~| Whatever you want to argue about - 2 |~ - Page 59

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

I need a small help

I want 2 know ur views regarding satyaki calling Abhimanyu heir.

Is there any where it is mentioned about Abhimanyu being adopted as heir by Yudi & draupadi .

Was prativindhya heir of Yudi ?

No where Abhimanyu's adoption or Prativindhya being the heir is mentioned

Chhilllii's response to this question as she shared with us was the best or most rational one. Although not willing to believe it, I can't disprove it

Abhimanyu being called as the king regent by Satyaki is basically Yadavs collective effort to have s half Yadav lead Hastinapur.

Satyaki was with Krishna in his aim for Imperial campaign. They needed allies, a half Yadav Abhimanyu who was trained by them would have been a good option.

Post the war when Abhimanyu n Uppandavas were dead, Krishna knew that Pandavas no longer have a real support. Panchals are over, Mataysa is nothing rest of the states like Chhedi or Magadh have their own issues.

Krishna might have told Yudi Drau that now their sons are all dead, risking the lives of their grandsons make not much sense, so instead let Parikshit become the heir at least he would have complete Satyaki n Krishna support. Not willing to lose further, Pandavas just agreed

He wanted to raise Parikshit as the second in command to his Pradyumna in their Imperial campaign, but unfortunately before they could do that, fratricide happened

In fact Parikshit could not have been actually Abhi Uttara's son. She delivered a still born and Krishna just exchanged it for a Yadav.

Chhiillli am I correct in your view or did I make some error

You are right.

Abhimanyu had no legal standing to be heir

He was King's second brother's third son.

Till the war ended Prativindhya was the heir. Though Bhima was Yuvaraj.

And it doesn't matter how great a warrior Abhimanyu was, how beloved he was of Yudhi or Draupadi.

Arjun was as capable and beloved of everyone, he never became King.

Satyaki was just pushing to fight and take over IP control from Kouravas to be ruled by Yadavas.

Abhimanyu was half Yadava and half Pandava, it was him suggested by Satyaki as regent because Yadavas will not fight kouravas and gain a kingdom and give it for free to pandavas. Yadavas would get a legitimate excuse to attack Kouravas and gain control of the kingdom and then rule it perpetually through Abhi

Good that for once Yudhi used his brains and refused.

It didn't much help though as eventually the throne did go to parikshit

Originally posted by: Chiillii

You are right.

Abhimanyu had no legal standing to be heir

He was King's second brother's third son.

Till the war ended Prativindhya was the heir. Though Bhima was Yuvaraj.

And it doesn't matter how great a warrior Abhimanyu was, how beloved he was of Yudhi or Draupadi.

Arjun was as capable and beloved of everyone, he never became King.

Satyaki was just pushing to fight and take over IP control from Kouravas to be ruled by Yadavas. Why because they would fight and she'd blood, so they should rule till Yudhishtir completes his exile. It may have been made with kind intentions or sinister. We would never know. As satyaki did fight with his sons in the war for pandavas unlike Krishna who did not bring his sons.

Abhimanyu was half Yadava and half Pandava, it was him suggested by Satyaki as regent because Yadavas will not fight kouravas and gain a kingdom and give it for free to pandavas. Yadavas would get a legitimate excuse to attack Kurtis and gain control of the kingdom and then rule it perpetually through Abhi

Good that for once Yudhi used his brains and refused.

It didn't much help though as eventually the throne did go to parikshit

So am I right that without Yudi's consent , heir can't be decided by draupadi who brought huge dowry with her , or krishna .

Adoption right is under king not queen

It could also be the kind of interpolation that was done by vaishayamapayana. A small sentence introduced unnoticed in the epic to justify parikshit's legitimacy.

Oh Pandavas were all ready inclined to make Abhimanyu heir. But he died fighting bravely, his son also faced assault but survived bravely so he deserved to be king and therefore JJ is legitimate successor.

One thing I am not able wrap to my head around is the fact that a weapon like Brahmashira was fired to Uttara's womb and nothing happened to her. Baby stayed inside for 9 months. And then was born still born. If it was dead 9 months earlier why wasn't it pushed out of the body like it happens with all pregnancies and if he was alive was Uttara carrying Brahmashira in her womb for 9 months with absolutely no effect on the rest of her body.

The whole story is too fishy to be true.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

So am I right that without Yudi's consent , heir can't be decided by draupadi who brought huge dowry with her , or krishna .

Adoption right is under king not queen

Yes. It is the King who sits on the throne so he has all the rights. Everybody else had only duties including the queen.

So Draupadi's duty was to manage the treasury and the staff. Bhima's home affairs, Sahadev duty was law and order Nakul's military admin and Arjun protection of the kingdom.

Not just that the era was steeped in patriarchy

Before marriage a woman reported to her father, after marriage her husband and once husband died her son.

She did not have the agency to decide.

She could influence decisions but not decide.

However we see Draupadi's influence on Yudhishtir never working much. She had to manipulate Bhima or bring in Krishna to manipulate Arjun to get things done.

The war with Rakshasa for Kubera's treasure by Bhima, or Keechaka Vadha she had to bypass Yudhi and go behind his back and use Bhima. For the Kurukshetra War she was totally dependent on Krishna to pull it through.

So no way Draupadi could influence Yudhi to give up the rights of his son prativindhya for Abhimanyu. (there is question mark on his maternity but there is none that he was Yudhi's son)

But Krishna could manipulate Yudhi.

I want to make sure I have this right:

Society was liberal and accepting with POLYANDRY even when the same people who were supposedly involved in it had to bring up stories from ancient times to justify it.😆

Society was orthodox and conservative toward women and didn't take their word for anything where anything else was concerned even though the empress had full control of money and was citizen liaison.😆

Oh, and also, same one who managed to tie every king in the dice hall into legal knots apparently turned dumb and docile when it came to installing a heir on the throne.😆 Very convenient for Krishna.

And very convenient logic for the reader. The jalebis people twist themselves into to somehow justify the cutting down to size of a powerful woman! And I'm supposed to be one whose ingrained patriarchy causes me to say there was no polyandry.

This whole vein of "discussion" has now turned into a passive-aggressive attack on Panchali, logic and timelines and character arcs be damned😆. If I needed that, I could go to Quora. I'm outta here for good. Happy discussing or something 😆

Who is attacking Draupadi here.

Discussion was if Abhi was heir.

Reply was he was not till Prativindhya was alive

Question was could Draupadi adopt him and make him heir

Answer is no she could not directly. She did not have that right. And no woman had that right.

Lineages were paternal. It's a proven fact. Check out every Purana and epic please tell me where a woman adopted a child by herself.

Nobody is cutting her to size here. It's a fact that she had no right to adopt anyone.

And as I mentioned other than the king everybody only had duties. Yudhishtir was the Lord and Master of everyone. That is a fact. And everyone includes not just Draupadi but Arjun Bhima and twins who are men. Arjun was CIC but he had no rights over the king either.

So where is Draupadi getting cut to size here.

It was a patriarchal society. So does acknowledging that fact cut Draupadi to size.

It is also well documented in the epic that Yudhishtir did not heed to her advice as far as his decision making is concerned. Her managing the treasury and being a queen doesn't mean that Yudhi would hang on to her every word and follow every advice. Hell he disregarded Bhima and Sahadev as well. Be it for the dice game or during exile. And they are men, so how does that cut Draupadi down to size.

Draupadi did not have influence over Yudhi to make him deny his own son Prativindhya and make Abhimanyu heir. She could not even make him fight the war.

Dyut Sabha makes it painfully obvious that if the brothers had to chose between her and Yudhi it will always be Yudhi.

Yeah she rescued herself and her husbands in the Dyut Sabha through her determination and wisdom what has that got to do with any of the above points.

We are talking about Yudhishtir denying his blood his son his rights for ever for the sake of Draupadi.

She was a wise woman and a strong woman and yet there were limits to her influence because of the social rules and because Yudhishtir didn't care enough for her over himself. And that doesn't cut her down to size.

I am talking strictly post 13 year exile..

Krishna could manipulate Yudhi not just because he was smart but also because of the fact that if he changed side to Kouravas, Pandavas were finished. Krishna's son was married to Duryodhan's daughter, Balrama's favoured Durydodhan and Kritaverma too. Pandavas and Panchalas did not have it in them to go against Krishna and Kouravas. Not because of their martial skills (Arjun and Bhima) but because of their inability to think beyond rules, while Krishna never bound himself with rules.

I have mentioned this before that I don't deify anyone. I love Draupadi but that doesn't mean I can accept that she was this super influential wonder woman who could do anything and everything. And accepting her inability to influence people like Yudhi is not cutting her down to size.

Thnks 2 HMR & chiilii for sharing ur precious information.

Sorry if I hurted u.

All d best.

Today serial ended

And even if there was no polyandry Draupadi still did not have influence over Yudhi to make him give up prativindhya for Abhimanyu. Because Yudhishtir was the King and a very selfish person.

Neither was Yudhi Tyag Ki Murti nor was he so in love with Draupadi that he would deny his own son, specially when that son had nothing wrong with him in the first place. And no amount of intelligence on the part of Draupadi could change this fact. Managing treasury is very different from adopting someone else's son and making him owner of that treasury

@Chiillii

So what after the war n especially Ashwamedh?

Yudhishtir was the Emperor then, Dwarika was a small kingdom in comparison of an emperor.

Why didn't he then try to have his grandson (Prativindhya's son) on the throne,

As it is it's difficult to believe that the emperor had only one son when his CIC had four at least, and his unknown (till death) elder brother had at least 8. I know Yudheya was there, but we hardly know about him, I doubt he participated from Kauravas side either

Why didn't he try to have more wives, do you think Panchal had forbidden him? Drupad might have been ok with BANS marrying other girls because as it is they weren't the king, but were against Yudhishtir's remarriage fearing that he might later make his solo wife the empress surpassing Draupadi?(Assuming Devika was before Draupadi)

@HearMeRoar I didn't call you as patriarchal for not believing in Polyandry. Our discussions are very different here, I had called so to the Hindu YouTube pages. They get apologetic about Polyandry and use similar words as Karna to say she wasn't so