Vishnu Parivaar #1 [Strictly IO] - Page 23

Originally posted by: KalyaniPanchali

And, I have a question for you all 😛

We all know that Panchali emerged as a grown-up maiden. What's her age when she was born? 😆

And also people, Polyndry wasn't considered that inappropriate in that era, though was rare. ⭐️Mahabharat made it too much 🥱

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Yup, agree to disagree, lol.

The epic doesn't explicitly mention the other wives, except for the known few, so I guess we can draw our own conclusions. Hidimbi lived with Ghatotkacha in the rakshasa kingdom, as Bheem had promised her that if he married her, he would only live with her long enough to bear a son and then he must leave. She agreed to that condition and abided by it. Uluchi was a Naga princess who had no interest in leaving her community to live among humans, so she lived in the Naga kingdom with her son Iravan. Chitrangada's story is very specific also. Her father made a condition that he would only let his daughter marry Arjuna if he agreed to let Chitrangada and Babruvahana remain in Manipur, as theirs was a matriarchal kingdom and Chitrangada was the future queen. Out of Arjuna's wives, only Subhadra returned with him to Indraprastha.

Other than Hidimbi, Ulupi and Chitrangada, the others lived in Indraprastha as per my understanding.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean the other wives of the Pandavas didn't come with them. Yudhisthir's wife Devika, Bhima's other wife Valandhara, and Nakula and Sahadeva's wives might've lived in Indraprastha, but not enough of them is known to say for sure. In fact, in one version it says Bhima married Valandhara after the Kurukshetra war.

Yeah, I do agree that the Pandavas' so-called promise to Draupadi seems a bit out of character for her and them, but they did promise that no matter how many wives there were, she would be Patrani of Indraprastha. She would be the empress, and none other. It's not because she was power hungry, but simply because she was the first wife and as Yudhisthir's wife, she was eligible to be empress, and was also the best person for the job due to her intelligence and knowledge in the shastras.

They did that, cause she is the first Kshatriya princess whom Dharmaraj married, and other reasons as you said. But, not the marriage, other wives related promise.

Regarding the other wives living in Indraprastha, this is the only reference I got when the Pandavas left Indraprastha for their exile. It says Indrasena (their famed charioteer) and others followed them with their wives and servants. We don't know if that means they're referring to the Pandavas' wives or the 'others' wives. It could mean anything, I guess.

"Vaisampayana said, 'Thus defeated at dice and incensed by the wicked sons of Dhritarashtra and their counsellors, the sons of Pritha set out from Hastinapura. And issuing through Vardhamana gate of the city, the Pandavas bearing their weapons and accompanied by Draupadi set out in a northernly direction. Indrasena and others, with servants numbering altogether fourteen, with their wives, followed them on swift cars. And the citizens learning of their departure became overwhelmed with sorrow, and began to censure Bhishma and Vidura and Drona and Gautama. And having met together they thus addressed one another fearlessly.

Servants' wives. The one I read is a slightly changed version.

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Panchali was of marriageable age, so anywhere from 12-18. She was married within a few years of coming out of the fire. 😊

Polyandry was considered inappropriate. It was certainly not acceptable, because if it was, we'd have heard more cases of polyandry. In the shastras, it was written that a woman must marry only one man and be dedicated to him to be considered a patrivrata. So Drupad's objections to Draupadi's marriages were justified, and even Krishna tells him that in a normal case, it would be a sin for a woman to marry multiple men, particularly brothers, but Draupadi's case was an exception, because the marriages were blessed by Mahadev and thus, cannot be a sin. Anything that is blessed by God is never a sin, even if it goes against the shastras, and thus Draupadi would still be a pativrata even with five husbands. Krishna gave a few more examples of other polyandry cases to further convince Drupad, but the major reason he gave him is that the Gods blessed Draupadi's marriages, and Draupadi herself was amenable to them.

Originally posted by: KrishnaPriyaa

I love strange POVs Panchu 😆😆

JanuMaa *laughs* I don't see it as a sin. There were marriages blessed so, and polyandry was not a sin.

Originally posted by: KalyaniPanchali

Regarding women living in their father's kingdoms, it seems unfair nevertheless for me. I don't think Pandavapatnis ever lived like that, except Hidimbi, who was a rakshasi, Ulupi, who was a Naga, and Chitrangada, the one from a matriarchal kingdom. I don't think Vasudeva did marry anyone other than Devaki and Rohini, cause my POV is very deeper and stranger also, lol.

I kinda agree and also disagree with the polyandry thing 😆

Originally posted by: KalyaniPanchali

Weirdo 😆

It was not a sin. Anything which involved pure love and pure outcome isn't a sin 😆

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

It may have been unfair, but then again, life wasn't fair all the time, you know? The world even then, wasn't perfect. So I prefer to think of the epics in more realistic terms than paint a rosy hue over everything. There were glitches in the societal system. In some ways, things were more progressive than today but in other ways, they were still pretty regressive. It was simply a different era.

Life wasn't fair always, I agree, but Pandavas/Draupadi hadn't been unfair. Dharmaraj hadn't been unfair. Krishna hadn't been unfair. They suffered but didn't let others. So, their people never suffered that unfair treatment, except themselves.

We don't know how the Pandavapatnis lived, they may or may not have lived at Indraprastha. Personally, I feel that if they did live there, they'd have had children too, but they didn't, or at least the epic doesn't describe them, neither in Indraprastha nor in the war. I think they would've been mentioned at least in passing if they'd had other children, so either the wives lived in Indraprastha and were all childless, or they didn't live there and thus had no children. Either way it doesn't make a difference to me, as it doesn't change the main storyline. Hidimbi, Ulupi and Chitrangada did live separately from their husbands, and they too must've suffered separation from them, and it may have been unfair, but it was their life and it happened that way. I don't think we have to make everything fair just to accept it, you know? But each to their own. 😊

Personally, I feel they did live in Indraprastha. Their children are mentioned in the epic, they hadn't been childless. Those three married their husbands when they were roaming in the forests, so that was inevitable. But, not the others.

Lol, I think we can both agree that polyandry was at least rare, if nothing else. Can you imagine the chaos in society if women and men were both allowed to marry more than once as many times as they wanted? 😆

I agree, Janaki, it was rare. I just can't imagine it, cause, age of Kali has rare cases of true love 😆

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Draupadi's case was different, guys. She at least married five brothers.

Imagine a case of polyandry in which a woman fell in love with men from totally different families. Where would she live? Who would she call her husband? The society was structured in such a way that when a woman married, she went to live in her husband's family. Polyandry would only work in a matriarchal society, because then the woman would not leave her home and instead, her husbands would come and live with her. But society was patriarchal then. A woman went to live in her husband's home. That's why polygamy worked and polyandry didn't. If polyandry was common and accepted as you said, society would've been chaotic because wives would be going from one family to another. The system would've collapsed. It wouldn't work out.

It was considered a sin for a woman to look at another man after her marriage. She was considered a pativrata only when she was faithful to her husband. When a woman was never allowed to look at a man romantically after marriage, where would the occasion be for her to fall in love with another man and marry him?