The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 8

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

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

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

The reason for polyandrous marriage was unity among the five brothers and that was most important for Yudhishthir's success. Draupadi's marriage to five was what bound them together and if Pandavas would split it would not take a second for Dury to take up the throne unless Krishna in hus divine form stopped it.

Anyway it's best not to argue on this anymore because it's not possible for me to believe there was no polyandry and all numerous instances were interpolation and nor will people in favour of monogamy accept the contrary. We can choose to go with the versions which suit us.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

That quote is mistranslated in actual she asks him to go back to subdhara out of love not jealousy probably because she did not wanted to keep a new bride alone or in midst of strangers just because of their unresolved issues

Krishna and drapaudi were friends for long i am sure she already knew about subdhara so she should not have been upset in the first place hence her accepting subdhara because of krishna is out of question instead i think she forgave arjuna for his actual mistake because subdhara s presence calmed her down that finally Arjuna had someone else to shower his love and attention on.

Why should i believe something which is not true based on some mistranslated verses

Where is it said that it is mistranslated? We only have Drau's words, we cannot hear her tone. Also, Vyasa is not present in front of Drau when she says these so he can't give live account either.

I can say "go away" now. You can read my words, you don't know whether I am being rude or teasing you unless u see context. Here she also says another line which is there in the citation. I refuse to accept her tone was mistranslated. Out of love or jealousy is second person's opinion. Unless you hear her, you don't know. What I see his she was hurt. Not jealous, but hurt and upset.

I can know about something for long yet be upset. Also hearing of it and having to meet your husband after one year are two different things. She is a human being for God sake. She has feelings too, and why is it so important to prove she was 100% neutral and can't ever think of any special feelings for Arjun and feel bad about his marriage? It doesn't make her any less of a wondorous woman.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I know this (I have read all of Arjun's trysts several times 😂😂)

But I always felt that was what Uloopi said to lure Arjun because he was in exile - isn't it obvious he cannot sleep with Draupadi? The rule made also said this, he would be EXILED. Now obviously if he has to practice celibacy in exile, it meant women in general, not Draupadi.

Uloopi was a seducer re. 🤣

🤣

Arjun was no less, He tells her that he wants to do it but can't and asks her for a way to do it, then she tells him about being celibate for Draupadi

Note - By all means, he meant pleasing her in some other way

Originally posted by: NoraSM

🤣

Arjun was no less, He tells her that he wants to do it but can't and asks her for a way to do it, then she tells him about being celibate for Draupadi

Note - By all means, he meant pleasing her in some other way

He very much was. He very cleverly asks the WOMAN to say it to him so that nobody can say oh you know, Arjun ne yeh kiya. After all, Uloopi said no. Classic patriarchy. Classic cis man. 😉

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Will we be in trouble for discussing this? I read a few tweets and people are not taking it lightly

As per my experience in IF,

Not here, unless you use bad words or say something disrespectful to anyone. We are discussing it pretty objectively without bashing anyone, so nobody will be in trouble. It's just a POV. And I personally feel this isn't something too illogical.

Our DTs will know what's best and I am sure unless rules are broken they won't have a problem.

Look Draupadi has no reason to be jealous of Subhadra. She knew what her position was and nobody could threaten that.

It only clears that she has no hard feelings (which I am saying from Post 1- there's no reason why Drau will be upset with Subhadra) and I never believed she was jealous (she has no reason to).

What I said is- her words clearly indicate she was upset. Sorry, I can't believe a woman will be happy about a husband sharing his bed with another woman and be jolly. She understood this was needed to expand her kingdom so she won't protest. Doesn't mean she is "happy" about it. Her words (i am not referring to "out of jealousy") which she said, as per my understanding is not something a happy chappy woman would say. And nothing in the shloka counters that, in only negates the fact that she was jealous, which is a given.

She was very much upset with the marriage though her intelligence made her accept that it was needed. This is what I gather from the text. And I still feel she had special feelings for Arjun. I have my reasons to think that just like you have your reasons otherwise.

That's it.

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?

^^^ This dismisses the one year rule point which anyway wasn't in Mahabharata

This doesn't anyhow fix the point that Draupadi was only married to Yudhishtir

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

His statement takes the same route

See there can be no reason or justification for name calling. His actions in the dice hall just highlights his mentality and nothing else. He was a narrow minded human being and nothing.

Coming to the text then text also at several places calls abhimanyu as "krishna s son" so i should i take it literally as abhimanyu being krishna s biological son and not arjuna and subdhara. The point is the text contradicts itself alot of there are hints for polyandry than there are also hints of drapaudi being only yudhishtra s wife so i will not like to neglect both the possibilities though i tend to tilt more towards the latter because of various reasons. But i guess we are never going to reach to a conclusion at this point so yes let us agree to disagree. 😆