I started reading the Amar Chitra Katha Mahabharata to Aditya, and as I was going through the story in detail for the first time after I "grew up", I have some questions for the learned ones in the family, and that includes Sasanna.
How do pandavas have a claim on the throne of Hastinapura?
Dhrutarashtra abdicated the throne => Pandu became king => Pandu's sons become kings
Then by the same argument
Pandu became king=> Pandu abdicated throne=>Dhrutarashtra became the king again=> Kauravas become kings
As counter argument, Pandu temporarily gave up throne => Dhrutarashtra is only a guardian,
Then Pandu is only a guardian for Dhrutarashtra from the beginning => Pandu is only a guardian=>Kauravas become kings
Besides, pandavas do not even have Kuru bloodline in them, born to Yama, Indra etc...
If you argue it is a matriarchal society and only mom matters, then their claim would be on Kunti's father's kingdom.
If you argue Pandu expanded the kingdom, if the act was that of a king, then abdicating the throne vacates the claim. If as a guardian, he is on par with a "senapati" who leads armies and gains victories with no claim on the throne.
So by what Dharma are pandavas heirs to the Kuru throne, when even the name Kauravas implies a better claim?
And please post your responses as posts rather than comments as I am hoping this thread would be long as my intent is to post other such "Dharma sandehams".....
1 comment:
Not too much of a Dharma Sandeham, I guess? The eldest son in the next generation became King, that being Yudhistira. With the unusual set of circumstances leading up to that moment of succession, the Dharma was bound to be a bit 'sukshma' (subtle),but that would have been the bottom line. And remember that it would have been decided by elders such as Vidura and Bheeshma, so in that sense no one would have said it was an unjust claim.
Post a Comment