The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 3

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Major questions here:

• Did Subhadra have anybody that she longed for in secret, different from Arjun? OR
• Was she a feminist who wanted to go thru life unmarried? OR
• Did she want a grand swayamvara of her own where princes and kings would line up and she'd get to choose?

I've seen nothing to suggest any of the above, so how is Subhadra a victim here? I didn't get that. In the case of Amba, the story is open & shut. Similarly, there was the princess of Kalinga that Duryodhan abducted and married against her will. There was Duryodhan's daughter Lakshmanaa who was abducted by Samba and therefore forced to marry him.

But which of these scenarios was applicable to Subhadra?

Negative answers to the questions in this post do not mitigate the fact Subhadra was abducted. Regardless of plans she might or might not have had, yeah, the abduction does make her a victim. if some guy kidnaps a woman with no concrete plans whatsoever and then marries her, she is still a victim.

Esp so since her BROTHER suggested it. I am in awe of who Krishna was, but whatever else, he was not a good brother in this situation. Any yuga, what he did was wrong. Yes, there were practical considerations, but he was wrong.

Even Arjun was not as wrong as Krishna in this situation. Because he at least had the law of the times to support him.

That said, the article claims nationalism is responsible for the whitewashing of the episode. The author of this poorly researched paper doesn't seem to know this epic has been in existence for millennia, long before India became an entity. My conclusion is that he/she wrote it to score political points.

P.S. There are many happily married feminists. The idea women are human beings with equal rights does not preclude marriage.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I have major problems with this.

I agree that Subhadra story puts Krishna and to a lesser degree, Arjuna, in a bad light, but how does this relate to nationalism?

Also, if we are to consider that abduction a problem, how about the abduction of the Kosala princesses, of Suyodhana's wife?

If the article is talking about the horrific treatment of women, shouldn't the concern apply across the board?

Seems to me the author is using the incident to make a political and/or religious point, instead.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I got the part about not romanticizing it. But when the AAA abduction and Bhanumati abduction are not mentioned, it creates a lack of balance, because not many will put things together.

Also, the question remains how it is connected to nationalism.

IMO, this is as bad as blaming Western influence for everything bad in the country. Nationalism which happened in recent years has nothing to do with how centuries of Bharatwaasi viewed the Subhadra haran episode.

Topic is not about Bhanumati and Duryodhana or even abduction. It is about how various writers have changed the course of the story from real one being Subhadra’s marriage without her consent to Subhadra abducting Arjun.

They do not mention Krushna abducting Rukmani too, because it's not about abduction or the practice which was normal back in those days

I don't think the writer is talking about "Nationalism", He is talking about nationwide glorification of Arjun and Abhimanyu has led to writers changing the story of Subhadra.

Originally posted by: RamKiSeeta

When Krishna married Rukmini, it was not by force. She clearly writes him a letter begging him to take her away so she's not forced into marriage with another. There, Krishna makes a speech about how it's wrong and unethical to force a woman into marriage. I highly doubt the same Krishna, in the same epic, would force his own sister into a marriage not of her own choosing. Krishna always practiced what he preached. He would not make one rule for his wife and another rule for his sister.

My thoughts on this incident are that Krishna uses sarcasm when he convinces Arjuna to abduct Subhadra, because later on when Subhadra approaches Draupadi dressed as a Gopi, she and Arjuna clearly love one another. It was not a case of forced marriage where Subhadra is unhappy. Krishna often used sarcasm to convince Arjuna to do something, as Arjuna was one who had many doubts before taking a decision he felt was unethical. It makes more sense that Krishna would use sarcasm to convince him than that he'd condone forced marriage.

But if it wasn't for some confusion over the decisions of Subhadra, why was abduction needed at all? He could have simply let the Swayamwar happen and let Subhadra select Arjun(or anyone else she liked)

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Krushna's words - "Vasudeva answered, 'O bull amongst men, self-choice hath been ordained for the marriage of Kshatriyas. But that is doubtful (in its consequences), O Partha, as we do not know this girl's temper and disposition. In the case of Kshatriyas that are brave, a forcible abduction for purposes of marriage is applauded, as the learned have said. Therefore O Arjuna, carry away this my beautiful sister by force, for who knows what she may do at a self-choice.'

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01141.htm

Krushna asks Arjun to take her by force as they don't know her decision, the girl didn't get a chance.

That's what this article is talking about, Krushna and Arjun are heroes therefore they can't do anything wrong

Quote from the article - The problem begins when instead of questioning the epic heroes we start questioning the act of abduction itself. Did Subhadra license it? Why didn’t she scream? Maybe abduction is justified if done by the ‘Hero’?

Why didn't Subhadra protest is another question because she didn't even know Arjun, it's natural for her to feel shocked, which is why I more so feel Subhadra already had a hint about it.

And I already said that Krishna told Arjun to do the abduction - forceful meaning abduction.

Also I don't understand what out of this makes abduction justified. If we do question the practice of abduction itself, it doesn't give those who have practiced it a clean chit.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

It's written in the article, Quoting full article isn't allowed but it has changed from forceful abduction of Subhadra to Subhadra abducting Arjun, worst part is Krushna acknowledging that his sister may say no to marrying Arjun, therefore take away this little right she had from her

The course of story has changed, Women do not have agency today to refuse marriage then back in those days, she really didn't have any choice but serve her husband.

Oh all that is folktales honestly. It's the same as how Karna has been changed into a folk hero, how Draupadi's andhe ka putra andha has come in. All these Subhadra abducting Arjun and Arjun Subhadra love story come from tales and anyone who has read the MB will not fall for all this.

About women, yeah I agree women was losing their rights already. However I just want to say it is important to question abduction in general just like we question the practice of child marriage, Sati etc.

Originally posted by: Swetha-Sai

@NoraSM

Thanks much for the article link! 👍🏼

I find it difficult to stomach the fact that Lord Krishna gave his approval for his sister Subhadra's abduction by Arjun..

All my life, I have grown up reading / listening to the love story of A and S.. 😒

For me, it just makes Krushna all more human than God. I liked him to an extent, now I am inclided to feel a little squeamish about this whole ordeal. We have to see that abduction was a normal practice back in that time, there are many examples of it, what separates this particular incident from other is that Krushna acknowledged his sister might say 'No' to marrying Arjun, I mean if my brother knows that there are chances of me saying no to a man, he would at least ask, but him advising someone to force himself on me so I don't have a choice, is 🤢

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Why didn't Subhadra protest is another question because she didn't even know Arjun, it's natural for her to feel shocked, which is why I more so feel Subhadra already had a hint about it.

And I already said that Krishna told Arjun to do the abduction - forceful meaning abduction.

Also I don't understand what out of this makes abduction justified. If we do question the practice of abduction itself, it doesn't give those who have practiced it a clean chit.

Abduction is wrong now, Abduction wasn't wrong back then, Krushna stated abduction as one of the methods through which Kshatriya marry the women they desire, according to their rules it wasn't wrong, what makes it wrong is Krushna's acknowledgement of Subhadra’s protest

That's why I quoted that part of the article, we are putting the blame on her and romanticizing it by asking 'Why didn't she protest?' when her brother himself said that he does not know what she will do, if told about it.

It is entirely possible that she would have agreed to marry Arjun on her Swyamvar that was her right as stated by Krushna himself and if she was to say no to Arjun, what's wrong in it? He didn't give her a chance to say 'Yes' or 'No'

How can she protest in front of weapons? She was taken away by force, The thing is that she didn't know

Balram and Duryodhana thing is false, This narrative was built to tell us that Subhadra would have been married to the villain of this story if Krushna and Arjun didn't take away the right of consent from her

If I talk about this whole ordeal in today's time then obviously forced marriage is nothing but human rights violation, assault and rape so each one of them was a criminal to practice it. None gets a clean chit

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Oh all that is folktales honestly. It's the same as how Karna has been changed into a folk hero, how Draupadi's andhe ka putra andha has come in. All these Subhadra abducting Arjun and Arjun Subhadra love story come from tales and anyone who has read the MB will not fall for all this.

About women, yeah I agree women was losing their rights already. However I just want to say it is important to question abduction in general just like we question the practice of child marriage, Sati etc.

Translators and writers have done Draupadi and other women from Mahabharata dirty, They created false stories to make it look like Draupadi was responsible for Karna and Duryodhana's actions during Dyut Sabha, They took away the hero moment from her which led to these heroes living their lives as individuals rather than slaves and handed it to Krushna saving her.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

It's not mentioned in KMG but I think Krishna instructed abduction because Balaram would not accept Arjun and also Duryodhan was supposed to marry Subhadra. Or is this also a story created to justify their actions?

As per this article that was a story later added. Anyhow this is clearly mentioned in the epic that the Yaduvanshis were planning for a Swayamwar for Subhadra, and Krishna wasn't sure if Subhadra would accept him