Does a society learn from its past?

Does a society learn from its past? Past mistakes to be precise? Has our nation learnt from the gut-wrenching incident of a Nirbhaya on a fateful night of December 2012? Have rapes and murders of women stopped? Have the changes in law brought any respite to a woman? Is she more secure today?

At the cost of repetition, does a society learn from its mistakes? No, it seldom does.

All of us are well aware of the episode of Draupadi’s vastraharan or disrobing after she was lost in the dice game, by her husband, Yudhishtir. Many say that it was this that led to Kurukshetra, while some say, it was Draupadi’s laughter at Duryodhana at Indraprastha. Irrespective of it, the society blames Draupadi for the war. But going back the episode of the disrobing; an effort is made to disrobe Draupadi and her husband/s say nothing. They remain mute observers, as they were supposed to be following the dharma of a slave! Allowing ones wife to be stripped in public and not stand by her, could never be part of any dharma, was forgotten by none other than Dharma-raj himself.

One would think that such an experience would be enough to last a lifetime for a person like Yudhishtir, right? Wrong!

Let me relate another incident that happens after sometime and Yudhishtir behaves in the same way, as he did earlier and thus my concern – does society ever learn?

After the Pandavs lost everything in the dice game, in spite of Draupadi winning everything back with her arguments and invoking humanity, in the court of Hastinapur, the Pandavs are sent to exile for twelve years and an additional year incognito, i.e. in disguise. If they were found out in the thirteenth year, then they would have to go for another thirteen years in exile.

During the thirteenth year, the Pandavs and Draupadi decided to take refuge at the court of Virata, all in disguise. Yudhistir becomes the advisor to the King and Draupadi becomes one of maids of the Queen Sudeshna of Virata. However, Draupadi’s beauty attracts the evil gaze of the Queen’s bother Keechaka, who is also the powerful army chief. Draupadi tries to stall his advances, but is unable to do much when the Queen herself insists that she give in to her advances. Queen Sudeshna once forced Draupadi to take wine for Keechaka in his chambers. Once there, Keechaka tries to molest her and Draupadi to avoid his advances runs away from his chambers and lands up in the court seeking protection from the king and her husband, Yudhishtir, who was present in the court.

Keechaka follows her to the court, and seizing her by her hair throws her down on the earth, kicked her in the very presence of the King, and of course her husband Yudhishtir. Draupadi urges the King to intervene and save her from the mighty Keechaka who has been casting evil eye on her, a married woman, all this while hoping Yudhishtir would intervene. While the King didn’t know how to react, as Keechaka was his brother-in-law and a general, the courtiers applauded Draupadi’s stance of seeking justice in an open court against the wrong-doings of Keechaka, which were well known. To Draupadi’s horror, Yudhishtir speaks and scolds her for disturbing the proceedings of the court and bringing such complaints in front of everybody. He further tells her not to put up an act and go back to the inner chambers of the Queen and not come back with such lamentations to the court, especially when a dice game is on!

Draupadi in Virata's palace, by Raja Ravi Varma

While many say, that Yudhishtir said this as he did not want to risk being recognized in the crucial thirteenth year, the fact remains, that once again Draupadi was insulted and once again her husband did not come to her help. I repeat, does the society learn from its past mistakes? While Yudhishtir could have managed to save Draupadi with some of his advise and that too in a court which was averse to Keechaka, Yudhistir decided to reprimand Draupadi for ‘wasting the time of the court’.

Misplaced sense of duty or selfish agenda, or both?

On this Women’s day, I urge people to stand up for women, irrespective of one’s political and ideological affiliations. A woman’s dignity is of prime significance and no crime on her part can justify, lynching, molestation and public humiliation and in modern times, social media trolling. The society has no right to breach codes of morality both written and unwritten. This society has enough Keechaka’s and Sudeshna’s, but it is the responsibility of every citizen to stand by a woman, irrespective of her ‘crime’. It’s time to pull down curtains on the age-old lip-service that a woman is a mother and goddess and she needs to be worshipped. A woman doesn’t need to be worshipped; she needs to be respected for who she is – an individual. While today’s woman can take care of herself, if a man stands by her, it would only act as a fillip.

And finally, men, don’t be Yudhishtirs, be a Bhima. Just to conclude the story, Draupadi goes to Bhima and relates everything. Next night Bhima kills Keechaka. Bhima stands by his wife.

If a woman is safe, everyday will be a woman’s day; if she is not, what's the big deal in celebrating it even for one day?

Valentine Day Love Story

On this day of love, my quest to understand this emotion only gets stronger (the assumption being, I haven’t quite understood it completely!). Just what is this love that makes mountains move? Well, if this seems a trifle clichéd and juvenile (isn’t the god of love a child?), then so be it; let me indulge in

some juvenile romantic quest, if I may!

It is said, that what is in the epic Mahabharata, is everywhere and what isn’t in it, just doesn’t exist. If that be so, my quest to understand love ought to take me just there, where both love and hatred were of epic proportions. But today is a day of love, so we won’t refer to hatred. Let love paint it all in red (literally as we shall soon see)!

While love is capable of many things, I am quite impressed by its ability to transform as well as avenge. 

Let me give you a beautiful example of love transforming from the epic Mahabharata. According to this, the King of Mandukya’s daughter, Sushobhana, was not willing to get married, as she felt that marriage was like putting a free bird in a cage. She wanted to be free and spend her life philandering away to glory. Sushobhana would mask her identity, and get close to the man of her choice and live with him till she got tired of him, and left under some pretext, which she would have worked to her advantage before getting into the relationship. The men would be under a vow never to speak about it and thus the matter was never known to anybody, except her maid, Subinita and the King himself. Subinita on her part had tried her best to stop the princess from such philandering, but Sushobhana never yielded to her requests and used her beauty and charm as a means to live a life of her choice. 

Once, Sushobhana met the handsome King Parikshit of the Ikshvaku dynasty. Sushobhana was impressed by his looks and lured him into a relationship. Soon Parikshit took the unknown lady to his palace and the two enjoyed themselves. A time came when Parikshit wanted to marry her, but Sushobhana true to her nature saw that as an entrapment. At the beginning of the relationship, she had made Parikshit take a vow that he would never take her near a water-body. Over a period of time, Parikshit had forgotten about it. When Sushobhana came to know about the wedding, in a moment of Parikshit’s weakness, made him take her close to a lake and on reaching the lake, she reminded him of his vow and her imminent departure.

When a shocked Parikshit wanted to know about the cause of the departure, she feigned a curse. At that moment Parikshit decided to hold her in a tight embrace, daring the curse to take effect. It was at that moment, that Sushobhana felt that this man was different, and something inside her changed, but she could not accept that this was love. She managed to escape from there. While she was leaving, Parikshit noticed a spy and from his dressing, realised that he was from the Mandukya kingdom. He took his army to the doors of Mandukya and asked them to hand over Sushobhana who according to him had been ‘kidnapped’ by them. The King met Parikshit and told him the whole story of his wayward daughter.

When Sushobhana came to know about it, she was depressed that her truth was out in the open and the shame would be too much for her or her father. At that moment she decided to commit suicide. Just when she was about to gulp down the cup of poison, her maid Subinita comes to her to inform her that Parikshit was waiting for her in his tent. Sushobhana was surprised to know that the prince wanted to accept him even after he knew everything? Why would any man want a woman whose ways were wanton and who wilfully led a life of the unspeakable? Subinita replied “For love”.

It was for the first time, Sushobhana realised the power of love and inside her grew the desire to belong. For the first time she wanted to fly and be caged in the arms of Parikshit. To the joy of everybody, love had transformed a wayward philandering woman.

The same epic also tells us about how love makes one avenge for the love of one’s life. The Mahabharata has always referred to the love of Draupadi for Arjun. What has been overlooked is the love of Bhima for Draupadi. Though Bhima was married to Hidimba, the demoness before Draupadi, it was Draupadi that he deeply loved and never missed an opportunity to express the same. An obvious example of it is his fetching of the Saugandhika flower after a great fight with a demon. However, a more pertinent example of coming to her aid was that of saving her from Keechak during the year of exile.

The thirteenth year of exile was in a disguise and the Pandavs were at the court of Virata. When Keechak, the brother of the Queen of Virata tried to molest Draupadi who was serving the queen at that moment, Draupadi turned only to Bhima to save him. At the risk of their disguise being recognised, Bhima killed Keechak as he could never bear to see anybody insult her, even though Yudhishtir kept quiet as the Kings assistant. 

Another example was during the disrobing of Draupadi in the court of Dhritarashtra. It was only Bhima who reacted while the others simply expressed their inability to do anything. It was Bhima who had vowed that he would break the thigh of Duryodhan for asking Draupadi to sit on his lap and would drink the blood of Dushashan for touching Draupadi. True to his words, he killed Duryadhan by fatally striking him on his thigh. Prior to that he ripped open the bowels of Dushashan and with the blood he washed Draupadi’s hair before binding it which was left loose since the day of the disrobing.

 

A scene depicting the above at Hampi

While this might seem gory, nonetheless it is an expression of Bhima’s love and affection for Draupadi, who too knew that Bhima was the only one she could turn to in times of distress. Many would term this to be one sided love, but then who cares about sides, when love has been expressed to avenge the insult for the person one loves?

Many of my readers during the last few years had written to me as how why was it that I always wrote Greek Love stories on Valentine’s Day (http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2012/02/valentine-day-love-story.html

http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.in/2013/02/valentine-day-love-story.html ). Well I had no reason for that, but to break away from tradition, I have written about love stories from India. Hope you like them and use love for all the good things it brings in our life.

Wish you a very happy day of Love!!

Pic Courtesy - Hampi picture is courtesy Hampi.in

Draupadi and Polyandry

Yesterday we read about the cause of Draupadi’s marriage to the Pandavs. The main cause of it seemed to be a casual remark by Kunti. Let us understand this in slight detail.
 

Pandavas with Draupadi Deogarh, Dasavatar temple

After Arjun won Draupadi in the swayamvar, the Pandavs returned to their hut with Draupadi (the Pandavs and Kunti were in disguise and hiding after the Lakshagraha episode). When they arrived, Kunti was doing something and had her back towards them. On arriving one of them is supposed to have said, “Look mother what we have got” (which should have been, ‘who’ and not ‘what’, but let’s overlook this rather convenient slip-of-tongue). Without turning, Kunti is supposed to have said, “Please share it amongst the five of you” and the rest is history, of epic proportions! 

Was this such an innocent statement made by Kunti? Didn’t she not know that the Pandavs had gone to Panchal to attend the swayamvar of the princess of Panchal, Draupadi? Panchal and Drupad were known to the Pandavs very well from the past events, so statement “Look….” couldn’t have been a shareable object. Also the Pandavs were not children that everything needed to be shared! So was this a deliberate act?

Draupadi was born out of the flames of a yagna, and thus also called ‘Yagnaseni’. She was dark (Krishnee) and beautiful. She was fiery and strong. Some versions say that the jealousy towards Arjun by the other brothers was visible to the mother and this could have been the only way to keep them bound. Kunti was the glue that bound the bothers, but she also knew that beyond a point (and age), she would be ineffective. Besides youth needed something else to bind!

On realizing what she had done, she could have undone the same, but by then Yudhishtir had announced that Kunti’s words were sacrosanct and all five of them would marry Draupadi! When Drupad and Dhrishtidyumna raised objections, Yudhishtir is supposed to have given some examples of polyandry in knowledge then.

Yudhishtir gives the examples of Jatila who was supposed to have married seven sages. Then the example of Marisha marrying the Prachetas was cited. Further, the marriage of the Maruts with Rodasi was cited. But these were all divine and not mortals, said Drupad. It was then that Sage Vyasya was brought in to ‘support’ Yudhishtir’s opinion.

Vyasa telling the the tale to Drupad

The idea of polyandry was pushed through even when it was not a norm and this we see later when Draupadi was referred to as a prostitute by many and in public. So was this decision of marrying Draupadi to the five brothers a ploy by Kunti to ensure that the five brothers remain together in times of trials? Was she aware of the weaknesses of her sons and how much they needed a feminine force to keep them united, the way she was doing till then? 

If the idea of polyandry was out of place, then why was it not objected to by Draupadi’s father and brother? Draupadi was born out of fire which was conducted to beget Drupad a son who could kill his enemy Dronacharya. Along with a son, Drupad got a daughter too, so she was a bonus. These were not natural born children, but children who were ‘created’ for a cause, modern day robots, if I may add! Drupad was more concerned about his son achieving his objective and possibly Draupadi getting married to the heirs of Hastinapur could just be an added advantage or immaterial. Who knows?

In short, except Draupadi, it was a win-win for all. Kunti was happy, the Pandavs were ecstatic and the father and brother couldn’t care much. And Draupadi? Well she was born out of fire and lived a life of hell! She had five husbands but none were hers. All husbands had exclusive wives separately, but she didn’t have a single husband of her own. As Saonli Mitra, the eminent Bengali theater actress calls Draupadi in one of her plays – nathboti anathbot – the one with husbands, but yet unprotected. 

Polyandry has been effectively used in this epic. Nalayani (Draupadi in her previous birth) learns about Shiva granting her a boon of five husbands in her next life, wonders if she would not be seen as a fallen woman. An elaborate conversation takes place where Nalayani explains that as per the norms a man can have many wives, but a woman only one. She can take another husband to beget children after her first husband has consented to it (niyoga). If she takes a third husband, then she has to atone for the same as per the societal norms. A fourth husband would imply that she is a fallen woman and a fifth meant she was a prostitute. Shiva is supposed to have said, that in the days of yore, this was not unheard of and that it was boon from him, and so no sin would be levied on her. Satisfied, Nalayani goes her way to her next birth and endures her status of being nathboti anathbot.  

Polyandry was not in vogue during the times of Mahabharata and thus some sharp reactions from many of the characters of the epic itself. However, it is said that this was a practice in some tribal areas of the Himalayan range, which too had given up the practice around the same time. Yudhishtir is supposed to have referred to the clan of Northern-Kurus who followed the practice of polyandry, where they had grown up as children before they came to Hastinapur.

Well for good or for bad, for right or for wrong, for duty to ones mother or for giving vent to ones lust – call it what you will, polyandry was not widely accepted, and only Draupadi paid a price for it, none else did and the question remains – Just why did Draupadi have to suffer polyandry?

Why did Draupadi have to ‘suffer’ Polyandry?

A common answer to this is – well she asked for it!

Maharani Draupadi - Raja Ravi Varma

A typical response to a complicated question, which was the need of the hour (read ‘plot’ of the epic) as seen by author. But there is an elaborate myth behind it, which by itself, is the cause of Draupadi giving in to five husbands, but has deeper meaning.

But first the myth.

Once upon a time, there lived a sage Maudgalya, who was married to Nalayani. For some strange and unexplained reason, the sage decided to test his wife. He developed a debilitating disease (supposedly leprosy) due to which he remained diseased and unable to do anything and would get angry for no reason. In all this, Nalayani took great care of her husband and would bear all his tantrums. Nalayani would always eat after the sage had partaken his food from the same plate and the leftovers left by him. Once when the sage was having his food, one of his fingers fell in the food. True to her habit, she took the finger out of the food and ate the food as if nothing had happened. The sage was impressed but was still not done.

One day, he expressed his desire to have sex with another woman, who sold sex for gold. Nalayani sold her gold chain and bundled him in a basket and carried him on her head through the market place, much to the amusement and taunts of the onlookers. After, he was done, to avoid the comments which might be hurting her husband, she was hurrying back home. In the hurry, she did not notice a learned sage hanging from the tree for some crime and brushed her husband against him. In anger, the sage cursed her that by dawn next day, she would lose her husband and become a widow.

When Nalayani reached home, she was angry. She let her husband to rest for the night and cried out loud for the gods to hear that if she had been chaste and if she had never failed in her duties towards her husband, and if the sages curse be true, that she would lose her husband at dawn, then let the power of her chastity not let the sun to rise. Then she went about with her work.

The next day at dawn Lord Indra noticed that the Sun was not at the horizon. He went out in search to find the Sun hiding behind a mountain, trying to curtail his rays from spreading. On being asked, the Sun said that he did not have the power to go against the chastity of a woman, and he was restricted by the words of Nalayani. To cut short the story, the gods approached the sage who was hanging and got him to withdraw his curse and thus Nalayani’s husband was saved from death. 

Nalayani’s husband, sage Maudgalya was also impressed and came back to his young self and asked his wife Nalayani to ask for any boon she desired. Nalayani then asked that the sage take five different forms and enjoy her. For many years the two enjoyed sexual pleasures, but Nalayani could just not have enough. A time came when the sage had had enough and decided to go to the forest. But Nalayani was not agreeable to the idea of a life without sex and wanted to know, how she could live without him (or sex). Sage Maudgalya was angry at this insatiable lust and cursed her, that since she has not had enough, in her next life she can continue the same with five husbands. 

Saying so, Maudgalya retired to the forest and Nalayani too went to the forest and did penance to appease Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva appeared to her and asked her to seek a boon. Nalayani asked for a husband, but in her anxiety, she asked for the same boon five times and Shiva accepted it every time she said so. Later when Nalayani realised it, she was worried, that wouldn’t the world see this as odd, since she had never heard about a woman having more than one husband and that too all together? Lord Shiva assured her that it is not unheard of, and anyways, it’s a boon from him so the world would not see this as odd. Later, Nalayani was born to Drupad and as we all know, Draupadi was married to the five brothers, the Pandavs.

While the subject of polyandry is a matter we will delve in, next time, the myth of Nalayani and Maudgalya seem to have a larger relevance. Besides the fact that it goes on to become the ‘cause’ of Draupadi’s marriage to the Pandavs in the form of a justification, it probably also had another larger objective. The uncomplaining and the dutiful service rendered by a wife to her husband, no matter how he was and what his demands be, is the case in point here. Such stories were used to reinforce the sense of service a society expected from a wife. Her ordeals were eulogized as something that elevated her to a status, where she could stop the order of nature. Her chastity could stop the Sun from rising and have gods intervene if need be. If that by itself was not good enough, then she could end up with a life of abundant sex! The former was the said advantage and the latter was the unsaid advantage of remaining true to ones husband and a life of servitude towards him, no matter how he was. 

I guess the patriarchy of its times, had its own ways of controlling their women, this being one of them – what say you?

The above myth is told by Sage Vyasya to Drupad and his son Drishtidyumna when they wanted to know as to why Draupadi had to marry five brothers. This is the background that is used to justify, an otherwise ‘innocent’ remark by Kunti that the brothers should share what they got. 

More about this next time. Keep reading....

Nala Damayanti – Concluding Part

In the previous part we read about the love story of Nala Damayanti, how they met, married and separated and met again to live happily ever after. 

Let us look at the significance of this tale and its placement from a narrative perspective.

When Yudhishtir had lost his kingdom and he was sent to exile for thirteen years along with his four brothers and Draupadi, he was suffering from extreme self-pity. He could not reconcile with what he had done and how his actions had led to the pitiable state of his brothers and wife. It was important to bring him out of the self-pity mode and have him overcome this grief, which was being made evident in his brother’s eyes and Draupadi’s untied hair.

While in exile Sage Bhardwaj comes to meet the Pandavs and in his moment of self-pity, Yudhishtir asks the sage, if there was any king before him, who was as unfortunate like him, who had lost his kingdom and everything and was driven out to exile. He felt that there was none as unfortunate as him and though he followed the path of Dharma, he was in such a sorry state. It is at this stage that the sage tells him this story and makes him realize that he was still better off, as he had his brothers and his wife with him, while Nala was all alone.

The similarities between Nala and Yudhishtir were quite striking. Both had beautiful wives, both had a weakness for the dice and both were not very good at it and both lost their kingdoms in the game of dice. In the case of Yudhishtir, the dice were doctored by Shakuni and in the case of Nala, Kali had played foul. At the end of the game, both are driven to exile, while Nala spent twelve years in exile, Yudhishtir had an additional year.

Nala became the charioteer of the King of Ayodhya and Yudhishtir became the personal assistant of King Virata. What is equally significant is that during exile both Nala and Yudhishtir master the skill of playing dice with the respective kings that they were serving. Nala’s disfigurement could be seen as similar to the last year of disguise that Yudhishtir had to undertake while serving King Virat, just as Draupadi was serving the Queen in disguise similar to Damayanti serving the Queen without their knowledge of who the two ladies were.

It is said that when Nala lost everything at the game of dice, his brother had suggested that he stake Damayanti, but Nala declined. While here Nala differs from Yudhishtir, Nala still does stake Damayanti later. Both do stake their wives, one out of sheer desperation, while the other out of confidence; one when his was weak while the other when he was strong in the game.

According to Dr. Pradip Bhattacharya, a prolific writer on Mahabharata, the tales have an important difference. The tale of Nala Damayanti is a pure romance with all the romantic trappings. It stands out to be a stark difference from the original flow of the epic, especially in the treatment of Damayanti and Draupadi. While Draupadi’s character is strong and determined, Damayanti comes out as a soft and a quiet woman, thought she occasionally does display the typical traits of a ‘Vyasan’ woman, like when she refuses the gods to marry Nala. This could be a case of the story being told by a young Vyasa! The initial wooing through a swan, the magical powers of Nala the pining of Damayanti, are all a case of a classic romantic tale and that sure does make a significant diversion from an otherwise mature tale of the Pandav’s in the epic.

The tale of Nala Damayanti has been rewritten in many forms as standalone romance and I too came across the tale as a romantic story that warmed the cockles of my (then young) heart!!

But as I mentioned at the beginning of the article, one shouldn’t miss the significance and the positioning of the story in the epic, which had its own rationale in the narrative.