Relationship between
Balarama and Duryodhan

Everyone looks at life from their own angle.

Balarama had the opportunity to teach Duryodhan and Bhima some advance wrestling techniques. 
Duryodhan happened to be very good at sucking up to people and Balarama was impressed by his wrestling abilities. 
Bhima, though strong, wasn’t as technically able as Duryodhan and so Balarama favoured Duryodhan over Bhima.

Dhritarastra and Duryodhan were very good hosts and managed to ingratiate Balarama during their initial meetings.  As a result, Balarama favoured Kauravas over the Pandavas.  As a result, Balarama wanted to create a marriage alliance with Duryodhan by marrying his sister Subhadra to him.  When Krushna chose Arjun and conjured up a kidnap plot, Balarama was angry.  However, seeing as Subhadra had fallen in love with Arjun, he let the matter rest.  There was no point in fighting the attraction between two young people.  ( This also shows that women drivers are not a new phenomena ! )

A few years later, Krushna’s son Samb failed to kidnap Duryodhan’s daughter from her svayamvar (not all sons are as able as their fathers!!!)  He was captured by the Kaurav army and held in a prison.  Balarama volunteered to parley and free Samb.  He had faith in Duryodhan’s love for him as a guru and thought the matter will be swiftly resolved if he went in person.  Duryodhan however, simply laughed at the idea of a Kuru princess marrying a Yadav upstart.  He called Yadavas lots of unpleasant names and reminded Balarama that Yadavas are only allowed such royal privileges as crowns and chatra thanks to the leniency of kings like the Kurus, otherwise, they have no right to such graces.

Balarama was so cut up by such insults, he resolved to drown Hastinapur in the Ganges and used his plough to pull the city into the river *.  Fearing death, the Kauravas appeased Balarama and handed over Samab and Lakshmana to be married by the royal rites. 

Duryodhan’s pride in his ancestry was totally misplaced.  His father wasn’t the son of a Kuru prince.  His own birth was of dubious nature.  Yet, he claimed to be sitting proudly on the pinnacle of “royal India”.  How hollow was his pride ?  He wasn’t even of royal blood !  Dhritrastra was the son of Vyasa, born of an unwed fisher-woman and a wondering rishi.  Vyas’s union with the princesses from Kshi wasn’t exactly “normal” either.  Getting pregnant by the niyog method was used as an emergency - compromise in a tight situation.  It wasn’t exactly “regular”.  Yet, sons of such decent claimed to be better than all other royals.

At the sametime, Yadavs, who had royal blood were denied royal titles because of a supposed curse of Yadu many generations ago !! 

Yayati had a number of sons.r of sons.  Yadu was eldest, Puru was youngest.  Yayati lost his youth and ability to have sex due to a curse from his father-in-law.  Yayati asked his sons to donate their youth so he can fulfil his sexual desires (he says it like that – as plain, simple and honest as that).  Yadu refused, saying transference of youth should be for a noble reason and not for something as mundane as sex !  Puru was happy to lend his youth to his father.  As a result, Yayati made Puru the heir and denied Yadu royal titles.  Simple case of inheritance going to the favoured son.  Bible has plenty of similar examples where blessings are transferred to the favoured son – Issac over Ismail or Jacob over his other brothers. 

As a result, Yadu’s descendants were not allowed to call themselves “kings”.  They had a democratic system of choosing their community leaders to a ruling council, who than chose an elder to act as their head / leader.  Kurus maintained the royal system of having a monarch ruling as the sole king. 

It’s a classic case of blood relatives using “past events” as a reason to keep each other at a distance, especially if they want to retain a certain advantage over the other.  They perpetuate the injustices of the past and repeat the same story like a mantra to justify their success.  Instead of this being a balm that heals the wounds of time, such stories keep afresh the hurtful inequalities that brought the two sides to stand on opposite sides life. 

Duryodhan did himself no favours by upbraiding Balarama on his lineage.  He had to swallow the bitterness of reengaging on his boasts and offer his daughter to the Yadavas as a supplicant rather than an equal.   

Did anyone learn his lesson ?
No.

Duryodhan remained his haughty self and never saw the hollowness of his claim to the Kuru blood line.  Nor did he ever see the Yadavas as anything other than jumped up upstarts meddling in affairs of kings.

Balarama still had a soft spot for Duryodhan and took his side over Yudhisthir everytime.  He blamed Yudhisthir for gambling away his fortune, knowing how crooked Shakuni was and knowing himself to be unequal to him in art of dice.  Knowing how Krushna favoured the Pandavas, Balarama decided to abstain from war by going on a pilgrimage.  Had he stayed, his own inclination would have been to join the Kauravas and he did not want to fight on the opposing side to his own brother.  But he did ask Krushna to abstain from actively fighting in the war.  Hence Krushna chose to be a charioteer and guide rather than a chakra yielding warrior in the Mahabhart war. 

Abdication or abstinence is a good option when you are not sure which way to act.  But, when good and able people abstain from taking corrective action, they tip the  balance in favour of evil through their inaction.  If only the great and the good like Balarama had punished or imprisoned Duryodhan and Dushashan earlier, the bloodbath that ensued could have been averted. 

* What Balarama may have done is re-route the river Ganga to smash the foundation / fortifications of the city using his plough.  He had used the plough before to surround the “Vraj” with the river Yamuna – thus assuring abundant water supply for herders and farmers in the region where he was born.