The Print Article - Indians ignore what was done to Subhadra - Page 10

Major questions here:

• Did Subhadra have anybody that she longed for in secret, different from Arjun? OR
• Was she a feminist who wanted to go thru life unmarried? OR
• Did she want a grand swayamvara of her own where princes and kings would line up and she'd get to choose?

I've seen nothing to suggest any of the above, so how is Subhadra a victim here? I didn't get that. In the case of Amba, the story is open & shut. Similarly, there was the princess of Kalinga that Duryodhan abducted and married against her will. There was Duryodhan's daughter Lakshmanaa who was abducted by Samba and therefore forced to marry him.

But which of these scenarios was applicable to Subhadra?

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Major questions here:

• Did Subhadra have anybody that she longed for in secret, different from Arjun? OR
• Was she a feminist who wanted to go thru life unmarried? OR
• Did she want a grand swayamvara of her own where princes and kings would line up and she'd get to choose?

I've seen nothing to suggest any of the above, so how is Subhadra a victim here? I didn't get that. In the case of Amba, the story is open & shut. Similarly, there was the princess of Kalinga that Duryodhan abducted and married against her will. There was Duryodhan's daughter Lakshmanaa who was abducted by Samba and therefore forced to marry him.

But which of these scenarios was applicable to Subhadra?

How does any of this relevant ?? All that matters is whether or not she wanted to marry arjuna

Though the kind of person that krishna was i doubt he would do any kind of injustice to his own sister

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Major questions here:

• Did Subhadra have anybody that she longed for in secret, different from Arjun? OR
• Was she a feminist who wanted to go thru life unmarried? OR
• Did she want a grand swayamvara of her own where princes and kings would line up and she'd get to choose?

I've seen nothing to suggest any of the above, so how is Subhadra a victim here? I didn't get that. In the case of Amba, the story is open & shut. Similarly, there was the princess of Kalinga that Duryodhan abducted and married against her will. There was Duryodhan's daughter Lakshmanaa who was abducted by Samba and therefore forced to marry him.

But which of these scenarios was applicable to Subhadra?

Negative answers to the questions in this post do not mitigate the fact Subhadra was abducted. Regardless of plans she might or might not have had, yeah, the abduction does make her a victim. if some guy kidnaps a woman with no concrete plans whatsoever and then marries her, she is still a victim.

Esp so since her BROTHER suggested it. I am in awe of who Krishna was, but whatever else, he was not a good brother in this situation. Any yuga, what he did was wrong. Yes, there were practical considerations, but he was wrong.

Even Arjun was not as wrong as Krishna in this situation. Because he at least had the law of the times to support him.

That said, the article claims nationalism is responsible for the whitewashing of the episode. The author of this poorly researched paper doesn't seem to know this epic has been in existence for millennia, long before India became an entity. My conclusion is that he/she wrote it to score political points.

P.S. There are many happily married feminists. The idea women are human beings with equal rights does not preclude marriage.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Major questions here:

• Did Subhadra have anybody that she longed for in secret, different from Arjun? OR
• Was she a feminist who wanted to go thru life unmarried? OR
• Did she want a grand swayamvara of her own where princes and kings would line up and she'd get to choose?

I've seen nothing to suggest any of the above, so how is Subhadra a victim here? I didn't get that. In the case of Amba, the story is open & shut. Similarly, there was the princess of Kalinga that Duryodhan abducted and married against her will. There was Duryodhan's daughter Lakshmanaa who was abducted by Samba and therefore forced to marry him.

But which of these scenarios was applicable to Subhadra?

We don't know about Subhadra. He was abducted even without getting a chance to decide

About the one year theory. This is an expert from kmg about picnic that govind and parth planned after arjuna s return from 12 months of exile. Drapaudi and subdhara accompanied. Them

Here-

After a few days, Vibhatsu, addressing Krishna, said, 'The summer days have set in, O Krishna! Therefore, let us go to the banks of the Yamuna. O slayer of Madhu, sporting there in the company of friends, we will, O Janardana, return in the evening'. Thereupon Vasudeva said, 'O son of Kunti, this is also my wish. Let us, O Partha, sport in the waters as we please, in the company of friends.' "Vaisampayana continued, 'Then, O Bharata, having consulted thus with each other, Partha and Govinda, with Yudhishthira's leave, set out, surrounded by friends. Reaching a fine spot (on the banks he Yamuna) suitable for purposes of pleasure, overgrown with numerous tall trees and covered with several high mansions that made the place look like the celestial city and within which had been collected for Krishna and Partha numerous costly and well-flavoured viands and drinks and other articles of enjoyment and floral wreaths and various perfumes, the party entered without delay the inner apartments adorned with many precious gems of pure rays. Entering those apartments, everybody, O Bharata, began to sport, according to his pleasure. The women of the party, all of full rotund hips and deep bosoms and handsome eyes, and gait unsteady with wine began to sport there at the command of Krishna and Partha. Some amongst the women sported as they liked in the woods, some in the waters, and some within the mansions, as directed by Partha and Govinda. Draupadi and Subhadra, exhilarated with wine, began to give away unto the women so sporting, their costly robes and ornaments. And some amongst those women p. 434 began to dance in joy, and some began to sing; and some amongst them began to laugh and jest, and some to drink excellent wines. Some began to obstruct one another's progress and some to fight with one another, and to discourse with one another in private. Those mansions and the woods, filled with the charming music of flutes and guitars and kettledrums, became the scene of Prosperity personified

Note that here drapaudi os found in arjuna s company so probably it was his year .

And immediately after the khandav dahan after they came back to ip it is said that yudhishtra dismissed everyone to spent some lone time with drapaudi how come yudhishtra got to spend quality time with drapaudi in arjuna or at most nakula s year

Meanwhile king Yudhishthira of unfading glory, accompanied by his brothers and surrounded by friends, entered his excellent capital. And that tiger among men, dismissing all his relatives, brothers, and sons, sought to make himself happy in the company of Draupadi. And Kesava also, worshipped by the principal Yadavas including Ugrasena, entered with a happy heart his own excellent city. And worshipping his old father and his illustrious mother, and saluting (his brother) Valadeva, he of eyes like lotus-petals took his seat. Embracing Pradyumna, Shamva, Nishatha, Charudeshna, Gada, Aniruddha and Bhanu, and obtaining the leave of all the elderly men, Janardana entered the apartments of Rukmini."

This kind of dismisses that one year rule once for all. And further strengthen that only yudhishtra was married to Krishnaa

^^^ This dismisses the one year rule point which anyway wasn't in Mahabharata

This doesn't anyhow fix the point that Draupadi was only married to Yudhishtir

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

^^^ This dismisses the one year rule point which anyway wasn't in Mahabharata

This doesn't anyhow fix the point that Draupadi was only married to Yudhishtir

Let me get this. There was no one year rule. Then why was arjuna exiled ?? Because he walked on yudhishtra and drapaudi in weapon chamber how is that a fault. ?? And if the weapon was in drapaudi s chamber. Plus there is no one year rule then he had every right to go to her. Plus if yudhishtra and drapaudi were really busy in doing it how come there was no dasi to stop any intruder??? And again how is arjuna supposed to know that yudhishtra was with panchali ?? That s way too unfair to Arjuna

Plus if we consider hearmeroar s theory that arjuna was exiled because he made a move on Krishnaa how is that wrong ?? He was her husband and plus there is no one year. So arjuna had every right to spend some quality time with his wife.

The only way this exile make sense if arjuna tried to make a move on Krishnaa out of his attraction but came back to his senses before anything happened and went onto exile to get over his attraction for panchali who is his brother s wife.

And later when he comes back he apologizes for this and then panchali ask him to go back to subdhara out of love because she didn't wanted subdhara to feel lonely on her very first day in ip (citation on previous page )

^^ that's the whole point if Arjun entered when Yudhishtir was there having his private time then he must have been stopped by some servants, still he entered probably not being interested to wait that's exactly what constituted the reason for punishment

As I said in another thread Polyandry has been mentioned multiple times and inclusion of it requires nearly a complete rewriting of the epic. It seems improbable that Karna be made to the culprit of a crime (calling her a wife of 5 and therefore a w***e) is definitely not believable

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

^^ that's the whole point if Arjun entered when Yudhishtir was there having his private time then he must have been stopped by some servants, still he entered probably not being interested to wait that's exactly what constituted the reason for punishment

As I said in another thread Polyandry has been mentioned multiple times and inclusion of it requires nearly a complete rewriting of the epic. It seems improbable that Karna be made to the culprit of a crime (calling her a wife of 5 and therefore a w***e) is definitely not believable

I don't think we should based the proof of drapaud s polyandrous marriage on karna calling her a w***e. That just highlights karna s mentality and nothing else.

Originally posted by: Poorabhforever

I don't think we should based the proof of drapaud s polyandrous marriage on karna calling her a w***e. That just highlights karna s mentality and nothing else.

His statement takes the same route