The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 9

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

This is a nice take. People tend to completely forget issues of abduction done by the heroes

Yeah

I read about it, Krushna actually stated that Arjun should abduct her as he doesn't know what Subhadra will do.

It's a fascinating read, how even people who are considered God treated women as a commodity.

Abduction is romanticized because it was done by Arjuna

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

How was the story changed though?

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.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

I am not putting any blame on her. I am only wondering if she ever protested. If she did, nobody would listen to her because Kshatriya Dharma or whatever. But at least, we would know she tried. It's natural for her to be scared or also, if she gets to know her brother is a part of this then naturally even if she disliked it she would lose the ability to protest. However, there's no blame on her for NOT protesting. I was just wondering if she tried to stop it.

If there was a Swayamvar, I am sure Krishna could instruct or manipulate his sister into saying Yes or choosing only Arjun. I am just trying to find out why the method of abduction was chosen unless there is some reason. Krishna need not have done this, he could have easily asked Balaram for it and if Dury-Balram thing is false then there's no reason for Balaram to not accept this. So he had so many ways to do it. Why choose abduction where his own sister's rights are violated?

This is the only question I am raising.

The answer is clear, he couldn't manipulate or instruct her to marry Arjun, that's what he said -

""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."

According to this part, Krushna knows that it is Subhadra’s right to choose her husband for marriage (Talking about Swayamvar) but he doesn't know if she will pick Arjun or not so

"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.'

If he could manipulate her then Swayamvar was a better option as he didn't have to pacify Balram

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

There is a difference between manipulation anf convincing. Manipulation is something Krishna excels in. This means to convince Subhadra that Arjun is the right choice. Also, unless Subhadra was a rebel like Amba I don't see any reason how she could say no to something her brothers decided for her.

If he could manipulate or convince her as easily, he would have done it and we wouldn't be discussing this. It would have been better for Krushna as all he had to do was manipulate or convince Subhadra to choose Arjun and Balram would have been fine with it. If she had to do something which her brother decides for her that defeats the purpose and right of Swayamvar given to her, What I am trying to say is that when people know they have a certain right, they do it, Krushna was in no position to decide for her as it was the only right given to her and he himself admits that he doesn't know what she will do if given self choice so he takes that away from her. If he could manipulate her, he would have done it rather he asks Arjun to force himself on her.

The thing is that a woman was considered ruined if she was found in compromised position with a man, Once abducted she really didn't have any choice but marry Arjun

One more thing here is that Subhadra was Balram's sister and Krushna's half sister, She lived in Balaram's palace (Not sure about it)

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Yes she was born to Rohini. All together Krishna Balram were 86 siblings. Hence Duryodhan willing to marry Subhadra only for alliance sake doesn't seem possible, even if Subhadra gone, he could have tried other Yadav sister. Balram too could have married his other sister to Duryodhan, because it wasn't that Subhadra was anywhere better than other sisters of Krishna Balram until then (she became one later when her grand son ascended the throne and his great grandson heard the story we know now)

Saying that I don't think it matters much she was as much the sister of Krishna as she was of Balram. Ram ji n Bharatji were half brothers, so were the Pandavas. In fact biologically speaking Nakul Sahdev were not even blood related to the other three, yet their love for each other was no less

No, I meant she lived with Balaram so both Balaram and Krushna could have tried to manipulate her into marrying people they like and there's no reason for Subhadra to overlook what Balaram is asking as she was living with him like other people you have mentioned lived together.

I am not sure about it though

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Arjuna-Subhadra love story is resent in southern recension. It's not only in folk tales.

However, northern recension bluntly presents it as Krishna persuading Arjuna to abduct her.

One of the things to note is what happens before.

"Vaisampayana said, 'Then Arjuna of immeasurable prowess saw, one after another, all the sacred waters and other holy places that were on the shores of the western ocean. Vibhatsu reached the sacred spot called Prabhasa. When the invisible Arjuna arrived at that sacred and delightful region, the slayer of Madhu (Krishna) heard of it. Madhava soon went there to see his friend, the son of Kunti. Krishna and Arjuna met together and embracing each other enquired after each other's welfare. Those dear friends, who were none else than the Rishis Nara and Narayana of old, sat down. Vasudeva asked Arjuna about his travels, saying, 'Why, O Pandava art thou wandering over the earth, beholding all the sacred waters and other holy places?' Then Arjuna told him everything that had happened. Hearing everything, that mighty hero of Vrishni's race said, 'This is as it should be.'

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01221.htm

Points to remember:

1. FACT: Krishna clearly didn't know why Arjuna was roaming the land. Unlike in Star Plus, no one told Krishna that Arjuna was exiled because of Panchali.

2. FACT: Arjuna was important to the empire they would eventually build.

3. FACT: A split in the family was not something the Pandavas could afford.

4. FACT: Krishna says later on Arjuna is good husband material

5. FACT: Krishna admits he didn't know what Subhadra would do if left to her own devices.

5. EXTRAPOLATION: Krishna encouraged the abduction for political purposes and rationalized it in his own mind by the thought that Arjuna was a good man.

None of this is to excuse what Krishna did which was certainly against the ethics of time as well. Nor will I attempt to excuse Arjuna though it was within the ethos of the times; he was not an unthinking man and would've known better.

If we go by southern recension, Arjuna-Subhadra was a love story.

Which one is correct?

Krushna didn't know about Arjun's exile makes me wonder if he didn't contact Pandavas and Arjun for 12 years or was Arjun's exile only for one year?

The point we are discussing is Krushna acknowledging Subhadra's protest and going ahead with his plan, Arjun was as wrong as other people who abducted women

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Did Balram have other sisters? Half may be, but full? Because Balram ran the show in Dwaraka. If Subhadra was Rohini's only daughter, then marrying her would ensure Dwaraka's support in a way other sisters wouldn't. Well... Balram went ahead and supported Suyodhana anyway.😆

That being said, because this story is not in KMG, I have a suspicion that Krishna engineered it to make sure Arjuna was able to return to Dwaraka with everyone's ruffled feathers soothed. If Arjuna's "weapon" in Panchali's chambers means what I think it does, Arjuna-Subhadra marriage was absolutely essential before he could return.

Arjuna's weapon was in weapon room, not in panchali's chamber

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.

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: 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