Dyuth Sabha

As I am progressing with reading the book Bharatha paryatanam , I am getting new insights and thoughts on the controversial Dyuth Sabha

In the Sabha when Droupadi is about to get insulted , the people there are discussing only about if Droupadi is really staked according to the rules and has she really become daasi ...

Vikarna and Vidur telling against it , but rest all keeping quiet ... - so the question there was is she a daasi or not ?

But no one in the sabha tellling anything against the cruel behaviour meted out to the lady and the harsh words and insults ( bheem only rises against it because it is done for his wife). So that implies whatever said and done to Droupadi , provided she became a daasi , was in the constraints of the twisted and wrong interpretation of what they all considered dharam ..

All the pandavas, kauravas followed this twisted dharam , yudi especially . else atleast one among the twisted dharm gyanis would have told that the behaviour is not right if she is a daasi or not . But they were concerned only about if she is a daasi or not

I remember the dialogue from ⭐️bharat by a maid ... "samragi ke path se uthar jaane wali ki peetha ka anth nahi hai " and they all considered this as dharam or they didnt consider it as adharm ...

Dury did adharm even by this adharmi dharm standards too , he was insulting drou when she was not rightfully staked and won according to adharmi dharm ...


Now the motive of kurukshethra war is crystal clear ... uproot this stupid adharmi dharam ... and establish the real dharam as ⭐️krishna said based on kindness and compassion ...

⭐️ bharat makes more sense now ...👏👏👏👏👏👏

Please share your thoughts ...

I agree completely divya(I hope its ur name). this is really disgusting that a dasi being disrobed was not a big deal. I remember a dialog from brc, when arjun says(sorry if dialog is not correct) " kabhi dastv swikar mat karna kyunki daas sirf ek vastu hota h jiski apni koi pahchan ni hoti".

Originally posted by: srishtisingh

I agree completely divya(I hope its ur name). this is really disgusting that a dasi being disrobed was not a big deal. I remember a dialog from brc, when arjun says(sorry if dialog is not correct) " kabhi dastv swikar mat karna kyunki daas sirf ek vastu hota h jiski apni koi pahchan ni hoti".

It was like if she is a daasi, then she can be pulled by hair, she can be pushed into sabha in her monthly time inadequately dressed , called a veshya ... no issues ... but they will discuss if she is a daasi or not ...

and it again aggrevates my hatred towards yudi , he was staking drou knowing that daasi will have to go through the cruelty which are accepted in the name of dharam and that too at the hands of their enemies ... .
😡

I don't think yudi even In his weirdest dream would have thought things will go so much out of hand. he at that moment just got an opportunity to win back everything he got.and he did exactly that.though there is something else I think that even if he didn't stake her she would have been considered daasi as all her husbands were lost and were daas.he might have known this.so when he got another opportunity to set everything right he took gamble (as now he had nothing to lose, he had already lost everything) . though its just my opinion regarding staking.

Agree with what you said most of the people weren't bothered about treatment being meted out to a woman only if she was a daasi or not

Regarding Yudhishtir i have come to a conclusion that whatever Yudi did at that time in dyut sabha was not considered adharma or a sin by dwapar yug standard or by ved vyas's standards

why

1)Krsihna ji never rebukes Yudhishtir for his staking

2)Despite him staking his wife and brother's his chariot is always in the Air indicating his purity

3)He is the only panadav who gets to go to heaven in his human form

Hence as per dwapar Yug standards or ved vyas whatever yudi did wasn't wrong

not that i agree with it for me its wrong and i will criticize yudi for it but just in support of your analysis that most of what happened in that sabha was on or right as per dawapar yug standards including what yudi did which explains why yudhishtir in the epic never gets rebuked for this staking(except for drauapdi and bhima)

Regarding whether dury win draupadi fairly or not

i dont think even in the epic its clear whether he won her fairly or not

but since most of the people remain silent in dyut sabha people like pandavs and even bhishma then again at least as per them Draupadi had been fairly won

hence they didn't say anything

Infact in another book 'Yuganta' by Iravate Karve she has an interesting take on Bhishma's silence

As per her in either case Drauapdi was fairly won.I mean Drauapdi is mainly asking one question that after yudi had lost himself how could he stake someone else and lose?Now as per her Bhishma remained silent because no matter what Bhishma would have said draupadi's would have been in a bad situation

If he had said yes that yudi had a right to lose her them she would have been declared a slave

if he would have said that yudi didn't have any rights one her, her situation would have been really pitiable because it would have been declared that she has no husband or her husband and her relationship is over kind of like a dwapar yug divorce which would have been even worse for her

She actually blames drauapdi for discussing technical point of dharma when she should have argued more on the kshatraiya code and how a woman should not be treated like this by a ksahtraiya

Not saying i agree with her but i find her POV interesting

Originally posted by: Sabhayata

Regarding whether dury win draupadi fairly or not

i dont think even in the epic its clear whether he won her fairly or not

but since most of the people remain silent in dyut sabha people like pandavs and even bhishma then again at least as per them Draupadi had been fairly won

hence they didn't say anything

Infact in another book 'Yuganta' by Iravate Karve she has an interesting take on Bhishma's silence

As per her in either case Drauapdi was fairly won.I mean Drauapdi is mainly asking one question that after yudi had lost himself how could he stake someone else and lose?Now as per her Bhishma remained silent because no matter what Bhishma would have said draupadi's would have been in a bad situation

If he had said yes that yudi had a right to lose her them she would have been declared a slave

if he would have said that yudi didn't have any rights one her, her situation would have been really pitiable because it would have been declared that she has no husband or her husband and her relationship is over kind of like a dwapar yug divorce which would have been even worse for her

She actually blames drauapdi for discussing technical point of dharma when she should have argued more on the kshatraiya code and how a woman should not be treated like this by a ksahtraiya

Not saying i agree with her but i find her POV interesting

Interesting take on Bhishma's silence.
However putting the blame on Draupadi seems dumb.
Coz, in such a situtation it's very difficult to think intelligently and ask intelligent questions.
Besides, did Draupadi know that she would be disrobed?

If I am not wrong then she does taunt the elders for being brought to court like that by saying that the Kurus have probably forgotten their manners...She does point that out in a sarcastica way...
But the disrobing thing happens suddenly n Draupadi had to surrender to Lord Krishna.
I cant imagine wat else she could have done with her stained clothes, slipping from her body, her disappointment of seeing the unworthiness of her husbands in that moment, the shock that her own husband staked her, then a bigger at seeing her brother-in-law approaching her to disrobe her n her final surrender to the Lord, the only One who rescue her...She had so much in her mind already...
I wonder wat the author herself would do if she were in Draupadi's place...

So then there was a hopeless slave system ...

So whatever happened in the sabha was dharam according to the twisted dharam ... which i cannot understand at all ...

Originally posted by: divyasn

So then there was a hopeless slave system ...

So whatever happened in the sabha was dharam according to the twisted dharam ... which i cannot understand at all ...

Slavery has always been there in almost every culture.
I guess the problem with this incident is that one's own family was made into slaves.
And wat is worse is the Kulvaddhu was disrobed in front of so many men.
I guess in those a royal woman did not interact much or come in front of brothers-in-law n fathers-in-law...
Only slaves, dasis n courtesans were allowed to onteract with men...i could be wrong, but this is wat i think.

Molesting any woman is wrong, but since in those days Bhabhis were respected like mothers n the royal Bahus dis not interact much with the men of the family, n Draupadi was not only dragged to the court but also disrobed n treated like a dasi by her own devars, in blood-stained clothes, that makes the incident even more loathsome.
Draupadi may have lost her status as a Queen, but she was still the Kulvaddhu...