Why didn't Arjun protect Draupadi? - Page 17

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Okay so I am a bit confused, does this mean

A) He asked her to come with her naval exposed OR

B) Though she is in a state where she has her naval exposed she should come in front.

Both are different as per English language. The first is - Come here with an exposed naval Or it means though you are in a state where your naval is exposed, come to court.

In both cases, he is guilty of asking his wife to come to court in such a state. I am just trying to figure out the tone.

I haven't checked the Sanskrit version, but if his message contained the words although your navel is exposed, you should come to the court and cry to the king, the intent is clear.

He could've said cover youself and come, or more simply, come and cry to the king without mentioning the clothes.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I haven't checked the Sanskrit version, but if his message contained the words although your navel is exposed, you should come to the court and cry to the king, the intent is clear.

He could've said cover youself and come, or more simply, come and cry to the king without mentioning the clothes.

Yeah you're right

In both cases as I said, he is asking her to come IN THE CONDITION that she is in. Just curious of the tone.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Yeah you're right

In both cases as I said, he is asking her to come IN THE CONDITION that she is in. Just curious of the tone.

To me the tone reads as use your physical appeal to save my skin.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

To me the tone reads as use your physical appeal to save my skin.

It's Draupadi's biggest misfortune that to be empress she had to marry someone who disrespected her so much.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

It's Draupadi's biggest misfortune that to be empress she had to marry someone who disrespected her so much.

Am sure she didn't know beforehand what he was like. Very likely neither did Krishna. Nor Vyasa or Drupada.

I know you didn't say it, but I'd like to make it clear just the same. To have a skill which could benefit people and not use it is passive harm because the universe hands you gifts not to sit on them. As Vyasa says, Panchali was intelligent and learned. She had a duty to use that for the good of the people. Actually, she herself says it over and over in her Kamyaka vana talk.

Highly doubt she or anyone else knew Yudhishtira's nature beforehand, but if she knew and refused, it would be the same as Arjuna refusing to go to war because he might be killed.

Yeah, if she knew, she probably would've taken more precautions to make sure such situations didn't arise.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Am sure she didn't know beforehand what he was like. Very likely neither did Krishna. Nor Vyasa or Drupada.

I know you didn't say it, but I'd like to make it clear just the same. To have a skill which could benefit people and not use it is passive harm because the universe hands you gifts not to sir on them. As Vyasa says, Panchali was intelligent and learned. She had a duty to use that for the good of the people. Actually, she herself says it over and over in her Kamyaka vana talk.

Highly doubt she or anyone else knew Yudhishtira's nature beforehand, but if she knew and refused, it would be the same as Arjuna refusing to go to war because he might be killed.

Yeah, if she knew, she probably would've taken more precautions to make sure such situations didn't arise.

Yeah that's why I said it's a misfortune. She of course didn't know and I understand why she said yes.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Once again not quoting the long thing.

Panchali was part of the 2nd exile contract. She had no choice but to follow them. None of the other queens were included in the contract.

or vanquished by us, dressed in deer skins ye shall, with Krishna, live for twelve years in the woods passing the whole of the thirteenth year unrecognised, in some inhabited region.

She clearly states she freed Yudhishtira for Prativindhya. She doesn't even mention the younger Pandavas until Dhritharashtra offers the 2nd boon. Bear in mind she didn't know there WOULD be a second boon.

As for her "outbursts" not being proof, well... those are the words Vyasa gave us about the situation. You think she must have forgiven them. Her words say otherwise. Her words carry more weight.

There is no meaning to the dice hall incident about God protecting because in the text, there is no Krishna to save Panchali. It says her dharma (small d) saved her. In southern recension, the women saved her.

I'm sure there were many jackals in Hastinapuri which howled before. Dhritharashtra was not a fool to give up everything for a jackal's howling. These were hardened politicians. He gave it up because his son threw that challenge thinking no one will pick it up, but Arjuna did.

For the sake of argument, let's say Dhritharashtra did do so because of the jackals. It STILL doesn't negate the fact Arjuna spoke up against Yudhishtira.

The context of Arjuna's anger at Yudhishtira during war was his nature. The words make it quite clear.

The context of Krishna's anger was also clear. The words again say you're doing the same thing and gambling away the hard fought wins. You are slated to wander in the forest.

Panchali taunting Yudhishtira as a lunatic who should be locked up cannot be wished away.

As for the assault on Panchali becoming fire in anyone's heart... it was that only for Krishna. HE is the one who swore to kill the enemy. Bheema made a couple of oaths and was quite prepared to give it all up for peace. So were the other Pandavas. The assault on Panchali mattered very little as the text makes it clear. It mattered only to Krishna as he makes clear time and time again - twice to Panchali, once in a convo with Daruka, then during Karna's killing.

And yes, no matter what era, an assault on a woman is an assault on a woman. VYASA from Iron Age didn't pretend otherwise. He never calls it an assault on Pandavas.

You claim the rest of us are viewing through prism of 21st century liberalism. I would humbly suggest you're also viewing it through your own outlook of marriage. It was PANCHALI who stated she has no husbands. It was PANCHALI who stated she'd go to war no matter what the Pandavas decided. You're also viewing it through the prism of 1980s/90s despicable idea of a sexual assault being somehow a "dishonor" on the woman and her family. Star Plus Mahabharata showed it. The showmakers had the audacity to make her utter the words "mein maleen hoon" in Suryaputra Karna. Impure? How? Panchali never said it. Bheema implied it once IIRC, but no one else did.

An assault is an ASSAULT, and it is on the woman, not her family. In fact, her family is BLAMED for sitting on their hands during it. Vyasa was quite clear on the point. It is 21st century show fans who twist the tale into a Bollywood melodrama.

Ok, I hear you.

1. But after the 1st game, she is noted to be leaving with the Pandavas to Indraprastha, she did no show any dissidence then. After 2nd game, she could have not accepted the vanvas and could have gone to Panchal to her father Drupad. If she really hated the Pandavas so much, she could have gone elswhere into the forest, but not with them. It is nowhere mentioned that she had to go with them. Even when she went with them, she could have stayed aloof from them.

2. Doesn't matter she didn't if there was to be a 2nd boon. She could have asked anything for herself, but she chose the remaining Pandavas- why?

3. Nowhere she says that she is still agonised with the Pandavas. Her outbursts are circumstantial. Her actions carry more words than her words- she stayed with them forever.

4. Arjun replies to Duryodhana's question (which was meant to sow seeds of dissension among the Pandava brothers, but could not. Arjun never spoke against Yudhishtir). But Dhritarashtra grants the boons, why?

5. Arjun's anger against Yud during Mahabharat war has nothing to do with Cheer Haran.

6. I never said anything about the gambling duration. Read my answers again. Never have I said a word about the gambling. I have limited myself to the unfortunate vastra haran incident. Please do not mix the two. I myself do not understand how Yud went on a gambling spree, that was wrong as far as I am concerned. So, if Krishna's anger really means that as you say, I'm with you.

7. Again, nowhere have I tried to justify the assault on Panchali. I cannot even think of it. It was pure wrong, is and will always be. But I don't agree that the assault on the Panchali had no effect on the Pandavas.

8. Kindly quote the text where Panchali says she has no husbands.

9. 21st century liberalism has been invoked to point out to the powerlessness of the Pandavas after they had become the slaves and had been consigned to das dharma. We cannot imagine slavery now but slavery was rampant in those times, with its own dharma. Nothing more, nothing less.

10. Kindly stop associating regressive and misogynistic ideas with my post. Your rant about 1980/90s is a by-product of your own thinking. I have never ever mentioned such a thought in my post. All I said that Pandavas did share the guilt and burden of the agony of the attempted assault on Draupadi. Why are you bringing in 'dishonor', when there is no question of it.

Originally posted by: shear_wall

Ok, I hear you.

1. But after the 1st game, she is noted to be leaving with the Pandavas to Indraprastha, she did no show any dissidence then. After 2nd game, she could have not accepted the vanvas and could have gone to Panchal to her father Drupad. If she really hated the Pandavas so much, she could have gone elswhere into the forest, but not with them. It is nowhere mentioned that she had to go with them. Even when she went with them, she could have stayed aloof from them.

2. Doesn't matter she didn't if there was to be a 2nd boon. She could have asked anything for herself, but she chose the remaining Pandavas- why?

3. Nowhere she says that she is still agonised with the Pandavas. Her outbursts are circumstantial. Her actions carry more words than her words- she stayed with them forever.

4. Arjun replies to Duryodhana's question (which was meant to sow seeds of dissension among the Pandava brothers, but could not. Arjun never spoke against Yudhishtir). But Dhritarashtra grants the boons, why?

5. Arjun's anger against Yud during Mahabharat war has nothing to do with Cheer Haran.

6. I never said anything about the gambling duration. Read my answers again. Never have I said a word about the gambling. I have limited myself to the unfortunate vastra haran incident. Please do not mix the two. I myself do not understand how Yud went on a gambling spree, that was wrong as far as I am concerned. So, if Krishna's anger really means that as you say, I'm with you.

7. Again, nowhere have I tried to justify the assault on Panchali. I cannot even think of it. It was pure wrong, is and will always be. But I don't agree that the assault on the Panchali had no effect on the Pandavas.

8. Kindly quote the text where Panchali says she has no husbands.

9. 21st century liberalism has been invoked to point out to the powerlessness of the Pandavas after they had become the slaves and had been consigned to das dharma. We cannot imagine slavery now but slavery was rampant in those times, with its own dharma. Nothing more, nothing less.

10. Kindly stop associating regressive and misogynistic ideas with my post. Your rant about 1980/90s is a by-product of your own thinking. I have never ever mentioned such a thought in my post. All I said that Pandavas did share the guilt and burden of the agony of the attempted assault on Draupadi. Why are you bringing in 'dishonor', when there is no question of it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03012.htm

'Husbands, or sons, or friends, or brothers, or father, have I none! Nor have I thee, O thou slayer of Madhu, for ye all, beholding me treated so cruelly by inferior foes, sit still unmoved

Of course the assault on Panchali would have an impact on her family. But it would nowhere be the equal of hers. Not even close.

In fact, it is shown very clearly how little it mattered to the Pandavas when they were willing to forget it in Udyoga Parva.

Actions matter. And words matter just as much. Both are constrained by practicalities. Whatever she argues in dice hall, the times gave Yudhishtirathe right to accept the second exile contract on her behalf. Later, as Panchali herself says, she, as a ruler, had a duty to ensure justice. The only way to ensure justice was through Yudhishtira because he was the only one with the right to declare war.

In fact, Vyasa himself says Panchali was haughty to Yudhishtira. She does say he should be locked up.

As for not mixing the dice hall with later events, these events didn't happen in a vacuum. Plus, Krishna mentions the dice hall event when he berates Yudhishtira.

Originally posted by: shear_wall

Ok, I hear you.

1. But after the 1st game, she is noted to be leaving with the Pandavas to Indraprastha, she did no show any dissidence then. After 2nd game, she could have not accepted the vanvas and could have gone to Panchal to her father Drupad. If she really hated the Pandavas so much, she could have gone elswhere into the forest, but not with them. It is nowhere mentioned that she had to go with them. Even when she went with them, she could have stayed aloof from them.

2. Doesn't matter she didn't if there was to be a 2nd boon. She could have asked anything for herself, but she chose the remaining Pandavas- why?

3. Nowhere she says that she is still agonised with the Pandavas. Her outbursts are circumstantial. Her actions carry more words than her words- she stayed with them forever.

7. Again, nowhere have I tried to justify the assault on Panchali. I cannot even think of it. It was pure wrong, is and will always be. But I don't agree that the assault on the Panchali had no effect on the Pandavas.

9. 21st century liberalism has been invoked to point out to the powerlessness of the Pandavas after they had become the slaves and had been consigned to das dharma. We cannot imagine slavery now but slavery was rampant in those times, with its own dharma. Nothing more, nothing less.

All I said that Pandavas did share the guilt and burden of the agony of the attempted assault on Draupadi. Why are you bringing in 'dishonor', when there is no question of it.

1-3: By Dwapar Yuga societal norms and traditions, what other option did she have? Her Cheerharan ensured infamy to her and her sons. Returning to Panchala was not really much of an option as she would face social ostracism. So would her sons.

Divorce per se didn't really exist in those times. If she left Yudhisthira, what would happen to her n her kids? I always felt she joined their exile mainly so they never forget her humiliation and because her options were limited.

7: Virata parva. The Cheerharan had long lasting impact on everyone but the Pandavas were still indulging in the same twisted ideals. Virata parva - Panchali had to literally plead with Bhima to intervene. Yudhisthira preferred success of agyaatvaas more than the plight of his wife, his queen, his empress. Arjuna was clueless to her plight and the plague called keechaka. Yudhisthira still indulges in gambling in Virata Parva.

How exactly had the Pandavas improved by being affected by the Cheerharan and dyut Sabha? If they were so agonised by Cheerharan, don't really see them changing mindset/actions.

9. Who initiated the gambling? Why did no brother stop Yudhisthira? I have zero sympathy for the Pandavas in dice hall.

To be fair, among the Pandavas Sahadeva unequivocally supported war.

Yes, she did say I have no husbands, sons, friends etc. But it would be wrong to say that she was completely detached from her husbands from that point. It's evident that she still cared about them. Even Yudhishtira. When she argues with Yudhishtira, she points out Bheema and Arjuna's suffering along with hers, when Bheema brings Saugandhika flowers for her she gives them to Yudhishtira, When Arjuna leaves for gaining Divyastras she says that she cannot enjoy anything without him, even while convincing Bheema to kill Kichaka she mentions Yudhishtira's, Arjuna's, and the twins' suffering along with her own. She was angry at them, but that doesn't mean she didn't care about them.

About Panchali wanting Yudhishtira to be locked up, can you post a citation? I'm not doubting your word, I just want to savor her saying those words in the epic.