Why didn't Arjun protect Draupadi? - Page 13

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I agree with Drauapdi's knowledge

But if Duryodhana was aware of it, He wouldn't have made a grave mistake of insulting her, Yudhi lost fair and square, the only reason Draupadi could save them was because they insulted her which resulted in Dhruti giving her 3 things

Pandavas would have lost everything and they had to fight from Kaurava's side against Panchal or any kingdom as they are slaves of Hastinapur, Pandavas had defeated Panchal when they were kids

Being aware of it and thinking on your feet about repercussions are two different things.

The accusation of Shakuni cheating came BEFORE the ASSAULT on Panchali. She was setting the scene even then. Then came the assault. Clearly, it was a stupid and malicious move on the Kaurava part which resulted in massive failure. Purely politically speaking, the assault benefited the Pandava side.

Pandavas defeated Panchal for sure... in gurudakshina war. Arjuna also defeated Kauravas at Virat. The same Arjuna wasn't doing much for the first 14 days of Kurukshetra. Even with Bheema, the Pandava side was losing. That was when they were actually fighting an enemy who harmed them. The new war would've been with Panchal, an ally and an in-law house. Plus, Krishna. I have no doubt in my mind he would've been with Panchal and would've found some way to extricate the Pandavas.

So yeah, the Kauravas could've demanded all they want, but they couldn't have made Arjuna (and Bheema) want to fight. They would have lost.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Being aware of it and thinking on your feet about repercussions are two different things.

The accusation of Shakuni cheating came BEFORE the ASSAULT on Panchali. She was setting the scene even then. Then came the assault. Clearly, it was a stupid and malicious move on the Kaurava part which resulted in massive failure. Purely politically speaking, the assault benefited the Pandava side.

Pandavas defeated Panchal for sure... in gurudakshina war. Arjuna also defeated Kauravas at Virat. The same Arjuna wasn't doing much for the first 14 days of Kurukshetra. Even with Bheema, the Pandava side was losing. That was when they were actually fighting an enemy who harmed them. The new war would've been with Panchal, an ally and an in-law house. Plus, Krishna. I have no doubt in my mind he would've been with Panchal and would've found some way to extricate the Pandavas.

So yeah, the Kauravas could've demanded all they want, but they couldn't have made Arjuna (and Bheema) want to fight. They would have lost.

That would have ended with Pandavas dying in the war fighting heartlessly, Krishna's aim was A Yadava on throne with Pandavas dying without a title, everything would have failed or Panchal would have fought half hearted not willing to defeat husbands of Draupadi.

Army of Indraprasth would have been under Dury as he won the kingdom

Draupadi had to say that she is not wife of Pandavas to be treated as an individual rathen than as a citizen of Indraprasth, she was under Dury

Point being, Everything was going in Favor of Duryodhan except their stupidity of assaulting Panchali, If they knew that Draupadi was a smart one they would not have done it.

Draupadi was probably the most politically, socially and philosophically progressive character of Mahabharata, I don't think duryodhan or anyone else knew it before first dice game, They realized her worth as an individual and included her in the contract in 2nd dice game.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

That would have ended with Pandavas dying in the war fighting heartlessly, Krishna's aim was A Yadava on throne with Pandavas dying without a title, everything would have failed or Panchal would have fought half hearted not willing to defeat husbands of Draupadi.

Army of Indraprasth would have been under Dury as he won the kingdom

Draupadi had to say that she is not wife of Pandavas to be treated as an individual rathen than as a citizen of Indraprasth, she was under Dury

Point being, Everything was going in Favor of Duryodhan except their stupidity of assaulting Panchali, If they knew that Draupadi was a smart one they would not have done it.

Draupadi was probably the most politically, socially and philosophically progressive character of Mahabharata, I don't think duryodhan or anyone else knew it before first dice game, They realized her worth as an individual and included her in the contract in 2nd dice game.

Krishna's aim was not a yadava on the throne.

If we take him as human, there is no way he could've predicted 1. If Panchali would have kids 2. If Subhadra would have sons 3. If Subhadra's progeny would be the ones to survive.

Plus, Krishna slaughtered most of the Yadavas himself after Kurukshetra.

Indraprastha's army WAS with Suyodhana, and still he failed. Pandavas had no army of their own in the war. They wouldn't have been fighting very well in any way where they fought for the Kauravas. That much most can agree on.

As for the Pandavas dying... it's not very difficult NOT to kill someone. All the other side would have to do was order every soldier not to kill the 5 brothers.

Panchali didn't have to say she was not Yudhishtira's wife, but she did do that.😆 "I have no husband."

What she doea claim is he didn't have the right to stake her.

Politics are a lot more complicated than personal relationships. Public opinion matters. Especially in a with-consent empire like Indraprastha. If Panchali succeeded without the assault, or even if she didn't, Panchal and Krishna could have and would have used that to attack. They would've won just like they did in Kurkshetra with almost exactly the same people facing off.

......

As for the 2nd point, I do agree the enemy underestimated her. But there is no way on earth they didn't realize the political implications of her argument. Panchal and Krishna are not easily missed. They were the reason even the division of the kingdom happened in the first place.

That they were fool enough to imagine and assault would cow her is a different matter.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Krishna's aim was not a yadava on the throne.

If we take him as human, there is no way he could've predicted 1. If Panchali would have kids 2. If Subhadra would have sons 3. If Subhadra's progeny would be the ones to survive.

Plus, Krishna slaughtered most of the Yadavas himself after Kurukshetra.

Indraprastha's army WAS with Suyodhana, and still he failed. Pandavas had no army of their own in the war. They wouldn't have been fighting very well in any way where they fought for the Kauravas. That much most can agree on.

As for the Pandavas dying... it's not very difficult NOT to kill someone. All the other side would have to do was order every soldier not to kill the 5 brothers.

Panchali didn't have to say she was not Yudhishtira's wife, but she did do that.😆 "I have no husband."

What she doea claim is he didn't have the right to stake her.

Politics are a lot more complicated than personal relationships. Public opinion matters. Especially in a with-consent empire like Indraprastha. If Panchali succeeded without the assault, or even if she didn't, Panchal and Krishna could have and would have used that to attack. They would've won just like they did in Kurkshetra with almost exactly the same people facing off.

......

As for the 2nd point, I do agree the enemy underestimated her. But there is no way on earth they didn't realize the political implications of her argument. Panchal and Krishna are not easily missed. They were the reason even the division of the kingdom happened in the first place.

That they were fool enough to imagine and assault would cow her is a different matter.

I was discussing with someone and they told me Krushna's ultimate goal was seeing a Yadava on Throne, This story is so weird because there's no middle ground, Everything is based on perspection of people discussing it. Now, I don't know which one is true 😂

I am seeing Pandavas in place of Bheeshma here, He fought against his own people, he did not fight wholeheartedly but he had to die, He wasn't going to kill Pandavas but Pandavas killed him to win the war, They could have spared Bheeshma but did they?

Arjun, Bheema.. People who didn't go against their brother when their wife was dragged obviously won't go against their King Duryodhana/Dhritrastra.

It was Kshatriya Dharma to fight for King like Bheeshma did and died, Even though Pandavas loved him, it was Arjun who killed Bheeshma, who was a father figure to him. They couldn't have plotted against their King, even though reluctant Arjun wasn't against his King

Did Panchali say that she has no husband in Dyut sabha? I remember she said it to Krushna

If we are taking Krushna as a mere mortal then what he could have done? Krushna's sister's husband and Krushna's sister Subhadra would have been slaves of Duryodhana, Therefore Krushna and Balaram would have been on Duryodhana's side, because they had no legal relationship with Draupadi or Panchal then why would Balram pull himself out of the war? Abhimanyu, Upapandavas etc would have been in team Duryodhana as well, Panchali wouldn't have fought as vigorously as Draupadi's kids were on the other side.

People who supported Pandavas were their allies, Why would they fight with Panchal to give the Throne to a woman? By any means, Kaurava army with Pandavas, Yadavas and their allies would have been huge.

Centuries later, Razia Sultana was killed for being a woman and men couldn't take orders from her as it hurt their ego.

Suffice to say that their biggest mistake was Draupadi's insult which got her 3 wishes from Dhritarashtra

I read they staked Draupadi to divide Pandavas, United by Draupadi they created an empire like Indraprasth.

Just to think of it, Draupadi changed the course of war that day, She changed the history

Discussing with you is always a good experience, Thank You 🤗

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I was discussing with someone and they told me Krushna's ultimate goal was seeing a Yadava on Throne, This story is so weird because there's no middle ground, Everything is based on perspection of people discussing it. Now, I don't know which one is true 😂

I am seeing Pandavas in place of Bheeshma here, He fought against his own people, he did not fight wholeheartedly but he had to die, He wasn't going to kill Pandavas but Pandavas killed him to win the war, They could have spared Bheeshma but did they?

Arjun, Bheema.. People who didn't go against their brother when their wife was dragged obviously won't go against their King Duryodhana/Dhritrastra.

It was Kshatriya Dharma to fight for King like Bheeshma did and died, Even though Pandavas loved him, it was Arjun who killed Bheeshma, who was a father figure to him. They couldn't have plotted against their King, even though reluctant Arjun wasn't against his King

Did Panchali say that she has no husband in Dyut sabha? I remember she said it to Krushna

If we are taking Krushna as a mere mortal then what he could have done? Krushna's sister's husband and Krushna's sister Subhadra would have been slaves of Duryodhana, Therefore Krushna and Balaram would have been on Duryodhana's side, because they had no legal relationship with Draupadi or Panchal then why would Balram pull himself out of the war? Abhimanyu, Upapandavas etc would have been in team Duryodhana as well, Panchali wouldn't have fought as vigorously as Draupadi's kids were on the other side.

People who supported Pandavas were their allies, Why would they fight with Panchal to give the Throne to a woman? By any means, Kaurava army with Pandavas, Yadavas and their allies would have been huge.

Centuries later, Razia Sultana was killed for being a woman and men couldn't take orders from her as it hurt their ego.

Suffice to say that their biggest mistake was Draupadi's insult which got her 3 wishes from Dhritarashtra

I read they staked Draupadi to divide Pandavas, United by Draupadi they created an empire like Indraprasth.

Just to think of it, Draupadi changed the course of war that day, She changed the history

Discussing with you is always a good experience, Thank You 🤗

Thing is, Bheeshma actually fought. Arjuna didn't. He would've been worse in any war they fought with Panchal.

Krishna being helpless with Yadavas was still present on Kurukshetra. Krishna still defied Balram and was on the side of the Pandavas. He would've done the same if war was fought post dice gall.

All the allies Pandavas had in Kurukshetra were actually in laws. They had none on their own. They would've still been there in any post dice hall war.

My point is, except for Pandavas the people facing off would've been the same ones. And Pandavas wouldn't put their might into it.

As for the rest... there is a portion in Vana parva where Satyaki lays out the plan. But child Abhimanyu on the throne and fight under his banner. Krishna says Yudhishtira wouldn't let them.

Yeah, Krishna being after Yadava domination is a silly theory. It is only possible if Krishna had magical powers, and God wouldn'tcare less if one group dominated as opposed to the other. Otherwise, for all human Krishna knew, Panchali's kids would inherit.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Thing is, Bheeshma actually fought. Arjuna didn't. He would've been worse in any war they fought with Panchal.

Krishna being helpless with Yadavas was still present on Kurukshetra. Krishna still defied Balram and was on the side of the Pandavas. He would've done the same if war was fought post dice gall.

All the allies Pandavas had in Kurukshetra were actually in laws. They had none on their own. They would've still been there in any post dice hall war.

My point is, except for Pandavas the people facing off would've been the same ones. And Pandavas wouldn't put their might into it.

As for the rest... there is a portion in Vana parva where Satyaki lays out the plan. But child Abhimanyu on the throne and fight under his banner. Krishna says Yudhishtira wouldn't let them.

Yeah, Krishna being after Yadava domination is a silly theory. It is only possible if Krishna had magical powers, and God wouldn'tcare less if one group dominated as opposed to the other. Otherwise, for all human Krishna knew, Panchali's kids would inherit.

@Bold

Pandavas are Duryodhana's slave, Duryodhana is their King, therefore Pandavas will fight for their King against Panchal, Why would in laws fight against Pandavas for Panchal? Pandavas would have fought from Kaurava's side, Why would Nakul's wife's family fight against Nakul? Pandavas not fighting wholeheartedly is something I can understand but their in laws fighting against them is not a possibility

Their refusing to fight is farfetched, these people did not do anything against their brother who staked them for their weird sense of dharma, they wouldn't go against their King and Arjun did fight, Arjun was the one to kill Bheeshma.

Balram didn't fight in the war because he couldn't go against Subhadra’s husband and he had good relationship with Duryodhana, with Arjun fighting from Kaurava's side, Nothing would have stopped Balram from participating in the war against Panchal.

Krushna is just one man, if we put the divinity aspect aside

Arjun and Pandavas followed Dharma, They would have fought for their King, even if reluctantly because Yudhishtira would have asked them to do so, they did not object to Yudhishtira putting them at stake, they did not object to Draupadi being staked, why wouldn't they fight?

Originally posted by: NoraSM

@Bold

Pandavas are Duryodhana's slave, Duryodhana is their King, therefore Pandavas will fight for their King against Panchal, Why would in laws fight against Pandavas for Panchal? Pandavas would have fought from Kaurava's side, Why would Nakul's wife's family fight against Nakul? Pandavas not fighting wholeheartedly is something I can understand but their in laws fighting against them is not a possibility

Their refusing to fight is farfetched, these people did not do anything against their brother who staked them for their weird sense of dharma, they wouldn't go against their King and Arjun did fight, Arjun was the one to kill Bheeshma.

Balram didn't fight in the war because he couldn't go against Subhadra’s husband and he had good relationship with Duryodhana, with Arjun fighting from Kaurava's side, Nothing would have stopped Balram from participating in the war against Panchal.

Krushna is just one man, if we put the divinity aspect aside

Arjun and Pandavas followed Dharma, They would have fought for their King, even if reluctantly because Yudhishtira would have asked them to do so, they did not object to Yudhishtira putting them at stake, they did not object to Draupadi being staked, why wouldn't they fight?

No. Balram asked Krishna to fight for Kaurava side. He says that at the end of teerth yathra parva. Krishna disobeyed a direct order from Balram. Regardless of when war was fought, Krishna would've done exactly the same. He wasn't well liked by Yadavas, but he had his allies, too. They weren't there in Kurukshetra for Pandavas alone.

Refusing to fight is exactly what Arjuna did even in Kurukshetra. How much worse would it have been if he were fighting for Kauaravas? Arjuna didn't kill Bheeshma according to Satyaki. Shikhandi did. Even after Bheeshma, Arjuna kept refusing to fight. His willingness to fight came after Abhimanyu's death. Even then, Yudhishtira gets angry with Arjuna because he did precisely what you said he wouldn't do. Ie, follow big brother and fight with his whole heart.

Yeah, Panchal and Krishna would've fought. Panchali actually said her family would fight even if no one were there. Krishna vows all kinds of things at that point. Satyaki would also have been there as he himself suggests the plan of fighting with child Abhimanyu on the throne.

As for the other in laws, it isn't that difficult for them not to hurt the Pandavas who wouldn't have been fighting well in any case.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

No. Balram asked Krishna to fight for Kaurava side. He says that at the end of teerth yathra parva. Krishna disobeyed a direct order from Balram. Regardless of when war was fought, Krishna would've done exactly the same. He wasn't well liked by Yadavas, but he had his allies, too. They weren't there in Kurukshetra for Pandavas alone.

Refusing to fight is exactly what Arjuna did even in Kurukshetra. How much worse would it have been if he were fighting for Kauaravas? Arjuna didn't kill Bheeshma according to Satyaki. Shikhandi did. Even after Bheeshma, Arjuna kept refusing to fight. His willingness to fight came after Abhimanyu's death. Even then, Yudhishtira gets angry with Arjuna because he did precisely what you said he wouldn't do. Ie, follow big brother and fight with his whole heart.

Yeah, Panchal and Krishna would've fought. Panchali actually said her family would fight even if no one were there. Krishna vows all kinds of things at that point. Satyaki would also have been there as he himself suggests the plan of fighting with child Abhimanyu on the throne.

As for the other in laws, it isn't that difficult for them not to hurt the Pandavas who wouldn't have been fighting well in any case.

I am not denying Krushna as Panchali's ally, My post mentions Balram fighting the war from the side of Subhadra’s husband, Balram would have fought the war from Duryodhana's side but Subhadra being Arjun's wife made him not to pick a side.

It was Arjun who killed Bhishma, As we are keeping divinity aside then Bheeshma and Arjun's battle is detailed where Arjun's arrows pierced Bhishma, it is stated that Arjun and Pandavas used Shikhandi as a shield to kill Bhishma but how is it possible for all of them to keep Shikhandi as a shield? Anyway, it's a different debate. Point being, Arjun did kill Bhishma also participated in a ploy to kill him

Pandavas couldn't refuse to fight and if they did what would stop Duryodhana from killing them? They were his slaves, without weapons

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I am not denying Krushna as Panchali's ally, My post mentions Balram fighting the war from the side of Subhadra’s husband, Balram would have fought the war from Duryodhana's side but Subhadra being Arjun's wife made him not to pick a side.

It was Arjun who killed Bhishma, As we are keeping divinity aside then Bheeshma and Arjun's battle is detailed where Arjun's arrows pierced Bhishma, it is stated that Arjun and Pandavas used Shikhandi as a shield to kill Bhishma but how is it possible for all of them to keep Shikhandi as a shield? Anyway, it's a different debate. Point being, Arjun did kill Bhishma also participated in a ploy to kill him

Pandavas couldn't refuse to fight and if they did what would stop Duryodhana from killing them? They were his slaves, without weapons

At the risk of getting sidetracked, I want to clarify Balram was prepared to fight for Suyodhana and ordered Krishna also to do so. Krishna refused. That's when Balram went on his pilgrimage. He says so after the pilgrimage. He wasn't impartial because of Subhadra.

Refusing to fight and fighting with half the effort are 2 diff things. Suyodhana could've killed them for no reason whatsoever. So why wouldn't they be prepared to die doing something about their situation? Which, incidentally, is exactly what Panchali and Bheema argue in Vana Parva.

Nice discussion going on. But my point is would Panchal + Pandavas in laws army defeat Bheeshm and Drona? Yes both these people were killed due to the help of Panchal princes but still it was Bheeshm who gave Pandavas the idea that he wouldn't kill Shikhandi, would he do that to Panchal army?? In highly doubt. With Bheeshm in their side and no Arjun to counter, Kaurav army was nearly unbeatable.

Drona laid down his weapons and went into mourning because Yudhishtir told him that Ashwathama had died, with Yudhishtir on their side and without this planning, would he believe Dhristdhyumn that his son was dead and give him the chance for his Vadh?? I highly doubt it.

Panchal army did defeat Kauravas but it didn't include Drona and Bheeshm. Panchal warriors and even Satyaki were no match for them, with Arjun on their side (even non participating) the opposite party didn't have any match for them. Yes Krishna could have been an active participant there. But again Narayani Sena would have been split.

I feel that the dice game was the best bet for the Kauravas. Had they planned strategically, once Draupadi declared that she wasn't a slave since she was staked after Yudhishtir lost himself, they should have said that if they go with that consideration, then Panchali was an unmarried woman since a free woman can not be the wife of a slave. Considering her an unmarried woman, Dushashan got her (an unmarried woman) forcefully from her chamber to the royal court, so this would count as a Har Vivah, hence as per Dharma, Draupadi should be formally married to Dusshashan, if not then Draupadi is their slave and they can even order for her disrobe.

Going by the kind of people in the court, they would have quickly agreed for the marriage option.

Then it would have be a win win them, Pandavas their slaves and Panchal their in law so in their team, agreed Krishna and few Pandava in laws could have been against, but Krishna didn't have the complete Yadav support with Balram ji not in favour of going against Kauravas