Balaram on Dice Game - Page 13

At this point, I'm going to bow out.

😆When I find myself defending Yudhishtira, I know it's time.

For the record: I loathe the man. I understand why Panchali did what she did, but it doesn't stop me from wishing she killed him after the war instead of merely calling him names.

I am again making the same point again, if they were assaulting the sister in law then Yudhishtir was also a criminal since he had staked the freedom of a noble woman on which he had no right

If Yudhishtir was right in staking Draupadi, then they weren't assaulting a sister in law but were simply taming their new slave, so they weren't criminals either

I can now somehow understand the state of mind of Draupadi. Not easy to select among these worst of men.

Well I think none of them were criminals, because none were actually punished or even charged for what they did in Dyut Sabha, but what they did was not acceptable to the self conscience of a respected woman and she wanted them to be punished

If not 100% culprits could be punished then at least she got 80% justice

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I am again making the same point again, if they were assaulting the sister in law then Yudhishtir was also a criminal since he had staked the freedom of a noble woman on which he had no right

If Yudhishtir was right in staking Draupadi, then they weren't assaulting a sister in law but were simply taming their new slave, so they weren't criminals either

I can now somehow understand the state of mind of Draupadi. Not easy to select among these worst of men.

Well I think none of them were criminals, because none were actually punished or even charged for what they did in Dyut Sabha, but what they did was not acceptable to the self conscience of a respected woman and she wanted them to be punished

If not 100% culprits could be punished then at least she got 80% justice

Family relationships aren't nullified by slavehood.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Family relationships aren't nullified by slavehood.

Agreed but there they were targeting the slave not their family member

I have heard that when pandav went to 13 years exile at that time khuch pandav pur shani ki saadhe saati chal rahi thi and sahdev knew it ( sahdev was good in astrology) but it was told to sahdev not to disclose future other wise he will forget his astrology knowledge

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

@Blue. This is exactly what she was talking about with dharma is subtle statement. How can anyone let a crime happen by rigidly sticking to the letter of the law?

Krishna, too, says the same thing when he asks Arjuna to kill Karna.

When from the apartment reserved for the females innocent Krishna was dragged, thou didst not interfere. Whither, O son of Radha, had this virtue of thine gone?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08091.htm

NOTE: not interfering to stop a crime was listed by Krishna as ONE of the reasons for death penalty.

So yeah, Bheeshma not put his ego aside and helping Panchali, albeit by punishing Shakuni under a different pretext, is/was a crime. Don't forget, Bheeshma knew Shakuni was part of Suyodhana's prior crimes of lac house.

Bheeshma says it is up to Yudhishtira to decide, and HE kept silent. For his silence he needed to pay. For all his ego/stupidity, he needed to pay. He didn't. But life isn't always fair.

That doesn't mean Bheeshma didn't know what Yudhishtira was like. All the Kauravas knew very well. Bheeshma let it happen. The charitable view is that it was to protect his reputation. The uncharitable view is that he was on the criminal side.

@Red. Assault was in full view of the public. AND she was their sister-in-law. How is either not proven? If they argued she was not their sister-in-law, then she wasn't Yudhishtira's wife to stake either, was she? Then, she wasn't their slave. Then, the assault was still a crime.

Panchali really tied them into a legal conundrum.

But Bheeshma countered by saying law is what the powerful say it is. ie, it didn't matter what her status was... she was a slave, and the Kauravas had every right to do whatever.

I don't believe in giving one character the whole power to control everything, there were too many characters, one can not consider them negligible while discussing an episode

Bheeshma was not King, He was answerable to the King, He had the responsibility to look after laws of the land. Shakuni didn't cheat, lying and framing innocents is not a good thing, it's not something I expect from our lawmakers, They can't be biased, they are answerable to people and Bheeshma wS answerable to his King, moreover Shakuni had proof of his innocence ie Yudhishtira

It was Draupadi's husband who staked her, Draupadi didn't say that her husband couldn't stake her or he didn't have any rights on her, if slavery doesn't end relationship as you are stating then Draupadi's point was null and void because She remains wife of the slave who lost her, Draupadi's point was that Yudhishtira couldn't stake her as he lost his rights on her.

Draupadi didn't say don't do this because she remains their Sister in law, even if Yudhishtira lost her, she said Yudhishtira had no rights on her after he lost himself, which also means She wasn't sister in law of Duryodhana because Yudhishtira, a slave is not her master/husband

Now that I think of it, The crime was assaulting a woman who didn't belong to them, not assaulting their sister in law, (Which is sick that assaulting slaves wasn't considered a crime) if Draupadi considered herself their sister in law then she is giving Yudi the right to stake her after he lost himself

"If Yudhishthira had staked her before he was himself won, he would certainly have been regarded as her master. If, however a person staketh anything at a time when he himself is incapable of holding any wealth, to win it is very like obtaining wealth in a dream.

That's what Vidur said, she did not belong to Yudhishtira when he lost himself

Arjuna at this, said,--"This illustrious son of Kunti, king Yudhishthira the just, was certainly our master before he began to play. But having lost himself, let all the Kauravas judge whose master he could be after that."

For me, both parties Duryodhana and Yudhishtira were criminals for staking and assaulting women

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Agreed but there they were targeting the slave not their family member

This debate is what went on in Kuru court also. 😆 Was she a slave or was she the clan's daughter-in-law?

To declare her a slave, they would need to nullify family relationships which means Yudhishtira had no right to stake her. If she was an in-law, then Yudhishtira did have the right to stake her as he remained her husband, but the Kauravas committed a crime by the assault (before the vastraharan even; Dusshasana was dragging her in a state of undress).

Either way, she would win. In the first instance, she'd go free and likely return with backup to get the worthless Pandavas. Whether she would succeed in a war is immaterial. Like she says, what matters is whether one tries. In the second instance, she would remain (hopefully) unharmed until someone arrived with help. Panchal would've soon heard what happened. Krishna was under attack and likely not expected to live, but he did, as well.

She ties them in legal knots which is why the likes of Suyodhana and Karna later credit HER and not Arjuna or the jackals. Even then, none of the Pandavas speak up until after vastraharan.

When THAT happened, the tone shifted. Now, she had something solid to point to as a crime. Then, Arjuna says something.

________________________

Being far removed from the scene, we are able to appreciate her talent while not getting mired in the same conundrum as the Kurus.

That is to say it doesn't matter what the letter of the law said. At the end of the day it was adharm to do what they did. Note that Panchali exclaims about the human staking first. She simply doesn't repeat the dharma is subtle argument after she sees Bheeshma isn't ready to support it. When she sees arguing dharma wouldn't work, she resorted to arguing law.

Yes, Yudhishtira did get away with what he did. But her choice was not 80% punishment or 100%. It was between 0 and 80.

Just because it wasn't LAWFULLY a crime does not mean it is not wrong. Marital rape is not a crime in today's law. Homosexuality was a crime even a few years ago. Even today so many bills have problematic issues which give ample space of making the most of the loopholes.

Yudhishthir staked a woman to fulfill his own greed and desire, knowing Duryodhan and co won't exactly kiss her feet. He knew that she could face terrible assaults and she even asked her to come in the state she was. Didn't even bother to mention to cover herself up.

Frankly what's law and what isn't is irrelevant here. Till Nirbhaya case, only one form of penetration was accepted as rape. Law isn't the be all and the end all.

Nothing can justify his behaviour in Dyut Sabha. What he did was inhuman and immoral. He paved way for sexual assault of a woman. This isn't about law, it's about justice. He was indeed a criminal in this case. I am ready to overlook everything else he did and accept him as the best of all and Dharmaraj but not this.

Also, AFAIK, we do not exactly have a clear written book of laws like today we have the Constitution and during earlier times we had kings stating the laws. In the Vedic times, many incidents contradict each other. We do not have written rules that state what's lawful and what's not. So what we are saying is via assumption.

Or are we judging it in terms of Manusmriti? If we are, it's important to state that guy was the flagbearer of sexism and casteism.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Duryodhan asking Bheema and Arjuna, Duryodhan refusing to give pandavas their throne, Duryodhan refusing peace offering wasn't Draupadi's plan, She was politically sound and I personally believe not a single Pandava was more intelligent than her but I don't buy that war was her plan to get justice

In Dyut, Draupadi's reasonings did not free her or Pandavas, because they didn't prove if she was a slave or not...

Bheeshma said before and after Vashtraharan that it was upto Yudi to decide whether he had Right on Draupadi or not

'It seemeth to me, however, that Yudhishthira is an authority on this question. It behoveth him to declare whether thou art won or not won."

That was clear hint to Yudi, a way to free Draupadi but Yudi didn't do it, even after Vastraharan, it was after Duryodhan said that he will accept it from any of the Pandavas, if they declare Yudi a liar and denounce his claim on them and Draupadi

"-O Yajnaseni, the question thou hast put dependeth on thy husbands--on Bhima of mighty strength, on Arjuna, on Nakula, on Sahadeva. Let them answer thy question. O Panchali, let them for thy sake declare in the midst of these respectable men that Yudhishthira is not their lord, let them thereby make king Yudhishthira the just a liar. Thou shalt then be freed from the condition of slavery. Let the illustrious son of Dharma, always adhering to virtue, who is even like Indra, himself declare whether he is not thy lord. At his words, accept thou the Pandavas or ourselves without delay. Indeed, all the Kauravas present in this assembly are floating in the ocean of thy distress. Endued with magnanimity, they are unable to answer thy question, looking at thy unfortunate husbands.'"

The point here is that Bheeshma was answerable to the throne

Bheeshma - Sakuni cheated

King - How?

Bheeshma - Because I say so

What Duryodhan did was give them a way out without answerability, he said they will accept if any brother or Yudi says that Draupadi wasn't won

Arjuna just said it, He wasn't answerable to any one and Dhritrashtra HAD to give her the boon

Arjuna blamed Yudi too, not only for their misery but Arjuna blames Yudi staking them for what Kaurava did too

Yet dice, which are worshipped by the wicked, thou couldst not abandon. It was for this that all of us have fallen into hell. We have never derived any happiness from thee since thou wert engaged in gambling with dice. Having, O son of Pandu, thyself caused all this calamity, thou art, again, addressing these harsh words to me. Slain by us, hostile troops are lying on the field, with mangled bodies and uttering loud wails. It was thou that didst that cruel act in consequence of which the Kauravas have become offenders and are being destroyed. Nations from the North, the West, the East, and the South, are being struck, wounded and slain, after the performance of incomparable feats in battle by great warriors of both sides. It was thou that hadst gambled. It was for thee that we lost our kingdom. Our calamity arose from thee, O king! Striking us, again, with the cruel goad of thy speeches, O king, do not provoke our wrath.'"

Arjuna states how unhappy they are because of Yudi, You see Yudi was an emotional manipulator, they couldn't say anything to him because he will commit suicide

After this, Just because Arjuna praises Bheema, Yudi starts his manipulation again and says they should give the throne to Bheema, how I wish Bheema was the King

'I am the worst of men, and the exterminator of my race. I am a wretch. I am addicted to wicked courses. I am of foolish understanding. I am idle and a coward. I am an insulter of the old. I am cruel. What wouldst thou gain by always being obedient to a cruel person like me? A wretch that I am, I shall this very day retire into the woods. Live you happily without me. The high-souled Bhimasena is fit to be king. A eunuch that I am, what shall I do with sovereignty? I am incapable of bearing these harsh speeches of thee excited with wrath. Let Bhima become king. Having been insulted thus, O hero, what use have I with life."

I am not against Draupadi or Pandavas, I just don't understand why didn't they just dump this idiot who kept manipulating them, Bheema would have been a million times better king than this Yudi

Arjuna was Savage. Actually he blamed yudi for the kauravas plight too😈 for them being destroyed because he choose to gamble. So many people from all kingdoms dying. Did this frustration stem from how many people he had to kill in battle. He was a reluctant fighter after all. Looks like he never wanted the war.

And yudi is such a emotional blackmailer. i wonder how he was fit to be a king with such suicidal blackmailing tendencies

i think more than Bhima Arjun would have been a better bet for krishna. Bhima was very impulsive. Though reluctant to fight Arjun at least wanted peace which is good and Krishna could have easily controlled him & made him do what he wanted to.

And how come other than yudi no one had the right to the throne. the king was choosen on talent right. yudi was contender from pandavas because the younger brothers dint want to contest him & choose him. Krishna & draupadi could have let yudi just commit suicide and made one of the brothers the king😈.

Regarding the throne going to dury after yudi. If dury decided to return indraprastha then the throne would go to someone from pandavas . And if dury was supposed to be killed in war then the throne again would belong to the pandavas. yudishthir was not that necessary. unless they all still loved him inspite of everything and dint want to loose him to suicide