~| Whatever you want to argue about |~ - Page 68

Originally posted by: NoraSM

That's why asked what in the text suggests that Arjuna and Krishna planned a rape attempt on Subhadra, It is very important that we understand what actually happened with her, if rape was involved then I don't see anything good in both of them

Nothing in any version says they planned an assault.

We are discussing whether it could be considered so.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

That's why asked what in the text suggests that Arjuna and Krishna planned a rape attempt on Subhadra, It is very important that we understand what actually happened with her, if rape was involved then I don't see anything good in both of them

I think they want to state marital r**e

If Subhadra wasn't happy with the abduction and yet they returned Indraprasth with a pregnant Subhadra I don't think there could be much of a consent in that relationship.

@Chiillii I don't think we can compare Duryodhan n Arjun. Excluding Subhadra, Arjun had without abduction marriages Chitrangada, Uloopi n others. But in case of Dury it's like a 100% track record

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

KHANDAVA

Khandava was occupied by Takshak, an ally of Jarasandh.

Krishna and Arjuna did not initially want to do the evacuation. Agni (I assume one of the Angirasas) asked them to. Vyasa and Bhishma also asked for the same. Arjuna and Krishna receive special weapons for the purpose.

Now, this is all supposed to have happened during the picnic but no way can a mission this size be spur of the moment. My best guess would be that the planning happened first, and picnic was cover for the actual mission.

Now take a look at Jijith Nedumuri’s great maps of the region (see below). Khandava is surrounded by water on 3 sides. There is rivulet separating the forest from Khandavaprastha. At the border of this forest is the picnic camp where Panchali and Subhadra and their maids are. I think Daruka was also around with the women (not sure). The other edge is bordered by Yamuna with lots of crocodiles. The third tip is also bordered by water. On the 4th side is Salwa’s kingdom.

On a close reading of the episode, Krishna and Arjuna set fire from the picnic edge of the forest and from the tip. The Nagas presumably wouldn’t jump into Yamuna and risk being eaten by crocodiles, but they could escape to Salwa’s kingdom – THAT border was not set on fire.

The problem came when Indra attacked. Big question is how did he get there so fast with such a big contingent. Jarasandh was Takshak’s ally and was a lot closer. Remember, Indra was Krishna’s enemy. I’m assuming here someone informed Indra this would be his chance to get Krishna.

(I have my own conspiracy theories about who informed Indra, but you will not like hearing them)

Regardless, Indra arrived with his army and focused on Krishna. What Indra likely didn’t expect was how hard Arjuna fought to save Krishna. Yes, Arjuna saved Krishna, not the other way around. This, I believe, as the beginning of their great friendship because it is not mentioned anywhere else prior, not even in the Subhadraharan episode.

Problem now became that Indra was keeping both men occupied. Remember, Panchali and Subhadra and other women are still in the camp. Nagas started escaping that way. If they encountered the ladies, you can imagine what would happen. Krishna started fighting like a mad man. He basically slaughtered everyone who escaped that route. Now, argument can be made the lives of two women were not worth all the Naga deaths. But to Arjuna and Krishna, they were worth it.

Afterward, Yudhishtira does ask Krishna (very nicely) to go home to Dwaraka. I’m assuming the king was not pleased at the events.

------

None of this means what they did was dharma. I'm only attempting to explain how it ended up being a slaughter.

KhandavDahan is still inexcusable for me

Burning down an inhabitant area can not be justified even if the people had an escape route. That would cause rampage

And the last genocide, if they were really concerned for the girls the ideal option would be to reach out to them and take them away instead of randomly killing women b children

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

KhandavDahan is still inexcusable for me

Burning down an inhabitant area can not be justified even if the people had an escape route. That would cause rampage

And the last genocide, if they were really concerned for the girls the ideal option would be to reach out to them and take them away instead of randomly killing women b children

It's not possible in the middle of a battle.

Lots of arguments against it, but I'm giving you the geopolitics of the episode.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Nothing in any version says they planned an assault.

We are discussing whether it could be considered so.

Rape is not a small thing, How can there be any other possibility? There's no grey area here

I just don't know what to say

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Are Bhai

Rape is not a small thing, How can there be any other possibility? There's no grey area here, its black and white

Because abduction and marriage was a common thing those days. It's not impossible for people to think beyond their circumstances, but it's not usual. They wouldn't have thought of it as rape. As far as they were concerned, it's a marriage.

That's why a woman like Panchali stands out. She wasn't willing to accept status quo.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

Are Bhai

Rape is not a small thing, How can there be any other possibility? There's no grey area here, its black and white

It's simple how you define it

In Indian penal code there is nothing called a marital r**e, although many countries have it, now if you consider Marital r**e as r**e that definitely was there. In fact not just that, considering that her Swayamwar was not even begin planned, I think Subhadra would be around 15 at this time, so again definition varies, but not just Marital r**e it was also mildly pedophilic for me(maybe it wasn't so as per those days' standards)

But if you go by Indian penal code, there is no crime of this sort

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Because abduction and marriage was a common thing those days. It's not impossible for people to think beyond their circumstances, but it's not usual. They wouldn't have thought of it as rape. As far as they were concerned, it's a marriage.

That's why a woman like Panchali stands out. She wasn't willing to accept status quo.

@bold I like Krishnaa a lot, but comparing Subhadra and Panchali is not wise

Subhadra by then was still a protected kid (15 years old girls who always remained protected by the unusual evils), she suddenly finds herself in a situation where her cousin has abducted her, she has no clue about anything, her family is ready to accept this man as her husband and she has literally no refuge. Wouldn't she simply accept the status quo?

Compare this to Panchali, a woman of 25+ years, a confident queen, someone who knows that her brother and bff would back her no matter what. Definitely she would be much more confident to face the world and speak out against the evils

Abduction of a woman for marriage was called Rakshasa Vivaha.

There was no ceremony needed in Rakshasa vivaha, no circumambulation to the fire no mantras.

All those rituals were done in Deiva and Arsha Vivaha.

Rakshasa vivaha meant abduction and immediate intimacy at first available opportunity.

But please be honest here. Will a few mantras and homa be equal to Subhadra's consent. Specially if they were done after she had been kidnapped and taken away, brought back and married to the guy who kidnapped her in the first place

And just because the act of bedding was not violent or subhadra quietly acquiesced due to lack of any other alternative does it make it an act of love.