Daas and Dasi - Page 2

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Actually, the fact that she chose that disguise proves the point of people who accuse point out that she was a casteist. First of all, she called Keechak a suta, but beyond that, she told Bhima that she'd rather die than be kicked by a suta. How is being kicked by a suta worse than, say, being kicked by Dushashan? Until one tosses in all the caste based baggage that comes w/ it? (Yeah, yeah, I know that casteism was the norm at the time, but that hardly disproves the assertion of those who point out that factoid about Draupadi)

Also, the reason she chose the sairandhri disguise was that nobody would suspect her of doing it, since everybody knew that she was otherwise too proud to do it. And the whole point of year 13 was to assume a disguise that no one would suspect. Duryodhan too might not have suspected it had it not been for the news that Keechak was killed b'cos he was enamored by a beautiful married woman, which could only have been Draupadi

1. Slight grammatical problem in what you said: she referred to Keechaka as THE sutha, not A sutha. One word makes a world of difference in interpretation. First is an identifier, second is a class.

2. She didn't say she would die rather than be kicked by a sutha. She said she would die if she got outraged raped by Keechaka. Not A sutha or THE sutha, but Keechaka. Before you ask why not the rest of the men in the world... since he was the only one trying to assault her, she named him. I would say 99.9999999% of sane women would do that rather than blanket the whole male half of humanity with accusation of being potential assaulter.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04021.htm

Hearing these words, Draupadi said, 'Unable, O Bhima, to bear my griefs, it is from grief alone that I have shed these tears. I do not censure Yudhishthira. Nor is there any use in dwelling on the past. O Bhima of mighty strength, come quickly forward to the work of the hour. O Bhima, Kaikeyi, jealous of my beauty, always pains me by her endeavours to prevent the king from taking a fancy to me. And understanding this disposition of hers, the wicked-souled Kichaka of immoral ways constantly solicits me himself. Angry with him for this, but then suppressing my wrath

p. 38

[paragraph continues] I answer that wretch deprived of sense by lust, saying, 'O Kichaka, protect thyself. I am the beloved queen and wife of five Gandharvas. Those heroes in wrath will slay thee that art so rash.' Thus addressed, Kichaka of wicked soul replied unto me, saying, 'I have not the least fear of the Gandharvas, O Sairindhri of sweet smiles. I will slay hundred thousand Gandharvas, encountering them in battle. Therefore, O timid one, do thou consent.' Hearing all this, I again addressed the lust-afflicted Suta, saying, 'Thou art no match for those illustrious Gandharvas. Of respectable percentage and good disposition, I ever adhere to virtue and never wish for the death of any one. It is for this that thou I vest, O Kichaka!' At this, that wight of wicked soul burst out into a loud laughter. And it came to pass that Kaikeyi previously urged by Kichaka, and moved by affection for her brother, and desirous of doing him a good turn, despatched me to him, saying 'Do thou, O Sairindhri, fetch wine from Kichaka's quarter's!' On beholding me the Suta's son at first addressed me in sweet words, and when that failed, he became exceedingly enraged, and intended to use violence. Understanding the purpose of the wicked Kichaka, I speedily rushed towards the place where the king was. Felling me on the ground the wretch then kicked me in the very presence of the king himself and before the eyes of Kanka and many others, including charioteers, and royal favourites, and elephant-riders, and citizens. I rebuked the king and Kanka again and again. The king, however, neither prevented Kichaka, nor inflicted any chastisement on him. The principal ally of king Virata in war, the cruel Kichaka reft of virtue is loved by both the king and the queen. O exalted one, brave, proud, sinful, adulterous, and engrossed in all objects of enjoyment, he earneth immense wealth (from the king), and robs the possessions of others even if they cry in distress. And he never walketh in the path of virtue, nor doth he any virtuous act. Of wicked soul, and vicious disposition, haughty and villainous, and always afflicted by the shafts of Kama, though repulsed repeatedly, if he sees me again, he will outrage me. I shall then surely renounce my life. Although striving to acquire virtue (on my death) your highly meritorious acts will come to naught. Ye that are now obeying your pledge, ye will lose your wife. By protecting, one's wife one's offspring are protected, and by protecting one's offspring, one's own self is protected. And it is because one begets one's own self in one's wife that the wife is called Jaya 1 by the wise. The husband also should be protected by the wife, thinking,--How else will he take his birth in my womb?--I have heard it from Brahmanas expounding the duties of the several orders that a Kshatriya hath no other duty than subduing enemies. Alas, Kichaka kicked me in the very presence of Yudhishthira the Just, and also of thyself, O Bhimasena of mighty strength. It was thou, O Bhima, that didst deliver me from the terrible Jatasura. It was thou also that with thy brothers didst vanquish Jayadratha. Do thou now slay this wretch also who hath

p. 39

insulted me. Presuming upon his being a favourite of the king, Kichaka, O Bharata, hath enhanced my woe. Do thou, therefore, smash this lustful wight even like an earthen pot dashed upon a stone. If, O Bharata, tomorrow's sun sheds his rays upon him who is the source of many griefs of mine, I shall, surely, mixing poison (with some drink), drink it up,--for I never shall yield to Kichaka. Far better it were, O Bhima, that I should die before thee.'

Here you go. She says he will outrage (assault) her. Wanting to die for being/before being assaulted (a 3rd time!) is NOT casteism. It is called trauma.

Those who hurl FALSE ACCUSATIONS need to read the para properly. She didn't want to get raped. Fancy that!

________________________

Actually, she also wanted Dusshasana dead while she tried to talk Keechaka out of his stupidity. Dusshasana was after all a kshatriya. She also wanted Suyodhana and Shakuni dead, who again were kshatriyas. She also advised Bheema and Arjuna to kill Jayadratha - once again a kshatriya. See the commonality? All men who attacked/played a role in attacking her, regardless of what caste they belonged to.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04017.htm

"Draupadi said, 'What grief hath she not who hath Yudhishthira for her husband? Knowing all my griefs, why dost thou ask me? The Pratikamin dragged me to the court in the midst of an assembly of courtiers, calling me a slave. That grief, O Bharata, consumeth me. What other princess, save Draupadi, would live having suffered such intense misery? Who else, save myself, could bear such second insult as the wicked Saindhava offered me while residing in the forest? Who else of my position, save myself, could live, having been kicked by Kichaka in the very sight of the wicked king of the Matsyas? Of what value is life, O Bharata, when thou, O son of Kunti, dost not think me miserable, although I am afflicted with such woes? That vile and wicked wretch, O Bharata, known by the name of Kichaka, who is the brother-in-law of king Virata and the commander of his forces, every day, O tiger among men, addresses me who am residing in the palace as a Sairindhri, saying, 'Do thou become my wife.'--Thus solicited, O slayer of foes, by that wretch deserving to be slain, my heart is bursting like a fruit ripened in season. Censure thou that elder brother of thine addicted to execrable dice, through whose act alone I have been afflicted with such woe. Who else, save him that is a desperate gambler, would play, giving up kingdom and everything including even myself, in order to lead a life in the woods? If he had gambled morning and evening for many years together, staking nishkas by thousand and other kinds of substantial wealth, still his silver, and gold, and robes, and vehicles, and teams, and goats, and sheep, and multitudes of steeds and mares and mules would not have sustained any diminution. But now deprived of prosperity by the rivalry

p. 32

of dice, he sits dumb like a fool, reflecting on his own misdeeds.

Somehow, those who ACCUSE Panchali of being casteist conveniently forget THIS factoid.

________________________

Once again, there remains the inconvenient fact sutha was not low caste, merely intercaste between Kshatriya father and brahmana mother.

The other inconvivenient problem is that while Panchali's motives are pure conjecture on your part, Karna's tirade against lower castes is well-documented in his conversation with Shalya.

The last para in quoted post as I said is pure conjecture. You don't know that was her motive. Plus, even her enemies conceded she worked day and night serving everyone in the kingdom. If anyone considered sutha as lower caste (which they were not), casteism is not something you conveniently forget while serving people, esp a sutha queen. She had no problems waiting on Sudeshna but had a problem being kicked by her brother and threatened with sexual assault. Every domestic helper in India would agree Panchali had the right to object.

On that note: @red. Citation, please. Let's see where everyone knew she was too proud to be identified as lower caste.

________________________

I want to leave this information here for any lurkers stumbling upon FALSE CLAIMS of casteism thrown on a woman for not wanting to be assaulted.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Actually, no. Harishchandra first sold his wife Tara, at her suggestion. Since their son Rohit was very young, he didn't want to be parted from his mom, and so the brahmin who was buying her gave Harishchandra extra money for Rohit as well.

When he turned in that money to the Vishy meister, the latter told him that it wasn't enough, and it was then that Harishchandra decided to sell himself

I think the reverse happened. He sold himself first but the money was less,then on the suggestion of his wife he sold the wife n the son

Anyhow if what you said is true then probably such situation has not arose in the past. This was the first of this kind and nobody before this had taken this into consider

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

1. Slight grammatical problem in what you said: she referred to Keechaka as THE sutha, not A sutha. One word makes a world of difference in interpretation. First is an identifier, second is a class.

2. She didn't say she would die rather than be kicked by a sutha. She said she would die if she got outraged raped by Keechaka. Not A sutha or THE sutha, but Keechaka. Before you ask why not the rest of the men in the world... since he was the only one trying to assault her, she named him. I would say 99.9999999% of sane women would do that rather than blanket the whole male half of humanity with accusation of being potential assaulter.

Since this book wasn't written by Oscar Wilde or Conan Doyle or Mark Twain or Ernest Hemmingway, the difference b/w 'a' and 'the' here is non-existent, since Sanskrit grammer doesn't follow English. The references you made below do have Keechak all over the place, but in 2 spots, she does mention the term 'suta'. How is his caste remotely relevant if he's been persecuting her?

I agree w/ your point 2. On this, she is consistent b/w how she regards Keechak vs Dushashan or Jayadrath

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04021.htm

Hearing these words, Draupadi said, 'Unable, O Bhima, to bear my griefs, it is from grief alone that I have shed these tears. I do not censure Yudhishthira. Nor is there any use in dwelling on the past. O Bhima of mighty strength, come quickly forward to the work of the hour. O Bhima, Kaikeyi, jealous of my beauty, always pains me by her endeavours to prevent the king from taking a fancy to me. And understanding this disposition of hers, the wicked-souled Kichaka of immoral ways constantly solicits me himself. Angry with him for this, but then suppressing my wrath

p. 38

[paragraph continues] I answer that wretch deprived of sense by lust, saying, 'O Kichaka, protect thyself. I am the beloved queen and wife of five Gandharvas. Those heroes in wrath will slay thee that art so rash.' Thus addressed, Kichaka of wicked soul replied unto me, saying, 'I have not the least fear of the Gandharvas, O Sairindhri of sweet smiles. I will slay hundred thousand Gandharvas, encountering them in battle. Therefore, O timid one, do thou consent.' Hearing all this, I again addressed the lust-afflicted Suta, saying, 'Thou art no match for those illustrious Gandharvas. Of respectable percentage and good disposition, I ever adhere to virtue and never wish for the death of any one. It is for this that thou I vest, O Kichaka!' At this, that wight of wicked soul burst out into a loud laughter. And it came to pass that Kaikeyi previously urged by Kichaka, and moved by affection for her brother, and desirous of doing him a good turn, despatched me to him, saying 'Do thou, O Sairindhri, fetch wine from Kichaka's quarter's!' On beholding me the Suta's son at first addressed me in sweet words, and when that failed, he became exceedingly enraged, and intended to use violence. Understanding the purpose of the wicked Kichaka, I speedily rushed towards the place where the king was. Felling me on the ground the wretch then kicked me in the very presence of the king himself and before the eyes of Kanka and many others, including charioteers, and royal favourites, and elephant-riders, and citizens. I rebuked the king and Kanka again and again. The king, however, neither prevented Kichaka, nor inflicted any chastisement on him. The principal ally of king Virata in war, the cruel Kichaka reft of virtue is loved by both the king and the queen. O exalted one, brave, proud, sinful, adulterous, and engrossed in all objects of enjoyment, he earneth immense wealth (from the king), and robs the possessions of others even if they cry in distress. And he never walketh in the path of virtue, nor doth he any virtuous act. Of wicked soul, and vicious disposition, haughty and villainous, and always afflicted by the shafts of Kama, though repulsed repeatedly, if he sees me again, he will outrage me. I shall then surely renounce my life. Although striving to acquire virtue (on my death) your highly meritorious acts will come to naught. Ye that are now obeying your pledge, ye will lose your wife. By protecting, one's wife one's offspring are protected, and by protecting one's offspring, one's own self is protected. And it is because one begets one's own self in one's wife that the wife is called Jaya 1 by the wise. The husband also should be protected by the wife, thinking,--How else will he take his birth in my womb?--I have heard it from Brahmanas expounding the duties of the several orders that a Kshatriya hath no other duty than subduing enemies. Alas, Kichaka kicked me in the very presence of Yudhishthira the Just, and also of thyself, O Bhimasena of mighty strength. It was thou, O Bhima, that didst deliver me from the terrible Jatasura. It was thou also that with thy brothers didst vanquish Jayadratha. Do thou now slay this wretch also who hath

p. 39

insulted me. Presuming upon his being a favourite of the king, Kichaka, O Bharata, hath enhanced my woe. Do thou, therefore, smash this lustful wight even like an earthen pot dashed upon a stone. If, O Bharata, tomorrow's sun sheds his rays upon him who is the source of many griefs of mine, I shall, surely, mixing poison (with some drink), drink it up,--for I never shall yield to Kichaka. Far better it were, O Bhima, that I should die before thee.'

The other inconvivenient problem is that while Panchali's motives are pure conjecture on your part, Karna's tirade against lower castes is well-documented in his conversation with Shalya.

The argument you're using here is a logical fallacy known as 'tu quoque' (meaning 'you too!'). Not only was Karna not the subject of the discussion: even assuming that he was a casteist, that in no way disproves or proves whether Draupadi was one. It's like when Muslim extremists are confronted about jihad, and their apologists bring up the crusades or the treatment of dalits or verses from Deuteronomy or something from some other religion totally unrelated to the topic at hand

And the only reason Panchali's attitude towards caste came up is that you brought it up while discussing a pretty unrelated matter of whether a dasi could or couldn't be married

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

The last para in quoted post as I said is pure conjecture. You don't know that was her motive. Plus, even her enemies conceded she worked day and night serving everyone in the kingdom. If anyone considered sutha as lower caste (which they were not), casteism is not something you conveniently forget while serving people, esp a sutha queen. She had no problems waiting on Sudeshna but had a problem being kicked by her brother and threatened with sexual assault. Every domestic helper in India would agree Panchali had the right to object.

On that note: @red. Citation, please. Let's see where everyone knew she was too proud to be identified as lower caste.

________________________

I want to leave this information here for any lurkers stumbling upon FALSE CLAIMS of casteism thrown on a woman for not wanting to be assaulted.

Much of the Mahabharat is pure conjecture, given that Vyasa had one of the worst writing styles (which he was compelled to adapt given his cat & mouse games w/ Ganesh). People read different parts of the book, and then come to logical conclusions after putting different factoids together. If caste was something irrelevant in her considerations, she wouldn't bring it up whenever she talks about them: she'd just name them directly (like she did w/ Keechak several times above). Unless of course, those words are put in her mouth by Vyasa, which is a distinct possibility (and could be used to argue what you are arguing).

Everything that she did in year 13 of the exile was something she did under the compulsion of circumstances: she and her husbands had to remain undiscovered, or risk another 12 years of exile, thereby making it increasingly unlikely that she'd ever get justice. She knew that if she took up the role of a low caste maid, it was unlikely that she'd be discovered. Why would it be unlikely? It's b'cos she was well known for being pretty proud of her high status, and wouldn't do it unless there was a very strong reason to do so. It had nothing to do w/ any desire not to be assaulted

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I think the reverse happened. He sold himself first but the money was less,then on the suggestion of his wife he sold the wife n the son

Anyhow if what you said is true then probably such situation has not arose in the past. This was the first of this kind and nobody before this had taken this into consider

I'm assuming that the source for this is Kalidasa's Raghuvansa, since Bala Kand doesn't seem to have any references to Harishchandra: I checked

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

Since this book wasn't written by Oscar Wilde or Conan Doyle or Mark Twain or Ernest Hemmingway, the difference b/w 'a' and 'the' here is non-existent, since Sanskrit grammer doesn't follow English. The references you made below do have Keechak all over the place, but in 2 spots, she does mention the term 'suta'. How is his caste remotely relevant if he's been persecuting her?

I agree w/ your point 2. On this, she is consistent b/w how she regards Keechak vs Dushashan or Jayadrath

The argument you're using here is a logical fallacy known as 'tu quoque' (meaning 'you too!'). Not only was Karna not the subject of the discussion: even assuming that he was a casteist, that in no way disproves or proves whether Draupadi was one. It's like when Muslim extremists are confronted about jihad, and their apologists bring up the crusades or the treatment of dalits or verses from Deuteronomy or something from some other religion totally unrelated to the topic at hand

And the only reason Panchali's attitude towards caste came up is that you brought it up while discussing a pretty unrelated matter of whether a dasi could or couldn't be married

Much of the Mahabharat is pure conjecture, given that Vyasa had one of the worst writing styles (which he was compelled to adapt given his cat & mouse games w/ Ganesh). People read different parts of the book, and then come to logical conclusions after putting different factoids together. If caste was something irrelevant in her considerations, she wouldn't bring it up whenever she talks about them: she'd just name them directly (like she did w/ Keechak several times above). Unless of course, those words are put in her mouth by Vyasa, which is a distinct possibility (and could be used to argue what you are arguing).

Everything that she did in year 13 of the exile was something she did under the compulsion of circumstances: she and her husbands had to remain undiscovered, or risk another 12 years of exile, thereby making it increasingly unlikely that she'd ever get justice. She knew that if she took up the role of a low caste maid, it was unlikely that she'd be discovered. Why would it be unlikely? It's b'cos she was well known for being pretty proud of her high status, and wouldn't do it unless there was a very strong reason to do so. It had nothing to do w/ any desire not to be assaulted

5 false statements/distractions/diversions are being used in your post I first quoted in this thread as well as in the one above to tag Panchali with the casteist label.

First, there was the blatantly false statement that she said she would rather die than be kicked by a sutha. Your ENTIRE argument for her being casteist was based on the idea she said she would rather die than be kicked by a sutha.

Which is not at all what she said. She said she would rather die than be sexually assaulted another time. In fact, she said the same thing twice. How is that evidence of her casteism?

Secondly, the statement that Sanskrit is different.

Sanskrit grammar, like English grammar, has definite rules. And there, too, she doesn't say she was kicked by a sutha. She says she was kicked by Sutha. ie, an identifier. Which, in Matsya palace, was Keechaka.

Thirdly, somehow singling out calling suthaputhra when she (and others) called people brahmana, kshatriya etc. Plus, you know who was actually low caste among the main characters? Vidura. He is referred to as the HIGH-SOULED kshatta (similar to how others were referred to as high-souled brahmana, high-souled kshatriya, etc.). Yes, I'm saying this about Vidura on purpose to show that it was an identifier. Vidura was revered among the Pandava clan.

When an identifier is used, it can be anything. Like Suyodhana calling his pratikamin (servant) suthaputhra which he did. I believe Karna also does the same to HIS charioteer at one point. Yes, I am again using him as an example on purpose to show it was merely an address/identifier.

Fourthly, the statement that everyone KNEW she was casteist so she adopted a low caste disguise on purpose. No citations.

Fifthly and most egregiously, the suggestion that a woman wanting to kill a wannabe assaulter wanted to do so mainly because he was of lower caste. The fact she demanded the same punishment for all the so-called upper caste men who tried to do the same which was dismissed as mere CONSISTENCY. No sir, that's called demanding justice. It ain't evidence of anything except that.

---------

I decided a long time ago that my aim in MBh discussions can never be to change the other person's mind/win the argument. As I said before, I've left the citations in prior posts for any lurker to find. Hopefully, they'll see the lack of logic and absence of sense of justice in the thought process which concluded Panchali was casteist for wanting to kill Keechaka/die rather than be assaulted for the 3rd time.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I think queens could have dasis who were married - like Sudeshna had Sairandhree, while the dasis who were at the service of kings probably had to be unmarried, since they potentially doubled as concubines (like Vidura's and Yuyutsu's moms)

I think the issue of whether Yudhisthir owned Draupadi or not once he had staked himself is tangential to that question. I happen to think that once Yudhisthir lost himself, he already lost Draupadi, so didn't have the right to stake that which was no longer his

As in she was already in servitude or that she was free from being anything of his? I believe in the latter.

Thank you, concubines make sense. Not sure why that it did not cross my mine. So if the daas were allowed to be married, their wives were, for lack of a better term, whose property?

Originally posted by: IDontEvenKnow

As in she was already in servitude or that she was free from being anything of his? I believe in the latter.

Thank you, concubines make sense. Not sure why that it did not cross my mine. So if the daas were allowed to be married, their wives were, for lack of a better term, whose property?

Concubines are different from Dasis in practical sense. Yes might be in legal domain the concubines too were Dasis but when it comes to practicality, the concubines were only for ummm the pleasure of their masters, Dasis on the other hand had to do all the household works and then if required by the master perform those tasks

Dasas were generally married (if at all) to the Dasis so their ownership was not much of a challenge or if they were sold off earlier then definitely the property of the new master. I don't think there was any rule on the ownership of the wife of the Dasas in because probably there was no need felt for getting that news. This was the reason why I think Draupadi got a point to present her case. No one even the experts like Vidurji weren't sure on the answer to point

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

5 false statements/distractions/diversions are being used in your post I first quoted in this thread as well as in the one above to tag Panchali with the casteist label.

First, there was the blatantly false statement that she said she would rather die than be kicked by a sutha. Your ENTIRE argument for her being casteist was based on the idea she said she would rather die than be kicked by a sutha.

Which is not at all what she said. She said she would rather die than be sexually assaulted another time. In fact, she said the same thing twice. How is that evidence of her casteism?

Secondly, the statement that Sanskrit is different.

Sanskrit grammar, like English grammar, has definite rules. And there, too, she doesn't say she was kicked by a sutha. She says she was kicked by Sutha. ie, an identifier. Which, in Matsya palace, was Keechaka.

Thirdly, somehow singling out calling suthaputhra when she (and others) called people brahmana, kshatriya etc. Plus, you know who was actually low caste among the main characters? Vidura. He is referred to as the HIGH-SOULED kshatta (similar to how others were referred to as high-souled brahmana, high-souled kshatriya, etc.). Yes, I'm saying this about Vidura on purpose to show that it was an identifier. Vidura was revered among the Pandava clan.

When an identifier is used, it can be anything. Like Suyodhana calling his pratikamin (servant) suthaputhra which he did. I believe Karna also does the same to HIS charioteer at one point. Yes, I am again using him as an example on purpose to show it was merely an address/identifier.

Fourthly, the statement that everyone KNEW she was casteist so she adopted a low caste disguise on purpose. No citations.

Fifthly and most egregiously, the suggestion that a woman wanting to kill a wannabe assaulter wanted to do so mainly because he was of lower caste. The fact she demanded the same punishment for all the so-called upper caste men who tried to do the same which was dismissed as mere CONSISTENCY. No sir, that's called demanding justice. It ain't evidence of anything except that.

---------

I decided a long time ago that my aim in MBh discussions can never be to change the other person's mind/win the argument. As I said before, I've left the citations in prior posts for any lurker to find. Hopefully, they'll see the lack of logic and absence of sense of justice in the thought process which concluded Panchali was casteist for wanting to kill Keechaka/die rather than be assaulted for the 3rd time.

I'll make this quick: don't wanna be drawn out into a long flame war over this

1. I stand corrected on the 'being kicked' vs 'being raped' part
2. The claim that a person's caste is being used as the identifier is specious, given that the best identifier for anyone is their name. Just saying Suta doesn't narrow it down to Keechak; however, explicitly naming him, like she did elsewhere, does
3. Again, discussion of who belonged to which caste and who was virtuous is irrelevant to Draupadi's views on the system
4. Logic can sometimes be used instead of citations. For instance, it's not explicitly mentioned that Arjun used the pasupatastra against Jayadrath; however, that chapter includes a dream he had the night before where he's told that that weapon can kill Jayadrath. It's not a big leap of faith to conclude that he did actually use it, even though it's not explicitly mentioned.
5. I never said that she wanted Keechak dead b'cos of his lower caste: I stated that caste was one of the factors she used while disdaining somebody. Which wasn't unusual for its time: even Janardhan did it, but the claim that Draupadi was somehow above it is as fictitious as the claim that she washed her hair in Dushashan's blood
   

^^^^

Since there's already a discussion about this, I came across a point while reading Virat Parva -

Draupadi said, 'This O Bharata, that I am going to tell thee is another great grief of mine. Thou shouldst not blame me, for I tell thee this from sadness of heart. Who is there whose grief is not enhanced at sight of thee, O bull of the Bharata race, engaged in the ignoble office of a cook, so entirely beneath thee and calling thyself as one of Vallava caste? What can be sadder than this, that people should know thee as Virata's cook, Vallava by name, and therefore one that is sunk in servitude?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04019.htm

Link Edited

1 What is Vallava caste?

2 Was there mistranslation?

3 How is it written in CE? Sometimes words are different in both book

Note - I am not trying to prove anyone casteist, I just came across this a while ago but I didn't post because I didn't want to hurt anyone, asking today because of ongoing discussion. So this is not in addition to any of the arguments, it is only to clear my doubt

Originally posted by: NoraSM

^^^^

Since there's already a discussion about this, I came across a point while reading Virat Parva -

Draupadi said, 'This O Bharata, that I am going to tell thee is another great grief of mine. Thou shouldst not blame me, for I tell thee this from sadness of heart. Who is there whose grief is not enhanced at sight of thee, O bull of the Bharata race, engaged in the ignoble office of a cook, so entirely beneath thee and calling thyself as one of Vallava caste? What can be sadder than this, that people should know thee as Virata's cook, Vallava by name, and therefore one that is sunk in servitude?

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05161.htm

1 What is Vallava caste?

2 Was there mistranslation?

3 How is it written in CE? Sometimes words are different in both book

Note - I am not trying to prove anyone casteist, I just came across this a while ago but I didn't post because I didn't want to hurt anyone, asking today because of ongoing discussion. So this is not in addition to any of the arguments, it is only to clear my doubt

FYI.Your link goes to Udyoga Parva, not Virat Parva. But I know which scene you're talking about.

There is no Vallava caste.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu10.htm

Vallava was the NAME adopted by Bheema.

1. It's in the same paragraph cited in the above post.

2. Actually the link you posted went to Uluka's insults which also cited Vallava as name, not caste.

3.'O foremost of kings, I am

p. 15

a cook, Vallava by name. I am skilled in dressing dishes. Do thou employ me in the kitchen!'"

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m04/m04008.htm

__________________________

Whoever called it a caste is wrong. Or it's another of those suthaputhra attempts. KMG has freely translated pranaya which means love as jealousy. So why not this as well? I will let you know after I check the corresponding Sanskrit lines on Sacred Texts.

Also, same scene from English CE has none of it.

Vol 4, 614(18) - ‘Droupadi said, “O descendant of the Bharata lineage! I will now tell you about my greatunhappiness. I am telling you this out of great misery and you should not be angry with me. Iam bereft of my senses when you fight with tigers, buffaloes and lions in the inner quartersand Kaikeyi19 watches you. On seeing me unconscious, Kaikeyi will arise and tell her women,‘I think this affection is born out of this sweet-smiling one living with the cook and shesorrows when he fights with these immensely brave beings. Sairandhri is beautiful in formand Ballava is extremely handsome. The minds of women are impossible to fathom. But it

seems to me that they are made for each other. Sairandhri is always overcome by pitybecause they happily live together. They have lived in this royal household for the sameduration of time.’ Through such words, she always makes me known. When she sees meangered, she suspects that I am attached to you. When she utters such words, I am overtakenby great grief. I am immersed in sorrow over Yudhishthira and I cannot bear to be alive.