Some more analysis in continuation from “When Duryodhana Wept..”
Theory of human tendency to own a private property in which exchange happens only with something of equal value could be useful to explain Duryodhana’s possessiveness for kingdom of Hastinapur. Though we can debate pros and cons of ‘private property’ concept, we would agree that it is the concept which drove human to acquire new things which resulted in formation of society. From Duryodhana’s point of view, that point in time Hastinapur belonged to him and so, even a small part of it could not be exchanged for free. Was something wrong in such assumptions?
The other part of this discussion is more related with what is right or wrong. But who would decide? That period was lucky to have Lord Krishna, a symbol of the highest intellect however, the same period also had people like Bhishma and Dronacharya with unquestionable intellect, who choosed to fight from Hastinapur side without questioning right or wrong.
The Romans first made a distinction between rights in persons and rights in things. We acknowledge this in today’s world. Was the kingdom of Hastinapur having the rights to choose its king? Whom the kingdom would have chosen for the throne? Would that decision had been on patriarchal hierarchy, existing occupier, eligibility to hold the place or something else. In such case which side lord Krishna would had chosen to be in Pandavas’ or Hastinapur’s.
Let me simplify this argument by advocating history as we know, or as it was presented to us to know. By all known means, even today, we could not find what Hastinapur would have expected. But we know that Krishna was not an ordinary man, he was Lord Krishna, who was capable of making unquestionable distinction between right and wrong. So he decided to take the side of right successor of Hastinapur. Then history saw; everything fell into the logical place with justified outcome.