Dharmakshetra :) - Page 28

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Amrita

POV books are good as they give us an idea of the characters' motives. A psychological study, if you will.

The EVENTS should not be changed

So, Karna calling Panchali names cannot be taken out but interpretation can be given. I have no problem with that. I even liked POI, but Panchali's character was inconsistent in that book. On one hand she is this amazing woman who did everything and on the other she was this angst-ING idiot.

And no, they are not all heroes. MB is not their story. Yudi, Dury, Panchali, Arjun, Krishna and Bheem are the absolutely indispensable characters Of course the story would have changed if the elder generation had made different decisions but once that was done, these were the only ones who could have changed the story.

I agree that POV books give us a vision that we wouldnt have otherwise...But most often, authors go overboard wiyh justification...
I loved Palace Of Illusions...except... 🤢
The reason y I loved it bcoz the author more or less stuck to the facts...and did not try to overglorify Draupadi. She was treated like a human with flaws like jealousy n anger.
I loved how none of Karna or Duryodhan was portrayed viciously to make Draupadi look like some goody two shoes...
I wish the same liberty was shown towards Draupadi too by authors writing from the perspective of the Ks n K.
I have nothing against these talented writers...they are immensely talented for sure.
I only wish that both the bad n good sides of the opposite sides are shown...

And there is the difference between how we see Panchali. I don't see her an an ordinary woman in extraordinary circumstances. I see her as an extraordinary are woman who had control of herself even in extreme circumstances like the DS and would not have been subject to petty emotions best suited to teenagers or TV bahus

Why should Draupadi not want battle with kauravas. I am not using the word war here.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Amrita, regarding your question, I personally do not see MB from a single character's perspective.
I don't agree with Karna was a hero, considering current MB. MB is nowhere Karna's story. Even if you take Karna out of it, things will not change much than Ps would have won the war easily. So it is difficult to say whether he was a hero or not, based on today's general perception of heroes. All I can say is Karna was a good human who never cheated his own soul. He might have been manythigs in the eyes of others, but to himself, he never betrayed anyone. We may compare Karna at two points of his life, but not with anyone else for they all were different persons, entirely different from each other.
I have nothing to add to what you told about Draupadi. She is the hero (keeping gender descrimination out) of the story. Had I known more about her, I would have added more.

I agree completely about Karna...His role in the whole story is limited except in the Dyut Sabha n the war.
If u take out Karna n treat him individually then yes...he was a hero in many ways.
As per KMG n CE, he did some unforgivable things...but he also did some great things to redeem himself.
The first half of the epic portrays him as some anti-hero but his greatness n honesty come out in the later half of the epic.
But if we see the whole story...he is not exactly the hero or protagonist.


As for Draupadi...well she is no Goddess or Devi for me. I love her immensely, intensely n often aggessively...bcoz more than a character, she is an epitome of my ideals...
But wat really hurts me is that the way she is being portrayed wrongly again n again n again everywhere.
I read a book named 'Great Women of India', where the author places Gandhari over Draupadi in terms of greatness.
I love Gandhari n I think that she was great n noble...but was she the greatest woman of the epic?
Wat defines greatness?
In Gandhari's life, there were two major tragedies...her marriage to a blind man n the killing of her children.
The second one was one major blow...n in this one incident, she lost all her calm n dignity, n cursed Lord Krishna, out of her immense pain.
If one great loss could bring her to this...then why is Draupadi blamed for her wrathful nature after she was shared, dragged, kidnapped, molested n rendered childless? How can a woman remain calm after so many calamities?
Yet it is this 'lack of calmness' that makes her 'not so great' to many...
It seems like everyone's wrath is justified...be it Gandhari's or Shakuni's or Karna's or Amba's or Duryodhan's.
Only when Draupadi is being wrathful then she is seen as bloodthirsty n vile... 😭

@Adishakti

Originally posted by: Adishakti

Why should Draupadi not want battle with kauravas. I am not using the word war here.

She didn't want mass destruction. She wanted kauravas dead and her empire back

Why

Look at this from pov. Once yudhishtir loses the empire she is molested publicly. Then jayadrath who wouldn't have dared to look her in the eye when she was an empress, attempts to kidnap her

When she has hidden her identity things become even worse, she almost gets raped by keechaka

In the first instance her husbands don't do anything. In the second people have stopped being scared of her husbands so even though they are visible, their valor is no longer a deterrent, by the third incident they are not even visible as her husband

On top of that all physical hardships of the exile, she had the life a princess, she was not a poor woman to happily accept a life of hardship for no fault of hers

Any woman would want to prevent being assaulted/ raped. No woman would think that my husbands are brave so after I get assaulted they will avenge me.

Unless her husbands killed kauravas who assaulted her first and she bacame an empress again, she would never be safe,

Arjun who could single handedly defeat kuru army in Virat war. The 5 pandavas had alone defeated the strong gandharvas after ghoshyatra. They did not need 7 akshaunis For kauravas.

There was no need for war for Panchali and she didn't ask for it. Every time she only wants pandavas to kill kauravas and get her empire back. They could have done it one on one or even if duryodhan had an army,with krishna and abhimanyu and dhristadyumna and ghatothkach they didn't need one

It was Krishna who changed the battle ino war and as per my previous post, not for personal reason but to save the civilisation

I too feel the same...
Draupadi wanted the people she thought to be wrong, dead. She wanted justice...not mass destruction.
Wat would she gain by getting people like Vrishasena killed?
In the epic, she does want war...but I dont think she wanted billions of people dead.
Bcoz after her sons died, she did accuse Yudisthir for this.
In today's time, when a woman is molested, she goes to the court.
But at Dwapar Yug, war was the way for justice...just like attacking Lanka n waging war was a way of justice to rescue Ma Sita...And so she was determined for war.
I too believe that she wanted her tormentors dead...not the whole of Aryavarta.

haah, gandhari the great, it is a little oxymoronic i think. in my view, she was a ordinary charecter. she had compassion for her husband i admit, but, this compassion turned out to be distructive. a single strip of cloth which she used to cover her eyes forever, distroyed the whole kuru dynasty. agar gandhari apni aankhon ko us vastra se nahi dhakti toh draupadi kaa vastraharan nahi hotaa.

Originally posted by: Arijit007

haah, gandhari the great, it is a little oxymoronic i think. in my view, she was a ordinary charecter. she had compassion for her husband i admit, but, this compassion turned out to be distructive. a single strip of cloth which she used to cover her eyes forever, distroyed the whole kuru dynasty. agar gandhari apni aankhon ko us vastra se nahi dhakti toh draupadi kaa vastraharan nahi hotaa.

Gandhari was noble...n there's no denying that...She never supported her sons' mistakes n never blessed them with victory.
She never blamed Draupadi as Kulnashini like modern renditions show her...
However, calling her greater than Draupadi is unfair, in my opinion...Draupadi was not flawless but it's not easy to remain calm n noble when one is being let down by her own family n even assaulted again n again.

Originally posted by: AnuMP

@Adishakti

Krishna argued against war. I happen to think he went on peace process intending it to fail. PANCHALI did argue for war. And she wasn't Uttara to think war is child's play. She knew what the consequences would be. I think she did want war but I don't think she wanted it for petty personal reasons. She had already got Bheem to go against Y once, she could have done so again if that was all she wanted.

As for Krishna wanting war for population control. Again without bringing in the divinity aspect, how would he know that even with a reduced population, civilization would be well, since the baddies had the bigger army.

I believe it was a desperate attempt at social reformation

Anu...if she really wanted social reformation then y does she accuse Yudisthir after her children's death?

Amrita. She is very clear that she wants war. She doesn't say OK go for peace process but let's invite DDSK to a duel. She wanted war. No doubt.