This time, Vidur is the casualty of a misinformed article on Hindu Grantha Mahabharat. Quoting Granthas out of context, presenting distorted meanings of verses to suit one’s propaganda, and force-fitting Hindu philosophy and teachings into Western worldview are some of how vested interests distort Hindu Dharma and Granthas.

ToI’s (Times of India) Speaking Tree carried an article titled Need to be right, a sign of a vulgar mind by Sumit Paul. The essay underscores the significance of Albert Camus’ quote, emphasizing the imperative to steer clear of an insistent desire always to be right. It explores the relevance of this notion in navigating life’s complexities. Drawing inspiration from philosophy, literature, and historical contexts, the essay illuminates the wisdom inherent in acknowledging the potential for error. It advocates for a broader perspective and encourages ethical growth by embracing the possibility of being wrong.

In this context, the author quotes Vidur, implying that he told Dhritrashtra that even Pandavas shared the blame for the Kurukshetra war. According to the author, Vidur believed Pandavas didn’t accept their weaknesses and wrongs. Furthermore, their ‘insistence’ on being right caused the destructive war. The author opines that the war could’ve been averted if either of them (Kauravas and Pandavas) had forfeited the ‘right’ to be right every time. However, the author doesn’t provide any references to back his claims.

The one incident that decisively disproves the author’s claims is Sri Krishna’s visit to Hastinapur as Shantidoot. All Sri Krishna asked for was five villages, which Duryodhan refused to accept. If the Pandavas were insistent on being right, they wouldn’t have accepted the compromise and settled for only five villages instead of their kingdom. Pandavas were reluctant to fight so much that Kunti had to send a stern message to her sons through Sri Krishna.

Kunti sent a message to her sons through Sri Krishna, saying, “Madhava! I am a widow. I’ve lost my wealth, but my enemies persist. I survive on the generosity of others, yet it’s somewhat more dignified than leading the life of a beggar. Shame upon me! Convey to Yudhishtira to cease his charade of peace negotiations. Otherwise, his adherence to Dharma will be tainted!”

In this portrayal, Kunti emerges as the archetypal mother, urging her sons to embrace heroism. Her words exude intensity, and her directive is unmistakable: fight valiantly like true warriors and secure my liberation. Readers would also know that Arjun was reluctant to fight even on the battlefield, and Bhagwan Krishna had to goad him by giving him Gitopadesh.

Vidur always sided with righteousness, so he insisted that Pandu be crowned king instead of blind Dhritarashtra. The same principle made him prevail over Dhritarashtra to make Yudhistir the Yuvraj instead of his son Duryodhan. Vidur was on Pandava’s side because he believed Dharma was in their camp. He also vowed not to participate in the war after being insulted by Duryodhan.

Nowhere does the Grantha mention Vidur believing that Pandavas insisted on being right. Vidur exhorts Dhritarashtra to return their rightful kingdom to his brothers’ sons. This is another evidence that Vidur believed Pandavas were ‘right’, the exact opposite of what the author implies in his article.

Here are some conversations quoted from Vidur Niti that bust the author’s propaganda regarding Vidura’s views on Pandavas:

1) Vidur tells Dhritarashtra that despite possessing the virtues to rule the three worlds, Yudhishthir was exiled by the king.

2) He also states that Yudhishthir has silently borne the numerous wrongs out of respect for the blind king.

3) In Udyog Parva, Vidur advises Dhritarashtra to return their share of the kingdom to the Pandavas.

4) Vidur wanted Dhritarashtra to give the Hastinapur throne to Yudhishthir because he was the rightful heir. Vidur exalts the eldest Pandava as the foremost righteous man who suffered a lot of misery to preserve Dhritarashtra’s reputation.

5) Vidur also clearly mentions the incompetence of Duryodhan and his clique. In the same verse, he highlights the virtues of Pandavas and asks Dhritarashtra to treat them as his sons.

Far from blaming the Pandavas, Vidur repeatedly points out to Dhritarashtra the injustice the king meted out to the former. He even terms the Pandavas as peacocks and Kauravas as crows while accusing the king of forsaking lions (Pandavas) for protecting jackals (Kauravas).

The problem with authors is they never read the Granthas and try to force fit our Itihasas into their notions of right and wrong. Most want to superimpose a Western worldview on our Itihas, resulting in the distortion of our Grantha, as seen in the aforementioned article.