Balaram on Dice Game - Page 14

For the first part, I already said that if the relations were gone then Yudhishtir didn't have the right to stake her(which Arjun agreed to as well) making Yudhishtir as much of a criminal as DDKS. I would personally go with this stance

If Yudhishtir had the right(i.e. Yudhishtir was at no crime) then she was both a sister in law and a Dasi, she had dual relation with Duryodhan now, it was upto Duryodhan on which relation he carries out and when, since by the second relation, he was the master and therefore had greater say. While in the hall he executed the master slave relation and not the BIL SIL relation. It was his choice. Hence he doesn't become a criminal either. That is the reason no one in the hall actually could stop either of them from doing all that they did. You can not expect one to always treat a Dasi with the same respect, you would do to a Sister in law. Most in the royal court took this stand I guess and hence no one stopped Dury+gang till Dury himself declared

There could be no denying the fact that Draupadi played her cards pretty well there and responded with rationale and presence of mind.

But this does not change the fact that all five (Yudhishtir+DDKS) were equally at fault. Either they were all criminals or they all were not criminals

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Just because it wasn't LAWFULLY a crime does not mean it is not wrong. Marital rape is not a crime in today's law. Homosexuality was a crime even a few years ago. Even today so many bills have problematic issues which give ample space of making the most of the loopholes.

Yudhishthir staked a woman to fulfill his own greed and desire, knowing Duryodhan and co won't exactly kiss her feet. He knew that she could face terrible assaults and she even asked her to come in the state she was. Didn't even bother to mention to cover herself up.

Frankly what's law and what isn't is irrelevant here. Till Nirbhaya case, only one form of penetration was accepted as rape. Law isn't the be all and the end all.

Nothing can justify his behaviour in Dyut Sabha. What he did was inhuman and immoral. He paved way for sexual assault of a woman. This isn't about law, it's about justice. He was indeed a criminal in this case. I am ready to overlook everything else he did and accept him as the best of all and Dharmaraj but not this.

I agree with you on the immorality of it.

What's more, PANCHALI agrees with you on the immorality of it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02066.htm

-'Yudhishthira having been intoxicated with dice, Duryodhana, O Draupadi, hath won thee. Come now, therefore, to the abode of Dhritarashtra. I will take thee, O Yajnaseni, and put thee in some menial work.'

Draupadi said,--'Why, O Pratikamin, dost thou say so? What prince is there who playeth staking his wife? The king was certainly intoxicated with dice. Else, could he not find any other object to stake?'

_________________________________

This debate started because someone (I forget who) said justice didn't happen. I'm sorry it did. It wasn't 100%, but 80% is better than 0, and the 80% was the MAX of what Panchali could achieve given the circumstances because yeah... law supported Yudhishtira.

All I'm saying is let's not dismiss what she achieved because she couldn't find a way to include Yudhishtira as well. He was morally a criminal as Vidura/Bheema/Panchali say but not LEGALLY.

She did try first to argue dharma/morality but thanks to Bheeshma, had to abandon it as the law was what counted.

Originally posted by: CaptainSpark

Just because it wasn't LAWFULLY a crime does not mean it is not wrong. Marital rape is not a crime in today's law. Homosexuality was a crime even a few years ago. Even today so many bills have problematic issues which give ample space of making the most of the loopholes.

Yudhishthir staked a woman to fulfill his own greed and desire, knowing Duryodhan and co won't exactly kiss her feet. He knew that she could face terrible assaults and she even asked her to come in the state she was. Didn't even bother to mention to cover herself up.

Frankly what's law and what isn't is irrelevant here. Till Nirbhaya case, only one form of penetration was accepted as rape. Law isn't the be all and the end all.

Nothing can justify his behaviour in Dyut Sabha. What he did was inhuman and immoral. He paved way for sexual assault of a woman. This isn't about law, it's about justice. He was indeed a criminal in this case. I am ready to overlook everything else he did and accept him as the best of all and Dharmaraj but not this.

She isn't justifying Yudhishtir, she is just saying that what Yudhishtir did wasn't a crime but something morally wrong while Dury+company did something which was both criminal and morally wrong

I however disagree, for me at least in the Dyut Sabha, all five were equally wrong. Either all were criminals or all were not criminals just morally wrong.

That's the discussion about

P.S. Karna not only ordered for the disrobe of Draupadi but also asked Pandavas to undress. They had started with it, removed their upper clothes and were.....

This guy was hell of a sadist. Had he been in today's era, he would have been a dreaded senior during ragging of juniors

Also, it is not as though Panchali didn't make her wishes clear with re: Yudhishtira. She wanted him locked up with the insane but admits his younger brothers wouldn't agree.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I am again making the same point again, if they were assaulting the sister in law then Yudhishtir was also a criminal since he had staked the freedom of a noble woman on which he had no right

If Yudhishtir was right in staking Draupadi, then they weren't assaulting a sister in law but were simply taming their new slave, so they weren't criminals either

I can now somehow understand the state of mind of Draupadi. Not easy to select among these worst of men.

Well I think none of them were criminals, because none were actually punished or even charged for what they did in Dyut Sabha, but what they did was not acceptable to the self conscience of a respected woman and she wanted them to be punished

If not 100% culprits could be punished then at least she got 80% justice

Agreed

Now, without expecting a prolong debate on this, I will tell you what is my opinion on the war

You see people who died in the war are not punished, they died fighting that's their Kshatriya duty, it's not only Duryodhana, Dushashan, Bheeshma, Karna, Drona, Shakuni who died, there were people like Vikarna, Abhimanyu, Gatothkach too

This is why I don't think she got justice in form of the war as she lost her sons too 💔

She lived in Van with Yudi for 12 years, abducted, assaulted and almost sexually harassed twice while chandal chaukdi lived in palace, died in the battle like they are supposed to

Mute spectators like Dhritarashtra didn't get punishment because he wasn't part of the war, Although I read that Bheema insulted him later, so that's one good thing

There's always a chance of death in war, it is not justice but they made it personal here and there which was nice like Bheema drinking Dusashan's blood and killing 99 other Kauravas, Arjun sparing Duryodhana as Bheema has to kill him, Arjun killing Karna and Bheema sparing karna as Arjun has to kill him, Sahdev killing Shakuni reminding them of what they did to her

War was War, the stake was a Kingdom

I'd rather they had died for what they did to her that's just my Wishful thinking, not saying what happened was wrong or anything

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I agree with you on the immorality of it.

What's more, PANCHALI agrees with you on the immorality of it.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02066.htm

-'Yudhishthira having been intoxicated with dice, Duryodhana, O Draupadi, hath won thee. Come now, therefore, to the abode of Dhritarashtra. I will take thee, O Yajnaseni, and put thee in some menial work.'

Draupadi said,--'Why, O Pratikamin, dost thou say so? What prince is there who playeth staking his wife? The king was certainly intoxicated with dice. Else, could he not find any other object to stake?'

_________________________________

This debate started because someone (I forget who) said justice didn't happen. I'm sorry it did. It wasn't 100%, but 80% is better than 0, and the 80% was the MAX of what Panchali could achieve given the circumstances because yeah... law supported Yudhishtira.

All I'm saying is let's not dismiss what she achieved because she couldn't find a way to include Yudhishtira as well. He was morally a criminal as Vidura/Bheema/Panchali say but not LEGALLY.

She did try first to argue dharma/morality but thanks to Bheeshma, had to abandon it as the law was what counted.

Yes my point was completely about the immorality of it and I feel the law if it supported Yudhishthir was flawed here. As I said in another thread, the main problem with Yudhishthir is that he is a product of the system. He is not a change, he is absolutely a supporter of the flawed system of the Vedic law. This is where my problem is.

However, I did read FlauntPessimism and Nora's arguments on the law and they do have a point. I agree with this- if Yudhishthir was not a criminal legally then well DDSK gets a clean sheet as well, especially Shakuni had no crime at all because I don't buy that his dice was magical.

And absolutely nothing to counter Panchali's presence of mind in this part. She did a great job

There were only 2 people in that war with what happened to Panchali as their motivator - Krishna and Dhrishtadyumna. I hope Shikhandi, too, but he doesn't have many lines.

Bheema got his revenge, but even for him, land was primary aim.

I conclude from my side that all five were criminals and equally wrong, though none of them were charged/convicted, and she needed revenge

Draupadi however knew that 100% justice is not possible, so she settled for 80% and would have made Yudhishtir mad by repeated reminders of his inefficiency. A psychological defeat instead of killing

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

She isn't justifying Yudhishtir, she is just saying that what Yudhishtir did wasn't a crime but something morally wrong while Dury+company did something which was both criminal and morally wrong

I however disagree, for me at least in the Dyut Sabha, all five were equally wrong. Either all were criminals or all were not criminals just morally wrong.

That's the discussion about

P.S. Karna not only ordered for the disrobe of Draupadi but also asked Pandavas to undress. They had started with it, removed their upper clothes and were.....

This guy was hell of a sadist. Had he been in today's era, he would have been a dreaded senior during ragging of juniors

Haha yes, I just wanted to focus that it's important we remember Yudhishthir is indeed at fault if not by law then by morality. Now my question is if Yudhishthir is not a legal criminal then how is DDSK wrong here?

There's a part in StarB which says the same as HearMeRoar did though. Krishna explains how flawed the law is with so many loopholes that can allow crimes and inhuman acts. So we must blame the flawed laws which allow such things. However if someone is a good person, they will not do such immoral things. But yes I do understand nobody here is supporting Yudhishthir

About Karna: he is an extremely overrated tragix hero and an extremely UNDERRATED antagonist. Duryodhan takes away the cake of being the antagonist. Even Dhritarashtra and SHAKUNI gets more footage as the antagonists while nobody considers Karna as one. This is injustice to Karna. 😭

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

There were only 2 people in that war with what happened to Panchali as their motivator - Krishna and Dhrishtadyumna. I hope Shikhandi, too, but he doesn't have many lines.

Bheema got his revenge, but even for him, land was primary aim.

Krishna's only aim was Panchali's revenge? His blood did ascend to the throne and I do feel his main aim was to make sure this happens. Besides if he wanted to avenge Panchali why not take up weapons?