Why didn't Arjun protect Draupadi? - Page 3

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Mahabharata is always associated with establishment of rule of Dharma and Arjun was key player as Krushna chose to support him

Even a weak man whether he cares about his wife or not would not let someone assault her and remove her clothes in a hall full of people so I do not agree with your reasoning of Arjun not caring about Draupadi as 'care' is not a factor in something like this, one would protect a stranger too. I just feel your reason is not correct and too one dimensional for something like Mahabharata

I won't use the word 'rape' hereafter

Krishna supported the Pandavas. Arjun was closest to him and also the recipent of the Geeta hence he is considered to be one of the players. Arjun is not the only main character out here, so I don't understand why he will be the only player.

Your question was- Why did he not protect her? I simply answered that question. Your replies seem like you are thinking I am justifying what he did while I said at least twice or more that I am not? He was wrong is an established fact. What exactly is unreasonable in what I said? Arjun was wrong in Dyut Sabha, so was all the other Pandavas. He obviously would not do anything that would wage war and he did not do anything against the orders of his elder brother. That was Dharma then according to him. These are facts. Why are u considering this as justification of his acts and thinking i am justifying and supporting Arjun?

@Proteeti Wow 😲 You have some serious knowledge on this stuff 👏
I was reading this thread through & found your answers very logical & coherently strung.

I didn't have much interest in Ramayan & Mahabharat previously. But your answers are intriguing me a lot 😆 Your analysis of Shri Krishna is really deep & thought provoking. Maybe I should really give it a thorough read to understand the characters more.

But the only problem is I am not that good at literature & complex writing styles make me lose interest pretty fast. And in case of Mahabharat, it's said that the simpler ones leave out many details & important aspects.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Simply because Arjun would never go against what Yudhishthir says, yes, even when his wife is in the verge of rape. Your question is something which is being asked since centuries but from whatever I have read of the epic (quite a bit), I feel Arjun didn't care much about Draupadi. I love and admire Arjun, yet what I gather is this. However you're making a mistake, as per my knowledge, Arjun didnt participate in the Swayamvar in his own free will. Vyasa instructed them first and then they went, as per Yudhi's orders. Arjun simply went because the competition was of archery, and only Arjun could have won her. For Arjun, his brothers and mother was always more important than Draupadi i feel. And also, he was a pacifist and he knew protesting meant war then and there. So he remained quiet. Besides, he didn't do much without Yudhi's orders.

This actually makes him look very shallow to participate in somebody s Swamyvaar for the competition knowing fully well what swamyvaar actually means plus vyasa clearly mention that all the five brothers were attracted to drapaudi. I have my issues with arjun but i don't think he was that shallow

On topic, I think at the point when Draupadi was staked & won over, Arjun already was won over by Duryodhan & was forced to sit through the whole humiliation because he was just a mere slave by then. He was stripped off his status & power as a Prince & he had to surrender his weapon & royal belongings when he became slave. By which means he could have protected her? Was he ashamed? Yes. But could he do something at that point? No. The staking was done by Yudhistir, and Yudhistir lost in the game. By the manipulating game rule, Draupadi was indeed the Kaurav's property once Yudhistir staked her & lost. And the Pandavas always play by the rule. Arjun could not protest because --

a) The rules were manipulating & humiliating, but they indeed lost.

b) He himself was won over & had no powers to protect Draupadi as he was a slave for the Kaurav's by then.

My question will be more in the line of why didn't he stop Yudhistir from playing this game in the first place (i.e, when he was still a Prince & younger brother of Yudhistir, not Kaurav's slave)? And why Yudhistir did not stop after he lost all his material properties? Why he agreed to stake his brothers & wife? He could have simply lost & bowed out. Star Plus's presentation is exaggerated. They wanted to present Yudhistir as the victim of Shakuni's manipulation to justify this gamble to today's viewers. But it can not be justified. Originally Shakuni didn't need to trick or coerce him like this. Yudhistir put the stakes himself because he was hoping against hope that he will win at some point eventually & win back all the things he lost so far. And so the flagbearer of Dharma staked his dear ones in the gamble like properties. Why is Arjun being blamed in it? His only blame in my opinion is that he didn't stop his brother from playing this disastrous game. Once lost, he couldn't even protect himself, how could he have protected anyone else?

Originally posted by: proteeti

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.

I clearly disagree she was never docile types. If one read the conversation that drapaudi has with satyabhama we get to know how closely she was associated with every matter of the state. Her hold on the kingdom her political inclined mind are clearly highlighted in that one conversation so no the Change was never drastic she was always this level headed strong opinionated woman who had a voice of her own. She was finance minister of indraprasth. And literally ruled the kingdom its just vyasa does not delves much on this part of her character.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

I clearly disagree she was never docile types. If one read the conversation that drapaudi has with satyabhama we get to know how closely she was associated with every matter of the state. Her hold on the kingdom her political inclined mind are clearly highlighted in that one conversation so no the Change was never drastic she was always this level headed strong opinionated woman who had a voice of her own. She was finance minister of indraprasth. And literally ruled the kingdom its just vyasa does not delves much on this part of her character.

I'm sorry I should have framed by words better. Docile se I meant ke she never spoke up like this before the dyuta sabha. I mean day-to-day Idk, but aise full-blown protest I think she never did. 😳

Originally posted by: proteeti

I'm sorry I should have framed by words better. Docile se I meant ke she never spoke up like this before the dyuta sabha. I mean day-to-day Idk, but aise full-blown protest I think she never did. 😳

I think it is more about not highlighting that apect rather than her not speaking up as i said she was finance minister and empress ofcourse she would have had a say in everything including rajsyu. Aftetr all it was she who use to provide all kind of monetary support that pandavas required for their campaign

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

I think it is more about not highlighting that apect rather than her not speaking up as i said she was finance minister and empress ofcourse she would have had a say in everything including rajsyu. Aftetr all it was she who use to provide all kind of monetary support that pandavas required for their campaign

Might be. Although I am not so sure if she had a say in everything. She wasn't probably the official finance minister, since no other woman in her generation held that much of a power. Yes, she might have been a powerful influence but I don't think she held an official title. The point about "keeping the treasury intact" while her husbands were away might refer to how she regulated the daily kharcha of the Pandava household, and not the expenses of the entire kingdom. 🤔

Originally posted by: proteeti

Might be. Although I am not so sure if she had a say in everything. She wasn't probably the official finance minister, since no other woman in her generation held that much of a power. Yes, she might have been a powerful influence but I don't think she held an official title. The point about "keeping the treasury intact" while her husbands were away might refer to how she regulated the daily kharcha of the Pandava household, and not the expenses of the entire kingdom. 🤔

Drapaudi was not just any other woman and she clearly mention that it is she who regulates the treasury including who gets what job and their pay not only in the household but for the entire kingdom and this was done with or without the husbands i think we can give the credit where it is due

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Drapaudi was not just any other woman and she clearly mention that it is she who regulates the treasury including who gets what job and their pay not only in the household but for the entire kingdom i think we can give the credit where it is due

Yeah, I guess we can. Definitely she wasn't an ordinary woman. I actually never saw her a very rebellious person up until the dyuta sabha but I guess we can agree on different viewpoints. 😊