Sleet of Emotional Quivers on RadhaKrishn Love CC#11 - Page 47

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

If you remove Vastraharan actually there is not much of direct involvement of Karna in sexual assault.

So removal of Vastraharan actually makes Karna an okayish person. He wasn't directly a part of Lakshagriha or Bheem poisoning,(as per BORI) and the Abhimanyu vadh although dislikely wasn't completely immoral

It is basically Vastraharan which makes them completely answerless(with BORI removal of the Naham varnami Sutam verse, they don't even have the option to say this was his revenge for the insult he faced)

Didn't Karna call her a prostitute and ask her to become mistress of Duryodhan? That is also part of assault.

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Happy Durga Ashtmi people

Happy Durga Ashtami everyone 🙏🙏

Originally posted by: vyapti

Didn't Karna call her a prostitute and ask her to become mistress of Duryodhan? That is also part of assault.

Removal of Vastraharan actually refers to Removal of all those parts. Karna asked for disrobe in that very paragraph

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

Removal of Vastraharan actually refers to Removal of all those parts. Karna asked for disrobe in that very paragraph

Ohh ok.

One argument I have read against Vastraharan is that her Saree is still bloodstained when she leaves Hastinapur.

Originally posted by: vyapti

Ohh ok.

One argument I have read against Vastraharan is that her Saree is still bloodstained when she leaves Hastinapur.

I don't understand how is this a proof against Vastraharan? Like she was in her days, to any Sari she would wear can get blood stained

Originally posted by: FlauntPessimism

I don't understand how is this a proof against Vastraharan? Like she was in her days, to any Sari she would wear can get blood stained

Yes, you have a point.

But if they left just after the incident then there is lesser chance of the new saree getting bloodstained. Secondly, if it was random bloodstain then probably it would not have been mentioned. I think it is mentioned because she got the stain when Dusasan manhandled her.

I have a question. Did Karna order disrobing of Draupadi? Or was it Dusasan's idea? I don't know properly.

As far I know... Karna asked Dusasan to take away the upper garment of them as they are slaves and Pandava's complied. Draupadi was ekavastra. So was that order meant for Draupadi too?

Very interesting discussions are going on here. 🤗

Yes, Karna was the one who declared Panchali as a prostitute and he ordered her to stay with the maids of the Royal palace where the maids stay to be picked up by the royal males for their entertainment.

Yes, Draupadi was draped in one cloth or only saree at the time of Vastraharan. Nothing can be argued against them, however, something more can be added

Ekvastra means, wearing only one piece of cloth on her entire body. In those ancient times, royal women used to wear only one garment 'in those days' to wrap around their body without any added drapes such as choli[ blouse ] waist tightening stiff decorative cloth and the veil over their head etc, which made her more vulnerable to insult and humiliation than in ordinary condition . No ornaments, no embellishments. A weak, vulnerable royal lady, an Empress of a kingdom Samrajni of Indraprastha was grabbed by hair, dragged to the court roughly by a male?! In normal conditions, no male member of the family was not allowed to touch or see a woman while she was menstruating.

The Draupadi -disrobing episode is intrinsically linked with two other aspects--- equally dominant in the epic >>> Draupadi -staking at dice game , and single dress clad menstruating Draupadi being dragged to the Kurusabha by Dussasan.

Karna asks Dushshasana to remove the upper garments of the Pandavas as well as of Draupadi [Pandavanam cha vasansi draupadyashchapyupahara – Sabha 68.38]. In response to Karna's words, the Pandavas remove their Uttariiyas –

tat.zrutvaa.paaNDavaah.sarve.svaani.vaasaamsi.bhaarata./
avakiirya.UttariiyaaNi.sabhaayaam.samupaavizat.// (2.61.39)

Do the Pandavas stand naked thus? No. They were depleted from all their royal honors and left there as slaves. The Pandavas get away by submitting their Uttariiyas – that suggests, Uttariiya is a separate piece of garment other than the lower garment. In Draupadi's case, she was ekvastra, only one layer on her entire body.

In the case of Draupadi, the words of Karna are more powerful than the actual act, removing her vastra, and at the same time death is a lesser evil than to be disrobed by a male in front of many senior citizens, scholars, Teachers , kings and other royals.

Another aspect here is --- in every epic war, each and every royal king's wife was either humiliated , abducted, or married by the enemy to infuse irrevocable insult to his enemy , either by Ravan in Ramayan, or Duryodhan or in the later part, by Jayadhradha or Sisupal, in Mahabharath every one wanted to insult Pandavas by cruelly harassing Draupadi!!

taam.kRSyamaaNaam.ca.rajasvalaam.ca;srasta. Uttariiyaam.atad.arhamaaNaam./
vRkodarah.prekSya.yudhiSThiram.ca;cakaara.kopam.parama.aarta.ruupah.// (2.60.47)

“And seeing menstruating Draupadi dragged thus, her Uttariiya loosened, Bhima gives way to wrath fixing his eyes on Yudhishthira, seeing her helpless condition.”

Here I am posting a very interesting video in which how Duryodhan and Dussasan were threatened by Bheem --- World-class performance of visual and playback artists!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5WgJao5HMM&list=RDx5WgJao5HMM&start_radio=1&rv=x5WgJao5HMM&t=5

Sorry took time to catch up. Suddenly this forum has come alive.

My. Replies.

1. Incase of Rukmini, Bhishmaka actually did want Krishna as son in law and says so, but Rukmi refuses. Rukmini in Bhagvatham sends a letter asking to be rescued from the marriage. Pradyumna Rukmavati marriage was a proper swayamavar. She garlands him wilingly and Rukmi though displeased accepts it.

2. Subhadra Arjuna marriage has to be seen incontext of two things.

Krishna Balraam were not Ram Lakshmana. The very same texts that have them together also speak of syamantak incident where Balram calls Krishna theif leave Dwarka to settle in Mithila for atleast 2 years. This is where Duryodhan meets him and becomes his disciple. Duryodhan's effect on Balram is visible in war council where Balram openly criticised Yudhi's gambling and loss, blaming him sqaurely for the situation.

He also says to Duryodhan when he goes to meet him after Krishna gives him Narayani sena that the only reason I can't fight for you is because Krishna is on the other. He still doesn't fight for pandavas and stays neutral than fight against Duryodhan. So it was him not fighting at all for the sake of Dury. So subhadra Dury marriage was a real possibility.

2.All five pandavas was important for Krishna to protect Dwarka. I am not talking in terms of war. I am talking in terms of economic blockade.

Dwarka had no agriculture, it was a trading port. There was a limit to Krishna abducting princesses. Marriage of Pandavas to Sivi, Kashi, Manipur, Naga, Chedi, Madra, Mahishmati and Pandya princesses opened trade routes for Dwarka.

Yes he married Avanti and Vidarbha princesses himself but since he kidnapped the brides the families never gave their support or opened borders for Krishna..

Balrama was not to intelligent to understand the merit of marital alliance with Pandavas vis a vis Kouravas.

It wouldn't have happened to be as beneficial with Kurus. Because they were stronger and Krishna's charm wouldn't work much with Bhishma and Shakuni around. The leeway that Krishna got at IP he would never get at Hastinapur. Remember the first honor at Rajasuya. If Dury did Rajasuya he would never offer it to Krishna. He Would give it to Bhishma. Also brides family has to fight of needed for the groom's family. It is not the other way round. So Dury would use Subhadra to neutralise any Dwarka support to IP but he himself wouldn't do anything in favour of Dwarka as he was not obliged to them unlike Pandavas who had already given him a mentor ship place and authority to dictate policies

3. Subhadra was not the only Dwarka princess married to Indraprasth. Krishna's daughter (text says granddaughter, but it shud be a mistake) Bhanumati marries Sahadev. Just prior to the war in my opinion. That was a pity marriage as she was abducted by Nikumbha. From whom Arjuna saves her. Kshatriyas would refuse an unmarried taken by another man. Remember Amba, Lakshmana etc yet Krishna's clout is such that Sahadev marries her.

Alliance with Pandavas was hugely beneficial to Krishna because Krishna could use them for his benefit. Subhadra just cemented his position in the family.

Originally posted by: vyapti

Yes, you have a point.

But if they left just after the incident then there is lesser chance of the new saree getting bloodstained. Secondly, if it was random bloodstain then probably it would not have been mentioned. I think it is mentioned because she got the stain when Dusasan manhandled her.

I have a question. Did Karna order disrobing of Draupadi? Or was it Dusasan's idea? I don't know properly.

As far I know... Karna asked Dusasan to take away the upper garment of them as they are slaves and Pandava's complied. Draupadi was ekavastra. So was that order meant for Draupadi too?

No I meant obviously her entire Sari was not draped off it was increasing in length and the blood stain would be in the same Sari

Karna clearly ordered Dusshan to disrobe Draupadi and also the Pandavas. And he didn't mention only the upper garments (as people like to say in justification since upper garment weren't allowed to the slaves) the upper garment of Draupadi had already slipped off while being dragged into the court according to many versions. The Pandavas removed the upper garment on themselves (before Dusshashan could have forced them) Dusshashan was anyway more interested in Draupadi

If Vastraharan happened it was only Karna's order

About Karna

He says even if she is brought naked to assembly it's fair as she has five husband's so she is unchaste (whorE)

He specifically asks Draupadi to be disrobed

He asks her to choose a lord amongst Kouravas now that pandavas are slaves and serve them (implying sexual servitude)

That is sexual assault. Physical assault was perpetuated by Dussasan

Also do note at the time of childhood murder attempts Karna was same age as Shakuni an adult, while Pandavas and Kouravas were boys.

There is atleast a good 10 to 12 year gap between Karna and Yudhi's birth. Duryodhan and Bhima were further 1.5 to 2 years younger

So pramanakoti poisoning if was done by a 10 year old Duryodhan he was being helped by a 24 year old Karna and almost same age Shakuni. And at this point he has no personal issues with Pandavas because their education had not even started yet, Drona had not yet come to HP.

Look at the conspiracy with this perspective to understand Karna's evil nature.

Abhimanyu's vadh is irrelevant as it was a war. Only rule.of war is kill the enemy as quickly as possible to minimize loss of lives on your side.

So everything is fair in war