Why didn't Yudhishtir stake Prativindhya

Since I have started knowing about Mahabharata, I have this doubt why didn't Yudhishtir stake his son and said he has nothing to stake henceforth

Although I don't think that you have rights on your younger brothers and wives to stake them, but assuming back then they had those rights, then how come he didn't have that right over his own son.

In my opinion, after Draupadi was won, Duryodhana didn't really pressure on any more wagers. He wanted the Pandavas and Draupadi humiliated. That was his aim, he got it.

I may be wrong though, just my thoughts.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.😊

Putras were property clubbed with Kingdom. Brothers were of same gen, so needed different bets.

Maybe the son was a kid ! And bachho pe thodi stake lagayega !

Originally posted by: Padosan12

Maybe the son was a kid ! And bachho pe thodi stake lagayega !

Nobody's a kid in politics dear.

And according to BRC logic only andhe ka putra andha toh slave ka putra bhi slave only na?

*again I'm repeating, andhe ka putra scene was adapted from a South Indian stage play, and had no connection absolutely to any version of the scripture*

Prativindhya was already the son of slave. According to them, everything belonged to Yudhishthira was their property as soon as he lost himself.

Also, would it have been a very great thing had he staked his son? Would it have helped us to hate him any less? I don't think so.

Originally posted by: proteeti

Putras were property clubbed with Kingdom. Brothers were of same gen, so needed different bets.

Putra and brothers were all citizens of the state

When you lose the kingdom you lose them as the citizens, they become the citizens of Duryodhan's kingdom but still they were free people. Individual staking of Pandavas and Draupadi means they were lost as Dasas and Dasis.

Originally posted by: DharmaPriyaa

Prativindhya was already the son of slave. According to them, everything belonged to Yudhishthira was their property as soon as he lost himself.

Also, would it have been a very great thing had he staked his son? Would it have helped us to hate him any less? I don't think so.

He staked Draupadi after losing himself, so in that case Draupadi as wife of slave already belonged to them so why was she staked separately. So that logic doesn't seem to work here much

For me it wasn't good even staking brothers and wife that's a different thing. I just want to understand the rationale behind this

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Putra and brothers were all citizens of the state

When you lose the kingdom you lose them as the citizens, they become the citizens of Duryodhan's kingdom but still they were free people. Individual staking of Pandavas and Draupadi means they were lost as Dasas and Dasis.

Your logic is correct. Sons however were the first-priority properties of fathers.

Also, I don't think he was even thinking about them, Shakku mama reminded him of Drau, and uske baad there was the whole Vastraharan fiasco. Maybe, if Drau had given in quietly, the next stop were kids?

Originally posted by: proteeti

Nobody's a kid in politics dear.

And according to BRC logic only andhe ka putra andha toh slave ka putra bhi slave only na?

*again I'm repeating, andhe ka putra scene was adapted from a South Indian stage play, and had no connection absolutely to any version of the scripture*

Actually I watch the yesterday episode did anyone noticed or not , the servant warn him that aage pani hai , duryodhan didn't listen her ...Toh usmein draupadi ka kya dosh ? Khud lakshagrah ka conspiracy kare woh kuch ni tha ?