Why didn't Arjun protect Draupadi? - Page 12

Coming to the Original question- I read in the previous post that the OP doesn't believe these people to be supernatural. I'm of the same opinion. Arjuna was in the palace of his enemies. His brother had already bet and lost him, effectively making him a slave. His weapons too were lost to him. Besides in a dice game, there's no reason to believe that they were armed. Arjuna didn't even have a right to the clothes on his body. All the Pandavas surrendered their clothes too. The palace is full of soldiers loyal to the king and Duryodhana. Arjuna wouldn't be able to run behind Dusshasana and stop him, as he would be blocked. He couldn't have known that Dusshasana would drag her by the hair. All of the Pandavas were backed to a corner here, and had no idea what to do. Draupadi's intelligent argument, provided a way and Arjuna supported it. I'm not trying to make excuses for him. He was absolutely wrong here. It is true that he didn't move a muscle to actually help her. This was his biggest mistake in the epic. Something he had to atone and repent. Draupadi reprimanded both him and Bheema for this. In the dice game only Draupadi was truly blameless. Apart from her only Vidura did all he could, but even his support was verbal. Vikarna was shut up quickly by Karna and didn't speak again. Dyuta Sabha was a battle of words and logic and only Draupadi was the Maharathi that day. Arjuna provided support, but alas! It was too little, too late.

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.

Yes but she might have stayed that the empire belongs to both the emperor and the empress so Yudhishtir could not have individually staked it and that the empire belonged to her

Kauravas knew how sharp and politically accurate she was

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes but she might have stayed that the empire belongs to both the emperor and the empress so Yudhishtir could not have individually staked it and that the empire belonged to her

Kauravas knew how sharp and politically accurate she was

In that case Yudhishter couldn’t have staked the empire at all.

It doesn’t belong JUST to him.

His brothers don’t question him staking them but Druapadi is the only one who does.

In that sense he can’t even stake his brothers because they just don’t belong to him, kunti and other wives of the brothers have the right too.

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

In that case Yudhishter couldn’t have staked the empire at all.

It doesn’t belong JUST to him.

His brothers don’t question him staking them but Druapadi is the only one who does.

In that sense he can’t even stake his brothers because they just don’t belong to him, kunti and other wives of the brothers have the right too.

That's not what HearMeRoar is saying.

Obviously Yudhishtir had all the rights to stake and so he did. But what she wants to state is that Draupadi was politically sound and Kauravas knew that had she remained free, she would have found out one way or other to get back everything.

Originally posted by: creative_cutie

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.

Something I found on the net. This is consistent with Bhima. Sanskrit is a difficult language and many interpretations of the same word.

As for Arjuna, his doom was his silence, first when Panchali was wedded to all five (did he or anyone ask her opinion?) & ofcourse in the Dyut Sabha: he chose the wrong dharma (obedience to elder brother over protection of wife).

trīṇi jyotīṃṣi puruṣa iti vai devalo 'bravīt
apatyaṃ karma vidyā ca yataḥ sṛṣṭāḥ prajās tataḥ

amedhye vai gataprāṇe śūnye jñātibhir ujjhite
dehe tritayam evaitat puruṣasyopajāyate

tan no jyotir abhihataṃ dārāṇām abhimarśanāt
dhanaṃjaya kathaṃsvit syād apatyam abhimṛṣṭajam

‘O Dhananjaya, it hath been said by Devala three lights reside in every person, viz., offspring, acts and learning, for from these three hath sprung creation. When life becometh extinct and the body becometh impure and is cast off by relatives, these three become of service to every person. But the light that is in us hath been dimmed by this act of insult to our wife. How, O Arjuna, can a son born from this insulted wife of ours prove serviceable to us?’

(Sabha Parva: Sisupala-badha Parva: Section LXXI)

abhimṛṣṭajam means “touched”. We have to see the context of his statement before coming to conclusions. There are three lights in every person - Offspring, acts and learning. But the light in the Pandavas was dimmed with Draupadi’s insult - please not that he did not stay that the light in Draupadi was dimmed. Instead, he said that as her husbands their light has been dimmed (because they could not protect her). His question was - how can their children born of Draupadi prove serviceable to them? He meant that if their children do not forgive them for this insult of Draupadi then how can they prove serviceable to them even in their deathbed? He said that their own light left them but he never said that Draupadi was defiled! Bhima was not capable of such statement, the same man who said that Yajnaseni’s ascetic penances were the reason the Dhartarashtras perished and not Pandavas’ valour, even in mistake, could not say that Draupadi was defiled.

I just posted it, as translated by Debroy. I don't understand Sanskrit and rely on translators. The word defiled was used by Bibek Debroy. It's not as if I put it in my own. As for interpretation, that is entirely personal. You choose yours, I choose mine.

As for Draupadi's sharing- that is another topic entirely. Nobody asked Draupadi's opinion. And she didn't volunteer any herself. There's a lot of grey area there. It isn't clear whether she even heard Yudhishtira's decision . Her reaction to it is entirely absent. Draupadi's thoughts are summed up in a single sentence which says that she didn't think less of the Pandavas when she slept in that hut. But that can't be attributed to the decision of polyandry, it could simply mean she didn't think less of them for being poor. As I said, a lot of grey area.

Originally posted by: Eloquent

Something I found on the net. This is consistent with Bhima. Sanskrit is a difficult language and many interpretations of the same word.

As for Arjuna, his doom was his silence, first when Panchali was wedded to all five (did he or anyone ask her opinion?) & ofcourse in the Dyut Sabha: he chose the wrong dharma (obedience to elder brother over protection of wife).

trīṇi jyotīṃṣi puruṣa iti vai devalo 'bravīt
apatyaṃ karma vidyā ca yataḥ sṛṣṭāḥ prajās tataḥ

amedhye vai gataprāṇe śūnye jñātibhir ujjhite
dehe tritayam evaitat puruṣasyopajāyate

tan no jyotir abhihataṃ dārāṇām abhimarśanāt
dhanaṃjaya kathaṃsvit syād apatyam abhimṛṣṭajam

‘O Dhananjaya, it hath been said by Devala three lights reside in every person, viz., offspring, acts and learning, for from these three hath sprung creation. When life becometh extinct and the body becometh impure and is cast off by relatives, these three become of service to every person. But the light that is in us hath been dimmed by this act of insult to our wife. How, O Arjuna, can a son born from this insulted wife of ours prove serviceable to us?’

(Sabha Parva: Sisupala-badha Parva: Section LXXI)

abhimṛṣṭajam means “touched”. We have to see the context of his statement before coming to conclusions. There are three lights in every person - Offspring, acts and learning. But the light in the Pandavas was dimmed with Draupadi’s insult - please not that he did not stay that the light in Draupadi was dimmed. Instead, he said that as her husbands their light has been dimmed (because they could not protect her). His question was - how can their children born of Draupadi prove serviceable to them? He meant that if their children do not forgive them for this insult of Draupadi then how can they prove serviceable to them even in their deathbed? He said that their own light left them but he never said that Draupadi was defiled! Bhima was not capable of such statement, the same man who said that Yajnaseni’s ascetic penances were the reason the Dhartarashtras perished and not Pandavas’ valour, even in mistake, could not say that Draupadi was defiled.

"How, O Arjuna, can a son born from this insulted wife of ours prove serviceable to us?’"

This statement is a peculiar one, He is not saying that his son won't forgive him or they won't like their mother's insult, He is calling Draupadi his insulted wife whose kids won't be 'serviceable' to them. He is not saying they won't 'serve' them, he is saying they are incapable of serving them or they will be unable to serve them.

'Our son won't forgive us'

'Sons born from this insulted wife won't prove serviceable to us'

Why only son born from Draupadi won't be able to serve them?

How can this particular sentence be interpreted into "Our son won't forgive us for not saving their mother and refuse to serve us?"

More context for Bhima's statement-

Vaishampayana said, ‘Having heard the words that a woman had become the salvation for the sons of Pandu, Bhimasena was extremely hurt. In the midst of the Kurus, he said unhappily, “Devala has said that there are three stars for a man—offspring, deeds and learning, since these are the source of creation. When the body has lost life and is hollow and impure, discarded by relatives, these are the three that survive. But our light has become dark, because our wife has been humiliated. O Dhananjaya! How can offspring from a defiled one serve any purpose?”

Mahabharata volume 2, translated by Bibek Debroy

This clearly says that he didn't like being saved by Draupadi or any woman for that matter. Insulted or defiled, the choice of words doesn't matter. My interpretation is that in that moment he was ashamed of Draupadi. Later, he might've regretted it. I agree with @NoraSM, he's not saying their sons wouldn't forgive them, he's saying they won't be any use to the Pandavas.

Originally posted by: Autumn_Rose

In that case Yudhishter couldn’t have staked the empire at all.

It doesn’t belong JUST to him.

His brothers don’t question him staking them but Druapadi is the only one who does.

In that sense he can’t even stake his brothers because they just don’t belong to him, kunti and other wives of the brothers have the right too.

Whether Yudhishtira had the right legally is not the point. She could make things murky with her arguments.

We're not talking simply Hastinapuri where king's right was absolute. Membership of the empire was partly consent and part conquest. But the members did have a huge say as we see from Shishupal vadh. Panchali could succeed in splitting public opinion (among the member kingdoms).

Frankly, Panchali started setting the debate in motion right in the dice hall when she was the FIRST one to accuse Shakuni of cheating. Bheeshma actually intervened and said Shakuni didn't cheat and that even Yudhishtira would agree on the point. But Panchali insisted Shakuni cheated.

Moreover, she had Panchal with her. By convention, they and Kurus were the only ones with right to imperial throne. Push came to shove, she could claim free agency and assume the throne with Panchal's backing.

This is not something Kunti or Pandavas or anyone else could've done. Even with Krishna. Because a lot of the Yadavas were with Suyodhana.

She was quite a political animal. The enemy recognized it. She was a threat. That was why she needed to go, not just the Pandavas.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Whether Yudhishtira had the right legally is not the point. She could make things murky with her arguments.

We're not talking simply Hastinapuri where king's right was absolute. Membership of the empire was partly consent and part conquest. But the members did have a huge say as we see from Shishupal vadh. Panchali could succeed in splitting public opinion (among the member kingdoms).

Frankly, Panchali started setting the debate in motion right in the dice hall when she was the FIRST one to accuse Shakuni of cheating. Bheeshma actually intervened and said Shakuni didn't cheat and that even Yudhishtira would agree on the point. But Panchali insisted Shakuni cheated.

Moreover, she had Panchal with her. By convention, they and Kurus were the only ones with right to imperial throne. Push came to shove, she could claim free agency and assume the throne with Panchal's backing.

This is not something Kunti or Pandavas or anyone else could've done. Even with Krishna. Because a lot of the Yadavas were with Suyodhana.

She was quite a political animal. The enemy recognized it. She was a threat. That was why she needed to go, not just the Pandavas.

I agree with Drauapdi's knowledge

But if Duryodhana was aware of it, He wouldn't have made a grave mistake of insulting her, Yudhi lost fair and square, the only reason Draupadi could save them was because they insulted her which resulted in Dhruti giving her 3 things

Pandavas would have lost everything and they had to fight from Kaurava's side against Panchal or any kingdom as they are slaves of Hastinapur, Pandavas had defeated Panchal when they were kids