politics Bheeshm was the one who took decision and not Raj mata she would always consult with Bheeshm and not thrust her orders on him.

And it was always with advise of sages things would happen and yes everyone wanted Dhritrashtra to be the king but vidhur stopped it according to the shaastra

Today while watching Mahabharat I felt so bad that Bheeshm put his own life in this woman's hands and she ruined it and redused him as a mere servant but in actual Mahabharat Bheeshm was a pillar of strength 😊

Thank you😛

I was just trying to see from the current shows PoV.. Anyway, Satyavati was one of the best women in Mahabharath.. She is supposed to have been against her fathers wishes and even asked Bhishm to take back his vow but Bhishm would not do that.. Satyavathi was ever so grateful to Bhishm that she always backed him until she remained in the kingdom😊

While Satyavathi was always consulted, all in the decisions of the kingdom which solely rested with Bhishm until the king was declared. It was this urgency of Bhishm to give up the role that made him the person almost ruling the kingdom, that he wanted one of Vichitraveer's sons to be king.

Dhridhratra's disability was discussed in detail even then and it was decided that they would go ahead with it because everyone was worried about what Dhridhrastra would feel. The mothers did not realize the rule while Bhishm and Satyavati surely did.. Satyavati feared that her family would go apart and it did happen as she feared..

While it was Bhishm's decision, he also made sure to consult the sages and ministers. No one would say what they felt except Vidhura, who would go on and be the impartial Minister till the end. It would be his Dharam to say what was right and wrong and he goes on doing it. It was to the credit of Bhishm and the rest that they accepted Vidhura's words.

Although very distressful to Dhridrashtra, they considered that it was better in the wrong run.. But no one had thought about Shaguni and the impact he would have on his BIL and later his nephews😊

Originally posted by: Justlikethat1

Thank you😛

I was just trying to see from the current shows PoV.. Anyway, Satyavati was one of the best women in Mahabharath.. She is supposed to have been against her fathers wishes and even asked Bhishm to take back his vow but Bhishm would not do that.. Satyavathi was ever so grateful to Bhishm that she always backed him until she remained in the kingdom😊

While Satyavathi was always consulted, all in the decisions of the kingdom which solely rested with Bhishm until the king was declared. It was this urgency of Bhishm to give up the role that made him the person almost ruling the kingdom, that he wanted one of Vichitraveer's sons to be king.

Dhridhratra's disability was discussed in detail even then and it was decided that they would go ahead with it because everyone was worried about what Dhridhrastra would feel. The mothers did not realize the rule while Bhishm and Satyavati surely did.. Satyavati feared that her family would go apart and it did happen as she feared..

While it was Bhishm's decision, he also made sure to consult the sages and ministers. No one would say what they felt except Vidhura, who would go on and be the impartial Minister till the end. It would be his Dharam to say what was right and wrong and he goes on doing it. It was to the credit of Bhishm and the rest that they accepted Vidhura's words.

Although very distressful to Dhridrashtra, they considered that it was better in the wrong run.. But no one had thought about Shaguni and the impact he would have on his BIL and later his nephews😊

👏😆 again you explained that so beautifully and correctly and this is how things actually happened not the way they are showing in Star plus mahabharat

No one thought that things would end this way or may be Bheeshm did but he was unable to stop it from being happening anyway as they say Vidhi Ka Vidhan kon roke sankta hai

Yes Satyavati was a great Queen and always she would follow rules and she tried to do her best
may be like most girls she also dreamt of being married to a king or a prince but it was her father who was more ambitious not her

This mahabharat missed this

and a mother or a grand mother would take more care of her handicap child and she would do anything to keep him safe and from being hurt may be it wa this reason that made Satyavati want to make Dhritrashtra a king.

I guess she thought like a grand mother 😊 but not the way they showed it today

Don't understand why the channel and the PH are exaggerating with History. They should follow the real story instead of showing their own.

Originally posted by: fatssrilanka

Don't understand why the channel and the PH are exaggerating with History. They should follow the real story instead of showing their own.

So many viewers who have read Mahabharat are asking the same thing so the 100 dollor question is WHY ARE THEY SHOWING HEROES AND HEROINES OF MAHABHARAT IN SUCH A DEGRADING MANNER????

I CERTAINLY AM

MAY BE DHRITRASHTRA LEFT GANDHARI BUT I AM SURE NOT THIS WAY THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TODAY???? AND GANDHARI WAS A STRONG LADY NOT THIS BECHARI SORT THE HEROINE OF THIS STAR PLUS MAHABHARAT

Originally posted by: rasyafan

So many viewers who have read Mahabharat are asking the same thing so the 100 dollor question is WHY ARE THEY SHOWING HEROES AND HEROINES OF MAHABHARAT IN SUCH A DEGRADING MANNER????

I CERTAINLY AM

MAY BE DHRITRASHTRA LEFT GANDHARI BUT I AM SURE NOT THIS WAY THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SHOWN TODAY???? AND GANDHARI WAS A STRONG LADY NOT THIS BECHARI SORT THE HEROINE OF THIS STAR PLUS MAHABHARAT

Just my PoV.. But I think this new take puts a lot of emphasis on what would have happened emotionally rather than just presenting the facts as such.

Mahabharatha as the Epic was about humans, their actions and the reactions.. Karma and Dharma.. What one did and what happened in exchange..😊

Now as a soap, one has to exaggerate as that makes us believe why a Prince or King reacted the way he or she did. This is just another perspective on why it happened the way it did.

Yes.. Making Satyavati a mercenary queen is really not the way to go for Satyavati was really a woman of great sense and respect. That is not good. But with Gandhari and Dhridhrashtra.. Their relation was always one that was hard to understand..

Pandu, we know was in awe of Kunthi but what was Gandhari and Dhridhrashtra's relation? Both supported each other but neither could Gandhari make her husband see sense, nor could she stop her brother's influence.. So one really wonders.. Wasn't their relationship as strong as it should have been?😳

Originally posted by: Justlikethat1

Just my PoV.. But I think this new take puts a lot of emphasis on what would have happened emotionally rather than just presenting the facts as such.

Mahabharatha as the Epic was about humans, their actions and the reactions.. Karma and Dharma.. What one did and what happened in exchange..😊

Now as a soap, one has to exaggerate as that makes us believe why a Prince or King reacted the way he or she did. This is just another perspective on why it happened the way it did.

Yes.. Making Satyavati a mercenary queen is really not the way to go for Satyavati was really a woman of great sense and respect. That is not good. But with Gandhari and Dhridhrashtra.. Their relation was always one that was hard to understand..

Pandu, we know was in awe of Kunthi but what was Gandhari and Dhridhrashtra's relation? Both supported each other but neither could Gandhari make her husband see sense, nor could she stop her brother's influence.. So one really wonders.. Wasn't their relationship as strong as it should have been?😳

If their relationship would have been strong then dhritrashtra would have listened to her rather then Shakuni.

He a powerful king who could hear from his ears rather then his eyes better then any person who could see, how come he could not recognize a cunning fox in his house and his life ?????

Yes I can understand exxaggeration but not twisting facts and lying through out and in this mahabharat they are lying 😡 well this exxaggeration for me is as good as lying

everybody in mahabharat was a person who followed norms and values even satyavati according to their circumstances but as they say dwarpar yug was standing on 3 pillars of adharm and one pillar of dharm so there was this imbalance adharm more

yet each tried to do his duty well and even had grey shades sometimes would get selfish or rather could not recognize what is wrong or what is right eg bheeshm yudhisthar satyavati etc but then there were people who were outright adharm and only followed adharm did adharmi karm eg duryodhan and shakuni and 99 rest of sons but then there were two people who did only dharm and only dharm
but got in between adharm and dharm and tried to make dharm win over adharm
these two creatures were Shri krishan and Maharishi Ved Vyas ji 👏

😃

Originally posted by: rasyafan

If their relationship would have been strong then dhritrashtra would have listened to her rather then Shakuni.

He a powerful king who could hear from his ears rather then his eyes better then any person who could see, how come he could not recognize a cunning fox in his house and his life ?????

Yes I can understand exxaggeration but not twisting facts and lying through out and in this mahabharat they are lying 😡 well this exxaggeration for me is as good as lying

everybody in mahabharat was a person who followed norms and values even satyavati according to their circumstances but as they say dwarpar yug was standing on 3 pillars of adharm and one pillar of dharm so there was this imbalance adharm more

yet each tried to do his duty well and even had grey shades sometimes would get selfish or rather could not recognize what is wrong or what is right eg bheeshm yudhisthar satyavati etc but then there were people who were outright adharm and only followed adharm did adharmi karm eg duryodhan and shakuni and 99 rest of sons but then there were two people who did only dharm and only dharm
but got in between adharm and dharm and tried to make dharm win over adharm
these two creatures were Shri krishan and Maharishi Ved Vyas ji 👏

😃

Dhridhrashtra was a powerful King but a weak man. Shaguni told him what Dhridhrastra wanted to hear and not what was right. Hence the king trusted this man because he heard what he wanted. Others would tell him he was wrong. Shaguni would tell him he was right and give him reasons too for that matter. 😊 He was cunning and very intelligent. He played the servant to Dhridhrastra and made him his puppet. Next was Duryodana..

Very well said about Dharam and Adharam👏 Even those who were evil in Mahabharatha had their good points. No person according to Vedas can be totally evil. Their actions define them. Some do good more than bad and are considered good. Some do bad more than good and are considered bad..

We have the pandavas who fall in category one and Kauravas in category 2. But the balance between good vs. bad in someone is the only thing that would make them who they are.. Not individual actions as such😊 That is what MB teaches us.

Originally posted by: Justlikethat1

Dhridhrashtra was a powerful King but a weak man. Shaguni told him what Dhridhrastra wanted to hear and not what was right. Hence the king trusted this man because he heard what he wanted. Others would tell him he was wrong. Shaguni would tell him he was right and give him reasons too for that matter. 😊 He was cunning and very intelligent. He played the servant to Dhridhrastra and made him his puppet. Next was Duryodana..

Very well said about Dharam and Adharam👏 Even those who were evil in Mahabharatha had their good points. No person according to Vedas can be totally evil. Their actions define them. Some do good more than bad and are considered good. Some do bad more than good and are considered bad..

We have the pandavas who fall in category one and Kauravas in category 2. But the balance between good vs. bad in someone is the only thing that would make them who they are.. Not individual actions as such😊 That is what MB teaches us.

very well put 👏 as you said Shakuni spoke what dhritrashtra wanted to hear and Gandhari had a good idea about it but she was powerless in front of Dhritrashtra somehow her husbadn lost all confidence in her I guess because she was more blind then him and he realised this and becasue of this he himself became blind due to his over ambitions which were aired regularly by Shakuni and his Putra moh

but he loved Pandu very much and his kids too but but but ...till the end this "but" always remained there between him and pandu sons even after the War when Bheem went to meet him he wanted to kill Bheem for killing his most beloved child and that also dhokhe se

sheer waste of such great people :D

they say Bheeshm Pitamah lived for 325 years

and Shri Krishn for 125 yrs