Baba going to find a Special Flower for his Booboo - Page 3

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

1. She talks about justice, not vengeance. Throughout. She was even willing to give up war PROVIDED KAURAVAS REPENTED.

That's not vengeance.

She gives a whole TED Talk on crime and punishment and duties of rulers to punish criminals.

She was the finance minister of the empire and the citizen liaison, not just a figurehead.

Vyasa comes and agrees 100% with her. Unless we imagine Vyasa was also after vengeance, why is Panchali doing her duty as a working empress being seen as vengeance.

She can talk about justice till the cows come home and it doesn't change that she absolutely loathed the Kauravas - and rightly so. There's a thin thread between justice and vengeance. And Draupadi embodies the fiery characteristics of the fire from which she came. She wouldn't be satisfied with a simple apology after multiple offenses and the trials of Vanavas. I certainly don't blame her thirst for vengeance (or justice as she calls it).

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

2. I assume Panchali, more than all of us modern women, would've known people die in wars. Am pretty sure she would've known there was a high chance her family could die. She went in prepared to sacrifice everything for justice.And her sons and brothers were actually not killed in the war. They were slaughtered after the ear by a genocidal maniac.

Knowing something and going through it are different. Certainly she was ready to pay the price. But she had to pay far more than she expected.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

3. Panchali didn't call Pandavas lunatic from grief or regret over war.

She called them lunatics for refusing to do their duty after war and rule the darned empire. She specifically states she has no intention of dying out of guilt and preferred to go on living.

I stand corrected and good for her..Yudhishthira was always too willing to give up everything.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

4. Panchali didn't rig the swayamvara. So how was Arjuna her favorite?

5. She wasn't brought up at all to be Arjuna's bride. She had her own father who she talks about in vana parva who actually taught her what she knew. That is part of the critical edition.

She was adopted as a fully grown woman by Drupada. Her description as a grown woman, not a young girl, is given in Mbh. So how is she brought up to be Arjuna's bride?

Southern recension even says she was married to Maudgalya before he cursed her with 5 husbands and left.

According to the popular version she came from the fire as an adult. It's easy to buy in your father's version of a groom for you. Especially when you don't know him personally and whatever you've heard from multiple sources is complimentary. Draupadi for all that she's strong willed is a dutiful daughter.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Also, Arjuna was a grown man when Drupada saw him for the first time. MBh specifically states Arjuna got fame after swayamvara. No one had heard of him until then. .

Drupada was familiar with Arjuna's prowess even before the Swayamvara. He singlehandedly captured Drupada after all. The Swayamvara contest was rigged in such a way that only a master archer could win it. (They didn't take into account there being anyone who's Arjuna's equal).Drupada's motive was to flush out the Pandavas. He was a master tactician. Come to the Pandavas' help when they are forsaken by everyone and win them as allies. He wanted the best for his country,himself and his daughter in that order. And getting Arjuna as his son-in-law would satisfy on all counts. Was Draupadi aware the contest was rigged? Maybe ,maybe not. Princesses have long been used as pawns in kingdom politics.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Arjuna as her favorite is stated only by Yudhishtira.

As for opinions... well... we all have them. But only Panchali's will be valid in this case. She never said anything.

Of course she wouldn't. She's a classy lady and a dutiful wife. She would never display her partiality openly and do her best for all of them. But that doesn't mean it was not there all the same. All parents do their best to be impartial and love their children equally. But the kids always know who's Daddy's favorite and Mummy's favorite. I don't see this being any different. It's what it is, and her husbands knew it.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

Well, that's the impression I get from the epic. I may have been persuaded by the fanfiction as you say. But with her being born specifically to fulfill her father's wish for Arjuna as a son-in-law, Arjuna's trepidation to bring Subhadra to Indraprastha (he had to resort to playing the Krishna card), her second honeymoon with him after his return from Heaven all gives cues to her partiality. He won her in the Swayamvar (one specifically tailored to HIS skills) after all. She's a Kshatriya woman and she's conditioned to accept the winner as her husband. The other four were a package deal she was forced to accept as a dutiful daughter and DIL. To give her credit she never gave that impression and did her best to be a good wife to all of them. But I think all her husbands knew about the matter. But Bhima was the only one who cared about it.

When did Bhima let her down -other than when Yudhishthira wagered her? He went with Arjuna to capture Jayadratha. He killed Keechaka for her. He even tracked down Saugandhika flower for her. He supported her in her arguments with Yudhishthira. He was totally besotted with her.

Draupadi was not born for Arjun s sake . Her biological father did not even know him. Though they did know his bestie. Draupadi talks about her time with her biological family in Vana parva

Drauapd adopted her again not to get Arjun as SIL but so that he can adopt dristhdyumna. You see they came in a package deal. Drisht would never have consented to adoptions until his sister come along

I think Arjun s trepidation was more about how he made her feel uncomfortable (for which he was exiled). Draupadi asks Arjun to go to subdhara "out of love" probably because she was relieved now that Arjun has another wife he would get over his obsession with her

Draupadi being partial to Arjuna is modern-day fanfiction fueled by yudi s declaration that was nothing but his insecurity talking. If one reads the epic carefully one would find that their plenty of moments with all her husbands. Flirting with him, her declaration that it physically pains her to see nakul in distress. So on and So forth

Draupadi never took anything lying down. Nor was Arjun some great husband material that anybody should pin for him/be partial to him.

The bottom line is None of them deserved her and she knew that. Still, she tried her best to make it work. Also tolerated them because she was a queen who had a duty toward her kingdom. For that Pandavas-Panchali needed a united front.

Though I think Bhim would have made an excellent life partner his biggest drawback was a toxic attachment to big brother

I think people are too passionate about the characters in the Mahabharata and find different versions to support.

Love and romance was a very miniscule part of the kings and queen lives.

It was all about power and administration of the kingdom.

Same goes for Panchali, she was the queen and she was the victim of so many men's lust for her beauty.

But in spite of all the writing wrongdoings done to her.

She was one of the strongest women and queens out there and to be honest in spite of having 5 of the strongest husband's there she was the victim and suffered the most, I don't think there was any love at that point, it was all about justice and duty.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

She can talk about justice till the cows come home and it doesn't change that she absolutely loathed the Kauravas - and rightly so. There's a thin thread between justice and vengeance. And Draupadi embodies the fiery characteristics of the fire from which she came. She wouldn't be satisfied with a simple apology after multiple offenses and the trials of Vanavas. I certainly don't blame her thirst for vengeance (or justice as she calls it).

Knowing something and going through it are different. Certainly she was ready to pay the price. But she had to pay far more than she expected.

I stand corrected and good for her..Yudhishthira was always too willing to give up everything.

According to the popular version she came from the fire as an adult. It's easy to buy in your father's version of a groom for you. Especially when you don't know him personally and whatever you've heard from multiple sources is complimentary. Draupadi for all that she's strong willed is a dutiful daughter.

Drupada was familiar with Arjuna's prowess even before the Swayamvara. He singlehandedly captured Drupada after all. The Swayamvara contest was rigged in such a way that only a master archer could win it. (They didn't take into account there being anyone who's Arjuna's equal).Drupada's motive was to flush out the Pandavas. He was a master tactician. Come to the Pandavas' help when they are forsaken by everyone and win them as allies. He wanted the best for his country,himself and his daughter in that order. And getting Arjuna as his son-in-law would satisfy on all counts. Was Draupadi aware the contest was rigged? Maybe ,maybe not. Princesses have long been used as pawns in kingdom politics.

Of course she wouldn't. She's a classy lady and a dutiful wife. She would never display her partiality openly and do her best for all of them. But that doesn't mean it was not there all the same. All parents do their best to be impartial and love their children equally. But the kids always know who's Daddy's favorite and Mummy's favorite. I don't see this being any different. It's what it is, and her husbands knew it.

1. Not rightfully so because that thin line between justice and vengeance makes the difference between a war for the common man and a war in which the common man is slaughtered only for a queen's personal whims.

Panchali and Vyasa called it justice and their duty as the elite.

2. Panchali lived in those times. And she lived a pretty brutal life for 13 years. Nor was she dumb or naive.

Even the most naive of mothers today fret when their sons go off to war.

No way Panchali didn't know it could happen.

3. Point is Panchali was not Drupad's small daughter to simply buy into what he said about some random man. She was a fully grown adult and already fully educated at adoption even in the popular version where she came out of fire.

Then, Drupada actually believed Pandavas were dead. He in fact frets to Dhrishtadyumna about who won Panchali. Vyasa did know they were alive. Unless Panchali had separate information from Vyasa they were alive, she was not expecting Arjuna.

Now, if Vyasa told her separately, then the scenario changes, doesn't it? It becomes entirely political. Panchali went in expecting to marry 5 men and to be eventually empress. Arjuna was simply the means to do it.

Finally, after Drupada meets the 5 Pandavas, he states he doesn't care which of them Panchali marries. He wasn't specifically looking for Arjuna. He simply wanted Arjuna as an ally.

4. Once again, it's what it is would be either something she stated or something shown by her actions. She never said anywhere Arjuna was her favorite. She actually went to Yudhishthira first for everything and got Bheema to do it when Yudhishtira invariably acted weird. Where do we get to Arjuna was favorite from it?

Originally posted by: cts22

I think people are too passionate about the characters in the Mahabharata and find different versions to support.

Love and romance was a very miniscule part of the kings and queen lives.

It was all about power and administration of the kingdom.

Same goes for Panchali, she was the queen and she was the victim of so many men's lust for her beauty.

But in spite of all the writing wrongdoings done to her.

She was one of the strongest women and queens out there and to be honest in spite of having 5 of the strongest husband's there she was the victim and suffered the most, I don't think there was any love at that point, it was all about justice and duty.

😆 I admit I'm too into MBh.

But yeah, almost all of it was political. PANCHALI herself was highly political.

Vyasa actually goes to Pandavas and tells them 5 will marry her before it happens. It was pre-arranged.

The only question is did she know? No woman will agree to marry 5 men without seeing what the advantage in it was for her. Even if she wasn't given a choice, someone like Panchali would've made some noise. She didn't. I have my thoughts if whether the polyandry was real, but fact is she was married to Yudhishthira at the least. If she knew about Pandavas, she knew about Yudhishtira/polyandry as Vyasa had already decided on it. So where does this Arjuna fascination come in? She went there expecting to marry the oldest and eventually be empress.

Yeah, her beauty made men completely blind with lust and the readers blind to what else she was besides a love interest.

It was 100% about justice and duty.

We can go around in circles discussing who's Draupadi's favorite and we're never going to reach a consensus😆.It is the flawed and very human nature of the cast which makes Mahabharata so relatable to many including me. Draupadi's desire for vengeance is also what makes her so human and relatable. I'll draw a parallel with Amba and Kannagi- to some extent. (She never gets carried away with her vengeance like Kannagi did.) To put her on a pedestal and consider her meting out justice in an impartial way takes away so much of her relatability.

Oh. . I thought sanju baba finding flowers for bebo begum.

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

We can go around in circles discussing who's Draupadi's favorite and we're never going to reach a consensus😆.It is the flawed and very human nature of the cast which makes Mahabharata so relatable to many including me. Draupadi's desire for vengeance is also what makes her so human and relatable. I'll draw a parallel with Amba and Kannagi- to some extent. (She never gets carried away with her vengeance like Kannagi did.) To put her on a pedestal and consider her meting out justice in an impartial way takes away so much of her relatability.

That s the point you see. If you go by Tv shows/Novels Draupadi then she talks about vengeance

But in the actual text, there is various instances where Draupadi talks about "rulers s duty" "difference between justice, revenge and forgiveness". She even tells Krishna during peace talks that she would "forgive Duryodhana if he accepts and realizes that what he did was wrong. But one should never forgive a person who does realize their mistake". These are well documented both in kmg and CE

I agree that everyone will draw their own interpretations when it comes to MB. It's a 5000+ pages long story which again is a version condensed after thorough reading and comparison of many many manuscripts by esteemed scholars over several years. But still, there is some basis for what is considered canon. Draupadi s speech on forgiveness, justice, and rulers s duty are well-documented facts that canon tells us.

It's not us putting her on a pedestal but what the canon tells us. To actually negate her sensibility and impartiality is what I feel takes away from relatability. From the kind of person she was

Her sense of justice is not up for interpretation or debate. Its just a fact

Having said that I also understand that not everyone will take time to read 5000+ page text with references full of bulls, tigers, and whatnot 😆. I myself am on a constant curiosity voyage when it comes to the ocean that is Mahabharat.

Interpretations, re-tellings, prose, poetry, and tv are mediums that people usually go for. I respect their choice

Originally posted by: capricornrcks

We can go around in circles discussing who's Draupadi's favorite and we're never going to reach a consensus😆.It is the flawed and very human nature of the cast which makes Mahabharata so relatable to many including me. Draupadi's desire for vengeance is also what makes her so human and relatable. I'll draw a parallel with Amba and Kannagi- to some extent. (She never gets carried away with her vengeance like Kannagi did.) To put her on a pedestal and consider her meting out justice in an impartial way takes away so much of her relatability.

But the Krishna-Panchali you're describing is not the one Vyasa wrote about. That one exists in later interpretations and fictional adaptations and shows.

Vyasa, TBH, didn't write her to be relatable at all. He wrote her to be a heroic leader. Calling Krishna-Panchali relatable is as true as calling Krishna-Govinda relatable.

Vyasa wrote her as a working empress in those times. One who debated and defeated all the so-called experts in justice in Aryavarta. One who gave Krishna-Govinda instructions on what to do. There are 2 really intense scenes between them, and it's pretty clear who is the leader in the equation. In fact, SHE is called Krishna in the entirety of the epic, while HE is called Govinda mainly and some of his other names as well as Krishna.

And Vyasa wrote her as someone who talked about justice and the duty of rulers. She lists 4 circumstances under which a crime should be forgiven: a first offense, someone who didn't know any better, someone who was coerced, someone who regretted what he did. She asks Yudhishtira which of these categories Suyodhana belonged to. That woman was logical and clear-headed at every turn in her life, even when she was under threat of death. She was logical to the point Yudhishtira was horrified she could be an atheist.😆

Vyasa wrote how Arjuna went on Indralok to build political and financial support for their war. Vyasa wrote about Yudhishtira doing the same with rishis. Vyasa also wrote about Panchali plotting her moves and amassing wealth during vana parva. She was tough-minded enough to send Bheema to Kubera and his Tribe to access the gemstone mines, with clear understanding of what he was to do if they refused. Which is exactly what happened. He slaughtered them to get to the saugandhika. We can argue the morality of it, but point is she was a ruler who made difficult decisions.

Vyasa wrote how she told Krishna-Govinda how she would go to war even if no one else, including him, did. Vyasa wrote how Subhadra blamed Arjuna and Bheema for Abhimanyu's death and never Panchali. Vyasa wrote about how Panchali even forgave Ashwathhama even after he killed her brothers and sons and entire family. Yes, the choice to forgive or kill was left up to her, and she chose to forgive.

Vyasa wrote about her ripping Yudhishtira and the four younger brothers, calling them lunatics who should be locked up for their insane amount of regret after war, to the point Yudhishtira was actually refusing to do his duty and rule the empire. Vyasa wrote about how he had to show up and tell Yudhishtira to do what his wife said, except Vyasa put it as his own command.

It's terribly sad when a shrewd and strong leader like Panchali gets reduced to pining schoolgirl first, then a vengeful virago who got her own family killed in a war in which she somehow didn't realize people would die.

I mean a lot of us go on about how female characters (real or fictional) are reduced to flowerpots in tales. Here we have an actual female leader, the empress of Aryavarta, who sacrificed everything for justice, and she's turned into something she totally was not. Vyasa didn't do that to her. We did.

Capricornrcks, I started reading CE only around 2014. Before that, I used to love the character of Panchali but thought similar things about her. If you're truly interested, please read CE. It's a bit tedious at times, but you seem interested enough. You'll be amazed that such a leader actually ruled India at one point.

loved reading all of your posts on MB!

I do not know so much details and depth of all these characters but MB has always fascinated me since childhood, still continues to do so!

I would love to read the versions you all have recommended here if time permits.