Posted:
@iDea-yeS-viruS,
Sorry, I do not exactly what you meant in your post, but I will try to reply as best as I can.
First of all, Mahabharat is not a tale about ideal characters. None of the characters are perfect except Krishna, and yes I consider him perfect because his actions were all perfect for THAT era. No one claims the Pandavas and Draupadi to be ideal characters. No one says they were perfect throughout their lifetime. They all made mistakes, but why did Lord Krishna support them over the Pandavas? That's because they had truth on their side. No matter their mistakes, they were fighting the war for the welfare of mankind, and that is what's important.
Coming to Draupadi, no one paints her as the perfection of womanhood. It is written in the epic itself that Draupadi was a bit proud, and tended to be insecure in regards to Subhadra when Arjuna first married her. However, none of her mistakes were so horrible and wrong for her moral character to be called into question. Draupadi was a very human character, but she was also very noble, kind and had a big heart. She was also incredibly patient and steadfast in her devotion to Krishna. These are the qualities people praise, and it is Draupadi's faithfulness to her five husbands that include her in the list of the Pancha Maha Kanyas.
Could Draupadi have refused Karna in a kinder way? Perhaps, but would any form of rejection be truly kind? I don't think so. Either way, Karna would have been humiliated because the fact is, Draupadi did not want to marry him and she knew that he would've been successful in fulfilling her father's vow. No woman had the power to refuse a man after he completed the test (unlike what SKR showed). She was considered as good as married to him, so the only chance to refuse someone would be before he even participated.
We also have to understand how swayamvars worked back then. A princess's free will in regards to her choice of husband was very restricted. Even if she did have the right to refuse a man from participating, she couldn't do so without any valid reason. Draupadi couldn't simply say, "Hey Anga Raj, sorry about it but I don't want to marry you so please don't participate". She would have to let the sabha know why she was refusing someone her own father had invited, or else it would have become a huge problem and may have even caused a battle.
Back in that era, a man's occupation determined his caste, and even if he was later crowned king, he would still be considered as belonging to that caste. Karna was actually born a Kshatriya, but no one except Krishna and Kunti knew that, so for the entire world he was a Suta putra until he died. Being called "suta putra" was not an insult back then like it would be today. It simply meant "charioteer's son" and it's equivalent to us being known today as "Mr. so and so's daughter" or "Mrs. so and so's son".
Even today, people reject marriage proposals on the basis of job and salary. Many girls want to marry doctors and engineers. Let's think of Draupadi's situation in the modern world. Draupadi is this rich girl who's receiving marriage proposals, and Karna is a driver's son who won the lottery and became rich overnight. Would rich girl Draupadi still want to marry him, even though he's rich, or would she marry a man who's a doctor/engineer with a hefty salary and stable job, who can provide for her their entire life?
As a royal princess, Draupadi refused Karna on the basis of his background, which is done even today, just in different scenarios. What other reason could she have given for refusing Karna, besides the fact that he was a suta putra? What could she have said?
As for the Pandavas, even if they are considered Brahmins by caste and not Kshatriyas, they still had the ability to participate in the swayamvar, because princesses of that era were allowed to marry either kshatriyas or brahmins. They could marry a man of equal status or higher, and brahmins were considered higher. That's also what happened. When Arjuna participated in the swayamvar, he was in the guise of a brahmin, so everyone considered him a brahmin. Drupad himself encouraged the brahmins to participate, since all the kshatriyas failed the test already, and Draupadi was prepared to lead the life of a brahmin's wife when she followed Arjuna out of the sabha. She had no idea he was actually a royal prince.
So we truly need to understand the rules and customs of that era before judging the characters. Even by today's standards, Draupadi may be considered a bit arrogant, but she didn't do anything in the epic, for her moral character to come into question. She didn't commit any crime against anyone for people to criticize and condemn her.
Moreover, it's unfair to compare Sita and Draupadi. The lives they led were very different. They both struggled with different situations that cannot be compared. They were born incredibly strong women, just in different ways. Sita's strength lay in her patience and determination, while Draupadi's strength lay in her ability to speak for herself. She was no quiet woman, but why should she? The men in her life were such that she needed to speak up to be safe. The Pandavas were overall good men, but they were nowhere close to Ram. Had Draupadi had a husband like Ram, there would have been no reason for her to be outspoken and cutting in her remarks, as a husband like Ram would never have allowed the vastra haran to happen in the first place.
Avatar and Signatures Shop
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
CID
