Film to be made on Chitra Divakaruni's Palace of Illusions - Page 2

Even if we ignore later events, Draupadi had personally rejected Karna at her swayamvar. These writers couldn't sell a single copy if they wrote something original.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

Draupadi for all of her good qualities is a bit of a snob too. She was brought up thinking that she's 'special' .Not only is she a princess but she was born from fire.She's meant for Arjuna and only him. No way would she fall for Karna, whatever his positive qualities.

The only thing worse was making Draupadi fall for Krishna in the Aryavarta Chronicles. Do we need to romanticize every relationship?

No. At least, there was affection there. Speculation that affection might be friendship or romance is worse?

Karna and Co sexually assaulted Panchali. Huge, huge difference.

Krishna went into a rage each time he was reminded of the assault on her and only 3 days after his nephew's killing at Karna's hands, shouted at Karna for the assault from 13 years ago!

There is a difference between not wanting to put a woman with the man who assaulted her and saying all deviation from fan interest is wrong. Not sure if you are aware of this, that series is not the first to speculate on Krishna's affection for her and why he went into a destructive fury each time her trauma was mentioned to the point Arjuna had to beg him not to annihilate the world. Not the usual reaction of a man to an atrocity on merely a friend's wife (more than said friend, actually), hence all the questions.

Re: Arjun. No, she was not brought up for Arjun. She was brought up to be a ruler. If she was meant for anyone, it was Yudhishtira as he was the eldest. And if you believe in the magic bit, to destroy evil.

Also, she was not brought up thinking she was "special." Kshatriyas were meant to serve as SHE HERSELF SAYS, as Vidur says she did, as Yudhishtira says she did, as SUYODHANA says she did. Nor was she a snob - the woman was quite chummy with Ghatotkacha, a rakshasa. She took on the role of sairandhri, a much, much lower caste than suta which only means brahmin mother and kshatriya father.

Come to think of it, when she walked off the wedding arena with Arjuna, none of the Panchalas were sure who he was. He looked like an impoverished brahmin from appearance, and Drupad speculated the man might be a shudra. So let's see: she was quite all right with a low caste, poor man winning her hand.

One of the motivations behind Draupadi's "conception" was that Drupad would finally get Arjun as his son-in-law.She certainly must have been brought up hearing her father's aspirations. She knew her worth very well and I do not consider her pride a negative quality at all.That, and her desire for justice allowed her to endure all those years of exile.But the offside was that, her pride in herself, her status as a princess and a kshatriya made her incapable of considering someone like Karna- a "suta" her equal at all during the Swayamvar.That makes her very human and relatable. As for her marrying Arjuna while he was disguised as a Brahmin, don't forget that Krishna was advising her and she trusted him implicitly.

And yes I find the "fanfiction" pairing Draupadi with Krishna very icky. There certainly is no basis for it in the epic and it demeans one of the beautiful friendships.

Originally posted by: MahanalayakKarn

No. At least, there was affection there. Speculation that affection might be friendship or romance is worse?

Karna and Co sexually assaulted Panchali. Huge, huge difference.

Krishna went into a rage each time he was reminded of the assault on her and only 3 days after his nephew's killing at Karna's hands, shouted at Karna for the assault from 13 years ago!

There is a difference between not wanting to put a woman with the man who assaulted her and saying all deviation from fan interest is wrong.

Re: Arjun. No, she was not brought up for Arjun. She was brought up to be empress. If she was meant for anyone, it was Yudhishtira as he was the eldest. And if you believe in the magic bit, to destroy evil.

Also, she was not brought up thinking she was "special." Kshatriyas were meant to serve as SHE HERSELF SAYS, as Vidur says she did, and Yudhishtira says she did, as SUYODHANA says she did. Nor was she a snob - the woman was quite chummy with Ghatotkacha, a rakshasa. She took on the role of sairandhri, a much, much lower caste than suta which only means Brahmin mother and kshatriya father.

Come to think of it, when she walked off the wedding arena with rjuna, none of the Panchalas were sure who he was. He looked like an impoverished brahmin from appearance, and Drpad speculated the man might be a shudra. So let's see: she was quite all right with a low caste, poor man winning her hand.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

One of the motivations behind Draupadi's "conception" was that Drupad would finally get Arjun as his son-in-law.She certainly must have been brought up hearing her father's aspirations. She knew her worth very well and I do not consider her pride a negative quality at all.That, and her desire for justice allowed her to endure all those years of exile.But the offside was that, her pride in herself, her status as a princess and a kshatriya made her incapable of considering someone like Karna- a "suta" her equal at all during the Swayamvar.That makes her very human and relatable. As for her marrying Arjuna while he was disguised as a Brahmin, don't forget that Krishna was advising her and she trusted him implicitly.

And yes I find the "fanfiction" pairing Draupadi with Krishna very icky. There certainly is no basis for it in the epic and it demeans one of the beautiful friendships.

No, the reason for her conception was not Arjuna. She was a GET ONE FREE with her brother.

The rishis say she born to destroy kshatriyas, not a word about Arjuna.

Actually, text says Drupad didn't mention his plans for Arjuna to ANYone, let alone Panchali. She had no clue who he was when he won the contest.

Where does the epic say she was incapable of considering non kshatriya?😂

No, Krishna was not advising her at all. Only in the TV show. Actually in text, SHE was the one constantly lecturing Krishna.

You may find the Krishna Panchali pairing icky, but to call it worse than putting a woman with the criminal who organized a sexual assault?

I have heard that Draupadi never rejected Karna..Instead he lost in the swayamvar..I heard that this entire Draupadi- rejecting- Karna is a later addition.So I get super pissed whenever this man gets glorified in our TV shows as if he is some hero🤢

Originally posted by: KootyPai

I have heard that Draupadi never rejected Karna..Instead he lost in the swayamvar..I heard that this entire Draupadi- rejecting- Karna is a later addition.So I get super pissed whenever this man gets glorified in our TV shows as if he is some hero🤢

Well critical edition of Mahabharata does not mention drapaudi rejecting karna so yes it can be a later addition though irrespective of that karna was a not a hero or noble or even close to it

Plus even if she did rejectt it was her "right" to choose her husband in her "swamywar" I don't even know why is it held against her ??

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

Well critical edition of Mahabharata does not mention drapaudi rejecting karna so yes it can be a later addition though irrespective of that karna was a not a hero or noble or even close to it

Yeah. He can never be a hero even if Draupadi actually rejected him. But I've seen a lot of people justify even her vastraharan because apparently she rejected Karna. Terrible people!!

Originally posted by: KootyPai

Yeah. He can never be a hero even if Draupadi actually rejected him. But I've seen a lot of people justify even her vastraharan because apparently she rejected Karna. Terrible people!!

What kind of people are these?

SICK.

The 5 Pandavas were cowardly.

Because of Yudhishtir , he gambled away his wife..

And they stood there and watched..

Thats why Mahabharata is a tale where all morals are lost and Kali Yuga started in this time..

Krishna considered Draupadi like his sister. There is that story where Krishna gets hurt and draupadi immediately tears her part of her saree and ties a bandage to him.

Arjuna was such a womaniser having some 12 wives , Yudhistir was a big coward and gambler.. Only Bhima was good , although Short tempered. Nakul Sahdev were simply like side characters with no voice..

Originally posted by: arnavfluffy

The 5 Pandavas were cowardly.

Because of Yudhishtir , he gambled away his wife..

And they stood there and watched..

Thats why Mahabharata is a tale where all morals are lost and Kali Yuga started in this time..

Krishna considered Draupadi like his sister. There is that story where Krishna gets hurt and draupadi immediately tears her part of her saree and ties a bandage to him.

Arjuna was such a womaniser having some 12 wives , Yudhistir was a big coward and gambler.. Only Bhima was good , although Short tempered. Nakul Sahdev were simply like side characters with no voice..

Arjuna was neither womanizer nor coward. He was the only to support Panchali openly and suggest Yudhishtira had no right to gamble her.

Surprised? Yes, he did. Sadly, none of the shows or books stress on it.

Ulupi tied HIM up and forced herself on him. Chitra he married. He never even said anything about Subhadra. Yeah, he later admitted he found her attractive. But Arjuna abducted her because Krishna told him to. It's all there in the original text, but no show or book will ever show it, because none of them will want to put blame on Krishna.

Bheema was actually a thoughtful man. Do read the TED talk he and Panchali gave Yudhishtira during Vana Parva.

Sahadeva was the only one to support Panchali (other than Krishna) during the run up to the ear.

Yeah, Nakul doesn't seem to have had a voice. And Yudhishtira was... I'm not saying it.

At no point in time does Krishna ever call or refer to Panchali as his sister. The bandage story is a made up tale.