Mahabharat- The Epic: Sources, Variations, Discuss Here Only - Page 20

Originally posted by: SweetRogue

Isn't Arthashastra a much later composition?

Perhaps due to interpolations, but the society of Mbh times seems a bit wierd to me. I don't see any uniformity in the social customs at least from whatever I've read. Most things seemed to be at the whim of the most powerful people. For example no protest or reaction at all when Duryodhana made Karna, a percieved social outcast, king. Or no reaction from anybody to the Polyandry of Draupadi, except much later.

Originally posted by: amritat

Strangely, Arthashastra contradicts what Karna says here during dice-game (quoting CE):

Karna said, "There are three who can own no propertya slave, a student and a woman. O fortunate one! You are the wife of a slave and have nothing of your own. You have no lord and are like the property of slaves. Enter and serve us. That is the task for you in this household. O Princess! All the sons of Dhritarashtra are now your masters and not the sons of Pritha. O beautiful one! Choose another one for your husband, one who will not make you a slave through gambling. Remember the eternal rule among slaves. Sexual acts with one's masters are never censured. Nakula, Bhimasena, Yudhishthira, Sahadeva and Arjuna have been won over. O Yajnaseni! Enter as a slave. The ones who have been won over can no longer be your husbands. Valour and virility are of no use to Partha now. In the middle of the sabha, he has gambled away the daughter of Drupada, the king of Panchala.'

----------

I am wondering if this has got something to do with changing laws with the changing era. Chanakya lived sometime around 3rd to 5th Century BC whereas Mahabharata incidents took place or was composed at least a few centuries ago. And laws and norms change in decades. Compare the status of women and the Laws now in 2018 with those of 1950s, just a few decades back!

Originally posted by: amritat

@Brahmaputra -

That society changed, laws were tampered with, traditions were modified, patriarchy rose, etc is evident. I am not contesting that point, bcoz I agree there.

But one interesting point to be analyzed here is, even if certain laws were there, how much of it was actually followed?

Take for example, today's case. Dowry is illegal as per Indian Penal Code. And yet, almost 70% Indians, including educated ones, take and give unofficial dowry in some form or the other in marriage. So, even if laws were in place theoritically for women or slaves during that era, it is worth analyzing, how much of it was actually implemented.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Karna said, "There are three who can own no propertya slave, a student and a woman. O fortunate one! You are the wife of a slave and have nothing of your own. You have no lord and are like the property of slaves. Enter and serve us. That is the task for you in this household. O Princess! All the sons of Dhritarashtra are now your masters and not the sons of Pritha. O beautiful one! Choose another one for your husband, one who will not make you a slave through gambling. Remember the eternal rule among slaves. Sexual acts with one's masters are never censured. Nakula, Bhimasena, Yudhishthira, Sahadeva and Arjuna have been won over. O Yajnaseni! Enter as a slave. The ones who have been won over can no longer be your husbands. Valour and virility are of no use to Partha now. In the middle of the sabha, he has gambled away the daughter of Drupada, the king of Panchala.'

The problem with the bold part is that, it could be translated as below. IF doesn't allow posting IAST. SO be patient.

anavadya vai pateeshu kaamavruttir, nitya daasye viditam vai tavaastu

anavadyaa = faultless [denoting a woman with the additional A in the end]

vai = just

pateeshu = in husbands [lord]

kaamavruttir = self-willed / independent [Debroy seems to divide KAAMA and VRITTI than taking it as the singular word it is]

nityam = always

daasye = for [female] servants

viditam = is known

tava = of you

astu = let it be

I am not typing the anvaya. It only means, 'a female servant is independent choose his/her husband/lord, so let it be done by you.'

Karna possibly only pointed out the custom that if a female servant wants to choose a husband of her like, or a master of her like, she was free to do so. That was why he possibly asked her in the previous line to choose a husband who wouldn't stake her through gambling. It is NOT an invitation to have sex. It looks more like a way out of Draupadi's situation. From where to where does translations go!

Originally posted by: amritat

@bold - I would respectfully disagree...but anyway...we are all entitled to our own interpretations.

Originally posted by: Brahmaputra

Understood. I said so only because he didn't address her disrespectfully there, disrespectfully enough to address a slave, which is quite surprising for someone who called her a prosti*ute a few moments ago and ordered her disrobing. Nevertheless, the big picture of MBh more or less seems like no one talked anything like this or nothing of it ever happened.