Studying Draupadi

Hello Guys!

In my course , we have been given to study Iravati Karwe's 'Draupadi' in Yuganta the end of an epoch. After the beautiful contrasts & similarities between Sita & Draupadi , the writer has mentioned about the grave mistakes she'd committed. #1. Laughing at Duryodhana , #2 Revealing Kichaka's murder & #3 being , putting forward a question to Dharma after the dice game.

I tried to grasp the 3rd point but Im unable to understand how is this a serious mistake?

Secondly , what did her last words , uttered to Bheema mean?

Could anyone please help me ?

Thank you

Shubhika

Interesting thread, Shubhika! 👏

Laughing @ Duryodhan on the part of Draupadi is there in Shrimad Bhagvatam, but not in Mahabharat. In the Mahabharat, it's BANS who laugh @ him.

Thank you for responding!

I shall paste the extract here for the better understanding , I hope its allowed.

But what was Draupadi's biggest mistake?

When Dharma lost the dice game and Duryodhana sent a slave to bring her into the

assembly, she sent the slave back, saying, "Go into the assembly and ask if Dharma-raja

had become a slave before he staked me." Duryodhana replied, "Come into the assembly,

you will get your answer." When she refused to come, Duhshasana dragged her into the

hall. There she stood weeping, but with fury she asked the question again. With shouts

that talking was useless, the Kaurava men started pulling off Draupadi's sari. As each sari

was pulled off another appeared in its place. Meanwhile the discussion continued.

The question Draupadi asked rested on a difficult and complicated legal point. Even

Bhishma, who had often taken the part of the Pandavas in quarrels with Dhrita-rashtra

and Duryodhana, was unable to give an answer, perhaps for fear of compromising

Draupadi. What Draupadi was contending was that once Dharma had become a slave he

had lost his freedom and had no right to claim anything as his own; a slave has nothing he

can stake. Then how could Dharma stake her freedom? Although her argument seems

plausible from one point of view, even a slave has a wife, and the fact of his slavery does

not destroy his authority over her. Moreover, from the most ancient times a slave had the

right to accumulate certain property that was entirely his own. The question was thus a

tangled one, involving the rights of a master over a slave and a slave over his wife.

Draupadi's question was not only foolish; it was terrible No matter what answer was

given her position was desperate. If Bhishma told her that her husband's rights over her

did not cease, that even though he became a slave, she was in his power and he had the

right to stake her, her slavery would have been confirmed. If Bhishma had argued that

because of his slavery her husband had no more rights over her, then her plight would

have been truly pitiable. Draupadi was described as

nathavati anathavat —

"with husbands, but like a widow", and if her relation with her husband was destroyed she

would have been truly widowed. From Rigvedic times there are references to abandoned

wives living wretchedly in the house of their father. But there is not a single case in

which a woman, of her own accord, had denied her husband. For such a woman, getting

even a lowly position in her father's house would have been impossible, to say nothing of

an honorable one.

Draupadi's question had put all of them in a dilemma. Bhishma hung his head.

Dharma was ready to die of shame. Draupadi was standing there arguing about legal

technicalities like a lady pundit when what was happening to her was so hideous that she

should only have cried out for decency and pity in the name of the Kshatriya code. Had

she done so perhaps things would not have gone so far. Allowing their own daughter-in-

law to be dragged before a full assembly, dishonouring a bride of their own clan in the

hall of the men, was so against all human, unwritten law that quibbling about legal

distinctions at that point was the height of pretension.

Draupadi's last words to Bheem after recalling her marital life in her last minutes. When she was denied heaven , Bhim asked Yudishatra for the reason & he said that Draupadi throughout her life loved Arjuna more than her other husbands. Draupadi felt guilty when she heard that.

But in what sense was it a sin? Wasn't he the one who had won her.

Bringing Bhima's face close to hers, she said with her last

breath, "In our next birth be the eldest, Bhima; under your shelter we can all live in safety

and joy."

Interesting topic...

I'll refer the material I have and get back.

I never heard of Draupadi's last words to Bheema so far. Will check up on that too.

But in what sense was it a sin? Wasn't he the one who had won her.


This is sort of true...he won her and in her eyes he was the hero. Any woman would have fallen for him. BUT...someone like Draupadi is supposed to behave in a perfect manner. She married 5 men and she was supposed to treat them all equally. But even when while she spent time with other husbands, she would have Arjun at the back of her mind. That was like being unfaithful and unfair to other husbands.

Originally posted by: visrom

But in what sense was it a sin? Wasn't he the one who had won her.


This is sort of true...he won her and in her eyes he was the hero. Any woman would have fallen for him. BUT...someone like Draupadi is supposed to behave in a perfect manner. She married 5 men and she was supposed to treat them all equally. But even when while she spent time with other husbands, she would have Arjun at the back of her mind. That was like being unfaithful and unfair to other husbands.

Draupadi's last words to Bheem after recalling her marital life in her last minutes. When she was denied heaven , Bhim asked Yudishatra for the reason & he said that Draupadi throughout her life loved Arjuna more than her other husbands. Draupadi felt guilty when she heard that.

But in what sense was it a sin? Wasn't he the one who had won her.

Bringing Bhima's face close to hers, she said with her last

breath, "In our next birth be the eldest, Bhima; under your shelter we can all live in safety

and joy."

Draupadi laughed at Duryodhan but the major mistake she commited was when she said,"Andhe ka putra andha."This one sentence hurt duryodhan a lot.Even though she apologised for calling Dhritarashtra andha but duryodhan couldn't forgive her.Regarding the 3rd question,drapupadi asked that if yudhistir lost the right over HIMSELF,he had no right over HIMSELF then what right he had over his wife?Yudhishtir couldn't answer that.

Originally posted by: shubhika124

Thank you for responding!

I shall paste the extract here for the better understanding , I hope its allowed.

But what was Draupadi's biggest mistake?

When Dharma lost the dice game and Duryodhana sent a slave to bring her into the

assembly, she sent the slave back, saying, "Go into the assembly and ask if Dharma-raja

had become a slave before he staked me." Duryodhana replied, "Come into the assembly,

you will get your answer." When she refused to come, Duhshasana dragged her into the

hall. There she stood weeping, but with fury she asked the question again. With shouts

that talking was useless, the Kaurava men started pulling off Draupadi's sari. As each sari

was pulled off another appeared in its place. Meanwhile the discussion continued.

The question Draupadi asked rested on a difficult and complicated legal point. Even

Bhishma, who had often taken the part of the Pandavas in quarrels with Dhrita-rashtra

and Duryodhana, was unable to give an answer, perhaps for fear of compromising

Draupadi. What Draupadi was contending was that once Dharma had become a slave he

had lost his freedom and had no right to claim anything as his own; a slave has nothing he

can stake. Then how could Dharma stake her freedom? Although her argument seems

plausible from one point of view, even a slave has a wife, and the fact of his slavery does

not destroy his authority over her. Moreover, from the most ancient times a slave had the

right to accumulate certain property that was entirely his own. The question was thus a

tangled one, involving the rights of a master over a slave and a slave over his wife.

Draupadi's question was not only foolish; it was terrible No matter what answer was

given her position was desperate. If Bhishma told her that her husband's rights over her

did not cease, that even though he became a slave, she was in his power and he had the

right to stake her, her slavery would have been confirmed. If Bhishma had argued that

because of his slavery her husband had no more rights over her, then her plight would

have been truly pitiable. Draupadi was described as

nathavati anathavat '

"with husbands, but like a widow", and if her relation with her husband was destroyed she

would have been truly widowed. From Rigvedic times there are references to abandoned

wives living wretchedly in the house of their father. But there is not a single case in

which a woman, of her own accord, had denied her husband. For such a woman, getting

even a lowly position in her father's house would have been impossible, to say nothing of

an honorable one.

Draupadi's question had put all of them in a dilemma. Bhishma hung his head.

Dharma was ready to die of shame. Draupadi was standing there arguing about legal

technicalities like a lady pundit when what was happening to her was so hideous that she

should only have cried out for decency and pity in the name of the Kshatriya code. Had

she done so perhaps things would not have gone so far. Allowing their own daughter-in-

law to be dragged before a full assembly, dishonouring a bride of their own clan in the

hall of the men, was so against all human, unwritten law that quibbling about legal

distinctions at that point was the height of pretension.

Draupadi's last words to Bheem after recalling her marital life in her last minutes. When she was denied heaven , Bhim asked Yudishatra for the reason & he said that Draupadi throughout her life loved Arjuna more than her other husbands. Draupadi felt guilty when she heard that.

But in what sense was it a sin? Wasn't he the one who had won her.

Bringing Bhima's face close to hers, she said with her last

breath, "In our next birth be the eldest, Bhima; under your shelter we can all live in safety

and joy."

By this logic, if a slave has no freedom of his own and lost all to their masters, and yet the slave also had a wife and property. A contradiction? A paradox?

Draupadi's question was neither stupid nor mistimed. Not stupid because no one could answer the question till the end of the epic. If most of the "learned and respected" men at that time and especially at that assembly of Hastinapur couldn't answer the question, doesn't that by itself prove the 'intelligence' of the question? The practicality of it?

The second part is: no, the question was also not mistimed, in the sense that Draupadi was very cleverly buying time for herself by speaking. She bought herself time (from the immediate danger of Dusshasan on her person) by first saluting all the elders (which was the social custom of those days) in an elaborate manner which also dripped with sarcasm and irony since she reminded them that she was doing her duty by respecting her elders and by that same ritual reminding them of theirs.

When she realised that no one was willing to even stir (the less said about her husbands the better), she went to technicality in law, by her question. While people like Bhishma, Drona, Kripa and that damned fool of a King were pondering over her question, everyone was was still, especially Dusshasan, the immediate danger. So, she was buying time.

"Draupadi's question had put all of them in a dilemma. Bhishma hung his head."

Also, this Draupadi Vastraharan episode is the very middle of the Mahabharat epic. Yes, there were MANY reasons for the Kurukshetra war and yet THIS incident was the chief reason for it. So it was an important turning point or the main event over which the fate of so many hung.

Also, in a way, Krishna, used this incident to test the morality of all the people in that assembly. This incident was the main "test" of God, I feel. And also, as has been gone over and again, he set down the path of dharma (doing right at all costs, in any and all situation, no matter what stands opposing you).

Going by technicality, Duryodhan was the master and blah blah. But the main issue of morality is higher than this mere technicality. On a mere technicality you CANNOT justify wrong.

Lets see the case with Bhishma Pitamah. He was on oath, beholden to the Throne of Hastinapur. Whoever sat on the throne, he considered himself oath-bound to follow. So, Bhishma's dilemma was that, unless the King (self, blind bat) didn't object, he couldn't do anything. He couldn't oppose the King's decree or oppose the King.
So according to the Kshatriya dharma of honouring oaths, he was bound by his oath.

But what Krishna as God expected from him, was to go above this "oath" and do right, which in this situation, was rescuing the helpless. Even his "great, terrible, sacred, larger than life" oath which had become his very life, was nothing in front of doing right, doing dharma.
Plus, as a Kshatriya, he had another dharma or duty to protect the weak and helpless. Wasn't he ignoring that duty? Wasn't he ignoring the right and noble duty in favour of the duty which was, in that situation, redundant? (Since, his original oath was to sacrifice himself for Satyavati's sons, who were already dead).

In fact, in one place I read that when Bhishma was lying on his bed of arrows, waiting to die, he asked Krishna, "Why does it hurt so much? For what, this pain?"
And Krishna answered "For your silence and non-action in the Vastraharan where it was your duty as the eldest to do right, follow dharma."

Originally posted by: visrom

But in what sense was it a sin? Wasn't he the one who had won her.


This is sort of true...he won her and in her eyes he was the hero. Any woman would have fallen for him. BUT...someone like Draupadi is supposed to behave in a perfect manner. She married 5 men and she was supposed to treat them all equally. But even when while she spent time with other husbands, she would have Arjun at the back of her mind. That was like being unfaithful and unfair to other husbands.

Lol, in that case shouldn't the other Pandavas, like Arjun and Bhim be denied heaven on those very same points? Arjun had many wives and preferred Subhadra over all of them. Bhim also had multiple wives and loved Draupadi above them all. By this logic, shouldn't they too be denided heaven? Why the discrimination between males and females?

They were denied heaven, but not for these reasons. Other reasons like Arjun's pride were given by Yudhisthir.

I just read somewhere that these were the reasons Yudhisthir gave, according to his understanding. Ved vyas said it was his interpretation. But not sure of this as I read it very fleetingly.

But, in a way, I haven't yet understood why Yudhisthir was given heaven with his human body intact? He too had made many mistakes. (Perhaps too many, in my book)

Anyways, since this is a topic about analysing Draupadi: She was supposed to be in her previous lives, successively: Vedavati, Maya-Sita (Shadow-Sita of the Agnipariksha episode), Nalayini (daughter of Nala and Damayanti) and finally Draupadi fire-born.

I find it interesting that in almost all of her births, she has faced molestation in one form or another. Vedavati: Molested by Ravana, Maya-Sita, again by Ravana (though not exactly molested but surely it was not a cake walk in Ashoka Vatika) and finally again molested as Draupadi by D & D.