We know Bhishma Pitamaha was a legendary warrior. He always fought for the right thing and for truth.

Then, if Kamsa was doing so much evil, and Bhishma Pitamaha was already there on Earth, why didn't he try to stop Kamsa?

  • 8
    Did Bhishma and Kamsa ever even meet? It's not like Bhishma could go around putting an end to all the evil in the world while he was alive.
    – senshin
    Jun 22 '14 at 6:05
  • 2
    As far as I know, kamsas death was written to be killed by 8th son of devki i.e lord Krishna
    – Mr. Alien
    Jun 22 '14 at 6:06
  • 1
    @AwalGarg knowing and not knowing is a different thing, we say everything is pre written for our lives, we cannot change, same way it was written that krishna will be killing him
    – Mr. Alien
    Jun 22 '14 at 10:16
  • 1
    @NullPoiиteя aka kans mama
    – Mr. Alien
    Jun 22 '14 at 10:16
  • 1
    @Mr.Alien Ok ok, I agree Krishna has to kill Kamsa. Thats why the questions says - stop - and not - kill. Why didn't Bhishma try to stop Kamsa? Jun 22 '14 at 12:43

There's no reason to believe that Bhishma would try to stop Kamsa. You can ask the same question about a million different people: why didn't Bhishma kill Kamsa, Shishupala, Jarasandha, Narakasura, etc. And why didn't Drupada kill any of them, and why didn't the Pandavas kill any of them (other than Bhima killing Jarasandha)? It's not the dharma of a Kshatriya to go around the world killing all the evildoers. The dharma of a Kshatriyas involves enforcing Dharma within your own kingdom, and possibly going outside your kingdom to enforce Dharma if war is justified by Vedic law in a particular circumstance.

Jarasandha was a bad guy for a long time, and he even drove Krishna and the Yadavas out of Mathura, but the Pandavas never tried to fight him during any of that. It was only at the time of Yudishtra's Rajasuya Yagna that it was justified for Bhima to go to Magadha and challenge Jarasandha to a battle.

  • In response to Vali's question: 'I have not done any misdeed either in your country or city...' Rama famously said: "when entire earth belongs to us where is the question of a city or a particular country?" ... have the times changed since Ramayana? (It's not the dharma of a Kshatriya to go around the world killing all the evildoers.) Feb 25 '16 at 0:51
  • Well, something did change: the world was no longer under the control of a single king. When Dasharatha and Rama were ruling, they had the Earth under their control. Shantanu and Dhritarashtra and so on did not have the Earth under their control. In fact, if I recall correctly during Kamsa's time Mathura was under the control of Jarasandha's empire. (Jarasandha hated Krishna so much because Krishna killed Kamsa.) It's only under Yudhisthira that the Kuru dynasty took over the Earth (although Yudhisthira's ancestor Bharata had previously conquered the Earth). Feb 25 '16 at 1:35
  • @sv. By the way, when we're talking about conquering the world, it's being used in the same sense that the Greeks say Alexander the Great "conquered the world", i.e. conquered the accessible parts of the Earth. So as part of Yudhishthira's Rajasuya Yagna, the Pandavas only went so far West as the Yavana kingdom (Greece), they only went so far North as the Southern border of Harivarsha, etc. But Yudhisthira was still considered the emperor of the Earth. Feb 25 '16 at 1:53
  • Thanks for the background. Did Ravana recognize Ikshvakus' control over Lanka? Or was it off limits? I remember Sita asking Rama once 'What business do we have clearing Rakshasas off of all forests? We don't have any personal enmity with them' To this, I believe, he gives a different answer that it's his Dharma to protect the Rishis - anywhere and everywhere. Very different answer than what he gives to Vali, and I like that one better. And very apt to current times (e.g., US helping to eliminate Hitler). I always thought Rama would not have killed Ravana if not for Sita's kidnapping. Feb 25 '16 at 20:20
  • @sv. No, I don't think Ravana recognized Dasharatha's sovereignty; Ravana killed Rama's ancestor Anaranya as I discuss here, and I don't think he had another interaction with the kings of Ayodhya until Rama. And I think Lanka was viewed as inaccessible in Dasharatha's time. But then Rama built the bridge and Lanka was now in the accessible part of the world. That's why Lanka was part of both Rama's empire and Yudhishthira's empire. See this Mahabharata chapter where Vibhishana surrenders to Sahadeva: sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02030.htm Feb 25 '16 at 20:40

When Kans wanted to kill devki, Vasudev(father of Lord Krishna) came in between and said don't kill devki as she has not done anything wrong and their son won't kill his own mama, however kans didn't agreed to which.

After that vasudev said that he and devki would surrender to kans and also promised that none of their relatives(including hastinapur where bhisma pitama was senapati) would attack kans to free vasudev and kunti and in return let devki live.

In Hindu mythology, Kunti (Sanskrit: कुंती Kuntī) also called Pritha, was the biological daughter of Shurasena, a Yadava, the sister of Vasudeva, the foster daughter of her cousin King Kunti-Bhoja, the wife of King Pandu of Hastinapur and the mother of King Karna of Anga and King Yudhisthira of Indraprastha.

Source : kunti

Kans agreed to that and then he kept devki and vasudev in prison.

The other reason why bhishma didn't stop kans was he was bound to the throne of hastinapur and he couldn't attack any one without kings consent and since kans didn't do any harm to hastinapur, he and bhishma pitamaha never came face to face.


Remember, Kamsa was son-in-law of Jarasandha and who inturn was very very powerful. Jarasanndha was supported by many asuras. Just imagine all these asuras coming together (Jarasandha, Kamsa, Narakasura etc) and fighting the Kurus..Bhisma et al would have been laid down flat in no time, however strong they might have been.

Krishna and Balarama eliminated all these asuras directly or indirectly before Kurushetra war. Otherwise all the asuras would have sided Duryodhana in all probability and Pandavas couldn't have dreamt of a victory. Then Lord and his elder brother himself would have been forced to take up their weapons to destroy all these and fight them all simultaneouly in Kurushetra.

Also, we know, Lord Krishna or Balarama didn't kill Jarasandha too, even though Jarasandha was at the mercy of Balarama 17 times, he was pardoned by Krishna and Balarama. Jarasandha was killed by Bheema only because of Lord Krishna's help. Otherwise, even Bhima cannot kill him.

So, firstly it is not easy to kill Kamsa in proper war, as all asuras might have come together and no Bheesma would have been sufficient to face and kill them all. May be the entire Kuru race would have destroyed, even before pandavas or Kauravas were born had bhisma waged a proper war against Kamsa and other powerful asuras.

Secondly, it was destined that Kamsa should be killed by Lord Krishna. Only, Krishna could kill Kamsa and not any one. This was one of prime reasons for Krishna avatara.

  • 1
    Jarasandha was not an Asura and he wasn't supported by Asuras. Kamsa wasn't an Asura either. They were humans, although they were incarnations of the Asuras Viprachitti and Kalanemi respectively: sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01068.htm By the way, you shoudn't use block quotes unless you're quoting something. Dec 23 '14 at 16:40
  • @Keshav - i think, Madhvacharya in mahabharata tatparya nirnaya says that Bhisma and co cant kill Jarasandha and, if at all they faced him, Bhishma is not powerful enough to stand Jarasandha and co...You can check tha mahabharata tatparyanirnaya for more info
    – user808
    Sep 26 '15 at 15:20
  • Do you know what chapter of the Mahabharata Tatpara Nirnaya it's in? Sep 26 '15 at 15:32

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .