'Mahabharat- Different Versions -Perspectives' - Page 76

I was a little preoccupied since yesterday. I find a number of additional comments have come in the interim on aspects relating to (i) Draupadi and (ii) the salience or otherwise of 'revenge' as a major theme in the Mb war.
As regards (i), I would recommend Janaki Sreedharan's well-argued document titled 'Imaging Vengeance: Amba and Draupadi in the Mahabharata', appearing in a fine anthology called 'Reflections and Variations on the Mahabharata', published by the Sahitya Academy (2004). The book is a handy digest for any serious Mb researcher. It should be available in the Sahitya Academy outlets in most of the Metros.
As regards (ii), honestly I cannot think of the Mb and its war without 'revenge' as one of its pervasive themes. The leitmotif of vengeance permeates almost all the intra-climactic deaths in the war: Shikhandi's role in the fall of Bheeshma; Dhrshtadyumna's vengeful beheading of an unarmed Drona in his yogic posture; Krshna's stringent admonition of a distracted Karna, reminding him of his abominable part in Draupadi's humiliation; Bheema redeeming his pledge of avenging Draupadi in the bloody killing of Duhshasana; Satyaki's decapitation of an armless Bhurishravas as the culmination of inter-familial vengeance; and Bheema's unfair felling of Duryodhana, again in redemption of his pledge to avenge Draupadi. [I have deliberately omitted Arjuna's killing of Jayadratha and Ashvatthama's gory nocturnal murders here, because the causes for these revenges originated during the war itself and not before it.]
Another point has been raised as to why Krshna/Yudhishthira made the peace negotiation in the Udyoga-Parva. Actually, one would see that the negotiation was formally initiated by Sanjaya (as Dhrtarashtra's representative), albeit after being nudged by Drupada's priest. That the Pandavas responded with their very reasonable counter-offer was apparently guided by a realisation of the looming danger of an utterly destructive fratricidal conflict. Duryodhana's rejection cleared Yudhishthira's conscience. The moot point is, had war been averted how would Bheema have redeemed his pledged revenge, enabling Draupadi to shed 'the signs of violation' she had preserved on her body (with its one piece of cloth marked with menstrual blood and dishevelled hair sacralised by the anointed Rajasuya waters), as a palpable notice for redemptive vengeance?

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

This is what has been an enduring mystery for me in the epic. In spite of the fact that the vastraharan is a such a huge event, both in terms of dramatic quotient (in terms of literary and textual analysis of the epic), how it turns the tables in favour of the kauravas and how adversely it affects the female protagonist of the epic, it is rarely, if at all, brought up in the epic later. When the transgressions (both moral and legal) against Draupadi in the dice game are enumerated by various characters later in the epic and even by Draupadi herself, the disrobing part is, quite surprisingly, left out. There is an article by Satya Chaitanya based on another one by Pradip Bhattacharya on Boloji.com which speculates that the disrobing was a later addition to the epic and that Draupadi's assault consisted of how she was brutally dragged to the court by her hair against her will, in a single piece of cloth while on her period and made to submit to the Kauravas as a slave, which in my opinion was an assault and humiliation in its own right. Whether it was left out because it was a blot on society/shameful to a degree (depending on how the people then viewed such an incident) where talking about it was considered taboo, even by the standards of that period, is something that is still a puzzle for me personally. All those adjectives used to describe her as well as the fact of how her being dragged by the hair is pointed out frequently later, but the more serious and heinous assault is soft-pedalled lends credence to the author's theory, which has the potential to change the face of the epic in popular imagination.

This sort of fits in with the CE's portrayal of the disrobing, where Krishna is not her saviour and the miracle of the endless sari is left unexplained.

Here is the link to the articlehttp://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=1766

Thanks, Ashwini. The article is deeply researched and well-argued. And I also find that vastraharan is apparently a later interpolation to heighten the dramatic impact of Draupadi's ill-treatment in the dice hall.

Originally posted by: Ashwini_D

Apparently, marriage by abduction was also considered a legitimate form of marriage for kshatriya women- I forget the technical name. I think the consent of the bride-to-be mattered as well, and this is where Bhishma not only committed a grave conceited mistake but also violated</font>thek<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">shatriya code of conduct by carrying Amba to Hastinapur without the latter's consent. Can anybody throw further light on this?</font>[/DIV]
[/DIV]

The technical name of marriage by capture (or abduction) is Raakshsa marriage. It is the 7th of the eight types of marriage, and was generally looked upon with disfavour. But it was sometimes practised by Kshatriyas, as was done in the famous medieval instance of Prithviraj capturing a not unwilling Samyuktaa.
You are right, normally the girl needed to be persuaded, but the persuasion could of course be done only after the capture. Bheeshma arguably acted within the Kshatriya code, because he went to the Kashi court to propose matrimony for his step-brother; but when others mistook his motive and ridiculed him as an aged vow-discarding suitor, he took umbrage and carried off the girls ('with the care due to a daughter-in-law, a younger sister, and a daughter'), after defeating all the suitors. But as soon as Amba told him about her choice of Shaalva, he immediately released her to go to him. It was Shaalva's rejection of the 'captured' Amba and thereafter Bheeshma's inability, on account of his great pledge, to accept Parashurama's proposal that he should marry her, that the entire narrative of Amba-Shikhandi's vengeance developed.

Ashwini and Abhijit sir


I think Scotsmen carried on the tradition of kidnapping their intendeds until recently. They even had their version of Gandharv marriage if I am not mistaken


Strange to see how customs are similar across cultures

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Ashwini and Abhijit sir


I think Scotsmen carried on the tradition of kidnapping their intendeds until recently. They even had their version of Gandharv marriage if I am not mistaken


Strange to see how customs are similar across cultures

Actually, one of the oldest (though not older than the Mb event) global parallels was the 'Rape of the Sabine Women' ['Rape' here does not bear the present English connotation of sexual violation, but rather the original Latin meaning of 'capture'], immortalised in Giambologna's striking Renaissance sculpture at Florence. The theme is the 8th century BC event of the first Romans under Romulus, who didn't have women to consort with, raiding the neighbouring Sabine people (whose elders were opposed to intermarriage) and carrying off their girls to marry and found families.

😆 And till a century or so ago, Australian convicts had women transported there to be married to them. Not certain they were willing or not

Originally posted by: AnuMP

😆 And till a century or so ago, Australian convicts had women transported there to be married to them. Not certain they were willing or not

so, this pattern of ogerish marreige was repeatative in history, right?

Originally posted by: AnuMP

Sabhayata

I would have agreed with you about Yudhishtir learning from his mistakes, except for 2 things

1) Keechak. He asks Draupadi to deal with it. How?! He must have known the only way she could have dealt with it (other than what she actually did) was to submit. And then what? Kill herself, so the Pandavas can finish the terms of exile and not be saddled with an 'unchaste' wife. If he is not willing to protect his own wife, then how will he, as a king, protect his subjects?

2) The noble who did not value his citizenry enough to abstain from staking them in the DS, prior to that who actively brought about the deaths of 6 innocent people in Lakshagarh - why would we think that this Shanti Prastav was in any way motivated by a fear for his people and not by a fear of loss?

One thing I will give you though -

Unlike Anuj Arjun, once he made the decision to go to war, he was all in. There was no 'To Be Or Not To Be' type of reaction. The mourning came after.

Duryodhan - Not certain how he was as a king. But that tribal girl incident during Vana Parva, coming as it did on the heels of VH, suggests that it was a pattern for him🤢.

I personally came to the conclusion that Yudhishtir/Pandav's mistakes were out of ignorance and they did learn from their suffering. Of course, they did continue to make mistakes, all humans do. Unfortunately, Yudhishtir did continue treating his wife's physical safety as something less than important. My objection is to portraying Yudhishtir as someone who ONLY sin in life was the lie during Drona's killing. So much so that, out of all the 6 he was the only one to reach heaven alive!

Kauravas / Dury were too far gone to even correct if they didnt walk the straight and narrow with people like Bheeshma, Drona, Vidur, and to some extent Vyasa, on their side.

Yudhishtir was probably a reasonably good king. But he was propped up quite a bit by Bheem and Arjun and yes by Panchali too, by virtue of her connections at least (and she displayed quite a bit of learning in the DS)

Regarding Keechak incident Yudhishtir doesn't ask Draupadi to deal with it he infact asks her to wait till her gandharv pati's coem to her rescue.He says that the time is not right for her husbands to show their wrath and they will punish keechaka and do what she wants when the time is right

Vaisampayana continued, 'And while the courtiers, having beheld Krishna (under such circumstances), were applauding her thus, Yudhishthira's forehead, from ire, became covered with sweat. And that bull of the Kuru race then addressed that princess, his beloved spouse, saying, 'Stay not here, O Sairindhri; but retire to the apartments of Sudeshna. The wives of heroes bear affliction for the sake of their husbands, and undergoing toil in ministering unto their lords, they at last attain to region where their husbands may go. Thy Gandharva husbands, effulgent as the sun, do not, I imagine, consider this as an occasion for manifesting their wrath, inasmuch as they do not rush to thy aid. O Sairindhri, thou art ignorant of the timeliness of things, and it is for this that thou weepest as an actress, besides interrupting the play of dice in Matsya's court. Retire, O Sairindhri; the Gandharvas will do what is agreeable to thee. And they will surely display thy woe and take the life of him that hath wronged thee.'


Regarding shanti prastav hmm fear of loss doesn't seem to be right considering that Yudhishtir had Bhima and Arjuna with him.He also knew the various kind of celestial weapons Arjuna had gained over the years

Besides later in the epic Ved vyas himself tells Dhrtirashtra that Yudhishtir always knew the kind of massacre this war will cause hence he tried his best to avoid it

And regarding Duryodhan the tribal girl incident isnt part of the epic as per the epci he goes along with his wives and karna and others to that forest to enjoy and tease pandavas and gandharavas get angry as that is their place

Originally posted by: KrisUdayasankar

May I just pitch in here and clarify that in relative terms, Arjun did not remain silent. At some point Syoddhan offers to vitiate the stake of Draupadi and the brothers if even if one of them questions Dharma's authority to stake her:

"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."

- KM Ganguli trans. Sabha Parva Section 70.

I'm inclined to think this act is probably one of the reasons why Partha is/becomes Govinda's favorite. But that's just me :)

hmm i am confused

as to how this statement is being taken

hmm as per me its not like Arjuna is speaking against the staking he is basically not saying anything either ways whether the staking was right or wrong

nor does bhima infact bhima goes a step ahead and accepts that yudhishtir does have a right

usually yudhishtir is the one who is blamed the most out of panadavs for Draupadi's humiliation

but as per me other panadavs were also responsible and its precisely because of this incident

Duryodhan gives them a chance to take Draupadi away his intentions for the same could be questionable but he does give them a chance

but none of the pandavas take it proving it yet again that their brotherhood meant more to them than anything else