Was Duryodhana cruel to the citizens or just to the Pandavas?
Answer Podcast
Three points.
Firstly, the epics are not exhaustive historical records that detail every sociological aspect of the times. During the Pandavas’ exile, the narrative focus remains largely on them—particularly on how Duryodhana continued to persecute them even while they were in exile. The scriptures seldom describe Duryodhana independent of his interactions with the Pandavas or other major characters. So, the scriptures do describe history, but from a specific lens—focused on particular individuals and moral themes.
Secondly, Duryodhana had many reasons to restrain whatever animosity he may have harbored toward others. Was he cruel? Absolutely. His cruelty was evident even before he was influenced by Shakuni. For example, he devised a plan to poison Bhima well before Shakuni’s involvement. He sought strategic support—military backing through Karna, and scheming and manipulation through Shakuni.
However, even without these allies, he possessed a deeply malicious mentality. At no point did he enjoy unfettered power—his actions always occurred under the oversight of his elders. And even in their presence, he did not hesitate to hatch schemes to dishonor and destroy the Pandavas. Still, Duryodhana was politically shrewd. He knew he couldn’t afford to create too many enemies. He was aware of the Pandavas’ immense popularity among the citizens due to their virtue and leadership. So, he had to exercise caution—he couldn’t openly antagonize the citizens, nor could he push Bhishma, Drona, and others beyond a certain limit.
Therefore, he concentrated his hostility primarily on the Pandavas.
Now, does that mean his enmity was limited only to them, and that he was kind, responsible, and caring toward the rest of the citizens? That’s unlikely. His envy, arrogance, and anger were deeply embedded traits. If the Pandavas had been permanently removed and if he had been left unchecked—especially after Dhritarashtra’s passing, with no Bhishma or Vidura to restrain him—then his darker tendencies would likely have emerged far more aggressively.
Some historians, based on certain Mahabharata passages, have argued that Duryodhana’s rule brought poverty and distress to the citizens. Others have contested this view. Ultimately, this remains an academic debate. But one thing is clear: his toxic mentality would not have simply disappeared with the removal of the Pandavas.
People driven by envy will always find someone else to envy, even if one object of their envy is eliminated. Those driven by arrogance will always see others as threats to their power.
As long as the Pandavas were alive, Duryodhana’s atrocities were focused on them. But had they been removed from the picture, it’s highly probable that his tyranny would have extended toward others. That is why removing Duryodhana from power was not just about restoring the Pandavas’ rightful kingdom—it was essential to protect the citizens from a dangerously driven and morally corrupt ruler.
His wrongdoings may have appeared targeted at specific individuals, but they were executed so brazenly that, over time, and in the absence of any moral checks, they would have escalated and affected many more.