'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 74

yes, she was a great woman indeed, and chandrika, the book that you had mentioned is bad, krishna, sexcrazed??? illicit relation with draupadi??? it seems that the author this book is shishupal reincarnated.

Reading few pages before is truly knowledgeable.

... a woman of incinerating wrath, whose all-consuming hunger for vengeance destroys a whole generation of Kshatriyas. But she is also the saddest of all tragedy queens the world's classics have known -- the woman whose thirst for revenge ultimately reduces herself to an inconsolable mother, grieving the gory nocturnal murder of all her five sons. What a lady indeed!

Originally posted by: Arijit007

yes, she was a great woman indeed, and chandrika, the book that you had mentioned is bad, krishna, sexcrazed??? illicit relation with draupadi??? it seems that the author this book is shishupal reincarnated.

Arijit, One likes your descriptor -- 'Reincarnate Shishupal' indeed. I had half a mind not to pass comment on a book I haven't read. But going by what has been said here, one is reminded of Bertrand Russel's remark -- that "some people mistake vandalism for originality". This kind of depiction of Krishna and Draupadi is nothing but cultural vandalism. It's crass sensationalism, a base tendency so timelessly characterised by our ancients: ghatam bhidayaat patam chidayaat kuryaat raasabha-rodanam / yena kena prakaarena prasiddhah purusho bhavet // ['Break pans, tear clothes, bray like an ass / One way or other, become a known person.']. To my mind, such trash is best ignored.

My 2 cents re: Drau's wanting blood for her assault

Originally posted by: bheegi

My 2 cents on Draupadi and the war

1. She was a catalyst but not the reason for the war

2. Yes, she wanted justice/revenge but none of them fought the war for her. If that were the case, there would've been no shanti prastav by the Pandavs

She is a classic case of being a victim of the system.

One can't say the Jews were responsible for the world war...

Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar

Adding on to this thread - I also can't help but feel that making her the reason for the war implies that she was 'dishonored', which is very different from she was 'assaulted' - Dishonour is kind of like 1980s movies where hero's sister kills herself after rape to save the 'family honour'. It both trivializes the violence Draupadi was subjected to, and reduces her to a single dimension.

Sorry to sound near-militant, again, but I do feel strongly (as I think many women do) about this point.

Originally posted by: Gudakesha

Reading few pages before is truly knowledgeable.

However I have a question here.

Many say that Yudhistir asked Draupadi to deal with it when Keechak tries to molest her.

However when she, as Sairindhri is brought to Virat's court and becomes Devil's advocate again and King does nothing about it, It was Yudi as Kank Bhattu who in a puzzled poetry tells the plan to Kill Keechak.. like a code which no one in the court understand except for pandavas and draupadi.

Tell me which version is correct.

And how did the other version do rounds?

To the best of my recollection, the second version is the authentic one. That scene is one of those rare occasions when Kanka-Yudhishthira betrayed anger, in the form of a sweaty forehead. What he told Draupadi was a coded double entendre, comprehensible only to Draupadi and Bheema there in that court: "Sarindhree, leave this court and go to queen Sudeshnaa. I think your Gandharva husbands do not consider this to be the time for anger, or else they surely would have rushed to your aid. You are ignorant of the art of timing, and so you weep like an actress. O Sarindhree, retire now; the Gandharvas will do the needful, and take mortal revenge on him who wronged you.'
It was intended as a message of assurance to Draupadi and an authorisation for appropriate action to Bheema.

Sangeeta and Krishna

That Nitin Gupta stand up bit where he says Draupadis disrobing started a long time before the DS struck a chord with me too. Objectification started with father and then Pandavs/Kunti (Krishna too pushed for the polyandry bit, AFAIK. Then the DS


I get bothered by people calling it an insult too and then using that word to morally equate her own mistakes (Sootaputra comment and Andhe Ka putr comment, neither of which appear in CE, I am told). Why is it so difficult to understand the difference between insult and assault?


Arijit Bhai, good to see you haven't quit the thread. ⭐️ Shishu - gone but not forgotten 😆 . I learned some new Sanskrit words from him!