Kartavya aur Pratigya ka Mahatva : Creator note Pg 3

Namaste,

The Mahabharata is a priceless treasure of knowledge and Dharma.

Every stage of the Mahabharata, there are Pratigya taken.

In my opinion, the epic teaches us that To keep a promise and be duty-bound is Great but to uphold Righteousness is Supreme.

For example:

During the Draupadi Cheerharan, everyone in the Sabhagraha were duty-bound. Each knew that what was occurring was wrong but none opposed.

Wouldn't it have been better f9r the sabha sadasyaas, Bheeshma, Vidura to break their silence and stop Duryodhana and Dushasana in order to protect a woman's honour?

Would you remember more such instances?

Maybe on TV all of the characters have dialogues to explain why they won’t speak out while Kṛṣṇā Draupadī is being assaulted. In the text, however, as soon as Dharmarāja stakes her, the elders in the hall exclaim “Dhik, dhik!” and the royals start discussions, Bhīṣma, Droṇa, Kṛpa etc. perspire, Vidura holds his head and hisses like a snake with his face down, Dhṛtarāṣṭra repeatedly asks, “What’s won?” and others in the hall shed tears as Śakuni throws the dice. You may imagine that everyone had a moral conscience of “a woman’s honour” or felt sympathy for her plight, but what does the text actually say?

None of these reactions are narrated when the eldest brother stakes and loses his two half-brothers and two full brothers, one by one, or when he loses himself. The silence in the text may imply that the audience was not so much bothered by a brother behaving like a slave-owner, or by the game turning princes into slaves (only Yudhiṣṭhira himself says that Sahadeva and Phalguna and Bhīmasena are anarhat - unbefitting what he is doing to them), but everyone was bothered that a man was ready to hand over his wife. Alternatively, everyone may have reacted in anticipation that depriving men of their wife would lead to a war. Men who were enslaved were expected to be loyal to their new masters (Yudhiṣṭhira tells Śakuni, “kuryāmas te jitāḥ karma svayam ātmany upaplave” - Being won, we will do your work ourselves to our own detriment), but society would mock the manhood of a man who failed to avenge the seizure of his wife. We cannot say for sure that the characters imagined a woman to have rights of her own.

Vidura is the first to speak out, and later Kuntī remarks that he’s the only one that she respects for how he acted at the time: vṛttena hi bhavaty āryo, na dhanena, na vidyayā; a man becomes noble by his conduct, not by wealth and not by education. However, even when Duryodhana has said, “Let the house be swept; let her come over quickly; let us have pleasure with our maids,” Vidura does not tell Duryodhana to respect women in general or his sister-in-law in particular. Vidura only tells him that he is headed for ruin and death if he provokes those who are deadly like tigers or snakes, and Kṛṣṇā Draupadī is not enslaved because the King was not in control (anīśena) to stake her. Vidura’s motive is not decency as TV translates dharma for us these days; his motive is dharma as in self-preservation of the royal power.

I will continue this when I have time.

Kṛṣṇā Draupadī says incredulously, “ko vai dīvyed bhāryayā rājaputraḥ?” - would a prince really gamble with his wife? She doesn’t speak of a woman’s intrinsic honour or humanity, only of her incredulity that a prince would take the risk of losing his wife. And her argument isn’t that her husband doesn’t own her or doesn’t have the right to transfer her ownership to another man; she asks whether he got overexcited by the game or had nothing else to stake, and then asks whether he forfeited himself first, or her.

Prātikāmin paraphrases Kṛṣṇā Draupadī’s question thus: “kasy’eśo naḥ parājaiṣīḥ?” - whose controller were you when you forfeited us? His wording parallels Vidura’s argument that Yudhiṣṭhira was not in control (anīśena) to stake Kṛṣṇā Draupadī. Nothing in the text hints at moral authority, that a husband cannot or should not treat his wife as disposable property. Rather, Vidura and Kṛṣṇā Draupadī (through Prātikāmin) are disputing technicalities of Yudhiṣṭhira’s action, which Vikarṇa will explain clearly a while later.

When Vikarṇa speaks out on Kṛṣṇā Draupadī’s side, he makes four arguments: (1) whatever a prince does under the influence of addiction is invalid (similar to the modern legal arguments of temporary insanity and alcoholic duress); (2) she is the common wife of Pāṇḍu’s sons (not the exclusive property of her eldest husband); (3) Pāṇḍu’s son was already a slave when he made a stake; (4) Subala’s son announced that he wanted her to be the stake. The words “anīśena” and “kasy’eśaḥ” could describe Yudhiṣṭhira’s lack of control to play this round under all four arguments.

What difference does it make that Yudhiṣṭhira was a slave when he staked his wife? Many readers interpret the point as an argument that a slave cannot own another person, which would make his wife svatantra - on her own. My interpretation is that any contest was supposed to be between equals. Like a duel, a gambling match could not be fought between a slave and his owner. When the owner tells the slave to bet specific property and the slave obeys, that is not a free and fair round, and thus it is invalid. Even Śakuni seems aware that the game is over when he says to Yudhiṣṭhira, “This is the worst wrong that you’ve done, that you forfeited yourself; it’s wrong to forfeit yourself when you have wealth remaining!”

When Prātikāmin asks Kṛṣṇā Draupadī’s rhetorical question, “Whom did you forfeit first, yourself or me?” Yudhiṣṭhira is unable to respond with either “sādhu” or “asādhu” - “Right!“ or “Wrong!” If he acknowledged her point as right, that would break his promise to Śakuni, to act in his master’s interest even to his own detriment. And to call her point wrong, to claim that the round was free and fair, would be tantamount to claiming that he, a slave, could still play freely against his master.

So, Yudhiṣṭhira’s dilemma may be the first example in this episode of kartavya and pratijñā preventing a character from speaking out for justice.

I wonder if Yudhiṣṭhira, when Śakuni prompted him, “You have forfeited much property, your brothers along with horses and elephants. Tell me your property, son of Kuntī, if you have any that isn’t forfeited,” understood that Śakuni wanted Kṛṣṇā Draupadī, and he intentionally staked himself instead of his wife to end the game before that could happen. However, upon becoming Duryodhana’s slave, he could no longer argue that the game was over, as he had promised to act in his master’s interest, even to his own detriment. So, when Śakuni told him, “Stake Kṛṣṇā Pāñcālī, and win yourself back with her!” he had no choice and he described her physical attributes, personality, and housekeeping as if he wanted his master to have her.

I will continue this when I have time.

Insightful.

But then the argument still is, the act happened no matter the means.

Where does the blurred lines of Kartavya, Neeti, Pratigya and Nyaya crack?

Like in the final Mallayudhdha, it was a rule Not to attack the thigh, but Bheema did attack him for Nyaya, for Dharma.

Some of the bards who recited Mahābhārata may have objected to the scene of Duḥśāsana dragging Kṛṣṇā Draupadī by her hair. That would explain why the text first gives us an alternative version of how she came to the hall.

When Yudhiṣṭhira hears that Duryodhana has sent Prātikāmin again, he sends his own messenger agreeable to Kṛṣṇā Draupadī, and she comes before her father-in-law “in one garment, the knot sagging, shrieking, menstruating.” Duḥśāsana’s violence has been omitted from this alternative version, and yet her “agreeable“ arrival in the hall is described just as if she was brought by force. The word “śvaśura” - referring to Dhṛtarāṣṭra as father-in-law and not King - is the first indication in the text that he has a family duty to rescue Kṛṣṇā Draupadī from slavery. Nothing in the text implies that he has any similar duty as a father to rescue Pāṇḍu’s sons.

This alternative version is followed by the version that we all know: Kṛṣṇā Draupadī has not come to the hall, Prātikāmin is afraid of her fury, and so Duḥśāsana goes to tell her that she should look upon Duryodhana without shame and join the Kurus because she has been obtained by dharma. Kṛṣṇā Draupadī, having told Prātikāmin that dharma is supreme in the world and brings relief when protected, tries to run to the old Kuru king’s women without responding to Duḥśāsana’s claim that dharma requires her to come with him. Then Duḥśāsana’s seizure of her hair is described not as any kind of moral transgression but as a mighty victory: “Those hairs that were washed with hymn-sanctified water in the avabhṛtha bath of the Rājasūya grand ritual - overpowering the valour of Pāṇḍu’s sons, Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s son forcibly disrupted them.”

Kṛṣṇā Draupadī says to Duḥśāsana: “I am menstruating now and I have one garment, slow-wit! You shouldn’t take me to the hall, ignoble man!” Duḥśāsana replies that even if she is naked, she is won by the game and is a slave, and slave-women are to be enjoyed however they may be caught. The text describes the tragedy of a woman who belongs to someone being dragged as if she has no protectors, but leaves it up to the audience to know whether it would be all right to treat an actual slave-woman in this manner. Kṛṣṇā Draupadī tells Duḥśāsana that she is unwilling to appear before educated persons, performers of rituals, elders and honorary elders “like this “ - menstruating, with scattered hair and half-fallen garment. “Scandal-maker of ignoble conduct! Don’t make me unclothed! Don’t drag me!” Knowing that Duḥśāsana does not care about her dignity, she is appealing to him not to offend the dignity of the men (and women?) in the hall with her unclean condition. She warns Duḥśāsana that princes will not ignore his offence - to whom, to her or to the hall?

Immediately after this, Kṛṣṇā Draupadī excuses Yudhiṣṭhira, saying that he is abiding by his dharma (his duty as Duryodhana’s slave?) and dharma is subtle, knowable only by the intelligent. “I don’t want to let go my own qualities and give the tiniest blame to my husband by my words!” This contrasts with the way she speaks to Prātikāmin about Yudhiṣṭhira, referring to him as "kitavaṃ" - the gambler, and asking if he was stupefied, overexcited by the game. The dilemma of dharma that Kṛṣṇā Draupadī faces is that she has to save herself from Duryodhana by questioning Yudhiṣṭhira, but without deferring to Yudhiṣṭhira as her husband, how will she convince Dhṛtarāṣṭra to order Duḥśāsana to let her go?

Kṛṣṇā Draupadī tells Duḥśāsana that it is ignoble (anāryam) to drag her into the midst of Kuru heroes while she is menstruating, and surely no one in the hall agrees with his view or appreciates it. "Be shamed! Obviously, the Bhāratas' dharma is lost, and likewise the conduct of those who know kṣatriya principles, as all the Kurus in the hall watch the boundary of Kuru dharma being transgressed! Surely Droṇa and Bhīṣma lack honesty, and likewise this great-natured king too; that is why the leaders of the Kuru elders don't notice this fierce adharma!"

What is she describing as adharma? The TV versions have dialogues to tell us that adharma is violence against a woman, adharma is disrespect to a daughter-in-law who is the embodiment of family honour ... None of this is in Kṛṣṇā Draupadī's speech. She doesn't even say that invalid gambling, taking advantage of an addict and a slave and prompting his stake, is adharma. She only says that it's ignoble for herself as a menstruating and single-garment-clad woman to appear before scholars and officiants, elders and heroes.

Imagine a culture in which a man without sons was destined for hell, and male bloodshed was the glory of battle. Could menstrual blood, blood without glory that represents reproductive failure, have been the ultimate taboo in that culture? Would the original audience of Mahābhārata have appreciated that Duḥśāsana exposing his elders to a menstruating woman was actual adharma, punishable by the extermination of the Kuru dynasty, while an emperor's wife being invalidly enslaved and mistreated was merely tragedy?

I will continue this when I have time.

I'm going to keep it as brief as possible I swear.

People forget MBh is a poem when it comes to scenes with female characters. Metaphors abound. Several of the scenes which seem solidly plot-centric have strong philosophical basis.

Panchali asked:

1) was the man drunk (to do such stupidity)?

2) ask the gambler who he lost first (yes, she calls him a gambler).

The first was the angry reaction of a wife who, it seems, didn't expect any better of the husband.

As for the second... *losing* has dual meaning here. It's not just the physical loss she was talking about. A king who has *lost* his kingly dharma, ie, lost himself, no longer has any rights on anyone.

Why is this interpretation valid?

Because Panchali did a whole TED Talk on kshatriya dharma in Kamyaka. She said similar to Matsya Raj later.

So yeah... she was arguing kshatriya dharma on one level AND using a legal loophole to get her freedom.

So was Vidura. So was Vikarna. Their use of a legal technicality does not absolve Duryodhana, Dusshasana, and Karna of sexual assault.

To claim that would be akin to claiming Nirbhaya's underage rapist did not actually rape her because he was under 18. A mere technicality that does not lessen the horrific nature of the crime.

As for Bheeshma:

He wasn't silent. He actually argued that Panchali was in fact a slave and bound to obey the orders of the winner.

He also told her morality was subtle and was whatever the mighty said it was.

Karna was the leader of that sexual assault. Dusshasana committed the crime on Karna's orders. Duryodhana condoned it. Shakuni enabled it.

But let's not kid ourselves that others in that sabha were in the right except Panchali, Vidura, Vikarna, and to a small extent, Arjuna, because he eventually spoke up for her.

......

Minimizing what Panchali said by focusing solely on the legal loophole she used helps paint the wannabe rapists - Karna, Dusshasana, and Duryodhana - in a softer hue. Hey, they were only following the dharma of the times, and she never argued against that same dharma, right?

Wrong. She did argue against it there. She argued against it with Yudhishthira. She argued against it with Matsya.

And yeah... Krishna gave Karna a tongue lashing about it right before he ordered Arjuna to let the Anjalika fly.

......

PS. Being assaulted while menstruating couldn't have been a picnic, but Panchali sure didn't seem any less peeved with Jayadratha and Keechaka when they tried the same while she was presumably not menstruating. She wanted Jayadratha dead, and Yudhishtira opposed it. In Keechaka's case, she got the job done anyway.

So no, the criminal quartet's only crime was not about Panchali's menstruation. They were sex assaulters. Period. #punintended

I mean I am pretty sure it was more about dusshan invading her personal space than what a room full of so-called "heroes" would think about her. About how she will feel as a woman, as a human being on getting stripped, on the invasion of her personal space

I am pretty sure no woman no matter which era they belong to would like it if someone invades their personal space and drags them into a room full of people while they are scantly clad and bleeding

The concept of personal space and consent is not very hard to grasp, is it?

She later argues this same concept of woman s dignity, personal space, violence against women, treatment of daughter-in-law in the court

The text says that other than Karṇa, Śakuni, and Dhārtarāṣṭra (Duryodhana), everyone in the hall felt a lot of pain seeing Kṛṣṇā Draupadī dragged by Duḥśāsana. Retellings on TV may give you the impression that each character knew right from wrong and the only reason he didn't speak out was some pratijñā or kartavya, some vow or obligation. However, the text doesn't mention these considerations at all.

Bhīṣma speaks: "Due to the subtlety of dharma, attractive one! I am unable to decide this question of yours properly. One who isn't free is in fact incapable of staking a dependent, and yet I consider a woman's subjection to her husband. Yudhiṣṭhira would give up the entire prosperous earth and still would not abandon truth; that son of Pāṇḍu said, "I am forfeit," and so I cannot decide this. Śakuni is an unmatched gambler among men, and he prompted Kuntī's son for what he wanted; yet the great-natured one does not consider it cheating, and so I don't answer this question of yours."

Kṛṣṇā Draupadī replies: "Invited to the hall by experts, perverse-natured, deceitful, ignoble, and fond of gambling, the king who had not practised it too much - tell me, why was he prompted for what they wanted? With pure intentions, unaware of the practice of deceit, that leader of the Kurus and the sons of Pāṇḍu was enslaved by all of them planning together, and even after that, since he was directed what to stake, let all of these Kurus who remain in the hall, who are in control of their sons and daughters-in-law, consider what happened and my argument, and answer this question of mine properly."

Neither Bhīṣma nor Kṛṣṇā Draupadī talks about the assault or indignity that she is suffering at that very moment, as Duḥśāsana is still dragging her and taunting her with harsh words, and she is wailing piteously. The idea of treating every woman with respect is absent on both sides: Bhīṣma makes the point that a slave-man can always direct his wife (to another man) even if he is ineligible to gamble her away, and Kṛṣṇā Draupadī argues that injustice was done to her disadvantaged husband, not to herself. Bhīṣma thinks that Śakuni prompting Yudhiṣṭhira for a specific stake makes the round invalid, and yet "mahātmā" - the great-natured one - does not call it cheating. Here, "mahātmā" probably refers to Yudhiṣṭhira; Bhīṣma trusts him to tell the truth at any cost, and Bhīṣma doubts his own judgement when it conflicts with Yudhiṣṭhira's. The flaw in Bhīṣma's logic is that Yudhiṣṭhira cannot point out cheating by his opponent after promising to be a loyal slave even to his own detriment. Bhīṣma knows that as soon as Yudhiṣṭhira admitted to being a slave, he should have stopped gambling with his owner, and yet Bhīṣma cannot bring himself to say that Yudhiṣṭhira lied when he staked his wife.

No one volunteers to answer Kṛṣṇā Draupadī's question; we don't know why they allow Duḥśāsana to go on harassing her verbally and physically. Bhīma says to Yudhiṣṭhira: even in places where women-for-rent (bandhakyaḥ) wait for lucky gamblers, gamblers feel compassion for them and don't stake them. ("If you win, I'll pay that one to go with you" is not done; the woman gets to choose her customer.) Yudhiṣṭhira has the right to gamble away everything including his kingdom, himself, and his brothers, Bhīma says, but he crossed the limit by staking Kṛṣṇā Draupadī, who does not deserve the mistreatment that she is getting.

Bhīma declares that he'll burn Yudhiṣṭhira's arms and calls Sahadeva for fire, but Arjuna tells him not to gratify the enemy by abandoning dharma and rebelling against his elder brother. Arjuna says that Yudhiṣṭhira was invited by the enemy and is following kṣatriya dharma by playing as much as the enemy desires; this contributes to their fame greatly. Bhīma replies that if he discovers that Yudhiṣṭhira did it to show off (evamasmikṛtaṃ), he'll forcibly burn both his arms. This is an example of a character finding a compromise to avoid fulfilling his pratijñā; he makes it conditional.

Now Vikarṇa says, "By not deciding the question, we are going straight to hell! Bhīṣma and Dhṛtarāṣṭra, our eldest two, haven't said anything together, nor the very thoughtful Vidura, nor have our preceptors Bhāradvāja (Droṇa) and Kṛpa said anything. Let the governors from all over decide according to their views, giving up desire and hatred, forgetting partisanship." Although Vikarṇa urges them repeatedly, none of the governors says "right" or "wrong." Finally, Vikarṇa, fidgeting with his hands nervously, makes the four arguments that I already enumerated, which were implicit in the earlier dialogues of Vidura, Prātikāmin, Kṛṣṇā Draupadī, and Bhīṣma. His conclusion that Kṛṣṇā Draupadī is not forfeit is applauded by everyone in the hall, presumably the same everyone that didn't want to be first to speak.

This is followed by Karṇa instigating Duḥśāsana to take off Kṛṣṇā Draupadī's garment. The text does not tell us whether anyone protested while Duḥśāsana committed the assault; dialogues and motivations are entirely left to our imagination.

@BA

Text does tell us IN SCENE if it was adharma.

Panchali's dilemma in the dice hall was a practical one. She needed to call out both the adharma and make sure she didn't cost Yudhishtira the kingdom.

She argued a legal loophole and repeatedly asks Bheeshma if what was happening was dharma. She does ask several times if the king *lost* himself, what right did he then have over her.

If I ask is rape dharma, it doesn't mean I'm not calling it adharma. In fact, it means the exact opposite.

None of the people present in the dice hall can be excused on the basis of the words Panchali chose to argue with.

Karna and Dusshasana were the ones who committed the sexual assault, Duryodhana condoning it, Shakuni enabling it.

And yes, Bheeshma did argue that dharma was whatever the powerful decreed it to be. He wasn't simply a rigid old man clinging to dharma on paper. He actively argued that the powerful decide what dharma is. In what era was this considered all right?

After they were exiled, Panchali talks over and over about the sins of the 4 criminals. She talks about kshatriya dharma.

She also mocks Yudhishtira in Virata Parva to such an extent that Bheema warns her Yudhishtira might kill himself.

After war, Panchali says Yudhishtira is a lunatic who should be locked up, and his brothers should be locked up with him.

The woman was highly intelligent and shrewd with it, with extreme patience to wait out 13 years. Screeching about dharma in a no-win situation wasn't going to get her anywhere. So she waited until she accomplished what she wanted before telling them exactly what she thought of them.

HearMeRoar, if you want my attention, the Reply button can be used to tag me. I haven't blocked anyone, but I hope you will read Interstellarr's Rules and Regulations for this forum. Straw-man arguments implying that other members are excusing sexual assault ... using Nirbhaya out of context for shock value ... your tactics are disruptive to the "friendly and healthy environment" and I may choose to ignore anything further in this tone.

I will discuss some points because you raised them, but you have gone off the topic of kartavya and pratijñā getting in the way of justice. This is not the place for you to compete for the prize of being most outraged by mythological characters' offences, but I hope Bodhianveshika and Interstellarr will permit me to discuss what is present or absent in the text.

Which text, translation, or TV version are you following? I am using the annotated critical edition in the original language, and so if some manuscripts had extra lines with the kinds of dialogues that you are claiming, I would have seen them.

Kṛṣṇā Draupadī doesn't ask if Yudhiṣṭhira was drunk (mattaḥ); she repeats Prātikāmin's expression "intoxicated with the pride of gambling" (dyūta-madena mattaḥ) that I have translated as "overexcited."

Bhīṣma doesn't say that she's a slave or that the mighty get to dictate dharma in this episode. Arjuna doesn't defend her. I have already presented Bhīṣma's and Arjuna's speeches, so I won't repeat them here.

The text does not tell us that (insert your own focus here) was adharma. As I wrote already, Kṛṣṇā Draupadī refers to "this fierce adharma" in such a way that if she's not still talking about menstruation in the hall, we have to imagine what her objection is. She does not repeatedly ask Bhīṣma whether her mistreatment is dharma; his voluntary speech and her reply are focussed on rules of gambling. She doesn't question Yudhiṣṭhira's right over her; she argues that he was cheated of her.

You use the expression "locked up," but are locks and keys ever mentioned in Mahābhārata?

M.Wheeler, thanks for sharing what you think a character is feeling. However, concepts like "personal space" and "consent" that we consider obvious today were not on the tip of the tongue for whoever decided what Kṛṣṇā Draupadī and other characters would say in this episode. You can always retell the story so that the characters focus on values that make sense to you. At the same time, to appreciate how far society has evolved, you can also listen attentively to the characters' emphasis on different values, and imagine the world in which that author lived.

Can you tell us where in the text Kṛṣṇā Draupadī argues "woman s dignity, personal space, violence against women, treatment of daughter-in-law in the court?" I'm trying to translate "personal space" into Saṃskṛta ...