Duryodhana’s policy


Duryodhana’s policy “Not even a needle point of land to the enemy”

Well we all know this famous incident which happens before the kurushetra war, when Krishna asks duryodhana to give at least five villages to the pandavas and to make peace, duryodhana replies that he won’t give even a needle point of land to them. So, if we analyze this statement we can get two conclusions,

Before you read both the conclusions I want to make one point which is “I’m not considered about who is the right full owner to the kingdom. I’m only considerd about the policy of duryodhana is it right or is it wrong?.”

A) One conclusion is that duryodhana’s decision was wrong which is why he died in the war, and he is a miser and egoistic, so only he refused to the offer made by Krishna.

B) The other conclusion is that duryodhana’s decision is right, he is not a miser as he is known for his charity and he also donated a part of his kingdom anga to karna, So donating five villages is not a big thing for duryodhana. Duryodhana took that decision just because he believed that dying for his country is better than giving a part of his country to the enemy

So it is your choice to come to one of these conclusions after you have read the following example.

Sino-Indian war(1962)

China attacked India in the Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai chin region with a troop strength of around 80,000.While India stationed only 10,000 troops in that area the rest of the Indian troops were distributed around India, then the Chinese had the advantage of the ridges, so geographically the Chinese had a superior position at an higher altitude, while the Indian troops had the disadvantage by being in the lower altitude.

So, the Indians being greatly outnumbered and also due to the geographically disadvantages, the Indian army lost their position temporarily. Now the Chinese army marched down from the ridges, then they occupied a large part of our the Indian territory and as they came down from the ridges, geographically they have an inferior position. At this juncture only Indians got ready for war, as the previous attack was a surprise attack. Now India sent a huge backup to the battle field, these back up included a huge infantry, army vehicles and aircrafts also India asked help from USA, which was also in the way in the form of aircrafts.

At this particular juncture the Chinese used a cheap trick, knowing that they will surely lose if India strikes them with her full strength, as the backups by India were on the way to the battle field, the Chinese gave a cease fire. Then India being a peaceful country accepted the cease fire and the backups which were on their way to the battle field are sent back. Because of the cease fire given by the Chinese both the sides had used only infantry, no tanks or aircrafts were used in this fight. If they were used then the result of the war would have been in favor to India

The region marked  with red color are those where china attacked india. Then aksai chin region once  belonged to india but now are occupied by china due to the  Sino-indian war.

The whole world knows that if India had fought back, then it would be a victory for India and then huge part of the Indian Territory could also have been retrieved, Because of the following reasons

1) India’s own back up which was on the way to the battle field

2) As Chinese marched down from the ridges and occupied a part of our territory they had a geographically inferior position than Indian troops

3) Back up from USA was also on the way to help India in the form of aircrafts

But India had accepted the cease fire given by china and gave a huge part of her territory to china. We will look at the summary of the  war again.

China attacked India, when India was not ready. Then china occupied a part of India, When India was ready to fight back china gave cease fire. When India accepted the cease fire of china, china easily walked away with a part of Indian Territory.

This is just like,

A thief enters our house, when we are not ready the attacks us. Then the thief robs us of the jewels and cash. When we are ready to fight back with the thief. Then the thief asks an apology, and we accept the apology then the thief walks away with our jewels and cash.

So India is a peaceful country, but what is peace. Peace in the sense that we must attack any other country unnecessarily but what if the enemy attacked us and robbed us of our territory

What is the use of having peace at that circumstance?

“When we have many people making noise in room, if we want to maintain silence, we would have to shout “Everyone maintain silence”, so at that circumstance silence is maintained only by shouting.”

In the same way the real world peace at some circumstances peace can only be maintained by war. Look at the after math of the Sino-Indian war. Still the Chinese are trying to occupy more and more area in the Indian Territory. When our prime minister visited Arunachal Pradesh this year one of the Chinese politicians asked “It is a disputed area why does the Indian prime minister visit there”. After all who is he to ask why Indian prime minister visited a part of India.

Then another Chinese politician commented that “Did you forget what happened in the Sino-Indian war, do you want something like that to happen again!” The Chinese like cowards gave cease fire in the Sino-Indian war but they think they really won the Sino-Indian war and they also use this victory of Sino-Indian war to threaten us again. So, the after math of war never ends. Even if we maintain a good relationship with china for some time, the dragon will breathe fire again. But let’s hope that the Tiger will fight back next time when the dragon breathes fire again.

This is the end of the example, now what would have happened if India had followed the policy of duryodhana which is “Not even a needle point of land to the enemy”. India would have surely fought back till the end and the Chinese would have been made to run away and our stolen territory would have been retrieved but What is more than this, Chinese would never had bothered India again for several years. Also the whole world would have understood the real strength of India.

As I told before we can have two conclusions from the duryodhana’s policy is “Not even a needle point of land to the enemy”. So it is up to you whether to do decide that this policy is right or is it wrong. Don’t bother about the past deeds of duryodhana, the deeds of duryodhana may be wrong or it may be right but i’m not considered about it. I’m only considerd  about the application of duryodhana’s policy in the sino-indian war and the future of our nation.

“So, it for you guys to decide which is better to die for the country and to protect its territory or to make peace with the enemy and lose a part of our territory “

Jai hind

Written

By

Gandherva

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “Duryodhana’s policy

  1. Things taken Out of context in a completely opposite manners to prove wvil withing right.’
    We support Karna and we sipport Duryodhana , just to justify the evil within all of us.

    Duryodhana may be a great person, but his attitude towards Pandavas was not correct. Any one who believe In hindusim must believe in Krishna. If Shr Krishna supported Pandavs for the war their si no question or doubts for a hindu then. As Shri Krishna is the truth.

    Read Mahabharata and evaluate each character, not on the basis of personal emotions. This personal emotions are more like, justifying our evil part within, that he is not bad he is doing all bad juts as because fate has forced him to do so. But evili is evil, its cowards who do evils forced by fate to do so. Warrior and brave fight against fate or all odds to secure Justice and mark the flag of Shri Krishna (The truth).

    Like

    1. ” Any one who believe In hindusim must believe in Krishna.”
      uhh, no. I am hindu and i don’t believe Krishna had righteousness in him. the books are filled with his treacherous plans and deeds. Please don’t be a fanboy and open your eyes.
      would you be happy if Krishna were doing the same things with females in your family like he used to do in his leelas? Grow up fool.

      Like

  2. As per bharat family rule [Both Pandavas and Kauravs], King’s biological son does not have to be King, if he is not capable, truthful, protective of dharma and many other noble qualities.

    Duryodhan does not have them

    Pandavas are not responsible for war, they only ask for five villages and was ready to let go everything happened to them, still duryodhan refused it.

    Read Geeta for more about Truth and Duty

    Like

  3. As per bharat family rule [Both Pandavas and Kauravs], King’s biological son does not have to be King, if he is not capable, truthful, protective of dharma and many other noble qualities.

    Duryodhan does not have them.

    Like

      1. To that matter, Dhritarashtra and Pandu are not even sons of Vichitraveerya, who died childless so how do you resolve that issue? The dharma shastras have defined many different kinds of sons, all of whom are considered legal heirs to the so called father for all purposes including inhertance and performing last rites. Examples are sons born naturally to a man and woman who are married to each other, sons adopted by a man because the child has no father, son born of a woman who is married to one but gets pregnant by another (the husband is considered the father in this case),son born of a woman already pregnant who gets married (the husband is the father again in this case), son born of a widow who asks a kshatriya or a rishi to get her pregnant is considered a son of the deceased husband, and so on. All these sons enjoy the same status as a biological son.

        Having said that, I dont think Duryodhana was a bad king at all. There is no evidence in the Mahabharata to suggest that he did not know politics. In terms of understanding Justice, Yudhishtra would have been better than Duryodhana, but that does not mean Duryodhana was bad. Fact remains that Pandu was the king, he was on leave leaving behind his brother as a representative when he died, so the representative continued until the king’s more than capable son came of age. When the son came of age, the rightful thing to do was to make him the king but this never happened. This has nothing to do with Duryodhana lacking skills to rule.

        Like

      2. hahahah, do you even read ?
        last one to have royal bloodline was Bhishma.
        And biological son of king was Duryodhan. Pandavas were fathered by multiple men.

        Like

  4. My views are different than others. It is mentioned that Pandavs were not really Pandu’s sons so they did not have the right to the throne, while Durydodne was the son of Dhritrast so he was the heir.
    In Ramayan, Luv was the real child of Sri Ram and Mata Sitaji while Kush was formed from grass by Valmiki but Sri Ram and Mata Sitaji accepted him as their son and treated him equal as Luv.
    When Pandu, Kunti and Madri had received Pandavs from Devs, they became their own children with Pandu as their father.
    All the versions of MB shows that Pandu went to acquire more land and after him his sons went on all four sides to conquer more lands. By this we can see who has worked hard to acquire land.
    If we blame Draupadi for the war, she was not there at the time of giving poison to Bhim and Laxagrah so she cannot be blamed. Evil schemes were started long before she came to Hastinapur.
    If Arjun and Bhim took their vows, it was because they were pushed too far.

    Like

    1. Hi,

      Application of Duryodhana’s policy may seem to be right when applied in cases like Indo China War, because China unfairly tried to claim a territory that was under Indian authority. But the policy adopted by Duryodhana “Not even a needle point of land to the enemy” was not good for his own cause and the Pandavas. Duryodhana firstly tried to keep that kingdom which the Pandavas got as an equal share from his father Dhritarasthra. in the form of a jungle full of demons and snakes. The Pandavas developed the ruins of Khandavaprastha into Indraprastha by their efforts and hard work. The Pandavas had successfully fulfilled all conditions of 1 Years Agyatvaas. Duryodhana didn’t agree to give back kingdom to the Pandavas due to his greed and arrogance. Lord Krishna even asked him to give just five villages if he wishes to keep Indraprastha with him. If he given five villages to Pandavas then also a horrible war could have been avoided. The war of Mahabharata not doubt appears thrilling, but it is one of the biggest horrors of Indian history. Following were its bad effects on Indian civilization:

      1) End of Vedic Aryan civilization for which India was famous all over world.

      2) Killings of more than 1 million people in that war which included thousands of kings, warriors and soldiers. The earth became bereft of elephants and horses for some years after this war.

      3) Economy of many nations was destroyed because M.B war involved participation of all kings from the world leaving some like Shoorsen of Dwarka and some others.

      4) Many families were destroyed due to loss of fathers, brothers, sons and husbands. It can be said that after the war the male population in many regions of earth mostly consisted little boys, teenagers and old men.

      5) Lot of wealth and resources was wasted just for 18 days war which consumed everything.

      6) India lost great personalities and warriors like Bhishma, Karna, Drona, Abhimanyu, Irawan, Ghatokacha, and many others who were living legends in themselves. If Duryodhana was really right in his claim then while being inside the lake he would not have told the Pandavas that he doesn’t want the kingdom after having got slain his brothers, relatives and friends. He realized at last that he was wrong but now he had to fight for his Kshatriya dignity.

      False pride, jealousy and anger always leads to destruction of a man with his wealth family, friends and kinsmen. This is the message displayed by Duryodhana’s life and character.

      Like

      1. re: 1) End of Vedic Aryan civilization for which India was famous all over world.

        2) Killings of more than 1 million people in that war which included thousands of kings, warriors and soldiers. The earth became bereft of elephants and horses for some years after this war.

        3) Economy of many nations was destroyed because M.B war involved participation of all kings from the world leaving some like Shoorsen of Dwarka and some others.

        4) Many families were destroyed due to loss of fathers, brothers, sons and husbands. It can be said that after the war the male population in many regions of earth mostly consisted little boys, teenagers and old men.

        5) Lot of wealth and resources was wasted just for 18 days war which consumed everything.

        This shows that the Pandavas and Krishna are just as guilty as Duryodhan. For the sake of power they jeopardised the future of the country.

        Like

      2. umm, if you read carefully they did not complete the agyatwas.
        Pandavas on discovery said that they were following luner calendar.

        And why should have Duryodhan given back the kingdom ?

        Like

  5. Hi all

    Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Duryodhana the legimate heir to Hastinapur instead of Yudhisthir?

    At the end of the day Duryodhana was the biological son of Dhritarashtra, while Yudhisthir was not the biological son of Pandu.

    Also he was a good ruler because the people were happy under his rule.

    Also why should he only be blamed for the war? Draupadi provoked him by insulting his father and Yudhisthir agreed to gamble.

    Bhima and Arjun further indirectly provoked him with their vows.

    Thanks
    Prahalad

    Like

    1. You are not completely correct in your statement. The kingdom was earlier divided into two with Pandavas and Kauravas ruling each half. Kauravas coveted their kingdom, when they were sent to exile. Hence when they returned, Pandavas just asked for their half and not the entire kingdom.

      Like

      1. But according to rules of that time if a person left his property for 13 years he lost the rights on that property.
        So Pandavas dont have any right on the land they want.
        And these two parties are equally responsible for the greatest war of all time.
        Both are greedy no one is less.

        Regards
        Dhruv Gaba

        Like

        1. Dear Dhruv
          It cannot be argued that Pandavas too had bad qualities. No human being is perfect. Every person is a package of good qualities and bad qualities. The difference between Duryodhan and Yudhishthira is that Yudhishthiras good qualities outweighed his bad qualities. Or lets say that in doing wrong things there was a point which he wont go beyond. Where as Duryodhans bad qualities by far outweighed his good qualities. Karna himself recognized this. When Bhagwaan Shri Krishna approached him and offered him to join the Pandavas and rule over them. Karna refused on grounds that he was loyal to Duryodhan. Karna also requested shri Krishna to not to tell the Pandavas that he was their elder brother. Karna said that Yudhishthira would make my the king and I in turn will give the kingdom to Duryodhana. And its Yudhishthira who is fit to rule.

          Like

    2. Hi,

      In ancient times when a man was not able to procreate children from his legimate wife, he allowed his wife to have children from another man of virtuous conduct and noble background. It is called Niyoga Garbhadaan or procreation without any feelings of lust. Thus Pandavas were born to Kunti through devas like Indra, Dharma and Vayu. Children born through this way are also legimate kids of the man who is a husband to such a woman. So Karna was also a son of Pandu morally.

      As concerning Duryodhana he too was the legimate son of his parents. No doubt Duryodhana was a good ruler, he was also big hearted to those he loved. He was generous in granting favors and intelligent in winning royal alliances in his favor. But he hated the Pandavas without any reason since childhood. He even hated Lord Krishna and regarded him as an ordinary cowherd not fit to sit among royal persons. He was very proud of his royal background and lacked humility. For this reason he didn’t listen many times to his elders. How can such a person who is proud of his power and wealth become a virtuous ruler of Hastinapura.

      On the other hand Yudhisthira was humble and didn’t bear enemity to any creature. For this reason he was famous as “Azad Shatru” or the one without any enemy. History proclaims that powerful men may win kingdoms but they cannot rule it virtuously, due to their pride. On the other hand those who are humble in behavior can become ideal kings. Lord Ram, King Bali and Karna is an exception. They were virtuous, great warriors and rulers devoted to their subjects.

      Regards
      Praveen

      Like

  6. I agree with your views on whether or not India should have fought back in the Sino-Indian war.

    What I don’t agree with is this idea you have of taking this circumstance from the Mahabharat, looking at it from only one angle, and deciding on what is right or wrong based on that angle. Politics isn’t like that. You can’t decide things in a vacuum. There are always many angles and many different considerations.

    The whole circumstance of Duryodhan’s decision is totally different to the Sino-Indian war. Duryodhan’s decision was regarding the different factions within his own country. His decision started a civil war which created devastation amongst his own people. The Sino-Indian situation, by contrast, was about a foreign power (China) that attacked a sovereign country (India). The set up is completely the opposite. India should have protected it’s own people and territories from the attacks of the foreign enemy China but they didn’t.

    Duryodhan’s policy was wrong because his motivation was wrong. He wasn’t thinking about protecting his land or his people. He was thinking only of his ego and his hatred for his cousins. He didn’t want to admit that his decision to take the Pandavas half of the kingdom was wrong. He wanted to control everything even though he had no right to do so. He didn’t care about how his greed was going to cost the lives of his soldiers. This in itself is proof that he should not have been allowed to rule. A good ruler always cares first about the lives of his people. And because of his faulty policy he lost the war, his kingdom, his life and the lives of millions of his soldiers. The Mahabharat is making the point that when you take decisions based on ego and greed you are going to lose.

    Jai

    Like

    1. /*
      Duryodhan’s decision was regarding the different factions within his own country.
      */
      According to me you are wrong here. I think Pandavas are similar to terrorist forces in Kashmir. They lost there right on kingdom the day Dharmraj Yudisther lost twice in gamble. And after exile of 13 Years they lost any kind of right on Hastinapur/Indraprastha (Gandharva can enlighten you on it more). And Pandavas attacked with forces from other kingdom of that time so just cant call this a civil war. And of course you are right that his ego is quite bigger he can stop the Mahabharata war and give them 5 Villages and we are also facing similar situation in Kashmir we also can give them Kashimir and we can stop the futuristic war with Pakistan but I dont think thats a right thing to do. And both pandavas and kauravas are very greedy about kingdom. So there is no need to blame only one party. And Pandavas also want war and thats why instead of sending Yudisther to talk with Suyodhana they sent Krishna. And at that time Krishna was more of politics figure than godly figure. And India also lost many times to foreign invaders so thats dont mean India was faulty at that time. History is written by winners and the biggest proof is Mahabharata. Else I dont think there is any need to changing Kauravas name from Su to Du.

      Regards
      Dhruv Gaba

      Like

      1. Well, after participating hunderds of debates i quit debating. So, i’m not looking for a debate here. So im only posting a few points to support dhurv,

        1) It is written in scriptures that ,In dwapra yuga if some one leaves the ancestral property for 13 years then it does not belong to them, So only sakuni and duryodhana planned and sent pandavas for 13 years.
        2)The rule of the bet is that the pandavas must spend 12 years in forest and 1 year in disguise. But did they spend 12 years in forest, the answer is no because arjuna spent around 5 years in this duration heaven, So, how can it be assumed that the pandavas spend 12 years in forest.

        But in the end my article is not about the past(mahabharat), it is only considerd about the application of the past policy into present
        conditions

        Best regards
        Gandherva

        Like

      2. Hello Mr Dhruv,

        Krishna is not a merely a politician, he is a versatile personality. He is the ultimate form of God. He was a nice musician as a flute player, he was a great intellectual to give Bhagwat Gita, he was a great warrior to defeat many wicked kings in open battle, he was a great diplomat to destroy Jarasandha who had unjustly imprisioned many kings for human sacrifice. Being greedy for a kingdom may be a natural instinct in kauravas and pandavas, but killing ones brothers for it in childhood by giving poison in food and trying to burn them in a house of lac is sign of wickedness, jealousy, hatred and deceitfulness. The kauravas showed these qualities since childhood, they could not make more progress than the Pandavas because the kept on envying about other’s achievements. On the other hand the Pandavas worked on to move forward in life. Thirteen years ban from kingdom was purposely imposed by kauravas because they knew about the rule. They could have imposed a lesser period but they did it purposely. If kauravas had cheaters like Shakuni as there ally Pandavas had Lord Krishna as their protector and guide, who is very loving and generous for persons surrendering to him.

        Like

Say it right

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s