#draupadi

[kikarou]

A very rough draw of Draupadi

She was The DIVA okay💅💕

[jonofthepies]

Random doodle of Draupadi x any pandava brother (up to interpretation bcs I was only focusing on draupadi LOL)

[thedesirenaissance]

My God

My god makes mistakes. My god gives the right blessings to the wrong people. My god sometimes keeps quiet when he sees injustice. My god pretends not to listen to my pleas. My god refuses to let anyone see him. My god is not always right. My god does not makes the right choices. My god sometimes lets bad people roam the earth free. My god lets the good people suffer. Why?

Maybe because, my god is not an all-powerful, all-knowing being. Maybe he is human, just like me and next person. My god makes mistakes, and then he gives himself a chance to correct them, asks for help to correct them. Be it Shiv asking Vishnu to preserve the universe, because he gave the wrong asur a boon. Be it the gods asking Parvati to help defeat Mahisasur, because they gave him a boon. Maybe, this is what makes my god so godly. He asks for help, something we can't do. He accepts his mistakes, something we can't do. He forgives, something we can't do. He speaks up when he must, something we can't. He defends, protects when he must, something we can't do.

I believe in God. Because, my god is the one who broke his promise to help five brothers win a war for righteousness, my god is the one who kept his promise and saved a woman's honour in front a court full of men, when her husbands failed to protect her honour. My god is the one who gave a person a hundred chances to correct himself, but sheathed his head the moment he made the same mistake one-hundred-and-one-nth time. And, my god is the same one who took a form only to feel a mother's undying love. My god is the same one who refused heaven without his wife. My god is the same one who cried rivers helplessly when his wife was abducted. My god is the same one who selflessly adhered to his father's orders and left for exile. My god is the same one who became deaf to his mother's weeps and left his throne. My god is the same one who walked down the path of Shabri's hut, ate her half-eaten fruits, with delight. My god is the same one who gave his friend who fed him rice with devotion, his whole palace. My god is kind.

My god doesn't promise me a stormless sea, he promises me an unsinkable ship. He doesn't answer my prayers right away, but he also doesn't punish me for my sins right away. He gives the bad people a chance, but he also tests the good and pious ones. That is why I believe in my god. My god doesn't promise me eternal happiness, he promises me unshakable will. My god doesn't vanquish all that is bad and evil, instead he preserves the good, because he knows, utopia is a myth. My god does not promise me heaven if I live right, nor does he banishes me to hell when I sin. Instead, he gives me a chance to correct my wrongs over millions of births, and finally gives me a place at his abode when he deems me worthy.

Maybe this is why, I love my God, I do not fear him. I do not fear what will happen to me if I sin, because I know, he will give me a chance to correct me. But, I also know that he won't keep quiet if he sees me repeatedly do wrong. My god doesn't ask me to worship him all day, my god asks me to do what I must, and remember him while doing so. My god doesn't ask me to give all that I own to him, he only asks for my ultimate devotion. And that is why, he is my god, my anchor, the one who fights battles for me I don't even know about, the one who helps to fight my sorrows, the one who only asks me to do what i must, and leave the rest to him, the one who carries my world on his shoulder.

And as the story goes, he will come when he must. He will show himself to me when he must. He will give me what I want when he must, he will punish me when he must. But, I know, he will always love me, he will always comfort me, he will always anchor me when all goes wrong. He will always look after me when no one else can. He will always fight with the world for me. He will always forgive me, when the world even refuses to look at me. And that is exactly why, he is my god, my savior, my friend, not someone I fear, but someone I love.

[enigma-the-mysterious]

Truly, romance in the Mahabharat peaked here. Get you a man who will wash your hair with the blood of your molester. Every other couple can go home, Bheem and Draupadi win here

[roastem]

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. 😂

[yoursdrs]

MISOGYNY IN MAHABHARAT

I've been an ardent fan of Mahabharata, but now that I think about it, except for Draupadi, Amba etc. getting their rightful revenge, it actually normalises rape and materialising women during several instances... Here are a few I remember:

Sage Parashara sleeps with Satyavati, in spite of her unwillingness, his only assurance to her that she will go back to being a virgin after giving birth to his child and she gets a “divine fragrance” (because apparently trauma is fine if you get perfume out of it; wth?)

Bheeshma "ACQUIRING" Ambika and Ambalika from their swayamvar for Vichitravirya....

Salva refusing to marry Amba, because he got defeated by Bheeshma.

Satyavati later calls on Vyasa to impregnate her daughters-in-law (who are clearly repulsed by him) by something called "niyoga", which does not make the term rape better in any way. And mind you, they were not even asked for consent. It is nauseating to think that Satyavati, herself, who went through something similar, did this. Oh, also after, Ambika, one of the victims, sends her maid to Vyasa, when he comes to impregnate her again... Ik it was a desperate move, Ambika, but way to go👏

Kunti accidentally calls upon Surya to test her powers, when she's still a child, and poor Lord Surya, bound by his duty, rapes her and leaves her to have his kid.

Pandu having no issue with the fact that multiple gods are sleeping with his wives, just so that he can have a son, which is obv not his.

Dhritarashtra impregnating Sugadha, Gandhari's maid, because Gandhari did not deliver her child past usual due... Apparently, being desperate for a child (i mean, a SON), is a valid reason to rape a maid

And yes, Draupadi is powerful. She questions the court. She refuses silence. But she and Bhanumati are both gambled away like property before anyone suddenly remembers morality exists.

Basically, Lineage > women. Sons > consent. Dynasty > dignity.

Both the epics show constant sexualisation of women and submissiveness.... Although they give valuable lessons and ALSO PROMOTE FEMALE EMPOWERMENT, you cannot ignore the crude misogyny baked into it.

[theramblergal]

Is anyone else kind of obsessed with the Arjuna-Draupadi track from Star Plus?

First off, it's so ethereal. It gives me these feelings: "where are you, I am looking for you; I am here and we have known each other before; we are together now".

The woman's voice sings wordlessly first, then you have the man join in, and they're together. You have both of them singing together, and there's a constant flute theme, which is so obviously Krishna's. He brought them together, and binds them together.

Perhaps it should be the theme of the three Krishnas.

[sambhavami]

Drupada and Draupadi - Procreate

Reference: