Originally posted by: lexy_rix
I admit that when I first got familiar with the story of the Mahabharata, I was heavily pro-Pandava because Krishna was on their side. But, processing the events of Sabha Parva and thereafter, I am heavily pro-Panchali.
I'm not neither of them, but a strong devotee of Krishna before anything else. 😊
When it comes to actions of the Pandavas in the dice hall, I am COMPLETELY pro-Panchali. And nothing can change the fact that they all failed her when she needed them the most. And therefore, I have absolutely no issues in pulling up the Pandavas for their role in Draupadi's humiliation.
I never said that they were right. They were absolutely wrong.
First of all, why is it so difficult for some folks to accept that the Pandavas did mess up big time in the dice hall? There is this theory that goes like the Pandavas were letting power get to their heads in the aftermath of the Rajsuya yagya. Hence Krishna promptly left their side during the dice game at the pretext of fighting Shalva. This theory may not necessarily be true. But, on this forum (and perhaps elsewhere), there will be a ton of opposition to this theory - How can the Pandavas (being of divine births and anshas of Gods) become arrogant in power? Not possible for anshas of Gods to behave like that. But, an ansha of God is not expected to stake his wife, and anshas of Gods are not expected to mutely witness their wife's humiliation. Both of which DID happen. So, let us not pretend as if the Pandavas were completely clean in their conduct. Pretending to be good while committing adharma - that is something just not acceptable in my eyes.
Every human is an amsha of God, as per BhagavadGita. That doesn't stop anyone from committing gravest of sins. Even if Pandavas are direct amshas, they were just an atom of the divinity, and thus were flawed. I heard of the theory, and not sure about it. But they staked their wife and became a mute witness to her humiliation. They were wrong. They committed a mistake/fault/sin/crime.
Also if Panchali could call upon Krishna to save her in the dice hall, why didn't the Pandavas do so when they were being subjected to unfair play and turned into slaves?
Another mistake, the main one.
Let us not forget that justice for Panchali was NOT the only reason for the war.
Looking at the bigger picture, the Kurukshetra War was Krishna's way of paying back the Kauravas for every bit of wrongdoing they had subjected the Pandavas - Bhima's poisoning, lakshagrah, Dhritarashtra's inaction, Duryodhana's ego, and finally, Panchali's humiliation, which was the last straw when it came to all of the wrongdoing.
And before anyone wants to hail the Pandavas as the great avengers of Panchali, there was also an ulterior motive behind the Pandavas themselves agreeing to fight the war (and this ulterior motive had NOTHING to do with Panchali). The war was ALSO fought for the Pandavas to get back their kingdom and rights. Why did they send the peace proposal being happy with accepting 5 villages if it meant keeping war aside? They agreed to fight only AFTER Duryodhana rejected this proposal.
Suppose Duryodhana had agreed to the proposal resulting in the Pandavas being given the 5 villages (and the war not happening), what would've happened to Panchali?
See, regarding the peace proposal, the Pandavas themselves had contradicting opinions. While I agree that there is another motive, remember that Dharma raja had no inclination towards Kingdom and rights. He was okay with living in forest all his life rather than the huge bloodshed like Mahabharata. But Krishna willed it, and it happened. Krishna knew Suyodhana would refuse beforehand. Thus only he never hesitated to go as an envoy and suggest peace. We can't say that they should have never thought of peace. Cause they knew how terrible the war will be. To avenge Panchali, why punish the entire aryavarta? But Krishna's motive was different. He must annihilate the adharma though Kurukshetra. Thus the war happened. And Panchali was avenged thereafter.
1. First of all, before we go to the dice game, what about Panchali's division? I find it extremely hard to accept that Panchali's division is underlined as ultimately her own doing -
"The celestial Sri, having undergone severe ascetic penances, hath, for the sake of the Pandavas, had her birth as thy daughter, in the course of thy grand sacrifice. That handsome goddess, waited upon by all the celestials, as a consequence of her own acts becomes the (common) wife of five husbands.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01200.htm
Why does the Draupadi's division get excused on account of backstories (making Draupadi herself responsible for it)? How can anyone ignore the fact that she WAS indeed objectified by both Arjuna and Kunti, and Yudhishthira chose to agree with his mother's decision on this occasion?
Even if she (from her own end) had an unspoken wish to marry all five Pandavas, surely it could've been done in a much more dignified manner than "alms" and "enjoy ye all". I mean, nothing wrong in polyandry. But, Jatila being wedded to the saptarishis or Pracheti being married to ten brothers did those polyandrous marriages also take place by "alms" and "divide"? That is exactly what makes the circumstances behind Draupadi's division so improper.
She hasn't been objectified. In her division, it was not hers fault, neither Pandavas' nor Kunti's. It is the butchering that the epic received from the time it's been written down. It underwent many changes and distortions and this is one of it. "Alms" and "Enjoy ye all" is all rubbish. It happened with the consent of both her and the five, and Krishna approved it. More than a back story justification, their attraction and love was enough.
2. Yes, the Pandavas may have avenged her humiliation but does that change the fact that she WAS subjected to so much humiliation in the first place because of them? There is a reason why the staking, insults, and vastraharan are still remembered as the most shameful incidents even though the Kurukshetra War happened later on. Using real world analogies, just because Osama bin Laden was killed by the US, does it mean 9/11 never happened? Similarly, just because Draupadi's humiliation was avenged, does it mean her insults are meant to be forgotten, and are we supposed to assume that she was never insulted in the first place? Sorry but the inaction of the Pandavas in the dice hall can NEVER be forgotten - Kurukshetra or no Kurukshetra.
I agree with you. But we have to understand why Draupadi forgave them and not Kauravas. She didn't forgive them because she was a "Pativrata naari", but because they truly repented their sin/mistake. They performed penance. They didn't forgive themselves, but Panchali did. Her humiliation, Pandavas are blameworthy. But why Krishna supported them and why didn't Panchali divorce them (as in StarB) and go away to Panchala? That is because they performed their prayashchitt. And you may ask, what's the use of it? Does that mean can anyone perform crimes, murders and rapes and do prayashchitt, sin washes away? NO, absolute not. Why Pandavas are forgiven because they repented with true pashchatthap in their hearts and true prema towards Panchali. Not that everyone can rectify that way. One can only do it when their feelings are pure.
3. Even if one wants to overlook the events of the dice hall ('cos hey, she was avenged after all), what about all those occasions when she was insulted otherwise and Yudhishthira chose not to punish her offenders? I am precisely talking about Jayadratha and Keechaka here. Jayadratha being pardoned ultimately resulted in Abhimanyu's death. And with regards to Keechaka, Yudhishthira had the gall to tell her to ignore and not to do drama.
"The wives of heroes bear affliction for the sake of their husbands, and undergoing toil in ministering unto their lords, they at last attain to region where their husbands may go. Thy Gandharva husbands, effulgent as the sun, do not, I imagine, consider this as an occasion for manifesting their wrath, inasmuch as they do not rush to thy aid. O Sairindhri, thou art ignorant of the timeliness of things, and it is for this that thou weepest as an actress, besides interrupting the play of dice in Matsya's court. Retire, O Sairindhri; the Gandharvas will do what is agreeable to thee. And they will surely display thy woe and take the life of him that hath wronged thee.' Hearing these words the Sairindhri replied, 'They of whom I am the wedded wife are, I ween, extremely kind. And as the eldest of them all is addicted to dice, they are liable to be oppressed by all.'"
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04016.htm
But hey, Bhima killed Keechaka so let us just overlook Yudhishthira's actions here, isn't it?
These out of character dialogues for Dharma raja makes me cringe. 🤢
The Dharmaraja who I see from my spiritual perspective, was never like this. I formed my own conclusions and perspectives after a LOT of research and analysing. The epic is heavily distorted. He never ever insulted Draupadi except in the dyut sabha where he sits passive. That is where even I get angry. But no, he never insulted her like this. He only told her to go in, which distorters dramatised. He even promises her that they will punish her wrongdoers, but you leave the court. Because he feared that her identity will be revealed. And why? What if revealed? And now I would like to remind you that he had another wife, named Devika. He only wanted to complete the agyaat without any obstacles and yet he made sure that Kichaka is punished. He never told Panchali to tolerate.
4. Coming to the staking itself, Panchali was the common wife of the Pandavas. Did Yudhisthira seriously think he had the maximum rights on her just because he was the eldest husband? Shouldn't he have bothered to consult his brothers before staking her considering she was their wife too? For starters, we all know how Bhima reacted to Draupadi's staking. Additionally, towards the end of the war, what was Yudhishthira thinking when he told Duryodhana that if he defeats any one Pandava in a one-on-one duel, he will be the winner and the king? Krishna actually gave Yudhishthira a piece of his mind for such senseless risking of the Pandava cause, and even compared it to the staking of the fortunes of the Pandavas as it happened on that fateful day in the dice hall all those years back.
He never thought all that when he staked her. Both his staking himself and staking her are impulsive decisions. But even then, the four dared not to object so it's their mistake as well. Bhima only scolded him. I didn't study much about the second incident in many versions. So I better not comment in it cause my knowledge is poor there.
5. No matter how pro-Pandava one might be, let us accept that avenging Panchali's humiliation happened only because of her own efforts. She NEVER let the Pandavas forget what happened to her in the dice hall, she questioned them, and she did not relent till she got justice. And this was Panchali who had to go through such a testing trial. I mean, if Yudhishthira had the gall to stake a fierce and fiery woman like Panchali, just imagine if some ordinary woman had been his wife and had been staked in Panchali's place. Basically, Panchali getting justice for herself was COMPLETELY her own doing and nothing else. And it happened all because of the fire within her.
There is no pro-panchali and pro-pandava for me. They are not two teams. They have always been one except that fateful day. Meanwhile I agree that it was Pancake who made it happen and we know Bhima was eager to avenge her but you know? Even Bhima was reluctant to let such a huge destruction happen. At that time, only Krishna, Panchali and Sahadeva were hell bent on fighting. Many think Sahadeva had no say in the epic. But he's the only Pandava who wanted to fight the war even when Bhima was hesitating.
What I'm saying is - Let us not regard the Pandavas as the "husbands of the year" just because of what they did on the battlefield. They should not have made her go through hell to begin with - first, through the staking, and secondly, through mutely witnessing the dragging, insults, and vastraharan. Therefore, she expected the Pandavas to get justice for her mainly because they had their own part to play in her plight, and she saw to it that she got justice.
It WASN'T a case of "I love my husbands so I know they will fight for me". It was basically a case of "My husbands failed me when I needed them the most. They are responsible for my plight. So they owe me justice and I WILL ensure that my husbands NEVER forgive the ones who humiliated me".
Therefore, if anyone bothers to defend the Pandavas in the dice hall or on other occasions when they did not support her, they are basically implying that Draupadi should've quietly tolerated all the injustice and humiliation meted out to her without protesting or speaking out. Seriously, is this how we know Panchali?
I only defend them emotionally, but never morally and ethically. No, she should not have been. She protested. She proved herself. Her devotion towards the Lord and Lord fulfilled his responsibility. There is one thing I imply that both Kauravas and Pandavas were at wrong. Right? But Kauravas didn't repent, Pandavas did. Krishna is impartial. He gave equal chances to both, but one chose him and the other chose his army. Pandavas realised their fault, and surrendered to God. That is why they are respected today, despite the fact that they committed a fault. They showed us that even great people make horrible mistakes, yet they can purify themselves through penance and surrender towards God. Only with TRUE REPENTANCE.
And crediting the Pandavas for their actions in the Kurukshetra War only means that Panchali's own fight to get justice becomes secondary and subordinate. Which can never be the case. According to me, Panchali's fight to get justice was much greater than the Pandavas fighting on the battlefield in Kurukshetra. Because her fight was purely her own. And, as I said, the Pandavas had their own reasons to fight the war (other than Panchali's humiliation).
Besides, Duryodhana getting killed by Bhima also ensured that the Pandavas got their kingdom back. So, the war was not just about avenging Panchali to begin with.
And then? Dharmaraja, who was grief stricken and guilt ridden, wants to sacrifice the same? Wow. If Panchali was non existent here, they wouldn't have fought at all. Yes, Panchali's is not subordinate but is equal according to me. Cause it takes a lot of courage for Pandavas to fight their own relatives even If they wronged them. And Panchali's courage and strength, her war is equal to the war fought by all her loved ones for her (Inc. Her father, brother, sons). She was the shakti and inspiration of Pandavas, without whom they wouldn't have had raised a weapon.
I do NOT blame Draupadi for being partial to Arjuna (if indeed so). Anyone else in her position would've done the same. He won her in the swayamwar, and he gets exiled during her year with Yudhishthira. Isn't it natural for her to miss him the most? And he was also away during the Pandava exile as he was away in Indralok. If Yudhishthira perceives THAT as being partial to Arjuna, how can it be her fault? It is a matter of HIS perception alone. Also why does Yudhishthira EXPECT her to treat all five equally? He was the one who staked her and did not bother to act when she needed help. So, Yudhishthira has no right to pass any judgement on this account.
I believe none of this. Yudhisthira didn't expect or told anything as such. She has so special place for anyone. Her affection was equal. You don't blame her, but that notion itself is an insult to her love in spite of how you see It.
Udne Ki Aasha
