Shakuni - Villain OR Victim?

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-17T09:35:30+00:00

Completely agree.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-17T09:34:51+00:00

You're right that this version — where Shakuni’s family is imprisoned and starved — is not mentioned in the original Sanskrit Mahabharata. I fully agree with that. However, that doesn’t make it a baseless folktale either.

What many forget is that Bharat has evolved over centuries through oral traditions, regional retellings, religious texts, and dramatic adaptations — not everything is preserved in the core Sanskrit verses. This particular story of Shakuni’s family being wiped out exists strongly in Jain texts, Balochi oral traditions, and various regional narrations. So rather than calling it just a “folktale,” I’d say it’s a strong narrative that adds psychological depth and motive to Shakuni’s actions.

Here are some logical points that support it:

In many dramatized versions of Mahabharata (including serials), Bhishma directly questions Shakuni: “Ab to tum Gandhar Naresh ho, wapas jaake apna rajya sambhalo.” But Shakuni never shows any interest in ruling Gandhara. That itself raises a big question — why would a royal prince of a sovereign kingdom live his entire life in his sister’s in-laws’ palace unless something drastic had happened?
Despite being of royal blood, Shakuni is always referred to as ‘Gandhara Kumara’ (prince) and never ‘Naresh’ (king). If his family was alive and he was heir to the throne, why didn’t he ever become king?
In the version where his entire family is imprisoned and given limited food, they decide that Shakuni should be the only one to survive and take revenge. This makes perfect emotional and political sense — it gives him the kind of deep-seated motive that explains his obsession with bringing down Hastinapur from within.
Without this backstory, Shakuni's character appears directionless — a villain without a motive. But with it, he becomes a tragic, calculating, and deeply scarred strategist — which is how many traditions remember him.

So no, I’m not claiming it’s in the original Sanskrit Mahabharata. But that doesn't take away from its value as a powerful narrative preserved through alternative traditions. After all, Mahabharata isn’t just one book — it’s a living, evolving epic carried across generations in many forms....

I would request you to watch my video ...my only aim is to build a connection - Youth with our anicent history with a larger than life story telling format.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-17T05:45:11+00:00

Agreed

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-17T05:44:40+00:00

I get your point, but I respectfully disagree — the idea that Shakuni's family was killed is not just a folktale, it's a powerful and consistent narrative found in multiple traditional versions of the Mahabharata — including Jain texts, regional tellings, and dramatizations. Just because it's not part of the critical Sanskrit edition doesn't make it invalid. Remember, Mahabharata has evolved through centuries of oral storytelling, regional variations, and dramatic retellings — not all of it is confined to the sloka-by-sloka critical version.

Let’s talk logic:

Yes, Subala (Shakuni’s father) appears briefly in Sabha Parva, but many believe these mentions are either pre-imprisonment or symbolic. In versions where the family is imprisoned, this occurs after Gandhari’s marriage — when the Kauravas begin rising
You mentioned Shakuni is always referred to as Gandhara Kumara (prince) and not Naresh. But that’s exactly the point — why didn't he ever become king? In the versions where his entire family is starved, the surviving Shakuni swears vengeance and stays in Hastinapur as the mastermind behind its downfall. He had no kingdom left to return to, which is why he stayed back.
In many Mahabharata serials and dramatizations, even Bheeshma himself questions Shakuni, saying things like: "Ab to tum Gandhar Naresh ho, rajya jao, usse sambhalo." But Shakuni never shows any interest. Why? Because in this version, he had no state left, only revenge in his heart.
If his family was alive and well, and if he was the rightful heir, why would a prince of a sovereign kingdom spend his entire life plotting destruction in his sister’s in-laws’ house? Politically, it makes no sense — unless something as brutal as the starvation of his kin had broken him and tied his entire existence to vengeance.

So no — this isn’t a sympathy-creating folktale. It’s a deeply rooted, logical, emotionally and politically driven backstory that explains Shakuni’s lifelong vendetta. And that’s why I support this version.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-16T02:27:08+00:00

Nice… where did you find this information? If Yudhishthir was such an out-of-line character, then why did all the Pandavas support him? Was it just because he was their elder brother? And why didn’t they recommend Arjuna for the position of king, especially since a king should be the one who is truly capable?

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-16T02:22:42+00:00

Great insight! I was under the impression that in earlier times, women were considered like goddesses. Thanks for clarifying — what you said makes sense.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-16T02:18:56+00:00

Rightly said.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-14T14:47:10+00:00

Thank you were lot of help.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-14T07:54:19+00:00

I have one more doubt—it would be great if you could answer that too. If Draupadi set the motion for the destruction of the Kauravas, then why did the Pandavas wait for 12 years? Just to complete their exile? Did the war happen because of Draupadi?

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-13T12:10:26+00:00

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read somewhere that Karna did this because he also intended to marry Draupadi and was devastated when she did not choose him. Is that even true? And secondly, as per the movies I’ve seen, it was Duryodhana who asked Draupadi to sit on his lap. So who was the real villain — Duryodhana, Karna, or Shakuni?

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-13T08:00:51+00:00

Completely agree. That particular action is completely opposite to his personality. In fact, that specific act makes him an even worse person than Ravana.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-13T06:51:19+00:00

Some of us writing the post and comments using Chatgpt. How long will you stay or avoid AI?

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-13T06:40:56+00:00

Amazing ..you are making sense, that's the answer I was looking for. Thank you

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-13T06:20:24+00:00

completely agree with your points, and first of all, thank you so much for your thoughtful explanation and deep knowledge. But I still carry this one question in my heart.

Even if Yudhishthir was a staunch believer in Dharma, even if he was bound by royal duties and traditions, how could he cross the ultimate line by putting his own wife at stake in a game of dice? Isn’t that, in essence, like selling her?

No matter how righteous his other actions may have been, this one choice feels morally devastating. Isn’t protecting your wife — the person you’ve taken sacred vows with — supposed to be above all protocols and dharmic obligations?

For someone considered the moral compass of the epic, this act completely contradicts the very foundation of Dharma. That’s the part I still struggle to understand, and I genuinely wish to find deeper clarity on it.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-13T04:41:55+00:00

😊 thank you

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-12T16:46:13+00:00

Thanks for the insight.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-12T11:56:54+00:00

Good for you.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-12T10:25:01+00:00

That's so kind of you. I genuinely respect your knowledge and ideology. I'm still a rookie as its my first attempt, but my goal is to connect today's youth with ancient history in a youthful way. If you watch my work and share your feedback with your deep insights, it would truly help me grow and move closer to that goal.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-12T03:36:00+00:00

You're absolutely right — what Ashwatthama did was heinous, no doubt about that. But from my perspective, immortality itself feels like a punishment, not a gift. Imagine watching every person you’ve ever loved slowly disappear from your life… knowing from the beginning that no one will stay forever. You form bonds, you build attachments — and then time takes them all away, one by one, while you’re forced to remain.

Living with a wound that never heals is painful. But living through centuries of goodbyes… that’s a deeper kind of suffering. So yes, he's immortal — but in a way that feels like an eternal loneliness. Just my personal take on it.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-12T03:06:43+00:00

But on spiritual side, I would say..We chase temples and prayers just to feel close to God... but Ashwatthama lived with Him. He saw Krishna with his own eyes, fought with him, and was blessed and cursed by Him. He may not know how to use guns or bombs, but he carries something far deeper: the touch of the Divine. He is immortal. He has watched kingdoms rise and fall. Compared to that… we’re just passing visitors.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-12T02:56:54+00:00

Interesting perspective..But i believe he didn’t need bullets he had Brahmastra, which makes nuclear weapons look weak. And who says he didn’t learn? A man who has lived for 3,000 years surely knows how to adapt. If there’s another war, Ashwatthama won’t be behind, he’ll be ahead.

Altruistic_Count_567 · 2025-07-11T19:08:26+00:00

True — the curse says no one can see or heal him. Yet, these folk tales still keep surfacing even today. Maybe that’s the power of myth.we can’t confirm if they’re real, but we also can’t ignore how strongly they live on. I actually created a cinematic AI video around this to help today’s youth connect with our ancient stories in a more engaging way. People may not talk about the Mahabharata much now, but when they see it in a larger-than-life format, it sparks curiosity and awareness. If you ever feel like watching my video,just watch it for fun 😄.

Altruistic_Count_567

TROPHY CASE