Balaram on Dice Game - Page 7

Originally posted by: Horizon566

Yeah they did told Yudi and were ready to fight in dyut sabha also but Yudi stopped them.So they couldn't protect Panchali but there a women was getting stripped and that women was their wife as well as queen(former) so they had to follow both pati dharam and Raj dharam and even if not them then for basic humanity they ought to protect her and disregard Yudi.And even if we forget this then arjun was not ready to fight in kurukshetra and even after Geeta Gyan he didn't fight to the best of his capability but when abhimanyu got martyred then he became kaal and let me clear it none of the Pandavas(except bheem)was fight for Draupadi

Bheema was fighting primarily for the same as his brothers. Their property. That he managed to get revenge in between was a side benefit.

The only people to mention Panchali were Krishna and Dhrishtadyumna. Shikhandi isn't given dialogue, but I'd like to think he was fighting for his sister as well.

As for dharm... as Panchali says, dharma is subtle. It relies a lot on the interpreter. Ie, the interpreter has to understand it. So dharma (the words of the written law) might say she is a slave, but she isn't.

Bheeshma then intervenes and says dharma is with the powerful. Therefore, she IS a slave.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Bheema was fighting primarily for the same as his brothers. Their property. That he managed to get revenge in between was a side benefit.

The only people to mention Panchali were Krishna and Dhrishtadyumna. Shikhandi isn't given dialogue, but I'd like to think he was fighting for his sister as well.

As for dharm... as Panchali says, dharma is subtle. It relies a lot on the interpreter. Ie, the interpreter has to understand it. So dharma (the words of the written law) might say she is a slave, but she isn't.

Bheeshma then intervenes and says dharma is with the powerful. Therefore, she IS a slave.

I somehow feel that had Duryodhan agreed to return their Kingdom, would they have still punished the Chandal Chaukdi?? I am not even into the punishment of others.

Secondly I really feel that excluding the verbal spats by Draupadi, Arjun and occasionally Bheem, somehow came out without punishment for such a great crime. At least for what happened in the dice hall, I don't consider Yudhishtir any better than the Chandal Chaukdi. All five were equally wrong for me (rest were mute spectators and Vikarna the hero of that scene for me)

So while the other four and the respected people of the hall all got punishments, Yudhishtir got away for nearly free. I know he lost his children and relatives, but that is something Kshatriyas are always ready for. It can't actually be called a punishment. Plus if Swargarohan parva is correct he reached the heaven in body. Got the tag of Dharmaraj

This I do feel is an injustice and against the Karma theory

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I somehow feel that had Duryodhan agreed to return their Kingdom, would they have still punished the Chandal Chaukdi?? I am not even into the punishment of others.

Secondly I really feel that excluding the verbal spats by Draupadi, Arjun and occasionally Bheem, somehow came out without punishment for such a great crime. At least for what happened in the dice hall, I don't consider Yudhishtir any better than the Chandal Chaukdi. All five were equally wrong for me (rest were mute spectators and Vikarna the hero of that scene for me)

So while the other four and the respected people of the hall all got punishments, Yudhishtir got away for nearly free. I know he lost his children and relatives, but that is something Kshatriyas are always ready for. It can't actually be called a punishment. Plus if Swargarohan parva is correct he reached the heaven in body. Got the tag of Dharmaraj

This I do feel is an injustice and against the Karma theory

Of course it is.

But you play the cards you've been dealt, not the ones you wish you had.

She makes it very clear she wished the other Pandavas would simply take over, but she calls them mad, too, for blindly following him. She needed Yudhishtira, unfortunately. Society would not have accepted her as the ruler, especially as other Pandavas would not have supported Yudhishtira's ouster.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

1. When she is trying to save the empire, she cannot go to the dice hall and call Yudhishtira an incompetent nincompoop who lost the empire, its citizens, his family, and his wife over his ego. It would have HER enemies the excuse they needed to keep it all. Remember, Yudhishtira was the ONLY one with the right to the throne on their side.

2. During 13 years, Panchali first tries a lecture with him. Please read it if you already haven't. It is Gita in HER words except she wasn't saying it to a receptive mind. For her pains, Yudhishtira calls her an atheist, a crime punishable by death penalty those days.

Afterwards, she doesn't say any more to his face, and Bheema gives us the reason why in Virat Parva. Yudhishtira would kill himself. Or at the very least, threaten to retire permanently as he did many times. Once again, she would lose all chances at getting justice and saving the empire from the criminals.

3. After war, she calls Yudhishtira plenty. Will not bore people by repeating citations.

BOTTOMLINE: With Shakuni and dice hall, Panchali played politics. Think of her as a defense lawyer. She can't go to court and accuse her own client even if he is guilty. It would be malpractice.

During the exile, she played the long game. She wasn't only a wife at that point. She was the empress of her citizens.

After the war, she let the human Panchali have her say.

The lady had intelligence and the patience to put her plans into action.

I have read the dyut incident recently, from what I understood Draupadi didn't go with a plan to get her empire, there was no way for her to save her empire, the only thing she could do was free herself and that's what she asked from everyone. @FlauntPessimism had said that it is possible she enraged those people into misbehaving her to get 3 boons according to Manu Smriti, I really applaud her for her intelligence, knowledge and presence of mind.

Yudhishtira, A slave had no right to stake Draupadi, was her argument, how can a slave have right over a Kingdom? What saved them was boon from Dhruti

Now, Draupadi could have used this boon for anything, She could have asked the Hastinapur empire too, Her empire = She could free everyone herself, unless there was a rule restricting her from doing so

Anyway, What she thought and did at that time is certainly praiseworthy, There's no argument against her intelligence and ability to gauge the situation at hand. My point was from today's point of view, one should never stay with a man like Yudhishtira, women do it out of love and tolerate their abuses but they shouldn't, Draupadi was certainly ahead of her time.

Sorry to say but Yudhishtira sounds like a psychopath who would commit suicide if people tell him about what he did.

Draupadi was limited by her time and rules of society, I am not saying anything to belittle her intelligence or importance, she is my favorite character in the epic but there's difference between what one should do and what one has to do

I can see saving Yudhishtira is something she had to do because other 4 Pandavas were stupid AF, but it is not something she should have done

Yudhishtira deserved punishment, you see none says that he was wrong in staking her, even Draupadi doesn't, the argument is if he did it before himself or after. He is hailed as Dharma Raja, someone who never lied, someone who went to Swarg

The outcome/message being staking Draupadi or his brothers wasn't wrong

If Yudhishtira had been punished, the message/outcome would have been different

I don't blame Bheeshma, Bheeshma interjected twice and both times he hinted towards Yudhishtira. Like Draupadi was lawyer, Bheeshma was judge, he had to follow laws of land, Our Supreme Court won't punish men for marital rape, we all know it's wrong but it's not in IPC, therefore our Supreme Court Judge ask the woman to file case of domestic violence. Bheeshma couldn't rule that Sakuni cheated or Yudhishtira had no claim on Draupadi unless Yudi says so

It was after Duryodhana, in his hoshiyari to break Pandavas asked Arjuna, if Yudi had right on them or not, Arjuna supported Draupadi's claim and tables were turned, I guess the law stated that Yudhishtira had to discount his claim on Draupadi

"

O blessed one, morality is subtle. I therefore am unable to duly decide this point that thou hast put, beholding that on the one hand one that hath no wealth cannot stake the wealth belonging to others, while on the other hand wives are always under the orders and at the disposal of their lords. Yudhishthira can abandon the whole world full of wealth, but he will never sacrifice morality. The son of Pandu hath said--'I am won.' Therefore, I am unable to decide this matter. Sakuni hath not his equal among men at dice-play. The son of Kunti still voluntarily staked with him. The illustrious Yudhishthira doth not himself regard that Sakuni hath played with him deceitfully. Therefore, I can not decide this point."

" It seemeth to me, however, that Yudhishthira is an authority on this question. It behoveth him to declare whether thou art won or not won."

That's what Bheeshma said, it was upto Yudhishtira

There's 0 argument against intelligence and capabilities of Draupadi, the point here is that she never got justice because Yudhishtira didn't get punishment

Originally posted by: NoraSM

I have read the dyut incident recently, from what I understood Draupadi didn't go with a plan to get her empire, there was no way for her to save her empire, the only thing she could do was free herself and that's what she asked from everyone. @FlauntPessimism had said that it is possible she enraged those people into misbehaving her to get 3 boons according to Manu Smriti, I really applaud her for her intelligence, knowledge and presence of mind.

Yudhishtira, A slave had no right to stake Draupadi, was her argument, how can a slave have right over a Kingdom? What saved them was boon from Dhruti

Now, Draupadi could have used this boon for anything, She could have asked the Hastinapur empire too, Her empire = She could free everyone herself, unless there was a rule restricting her from doing so

Anyway, What she thought and did at that time is certainly praiseworthy, There's no argument against her intelligence and ability to gauge the situation at hand. My point was from today's point of view, one should never stay with a man like Yudhishtira, women do it out of love and tolerate their abuses but they shouldn't, Draupadi was certainly ahead of her time.

Sorry to say but Yudhishtira sounds like a psychopath who would commit suicide if people tell him about what he did.

Draupadi was limited by her time and rules of society, I am not saying anything to belittle her intelligence or importance, she is my favorite character in the epic but there's difference between what one should do and what one has to do

I can see saving Yudhishtira is something she had to do because other 4 Pandavas were stupid AF, but it is not something she should have done

Yudhishtira deserved punishment, you see none says that he was wrong in staking her, even Draupadi doesn't, the argument is if he did it before himself or after. He is hailed as Dharma Raja, someone who never lied, someone who went to Swarg

The outcome/message being staking Draupadi or his brothers wasn't wrong

If Yudhishtira had been punished, the message/outcome would have been different

I don't blame Bheeshma, Bheeshma interjected twice and both times he hinted towards Yudhishtira. Like Draupadi was lawyer, Bheeshma was judge, he had to follow laws of land, Our Supreme Court won't punish men for marital rape, we all know it's wrong but it's not in IPC, therefore our Supreme Court Judge ask the woman to file case of domestic violence. Bheeshma couldn't rule that Sakuni cheated or Yudhishtira had no claim on Draupadi unless Yudi says so

It was after Duryodhana, in his hoshiyari to break Pandavas asked Arjuna, if Yudi had right on them or not, Arjuna supported Draupadi's claim and tables were turned

What you're talking about is Panchali, the human. SHE was thinking as the empress. I'm not merely interpreting her words. As she herself says time and again, kshatriyas, ie rulers, have duties.

There are 2 aspects to the arguments she made.

1. Letter of the law which means she was trying to play the system like everyone else.

When she states plainly Shakuni cheated, it wouldn't mean with the one dice throw which involved her. Cheating would invalidate the whole event. As for her asking for the king, they still have to play by the rules of society. They needed to win the empire back (by battle or dice throw, not as boon) for citizens to consider them legitimate. It actually is one of the rules or rajasuya believe it or not😆. And yeah, Dhritharashtra as the one who won did have the right to confer it back.

Forgive me for saying this, but clinging to what SHOULD happen in spite of knowing pursuing that path will bring failure, in spite of knowing there is a practical path, is a very PANDAVA thing to say.

2. Spirit of the law which she also argues when she says dharma depends on intelligent people interpreting it.

This and her later silence until the end of war shows Panchali basically sacrificed herself to save everything else. She wasn't looking out for her ego. She wasn't looking out for the Pandavas even. She was looking out for her citizens.

So while we might get satisfaction out of imagining her attacking Yudhishtira in public, she would've lost the war then and there. She would've lost the war an y time she attacked Yudhishtira prior to Kurukshetra.

------

I do blame Bheeshma. Panchali did, too. Actually, so did the Kauravas. As she says interpretation of dharma is with people with wisdom to understand it. Suyodhana and Karna both challenge Bheeshma to interpret it. Panchali tips into Kuru elders time and again.

A judge is specifically there to INTERPRET laws. Bheeshma sided with the Kauravas. He let the assault hhappen.He deserved to shed every drop of the blood he eventually did.

As for Yudhishtira not paying... life isn't fair sometimes.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

What you're talking about is Panchali, the human. SHE was thinking as the empress. I'm not merely interpreting her words. As she herself says time and again, kshatriyas, ie rulers, have duties.

When she states plainly Shakuni cheated, it wouldn't mean with the one dice throw which involved her. Cheating would invalidate the whole event. As for her asking for the king, they still have to play by the rules of society. They needed to win it back for citizens to consider them legitimate. It actually is one of the rules or rajasuya believe it or not 😆.

Forgive me for saying this, but clinging to what SHOULD happen in spite of knowing pursuing that path will bring failure, in spite of knowing there is a practical path, is a very PANDAVA thing to say.

Panchali basically sacrificed herself to save everything else. She wasn't looking out for her ego. She wasn't looking out for the Pandavas even. She was looking out for her citizens.

So while we might get satisfaction out of imagining her attacking Yudhishtira in public, she would've lost the war then and there. She would've lost the war an y time she attacked Yudhishtira prior to Kurukshetra.

I guess I am not putting my points correctly, so I will stop here 😂

That Draupadi and Pandavas escaped slavery was entirely the stupidity of Duryodhan. No idea why he asked if any of the brothers think that Yudhishtir had no right to stake Draupadi.

Had he not done that, there was no way they would have escaped. But thankfully he did else we wouldn't have known any of them

I had mentioned in my earlier posts she was probably agitating the four for some misbehave to have her strong foot and negotiation as per the Manusmriti, and ironically it was Karna who gave her more negotiation power. Her actual master (If we could call him so) was less to "blamed"

Saying that as I said earlier, all 5(Chandal Chaukdi+Yudhishtir,) were equally responsible for the mishap that day, but the fifth one got away with a very minor punishment

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

That Draupadi and Pandavas escaped slavery was entirely the stupidity of Duryodhan. No idea why he asked if any of the brothers think that Yudhishtir had no right to stake Draupadi.

Had he not done that, there was no way they would have escaped. But thankfully he did else we wouldn't have known any of them

I had mentioned in my earlier posts she was probably agitating the four for some misbehave to have her strong foot and negotiation as per the Manusmriti, and ironically it was Karna who gave her more negotiation power. Her actual master (If we could call him so) was less to "blamed"

Saying that as I said earlier, all 5(Chandal Chaukdi+Yudhishtir,) were equally responsible for the mishap that day, but the fifth one got away with a very minor punishment

Agreed. Once he said that in open court, Dhritharashtra had no choice but to free her in response to Arjuna's support.

I don't see any signs she was actively trying to get the enemy to misbehave, though. She did use to her benefit what the criminal quartet did. Compare her body language to what she is otherwise. She was clearly manipulating that court and thus turning public opinion in her favor. Panchali was a politician. I don't understand why readers forget that when several characters, including herself, state the fact she was as involved in running the empire as the Pandavas.

But I don't believe things would've ended there even if Arjuna didn't speak up and she remained a slave. Unlike Star Mahabharata, real Panchali didn't consider herself "soiled."🤢 Even if she did get assaulted, I think she would've ensured her own survival and waited for reinforcement.

Let's not forget Krishna. I highly doubt him being attacked almost at the same moment was any coincidence. He unexpectedly survived. He would've found a way to get them free. It wouldn't have happened soon, but he'd have done it. Plus, there were Dhrishtadyumna and Shikhandi. Panchal might not have gone it alone in trying to fight the Kurus, but Krishna would have persuaded them.

The last part is of course conjecture. But nothing in Krishna's attitude or Panchali's suggests either would've let things be. She would've likely undergone horrific assault. If the enemy let her live, she would've triumphed.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Bheema was fighting primarily for the same as his brothers. Their property. That he managed to get revenge in between was a side benefit.

Balaram was otherwise a great man, but he had a weakness for Duryodhan. That alone explains his bizarre statements about the latter in several places, not just this one