Duryadhan OS:- I - The Unconquerable One (My Thank you note at Page 2) - Page 8

Originally posted by: impoojaverma

brilliantly written!

my perception regarding Duryodhan change when i start watching Star plus mahabharat. before i used to think he is a great villain in the epic but in actual it is not. if he was not misguided by shakuni i guess he would be the apt Prince for the throne of Hastinapur than Yudhishtar to whom the only thing that matter was Dharma!

Whatever step he had taken he was never afraid of anyone unlike Pandvas who used to think a 100 times. he was a great warrior who had played fair on his counterpart. Even my mom used to say that duryodhan is far better than these Pandav's who are scared to do anything which leads them to see their wife getting insult in front of everyone!

No panchaali I never avoid anything worth reading. I love reading creations from different perspectives. Every coin has two sides. But only eyes will not make you see them, you need a heart also. That is what I liked the most about your writing. It has a heart.
I'm late to comment only because I did not check my inbox for being busy.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

No panchaali I never avoid anything worth reading. I love reading creations from different perspectives. Every coin has two sides. But only eyes will not make you see them, you need a heart also. That is what I liked the most about your writing. It has a heart.

Thank you 🤗
I'm late to comment only because I did not check my inbox for being busy.

I understand 😃

Word Count: 1

Panchaali, do excuse my delay in replying, which was caused by some other preoccupations. At the outset, I must compliment you on a very well-written piece, boldly presenting an original 'minority' opinion on Duryodhana, Mb's great 'anti-hero'. Indeed, if valour in battle and a total absence of cowardice are taken (as they should be taken) as the hallmark of a true hero, D certainly is a great hero. In some ways, he resembles Ravana -- the antihero of India's other great epic -- in that both are fearless warriors and both are staunch devotees of Lord Shiva. Interestingly, this feature of eminently strong and heroic anti-heroes is unique to the Indian traditions. You do not, if one may say so, find equally strong and worthy antagonists elsewhere -- not in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, nor in the two great Homeric epics. Interestingly again, even the deemed 'badness' of the demoniac (aasuri) connection [as rightly alluded to by Sayanee in her comments on your piece], which is common between the two, is a matter of perspective. The ancient Iranians worshipped the Asuras (ahura, as they called them), and the primordial swapping of divinity between the Avestan Asuras and the Vedic Devas is a historical truth. This truth is also recorded in the Amarakosha, which cites poorvadeva, i.e. 'gods of the past' as another synonym of 'Asura' [Incidentally, this aspect of swap between gods and demons is dealt with in more detail in a book I am writing now.]
Now, reverting to the subject of Duryodhana, he in a sense is one of the most 'human' characters in the Mb's star cast, given the earthly admixture of virtues and vices in him. Gods and demons, after all, are in the minds of man, and D was no exception. His virtues were his fairness to his subjects and a natural empathy towards the downtrodden. Like the single failing of the hero of a Greek tragedy, Duryodhana was done in by his one tragic flaw of envious greed. In the Sabha-Parva, he himself admits to Vidura his helplessness against his destiny: 'The One who controls the foetus in a mother's womb is my controller; I am being driven inexorably under His direction'. In the Udyoga-Parva he dismisses the wise counsel of the sage Kanva by slapping his hip: 'Maharshi, why waste your time on me? I conduct myself the way God has made me and in accordance with my destiny'. But for all that, one can discern several redeeming features in him. In the Drona-Parva, he addresses his friend-turned-foe Satyaki with the words: 'My friend, fie upon anger, greed and Kshatriya valour; we, who were inseparable in our youth, are now out to kill each other. What good to us will all the wealth do, for which we now battle?' In his last forlorn battle in the Shalya-Parva, he himself chose Bheem as his worthy opponent with the mace, disdaining to take advantage of Yudhishthir's generous offer to choose any one of the five Pandavas for battle. And in the Ashramvaasika-Parva, the dead Duryodhana's subjects admitted to Dhrtarashtra that the Kuru prince had never ill-treated them.
I must also flag the very valid point raised by your Duryodhana, viz. the unfairness of the killing of Vikarna, the only voice of ringing disapproval against Draupadi's humiliation in the fateful dice-hall event. All in all, a very well presented point of view, done with logic, panache and a lot of empathy for the underdog.
P.S. I should also add one plausible reason that might have fuelled Duryodhana's tragic envy. It is not explicitly mentioned by Vyasa, but one could reasonably infer that Duryodhana was never reconciled with Kunti's story that the Pandavas were legitimate kshetraja sons, under the then socially accepted practice of niyoga or surrogate assignment done by the dead Pandu himself. Dhrtarashtra perhaps had the same doubt, but could not voice it, given the acceptance by Satyavati, Bheeshma and Vidura of Kunti's account. In any case, to Duryodhana, Yudhishthira was a 'pretender' to the throne. This, of course, is my own reading of Duryodhana's psychology, which to the best of my knowledge has not been mentioned elsewhere.

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

Panchaali, do excuse my delay in replying, which was caused by some other preoccupations. At the outset, I must compliment you on a very well-written piece, boldly presenting an original 'minority' opinion on Duryodhana, Mb's great 'anti-hero'. Indeed, if valour in battle and a total absence of cowardice are taken (as they should be taken) as the hallmark of a true hero, D certainly is a great hero. In some ways, he resembles Ravana -- the antihero of India's other great epic -- in that both are fearless warriors and both are staunch devotees of Lord Shiva. Interestingly, this feature of eminently strong and heroic anti-heroes is unique to the Indian traditions. You do not, if one may say so, find equally strong and worthy antagonists elsewhere -- not in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, nor in the two great Homeric epics. Interestingly again, even the deemed 'badness' of the demoniac (aasuri) connection [as rightly alluded to by Sayanee in her comments on your piece], which is common between the two, is a matter of perspective. The ancient Iranians worshipped the Asuras (ahura, as they called them), and the primordial swapping of divinity between the Avestan Asuras and the Vedic Devas is a historical truth. This truth is also recorded in the Amarakosha, which cites poorvadeva, i.e. 'gods of the past' as another synonym of 'Asura' [Incidentally, this aspect of swap between gods and demons is dealt with in more detail in a book I am writing now.]
Now, reverting to the subject of Duryodhana, he in a sense is one of the most 'human' characters in the Mb's star cast, given the earthly admixture of virtues and vices in him. Gods and demons, after all, are in the minds of man, and D was no exception. His virtues were his fairness to his subjects and a natural empathy towards the downtrodden. Like the single failing of the hero of a Greek tragedy, Duryodhana was done in by his one tragic flaw of envious greed. In the Sabha-Parva, he himself admits to Vidura his helplessness against his destiny: 'The One who controls the foetus in a mother's womb is my controller; I am being driven inexorably under His direction'. In the Udyoga-Parva he dismisses the wise counsel of the sage Kanva by slapping his hip: 'Maharshi, why waste your time on me? I conduct myself the way God has made me and in accordance with my destiny'. But for all that, one can discern several redeeming features in him. In the Drona-Parva, he addresses his friend-turned-foe Satyaki with the words: 'My friend, fie upon anger, greed and Kshatriya valour; we, who were inseparable in our youth, are now out to kill each other. What good to us will all the wealth do, for which we now battle?' In his last forlorn battle in the Shalya-Parva, he himself chose Bheem as his worthy opponent with the mace, disdaining to take advantage of Yudhishthir's generous offer to choose any one of the five Pandavas for battle. And in the Ashramvaasika-Parva, the dead Duryodhana's subjects admitted to Dhrtarashtra that the Kuru prince had never ill-treated them.
I must also flag the very valid point raised by your Duryodhana, viz. the unfairness of the killing of Vikarna, the only voice of ringing disapproval against Draupadi's humiliation in the fateful dice-hall event. All in all, a very well presented point of view, done with logic, panache and a lot of empathy for the underdog.
P.S. I should also add one plausible reason that might have fuelled Duryodhana's tragic envy. It is not explicitly mentioned by Vyasa, but one could reasonably infer that Duryodhana was never reconciled with Kunti's story that the Pandavas were legitimate kshetraja sons, under the then socially accepted practice of niyoga or surrogate assignment done by the dead Pandu himself. Dhrtarashtra perhaps had the same doubt, but could not voice it, given the acceptance by Satyavati, Bheeshma and Vidura of Kunti's account. In any case, to Duryodhana, Yudhishthira was a 'pretender' to the throne. This, of course, is my own reading of Duryodhana's psychology, which to the best of my knowledge has not been mentioned elsewhere.

Originally posted by: SayaneeH.Lecter

<font color="#cc0033">@CherryBerry I agree to your thought to an extant .. u too reading AJaya .. I was reading the book but for some reason I am not able to read it .. I just loved the way writer described the society of Hastinapur then .. It is much credible</font>

I m too late to reply you ... Sorry
Yes i am reading it .. I am actually liking that book.
But u know its disturbing me as its presenting all events in different light nd it confuses me...
The facts presented by author abt the social system of Hastinapur & India is realistic but his portrayal of Lord Krishna is difficult to digest and accept. The author takes Krishna as a human only.

Originally posted by: cherryberry293

I m too late to reply you ... Sorry
Yes i am reading it .. I am actually liking that book.
But u know its disturbing me as its presenting all events in different light nd it confuses me...
The facts presented by author abt the social system of Hastinapur & India is realistic but his portrayal of Lord Krishna is difficult to digest and accept. The author takes Krishna as a human only.

@Sayani, me too liked the portrayal of Lord Balrama... He is true idol .
Book shows paradox of two princes of Yadavas , both considered as God's avtar but both are shown in different light.

I liked the political angles used in the story.
More than Duryodhana, Karna, Eklavya and Jara touched my heart.
Especially Eklavya & Jara.. I have never read about them in detail. About Karna, he's my all time favorite, read a lot about him...

Yeah same here, why Shakuni is shown as younger brother & Vidura is good towards Duryodhan when in reality he wasn't...

Great!!!!
I just loved it...
after reading this I fell in love with suyodhana...❤️
he never feared to follow adharma...he is unconquerable.

Originally posted by: panchaali

Thank you Sir for sharing your knowledge and insights

I just wanted to know if my logic were correct and if my sympathies for the epic Villain is worth.

Your reply made my Day😊

My affinity for both the epic Villains started after reading the Meghnad Vadh Kavya in my board syllabus.😊

I was convinced about Ravan but still I could not justify Duryadhan's act at the dice Hall and left thinking about him.

Then I started reading more on my ideal Karna. This resulted learning some strikingly pure traits of Duryadhan.

some versions of Mahabharat say that Duryadhan befriended Karna to fulfill his own selfish reason, mainly to defeat Arjun, but my logic says that his friendship was never selfish,

Sir if you kindly put your logic and insight about this matter it will be great 😊

P.S:- In most cases myths and epic show us Devotees or sons of Mahadev are termed evil, asurs and later they are slayed by the Gods.

Does it signifies triumph of the Aaryans over the Indus Valley Civilization?

Let me try and address your two points.
Duryodhana's friendship with Karna had its own nuances. But it would be unfair to attribute only a selfish motive to it. Of course, D, being himself a shrewd politician, valued the importance of befriending K as a measure of realpolitik. After all, that is statecraft, as enjoined in the Chanakya-neeti that your enemy's enemy is your friend. The cognate principle also applies here: that a friend's enemy is your enemy. [In the Ramayana too, none else but the illustrious Rama, befriended Sugreeva and even for him killed Vaalee without any provocation, in order to have him as an ally against the redoubtable Ravana ] Yet, with D there also was the aspect of natural empathy and affinity for an underdog and for a friend. It was that affinity for an old friend which made him utter those words of forlorn affection to Satyaki even when facing him in battle.
Your second point regarding devotees of Mahadeva being depicted as demons or villains has its own socio-cultural significance. The Indus phallic and humped bull seals have been interpreted by archaeologists as representations of proto-Shiva. Rig-Veda, on the other hand, also extols the destroyer Rudra, who only later on changed into the serene depiction as Rudra-Shiva. The very appellation -- Devaadideva Mahaadeva signifies the Original Great God. The conclusion is that the Vedic society absorbed the 'original' pre-Vedic proto-Shiva into destroyer deity of its divine triad. Demons, being themselves 'old gods' (poorvadeva) of a different kind looked up to Mahadeva for support. Another interesting point is that the demons (Ravana and all, though Duryodhana cannot be included here), were inveterate yajna-spoilers; and Mahadeva himself showed the way by destroying the great yajna of Daksha. Incidentally, even the older parts of the Rig-Veda (Mandala-1) describes the great god Varuna as 'Asura'. So, Asuras also commanded a lot of respect in the ethos of ancient India!
P.S. I see you have studied Michael Madhusudan Dutt's Meghnad Vadh Kavya. What a great trend-setter that book was! It brought Miltonian blank verse to Bengali (and Indian vernacular) literature in all its shining glory. And it was also a kind of 'first' in depicting Ravan and Meghnad as great heroes in their own right. Michael, I think, was the first great purveyor of the so-called 'Inversion Theory' of showing the good sides of our epic anti-heroes.