Originally posted by: HearMeRoar
Recommend reading 5 scenes.
1. Krishna/Panchali conversation in Kamyaka. She details all the crimes done by the enemy and finally states how they could do it even to someone of HER stature. Star MBh gave this line to Krishna. If they could do it to her, imagine them in power. In epic, it was Panchali who said it to Krishna.
2. Panchali's discourse with Yudhishtira in Kamyaka. He assigns everything to destiny, and she tells him over and over that blaming destiny is not the answer. Their duty is "karma," and their karma as kshatriyas was just rule which included punishment for crimes. She agrees with Yudhishtira that forgiveness is good but only under specific circumstances. She makes it clear that forgiveness is reserved for an enemy WHO REPENTS. For her pains, Yudhishtira calls her an atheist. Finally, Vyasa comes and agrees with what Panchali said without even giving an explanation (basically, war is needed), and Yudhishtira concurs!😆 So yeah... her point was that it was their duty.
3. Post Jayadratha. She firmly tells the Pandavas any enemy who would go as far as to abduct a woman with intend o rape needs to be put to death. Yudhishtira disagrees. Pandavas split the difference. In retrospect, she was right. This perhaps was what prompted Arjuan to make a vow to kill Jayadratha. Perhaps he remembered what Panchali said. Perhaps he realized Abhimanyu would have been alive had they followed her instructions,
4. Keechaka. Panchali goes to Virat for help, an when he refuses, she scolds him on the duties of thing.
5. Udyoga Parva conversation with Krishna. She again tells him the duties of rulers. She actually says it would be a sin not to punish UNREPENTED crimes. She also reminds him of the assault on her.
____________________________________
Her conversations make it clear she believed the assault on her indicated the enemy's unfitness to rule. She clearly believed she had the responsibility of punishing them. An argument can be made whether one assault is indicative. She lists all their crimes to show how far the enemy is willing to go to obtain power.
It wasn't personal justice.
Even if it were... one of the arguments I have heard is this: was one woman's trauma worth it? My answer is two-fold. As Panchali says, the enemy was unrepentant. Which means as rulers, they were not prepared to dole punishment for such crimes. Which means the system was rotten and needed to come down. What is the magic number where it becomes not all right to perpetuate the rotten system which let rape and murder continue? Remember, these were the rulers themselves committing the assault. What would be the number under the circumstances? 1 million rapes? 100,000? 100? Isn't one enough when it's a ruler?
Yes, there were ordinary soldiers as well. But there were the lame and the old who came to fight on Pandava side. Clearly, they saw injustice on the other side, enough to move them to fight. So while I'm willing to buy Kaurava soldiers had no choice to some extent, there WERE people who exercised that choice and went to the Pandavas. Also, the lives of the women assaulted were surely not less important than the lives of the soldiers.
Also, remember Lakshmana. Her rape was forgiven by her family and apparently by herself. See what eventually happened to Yadavas. Because of Samba, one entire clan perished. If Suyodhana had punished Samba, if he'd been willing to go to war for his daughter, then perhaps the extended clan would've been left alive.
Tu Dhadkan Main Dil
Hindi TV Shows
Ye Hai Mohabbatein
