-:Chat with Indrajit Bandyopadhyay:- Check page 2 - Page 7

Originally posted by: indraajeet

@ shindes

whether Duhshashana dragged Draupadi to court at all is doubtful ... molestation is a far issue ... no, this is not interpretative ...
there are at least three references in different places of Mahabharata (and mostly by Bhima!) that it was actually the Pratikamin who touched her hair and ill-behaved with her ...
That Duhshashana insulted her is certain ... but molestation? doubtful ...
Duhshashana's crime is a matter of the Dominant Narrative ... but we must take the Alternative Narratives too into account ... particularly because those come from Bhima.. the man who loved her with utmost passion ... if Duhshashana really molested her, why would Bhima blame the Pratikamin?

@ Ashwini_D

@ shindes ...

pardon ... forgot to mention ... it is not Bhima alone, it is Draupadi's own saying .too ..
... here are the three references for you ... that might change your whole idea of Mahabharata ...

1) In Section-18 of Viraata Parvan, Draupadii says,

'What grief hath she not who hath Yudhishthira for her husband? Knowing all my griefs, why dost thou ask me? The Pratikamin dragged me to the court in the midst of an assembly of courtiers, calling me a slave.'

04,017.001 draupady uvaaca
04,017.001a ashocyam nu kutas tasyaa yasyaa bhartaa yudhishthira
04,017.001c jaanan sarvaani dukhaani kim maam tvam pariprcchasi
04,017.002a yan maam daasiipravaadena praatikaamii tadaanayat
04,017.002c sabhaayaam paarshado madhye tan maam dahati bhaarata

Well after this, can you blame poor Duhshashana?

2) In Section-310 of Vana Parva Bhiima says,

'Surely, this calamity hath befallen us, because I did not slay the Pratikamin on the very spot, when he dragged Krshna as a slave into the assembly.'

03,296.002 bhiima uvaaca

03,296.002a praatikaamy anayat krshnaam sabhaayaam preshyavat tadaa

03,296.002c na mayaa nihatas tatra tena praaptaa sma samshayam

3) In Shalya-Parva Bhiima says to Duryodhana after grounding him with his mace,

Call to thy mind all those wrongs that king Dhrtaraashtra and thyself have done unto us! ... Recollect how Draupadii, while in her season, was maltreated in the midst of the assembly and how king Yudhishthira was These and many other bulls among Kshatriyas, as also the Pratikamin, that wretch who had seized the tresses of Draupadii, have been slain!'

09,032.041a hato dronash ca karnash ca hata shalya prataapavaan
09,032.041c vairasya caadikartaasau shakunir nihato yudhi
09,032.042a bhraataras te hataa shuuraa putraash ca sahasainikaa
09,032.042c raajaanash ca hataa shuuraa samareshv anivartina
09,032.043a ete caanye ca nihataa bahava kshatriyarshabhaa
09,032.043c praatikaamii tathaa paapo draupadyaa kleshakrd dhata
09,032.044a avashishtas tvam evaika kulaghno 'dhamapuurusha
09,032.044c tvaam apy adya hanishyaami gadayaa naatra samshaya
09,032.045a adya te 'ham rane darpam sarvam naashayitaa nrpa
09,032.045c raajyaashaam vipulaam raajan paanaveshu ca dushkrtam

now, take a bit ... chew ... swallow ... and try to digest ... (don't mind pl ... "Food-Imagery" is an imagery of Power in the Upanishads ...) ...

regards

Indrajit

Pardon me Prof

Quote Prof Indrajeet: 'Draupadii, while in her season, was maltreated in the midst of the assembly and how king Yudhishthira was These and many other bulls among Kshatriyas, as also the Pratikamin, that wretch who had seized the tresses of Draupadii, have been slain!'

@ AnuMP

no disagreement with you on either 'feminism' or 'pratikamin' matter ...
'pratikamin' means servant ... so, it is possible that Draupadi and Bhima are referring to Duhshashana as 'servant' .. (they would not even take his name out of hatred!) ...
and that is the beauty of Mbh ... as I said ... no Grand Narrative is possible ... it is a situation in which interpretations would oscillate from this extreme to that ...
now, if Duhshashana is the 'pratikamin' here, the problem is we have a real and another pratikamin too who goes to Draupadi on Duryo's order ... so, 'pratikamin' might refer to him also and that possibility is strong ...
... this real pratikamin creates many other problems ... for example, going by Dharmashashtras, a menstruating woman cannot meet a "para-purusha' ... and if so, how could this pratikamin go and meet Draupadi and tell her to come to Sabha? This is one strong point for me to believe that at the time when the pratikamin went to meet her, she was obviously not menstruating ... and given the fact that Yudhi's secret messenger had already met her (another parapurusha meeting a menstruating queen? impossible!) and now she learns and is confirmed that Duryo wants her in the Sabha ... and that is the time her performance begins, that is, just after the pratikamin leaves ... and thus she upturns Duryo's apple-cart ...

regarding 'feminist' matter, I don't want to sound like nagging ... however, let me share an ironical matter ... many of my female colleagues who have read my stories and articles, do regard me a feminist! Well, that's the beauty of life like Mbh ... I (and I am sure WE) too cannot be reduced into any Grand Narrative ...

anyway, it is always good to hear kind words about my stories ... surely motivates me to explore more the lighter side of Mbh ... I have a ready draft on Hirimbaa-Kunti conversation ... and now I feel that it is time to resurrect it from my hard disk ...

regards
Indrajit

@ shindes


- I do not expect Bhim to believe that Draupadi would perform a menstruation ... his passion for her would not allow that ... the Kuta-Buddhi is reserved for Yudhi and Krishna and Vidura ... Bhim's mettle is different ... isn't it logical that he would believe blindly in whatever Draupadi says or does? That is not to call him dumb (for not understanding his wife's subtle hypocrisies, so to say) ... but Bhim is Bhim owing to this blind passion ...

Lovestruck Bhim was not hallucinating abt xyz dragging Draupadi by her hair to court. Bhim was present in court to witness xyz mauling her.
Since xyz was not fooled / convinced by Draupadi's single cloth, he could approach, touch and molest her.
if he could, then same applies to Dusshasan. Draupadi and Krishn both mention Dusshasan's act very clearly and multiple times.

Originally posted by: indraajeet

"Why is Draupadi looked down upon in Buddhist Jatakas? While her son Sutasoma has a Jataka dedicated to him and is extolled gloriously, so much so that Buddha recalls his perivious birth as Sutasoma."

- Probably the Buddhist Jaataka composers could not digest Draupadii's polyandrous marriage - and so they kept searching for Draupadii's sixth lover. We cannot blame the Buddhist alone for this. There are many Folk Mahaabhaarata where Draupadii has sixth lover ... more often Krishna, but also Karna, and even Naaga-Raajaa Vaasukii (in Bhil Folk Mahaabhaarata) as well.

- However, in recent times, my ideas on such portrayal have changed. I do not consider portrayal of a Woman with multiple-lovers as some "evil portrayal." Actually Draupadii is the Archetypal Evolutionary Woman ... Any Male who has not come to terms with the Evolutionary Woman would surely panic at such a Woman and comment on her "character" (please remember that this entire concept of "character" is our legacy of Victorian Puritanism) ... whereas, a Male who has started seeing Life as-it-is, would find her nothing but fascinating. Well, same is the case with Female.

Indrajit

Sir thanks for taking out time for answering our questions

I agree with what you said above even i dont see anything wrong in a female being attracted to more than one male

For example in the epic when Yudhishtir takes the decisions that all brother's will marry Draupadi and Drauapdi is silent in that entire conversation

I take that silence as consent to what Yudhistir is saying .In a way just like Pandvas were attracted to her so was she to them(and i see no wrong in this) and hence she through her silence consented to the arrangement and this interpretation can be also supported with the fact that in the epic itself its said that at night she slept with no malice in her heart for her husbands

But this silence is interpreted in many different ways by different people some think it was kind of revolt or that she was to shocked to say anything or that since her husband's family had taken the decision she couldn't say no in any way or perhaps Vyasa himself didnt give voice to Draupadi thoughts here.Just wanted to ask you what is your interpretation of Drauapdi's silence here?Was it a consent ,revolt or something else?

Also another question i have is that the epic mentions that a woman is not supposed to have physical relation with more than 4 men and if she does its not correct.Its the reason why Kunti didnt have more than 4 kids(Karna included )through niyoga and even Karna said the same to Draupadi during dyut sabha.Is this also part of any other scriptures that a woman cant have relation with more than 4 men?If yes then wouldnt Yudi and even Vyasa be aware of this and know that this isn't allowed or something?This has always confused me if having relation with more than 4 men isnt allowed then how come some one like Yudi even Vyasa consented to Draupadi marrying 5 brothers ?

Originally posted by: indraajeet

@ Sabhayata

"Regarding Myth and reality i would say that most modern authors try to view Mahabharat from the human reality standards that is as of today that is as of Kali yug.But what was human reality 5000 years ago during Dawapar yug no one can say? Draupadi being born of Agni or Pandvas being sons' of god's may not seem a human reality from today's standard but 5000 years ago miracle,divine power etc could have all been very real as well?"

- 5000 years back it was the time of Indus Valley Civilization ... historians do not agree that the Vedic Civilization could be that old ...

Ok ... even taking for granted that Vedic Civilization ran parallel to Indus Valley Civilization, do you really believe that people of Harappa and Mohenzodaro were Dvaapara Yuga people? And Miraculous things happened in those days?

Sorry ... too strenuous for me ... Homo Sapiens have been Homo Sapiens all through ... Human Reality is always biological Reality, nothing else ...

Still, if you want to believe in Supernatural, its your choice ... similarly, it is my choice to regard such Belief - superstitious and irrational ... really, too difficult for me to digest ...

Well, in Vedas, Upanishads and Braahmana Text, you will always find the Rshis wanting a full span of 100 years life ... Now, can you account how the Mahaabhaaratan age all of a sudden started producing immortal beings?

Therefore, this immortality' etc has to be Metaphors for an all-round healthy living ... pl do read Shatapatha Braahmana and you will get an idea what Immortality actually means ..

Regarding Yuga concept, there is a parallel Yuga concept in Mahaabhaarata ... and that idea is preached by none other than the other great Woman - Kunti ... and also by Bhiishma and Uttanka ...

According to that Yuga Theory, the four Yugas are actually Metaphor for governance ... that is, when a good King rules, it is Satya-Yuga ... and when a tyrant rules, it is Kali Yuga ... Isn't this Theory more logical? And if that Theory is stated in Mahaabhaarata itself, why not believe in it, rather than the Supernatural hotchpotch?

Regarding Draupadii's vengeance, where am I denying that she could not vengeful? Yes, of course she had her spree of vengeance ... but why pin-fix her to that role only? Do you know she was Yudhishhira's minister? Finance minister, to be specific ... and she kept all accounts of Indraprashtha ... Not only that, she also headed Grievance Redressal Cell in Indraprashtha ... isn't this Draupadii more lovable and admirable ...

Now, do you know, Arjuna too was an Arthashaastravishaarada? Now, isn't this one probable reason why Arjuna and Draupadii were the best match? Instead of imagining Arjuna and Draupadii as a pair of hero-heroine running around trees and babbling nonsense, imagine them as a pair discussing Arthashaastra! Also remember, Kuua-Buddhi as Upaaya (Strategy/Policy) and Kuuta-Kaushala as Upaaya are part of Arthashaastra ...

To me, the real glue and chemistry of Arjuna and Draupadii was this Intellectual part ... other than of course the other essential things ...

Please read the Dharmashaastra to get an idea what a menstruating Woman has to do and do not do ...

Had Draupadii really been menstruating, Duhshaasana could not have touched her .. and if he had touched her (like the way it is described), all Braahmanas in the Kuru Sabhaa would have immediately walked out ... I guess that is one reason why Draupadii performed to be menstruating ... that is, to protect herself from any possible physical assault ... the Performance was thus multifaceted ... it would evoke sympathy among the mass, and at the same time give her physical protection ... that is her genius ...

Regarding Ashvatthaamaa's "gem-on-head" ... I wont argue ... the Narrative itself is bogus ... the "gem" is actually a Metaphor for status ... Ashvatthaamaa's gem gone means, he became an outcaste ... a fallen Braahmana ... and that was the punishment he was subjected too ... I call Draupadii merciful because she spared his life ... how many Woman would spare the life of the murderer of her all sons?

@ Sabhayata

"That Yudhi staked his brothers and wife was just a Political Propaganda of the Kuru-camp to demean Yudhi and prove to the mass that he was inept as a Ruler. Vyaasa retains that as it is ... that is his greatness as Kavi ...

Regards

Indrajit

"Sir sorry didnt understand this part if Yudi staking his wife and brother's isnt true then why will Vyasa retain that?Pandavas were the victors so why retain incidents about them that weren't true?"

- Vyaasa was presenting Life as it is ... he was not editing life ... that is why he is a great poet ... propaganda and counter-propaganda are part of life that Vyaasa saw ... why would he edit that? Even FALSE is a part of the greater Truth that includes both truth and false ...

Sir thanks for taking out time and answering my questions

Regarding Drauapdi i agree with you she was more than a vengeful woman that she portrayed to be at times and i have great respect and love for her as well.There is no doubt that she was an intelligent well read and powerful empress of her time but she also had a strong sense of justice

Hence every time when some one wronged her or her family she asked for justice and punishment for that person in some way whether it were kauravas,Jaydratha,Keechka or Ashwathama

My point for bringing up Drauapdi was that as per me her reason behind wanting war was her strong sense of justice its because she wanted justice for the wrongs that had been inflicted upon her and her family through years.And this is what she talks about many times in the epic as well.We were having this discussion some where else on IF as to what was her reason behind wanting war and from what i could gather from what she says in the epic is that she wanted justice for herself and her family

Sorry for the lack of knowledge but what does Arthashaastravishaarada mean?Can you kindly elaborate

Regarding Draupadi just enacting as if she was mensurating to evoke sympathy even if i agree to this how did this strategy work?She wasnt able to evoke any sympathy?The entire kuru sabha was silent no one save Vidura or Vikarna tried to stop anything?And even if we consider that the actual Vastraharan didnt happen she was touched and dragged once to the sabha and then again from from the sabha when Karna asks her to be taken to the servant quarters?I fail to see how this strategy worked

Ultimately Dhritrsahtra agreed to let her go when Gandhari along with Vidura advised her to do so more Gandhari as Vidura was asking for all this to stop for a long time

Personally for me Draupadi is respectable whether or not she was mensurating but i am just trying to understand the logic here if she was pretending thinking that she will get physical protection like the Brahamins will walk out of the sabha then how was this achieved?Drona and Kripa none of them walked out of the sabha they didnt even try to stop it?

Regarding Ashwathama this is my understanding for the whole situation is this

Drauapdi at first did want him to be slain she says the same to both Yudi and Bhima and she asks them to bring his gem for her as a proof that he has been slain and till that doesnt happen she will observe praya vow

Bhima and other go to slay him and then the whole Barahamshira thing happens where in Vyasa brokers a deal between two sides that Ashwathma should take back his weapon as well and then in exchange for his life he should give his gem to Pandvas.So here its Vyasa how saves or spares Ashwi's life by brokering this deal

Then Bhima gives the gem to Drauapdi and tells him that Ashwatham has been vanquished in battle but they didnt take his life as he is a brahmin and due to the respect they have for Drona and that Ashwi's fame is dead only his body remains and he has been divested of all his gem and weapons

Its is then that Drauapdi says that she just wanted justice for the injury they have received and she respects Ashwi just like she would respect Drona and then she gives up her praya vow

So for me after she had time to calm down and Bhima had convinced her that Ashwathma had been punished enough she gave up the vow yes she didnt ask Ashwi to be killed a second time because Bhima had already told her how he has nothing more left in this world and also because Drauapdi herself believed that Brahamins don't deserve to be slain she had said something to that effect during peace conversation

For me she was some one with strong sense of justice and not some one one who was extremely forgiving.Ashwatham's case she gave up once she knew that justice had been served

Also wanted to ask you like you said you dont take the word gem literally then what was as per you the deal that Vyasa made between Pandavas and Ashwathama?What did Ashwathma give pandvas in return for his life?