Posted:
Thanks for this thread
Do you guys think that gandhari was being unfair when she cursed lord Krishna for the destruction even though he did try for peace on terms which according to me was completely fair to both the parties concerned?? It was duryodhan who rejected the term so wasn't he responsible for the destruction
How do you guys see Panchali disrobing as symbolic of the degradation of women?
Throughout MB, as the story progresses, we see a steady decline in the moral strength of the people. Vyasa, and all other authors dealing with a given time-frame, indicate the same principle. Society's treatment of women throughout the epic is just another example of the same.
If, suppose, Kunti or Gandhari had been in Panchali's place, i.e. the dyuta sabha took place with Pandu and Dhritarashtra's generation in the forefront, the incident would probably not have have escalated that much.
Just two generations prior, another woman was dragged into the same court (Amba, and this is metaphorical) through another Kuru prince's mindless flexing. Amba's treatment by the royal court was so drastically different from Draupadi's.
There's a theory, that whenever the political atmosphere of a country settles down, people, both in power and on the streets, begin to take peace for granted. That is when a Mahabharat happens.
Draupadi's humiliation was the clearest manifestation of this arrogance on all those who were in power. They thought they could get away with that. They did not acknowledge the power of the karma-phal that ultimately drowned both sides- Kaurava AND Pandava into the ocean of destruction and subsequent repentance.
Originally posted by: Poorabhforever
Thanks for this thread
Do you guys think that gandhari was being unfair when she cursed lord Krishna for the destruction even though he did try for peace on terms which according to me was completely fair to both the parties concerned?? It was duryodhan who rejected the term so wasn't he responsible for the destruction
Gandhari's curse was the result of a mother's desperate grief for the loss of her sons. She had been appealing to the divine side of Krishna. Krishna! He is the Lord of the three worlds, father of all things living and non-living! Surely HE would not allow them to kill ALL of my children?! That curse came from Gandhari's blind putra-sneh. At that point, she was blinded by rage and grief and wanted someone to blame other than her and Dhritarashtra's upbringing, Krishna just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
She was always a very knowledgeable women and did try to influence everyone from day one- be it calming Draupadi at the dyuta sabha, or rebuking Duryodhan when he celebrated the Varnavarta and Dyuta Sabha incidents, or be it desperately pleading with Dhritarashtra to ignore Duryodhana accept the peace proposal! But neither her husband nor her children ever paid her any attention.
See the notion woman is a property of man is seen throughout Mahabharata albeit subtetly till panchali disrobing happens. Now if you see Panchali is called a prostitute because she has 5 husbands and the woman is steadfast loyal to them. She doesnt have a 6th one though she is asked what difference it makes.
Now if you see those days men could marry multiple times and most important ambika and ambalika were impregnated by vyasa not their husband despite their reservations. They were forced to have relation with him as kingdom needed heir. So it was acceptable for a woman to have a relation outside wedlock if it served man's purpose. Vyasa himself was the son of Satyavati from Rishi Parashara out of wedlock but none questions Satyavati because she was Shantanu's weakness and Bhishma lived on her orders. Even Kunti begets sons from god's and not her husband. None of these women are questioned about their chastity or morality as they serve man purpose.
But Panchali is questioned because she challenges a man's world, she exposes the hypocrisy of a man's world. Like other women her relation with more than one man is not behind curtain but in front in open as her husband.
Again when she is kept pawn she asks did the king keep himself first or me. A clear indication she asserting her independance as an individual in the open court. Its Panchali individuality that's against man's world that gets the mahabharata rolling. She goes against the flow and the change happens. She fights for her choice, her dignity and the change happens.
Originally posted by: shruthiravi
See the notion woman is a property of man is seen throughout Mahabharata albeit subtetly till panchali disrobing happens. Now if you see Panchali is called a prostitute because she has 5 husbands and the woman is steadfast loyal to them. She doesnt have a 6th one though she is asked what difference it makes.
Now if you see those days men could marry multiple times and most important ambika and ambalika were impregnated by vyasa not their husband despite their reservations. They were forced to have relation with him as kingdom needed heir. So it was acceptable for a woman to have a relation outside wedlock if it served man's purpose. Vyasa himself was the son of Satyavati from Rishi Parashara out of wedlock but none questions Satyavati because she was Shantanu's weakness and Bhishma lived on her orders. Even Kunti begets sons from god's and not her husband. None of these women are questioned about their chastity or morality as they serve man purpose.
But Panchali is questioned because she challenges a man's world, she exposes the hypocrisy of a man's world. Like other women her relation with more than one man is not behind curtain but in front in open as her husband.
Again when she is kept pawn she asks did the king keep himself first or me. A clear indication she asserting her independance as an individual in the open court. Its Panchali individuality that's against man's world that gets the mahabharata rolling. She goes against the flow and the change happens. She fights for her choice, her dignity and the change happens.
About Ambalika and Ambika having a kid by Vyasa, well they had it by Niyog and not Sambhog(the term used for the marital relation between husband and wife) though a process of Niyog isn't defined in epic but it definitely isn't the same as Sambhog or else there wasn't a need for another word to be used. In Jain scriptures however there is a totally different story. Vyas rishi asks both Ambika and Ambalika to cross naked through the room to conceive. First Ambalika crosses and she is very reluctant and shy crossing it, she gets white out of fear since it wasn't easy for the woman to cross a man who is her Jyeshtha all naked, hence her son (Pandu) is weak and pale (has jaundice kind of decease at birth) she told about her feelings to Ambika and she thought of an idea to ignore the person sitting in the room. She closed her eyes as she entered and crossed confidentiality, this resulted in a son (Dhritrashtra) who was physically powerful but without vision.
Parisharmi ji then told that their behaviour wasn't right and they should have gone confidently for she feared that their reluctance might have affected the chance of them conceiving. To encourage them she demonstrates the act with confidence with her eyes wide open. Her intention during this walk was just to demonstrate the queens and encourage them to retry and to fulfill her duties. Therefore the son (Vidur) she begot was confident, dharmic and most powerful in his generation.
When it came to Kunti and Madri they took their sons from gods as blessings by their will
Satyavati was always open about her bearing a son for Rishi Parashar and was actually proud that a great Rishi like him chose a Nishad kanya like her to bear his child. This was long before Shantanu approached her. She never felt the need of hiding her Kaneen(not marital) son unlike Kunti. The reason being that while Satyavati's son's father whole heartedly accepted his son and gave him his name, Suryadev couldn't do that even if he wished for Karna. Probably in those days the Kaneen children whose father accepted them in front of the world were accepted but those whose father weren't known were not, and such women were considered characterless
Anyhow coming to the topic, None of these acts were within the close doors, all were done in public and with the will of the girls involved (you might say that Ambika and Ambalika weren't willing for it, but they were not forced to approach Rishi Vyas, yes Satyavati asked them but even they wanted to get a son.) Their consent was always there and I don't think a consenting relation between two adults should be of any issue to anyone and that's the reason it wasn't.
Draupadi's case however was different, she was staked without her knowledge, (a contrast to the Pandav brothers, they knew that they are being staked and did have time to come to term with what might happen.) Suddenly out of nowhere a man enters her room to drag her to the royal court in a half clad attire just to be informed that she has been staked and lost in the game. And that now she is a dasi.
How much we condemn what Duryodhan Karna and Dusshashan do, but in the royal court she was brought as a Dasi a slave women who didn't have any right (or maybe some rights if we compare with slaves in other civilizations). Now the trio decided to do what they always wanted to do, humiliate Pandavas and what better a way than to say bad words to their wife who now was their slave. In this entire episode her consent was lacking which makes it the worst act of Mahabharata.
However despite being her owner Duryodhan didn't have the right to disrobe her publicly, (although he could do that in private had there been her consent) but he decided to do that. His going beyond his limit, gave Draupadi the opportunity to execute the limited right Manusmriti gives to slave women- immidiate freedom and a compensation of her choice, which she selected as the freedom of her husbands.
She did make a noise, voiced up her opinion in the most powerful possible way, but practically it did not have any impact except for the revelation that no one excluding Vidur ji and Vikarna were worth being called humans in the Sabha
P.S. sorry for the long reply
@flauntpessismism see the way u see MB and I see it are different. For you Niyog is acceptable but for me changing the word from sambhog to niyog doesnt make it acceptable to the fact that ambika and ambalika got their kids not from their husbands. And I take it as when man's need needs to be fulfilled he twists words to serve his purpose and the women who obeys it are not castarcized. so wherever men's silent approval is there woman crossing the line of maryada of whatever u may call or even that can be called maryada as men wants it. And Manusmriti it doesnt give any freedom to normal women. Dont tell me it asks ppl to treat women as Goddess. Then says protect the lady. A lady doesnt need protection, neither she needs to be treated a Goddess. What she wants is respect ,and empowerement to make her own choices as Swami Vivekananda said.
Originally posted by: shruthiravi
@flauntpessismism see the way u see MB and I see it are different. For you Niyog is acceptable but for me changing the word from sambhog to niyog doesnt make it acceptable to the fact that ambika and ambalika got their kids not from their husbands. And I take it as when man's need needs to be fulfilled he twists words to serve his purpose and the women who obeys it are not castarcized. so wherever men's silent approval is there woman crossing the line of maryada of whatever u may call or even that can be called maryada as men wants it. And Manusmriti it doesnt give any freedom to normal women. Dont tell me it asks ppl to treat women as Goddess. Then says protect the lady. A lady doesnt need protection, neither she needs to be treated a Goddess. What she wants is respect ,and empowerement to make her own choices as Swami Vivekananda said.
I think you didn't get my point, I am not saying that using a word Niyog instead of Sambhog makes it acceptable, what I meant was that possibly Niyog was a process different from Sambhog. Maybe some kind of semi test tube surgery in its primitive form or some art that we have lost by now. Completely my opinion, I am not saying it certainly was so, just an assumption.
Anyhow in the case of Ambika and Ambalika it wasn't a man's need but that of a woman (i.e.) Satyavati, she had earlier approached Devrat for the Niyog but he denied since it hampered his Pratigya, then she approached Vyasji who agreed for it and so did both the queens.
What I mean to say is that it was completely a mutual decision (even if we assume that the process for Niyog is the same as Sambhog) you can not say that it was made acceptable only to fulfill a man's desire because here it wasn't so. People had options and they opted for it. Being the mother of a kid excluding your husband if you do it willfully isn't exploitation. It's simply exercising your rights.
What Draupadi did in the Sabha was definitely not what the men liked yet she remained Maryadit. Despite getting the knowledge that Kunti had an illegitimate son, no one doubted her Maryada
Manusmriti has definitely given less rights to women but it hasn't taken away the freedom in anyway
comment:
p_commentcount