Originally posted by smrth
Originally posted by ashwi_d
And the ill omens started after the shunning miracle. Dhrutrashtra mentions Draupadi's insult...
If someone does not word something so disturbing as public disrobing out of sheer disgust and shame, it may not be concluded nonexistent. But there is another marker. Bhim's terrible oaths re
Dusasan and Draupadi's swear. The ferocity therein echoes heinous crime.
And Ashwi_d, I don't discount 'menstruating woman's' enforced appearance as 'no insult'. It certainly is. Only this, the cruelty mentioned and responded in that ferocious oath, pars rapacious incidence. Please take the import.
As for linking Karna's mention (followed by her grief on cruelty meted out) to other insults produced from the same text, why could it not be linked to the incident involved?
As for the thanks, "if God chose to remain invisible, Bhakta may not be supposed to flaunt the 'favour' in public perhaps." Again for the 'thanks', she seems to be thanking Him in last line without mentioning. Moreover at this point, her aim was to keep the fire smouldered- complying the purpose of her Lord's Avtar.
Yes, I did understand your point actually. You were stating the relative severity of both insults, and taking into account the repercussions that Draupadi's insult had later in the text to conclude that it must have been considered as a transgression of the highest order. And you are right, it is hard to understand all the hullabaloo surrounding the incident if there was no attempt to disrobe Draupadi. But if you consider those times, you get the impression that no other man other than the husband was allowed to touch a married woman. So in this case, not only is she dragged by the hair (which is why Draupadi takes the oath of never tying her hair, and washing it in Dusshasan's blood), she is also urged by Karna to leave the Pandavas and take another man for her husband after which Duryodhan attempts to lewdly entice her by showing her his left thigh (which was meant for the wife). So taking the morals of that period into consideration I'm sure the above insults (ant that too hurled at a royal, the queen of Indraprastha, the daughter in law of the Kurus) were viewed to be as grave as an attempted disrobing would be viewed today. So the point I'm trying to make is, import of disrobing as a crime today can be = import of the above mentioned insults in that era.
Assuming that the disrobing never took place, Draupadi referring to Karna as having played a role in her insult is still not fallacious. As in if one were to rule out Karna instigating the disrobing, her argument about Karna insulting her still stands as Karna humiliated her in other ways too.
So if we take the vastraharan out of the picture, the entire dice game incident still makes sense. (Ideally ruling out such a crucial incident would have given rise to inconsistencies within the text later). But to the contrary it makes more sense, because if you go through the text you'll notice that immediately after Draupadi is disrobed, there are just one or two lines about the court being stunned at the miracle. But immediately afterwards Vidura launches into his speech of how important it is to answer the question that Draupadi has raised, something which she does before the attempted stripping. Vidur speaks as if nothing has happened between Draupadi raising her question of whether she was a slave and the moment he begins his speech. Even later everybody just goes on debating whether Draupadi is a slave or not rather than express some shock at the stripping and astonishment at the miracle, which does appear a bit odd. It's as if the entire incident was added later. And I don't see why anybody would not mention the disrobing out of sheer disgust later when they do mention the fact that she was menstruating and in a single cloth without any compunctions.
Thanks for raising your points though.
Edited by ashwi_d - 20 March 2014 at 11:35pm