is bhisma a man of morals n virtue n fair?

niya

Bhisma is looked upon as someone of great morals n values.

but he abducted the three princess amba ambalika ambika thoughtlessly without caring for
those women's feelings n sentimens.in a swayamvar they would have garlanded the man of
their heart bt bhisma's abduction belittles their right to choose.yes Krishna also abducts rukhmini
but only at her request n willingness.arjun abducts subhadra too but as she herself consented.
he claims helplessness when draupadi is being disrobed n remains a spectator.
he puts forward the condition that he will not lead if karna joins the war.his basis of such rejection?
karna's low class?if he already knew who karna's birth mother is then he should have known
Karna could as much claim his right to the throne as Vichitravira did not father any sons as it is
so the blood lineage was already broken when Vyasa stepped in n impregnanated the SILs.so
his designs to keep karna away served what purpose?nepotism?
he hints how he can be brought down by bringing shikhandi in thus paving the way
to an easy victory for arjuna thereby betraying the trust n faith duryadhan had put on him.
should he not have just said i will not go to war instead like Balaram refuses to join Krishna as does Pradyuman?
so is he really fair?

discuss.

Meself

Bheeshma to me is a case of misguided Dharma. He was a man of miraculous talents and abilities. He was just, fair and had an administrative acumen that could have made the Kuru kingdom the seat of power. But unfortunately none of it happened. He deciede to follow the Dharma of a son, giving up his claims to the throne, binding himself to the throne and giving up his sexuality and sex to safeguard the interests of Satyavati's son. Logically when Vichitravirya died, he was free of his oath. He could have married Ambika and Ambalika and set about in motion, the creation of new ethics and new order. But even that doesn't see the daylight.




His inactions are more dangerous that the malicious intentions of Shakuni and Duryodhan combined. The problem with Bheeshma was he never looked into the more deeper meaning of his role or duties. He always strived to stand true to his severe oath. Yes he was bound to the throne and was the gaurdian of the same, but that clearly meant he was also the gaurdian of morality and ethcie on which the theory of kingship is based .He simply carried on with his task of a gaurdian letting Satyavati and later Dhritrashtra take disastrous decisions. As the gaurdian it was his duty to uphold the morality by refusing to accomplice Satyavati when she asked for the princesses of Kashi to be brought to Hastinapur forcibly. He should have refused the claim of Dhritrashtra and his sons and established Yudhishthir as the king. He should have threatened to wage a war when Draupadi was being moelsted. But his misguided sense of duty didn't allow him to do so. Yes he was a man of morality and virtue but it was dilluted by the fact that he did nothing to uphold it and even after knowing that the actions performed by him are wrong, he continued with his stance. That dillutes his virtue.

soothsayer

i do not have any issues with Bheeshma's morals or virtues. He was hostage to his oath and in pursuit of the same he remained shortsighted even being subject to emotional blackmail. his oath stood between him and any actions which he should have taken in the name of propriety,ethics and statesmanship. this only makes him a vulnerable and helpless character in some ways. What however stands out is his selflessness-he makes up by self sacrifice what he does not by appropriate action.