The romanticization of abduction.
I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.
Take these examples from the Mahabharata:
- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.
- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.
It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣
In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.
The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).
In the examples mentioned:
Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.
Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.
And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.
But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:
"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."
This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.
In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.
Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.
The epics are products of their time—full of contradictions, where women's roles serve lineage, alliances, and male honor. But cherry-picking them for romance while ignoring the text's own words on Draupadi's happiness just highlights how much patriarchal (and now media-driven) lenses still shape these stories. The double standard is real, and it's frustratingly persistent. 😂
O Partha! She is my sister and from the same womb as Sarana.
If your mind is set on her, I can speak to my father myself.”
KRISHNA clearly said that he will speak to his father about it ,if balram has the power to decide the groom of subhadrra then why would krishna talk about his father's permission? And even if balram is a bad brother (hypothetically because you guys are hell bent on making him one saying he'd force his beloved sister subhadra to marry Duryodhana)who forces subhadrra to marry duryodhana you think their father vasudev would be normal and do nothing about it ? So what kind of father and brother are vasudev and balram ? That they would not respect subhadrra choice to marry her own choosen groom?
Blocking people after posting Wattpad delulu stories of subhadra taking reins of the horse 🐎 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 so funny you damn know that whatever shit you wrote is fictional and from star plus mahabharat and Wattpad that is the reason you blocked me lol you know I was going to paste entire chapter of Subhadrra harana parva (damn even heading literally says kidnapping chapter 🤣🤣🤣) Having worshipped Raivata, king of the mountains, and obtained the
blessings of the gods and all the brahmanas, Subhadra circumambulated the
mountain and set out for Dvaraka. Kunti’s son rushed at her and forced her
onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet-smiling one, that tiger among men set
out for his own city on his chariot, as if on air. On seeing Subhadra thus
carried away, all the armed soldiers who were with her raised an alarm and
dashed towards the city of Dvaraka. They arrived at the assembly hall
named Sudharma and recounted the story of Partha’s valour to the presiding
13 On hearing this, the presiding officer sounded his war drum, one
that was ornamented with gold and had a terrible roar. On hearing that
sound, the Bhojas, Vrishnis and Andhakas then gave up their food and drink
and came to the assembly hall.
‘Those tigers among men, the Vrishni and Andhaka maharathas
ascended their thrones, decorated with gold, covered with excellent
cushions and adorned with gems and corals, with the radiance of blazing
fires, like a hundred fires on their sacrificial altars. When they were seated
like an assembly of gods, the presiding officer and his companions told
15 conduct. On hearing this, the warriors among the
Vrishnis, their eyes red with drinking, were intolerant of Partha and
arrogantly stood up. “Quickly yoke the chariots, bring our lances, fetch the
best bows and large armour.”
Where in the entire incident subhadra took reins of the chariot like you commented? calling me brainless when you literally invent your own delulu love story to white wash the kidnapping of a woman is low like really low ewwww.
@hamaarmaati you coward who spews fictional shit in comments to sound intellectual without any proofs from authentic mahabharat texts or logic. So shameful of you to defend the kidnapping of a woman
