Draupadi by Satya Chaitany - Page 4

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

If Alli was a Queen was she a maiden or a married woman??

As far as I have read Pandayas, Cheras and Cholas were all patriarchal society. Unmarried woman becoming queen could be acceptable for Manipur but probably not for Alli

But rape wouldn't have solved that issue. Only marriage. THAT happened only when Panchali suggested it after.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

You'll have to look for old southern stories on MBh. Google search gives you Allu Arjun😆.

Basically, Arjuna wanted sex with Queen Alli. She refused. Krishna got him into her room in the form of a snake. You can use your imagination to understand what snake means in male anatomy.

Then, Alli takes an army to Indraprastha. Panchali convinces her to marry Arjuna instead of battling the nation.

So no, Panchali wasn't actually okay with it. She didn't even know about it. She cleaned up the immoral mess created by the two men. Which does make her culpable, but it's a far cry from her being okay with it.

Edited to add: I don't believe it happened. Nothing in their nature says they would've resorted to rape. Abduction and marriage, yes. Not rape.

But she would be knowing about d reason of war, I read she suggested 2 drop d weapon & accept arjun as husband, which is against d characteristics of draupadi.

I find this story highly illogical coz nodoubt krishna loved arjun a lot but will not be part of such creepy thing . This story don't have head tail just want 2 show alli was very strong.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

But she would be knowing about d reason of war, I read she suggested 2 drop d weapon & accept arjun as husband, which is against d characteristics of draupadi.

I find this story highly illogical coz nodoubt krishna loved arjun a lot but will not be part of such creepy thing . This story don't have head tail just want 2 show alli was very strong.

I agree it likely was made up.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

But rape wouldn't have solved that issue. Only marriage. THAT happened only when Panchali suggested it after.

R**e is completely unacceptable in any condition. But Panchali was not a part of it. Krishna was. And that makes the thing actually clear. It is false. This doesn't go with the characteristics of Krishnaji

I asked about Alli being married/not married to double check. Considering she was a Queen and not a princess, she probably was a married woman, and Panchali compelling a married woman to marry her r**ist is another unacceptable thing for Panchali's characterization

Actually I have just started reading about Sangam literature. Not only does it mentions/references about Mahabharata repeatedly, but actually tried to show their association/importance in it. And remember Sangam isn't a religious book, nor is Mahabharata referred to as some divine thing(Krishnaji isn't mentioned as God in it), in fact historically Vaishanavite cult wasn't prevalent in south India till early 7th century

Actually I heard by a friend (no idea if it's true) that some Chera King decided to support the side he thinks would deserve his support. Once he reaches there he realises that both the sides has enough soldiers but no one had thought who would arrange for the food/medical treatment etc. So he didn't side anyone instead he declared he would look for the logistics for both the sides.

Now this is definitely not mentioned in any of the other books, and definitely not in the epic

So probably it seems that Mahabharata was seriously a very large scale war, which changed/affected the society in India at large. The South Indians realized that they missed out the relevance in the era changing war(excluding Pandayas others didn't support anyone and we all know how important Pandayas were in the war. Cholas and Cheras simply gave Karna the money he asked and the end), so they started including instances to increase their relevance and might.

No offense to anyone but things definitely hint in that direction

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

R**e is completely unacceptable in any condition. But Panchali was not a part of it. Krishna was. And that makes the thing actually clear. It is false. This doesn't go with the characteristics of Krishnaji

I asked about Alli being married/not married to double check. Considering she was a Queen and not a princess, she probably was a married woman, and Panchali compelling a married woman to marry her r**ist is another unacceptable thing for Panchali's characterization

Actually I have just started reading about Sangam literature. Not only does it mentions/references about Mahabharata repeatedly, but actually tried to show their association/importance in it. And remember Sangam isn't a religious book, nor is Mahabharata referred to as some divine thing(Krishnaji isn't mentioned as God in it), in fact historically Vaishanavite cult wasn't prevalent in south India till early 7th century

Actually I heard by a friend (no idea if it's true) that some Chera King decided to support the side he thinks would deserve his support. Once he reaches there he realises that both the sides has enough soldiers but no one had thought who would arrange for the food/medical treatment etc. So he didn't side anyone instead he declared he would look for the logistics for both the sides.

Now this is definitely not mentioned in any of the other books, and definitely not in the epic

So probably it seems that Mahabharata was seriously a very large scale war, which changed/affected the society in India at large. The South Indians realized that they missed out the relevance in the era changing war(excluding Pandayas others didn't support anyone and we all know how important Pandayas were in the war. Cholas and Cheras simply gave Karna the money he asked and the end), so they started including instances to increase their relevance and might.

No offense to anyone but things definitely hint in that direction

I'm not offended. Dakshinavarta wanted to attach itself to the most important story of the land.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

I'm not offended. Dakshinavarta wanted to attach itself to the most important story of the land.

Hey sorry this wasn't targeted to you. I just added it up to just be on the safer side

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Hey sorry this wasn't targeted to you. I just added it up to just be on the safer side

Lol. Don't worry about it. I say it all the time. There are so many legends about Pandavas all over the place

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Lol. Don't worry about it. I say it all the time. There are so many legends about Pandavas all over the place

Ask me, the origin of Swarnrekha River in Jharkhand is a small fountain

I have been there and seen that you can't differentiate there between the river and water flowing in fields

The localities there say that Arjun had made this spring by shooting an arrow on the ground