Primogeniture didn't play a part when they were made kings. Secondly, even though you quoted Mauryans, don' t know why you missed Asoka and Chandragupta. For example Bheeshma took the oath to protect the king whoever ruled Hastinapura. Certainly Dhrona, Bheeshma and the like were with Kauravas not because they were loyal to the Kauravas, but it was their dharmic duty which bound them to the kingdom. And you rightly pointed out as we know, there will be always few dharmic men who aligned with padavas. Duryodhana in the process collects some of the very dark characters of that era around him. Vidhura repeatedly cautioned him about the adharmic acts of Duryodhana and yet his blind love for his son prevented him from taking action or from admonishing his son. He was not only blind, but he also blinded by his affection to Duryodhana.
And treachery is on the part of Kauravas that they denied even 5 villages to Pandavas and even were tried to be killed mercilessly multiple times, not to forget the disrobing of Panchali, the intrigue behind burning of lakgruha to kill the Pandavas.ĭhritarashtra had his own demons. If that is the case, the throne doesn't belong to him to be given away by primogeniture of Duryodhana. This was one of the reasons that he was not the chosen for the kingdom. You, yourself have mentioned that Pandu helped him in taking care of his Kingdom. Even though this is not something he is responsible for, but this certainly will hinder in his duties as a king. The first dharma of a king is to protect his subjects, his kingdom and the dharma. But that is just an aside.)įirstly primogeniture alone doesn't decide who should succeed. The traitor was hanged, then cut down while still alive, his entrails were excised out of his body and burned before his eyes and then he was cut in four pieces and those pieces were strung up on the town gates. (In medieval England this was particularly gruesome, involving 'hanging, drawing and quartering'.
Then how do we justify Pandavas taking recourse to arms to wrest it from the Kauravas? Also how do they justify the claim when King Dhritarashtra is alive and well? Such behavior is called treachery and the perpetrator deserves the Traitor's Death. Where arises the right of the Pandava brothers to claim the kingdom or even a part of it for themselves? We do not know of any other case where a kingdom was divided between two brothers because it is not the old king's private property. By the same rule of primogeniture, Duryodhana was the rightful successor to the whole kingdom. His younger brother, Pandu, helped him run the kingdom for some years but later renounced that life and retired to the forest. He was blind from birth but that has not been and cannot be held against him. Following primogeniture, Vichitravirya succeeded Shantanu - Bhishma having renounced his claim - and Dhritarashtra succeeded Vichitravirya.
0 kommentar(er)
