~| Whatever you want to argue about - 2 |~ - Page 57

Originally posted by: Chiillii

Nah I have read that shloka. In sanskrit its something on the lines of father, brother, wife, son, relatives, friends, king and God are the eight fold support is needed to live a prosperous life so you owe it to yourself to stand up for them....something.

I have to get the exact sloka.

Basically its brother, wife not brother's wife.

The person who posted it is nuts

Draupadi's polyandry is something to be proud of. Not something to be defensive about.

Pandavas were proud of their common wife. Draupadi was proud of her 5 husbands

(Yudhi didnt deserve it and Draupadi realised it too, but it was 4 ke saath ek free and you all know the quality of free things...so there)

No one ever had any problems with the polyandry. The Pandavas, Draupadi, their family, rishis and brahmanas, Other kings, society of that time.

The one guy who had an issue was Karna. Doesnt that speak about him and his charachter.

Sad reality of patriarchy and nothing else.

Draupadi was common wife of all 5.

Check my post. He has given all the Shlokas in Sanskrit.

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Acc 2 my knowledge in indian culture elder brother who is known as agraj of had been given place of father & younger brother who is known as Anuj gain position of son.

Ram & yudi both r agraj of their respective brothers , both were like father image 2 thier brothers after dasrath & pandu passed away , it is quite natural wife 2 agraj is like a mother 2 younger brothers , I can't say about draupadi how she was married 2 five pandavas.

I read on Quora draupadi's marriage taken 5 days , aur bhi complication the is marriage main.

When she is wife of only Yudi that that time other 4 r devar 2 her & when she is wife of Sahdev that time other 4 r FIL of her.

The member who posted explained it in detail

I will try 2 search & post it . It has sanskrit quotes 2.

Definitely elder brothers are Agraj, but Agraj are your caretakers, they own you, but nothing suggests that they are father figures (Ram or Yudhishtir became so in their personal capacity but that was never required/expected from them)

Yes the marriages happened in 5 days so the groom was always the BIL of Draupadi for the last four days, yet no one objected to the marriage, this shows there is no Devar Bhabhi ma beta rishta

अद्याहमनृणो भूत्वा भ्रातुर्भार्यापहारिणम् ।

शांति लब्धास्मि परमां हत्वा सैरन्ध्रीकण्टकम् ।।-(विराट २२-७९)

अद्याहमन ऋणो भूत्वा भ्रातु, र्भार्या अपहारिणम् ।

शांति लब्धास्मि परमां हत्वा सैरन्ध्रीकण्टकम् ।।-(विराट २२-७९)

I am freed from the debt I owed to my brothers,

he who (intended to) violate our wife,

I have attained great peace by slaying

this thorn in the side of Sairindhri,

All the other verses are cherry-picked. When Draupadi is specifically talking about one person Yudhishtir. She will only refer to him. For eg when she speaks to Jayadrath she is speaking to him in her role as the queen and hostess a position on account of being King's wife.

In DS as Arjun and Bhima say Yudhishtir was the lord of the 4 brothers and Draupadi. He had a right to stake them and her. He was the master of all of them. It makes no difference to his lordship over her just because she is wife of all 5. Because the 4 brothers themselves were never independent

My point is, people will always be stubborn about their point of view if it is derived on the basis of their beliefs and values.

For a person steeped in patriarchy, Draupadi cannot be a Sati and be married to 5 men at the same time

He can never reconcile both so he will twist the epic to match his narrative. Draupadi is Sati so she cannot be married to all 5 etc etc.

We see this for Sita also. In Valmiki Ramayana Ravana physically touches Sita lifts her by her waist and places her on his vehicle before he kidnaps her.

But in Ramcharitmanas which makes Sita a Devi Lakshmi incarnate and not human, Sita cannot be touched, so not one but two conflicting stories are cooked up. One she is Maya Sita / Vedavati and two Ravana cut up the piece of earth she was standing on lifted her.

And you can see the ridiculousness of the cook up in the fact that if she was Maya Sita then what was the need to cut up the piece of earth. Ravana could have still touched her as she was fake. Or it could have been the real one if Ravana was only going to cut up the earth below her feet.

All mental gymnastics just because devotees cannot reconcile the fact that a Devi cannot be touched by a villain. If she is she can't be Devi.

Draupadi polyandry is like that. Because for these people Polyandry is immoral, wrong contemptible. How dare a woman live happily with 5 men. Then all women will start wanting it too. Only men can have many wives. We have Krishna taking 16108 forms to give pleasure to all his wives and no one will have a problem. Draupadi has 5 husbands and they will do phD thesis just to prove it didn't happen or if they are Karna fans start attacking her character

Thankyou Chhiillli for explaining the verses. Polyandry or no Polyandry the issue is make it seem like being Polyandrous was wrong and that Indian culture wasn't bad

That is so much of patriarchal thought. I mean one should be proud to say that Indian culture actually promoted gender equality, if men could have multiple spouses so could the females. But instead they start condemning these and start finding excuse for the non occurrence of the instance. I think it's the remenance of the colonial, invaders mindset, we have started taking the things they felt right was moral

Raavan took sita by pulling her from hairs as I read somewhere sita was dragged on floor by raavan .

Originally posted by: deepikagupta9

Raavan took sita by pulling her from hairs as I read somewhere sita was dragged on floor by raavan .

I will recheck but from what I have read in Valmiki Ramayana he did hold her while abducting

@FP

Can I get the chapter and shloka number? I don't read Devanagiri script. Also, which version?

Same scene in CE doesn't have it. No mention of wife or brother or debt in Sanskrit or in Debroy translation.

The greatly energetic one, descendant of the Pandu lineage, told

Droupadi, “O Panchali! Behold! This is what has happened to the one driven by lust.” Having

thus killed Kichaka, his anger vanished and he was pacified. He took his leave of Krishna

Droupadi and quickly returned to the kitchen. Having ensured that Kichaka was slain,

Droupadi, supreme among women, was delighted and all her miseries disappeared

https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/mbs/mbs04021.htm

bhīmaseno mahābalaḥ

61 uvāca ca mahātejā draupadīṃ pāṇḍunandanaḥ

paśyainam ehi pāñcāli kāmuko 'yaṃ yathā kṛtaḥ

62 tathā sa kīcakaṃ hatvā gatvā roṣasya vai śamam

āmantrya

Re: rest of discussion.

No, wife of elder brother is actually not considered akin to mother. Both Rig Veda and Manusmriti acknowledge claim of YOUNGER brothers on older brother's wives. Ie, if older brother died, they could marry her.

Whereas younger brother's wives are considered akin to daughters for older brother.

Also, yeah, the argument that younger Pandavas couldn't be blamed in absence of polyandry doesn't wash. Bheema himself says they didn't let such things happen even to the dancing girls in Indraprastha. They were princes of the realm. When someone asked for help, they were duty bound to help. That is the entire meaning of being a ruler. Not wearing silks and chilling with pretty women.

Polyandry or not, younger Pandavas failed in that basic duty in spite of being taunted to speak up time and again.

They knew the Kauravas meant Panchali to be a sex slave but still wouldn't speak up.

Arjuna eventually did but only after the assualt.

What part of it makes it wrong for Panchali to blame them?

Rulers were not meant only to protect family members. They had the duty to protect every man, woman, and child. Pandavas miserably failed in that duty

FYI: my objection to polyandry has nothing to do with patriarchy, ingrained or otherwise. What it does have to do with is truth.

The easiest way to bring down a powerful woman is to accuse her of sexual impropriety. I am convinced Panchali was married only to Yudhishtira and that polyandry was initially a rumor started by her enemies to cut her down to size. Then, the vicious gossip got set it stone. Or rather, on manuscript.

If she were actually married to all 5 and happy, more power to her. But she was not. In that case, celebrating polyandry is not female empowerment. It is a slap on the face of that badass woman.

------

I didn't write this to reopen the circus. Just wanted to make my reasoning clear. Heck, I'd rather she have ruled Aryavarta all on her own. None of them deserved her, individually or collectively.

Originally posted by: Chiillii

That is the whole point isn't it. Polyandry is not sexual impropriety. Just like Polygyny is not.

And no one considered it sexual impropriety in MB other than Karna. He who had no sense of morality himself. He is nobody to question any woman's charachter. The man who was willing to give his own wife to any soldier who would point out Arjun to him in battlefield. His words don't count.

As far as any one else in the epic is concerned. Be it the most eminent Rishis of time or kings (she was the hostess of a Rajasuya and Ashwamedha) or common citizens nobody considered her polyandry as sexual impropriety.

So I don't buy this argument that it was a rumor started by people of her times to cut her down to size. I don't see her being cut down anywhere for polyandry.

It is now that we have the mindset that polyandry is sexual impropriety or wrong or immoral. It was not so in MB era.

That's more to do with Buddhist / Jain (who are more into abstaining and renunciation) Islamic and Christian (who are more misogynistic religions) influence. As these patriarchal religions gained followers and established themselves in India from the Gupta period till the British. Their moralistic hegemony has deemed polyandry wrong.

That is actually not true. If it was not considered impropriety, Yudhishtira and Vyasa wouldn't have had to bring up those stories, would they? Drupada wouldn't have been acting shocked woul he? Dhaumya wouldn't have left after the first wedding would he?

If polyandry was not gossip, then these reactions were also not gossip.

It's comfortable to think it was widely accepted. Karna may have vocalized the thought, but there was no other queen/princess who was stripped naked in a court full of men after the defeat of the men in their lives. Only Panchali. It was done precisely to cut her down to size. The reason they used was her supposed polyandrous marriage. Or other kings gathered there would have objected, wouldn't they? They didn't say a word.

______________

I do think it was vicious gossip started by kauravas. Then, people believed it was true and that she deserved to be assaulted for it. or someone would have reacted.

(that's not my only reason for disregarding polyandry)

I don't mean to be rude nor am I trying to change your mind hear me roar.

Just that I am proud of Draupadi's relationship with all her husbands.

I don't want to defend it or justify it.

It's a happy part of her life to me that's all.

And as per me, she is the only one who deserves to be happy in that family.