Mahabharat from Subhadra's POV . - Page 3

@DeepikaGupta. Panchali didn't get importance because she was wife of Pandavas/Yudhishtira. She got importance because she was princess of Panchal. Devika's kingdom might have been an ally, but they didn't carry the clout of the Panchalas.

The political landscape needs to be understood clearly. Jarasandha was emperor, but he was widely thought to be an usurper. Only Kurus and Panchalas were thought to have right to the imperial throne, but Jarasandha made both kingdoms his vassals. He was attacking the Yadavas. On their own, none of them were big enough to take on Jarasandha, especially since it would mean Kurus and Panchalas would be competing against each other at the same time.

Which is why VYASA asked the Pandavas to go to Panchal for the swaymavara. Which is why Drupada rigged the contest for Arjuna. Which is why Krishna was present but didn't participate.

Prior to Vyasa's arrival, the Pandavas were merely wandering in the forest and living life by begging for alms. Arjuna's archery didn't get them the money or fame. The prologue to MBh actually states his fame began with swayamvara.

Then started the Kuru(Pandava)-Panchal-Yadava alliance.

The Pandavas had absolutely NO money at the time. Both Drupada and KRISHNA gave Panchali HUGE doweries. The Pandavas used the political clout from the 2 clans to return to Hastinapuri. After the division of the kingdom, they used PANCHALI'S money to build Khandavaprastha.

From this time onwards, she was Yudhishtira's finance minister and citizen liaison. A fact verified at various points by Vidura, Yudhishtira, Suyodhana, and Panchali herself. Even Kunti later asked her sons (she mentioned Arjuna and Nakula specifically) to follow in Panchali's footsteps.

Then came Subhadraharan, and the Yadavas gave the Pandavas another HUGE dowery for Subhadra.

Then came the imperial campaign. THAT is when Arjuna won wealth from other kingdoms.

So no, Panchali's importance came first from her position as Panchal princess and the money SHE brought into the family. It was all hers until Subhadra brought in some more. Add to that her official position in the empire which Subhadra didn't have.

Panchali's position was so integral to the empire the enemy made her part of the second exile contract. Shakuni SPECIFIED her name. She didn't simply go along because she was Yudhishtira's wife.

Then, the war is described multiple times as Kuru-Panchal conflict because Pandavas had NO ARMY. There were some Yadava soldiers and Krishna as well as Matsya soldiers, but bulk of the army came from Panchali's side. How do you imagine she felt confident enough to tell Krishna she'd fight the war even if he weren't there? Heck, almost the entire war chest belonged to her family. Plus, she was confident enough in Subhadra's support that she included Abhimanyu in the list of those who would fight in her army.

None of this is to say Subhadra wasn't important. But her importance was not as an ACTIVE part of the plot. Rather, as a pawn (I mean no disrespect by it, but her brothers did this) and as indirectly bringing the story to future generations.

_______________________________

At the center of the miscomprehension is the misconception of Mahabharata as a family drama, an enmity between Pandavas and Kauravas. NO! It was a MINUSCULE part of MBh. The epic in its entirety was a POLITICAL drama. Almost every part of the plot was based on politics. Not just Kuru-Panchala, the Vasishta-Varuni clan was warring with the Angirasas. ie, there was a brahmin vs. brahmin war going on in addition to kshatriya vs. kshatriya conflict.

I get irritated reading these silly stories about who loved whom more BECAUSE they fail to see the bigger picture. Panchali was crucial because she was as much a politician as the men around her. So was Kunti to some extent, but Panchali had a streak of ruthlessness which rivaled that of the men allied with her. Subhadra was Panchali's biggest support and Abhimanyu's mother, but she definitely was not an ACTIVE part of the politics.

^^^ very well responded, Draupadi wasn't a wife of the Pandavas, she was The wife of the Pandavas. She was the one who brought all the strength and riches to the Pandavas and made them rulers.

No one would have actually otherwise cared for the Pandavas to get their due. It doesn't seem plausible that Vidur didn't tell Bheeshm that the Pandavas had survived, still he didn't feel the need to search for them and delay the coronation of Suyodhan. It was only after this alliance that Pandavas got confidence to expose themselves

The Kuru Panchal alliance and later the war was the base of Mahabharata (although there were multiple other things) and Draupadi was the binding force for both.

She was most important part of Mahabharata beyond doubt. Subhadra could at max be the second lead(even if assume that Arjun loved her the most)

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

^^^ very well responded, Draupadi wasn't a wife of the Pandavas, she was The wife of the Pandavas. She was the one who brought all the strength and riches to the Pandavas and made them rulers.

No one would have actually otherwise cared for the Pandavas to get their due. It doesn't seem plausible that Vidur didn't tell Bheeshm that the Pandavas had survived, still he didn't feel the need to search for them and delay the coronation of Suyodhan. It was only after this alliance that Pandavas got confidence to expose themselves

The Kuru Panchal alliance and later the war was the base of Mahabharata (although there were multiple other things) and Draupadi was the binding force for both.

She was most important part of Mahabharata beyond doubt. Subhadra could at max be the second lead(even if assume that Arjun loved her the most)

Thanks.

Seems to me anyone who has amar chitra katha level knowledge and/or has watched TV shows on MBh now is writing a book from some point of view or the other. Arrey, some basic research is needed, no? Which is hypocritical of me because I've done some MBh writings myself. That loathed book, Arjun Without A Doubt, has made-up elements which are blatantly made up, but the fact that author actually bothered to read the text is evident. Plus, the language was clean which was a great relief to me in reading. I mean, we can dislike the content and like the writing. This Krishna's Sister book was somewhat of a fan fiction of Star Plus MBh. In fact, the makers could sue the author for some of the dialogue.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@DeepikaGupta. Panchali didn't get importance because she was wife of Pandavas/Yudhishtira. She got importance because she was princess of Panchal. Devika's kingdom might have been an ally, but they didn't carry the clout of the Panchalas.

The political landscape needs to be understood clearly. Jarasandha was emperor, but he was widely thought to be an usurper. Only Kurus and Panchalas were thought to have right to the imperial throne, but Jarasandha made both kingdoms his vassals. He was attacking the Yadavas. On their own, none of them were big enough to take on Jarasandha, especially since it would mean Kurus and Panchalas would be competing against each other at the same time.

Which is why VYASA asked the Pandavas to go to Panchal for the swaymavara. Which is why Drupada rigged the contest for Arjuna. Which is why Krishna was present but didn't participate.

Prior to Vyasa's arrival, the Pandavas were merely wandering in the forest and living life by begging for alms. Arjuna's archery didn't get them the money or fame. The prologue to MBh actually states his fame began with swayamvara.

Then started the Kuru(Pandava)-Panchal-Yadava alliance.

The Pandavas had absolutely NO money at the time. Both Drupada and KRISHNA gave Panchali HUGE doweries. The Pandavas used the political clout from the 2 clans to return to Hastinapuri. After the division of the kingdom, they used PANCHALI'S money to build Khandavaprastha.

From this time onwards, she was Yudhishtira's finance minister and citizen liaison. A fact verified at various points by Vidura, Yudhishtira, Suyodhana, and Panchali herself. Even Kunti later asked her sons (she mentioned Arjuna and Nakula specifically) to follow in Panchali's footsteps.

Then came Subhadraharan, and the Yadavas gave the Pandavas another HUGE dowery for Subhadra.

Then came the imperial campaign. THAT is when Arjuna won wealth from other kingdoms.

So no, Panchali's importance came first from her position as Panchal princess and the money SHE brought into the family. It was all hers until Subhadra brought in some more. Add to that her official position in the empire which Subhadra didn't have.

Panchali's position was so integral to the empire the enemy made her part of the second exile contract. Shakuni SPECIFIED her name. She didn't simply go along because she was Yudhishtira's wife.

Then, the war is described multiple times as Kuru-Panchal conflict because Pandavas had NO ARMY. There were some Yadava soldiers and Krishna as well as Matsya soldiers, but bulk of the army came from Panchali's side. How do you imagine she felt confident enough to tell Krishna she'd fight the war even if he weren't there? Heck, almost the entire war chest belonged to her family. Plus, she was confident enough in Subhadra's support that she included Abhimanyu in the list of those who would fight in her army.

None of this is to say Subhadra wasn't important. But her importance was not as an ACTIVE part of the plot. Rather, as a pawn (I mean no disrespect by it, but her brothers did this) and as indirectly bringing the story to future generations.

_______________________________

At the center of the miscomprehension is the misconception of Mahabharata as a family drama, an enmity between Pandavas and Kauravas. NO! It was a MINUSCULE part of MBh. The epic in its entirety was a POLITICAL drama. Almost every part of the plot was based on politics. Not just Kuru-Panchala, the Vasishta-Varuni clan was warring with the Angirasas. ie, there was a brahmin vs. brahmin war going on in addition to kshatriya vs. kshatriya conflict.

I get irritated reading these silly stories about who loved whom more BECAUSE they fail to see the bigger picture. Panchali was crucial because she was as much a politician as the men around her. So was Kunti to some extent, but Panchali had a streak of ruthlessness which rivaled that of the men allied with her. Subhadra was Panchali's biggest support and Abhimanyu's mother, but she definitely was not an ACTIVE part of the politics.

Sorry dear I don't in this at all coz at time of Draupadi marriage Panchal was divided in two parts , one was with guru drona , still yes he had given a huge dowry regarding dowry from krishna , sorry it was not dowry , it was gift from yadav clan 2 pandavas . King Ugrasena with approval from his yadav clan gave fifth part of dwarka wealth 2 Pandavas for building indraprastha , even yadav did helped Pandavas in building indraprastha. No only krishna even balram helped them , yadav helping Pandavas financially made kauravs more angry as panchal & Yadavs both were helping Pandavas. Huge dowry was given 2 Pandavas in arjun subhadra wedding.

There is no doubt Draupadi is main heroine , u can also call her 6 Pandava but she don't got this importance coz she was princess of Panchal . , She got this importance coz she was queen of indraprastha , wife of five Pandavas, that's why I gave example of devika.

If she was only wife of arjun still she would have been princess of Panchal but she would had never got this importance coz she would had never been a queen . Arjun was commander in Chief of indraprastha not king . Being only arjun wife & princess of Panchal , she would have not able 2 enter this much in politics untill yudhishthira or bheem gave up their right of kingship & make place for arjun.

Infact if she was only wife of arjun then she would had never been staked only , no individual wife was staked of Pandavas but only Draupadi was staked.

Dice game & panchali's insult was d turning point of d story which pave d way 2 mahabharat, I m not blaming her for d war but this event brought major change .

She was invited 2 dice game & further insulted as queen of indraprastha not coz she was princess of Panchal . She was pride of Pandavas.

I m not denying panchal or Draupadi contribution in Pandavas lives & mahabharat.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Sorry dear I don't in this at all coz at time of Draupadi marriage Panchal was divided in two parts , one was with guru drona , still yes he had given a huge dowry regarding dowry from krishna , sorry it was not dowry , it was gift from yadav clan 2 pandavas . King Ugrasena with approval from his yadav clan gave fifth part of dwarka wealth 2 Pandavas for building indraprastha , even yadav did helped Pandavas in building indraprastha. No only krishna even balram helped them , yadav helping Pandavas financially made kauravs more angry as panchal & Yadavs both were helping Pandavas. Huge dowry was given 2 Pandavas in arjun subhadra wedding.

There is no doubt Draupadi is main heroine , u can also call her 6 Pandava but she don't got this importance coz she was princess of Panchal . , She got this importance coz she was queen of indraprastha , wife of five Pandavas, that's why I gave example of devika.

If she was only wife of arjun still she would have been princess of Panchal but she would had never got this importance coz she would had never been a queen . Arjun was commander in Chief of indraprastha not king .

She was invited 2 dice game & further insulted as queen of indraprastha not coz she was princess of Panchal . She was pride of Pandavas.

I m not denying panchal or Draupadi contribution in Pandavas lives & mahabharat.

No, Yadavas didn't give gift to Pandavas. KRISHNA gave a dowry after the wedding. Or the Yadavas could simply have called Pandavas and Kunti to Dwaraka and had them stay there. Yadava clout was nowhere near enough to get half the kingdom from the Kurus. Pandavas needed Panchal.

Balram wasn't anywhere in the vicinity of Khandavaprastha when they were building it. Only Krishna was. Kauravas weren't angry about Yadavas. They were worried about PANCHAL. It says so in text. The half of Panchal which went to Drona was done on the strength of Pandavas who were then allied with Drupada.

Let me repeat: Pandavas had NO MONEY, NO CLOUT. IIRC, they were actually planning to kill themselves as they were living the lives of beggars. Then, Vyasa advised them to go to Panchal to win Panchali.

In the division of the kingdom, the reason is clearly stated as the new allies Pandavas had. It is not about you agreeing. It's about Vyasa's statements on the reason.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO INDRAPRASTHA WITHOUT PANCHALI.

She wasn't the pride of the Pandavas, which is frankly an idiotic thing to say about a human being. She was their finance minister, the one who controlled every last paisa flowing in and out of the empire. Imagine the clout that is! She also received every single complaint to reach the court.

She wasn't ASSAULTED for being Yudhishtira's wife. She was assaulted for her refusal to admit she was a slave. If she were free, it would have caused political problems. She didn't go along on exile because she was married to Yudhishtira. Her name was SPECIFIED by exile contract.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WAR WITHOUT PANCHALI. Because Pandavas again had no money, no army.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

No, Yadavas didn't give gift to Pandavas. KRISHNA gave a dowry after the wedding. Or the Yadavas could simply have called Pandavas and Kunti o Dwaraka and had them stay there.

Balram wasn't anywhere in the vicinity of Khandavaprastha when they were building it. Only Krishna was. Kauravas weren't angry about Yadavas. They were worried about PANCHAL. It says so in text. The half of Panchal which went to Drona was done on the strength or Pandavas who were then allied with Drupada.

Let me repeat: Pandavas had NO MONEY, NO CLOUT. IIRC, they were actually planning to kill themselves as they were living the lives of beggars. Then, Vyasa advised them to go to Panchal to win Panchali.

In the division of the kingdom, the reason is clearly stated as the new allies Pandavas had. it is not about you agreeing. It's about Vyasa's statements on the reason.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO INDRAPRASTHA WITHOUT PANCHALI.

She wasn't the pride of the Pandavas, which is frankly an idiotic thing to say about a human being. She was their finance minister, the one who controlled every last paisa flowing in and out of the empire. Imagine the clout that is! She also received every single complaint to reach the court.

She wasn't ASSAULTED for being Yudhishtira's wife. She was assaulted for her refusal to admit she was a slave. If she were free, it would have caused political problems. She didn't go along on exile because she was married to Yudhishtira. Her name was SPECIFIED by exile contract.

THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO WAR WITHOUT PANCHALI. Because Pandavas again had no money, no army.

Krishna balram visited Pandavas in Hastinapur after marriage 2 Draupadi,

Mahabharat have many versions.

We can agree 2 disagree .

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Krishna balram visited Pandavas in Hastinapur after marriage 2 Draupadi,

Mahabharat have many versions.

We can agree 2 disagree .

Citation please on his visit BEFORE Subhadra.

ETA: except for meeting Pandavas at swayamvara and dropping them off in Khandavaprastha, Balram had nothing to do with any of it. In fact, he didn't even know the Pandavas were alive until Krishna told him.

Actually, he says he asked Krishna to fight for KAURAVAS in Kurukshetra.

_____________________

Let me repeat: it was not the Yadava support which got Pandavas their kingdom. It was Panchal. The fact that Kuru and Panchal had claim on throne is stated by Vyasa. Yadavas had none. Not only that, if it were simply their clout, they could've easily announced it long before swayamvara as Kunti was Vasudeva's sister. Pandavas needed Panchal.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Citation please on his visit BEFORE Subhadra.

ETA: except for meeting Pandavas at swayamvara and dropping them off in Khandavaprastha, Balram had nothing to do with any of it. In fact, he didn't even know the Pandavas were alive until Krishna told him.

Actually, he says he asked Krishna to fight for KAURAVAS in Kurukshetra.

_____________________

Let me repeat: it was not the Yadava support which got Pandavas their kingdom. It was Panchal. The fact that Kuru and Panchal had claim on throne is stated by Vyasa. Yadavas had none. Not only that, if it were simply their clout, they could've easily announced it long before swayamvara as Kunti was Vasudeva's sister. Pandavas needed Panchal.

No where I said coz of dwarka Pandavas got their rights no where I denied panchal or Draupadi part .

I guess there is no point discussion coz I know what I m saying is right which I will not change , maybe acc 2 what u r saying would be right.

I guess we should stick 2 d topic which is related to subhadra not Draupadi.

We can agree 2 disagree.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

No where I said coz of dwarka Pandavas got their rights no where I denied panchal or Draupadi part .

I guess there is no point discussion coz I know what I m saying is right which I will not change , maybe acc 2 what u r saying would be right.

I guess we should stick 2 d topic which is related to subhadra not Draupadi.

We can agree 2 disagree.

Yes, we can disagree. I talked about Panchali only because the first post and the later discussion mentioned her.

I find Subhadra to be as strong-willed as any of the other women in the epic without perhaps the power. It couldn't have been easy to live with the back-biting Yadavas with her husband in exile, but she did. She also brought up Abhimanyu and instilled values in him. It certainly wasn't Arjuna who gave Abhimanyu the courage and the knowledge of right from wrong. The Upapandavas preferred to live with her than with Dhrishtadyumna. She was a staunch ally to Panchali.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Had Subhadra not been there we would have neither had Mahabharata (the epic that we have) since her Great grandson heard it nor Srimad Bhagwatam since her grandson heard it

So she might not have been important to the happenings back then but she has full credit in the tale becoming a legend and that is as great a contribution

Are you being sarcastic ? 😆

Had her grandson didn't heard somebody else s grandson would have heard but the tale still would have become a legend. Mahabharata became legend because of what it was and because of other important personalities who contributed to this epic not because of subdhara