Why didn't Arjun protect Draupadi? - Page 11

Arjun did what he could by supporting Draupadi's claim that a slave can not stake any free human as Yudhishtir did, but no one else supported it

But he could not have done anything more after having become a slave himself

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Arjun did what he could by supporting Draupadi's claim that a slave can not stake any free human as Yudhishtir did, but no one else supported it

But he could not have done anything more after having become a slave himself

Vikarn supported him.

Also, Raja Harishchandra had sold his wife and son as well, and he is known for his Dharma.

Looks like people were considered properties then.

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Vikarn supported him.

Also, Raja Harishchandra had sold his wife and son as well, and he is known for his Dharma.

Looks like people were considered properties then.

Vikarna was against disrobe not against Dasitva of Draupadi in itself. Vidur ji supported her completely, excluding them Arjuna was only one who said anything in her support

Raja Harischandra I think sold himself I think then had to let go his wife and son

Definitely people were property but staking them for gambling is not Dharma no way justified

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Vikarna was against disrobe not against Dasitva of Draupadi in itself. Vidur ji supported her completely, excluding them Arjuna was only one who said anything in her support

Raja Harischandra I think sold himself I think then had to let go his wife and son

Definitely people were property but staking them for gambling is not Dharma no way justified

@red - Nope. Vikarna supported Draupadi by quoting her own logic. He asked the question asked earlier by Draupadi again the court: Whether Yudhisthira, having lost himself, had any right to stake Draupadi.

IMO, Vikarna was the only male in the court who completely upheld Dharma. People like Yudhisthira and Bhishma just collected epithets of dharmaraj and Bheeshma without knowing actual dharma 🤪

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02067.htm

"Vaisampayana continued,--"Beholding the Pandavas thus distressed and the princess of Panchala also thus afflicted, Vikarna the son of Dhritarashtra said--'Ye kings, answer ye the question that hath been asked by Yajnaseni. If we do not judge a matter referred to us, all of us will assuredly have to go to hell without delay. How is that Bhishma and Dhritarashtra, both of whom are the oldest of the Kurus, as also the high-souled Vidura, do not say anything! The son of Bharadwaja who is the preceptor of us, as also Kripa, is here. Why do not these best of regenerate ones answer the question? Let also those other kings assembled here from all directions answer according to their judgment this question, leaving aside all motives of gain and anger. Ye kings, answer ye the question that hath been asked by this blessed daughter of king Drupada, and declare after reflection on which side each of ye is.' Thus did Vikarna repeatedly appeal to those that were in that assembly. But those kings answered him not one word, good or ill. And Vikarna having repeatedly appealed to all the kings began to rub his hands and sigh like a snake. And at last

p. 131

the prince said--'Ye kings of the earth, ye Kauravas, whether ye answer this question or not, I will say what I regard as just and proper. Ye foremost of men, it hath been said that hunting, drinking, gambling, and too much enjoyment of women, are the four vices of kings. The man, that is addicted to these, liveth forsaking virtue. And people do not regard the acts done by a person who is thus improperly engaged, as of any authority. This son of Pandu, while deeply engaged in one of these vicious acts, urged thereto by deceitful gamblers, made Draupadi a stake. The innocent Draupadi is, besides, the common wife of all the sons of Pandu. And the king, having first lost himself offered her as a stake. And Suvala himself desirous of a stake, indeed prevailed upon the king to stake this Krishna. Reflecting upon all these circumstances, I regard Draupadi as not won."

^^^ Thanks I was confused

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

Draupadi was humiliated because she was married to all 5 of them.

Also, if you noticed, Duryodhan had the same view of Kunti.. as he didn’t consider them as rightful sons as they are not biologically Kunti’s children. Yudhishthir gets angry but doesn’t take any action or punish them.

Never mind his father was also a product of niyog 😂 such hypocrisy..

Panchali was ASSAULTED not for being married to Pandavas, but because she was princess f the 2nd most powerful kingdom in the continent and the finance minister of Indraprastha. She was an integral part of the empire, and the enemy needed to make it clear she, too, was a slave. If not, she might have claimed to be a free agent and could've actually staked a claim on running the empire herself and later freed the Pandavas. In fact, she does claim to be a free agent and uses a technicality to argue her case.

This calculation of Kauravas is made even more clear in the 2nd dice game. Panchali was included specifically in the contract. The Kauravas wanted her out.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Panchali was ASSAULTED not for being married to Pandavas, but because she was princess f the 2nd most powerful kingdom in the continent and the finance minister of Indraprastha. She was an integral part of the empire, and the enemy needed to make it clear she, too, was a slave. If not, she might have claimed to be a free agent and could've actually staked a claim on running the empire herself and later freed the Pandavas. In fact, she does claim to be a free agent and uses a technicality to argue her case.

This calculation of Kauravas is made even more clear in the 2nd dice game. Panchali was included specifically in the contract. The Kauravas wanted her out.

But yudhishter had already lost his kingdom?

I think they also had a bruised ego as they lost during the swayamvar and she was the most beautiful woman of her times.

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

But yudhishter had already lost his kingdom?

I think they also had a bruised ego as they lost during the swayamvar and she was the most beautiful woman of her times.

The problem with that is leaving Panchali free. Panchal could've easily claimed the empire. Out of all the clans in Aryavarta, only 2 were thought to have legitimate claim to imperial throne - Kurus and Panchalas. If Panchali claimed deceit, since she was empress of the throne, Panchalas could potentially have helped.

In fact, Dhrishtadyumna suggests something along the lines in Kamyaka. Also, Satyaki suggests something similar along with Krishna when they visit Pandavas in exile.

The staking of Panchali was purely political just like the staking of the younger Pandavas. The taunting and the sexual assault were from malice and actually stupidity on Kauravas' part. Panchali wasn't staked because of her wife status. it was because of political status.

Originally posted by: proteeti

Krishna never defied Balaram. He simply ignored his friendship with Dury. 😆

Also, we must remember that the epics were written so that we, the ones reading them, would note the mistakes of the characters, and avoid them in our lives. Yes, Arjun made a mistake there, but it is up to us to remember his mistakes and not repeat it. Also Arjun was never the greatest man, that one is reserved for Krishna, the poorna-avatar. He was known for his archery and warriorship more than his moral code.

Also, in the Dyuta-sabha, I feel it was an intentional set-up, where every character present acted against their character arc up until that point.

Yudi was the emblem of dharma, he forgot where to draw a line.

Bheem was the strongest, he stood there like a common man.

Arjun, the best archer in a world, stayed mum throughout.

Nakul&Sahadeva both had dialogues, for a change.

All the usually vocal elders were shocked beyond words.

And Draupadi's change I believe here was the most drastic. Up until that point, I can remember only 3 dialogues of Drau in total (I'll not marry Karna, I accept my division, and Yep Subhadra can stay here). She wasn't even in the forefront of the story, and it was all about her husbands. From being a quiet, demure bride/queen who did everything that was expected of her, she suddenly becomes this jwalamukhi.

Kunti and Gandhari, both being these slightly-out-but-still-ordinary housewives open their mouths for the first time, and pretty strongly.

Also, Krishna who is always there for everything, is absent (I'm not considering the divine aspect).

This dyuta sabha, was an anomaly in the lives of every character. Otherwise toh, even Dury and Karna hadn't even done so much as talk down a woman, how on earth they become such monsters in one day? It was a cursed day, and that one fire in everybody's lives changed all of their character arcs in one go.

+1

Word Count: 1

Citations have been posted already about how Arjun did speak up. For anyone saying that he was simply stating a fact and it wasn't for Draupadi, that isn't true. He said it in response to Duryodhana's offer of freedom if even one of the Pandavas said that Yudhishtira had no authority. He was the only Pandava who actually supported Draupadi's argument. Bheema explicitly stated before this that Yudhishtira had a right to bet them all, this actually harmed Draupadi's argument and Arjuna's words rectified that. After this immediately the jackals howled and Vidura and Gandhari convinced Dhritrashtra to give her boons. Do you think Duryodhana would have just let him return everything? But he had himself grandly proclaimed that he would return everything if even one Pandava said that Yudhishtira had no right to stake them. So, Arjuna's words here are very important. Yes, the credit of Saving them is exclusively Draupadi's. But you can't say that Arjuna's words didn't play an important part.

About Bheem after Karna's comment- O Dhananjaya! How can offspring from a defiled one serve any purpose?” this is what he said. (This is from Debroy's translation of BORI CE) There's no excuse for him here. He directly called her a defiled one. I love Bheema, but he was a man of his times. He was brought to his senses by Arjuna. This isn't to say that Arjuna was better than Bheema. They were both equally important. Bheem was stressed and furious, and in those conditions we say things that we don't mean.

Coming to the part that Arjuna didn't care for Draupadi. After Arjuna returns from Indra-loka he gives Draupadi the ornaments he obtained, it is explicitly stated that Draupadi is his "love". If there's any citation about someone else being called his love this clearly, please post it. Vyasa himself stated that she was his love. Whether you want to believe him is up to you.

Here's the quote:-

And when Matali had gone away, that foremost of the royal race, Sakra's son, the high-souled destroyer of all foes made over unto his love, the mother of Sutasoma, beautiful precious gems and ornaments having the splendour of the sun, which had been presented to him by Sakra.