Htydjtk

1. Many on one - Abhimanyu was a Maharathi or something - I believe they can be attacked by many at the same time.




2. He fought till the end and never surrendered.




3. The Kauravas didn't come looking for him - he went looking for them. When he penetrated their Vyuha, were they supposed to go into meditation like Drona at the time he was killed?




4. Arjuna exacted revenge for this only from Jayadratha who only blocked the escape route and not from any of the warriors who actually killed him - it was plain vengeance and not reprisal for Adharma. Abhimanyu took youthful risk and paid for it - that's all there was to it.

Nothing seems Adharmic about his killing to me.

Did Bhishma on the arrow-bed chide Drona for this?

Why is the killing of Abhimanyu included in the litany of Adharmic acts of the Kauravas?

How exactly did the killing of Bhishma violate the agreed-upon rules of war?

1. One (or maybe two) on one - Bhishma was a Maharathi or something - I believe they can be attacked by many at the same time.




2. Was there a rule that he was not supposed to fight a man ? Because Shikhandi, the challenger was a man when he challenged. Bhishma had a random self-imposed rule that he won't fight a man who used to be a woman before. Sounds kinda sexist/gender-ist.




3. Pandavas didn't go scheming to place Shikhandi in front of Bhishma - Bhishma himself advised this method to Yudhishtira. None - Not Krishna. Not Arjuna. Not even Shikhandi schemed this. When a challenger challenges a Kshatriya to a fight, he is supposed to. Just because Bhishma had some mood problems, were the challengers supposed to go into hiding in a lake like Duryodhana did before he was killed ?




4. Jayadratha was punished by Pandavas for insulting another man's wife. Unable to understand this simple dharma, he exacted revenge on the Pandavas using a boon from Lord Shiva. It was plain vengeance and not reprisal for Adharma. Bhishma had a suicide wish and paid for it - thats all there was to it

Nothing seems Adharmic about his killing to me.

Did Bhishma on the arrow-bed chide Arjuna or Krishna or Yudhishtira or Shikandi for this ?

Why is the killing of Bhishma included in the litany of 'adharmic' acts of the Pandavas ?

The acts done by Duryodhana, Shakuni et.al. (poisoning a child and throwing him into a river, trying to burn down house, cheating during dice , , refusing to give rightful land back) were bestial and would be called terrorism in modern terminology.

How exactly did the killing of Abhimanyu violate the agreed-upon rules of war?

To know the answer first it is necessary to know the what were the set of rules that were setup before war. There were certain rules mentioned in Mahabharata, Book 6: Bhishma Parva: SECTION I.

Then the Kurus, the Pandavas, and the Somakas made certain covenants, and settled the rules, O bull of Bharata's race, regarding the different kinds of combat. Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly. And if having fought fairly the combatants withdraw (without fear of molestation), even that would be gratifying to us. Those who engaged in contests of words should be fought against with words. Those that left the ranks should never be slain. A car-warrior should have a car-warrior for his antagonist; he on the neck of an elephant should have a similar combatant for his foe; a horse should be met by a horse, and a foot-soldier, O Bharata; should be met by a foot-soldier. Guided by considerations of fitness, willingness, daring and might, one should strike another, giving notice. No one should strike another that is unprepared or panic-struck. One engaged with another, one seeking quarter, one retreating, one whose weapon is rendered unfit, uncased in mail, should never be struck. Car-drivers, animals (yoked to cars or carrying weapons) men
engaged in the transport of weapons, players on drums and blowers of conches should never be struck.

When looked on the part in bold it clearly says that only one warrior will fight with another not the second. But Abhimanyu was killed by seven maharathis. It also says one should not be attacked whose weapon is rendered unfit. This rule was also violated. So this act of Kauravas was henious and unrighteous by every mean.