The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra

Indians know all about Draupadi and Sita, but ignore what was done to Subhadra in Mahabharata

Subhadra’s story in the Mahabharata is different from what we see on DD now. Arjun and Krishna had to appear flawless, after all.

The epic encodes violent moments in our collective history. None of its main actors are flawless. And it is this shade of grey that adds to its importance. However, over the last millennia and a half, this grey has slowly been erased. Some figures have been deified and their wrongs condoned.

The coronavirus lockdown in India has revived the Ramayan and Mahabharat series on Doordarshan for a younger generation, and has reinforced the collective silencing of Subhadra’s story, rather than ‘wronged’ Draupadi or Sita’s.

Subhadra’s painful story of abduction in the Mahabharata remains buried because of the nationalist glorification of Arjun and Abhimanyu over time. Generations of authors have glossed over a significant act of violence by their heroes, without which the Mahabharata (in its composed form) wouldn’t have been possible.

https://theprint.in/opinion/indians-ignore-what-was-done-to-subhadra-in-mahabharata/413423/?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Is it correct?

Originally posted by: NoraSM

The article is telling us how we celebrate and romanticize something which would have been considered 'rape' in today's time. Topic was to tell the readers about a lesser known story or a heavily manipulated story from Mahabharata

Duryodhana is already bad for people, His abduction of a Princess is not romanticized, they don't show his wife abducting him.

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.

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.

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 until the exile in question arrived in Dwaraka.

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.

Duscussions here have deviated from the main topic posted. Hence topic is closed.

Mahabharat DT.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

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

@bold - I think if you read the text, Krishna instructed him for it. Knowing Arjun, if Subhadra was his real love interest (only love at first sight ie attraction is mentioned in text) he could have easily asked for her hand. Krishna suggested it first, he was the one who asked Arjun to abduct her.

Also, I do not think Krishna would have done something of this sort if Subhadra was completely disinterested. I am sure she was not in love with Arjun as she didn't even know him, but I don't particularly think she had a problem with this. However she hardly has dialogues so this is my assumptions based on Arjun and Krishna's deeds and character. I maybe wrong.

However, I still don't think Arjun is to be really blamed alone. If we are talking about abduction of princesses, there are several such instances and we have fo address this point of abduction as a form of marriage as wrong.

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.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Entering the chamber exposing his weapon seems too far fetched to me. He could at least enter the room and then try. I don't think Arjun would do that, but going in and trying his luck is understandable.

I think it was simple, he just entered the room where Yudhi Drau was present. Maybe weapon was added later to justify his entering the room

Of course he would have done that. Remember he had gone into the Armoury "to take out his weapon" he didn't go there with his weapons out (if we go literally) I used the word earlier because we were discussing on the weapon

My major point was that if this was the cause of his exile then everything does fall in place

He realised he needed more wives in the palace to ensure that such situation doesn't reoccur, therefore he made use of his years to get more wives, unfortunately none of them were ready to move to Indraprasth with him so problem was still the same, finally he reached Dwarka, discussed his issues with his friend Krishna, who gave him the idea to marry his sister since she wasn't to remain in her Mayka after marriage, but the issue was they weren't sure if Subhadra will select him going by traditional way, hence they planned for the abduction.

Once they reached Indraprasth, Yudhishtir and Draupadi were both angry -- not because he married Subhadra and brought her to Indraprasth, but because he did not fulfill his punishment properly, which was practicing Brahmcharya during this time..

Arjun tried to persuade them but no avail so finally Subhadra took the lead, who like her brother was good at convincing. She met Draupadi and convinced her, her getting convinced meant all getting convinced since Arjun was primarily the culprit of Draupadi

Might you all be interested to read up on this Twitter thread regarding the print article in question: https://twitter.com/abhilegend000/status/1258072902567673856?s=19

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