Why did the Pandavas sit quiet when Draupadi was being disrobed by Dushasana?
Question:
In Mahabharat, when Draupadi was being disrobed by Dushasana, why did the Pandava's sit quiet? Is there any other reason besides the fact that they had already lost in the gambling and had become slaves? The primary duty of a husband is to protect his wife. How could Yudhisthira Maharaj fail to understand this?
Answer
1. I seriously wonder if this incident took place, based on evidence from the Bhagavata Purana. The Bhagavata Purana, as you know, many times gives the highlights of the Mahabharata: a) in Bhishma's prayers; 2) in Kunti's prayers; c) in Arjuna's and Yudhisthira's recollections after Krishna leaves this world; d) in the description of Vidura's pilgrimage after quitting Hastinapura; e) throughout the 10th canto; f) elsewhere.
The Bhagavata Purana mentions the insult to Draupadi four times in these verses: SBh 1.8.5, SBh 1.15.10, SBh 3.1.7, SBh 11.1.2. Remarkably in all four cases, the Bhagavatam states that the insult to Draupadi was touching/pulling her hair. There is not a word about disrobing, nor about Yudhisthira gambling her.
I doubt that Yudhisthira could have gambled her on these grounds: in Vedic culture, human beings are not commodities to be bought and sold. Lord Krishna directly states this in Mahabharata when Balarama and other Yadus are furious because Arjuna took Subhadra without giving gifts to the Yadus. In fact, if we study feudal law, I believe we get a clue to the gambling match which took place in a type of Vedic feudal society.
From Wikipedia: "...feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs."
I do not believe that Yudhisthira gambled away his brothers, but rather that he gambled their legal and military obligation to him as their older brother and King. Just as today a financial obligation is a negotiable instrument that can be gambled, auctioned, sold, bought etc, so in ancient societies, military and political obligations were similarly negotiable instruments. I believe that Yudhisthira thus gambled away the obligation, not the people.
The relationship between husband and wife in Vedic culture is not political or military and cannot be negotiated or gambled. Neither the Bhagavata Purana, nor the Chaitanya Charitamrita mentions the attempt to disrobe Draupadi.
2. If for the sake of discussion we assume that the Kurus did attempt to disrobe Draupadi, then why did Yudhisthira remain silent? In the description of this incident found in the Mahabharata (which Madhvacarya declared to be a highly corrupt text), Yudhisthira falls into the same ethical misunderstanding that Bhishma fell into many years before: act-based ethics. This ethics theory states that moral good lies in the act itself, regardless of the act's consequences. Thus if you are sworn to tell the truth, then you should tell the truth, even if by doing so you cause terrible suffering to innocent people. Example: without any risk to yourself if you lie, you "honestly" reveal to Nazi soldiers where Jews are hiding. Consequences don't matter, only the act.
In Mahabharata, Krishna tells Arjuna a similar story where a sage revealed the hiding place of innocent citizens fleeing from murderous thieves. The sage kept his vow to tell the truth, revealed the hiding place, and caused the death of the citizens. Krishna then states that because the sage told the truth, he went to a terrible hell. The sage should have lied. Krishna tells this story to Arjuna, because when Satyavati begged Bhishma to save the world and beget heirs in the widows of Vicitravirya, Bhishma replied that, basically, even if the universe blew up, he would keep his vow. Consequences don't matter.
In the Mahabharata version of the gambling match, Yudhisthira feels he must honor the result of his gambling, and that this "honesty" trumps all other moral duties, such as protecting a chaste, pure Vaishnavi wife who is virtually a goddess. Yudhisthira ignores consequences, in this version, and thereby acts badly. In fact, he acts so badly that he practically drops from the list of heroes in the rest of the Mahabharata. He is officially Dharma-raja, but no one, including Draupadi, respects him anymore. She constantly berates and insults him during their forest exile. To make matters worse, Yudhisthira completely fails in the one chance he has later to redeem himself. Draupadi begs for protection from the lecherous Kicaka during the Pandavas' incognito stay in Virat. Yudhisthira insults Draupadi and again refuses to protect her. I don't believe this is the real Dharma-raja. How could a great war be fought to put such a man on the throne? I think Dharama-raja really is Dharma-raja, and that's why Krishna enthroned him.
With best wishes,
Hridayananda das Goswami
PS :: Article found on net...I am just copy pasting it...😃
