Studying Draupadi - Page 3

Originally posted by: Eloquent

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: JanakiRaghunath

Sita was not a part of the Pancha Maha Kanyas. There are actually two lists of ten great women: Pancha Maha Kanyas (the five virgins) and Pancha Maha Satis (the five ideal wives).

The Pancha Maha Kanyas were five misunderstood women whom society viewed as "unchaste" but they are considered virgins in symbolism, since in their heart they were always dedicated to one man.

They include: Draupadi, Kunti, Tara, Mandodari, and Ahalya.

On the other hand, the Pancha Maha Satis were a step higher, because they were the ideal wives who were always chaste and stood firm in their virtue, even during difficult times.

They include Sita (wife of Rama), Sati (wife of Shiva), Savitri, (wife of Satyavan), Arundhati (wife of Vasishta), and Damayanthi (wife of Nala).

👏 Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
I had read an article on Draupadi (or rather THE article on D) about how, she became a Kanya from a Sati (like earlier she was supposed to be either Damayanti or her daughter Nalayani and therefore a Sati, and then in the next birth became Draupadi, the Kanya).

I guess the Panchakanyas thing becomes cleared up, esp. in the case of Kunti and Draupadi. Kunti, I guess, loved Pandu, even though she had sons from the 5 different Gods. And the same for Draupadi, I guess.

Originally posted by: JanakiRaghunath

Well said, I also agree that Bhishma did wrong in this case. His oath was great, no doubt, but I never believed that the one oath he made years ago for his father, made him justified to turn a blind eye to injustice. I have heard many arguments in favor of Bhishma during the vastra haran, about how one's oath is greater than anything else in life, and breaking it is to accept death, but the point of Lord Krishna's avatar was to teach people that Dharma trumps anything, even oaths. If one does not follow their Dharma, it does not matter how many oaths they follow, they will not receive a place in heaven. During the time of Draupadi's vastra haran, it was the responsibility of every elder in the assembly to put a stop to it, especially Bhishma. Bhishma was the eldest and he was strong enough to stop anyone physically, should the Kauravas have revolted, but he failed in his Dharma and turned a blind eye to the injustice happening to a daughter-in-law of the Kuruvansh. Because of this reason, Lord Krishna had to punish Bhishma too, though in all other aspects he did right.

The injustice done to Amba is another incident where Bhishma chose his oath over his Dharma. He forcefully abducted Amba from her swayamvar just as she was about to garland someone. His brother refused to marry Amba, and so did her former suitor, so it was Bhishma's dharma to protect her honor and marry her, but because of his vow he again turned a blind eye to injustice. If he valued his vow so much, he should have convinced his brother to marry Amba or at least found another groom for her, but instead of he deserted her.

I do believe in the greatness of vows, but when they conflict with Dharma, I do not believe there is anything great about adhering to the vows and letting injustice happen. Bhishma committed two serious mistakes in his life because of his vow, and due to that reason he suffered pain in the war.

Exactly!! In the case of the Kuru politics, not just during the vastra haran, which was the lowest point for the Kuru court, but even before, Bheeshma repeatedly uses his Oath as a shield or excuse, to not exert his moral authority. He probably didn't think he was doing so, but he never berated Dhritarashtra during the Lakshagrih incident, because in his eyes, he could only serve the Throne and King, not berate or chastise them.

Bheeshma had a very forceful personality which could have been used to overpower Dhritarashtra morally, when he was doing wrong. He didn't need to oppose the Throne. He just, at the very least, needed to give Dhritarashtra a great tongue-lashing, and Dhritarashtra would have meekly submitted to him. This is evident during the time when the blind king dismisses Vidur from his post of Minister and Bheeshma roars at Dhritarashtra. The effect is seen the very next day when Vidur is brought back to the palace and reinstated to his post promptly.

So why didn't Bheeshma do the same during the Lakshagriha as well? And even during the splitting of the kingdom just because there were two Crown Princes? Those are some of the ways in which Bheeshma fails the state of Hastinapur and ironically the very Throne he has staked his life for.


Coming to Amba and the abduction, again we see the forceful side of Bheeshma. He had no right to abduct the three princesses, even though social customs of those days accepted that sort of wedding as Gandharva or Rakshasa vivaah (not sure this case falls under which category). Again, Shri Krishna seems to be telling us to rise above the social customs of the times and do the right thing, go by dharma above all.
It was more a point of pride for Bheeshma, not for himself, but for his beloved Hastinapur, who he felt was slighted as they received no summons for the swayamvar. Bheeshma just storms in there and abducts them away. The least he could have done was to ask the 3 princesses if they were okay with it. Yet he does not.

He was noble when he let Amba go back to Shalva but the damange had been done already. I guess, I can't argue with his Oath at that point, since Vichitravirya was still alive, so the Oath was not redundant then.

But, like you said rightly, he doesn't even try to look for another husband for Amba, if he couldn't marry her himself. Just says "Sorry ma'am, can't get hitched" and leaves her to her own devices.

Krishna also said that for Bheeshma, the Oath had become not just his life, but a part of his "image". His main claim to fame was through his Oath of celibacy. He had become a Hero and a part of him could never let himself do away with his hero-image.
So, the point of Krishna almost breaking his vow and taking up arms in the Kurukshetra war is another poignant and subtle lesson to Bheeshma himself. "I will break all oaths, small or big, to do what is right, to protect my devotee."

I wanted to ask, somewhere I read that Arjuna fired the majority of the arrows on Bheeshma. Shikandi fired just one at his heart. Bheeshma goes all "Ah, these are all Arjuna's arrows. And this one at the heart, is Shikandi's" Is it true or just a fanciful version?

Originally posted by: Eloquent

👏 Thanks for clearing up the confusion.
I had read an article on Draupadi (or rather THE article on D) about how, she became a Kanya from a Sati (like earlier she was supposed to be either Damayanti or her daughter Nalayani and therefore a Sati, and then in the next birth became Draupadi, the Kanya).

I guess the Panchakanyas thing becomes cleared up, esp. in the case of Kunti and Draupadi. Kunti, I guess, loved Pandu, even though she had sons from the 5 different Gods. And the same for Draupadi, I guess.

Thanks for the great thread guy!! I don't think we have a lot of in-depth knowledge regarding Draupadi's previous birth. From the Mahabharata, we came know to know that Draupadi asked to the Lord Shiva for a husband, who has five different unique attributes and qualities. when the Lord Shiva told her that it' hard to find a husband , who has all these five quaities, she was persistent, and the Lors Shiva had no other choice, and gave blessing by saying "tahastu" five times, and that's why Draupadi had a five husbands.
1) Though, her intention wasn't to hurt Duryodhana, by referring him a the son of the blind, Duryodhana did feel it as the insult, which he got the redemption at the game of dice when she was dragged by Dushashana, after Yudhistira lost everything in the game of dice.
2) Keechaka was killed, as he was trying to force over Draupati. In order to protect her chastity, prestidge and reputation, she asked for the help from Bheema, which Bheema fulfilled her request by killing Keechaka.
3) Even though, Karna was able to lift the bow and was capable of hitting the eye of the fish, as per the instruction of the lord Krishna, she stopped Karna from continuing the archery forward saying that he was the "sut-putra". This part I never liked, as I found it was the insult towards the brave Karna (I don't want to judge the whole Karna's character during the whole Mahabahrata, as everyone has their right to define the person's character).
4) During their final journey to the heaven, when Draupadi fell, and Bheema asked Yudhistira about Draupadi, Yudhistira explained to him that even though she was the wife of the five husbands, she always loved Arjuna more. Now, I don't think that Draupadi heard that conversation, as she was already dead (presumed). Now, it would be really interesting and amazing indeed if she had a few words to Bheema, b4 she closed her eyes.

I have always had a misunderstanding between "The Pancha Maha Kanyas vs. the Pancha Maha Sati". Thank you for distinguishing between the two:

"The Pancha Maha Kanyas were five misunderstood women whom society viewed as "unchaste" but they are considered virgins in symbolism, since in their heart they were always dedicated to one man.

Lol, reading K.M Ganguli's english translation of the Mahabharata, considered by critics widely to be the closest to the grand sanskrit text, has thrown up so many shocks.

As regards Draupadi, I feel, she has been widely maligned and thoroughly misused for furthering drama by all the general popular depictions of Mahabharata, including BRC's tv version of the epic.

The second biggest charge laid on her door is her "Andhe ka putra andha" comment. In the actual version, she is not even mentioned in that chapter:

SECTION XLVI

Vaisampayana said,--"That bull among men, Duryodhana, continued to dwell in that, assembly house (of the Pandavas). And with Sakuni, the Kuru prince slowly examined the whole of that mansion, and the Kuru prince beheld in it many celestial designs, which he had never seen before in the city called after the elephant (Hastinapore). And one day king Duryodhana in going round that mansion came upon a crystal surface. And the king, from ignorance, mistaking it for a pool of water, drew up his clothes. And afterwards finding out his mistake the king wandered about the mansion in great sorrow. And sometime after, the king, mistaking a lake of crystal water adorned with lotuses of crystal petals for land, fell into it with all his clothes on. Beholding Duryodhana fallen into the lake, the mighty Bhima laughed aloud as also the menials of the palace. And the servants, at the command of the king, soon brought him dry and handsome clothes. Beholding the plight of Duryodhana, the mighty Bhima and Arjuna and both the twins--all laughed aloud. Being unused to putting up with insults, Duryodhana could not bear that laugh of theirs. Concealing his emotions he even did not cast his looks on them. And beholding the monarch once more draw up his clothes to cross a piece of dry land which he had mistaken for water, they all laughed again. And the king sometime after mistook a closed door made of crystal as open. And as he was about to pass through it his head struck against it, and he stood with his brain reeling. And mistaking as closed another door made of crystal that was really open, the king in attempting to open it with stretched hands, tumbled down. And coming upon another door that was really open, the king thinking it as closed, went away from it. And, O monarch, king Duryodhana beholding that vast wealth in the Rajasuya sacrifice and having become the victim of those numerous errors within the assembly house at last returned, with the leave of the Pandavas, to Hastinapore.

This is what happened and note the narrator here, Vaisampayana, who can be considered a much more neutral narrator than in the succeeding chapters in which Duryodhan's "version" of events are told to Dhritarashtra:

And O king, my hands were fatigued in receiving that wealth. And when I was tired, they that brought those valuable articles from distant

p. 101

regions used to wait till I was able to resume my labour. Bringing jewels from the lake Vindu, the Asura architect Maya constructed (for the Pandavas) a lake-like surface made of crystal. Beholding the (artificial) lotuses with which it was filled, I mistook it, O king for water. And seeing me draw up my clothes (while about to cross it), Vrikodara (Bhima) laughed at me, regarding me as wanting in jewels and having lost my head at the sight of the affluence of my enemy. If I had the ability, I would, O king, without the loss of a moment, slay Vrikodara for that. But, O monarch, if we endeavour to slay Bhima now, without doubt, ours will be the fate of Sisupala. O Bharata, that insult by the foe burneth me. Once again, O king, beholding a similar lake that is really full of water but which I mistook for a crystal surface, I fell into it. At that, Bhima with Arjuna once more laughed derisively, and Draupadi also accompanied by other females joined in the laughter. That paineth my heart exceedingly. My apparel having been wet, the menials at the command of the king gave me other clothes. That also is my great sorrow. And O king, hear now of another mistake that I speak of. In attempting to pass through what is exactly of the shape of a door but through which there was really no passage, I struck my forehead against stone and injured myself. The twins Nakula and Sahadeva beholding from a distance that I was so hit at the head came and supported me in their arms, expressing great concern for me. And Sahadeva repeatedly told me, as if with a smile,--'This O king, is the door. Go this way!' And Bhimasena, laughing aloud, addressed me and said,--'O son of Dhritarashtra, this is the door. And, O king I had not even heard of the names of those gems that I saw in that mansion. And it is for these reasons that my heart so acheth."

In both versions there is no "andhe ka putra andha" comment. Nor is Draupadi the only person who "laughed the loudest" that has been passed on in other versions.

I find it interesting to note who Duryodhan himself chooses to notice, amongst those who laughed, in this incident. We can safely say that there must be at least 10 people present then, including servants, other royals/nobles, etc.

He notices the 4 Pandavas. Of course this is no surprise since he has hated them since childhood and he will remember every mocking they give him.

Amongst the females, he only notices Draupadi. We don't know who the other females are since Duryodhan fails to notice them, whether they are female servants or other female nobles/royals.

Why is Draupadi alone singled out for humiliation and torture, from amongst all the other wives of the Pandavas? Is it because Duryodhan vied for her at her swayamvar and failed? Is it because she was won by the Pandavas? Is it because despite being his "bhabhi" he still lusts for her? Is it because unconsciously he has always desired her attention and respect and received only contempt (not even direct hate) in return? Is it because she alone was the Queen of Indraprastha (and not the other wives)?

I would say it is all of these!

Another paragraph which shocked me was this:

"And beholding the kings of the earth to present unto the foes such excellent and valuable presents, I wished for death out of grief. And O king, I will now tell thee of the servants of the Pandavas, people for whom Yudhishthira supplieth food, both cooked and uncooked. There are a hundred thousand billions of mounted elephants and cavalry and a hundred millions of cars and countless foot soldiers. At one place raw provisions are being measured out; at another they are being cooked; and at another place the foods are being distributed. And the notes of festivity are being heard everywhere. And amongst men of all orders I beheld not a single one in the mansion of Yudhishthira that had not food and drink and ornaments. And eighty-eight thousands of Snataka Brahmanas leading

p. 106

domestic lives, all supported by Yudhishthira, with thirty serving-girls given unto each, gratified by the king, always pray with complacent hearts for the destruction of his foes. And ten thousands of other ascetics with vital seed drawn up, daily eat of golden plates in Yudhishthira's palace. And, O king, Yajnaseni, without having eaten herself, daily seeth whether everybody, including even the deformed and the dwarfs, hath eaten or not. And, O Bharata, only two do not pay tribute unto the son of Kunti, viz., the Panchalas in consequence of their relationship by marriage, and the Andhakas and Vrishnis in consequence of their friendship.

It shocked me because it was Duryodhan speaking to Dhritarashtra about all of Yudhisthira's wealth and other things. From these lines on Draupadi, it seems Duryodhan is not unaware of her worth and is not quite the black and white villain. There seems to be in his descriptions, both, an envy and a grudging admiration.

Then again, I was surprised in the Udyoga Parva section when Duryodhan sends a mocking letter to Yudhisthira, just before the call for war. In that he mocks Yudhisthira, basically calling him a Napunsak and many other humiliating and degrading words. No surprises there. What surprised me was what he said regarding Draupadi, something along the lines of "And Yudhisthira, you staked and lost the blameless Krishnaa..." Read here :

O thou of little understanding, how canst thou, O fool, venture to fight with me when stationed in the midst of my elephant-host? Thy inexhaustible quivers, thy car given thee by Agni, and thy celestial banner, O Partha, will all, O Bharata, be tested by us in battle! Fight, O Arjuna, without bragging! Why dost thou indulge in too much boast! Success in battle resulteth from the method in which it is fought. A battle is never gained by bragging. If, O Dhananjaya, acts in this world succeeded in consequence of vauntings, all persons would then have succeeded in their objects, for who is there that is not competent to brag? I know that thou hast Vasudeva for thy ally. I know that thy Gandiva is full six cubits long. I know that there is no warrior equal to thee. Knowing all this, I retain thy kingdom yet! A man never winneth success in consequence of the attributes of lineage. It is the Supreme Ordainer alone who by his fiat of will maketh things (hostile) friendly subservient. For these thirteen years, I have enjoyed sovereignty while ye were weeping. I shall continue to rule in the same way, slaying thee with thy kinsmen. Where was thy Gandiva then, when thou wert made slave won at stake? Where, O Falguni, was Bhima's might then? Your deliverance then came neither from Bhimasena, armed with mace, nor from you armed with Gandiva, but from the faultless Krishna. It was she, the daughter to Prishata's house, that delivered you all, sunk in slavery, engaged in occupations worthy only of the low, and working as servitors. I characterised you all as sesame seeds without kernel. That is true. For, did not Partha (some time after) bear a braid when living in Virata's city? In the cooking apartments of Virata, Bhimasena was fatigued with doing the work of a cook. Even this, O son of Pritha, is (evidence of) my manliness! Flying from an encounter with hips and braids and waist-bands, thyself binding thy hair, wert engaged in teaching the girls to dance? It is thus that Kshatriyas always inflict punishment on Kshatriyas! From fear of Vasudeva, or from fear of thyself, O Falguni, I will not give up the kingdom! Fight with Kesava as thy ally! Neither deception, nor conjuror's tricks, nor jugglery, can terrify the armed man addressed for fight. On the other hand, these provoke only his wrath. A thousand Vasudevas, a hundred Falgunis, approaching me whose arms and weapons never go for nothing, will surely fly away in all directions. Encounter Bhishma in combat, or strike the hill with thy head, or cross with the aid of thy two arms alone the vast and deep main!

Quite a different adjective (blameless) than the ones (wh**e, s**t, slave) used in the vastraharan episode by him. Again, it would seem, there is both mockery that the Pandavas were saved by a woman and a grudging admiration, in this.

The biggest charge laid at Draupadi, is her curse on the Kuru clan/all Kshatriyas which she utters after her vastraharan. I went again to the english translation to find the exact wording of the curse and kept searching. I came till the point where Bhima makes his oath against Dussashan and Duryodhan. What follows is this:

Vidura then, addressing everybody, said,--'Ye kings of Pratipa's race, behold the great danger that ariseth from Bhimasena. Know ye for certain that this great calamity that threatens to overtake the Bharatas hath been sent by Destiny itself. The sons of Dhritarashtra have, indeed, gambled disregarding every proper consideration. They are even now

p. 139

disputing in this assembly about a lady (of the royal household). The prosperity of our kingdom is at an end. Alas, the Kauravas are even now engaged in sinful consultations. Ye Kauravas, take to your heart this high precept that I declare. If virtue is persecuted, the whole assembly becometh polluted. If Yudhishthira had staked her before he was himself won, he would certainly have been regarded as her master. If, however a person staketh anything at a time when he himself is incapable of holding any wealth, to win it is very like obtaining wealth in a dream. Listening to the words of the king of Gandhara, fall ye not off from this undoubted truth.'

"Duryodhana, hearing Vidura thus speak, said,--'I am willing to abide by the words of Bhima, of Arjuna and of the twins. Let them say that Yudhishthira is not their master. Yajnaseni will then be freed from her state of bondage."

"Arjuna at this, said,--"This illustrious son of Kunti, king Yudhishthira the just, was certainly our master before he began to play. But having lost himself, let all the Kauravas judge whose master he could be after that."

Vaisampayana continued,--"Just then, a jackal began to cry loudly in the homa-chamber of king Dhritarashtra's palace. And, O king, unto the jackal that howled so, the asses began to bray responsively. And terrible birds also, from all sides, began to answer with their cries. And Vidura conversant with everything and the daughter of Suvala, both understood the meaning of those terrible sounds. And Bhishma and Drona and the learned Gautama loudly cried,--Swashti! Swashti! 1 Then Gandhari and the learned Vidura beholding that frightful omen, represented everything, in great affliction, unto the king. And the king (Dhritarashtra) thereupon said,--

'Thou wicked-minded Duryodhana, thou wretch, destruction hath all ready overtaken thee when thou insultest in language such as this the wife of these bulls among the Kurus, especially their wedded wife Draupadi. And having spoken those words, the wise Dhritarashtra endued with knowledge, reflecting with the aid of his wisdom and desirous of saving his relatives and friends from destruction, began to console Krishna, the princess of Panchala, and addressing her, the monarch said,--'Ask of me any boon, O princess of Panchala, that thou desirest, Chaste and devoted to virtue, thou art the first of all my daughters-in-law.

"Draupadi said,--'O bull of the Bharata race, if thou will grant me a boon, I ask the handsome Yudhishthira, obedient to every duty, be freed from slavery. Let not unthinking children call my child Prativindhya endued with great energy of mind as the son of a slave. Having been a

p. 140

prince, so superior to all men, and nurtured by kings it is not proper that he should be called the child of a slave.

"Dhritarashtra said unto her,--'O auspicious one, let it be as thou sayest. O excellent one, ask thou another boon, for I will give it. My heart inclineth to give thee a second boon. Thou dost not deserve only one boon.

"Draupadi said,--'I ask, O king, that Bhimasena and Dhananjaya and the twins also, with their cars and bows, freed from bondage, regain their liberty.'

'Dhritarashtra said,--'O blessed daughter, let it be as thou desirest. Ask thou a third boon, for thou hast not been sufficiently honoured with two boons. Virtuous in thy behaviour, thou art the foremost of all my daughters-in-law.

Draupadi said,--'O best of kings, O illustrious one, covetousness always bringeth about loss of virtue. I do not deserve a third boon. Therefore I dare not ask any. O king of kings, it hath been said that a Vaisya may ask one boon; a Kshatriya lady, two boons; a Kshatriya male, three, and a Brahmana, a hundred. O king, these my husbands freed from the wretched state of bondage, will be able to achieve prosperity by their own virtuous acts!'"

So, in reality, everyone apart from Draupadi, says all those things concerning the end of the Kuru clan.

I ofcourse don't know what the "Critical Edition" of the Mahabharata actually says since sanskrit is the toughest language to understand and translate, especially as one can make so many different interpretations of the same set of lines. Plus there is usually a "inner meaning" attached to the lines. (I would know. I had many difficulties during my Sanskrit exams in school 😆).

Yet it is worth noting what the widely accepted english translation says of the crucial events.