The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 7

My God! Where has this discussion gone?😆

One thing to remember is Mahabharata is called Itihaasa KAAVYA. It was narrated as a poem. Poetry contains similes, metaphors, euphemisms.

@Flauntpessimism. I don't think I said there were NO rules. Just that there was no one year rule. If I accidentally wrote there was NO rule, it was an error. I apologize.

All Narada said was other brothers shouldn't intrude when one Pandava is with Panchali. In a general context it makes no sense whatsoever because she wasn't a queen in name only. She was a working woman and would constantly be in the company of one Pandava or the other since she controlled the treasury. I do not believe there was polyandry, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say there was. The only way Narada's instruction makes sense is to interpret it as do not bug her for relations when she is supposed to be with one of the others.

In that context, king and queen being in the room with weapons and Arjuna intruding in no way justifies an exile. They were at work, and he was at work.

If we take weapon in room as a euphemism (remember, Mahabharata is poetry) for physical relations, it can only mean Arjuna approached her out of turn.

None of this meant he needed another wife. Sorry to say, Pandavas kept slave girls, too. Arjuna didn't need wives to satisfy his needs.

Nor did he show any signs of being an exhibitionist to walk into her room with his weapon out.

His wives were because 1) he liked them and 2) political alliances were done through marriage a lot of times.

Arjuna's exile was 13 months according to the summary given by Vaishampayana in Adi Pafva. 13 months is all it takes for even one horse to carry a man through the route even including bathroom and sleep breaks. Yeah😆, I was nutty enough to calculate.

More proof of this comes in Krishna's lack of awareness of the exile. There is no way 12 years passed without Krishna knowing.

When he was told, he saw an opportunity to solve the problem AND cement the alliance between the two nations. Subhadra would be the key to soothing Yudhishtira and Panchali's likely anxieties about a recurrent issue. They would know that Subhadra, as Krishna's sister, would be treated like a gem by Arjuna in a way perhaps other wives wouldn't have been... which would include not fixating on Panchali.

Notice how Arjuna doesn't inform Yudhishtira beforehand about the marriage with Chitrangada. With Subhadra, Arjuna sends word ahead before the abduction.

Once Arjuna gets to Indraprastha, the order of his visits is important. The king, the queen, the queen mother. If these were personal visits, the order would be different.

Also, Arjuna had no reason to apologize for a regular marriage. Panchali knew he would marry, and she would've expected the ladies to take up residence in Indraprastha. The only reason for Arjuna to apologize would be for whatever happened before.

^^^^ wahi Bola Maine ki no one year rule ki baat hui hai yahan no rule ki nhi

I believe polyandry was very much present, so my POV or reasoning will be based on this:

Probably Narada's statement meant that one should not intrude in their privacy ie the private moments. So we can assume Arjun broke the rule when Yudhishthir and Draupadi were in between something private or personal. He had different desires (or else why enter Drau's chamber)

The rule also says he had to follow Brahmacharya at this time. He didn't. That was one reason to apologize as well.

Draupadi knew he would marry, the reason for apologizing is not her ignorance but because she felt bad. What's wrong in feeling bad if your husband brings a new wife. All women knew polygyny is common, that doesn't mean nobody can feel bad about it or just express some abhimaan. Not anger, jealousy or anything of that sort but abhimaan.

Of course there's no need to apologize. But maybe it was just a loving gesture on Arjun's part. Also, he was supposed to practice celibacy at this time. He also said sorry because he broke his celibacy thing and got a new wife. Also, to make Panchali feel better as she felt hurt. Not always is apologies meant when you are 100% wrong. You say sorry for hurting someone's feelings.

That does not reduce Panchali into 16 year old lovesick woman, neither does it take away her valour.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

^^^^ wahi Bola Maine ki no one year rule ki baat hui hai yahan no rule ki nhi

Lekin 1 year rule ke bina paternity kaise decide hogi 😆

Jaise Nakul and Sahadev ki decide hui thi.

Is it given anywhere in the epic that Nakul's father is Dasarha. And Sahdev's Nasatya or the other way round.

Weren't they known as Ashwin Kumar's sons. And did anybody have any issue, nobody bothered at all.

Was Prativindhya going to call Arjun uncle or shrutakirti would call Yudhishtir uncle.

For Draupadi Abhimanyu was as dear to her as her own sons. Same for Subhadra. Sahadev was dearest to Kunti.

So only Pandavas were bothered about paternity huh...

Don't think so. They didn't care. They will hypocrites if they did considering Pandu was not their biological father.

All Upapandavas were Yudhishtir's sons first doesn't matter who amongst the brothers fathered them. Eldest being Prativindhya was heir.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I believe polyandry was very much present, so my POV or reasoning will be based on this:

Probably Narada's statement meant that one should not intrude in their privacy ie the private moments. So we can assume Arjun broke the rule when Yudhishthir and Draupadi were in between something private or personal. He had different desires (or else why enter Drau's chamber)

The rule also says he had to follow Brahmacharya at this time. He didn't. That was one reason to apologize as well.

Draupadi knew he would marry, the reason for apologizing is not her ignorance but because she felt bad. What's wrong in feeling bad if your husband brings a new wife. All women knew polygyny is common, that doesn't mean nobody can feel bad about it or just express some abhimaan. Not anger, jealousy or anything of that sort but abhimaan.

Of course there's no need to apologize. But maybe it was just a loving gesture on Arjun's part. Also, he was supposed to practice celibacy at this time. He also said sorry because he broke his celibacy thing and got a new wife. Also, to make Panchali feel better as she felt hurt. Not always is apologies meant when you are 100% wrong. You say sorry for hurting someone's feelings.

That does not reduce Panchali into 16 year old lovesick woman, neither does it take away her valour.

I think Brahmcharya does not mean one has to be celibate, He can have a normal marital life, I mean one should not be ruled by his senses, Arjun was someone, who had conquered his senses, so he had plain food, slept on floor etc. Normal marital relationship is permitted, just not an extensive one. I am not sure about it though @HearMeRoar can explain it better

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Forest burning happened after exile.

Ok then SP MB has got the timeline all wrong then😆

BRC I watched as a kid so i dont remember much did they get the timeline wrong too.

Im watching it on colors currently where it is airing from beginning

But what is wrong if we consider that drapaudi was not upset about arjuna marrying subdhara at all . It does not reduce arjuna s importance in the epic Considering how quickly she accepts subdhara when the latter shows up never mind how she is dressed up does not gives me a picture of a hurt wife. How come she gave in so soon?? If also does not reeks of abhimaan considering the fact that yudhishtra and bheem s wife also lived with them . That just goes on to prove the fact drapaudi was not upset about the marriage at all just about what transpired between her yudhishtra and arjuna before the latter went on exile and that was the reason of arjun s apology.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I think Brahmcharya does not mean one has to be celibate, He can have a normal marital life, I mean one should not be ruled by his senses, Arjun was someone, who had conquered his senses, so he had plain food, slept on floor etc. Normal marital relationship is permitted, just not an extensive one. I am not sure about it though @HearMeRoar can explain it better

Oh okay.

If nothing is the way words say it is, then I guess there's not much to argue with. I thought Brahmacharya means to practice celibacy for that year ie not marry/establish sexual relations.

Now if none of what words say is what they say, then I'll just rest my case. Probably not my cup of tea to understand the implications. 😛

Seems like nothing of the story that's left is true. If polyandry is an interpolation, the story completely changes IMO. So I take my leave 😆😆

(no sarcasm intended, hope none take offence) :))

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Oh okay.

If nothing is the way words say it is, then I guess there's not much to argue with. I thought Brahmacharya means to practice celibacy for that year ie not marry/establish sexual relations.

Now if none of what words say is what they say, then I'll just rest my case. Probably not my cup of tea to understand the implications. 😛

Seems like nothing of the story that's left is true. If polyandry is an interpolation, the story completely changes IMO. So I take my leave 😆😆

(no sarcasm intended, hope none take offence) :))

Just to a point that existence or non existence of polyandrous marriage hardly effects the story. It is drapaudi marriage to yudhishtra that forms one of the core of the story