'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 75

hmm, so yudhisthir lerned the hard way about kutneeti, interesting, very interesting.

KrisUdayasankar, AnuMP, Sangeeta,

The Draupadi issue is among the most emotive as also the most cerebrally debated aspects of the Mb. I do not ever presume to pass a simplistic value judgement that her desire for revenge was the only causality behind the implosive fraternal destruction at Kurukshetra. [That would be somewhat like saying that the First World War was caused only by the assassination of the Austrian Archduke!]
In the ultimate analysis, the war was fought for title to land (bhoomi). But to my mind it would also be quite incorrect to dismiss the revenge motive altogether. Why else should the epic stress upon the oracle that heralded her sacrificial 'birth' with the sinister announcement that she would cause grave danger to the Kurus and the Kshatriyas? Why should the narrator repeatedly refer to her humiliation with the gender-nuanced adjectives of feminine distress: ekavastraa, muktakeshee and rajasvalaa? Why again should we hear Sahadeva spewing vengeful venom on Draupadi's account and Draupadi herself pouring her scarred heart out before Krshna at Upaplavya before the latter went on his peace mission to Hastinapura? Of course, she also asked him then to try and secure a share of the kingdom (land) as the price for peace and for the Pandavas' amour propre. The Bhaarata War, as Krshna put it, was a 'just war'. And if we search the world's wisdom, we find Cicero saying that war could be justified only in self-defence, redemption of honour, or vengeance. The Draupadi factor might have been the proverbial last straw on the camel's back so far as causalities of the war is concerned; but it surely fulfilled the last two of Cicero's three grounds for a 'just war'.
Of course, like in many other issues relating to this endlessly interpreted epic, your interpretation could be as good as mine, or perhaps better!

Abhijit sir


The same Draupadi lets Jaydrath go scot free and only wants Keechak out of the way, perhaps because he was not just a physical threat to her but also a threat to their collective future. That doesn't fit the pattern attributed to her.


Carpet bombing doesnt fit Krishnas pattern either from his own personal life and his advice to Pandavas at various times (Jarasandh)


She may have been the most well known of the victims of the prevalent social structure, but just as the Allies powers didn't fight WWII for the Jews, Pandavs were not fighting for her.

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

KrisUdayasankar, AnuMP, Sangeeta,

... Why should the narrator repeatedly refer to her humiliation with the gender-nuanced adjectives of feminine distress: ekavastraa, muktakeshee and rajasvalaa?

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

In the ultimate analysis, the war was fought for title to land (bhoomi). But to my mind it would also be quite incorrect to dismiss the revenge motive altogether. !

Yudisthira in Vana or Udyog parva ( not sure ) clearly said that if they ( Kaurava's ) give their land back -- no war will take place, I don't think he ever mentioned Draupadi's humiliation.

If the war ever was for revenge, there was no need for the peace treaty, why would anyone offer a peace treaty if they want the good old fashioned revenge?.

The Dice Game had two important parts -- Draupadi's VH and the Kingdom loss, one can never say which of the above two MAIN catalyst ultimately led to the war. The latter has more probability due to Yudisthira saying that he is fighting for the land.

Agreed Watcher

Moreover Yudhishtir is quite forgiving of Jaydrath's attempted kidnapping on the basis of him being BIL. Why would he not extend the same to Kauravas who are closer in relationship?

Originally posted by: abhijitbasu

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.

Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar

Sir, I would submit that adjectives of 'feminine distress' such as the ones mentioned are not gender-nuanced, but gender-biased. It is only reaffirms the dominant paradigm of the narrator to portray a woman as distressed, humiliated and to imply that to produce her in court as 'rajasvalaa' is a shame (while no so much stressing the fact that she faces assault and near-rape).

I would also submit (though admittedly this is a matter of interpretation) that Dharma being the winner and 'hero' of the epic, any narrator seeking to portray him as such would find it convenient to stress of Draupadi's distress, rather than highlight the fact that Dharma may have been the proximate cause of it.

Again, I say this with the intent that Dharma's one mistake need not vitiate his many good qualities. The unfortunate part of elevating the story to epic status is that we want unambiguous good and evil characters, but that is myth, not reality or history.

Further to the place of women in the social hierarchy, I have read about how a kshatriya husband lost rights over his wife if she was won over from him in fair fight by another. The following passage from the Ganguli translation has the Brahmin Dhaumya saying this to Jaydrath in response to Draupadi's forceful abduction.

Originally posted by: Gudakesha

Thank you SIr. So should I assume that these words are misunderstood by the people in thinking into that Yudishtir asked her to leave the matter?

Also sir, I have posted another question few pages before which I couldnt find the answer.

It is said that Duryodhan, Bheem, Jarasandh, Keechak and Bakasur were born in same nakshatra and are connected through stars. That is why they are so huge in built and have mace as their weapon (like qualities) And there is a prophecy that whoever kills first the other among these five will kill other three too. Since Bheem killed Bakasur first, he killed all the others too.

However this is not mentioned in KMG. (as far I read, please correct me if I am wrong)

Can you tell why this prophecy came into existence in first place. (if it is there)

As for the first point; yes, Yudhishthira asked her to leave the matter for her husbands to deal with in appropriate time (without risking exposure).
As regards the other, it's an interesting issue, though I can't say exactly where this particular astrological reference appears. It seems to be a later accretion -- maybe in a vernacular version or in some part of the larger Southern recension; but this conjecture is speculative on my part.
What is interesting, however, is the commonality of a deemed demonic (aasuri), or even ogreish (raakshasi) association with all these characters. According to the 'theory of alterity' of historical analysts like Sheldon Pollock and Paula Richman, raakshasas are the feared 'other' people, characterised by their monstrous strength and physical prowess, lack of self-restraint (including a primordial libido), cannibalistic habit, and general enmity to the brahminical ways; and even Bheema, with his massive build, enormous strength, wrestling prowess, and more significantly, 'transgressive' matrimonial union with the demoness Hidimbaa, has this deemed affinity to the 'other' people. Incidentally, Bhyrappa's book gives a rationally persuasive account of the behavioural underpinning of the Bheema-Hidimbaa conjugality.