||All the righteous men wronged a woman :~(|| - Page 5

Originally posted by: Medha.S

Very nice post TM.

Frappie and thearcher -- Word!

Yudhishtira and bros. payed for their errors, so did the others who were involved, obviously. Yudhishtira was a good person, nonethless this particular event was a stain on him.

Though, have you heard how doing pooja and charity does not really matter if you are not doing it with complete devotion and the right state of mind.

Pandavas were not actually doing it because they actively wanted to hurt Draupadi or had bad motives towards her or wanted to see her suffer and laugh at it, that is not was in their mind -- they had no ill will towards her. Same for Bhishma and Drona -- not sure about Dhritrashtra -- he was delighted when she was won.

While Kauravas and Co., Karna -- they were doing it to her for the sake of doing it to her -- because they wanted to hurt her and humiliate her and pandavas. It is because that is what it was in their mind when they did it.

Also, the pandavas were of lower status than the random soldier standing in a corner -- no status -- just, slaves. No weapon. They could have just barged in do something about it -- what would have happened? would they have been killed for treason? for revolting? Bheem could have fought with his bare hands -- how long would they have fought? Since IP and HP army all belonged to Kauravas.

But there were many other men with power and weapons to support them -- there was less holding them down compared to the Pandavas. *sigh*

As i have said, Only Krishna was the real man that particular day.

Apart from that, all the other points have been already mentioned by others -- putting in my two cents.😊

Sometimes, i wonder why no one mentions how Pandavas clothes were taken off too-- but, is it because they were men, it doesnt really matter, i guess?🤔 But it makes me feel like an 'extreme' feminist -- and i just ended up feeling guilty because apart from losing everything which they had gained out of their own hard work -- not passed down from daddy, and then they were told to take off clothes too but i often forget. Sorry for the weird crap, yeah.

I agree to most of you Pandavas were not intending to humiliate or insult Draupadi. But my question is that
1) Whom did Yudhisthir stake? --> She was his wife. A wife whose security is responsibility of her husband. I want to ask that why did he stake Draupadi at the first place? He could have just ended the game when he lost himself, what was the reason to play the game of dice even further? Was is required to be continued till either party lost all? As per Dharma Yudhisthir did not stake the land owned by Brahmins in Indraprastha, this clearly shows that no rule of that time required a person to play a gamble unless either party loses everything (yes I am mentioning the word THING here).
2) My next question is whom did Kauravas and company (including Karna I feel he was more of a Kaurav than a Pandav) insult?--> Well the answer is that they dint insult a "daasi" and not their sister in law or the daughter and daughter in law of a prestigious clan as has been stated(although this does not reduce their evil). But then those of you are stating that Yudhisthir and co. couldnt do much as the social norms and Dharma of those days prevented them, then sadly the master during those days had full right on his daasi and he could treat her at will (at least once after one forceful attack on the daasi the ,master lost all his control over her which happened here too, remember that not just Draupadi but the Pandavas were set free after VH episode).

So all those talking of greater and lesser goods please tell me as to how can a person who knowingly put her wife at stake be at a lesser fault than a person who insulted his daasi???

I am no Karna or Kaurav fan, they were the evil but I seriously feel that in this case at least Pandavas were wrong they did a bigger crime than Kauravas and co.

Second point raised here is that the Pandavas hate Kaurav and co. and killed each who directly insulted her. I seriously doubt this. What they killed were their participation in the war. Had there been so much anger in them then why in the first place did they request for the kingdom after 13 years? Why werethey even ready to negotiate for 5 villages for 5 Pandavas? Had Dury agreed to this demand then what would have been the scenario? There would have been no Kurukshetra war and no killing of Dushhssan, Karna, Shakuni or even Duryodhan? You may say this was done to restore peace and save a family from a war of enimity, but if that is true, does this mean that for them their revenge was at lower priority than family peace?


I just want to conclude on a note that there was a person at the sabha (during VH) who severely condemned this indecent act (Dont know if this has been shown as I dont follow this Mahabharat) And ironocally he was a KAURAV- Vikarna (son of Dhritrashtra and Gandhari and brother of Duryodhan), he like his allies were killed by Bheem (was that for revenge too? Just a thought)

excellent post dear👍🏼

Originally posted by: shipreeta

I agree to most of you Pandavas were not intending to humiliate or insult Draupadi. But my question is that
1) Whom did Yudhisthir stake? --> She was his wife. A wife whose security is responsibility of her husband. I want to ask that why did he stake Draupadi at the first place? He could have just ended the game when he lost himself, what was the reason to play the game of dice even further? Was is required to be continued till either party lost all? As per Dharma Yudhisthir did not stake the land owned by Brahmins in Indraprastha, this clearly shows that no rule of that time required a person to play a gamble unless either party loses everything (yes I am mentioning the word THING here).
2) My next question is whom did Kauravas and company (including Karna I feel he was more of a Kaurav than a Pandav) insult?--> Well the answer is that they dint insult a "daasi" and not their sister in law or the daughter and daughter in law of a prestigious clan as has been stated(although this does not reduce their evil). But then those of you are stating that Yudhisthir and co. couldnt do much as the social norms and Dharma of those days prevented them, then sadly the master during those days had full right on his daasi and he could treat her at will (at least once after one forceful attack on the daasi the ,master lost all his control over her which happened here too, remember that not just Draupadi but the Pandavas were set free after VH episode).

So all those talking of greater and lesser goods please tell me as to how can a person who knowingly put her wife at stake be at a lesser fault than a person who insulted his daasi???

I am no Karna or Kaurav fan, they were the evil but I seriously feel that in this case at least Pandavas were wrong they did a bigger crime than Kauravas and co.

Great posts by everyone, especially by Medha, Shani & Janaki 👏
Nothing to add much but just one thing to say, Pandavas really really loved Draupadi & we cannot even imagine how much pain they suffered that day!!! They were also disrobed as Medha mentioned, & if you read that part carefully you will find that just after Karna ordered Dushshashan to disrobe Pandavas & Draupadi, they themselves put their cloths off, I always look at this picture with sympathy for them, as they were trying to save Draupadi at least till the last moment!!! When Dushshashan pulled Draupadi's cloth, when Karna insulted her, when Duryodhan showed his thigh to her--- what do you think, were Pandavas not insulted/hurt as well at those moments? Their penance started on that very day itself. That immense agony of watching wife's pain reduced their guilt on the spot itself.
Also, I don't know how many members will support my POV but, I always think that it was Vidur & Yudhishthir's prayer which reached to Krishna earlier even before Draupadi's last moment call. You will find that after Draupadi was dragged into the court both incarnations of Dharma were completely silent (were they praying to Lord or connecting with Him through meditation?) & also, the cloths covered Draupadi were originated from Dharma only.

Originally posted by: ..RamKiJanaki..

Sorry, but I can't agree with this point. How can the Kauravas' sin be lesser than the Pandavas', when they were the primary perpetrators? Of course it was wrong of the Pandavas to stake her and remain silent during the vastra haran, but how does that to any degree lessen the Kauravas' sin?

Yes, a daasi was considered the property of the master back in those days, but if we think about it in that way, then we also cannot forget that a wife was also considered the property of her husband in those days, so in these terms neither Yudhisthir nor Duryodhan committed any sins by staking/disrobing her.

However, there is something called humanity which is what Lord Krishna wanted to teach everyone. So what if Draupadi was the daasi of Duryodhan before the VH? Was a daasi not a human? Did she not deserve to be shown basic humanity and kindness by her master? Likewise, even though a wife was considered the property of her husband in those days, she was also considered his better half, his soulmate, so both Yudhisthir and Duryodhan committed grave sins during that scene which cannot be made lesser because a wife was considered an object and a servant was considered property. If that was true, then Lord Krishna would have forgiven Duryodhan wholeheartedly saying he was only disrobing a daasi, so no big deal. 😵

The only reason the Pandavas were fogiven is that they repented and reached enlightenment through the teachings of Lord Krishna. Repentance and intention play a major role in how karma plays out, and the Kauravas (at least Duryodhan and Dushashan) never once repented for their ill deed. Even when the Pandavas decided to let bygones be bygones and be satisfied with five villages, selfish Duryodhan was not ready to relinquish his desires or realize that he committed grave sins. So Duryodhan is definitely far worse than Yudhisthir. There can be no comparison between them, as Lord Krishna's benevolence towards the Pandavas is enough proof.

Lord Krishna favored Pandavas not because they were right in this episode (or because they repented for this. In fact Pandavas apologized Draupadi that they could not save her, Yudhisthir dint even once apologize Draupadi for staking her). He favored them as they were righteous people. Excluding this single episode they never did wrong things. Kauravas (for that matter even Karna) can not be anywhere even near to the righteousness of these men. Not only this, Lord Krishna also knew that Yudhisthir has the right on the Hastinapur throne. He knew that he would be a much better king. And please Mahabharata was not a war for justice to Draupadi, it was meant to get back the lost states (However it may be potrayed)

I am just talking about this single episode. Here Pandavas were at bigger fault because while Kauravas had only a right on their daasi. Pandavas had a right as well as a duty for their wife. Kauravas executed their right and Yudhisthir did the same, but while the former did not abscond from their duty the latter did.

first of all amazing post i'm going to say that i'm not against yudhisthira but the truth is that he could have stopped all this by not contiuning with the game after he was said to stake his brothers so the root cause is he & his damn DHARAM its just my view not to hurt anyone

Originally posted by: Pamalo

first of all amazing post i'm going to say that i'm not against yudhisthira but the truth is that he could have stopped all this by not contiuning with the game after he was said to stake his brothers so the root cause is he & his damn DHARAM its just my view not to hurt anyone

May be you are right but I still dont understand what "Dharma" are you talking about. Is there any Dharm associated with gambling??

I mean was there ever a rule or conduct that a person is bound to gamble and to continue until he loses all he possess?

I have never heard of any such Dharma. And if according you there was at any point of time in history such a rule or an expected conduct, then sorry to say a fair game would be probably a never ending one. I mean if two equally competent men played the game where there was no cheating involved (unlike this case where Shakuni was apparently cheating) there is equal probability that either will win. So whatever one wins in one stake can lose in the next stake. This means none of them will ever lose his every possession. In that case either you have to do an Adharma of breaking the rule of continuing to play until either party loses or play until eternity.

Just a thought

Originally posted by: shipreeta

May be you are right but I still dont understand what "Dharma" are you talking about. Is there any Dharm associated with gambling??

I mean was there ever a rule or conduct that a person is bound to gamble and to continue until he loses all he possess?

I have never heard of any such Dharma. And if according you there was at any point of time in history such a rule or an expected conduct, then sorry to say a fair game would be probably a never ending one. I mean if two equally competent men played the game where there was no cheating involved (unlike this case where Shakuni was apparently cheating) there is equal probability that either will win. So whatever one wins in one stake can lose in the next stake. This means none of them will ever lose his every possession. In that case either you have to do an Adharma of breaking the rule of continuing to play until either party loses or play until eternity.

Just a thought

Originally posted by: Pamalo

no im not talking about the Dharam of playing the gambling i'm talking about the Dharam associated with following his elder father's words yudhi started playing it bcz dhritrashtra invited him to play in the first place tht's wat i was talking bout i never thought gambling is dharam infact i'm against it wen we say ppl gambling today are wrong then that day even yudhi was bad.

plz dont be offended

Ok ok. But even then as far as I remember before Yudi was about stake Nakul, he did feel that he should stop gambling. At this point Dhritrashtra did not ask Yudi to continue. I mean Dhritrashtra had asked him to gamble, and not to gamble till eternity. It was Dury and Shakuni who said that he has right over his brothers and hence he can stake them and probably win back all that he lost and as we know Yudi complied.
In my opinion he gambled further for his ego more as compared to his will to obey his elders. Just my opinion. Others might think differently