03-09-2005, 03:40 AM
Abhijit's post
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
>>Duryodhan was not in the least interested in maintaining a unified confederacy. He was all for letting its parts go their own ways. In this he was encouraged and, indeed, tutored by his uncle, Shakuni of Gandhar, as well as Jayadrath of Sindh (both of whom wanted to be free of Hastinapur). And also by Karna, whom he appointed King of Anga in the east. This movement to dissolve the confederacy is what was the underlying cause of war.
Hi Parsuram, could you pl. provide a link or reference for this part? I was under the impression that Sindhudesh was a distant kingdom that may have been a tributary to Kurus while Angadesh was a part of Kuru empire. I haven't come across the centrifugal tendencies of Duryodhan and his advisors. And certainly not such a reason being the central theme of the rationale for the war. It could be that this aspect, which would have been vital but of not much theistic and moralistic value could have been left out by the latter renditions of MB.
Another aspect of MB that needs some shedding of light is how the Kauravas were able to cobble up a huge coalition in spite of theirs being a wrong and 'adharmic' point of view -
could there have been promises made for carving up the loot after it was done?
Is it possible that there was a huge propaganda/misinformation campaign to show the other side as weaker and/or morally wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
>>Duryodhan was not in the least interested in maintaining a unified confederacy. He was all for letting its parts go their own ways. In this he was encouraged and, indeed, tutored by his uncle, Shakuni of Gandhar, as well as Jayadrath of Sindh (both of whom wanted to be free of Hastinapur). And also by Karna, whom he appointed King of Anga in the east. This movement to dissolve the confederacy is what was the underlying cause of war.
Hi Parsuram, could you pl. provide a link or reference for this part? I was under the impression that Sindhudesh was a distant kingdom that may have been a tributary to Kurus while Angadesh was a part of Kuru empire. I haven't come across the centrifugal tendencies of Duryodhan and his advisors. And certainly not such a reason being the central theme of the rationale for the war. It could be that this aspect, which would have been vital but of not much theistic and moralistic value could have been left out by the latter renditions of MB.
Another aspect of MB that needs some shedding of light is how the Kauravas were able to cobble up a huge coalition in spite of theirs being a wrong and 'adharmic' point of view -
could there have been promises made for carving up the loot after it was done?
Is it possible that there was a huge propaganda/misinformation campaign to show the other side as weaker and/or morally wrong?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->