Huge ambitions but... - Page 2

Hmm i dont think they are twisiting any facts.As far as facts go i have read Mahabhart i doint think they are showing any facts wrongly.Yes characters and incidents that led to those facts have been altered but not the facts themselves.This is CV's interpretaion of how character's would have reacted emotionally and what was their POV but their actions havent been altered.Both Bheeshm and satyavati wanted dhridhrashtra to be king intially this fact hasnt been altered but the reasons that Cv's have interpreted for this is different that is all.The fact remains the same.Mahabharat is all about perspective.Facts will remain the same but diffenrent people will interpret it in diffenrent ways.

Hi Harini... 😃.. Loved your post.. Rajmata always was selfish too even in Shantanu's time..She just wanted Dhrithatrashtra to sit on the simhasan., never did think what will he do... Satyavathi just wanted that he is blind he cannot do anything else so he can be the king..He did nothing but making wrong decisions in spite of Bheeshma charya had taken the responsibility of Hastinapur.. In total Dhritharashtra was the the Khalnayak of Mahabharat, who encouraged Duryodhan in whatever he wanted to do.. sad but that's the truth.. Like Lord Krishna always said Dhritarashatra was just not physically blind, he had closed all the doors as a soul as well and did not have the ability to think the right or wrong.

@rasyafan - Dhridhrashtra did love his other relatives including Vidhura but his putra moh was greater than all of that.. so was his need to be the King of Hastinapur and be accepted for it..

However destiny had other things in mind.. Dhridhrashtra did become King but could never be the King his citizens wanted. That always ate at him.. Even when he was being told about the plan to get the pandavas killed, Dhridhrashtra makes a feeble attempt to dissuade but again, his love for Duryodana rides over all of that..😊

Bhishm was cursed to see the downfall of his own family. He was supposed to see all this before his death. Poor man.. If only...😊 But Mahabharath is full of 'if only'😃

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Hmm i dont think they are twisiting any facts.As far as facts go i have read Mahabhart i doint think they are showing any facts wrongly.Yes characters and incidents that led to those facts have been altered but not the facts themselves.This is CV's interpretaion of how character's would have reacted emotionally and what was their POV but their actions havent been altered.Both Bheeshm and satyavati wanted dhridhrashtra to be king intially this fact hasnt been altered but the reasons that Cv's have interpreted for this is different that is all.The fact remains the same.Mahabharat is all about perspective.Facts will remain the same but diffenrent people will interpret it in diffenrent ways.

I just started watching the show.. I cannot comment on what was shown before today but except for the way Satyavati was shown to behave with Bhishm, I think everything else was as per the story. I like the interpretation of different characters. It is new and refreshing..😛

Satyavati in the actual MB deferred with Bhishm. She was respectful and also very grateful to him. She was also very wise and impartial when it came to matters of the state. So that is the only thing I find different.
The characterizations of others are perfect. I actually enjoyed the way Pandu and his mother were shown and the Bhishm - Vidura conversation. It is Satyavati and Bhishm who always side Vidura right from the beginning😊

Originally posted by: ani_gr

Hi Harini... 😃.. Loved your post.. Rajmata always was selfish too even in Shantanu's time..She just wanted Dhrithatrashtra to sit on the simhasan., never did think what will he do... Satyavathi just wanted that he is blind he cannot do anything else so he can be the king..He did nothing but making wrong decisions in spite of Bheeshma charya had taken the responsibility of Hastinapur.. In total Dhritharashtra was the the Khalnayak of Mahabharat, who encouraged Duryodhan in whatever he wanted to do.. sad but that's the truth.. Like Lord Krishna always said Dhritarashatra was just not physically blind, he had closed all the doors as a soul as well and did not have the ability to think the right or wrong.

Hi Gayathri.. 😃 Glad to hear from you😛

Now, I find this interpretation of Satyavati a little different from the original Mahabharath but yet, I think she did want Dhridhrashtra to be made King. She was worried about what he would do if his wishes were not met with.. He was known to be weak emotionally and like all elders, Satyavati worried about her weakest grandson😊

I hope she does not grudge Pandu on becoming King.. Pandu (his weak physique not withstanding) was also her grandson.. So Satyavati should have no issues.

Anyway, Pandu when declared king, goes ahead to gain kingdoms so that he could leave Dhridhrashtra in-charge and also pacify the angry brother.. It was not enough though.. nearly not enough for Dhridhrashtra

Infact i think stayavati was right today.Yes dhridhrashtra no doubt would have been a weak king but he would have had strong people around him to ensure that kingdom comes to no harm.Dhridhrashtra always had inferiority comples which further increased when pandu became king and it transformed into dhuryodhan's ambition .Had dhridhrashtra always been the king duryodhan wouldnt have been so ambitious.That is what i think

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Infact i think stayavati was right today.Yes dhridhrashtra no doubt would have been a weak king but he would have had strong people around him to ensure that kingdom comes to no harm.Dhridhrashtra always had inferiority comples which further increased when pandu became king and it transformed into dhuryodhan's ambition .Had dhridhrashtra always been the king duryodhan wouldnt have been so ambitious.That is what i think

I have to disagree though😛 Your reasoning is good when we have to take up the goodness of the family but thinking about the citizens, a King needs to be strong..

The kingdom would be as strong as the King himself. The best example is Kamsa. He was surrounded by scholars and his father was with him, yet, the kingdom did not flourish under him. It is the King who has the finally say in all matters and making Dhridhrashtra a King would be playing with the kingdom as a whole..

It is important for the King to be impartial. Dhridhrashtra would never be. He had too much self pity, and too less confidence to be the supreme ruler of his state.

The fact remains that after becoming King, Dhridhrashtra would have the final say.. He did but he always made decisions to make his sons happy. He did not think of the consequences that his sons' actions would bring... When he could have asked his son to tone down and be cordial with his cousins, he did not. He let Duryodana fight the Pandavas over a matter of 5 acres of land.. (Yes, it is that which the Pandavas wanted in the end when Krishna came as the messenger). He let the kingdom bear the brunt of his sons' ambitions.. That was how Dhridhrashtra was.. He would have been the same even if he had been made King the first time around.

You see, he wanted everyone to agree with him. Not everyone will. So he would always be less confident and worry about it rather than concentrating on the affairs of the state..🥱

Justlikethat

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Justlikethat

But dont you think if dhridhrashtra would have always been a king he wouldnt have agreed to everyhting his son said.I mean as per me the reason why he agreed to his son everytime is becuase he didnt want the kingdom to be taken away from his son like it was taken away from him.Hence anyhting duryodhan said or did to fulfil his ambition was agreed by dhridhrashtra becuase he didnt want his son to suffer the same fate as him.Had he always been a king he wouldnt have feared that duryodhan will also lose the kingdom

Sabhyata, the kingdom was never Duryodhan's for Dhridhrashtra to give it to him..
Dhridhrashtra was the King then.. All he had to do was make Duryodhan his heir but he was afraid of people's sentiment.. He was afraid that Duryodhan was not as popular among the people as Yudhistir was..

A true king would have then been impartial in choosing his heir. Putting your son in front of your kingdom does not make you a good king, and this inspite of knowing that Duryodhan is not worthy of Hastinapur..

So hypothetically even if Dhridhrashtra was made king, he would have been jealous of Senathipathi Pandu, frightened that his brother would unsurp him.. He would again would have wanted Duryodhan, inspite of knowing his faults be made king.. That is not how it happened. The eldest son was surely made King but not when he had some obvious faults..

So the lack of throne, the first time around is just an excuse for Dhridhrashtra to justify his inferiority complex😊

Dhritarashtra lived in ignorance for all his life, unlike Pandu n Vidhur he had his own self interests @ heart as he raved on about attaining rulership, yet he was clueless about the ensuing responsibilities that a king would have and never truly thought beyond the glory of status that would be afforded once he was pronounced king.
His misery in failing to materialise this outlandish dream led to his sons downfall, ambition transferred from father to son, he bore the grudge against those who judged against him being king due to blindness, but his appetite for kingship never gets fully satiated even via his son. he was a weakling who never tried to discourage his son from committing evil acts. He did not make decisions well, trusting others to give tje go ahead, thereby distancing himself in important matters concerning the state. I think how Dhritarashtra is being shown presently speaks of his impatient, impulsive and arrogant, it doesn't seem too out of context considering how eager hw was for the throne.