sign in sign up
<<
Home , Amba (Mahabharata), Ambika (Mahabharata), Hidimba, Kunti, Madri, Nahusha

CHAPTER 5

INDIVIDUAL WOMEN CHARACTERS

IN THE 152

The Mahabharata is eight times larger than the Greek epics put

together. Also the number of characters In it is so large that it is

impossible to take into account all the women in the Mahabharata in

one thesis. The prominent women who are related to the main thread

of the story are considered here. Naturally the first woman has to be

Draupadi.

A) —A Flame of :

Draupadi is a heroine with very few parallels in world literature.

She has a universal appeal because of beauty, dignity, forbearance and intelligence. Her character has been a challenge for aspiring writers of all times including today. She appeals to the modern woman as a woman who demanded justice and not mercy in the court of the

Kauravas. She could argue with her learned husband, .

She looked after all the household affairs ably and succeeded in managing her extraordinary marriage. She has been portrayed and interpreted variously in novels, poems and plays in many Indian languages and has also occupied like Seeta much of the folk literature.

Her birth from a yajna suggests her divine origin and her attributes

resemble a flame of a yajna. But even if the supernatural aura

surrounding her character is stripped, she has an appeal as an earthly

and independent woman. Bhagavat calls her Kamini{a woman

with ample desire) in her Vvasa Parva. describes her beauty as

follows- 153

(She was born from the altar of a yajna. Her eyes were like lotus petals and her body was comely, flawless and delicate. She was high-minded and proud manasvini and a fragrance, like that of a blue lotus, was wafting gently around her.)

Her complexion has been described as a fleeting shade of blue and black. Her hair is long and wavy. In the Parvan her voice is described to be musical like that of a veena. This ravishing beauty

must have been the main reason why shrewdly made her the wife of all her five sons. Three explanations of her polyandrous

marriage have been offered. 1) Lord blessed her with five

husbands because she had repeated her request for a husband five

times. 2) She was and the five were only five parts of

incarnation of . 3) Kunti ordered the Pandavas to divide the alms

among themselves when she had not seen that they had brought

Draupadi. So they had to marry her in order to obey their mother. All

these explanations are unconvincing and seem to have been provided

for justifying the extraordinary marriage. In fact Kunti's decision was

sagacious because the desire to possess her beauty alone could have

become a cause of strife among the Pandavas. She bound the five

together through Draupadi and created a unity and solidarity

among them. rightly pointed out to — 154

(It is impossible to create discord among the Pandavas.)

Drona had insulted and Drupada wanted to take revenge upon him. He performed a yajna to create a son who could take revenge. Gods were pleased by the yaJna and blessed him. So

Dhrushtadyumna was created out of the yajna for revenge and

Draupadi also emerged out of it. Perhaps that is why she is very keen about revenge. She cannot be at peace until the Pandavas take revenge upon the for her humiliation in the court. The terms and conditions of anudyuta, the game of dice, were very strange. When

Shakuni defeated Yudhishthira in it, according to the conditions, all the

Pandavas and Draupadi had to go for vanavasa, to stay away from the

kingdom in the forest for twelve years. After that, they had to stay in

ajnatavasa, incognito for one year. Had they been recognized by

anyone within this year, they would have had to join a forest again for

twelve years. After staying in wilderness for twelve years, they stayed

in Matsyadesha of Virata for one year. Draupadi kept burning the flame

of revenge and aspiration among the Pandavas when they were living

in the forest or serving the royal family of Virata incognito in

Matsyadesha. She could not remain patient and forgiving like

Yudhishthira. Maeve Hughes comments in her essay "Epic Women",

"The traditionally purifying spiritual effect of the forest

experience is missing in her case. On the contrary, it seems to have

fed the flames of her hatred, to have confirmed her in her determination

to have vengeance at any cost." 155

Maeve Hughes has not considered here that the vanavasa of the Pandavas was not for penance which would cause 'purifying spiritual effect'. It was natural that the insults by in the vanavasa and by Keechaka in ajnatavasa fed her desire of vengeance.

Yet she did not want to violate . She was aware of and wanted to follow her duties like Seeta but she was also aware of her rights, so she strove for justice, even if at the cost of war, and could not be content with five villages sought from Duryodhana by way of conciliation. Draupadi's happiness was always short-lived. She accepted in but then she had to marry all the five

Pandavas. There is no trace in the poem of her reaction at that time although it is true that there neither is a trace of her complaining. The glorious life in came to an end before long on account of

Yudhishthira's addiction to gambling. The shameful humiliation in the court of the Kauravas was followed by a twelve-year stay in the forest.

This Queen had to become a maid attending Virata's Queen,

Sudeshna. Even in this period she had to fend off lascivious advances from Jayadratha and Keechaka. At the glorious moment of the victory of the Pandavas, she had to suffer the cruellest blow of her life: all her sons were killed in sleep by Ashvatthama and she stood at the end, as

unfortunate and stricken as .

Draupadi remained dignified throughout these vicissitudes of

life. Though a princess, she slept at the feet of the Pandavas in their

hut after marriage. She argued with Yudhishthira against his undue

forgiveness, but she never disobeyed him. Kunti told her after the 156 marriage about every 's nature, asked her to look after them, each according to his needs. Draupadi fulfilled Kunti's expectations.

She looked after every one of them in a different role--a questioning pupil to Yudhishthira, a devoted beloved to Arjuna, a dominant friend to

Bheema and a motherly wife to Nakuia and . Kunti says in praise of her dear daughter-in-law,

TF^ ^^ '^^ ^a^N-cclHclfcfSTT: | "

(You have behaved with all my sons as was most proper,

according to the need of everyone of them.)

She bore the trials and humiliations in Virata's palace with great energy and strength as in the forest in the Vana Parvan. The other wives of the Pandavas like went to their fathers' places

during this time of trial but Draupadi did not think of it. She remained a

faithful companion to them and the description of an ideal wife, penned

later by Kalidasa, applies to her perfectly.

(She takes good care of the house, works like a secretary, is a beloved mate when in privacy, and a dear disciple of the husband in learning various fine arts.)

Her jealousy after Arjuna's marriage to Subhadra is only

momentary and she treats her co-wife lovingly ever after. She mentions

Abhimanyu most affectionately and expresses pride at his valour. Kunti

understands and appreciates the great qualities of Draupadi and also 157 trusts that she can even guide them. That is why she sends the following message to Arjuna.

(O valiant , Arjuna is the greatest among armed warriors and is brave like a tiger. Tell him that he should follow Draupadi's footsteps.)

She comes out in all her colours in the court of the Kauravas when she is at the nadir of misfortune. Even if she had laughed at

Duryodhana's embarrassment in the Sabha of the Pandavas. this was too much of tribulation and suffering as punishment for her. In

the Sabha Parvan Adhyaya 42 in verses 6,7,and 9 the names of those

who laughed at Duryodhana are given. They are kinkarah (servants),

Bheemasena, Arjuna and the twin brothers. In verse 13, it is clearly

stated that Duryodhana's mind became sinful when he saw the glory of

the Pandavas. This jealousy and not the laughter of Draupadi is

mentioned as the cause of his evil schemes in this Sabha Parvan of

the Critical Edition. Misogyny has played a vicious part in the

interpretation of the Mahabharata by concocting legends like

Draupadi's laughter at Duryodhana or her love for Kama. One example

of such legends is Jataka 536. M. Winternitz has mentioned in his A

History of Indian Literature how this Jataka has concocted tales of

Draupadi's adultery.

She flares up in the court and questions the right of Yudhishthira

to put her at stake when he himself had become a slave. Her argument 158 was clear and her question baffled all the old and learned courtiers like

Bhishma. Duryodhana demanded an answer to her question from

Yudhishthira and was ready to act according to the answer. Not

Yudhishthira but Arjuna gave the answer and affirmed that Draupadi could not be dasi as Duryodhana thought. Duryodhana, true to his word, accepted the answer. When Duhshasana tried to pull her vasas or (upper garment) at the instigation of Kama, Krisna helped her out of the l.umiliation. Dhrutarashtra was impressed by her character and offered her three favours. Draupadi accepted only two boons for the release of the Pandavas from slavery and refused any

more favours. She expressed her faith that her husbands were capable of achieving the rest. This loyalty and faith are admirable. The self-

honour and self-respect of this epic heroine is difficult to match

anywhere in world literature. It reminds us of her birth-place, a yajna. It

is all the more remarkable when we consider that the Pandavas were

sitting as vanquished slaves in the court at that time and were

responsible for her humiliation. Even Kama, who had instigated

Duhshasana for he-" humiliation had to admit—

^ ^: ^ ^T5^"5 f^^ ^"^ 'm^-

(We have heard about beautiful women well known among people but we have never heard about anyone doing such a deed.)

He says that Draupadi was like a boat for the Pandavas to wade

through the ocean of humiliation. 159

There is a popular and long-standing misunderstanding and misinterpretation of this incident. M. A. Mehendale has categorically pointed out in his Pracheena that it was Draupadi vastrakarshana (trying . to pull the garments) and not vastraharanairemov'mg the garments). The word that is used everywhere is karshana (trying to pull). S. K. Pendse also asserts in his

Mahabharatatil Vvaktidarshan that Kama and the Kauravas were not so barbaric as to take away Draupadi's garments. Even Bhasa, a

Sanskrit dramatist of the fourth or the fifth century BC has used the word ambaravakarshana (trying to pull the uttariya) for this humiliation.

Mehendale has also rightly criticized the critics and readers for their negligence In ignoring Arjuna's reply to Draupadi's question.

Arjuna says,

f?Rrcr4 W^ M^IlP^dlrHI

(All the Kauravas should note that this great son of Kunti, Yudhishthira, was once our master but now he is defeated in the game of dice. So, whose master can he be now?)

It was this reply that silenced Duryodhana and warned

Dhrutarashtra about the injustice towards Draupadi. Many interpreters

have considered only those lines which say that Dhrutarashtra was

scared when he heard shrieks of a fox and a donkey and so he 160

Stopped Duhshasana and offered blessings to Draupadi. The shrieking of a fox and a donkey was not responsible for saving Draupadi and arousing Dhrutarashtra. Unfortunately Mehendale's explanation is still neglected and ignored in general in our society. Speakers on the

Mahabharata as well as preachers in the temples have been indulging in the baseless 'sensationalism' of the removal of Draupadi's garments by Duhshasana and then Dhrutarashtra's awakening to the misdeed by the omen of the shrieks of a donkey and a jackal. Such sensationalism makes the reader lose sight of the real beauty of the character.

Whatever happened was certainly shameful but even the Kauravas or

Duhshasana were not as barbaric and inhuman as to remove the garments of a daughter-in-law of the King, a princess and their cousin's wife. Maids did not wear uttariya (a kind of scarf or shawl to cover the

upper body) and Duhshasana tried to pull Draupadi's uttariya as the

Kauravas claimed that now she was a dasi. This explanation seems

plausible. The evasive behaviour of the elders like Bheeshma and

Drona in the court is a universal instance of the passivity of intellectuals

in all matters of so-called morality but in particular in the face of

helplessness of women. Only Arjuna, and , a younger

of Duryodhana protested. At another place, in Udyoga Parvan Vyasa

has narrated a similar incident. King wants Indra's wife,

Indrani, to marry him against her will when Indra is defeated and has

run away. Bruhaspati has given her shelter but when the gods and

sages see Nahusha's formidable power, they pray— 161

(0 brave Nahusha, you are the lord of heaven. We will bring Indrani to you as you wish. Please do not be angry. Be pleased with us.)

The behaviour of Bheeshma is condescending and only slightly

more elevated than that of the gods here. He was their grandfather, the eldest and the most respected man in the court. He could have strongly

condemned Duryodhana and Duhsasana and prevented them from their sinful behaviour. He said instead,

(I am certainly unable to answer this question.)

It is interesting to see how different critics look differently at the

same incident. Durga Bhagavat, in her Vvasa Parva admires

Draupadi's intelligence, courage and wisdom in asking the question in

the court. But Iravati Kan/e says in her Yuaanta.

"Draupadi's question was not only foolish, it was terrible—

quibbling about legal distinctions at that point was the height of

pretension—Nevertheless no one had liked her pretensions to wisdom

and Yudhishthira never forgot it for the rest of his life.—She had made

many mistakes in her life that were forgivable but by putting on airs in

front of the whole assembly, she had put Yudhishthira into a dilemma

and unwittingly insulted him. The fact that the insult was unintentional

did not make it forgivable. Though she was only a young bride of the

house she had spoken in the assembly of the men, something she 162 should have known she must not do. Beyond that, to pretend that she could understand questlohs that baffled her elders -that was inexcusable arrogance. These two things wounded Yudhishthira and did nothing to add to her good name—for a young bride to show off her intelligence in the presence of her elders was a grave mistake."^^

This criticism of Draupadi's conduct sounds both harsh and obscurantist. What she demanded was justice according to dharma. It was only natural to demand it because she was going to become dasi of the Kauravas as the Pandavas had become cfasas and as her sons

also would be. She was a Princess and a Queen and she had to ward off the bond of slavery by assertion of her status. It cannot be called

'arrogance and showing off Tier intelligence'. It was not 'pretensions to

wisdom' but real wisdom or whatever was imperative for her to do to

save herself and the family when her brave husbands had accepted

their fate as dasas and she had no one to support her. iravati Karve

has not given any evidence to prove that 'no one liked her pretensions

to wisdom' or 'these two things wounded Yudhishthira'. Yudhishthira

would have mentioned it in the Svargarohana Parvan as her mistake,

and reason for falling down. Nobody seems to have blamed her for her

'arrogance'. and Vikarna supported her and the elders like

Bheeshma were only evasive. Not only 'no one had liked her

pretensions' is incorrect, (it) 'did nothing to add to her good name' is

also wrong, because Dhrutarashtra, Vidura, Vikarna approved of her.

She had to resist, cry out, fight, do what she could when all, including

her warrior husbands, were watching the scene passively. 163

Draupadi played an important role in the Sabha. She proved an able wife who saved her husbands from being dasah, by using favours granted by Dhrutarashtra. She saved her sons from being dasah in future. Kama's behaviour and words in the court were some of the most malicious against the Pandavas and Draupadi. Yet he accepted her greatness.

(This Draupadi has proved to be a boat that takes the Pandaves to the shore for they had no support and were sinking shamefully and helplessly in deep waters.)

Draupadi is shown here not only as a devoted wife and mother but also as an intelligent, independent woman. The portrayal of

Draupadi throws light on the status of women in those times. In

Aranyaka Parvan, asks her how she could win all the

Pandavas' hearts, Draupadi narrates how she looks after the

economical and administrative affairs of the Pandavas. Sharad Patil

notes in his Das Slaver/ -

"Draupadi was the rashtri of the Pandavas' tribe."^^

He means to say that she had authority in the household

matters. So on the one hand Draupadi has great power and hold over

her husbands. At the same time the behaviour she advises

Satyabhama to follow is almost self-effacement. She advises her to

serve the husband very meekly. She says that she does only those 164 things that her husbands like. This attitude towards the status of woman is ambivalent. It can be comprehended only if we see that this was a period of great social ferment and transition.

A graceful and attractive part of Draupadi's character is her

relationship with Krishna. It is hard to find a parallel of this relationship

anywhere in epic literature. It is different from the relation of Krishna

and in the Bhaqavatg. Harivansha or many other poems,

because Radha is absolute devotion, Draupadi is intelligent and feels

more affection than religious devotion for Krishna. Radha cannot be

angry like Draupadi or claim attention or help from him.

While referring to her high status in the court of the Kauravas,

she mentions not only her husbands but also Krishna. She says,

(How could the wife of the Pandavas, sister of Parshata and intimate friend of Krishna be brought to the assembly of the kings?)

Draupadi says in Parvan,

(O Madhusudana, I have no husbands, no sons, no brothers or relatives, no father, nor 'you'.)

So Draupadi names the relationship with Krishna only as 'you'

(c4). This goes beyond any existing relationship. Krishna and Draupadi 165 are apparently often astonished at and value and admire each other's qualities. It can be called 'emotional intelligence' in today's language.

This relationship is a fascinating part of both the characters.

Like other epic heroines Draupadi too is blamed for causing a great war. As Iravati Karve has quoted from Jain and other

Draupadi, Seeta, Renuka are called /cr/Yya—bloodthirsty women.

Obviously this evinces the misogynic strain in post-epic Hindu and Jain culture. The Buddha Jataka 536 also shows this. Maeve Hughes compares Draupadi and Kriemhild of the Nibelunqenlied in her essay

"Epic Women" and says,

"Fathers, husbands, brothers, sons are massacred mercilessly to appease the anger, to satisfy the thirst for vengeance of Draupadi and Kriemhild." ^^

But it is not right to compare the vengeance of these two epic women. Kriemhild wants to take revenge for the murder of her husband

and kills the murderer. Her character has no depth of thoughtfulness.

Again, Draupadi's vengeance was not the sole cause of the war and

the massacre. Actually, thirst for land was the real cause of the

Mahabharata war. It is explained in detail in Chapter Four.

The character of Draupadi is utterly human in spite of her divine

birth. She possesses an earthiness of nature. The episode of the killing

of Keechaka shows it. Bheema killed Keechaka because he was

persecuting her. Draupadi was so happy about Keechaka's death that

she could not conceal her joy. She stood at the doorstep gleefully to 166 watch Keechaka's funeral. The followers of Keechaka saw her and wanted to punish her. Fortunately Bheema arrived in time and saved her from them as well. Iravati karve has rightly criticized this behaviour of Draupadi. The earthiness is seen in the intensity of her desire for

revenge. Even after witnessing the massacre of the war, the intensity is

not lessened. She wants to take revenge on Ashvatthama for killing her

sons. She asks Bheema to bring the jewel on Ashvatthama's head.

The loss of this jewel would cause perpetual hunger and thirst for him.

If we compare Draupadi, Helen and Penelope, the heroines of

the three epics, Draupadi surpasses the others and shines with a

heroic splendour. Charisma of heavenly beauty is their common point.

They are governed by passion and the range of their passions is wide.

Helen thinks of no loyalty in marriage as Draupadi and Penelope do.

Draupadi resists in the face of the calamities whereas Penelope and

especially Helen give in pathetically. Draupadi is more akin to the

heroines of the Attic tragedies than the women of Homeric epics. Even

though she beJongs to an ancient age and to a royal family, she has a

universal appeal, an appeal for men and women of all ages and all

classes, especially women.

B) Kunti :

Kunti's prayer in Shrimat Bhaaavata Mahapuranam to Krishna

is.

fcTq^: ^fpg ^: ^T*^^ 17 167

(Let there be difficulties for us for ever.)

But her supplication seems to have been granted by fate before she made it because her whole life is a tale of sorrow. Her father,

Shurasena gave her away in adoption to Kuntibhoja when she was a child. In adolescence she was assigned the duty of serving and his reward of a boon to her for this service proved a curse in disguise. He gave a , a spell to this virgin by which she gave birth to Kama, had to abandon him and this act tortured her conscience throughout her life. She fainted when she saw Kama in the arena as a disciple of Drona, along with the Kauravas and the Pandavas. Perhaps this was the result of her inward struggle trying to decide whether she should disclose his identity and claim him as her son or not. She had to come to terms with the fact that Kama was determined to destroy his own brothers. Her marital happiness was short-lived or almost non­ existent because was cursed to be impotent and was sickly.

After the death of Pandu and , she had to shoulder the responsibility of her own three sons and Madri's two sons in the face of the hostility of the Kauravas. They escaped various assassination plots by the Kauravas only through luck, help and wit. Vidura helped them to save their life when they were made to live in the house of laksha (a combustible material). They wandered incognito in disguise after that.

Kunti realized soon enough that they needed a powerful patron and steered them to find him in King Drupada when the Pandavas married his daughter Draupadi and carved out for themselves the kingdom of

Indraprastha. But her troubles were not over because soon 168

Yudhishthira lost it in a game of dice. They were forced to stay In the forest and she had to stay in Vidura's house, but the most poignant affliction was none among these. She bore all these agonies but she says-

, • _v __c^ /'^.« i'----*^ ^ x!|vr<4^x!U| ^:^ ^ TTTTM M^HiJ: | / :"^ --•-:• /-\

^ ^ fW^ ?^TF[T ^1^ ^?^ ^!^ I

(I am not very unhappy for the loss of the kingdom or the defeat in the game of dice. The exile of my sons also is not a great sorrow. The great lady, Draupadi was crying in the court [of the Kauravas] and she had to hear cruel > i words. This is the most terrible sorrow for me.)

These lines tell much about her capacity to relate to another woman's humiliation and sorrow, her capacity to rate her own

misfortune as nothing and her generosity of spirit. Her life was one long

sorrow : tragedy after terrible tragedy. She saw her grandsons

slaughtered in sleep by after the Pandavas won the war.

Ashvatthama had thrown brahmasra (a most lethal weapon in the form

of a spell) at the unborn child of . At that moment the Kuru

dynasty was about to be wiped out. Fortunately Krishna saved it by

saving that child of Uttara, Parikshita, who was the only heir of the

dynasty. Kunti could well have led a happy and peaceful life with her

victorious sons in the glorious palace after she had suffered so many

various agonies. The Pandavas were the most obedient sons and they

entreated her to stay with them but sne joined Dhrutarashtra and 169

Gandhari in the Vanaprastha in the forest. She surrendered to death In a forest-fire willingly and quietly along with them. So, most of her life is nothing but sorrow and affliction.

Kunti is never crushed under these afflictions but burns brightly like gold in fire. She ioes say—

^^TPTTf^eTFTt ^:^MHNKH)sf^ W\\^ \ ^^

(I am a house of various sorrows.)

(What is the fruit of my life?)

Yet she inspires her sons not to be complacent but fight for their

kingdom. The Kunti in the Mahabharata never prays for perpetual

afflictions like the Kunti in the Bhagavatam. Here she asserts—

(O sons, I have enjoyed my husband's kingship amply, offered charity on a grand scale and drunk to my satisfaction.)

So she tells her sons that she inspired them to fight not for her

happiness 'Mi for their own meaningful life according to dharma. This is

her positive attitude towards life that befits a woman to resist

the usurpers, and it also befits the heroic age to which the epic

belongs. Though she does not actually fight, she advocates an 170 aggressive policy in order to avenge the wrongs done to her and her children and the usurping of their rights. She performs the role of a

heroic warrior here. No woman of the Greek epics approves of wars as

Kunti does. Helen, Hecuba, Penelope and others are crushed under the effects of war. None of them shows any awareness of the duty of

fighting for survival. Kunti makes a long speech in her message to

inspire the Pandavas for war and narrates to them the story of Viduraa,

a brave mother. She thinks ii as a sacred duty to fight for survival, as

her narration of Viduraa's story shows it. She stresses that Viduraa

sent her son to the battlefield and asked him to return only if he won

the war, she did not care if he died while fighting. This is a higher kind

of sensibility for a woman in her ag6 and represents a far more

advanced state of civilization. When the Pandavas requested her to

stay in the palace with them instead of joining Dhrutarashtra and

Gandhari on their way to the forest, they told her that she had inspired

them to fight for this kingdom and now she should not give up that

kingdom. In her speech of reply she explains to her sons why she

inspired them to fight. The previous speech has a heroic strain and the

latter is musical with the refrain

(That is why I incited you to war.)

and has a consoling and persuading effect, because she has both

kinds of qualities. She is strong and powerful and would protect her

sons even by fighting, like a tigress. She did not hesitate to kill other 171 innocent persons for the sake of her children. In the house of laksha the Pandavas made a plan of setting fire to it and to escape while a tribal woman was sleeping in it along with her five sons. Kunti did not object to the plan because it would make the Kauravas think that the

Pandavas as well as their mother were dead there. This would bring their schemes of killing the Pandavas to a halt. Yet soon after that in

Ekachakra town Kunti sent Bheema to fight in order to save a family from that rakshas in spite of the risk that that they would be recognized as the Pandavas. She allowed Bheema to marry

Hidimba, a rakshasi. Probably she thought the support of the would be valuable in the war that seemed definitely to be looming. She was right. 's son, , helped the

Pandavas immensely in the war. Kama had reserved a great asra,

(weapon) to kill Arjuna because it never failed and it could be used only once. Ghatotkacha fought with Kama so desperately that Kama had to kill him with that asra. All were surprised when Krishna laughed after

Ghatotkacha's death. Krishna explained that Arjuna was safe now because Kama's most dangerous asra was lost. In all her actions and advice in life her prcrdence as a queen-mother is obvious.

All the Pandavas received the nectar (and medicine) of love from this stern mother so lavishly that they could never think of disobeying her in any circumstance. Her advice on all important matters was always sought and always followed. She loved her

stepsons equally or even more than her own sons as and

Sahadeva, the sons of her co-wife Madri, were greatly attached to her. 172

Her instructions to Draupadi about tal

guided Draupadi accordingly. She kept all of them united with her love,

and her purpose behind her (really inadvertent?) order to all of them to

marry Draupadi must have been the same, to keep them united. The

fantastic stories that explain away this polyandrous marriage are

mentioned in this chapter. They cannot satisfy a thoughtful reader and

the reason for the marriage seems to be Kunti's instinctive knowledge

of the desire of all the Pandavas for Draupadi. (Vyasa has described

how every Pandava was enchanted after looking at her beauty when

Arjuna brought her.) Perhaps she did not find it difficult to take this

untraditional but prudent decision as she and Madri herself had given

birth to five sons by levirate with five different gods. The strength and

power of her character and her decision in favour of a polyandrous

marriage for Draupadi point to a matriarchal system. She and Pandu

might have come to know of this as they were in 'retreat' in the regions

of the Himalayas. Bhyrappa notes in his essay "Attempt at Recreation"

in The Mahabharata Revisited that before writing Parya, his novel

about the Mahabharata. he travelled extensively in the Himalayas. He

found people there who name Draupadi as their ancestor and practise

. Perhaps it was a transition period with thought -ferment

when matriarchy was on the wane but still practised in pockets o\

society and patriarchy was beginning to prevail. This marriage might

have been a relic of this system. True, the foothills of this mountain are

not very far from "Hastinapura" today. But in those days transport in the 173 then dense forests must have been fraught with clanger. It was hard for

Draupadi, and for her father and brother to accept this polyandrous marriage at first, but eventually they all did accept it and supported the

Pandavas. The Kauravas and Kama taunted her when they humiliated her in the court for being the wife of five husbands. A desire to condemn the marriage which belonged to that dying system and was now abhorrent to society might have been the reason. The Kauravas seem to have embraced patriarchy totally. It was obvious since their inheritance depended on that alone. The women in their family do not seem to be prominent. The name of Duryodhana's wife is seldom mentioned in the Mahabharata. Gandhari mentions her as

'Laxmanamataram' (the mother of Laxmana). Bhasa gave her a name and personality as Bhanumati in his play Uru Bhanaa. Gandhari's life and character stands in contrast to that of Kunti in this respect. Neither

Dhrutarashtra nor her sons ever obeyed her and few references are

made to the wives of the Kauravas. Gandhari followed her husband

literally blindly and if ever she dared to oppose the Kauravas" evil plans

against the Pandavas, she was ignored. Kunti not only looked after her

sons after Pandu's death but also created incomparable warriors who

were brave and conscientious at the same time.

Of course, Kunti is not perfect. No epic poet ever creates a

perfect character. She failed miserably in one respect. She was unjust

and unfair to Kama. She had no recourse but to abandon him at his

birth because she was unmarried then. One wonders why she did not

disclose the secret of his birth v/hen Pandu asked her to use levirate in 174 order to beget sons. It seems that a 'married' woman could give birth to illegitimate children as long as her husband didn't object, but an unmarried woman could not. But the question remains why could bring Vyasa as her son before her marriage and Kunti could not.

Kunti let Kama suffer the humiliations that resulted from his adoption by low-caste parents and plan evil schemes against the Pandavas. She approached him to disclose the secret of his birth only when war was knocking on the door, and that act, too, was nothing more than another effort to save the Pandavas. The poet shows subtly that her blessing to

Kama when she met him was not for being chiranjeeva [long life] but for anamaya [well being]. When she related the sorrows of her life

before Krishna, she did not refer to any agony or repentance for Karqa.

Perhaps she thought that Krishna did not know about it and so did not

want to reveal the secret even to him. Kama showed his mettle and

grace in offering to spare all the Pandavas but Arjuna. At the end of the

last part of her life she bitterly repented her behaviour to Kama and

asked Yudhishthira to perform the last rites for him. In Vasika

Parvan she says-

(Always remember Kama who never ran away from the battle. In

the past 1 abandoned that brave son unwisely. Really my heart is made

of iron, O son, because it does not break into a thousand pieces for 175 him, the son born of the sun. O brave son, what can I do now that it is past? It is my extremely grave fault that I did not disclose the identity of that son born of the sun.)

She was so focussed on the Pandavas that even Yudhishthira cursed her for her injustice to Kama and the. best that can be said on her behalf is that she did not have the courage to accept him at any moment during his life as her own son. Had she done this, it might even have avoided the war, at least lessened its carnage, but then, this epic would not have been such a powerful, tragic epic.

Her love for Draupadi is remarkable. She appreciates her

extraordinary daughter-in-law. She entrusts the wellbeing of her

powerful sons in Draupadi's powerful hands. She says that Draupadi's

humiliation in the court is the worst affliction of her life. She wanted the

war mainly as a revenge of this humiliation and her message and

advice to her bravest son Arjuna is to follow the feet of Draupadi.

Gerda Lerner mentions some characteristics of feminist

consciousness in her The Creation of Patriarchv. Some of them are 1)

awareness of a wrong 2) development of a sense of sisterhood 3)

autonomous definition by women of their goals and 4) strategies for

changing their condition.

It is fascinating to see how Kunti possesses ail these qualities in

that ancient phase of civilization. 176

1) She has a strong awareness of the wrong inflicted upon her and her sons by the Kauravas. She Incites the Pandavas to fight against it when she tells them that it is their duty as . 2) She oientions many times that the bitterest grief of her life was the humiliation of Draupadi in the Kauravas' court. This is her painful awareness of the wrong that Draupadi had to face. Her advice to

Arjuna to follow Draupadi suggests the same thing. A sense of sisterhood can be marked in it. 3) Kunti had a firm conviction that the goal of regaining their usurped kingdom could be achieved by war.

Permission for Bheema's marriage to Hidimba and sending a message to the Pandavas for fighting were strategies for changing the condition of the Pandavas and Draupadi.

The end of Kunti's life is the epitome of her noble character. She severs the bond of love for her sons which had been her whole life, leaves this worldly life and quietly follows her elders, Dhrutarashtra and

Gandhari. It is amazing to see that she serves and waits upon those whose action-- and mostly inaction-has brought her nothing but sorrow. Such an act of divine forgiveness and reverence is scarcely to

be found in the Greek classics. This also shows her "sisterhood" for

Gandhari. She accepts death with them by burning in a wildfire. Her

wisdom, her conscientious nature, her diplomacy and are

remarkable but what remains with the reader at the end is her

enormous human dignity. Iravati Karve rightly ends her essay on Kunti

in Yuqanta as follows— 177

"She died, as she had lived, without bending."^'*

C) Gandhari :

Gandhari stands in contrast to Kunti in many ways. Kunti dealt with the political problems caused by the impotence of Pandu with the boon she had received from Durvasa and gave birth to three sons. She gave the gift of one boon to Madri, her co-wife, and Madri gave birth to two sons. Kunti's sons were born first. So her first son, Yudhishthira became the first heir to the Kuru dynasty and was entitled to be the

King. In this way she overtook Gandhari and Gandhari was bitterly jealous of this [as she revea^ed to Vyasa]. She then gave birth to "one hundred" sons, but Kunti's five sons always seemed more powerful, righteous and beloved of the people than the "hundred" Kauravas.

Kunti looked after her own and Madri's sons after Pandu's and Madri's deaths and proved a capable, prudent and powerful mother who was always respected and obeyed by her valiant sons. Gandhari submitted to her father's wish in marrying Dhrutarashtra. Then she submitted to

her blind husband's fate 'blindly' by binding her eyes permanently with

a strip of cloth.

^fR^Rikt Mfc1H^l^ri]ci ^dPl^x]i|| II 25

(0 king, she was devoted to her husband and bound her eyes with a strip. She decided firmly that she should not enjoy life more than her liusband could.) 178

She was righteous by nature and did not like the evil plotting of

Duryodhana and her brother against the Pandavas, yet she could control neither her husband nor her sons. She could not remove

Shakuni either or stop his intrigues. She only opposed them ineffectually through her protests. She lacked the strength of character that Kunti possessed. Her advice fell on deaf ears. Dhrutarashtra's character serves as a foil for her integrity. When she shared her husband's blindness, she had to share all his frailties of character and his mistakes. As her lot was tied to his, she, too, is drawn into the vortex of tragic consequences that were the result of his moral

blindness but also of that of his sons. She had firm faith in dharma and desired to follow it. She was not as weak and wavering as

Dhrutarashtra. Her speech in the court was full of wisdom, knowledge

and conscientiousness. In spite of these attributes she could not exert

influence on Duryodhana who was jealous, cruel, ungenerous and

revengeful against the Pandavas. Her protest always remained only

verbal and ineffectual. When the great war started, Duryodhana bowed

before her for her blessings every day of the war. The mother did not

wish him victory but stated,

(Victory goes only with dharma)

In this way she is aware of what is right and what is wrong but

she is helpless and passive while she is witnessing injustice. This was

so when Draupadi was most shamefully humiliated in the court. 179

Gandhari is heard protesting only when there were evil omens. It is true that at the end of Stree Parvan she says that she had warned

Duryodhana and advised him to keep away from Shakuni- but when

Draupadi was shamed in the court Gandhari did not interfere or intervene.

Gandhari acted positively only after the catastrophe when all her sons were killed and she saw their dead and mutilated bodies. Vyasa prevented her when she was going to curse Yudhishthira. Yet when he was bowing before her, her ringry eyes fell upon his toes from under her band and his nails became deformed. (Kunakhikritah). She held

Krishna responsible for the war and for ignoring the atrocities in the war. Her bitter lamentation turned into wrath and she cursed Krishna with death at an isolated and remote place and with total destruction of his clan. Krishna rightly i'emarked that all this was predestined and she, too, was responsible for the devastation because sjie could not control either her sons or her brother or her husband. She represents truth and righteousness devoid of power and action, hence ineffectual.

Justice was meted out to the couple who was blind and conniving at the evils of their sons, surely at an enormous cost to every

one else who may or may not have deserved it. The Iliad also shows the same thing. The mistakes of some person in power are paid for by

everyone else, powerful or not, for generations. Living in the palace of

the victorious Pandavas after the war must have been painful for

Gandhari and Dhrutarashtra though the Pandavas were tender and 180 obliging towards tine parents of tlie Kauravas. Moreover Blieenna's anger against the Kauravas was still burning and he often taunted the couple. He described to them how he killed Duryodhana or

Duhshasana with hig strong hands. The pathos of the scene where the blind couple sets out for vanaprastha (staying in the forest until death) with Vidura and Kunti is overwhelming. Later these old persons surrender to death in a wildfire in that forest.

Yudhishthira said after winning the war -

(This victory is more like defeat.)

Vyasa has underlined this blending of victory and defeat quite artistically. Kumi, the mother of victorious Pandavas joins

Dhrustarashtra ana Gandhari. the parents of the defeated Kauravas, to go to the forest. They face death together. Draupadi and Gandhari are equally agonized as both of them have lost all their sons. In Stree

Parvan, Gandhari asserts this and also admits her share in the disaster.

TT^ w^RT^ ^wm Rmf^iciH I ^^

(You and 1 are similar. Who will console me? The whole clan is destroyed only because of my fault.)

All the cb*iracters in the Mahabharata are multidimensional and

rounded. Therefore they keep inviting different interpretations and 181 treatment from various perspectives. Critics and creative writers have never ceased to be fascinated by them and each character has become the theme of independent studies and literary creations.

Irawati Karve writes in her essay on Gandhari in Yuganta that

Gandhari was deceived in her marriage and so closed her eyes permanently out of anger and a sense of betrayal and there was no supposed patni-dharma, wifely gesture or husband worship underlying it. So she imagines that after the war was over, Gandhari opened her eyes in the vanaprastha at the request of Dhrutarashtra.

S. L. Bhyrappa, an eminent Kannada novelist, has tried to recreate the Mahabharata in his mega novel Parva. His sociological insights are penetrating. He does not think that Gandhari was deceived in the marriage but that her father imposed the marriage upon her out of fear of Bheeshma and greed of the wealth sent by Bheeshma as bridal gifts. He, too, imagines that Gandhari opened her eyes in the end when Krishna requested her to forget her anger and see the world.

The critical Edition does not support the view that Gandhari was deceived in the marriage. It merely states that Gandhari decided to live as a blind person like her husband.

Another interpretation of Bhyrappa seems plausible. According to him all the "hundred" Kauravas were of course not born of Gandhari.

This is a biological impossibility. Most of them must have been the

sons of Dhrutarashtra's concubines. Only fourteen of them were hers.

This interpretation seems reasonable. A lady who accepts permanent 182 blindness in order to share her husband's affliction can easily accept the sons of her husband's concubines as her own. Again, in Stree

Parvan she laments before the dead bodies of Duryodhana,

Duhshasana, Vikarana, Chitrasena and Vivinshati very bitterly. Iravati

Karve thinks that "100" was just a number large enough to denote "a lot of children".

She had eyes but she closed them. Instead of showing light to

her husband she created darkness for herself. She was righteous but

she could not convert her husband to right ways of life. She had sons

but she was not happy with them and her advice to them was

ineffective. She was helpless as a daughter before her father, as a wife

and as a mother before her husband and her sons. Yet she has a

dignity of her own because she never loses her own piety and

determination. Like an ineffectual angel she struggled to bring

goodness in the evil world around her, suffered the terrible

consequences and at last succumbed to the wildfire in the forest.

D) MAORI :

Madri does not play any important role in the story of the

Mahabharata but is indirectly responsible for one important incident in

it. Pandu had been cursed that he would die if he indulged in love

making so he had abstained from it. But once, while roaming with

Madri in the forest, he forgot the curse, enjoyed love m.aking and died

as a consequence. Kunti decided to die as because she was his

first wife but Madri said that she caused his death. 183

(He died when he was full of desire for me.)

She also asserted that she could not love all the Pandavas equally as Kunti did. So Madri died as sati.

It has been a controversial point whether Madri died as sati or she died because of the overpowering grief and sense of guilt. M. A.

Mehendale has discussed this point in his Pracheena Bharat. She seems to be weak as compared to Kunti. She dared not ask Kunti for the mantra for getting children. She requested Pandu about it and then got the mantra from Kunti and got the sons, Nakula and Sahadeva.

Perhaps Madri did not want to iive under Kunti's domination and under the shadow of the blame of causing her husband's death and offered to die.

E) Satyavati :

The story of Satyavati in the Mahabharata is very simple. She was a fisherman's daughter and helped her father in his trade. Her extraordinary beauty attracted a sage, Parashar. He gave her a boon that she would remain a virgin after their cohabitation and even after

her giving birth to a child. Another of his boons removed the smell of

fish from her and she became yojanagandha i.e. she received a far-

reaching sweet smell. Parashar left her and she gave birth to Vyasa. 184

Afterwards King was enamoured by her beauty and the sweet smell, and desired to marry her. Her father would give his consent only on the condition that her son must become the king.

Shantanu desisted as he did not want to deprive his son Devavrata of the kingship. But Devavrata himself vowed himself to forego it, took a vow of celibacy so that the question of his progeny's claim should not arise. He was called Bheeshma because of this vow. Bheeshma brought Satyavati home as his mother.

Like , Satyavati married Shantanu on her terms- samaya that her son must become the king. She did become the king's mother but she was a very unfortunate mother who lost both her sons in the prime of their life. No king was left to look after the kingdom.

Bheeshma had taken the vow of celibacy for the sake of her conditions.

Now she had to pray to him to beget a son, an heir to the kingdom, by levirate. Such instances of dramatic irony of fate give the epics their great power and permanent appeal. Bheeshma refused to break his vow, and her own first son, Vyasa, did that duty. Dhrutarashtra, Pandu

and Vidura were born. Even then she could not get happiness. The first

son was born blind, the second was sickly and the third could not rule

because he was born of a dasi. Bheeshma ruled like a caretaker. Her

three grand-sons married but then she had to witness that Pandu was

dead, Madri died after him and Kunti came to the shelter of Satyavati's

palace with five children. Satyavati is not active after this. We are not

told whether she repented the conditions on which she married

Shantanu and destroyed Bheeshma's happiness. 185

The condition of Satyavati's marriage suggests that she was a strong woman and wanted to rule. Par&shar had simply chosen to withdraw, having given her the boons. Perhaps this experience of her relationship with Parashar taught her to be cautious in marriage.

Vasanta Kanetkar, a Marathi playwright has written a play

atsvaqandha about Satyavati. He imagines that she was frustrated

nd embittered as Parashar left and abandoned her. She was

^venging herself in a way by demanding security from Shantanu. She wanted to be practical in marriage, even at the cost of Bheeshma's happiness. But her married life was like retribution as she had to see so many calamities and deaths in her family and, ironically, it was only

Bheeshma who supported her. Still she is not helpless before destiny.

She takes it as her duty to see that the state gets a king. Vyasa asks l^er to wait for a year for levirate so that the queens would be prepared for it by penance. But she does not want to wait because, she says, the state without a king becomes anarchic. She takes the decision of immediate levirate and retains the line of the dynasty. Satyavati is one

I

Of the women who are at the root of the main action.

i=) :

The woman in the Greek mythology who can be most suitably

compared with Amba is Clytemnestra. Both of them burn with wrath of

revenge and can be ruthless in taking revenge. Clytemnestra killed or,

perhaps helped Aegisthus in hts plot to kill, her husband, Agamemnon. 186

As the story goes, Amba could not take revenge in her life and so she did it in her next birth.

Amba was the eldest daughter of Kashiraja. Bheeshma won her

along with her two sisters, and as brides for his

brother . He had to fight many kings to win the princesses.

King Shalva fought most fiercely but was defeated by Bheeshma.

Before the marriage ceremony Amba revealed to Bheeshma that she and King Shalva loved each other. Bheeshma arranged to send her to

Shalva promptly but Shalva refused to accept her because she was won by another man. He said that he was afraid of Bheeshma too,

because he had won her. She returned to Bheeshma and requested

him to marry her but his vow of celibacy was inviolable. She could not

go back to her father. She had nowhere to go and then she went to an

ashrama in a forest. The sages there told her that Bheeshma was

responsible for her tragic situation and incited her to take revenge upon

him. She prayed to his preceptor, , to help her. He

ordered Bheeshma to accept her, but Bheeshma refused. They had a

great duel in which the preceptor was defeated. Amba was so much

frustrated that now she wanted only revenge. She did penance. God

Shiva blessed her that her desire of revenge would be fulfilled in her

next birth. She was reborn as , the younger impotent son of

Drupada. In the war, Arjuna sat behind Shikhandi in the chariot.

Bheeshma knew Shikhandi to be Amba, a woman and did not want to

fight with and kill a woman. He did not throw arrows at Arjuna because

it would kill Shikhandi. Arjuna threw arrows to Bheeshma from behind 187

Shikhandi and Bheeshma died without resisting. Amba's thirst of

revenge was quenched.

It is a controversial point whether Bheeshma was responsible for

Amba's tragedy. In their critical writing Bhyrappa, Iravati Karve, S. R.

Gadgil and Narhar Kurundkar have followed the sages in the forest and

blamed Bheeshma for it. These scholars also have charged Bheeshma

for destroying happiness of every woman in the Mahabharata. It is true

that he behaved most insensitively in the court while Draupadi was

being humiliated. He cannot at all be justified or forgiven for being

inactive there. But he played fair to Amba when he sent her to her

lover. Shalva refused her because, it seems, he valued his honour as a

kshatriya more than his love. As he says, he was afraid of Bheeshma.

Then Amba's request was that Bheeshma should accept her.

Bheeshma cannot be blamed for refusing her when his inviolable oath

is taken into account. He had destroyed his own happiness for the sake

of his oath. It was either she herself or her fate that is responsible for

her tragedy. She says at one moment,

(It is my own fault that in the past I did not leap out of Bheeshma's chariot for the sake of Shalva when the horrible battle started.)

It 'is anachronistic to blame Bheeshma for bringing the three

brides for his brother by fighting with the kings. He was never unfair to

Satyavati and it seems that he looked after the grandchildren very affectionately and tried to do his duty towards them faithfully. Heaven does not have the fury that a scorned woman has. Amba is an example of what the fury of a wrathful woman could do. She is remembered by her strong and almost fatal determination of revenge.

The five women.that have been discussed are directly related to the Mahabharata story. Many other stories are related in the flow of narration. It is interesting to consider some of them because they show variety of attitude towards women in those times.

G) MADHAVEE :

The story of Madhavee appears in the Udyoga Parvan. It is told

by to Duryodhana but is not related to the main story. Galava was 's disciple and wanted to give his master gurudakshina, something as a token of his respect. Vishvamitra wanted

nothing but Galava insisted. So Vishvamitra was annoyed and asked

him to bring eight hundred white horses with one black ear. Galava

could not afford even a single horse but he had to get them by begging.

With the help of his friend, Garuda, he approached King for the

horses. Even the king did not possess such horses but he had

something that could be instrumental in obtaining the horses. It was his

beautiful daughter, Madhavee. He offered the girl to Galava and said

that she could bring such a great price, shulka, that Galava could get

all the horses. The king's only condition was that the sons of Madhavee

should be given to him. 189

Accordingly, Galava took Madhavee to three kings, Haryashva of Ayodhya, of Kashi and Ushinara of Bhojanagari. She stayed with each of them for one year, gave birth to one son each and earned two hundred horses from each king for Galava. Garuda told

Galava that there were only six hundred horses of that particular kind on the earth. So he gave those horses to Vishvamitra and offered one year stay of Madhavee in lieu of the remaining two hundred horses.

Vishvamitra was only too glad to see her and she stayed with him for one year. Galava brought her back to her father after four years.

The father wanted now to arrange for her marriage. Her brothers prepared for it but Madhavee dectined. She decided to lead an ascetic life in a forest away from the kingdom.

Vyasa tells that she bowed before them in namaskara and left for the forest. This action of Madhavee speaks volumes about her sentiments at that time. It is easy to imagine that she must have been fed up with marital experience after staying with three kings and one sage. It is natural that she should resign to a lonely life after that strange experience. She was used as a body and an object for the

price of the horses by all the men, not excepting her father. She was

also a machine of begetting children, that too, sons. The story throws

light upon the customary morality of the times to which it belongs-

whatever times they are.

Many writers of the modern age are moved by the story of

Madhavee. In her Marathi book about the Mahabharata. Kalokh aani 190

Paanee Aruna Dhere has written about her agony while reading the story of Madhavee. Pradeep Phatak also has written about her in

Marathi in Ashvadaan. Chandraprakash Deval, a Hindi poet asks

Madhavee's forgiveness in his collection of poems Bolo Madhavee because he, as a man, feels guilty for the humiliation she bore at the hands of four men.

The same episode, which narrates the story of Madhavee,

contains the story of another woman, Shandili. She is an ascetic woman. Garuda and Galava stayed for rest in her house when they

were tired of their journey. In the morning Garuda found that his body

was paralysed. Galava asked him if he had had any sinful thought in

his mind about Shandili, she must have cursed him. Garuda said'that

he was thinking of taking her away but that was only for the sake of

her wellbeing and yet, if it was offending to her, she should forgive

him. Shandili forgave him and Garuda again became as strong as he

was. The woman here is so powerful that she knows the inward

thoughts of a man and curses him just for thinking of taking her to

some holy place. The contrast between the two women in one episode

makes us think of ambivalence, possibly rooted in shifting social

norms.

H)BHANGASHVANA:

It should not sound strange if we include Bhangashvana in the chapter of the prominent women in the Mahabharata. He is not related to the main story but is related to the main focus of the thesis. His story 191

is very queer. He had no son and so performed a yajna, called

Agnishtu, to get a son. He begot a hundred sons but Indra hated this yajna and therefore cursed him for doing it. Once Bhangashvana was

bathing in a lake in a forest after . He turned into a woman

when he came out of it. He was ashamed of himself and much

distressed. He managed to ride his horse with difficulty and returned to

his kingdom. He told his sons about his fate, gave them the kingdom

and asked them to look after it. He went back to the forest. Then he

married a sage there and became 'mother' of a hundred sons. He took

these hundred sons to the first hundred sons and asked all of them to

enjoy the kingdom. The two hundred brothers were living happily. But

Indra was still angry and he instigated the brothers to fight among

themselves. All the brothers were killed in the fight. Bhangashvana

lamented and asked Indra's forgiveness. Indra was ready to bring one

hundred of his sons to life. He asked Bhangashvana which ones of his

sons he wanted back -those who were begotten when he was a father

or the sons whose mother he was. Curiously, Bhangashvana prayed

that those of his sons should live who were born when he was a

woman. He also prayed that he should live as a woman as he did not

want to become a man again. He further asserted that a woman has

greater emotions of love than a man has and her enjoyment of

lovemaking is greater than that of a man.

The story of Bhangashvana adds a different dimension to the

portrayal of women in the Mahabharata. Changing of gender is not an

impossibility even though it is very rare and so it need not be a 192 supernatural event. His words do not suggest a usual deification of woman. They tell about a woman's real experiences.

^^^tepFtcf ^ ^Tfp 1^^ C^TI^ mwf I

^«t{d cpsi (^ TtxRTft fcfiTt II

(O Indra, women love better than men do. So those of my sons should live who were born to me when I was a woman. O Indra, if you are pleased with me, I wish to live as a woman. [Then Indra asked her why she wanted to give up manhood and to live as a woman.] O Indra, the pleasure of love is greater for woman when she copulates with man. For this reason I am requesting you for womanhood.)

The Greek epics never present such a description of an experience of a woman.

I) Some other women in the Mahabharata :

Women in some of the stories impress the reader with their

noble qualities. Savitree is one of them. She was an only daughter of

Ashvapati. No king dared ask for her hand because she was

extraordinary. She travelled to search for a right husband, liked

Satyavana and married him in spite of a prophecy that he was going to

die soon. He died before long after their marriage. Savitree approached 193

Yama, the god of death, argued with him very cleverly and wittily, and

prayed to him for his life. was outwitted and impressed by her

loyalty, courage and intelligence. He brought Satyavana back to life.

Yama also gifted her with many boons.

This is a touching love story. But it is interpreted very differently

in some parts of the country including Maharashtra. Savitree is made

an idol of one-way constancy because women worship her and pray

that they should get the same husband for seven more births.

Husbands do not worship Satyavana and do not pray to any god like this.

The story of Shakuntala is well known mainly because of

Kalidasa's portrayal of this heroine in his world-famous play Abhiinana

Shakuntalam. She is the daughter of sage Vishvamitra and Menaka, an

(a dancer in the court of gods). She was sent by the king of

gods, Indra to Vishvamitra to bring his penance to a stop. Accordingly

she seduced the sage, and then Shakuntala was born. Menaka left her

in a forest and returned to the land of gods. Sage Kanva fostered her.

Dushant was attracted towards her but Shakuntala accepted him only

on condition that she must be made his mahishi. the mother of the

future king. They married secretly but Dushant rejected her when she

approached him in his court with their son. She reminded him angrily of

his promises. When he denied her still she said that their son was now

grown up, had become a powerful warrior and could win many kings.

Then akashavanee (heavenly voice-[See Appendix]) asked the king to 194 accept Shakuntala and her son and the king obeyed. Shakuntala's speech suggests her character. Shakuntala of the Mahabharata is far from the romantic, meek and submissive heroine of Kalidasa.

Some other women in the Mahabharata are frank and bold in their demand of sexual happiness which has been a taboo in Indian tradition. says to Prateepa that he must marry her as she has approached him with desire. Sharmishtha pleads similarly before

Yayati and then they marry.

Ambika and Ambalika are Amba's sisters but they are not bold like her. They are never articulate in this poem. They follow Bheeshma as he has won them as brides for his brothers. They marry and after their husband's death have to face levirate for the sake of continuation of the Kuru dynasty. They are not consulted or told about the man who would go to them for levirate. Vyasa, an aged and rough man visits them at night unexpectedly. When he meets, Ambalika faints. Ambika closes her eyes in consternation at the sight of him. The next night they find a ruse to avoid him. They ask a dasi to face Vyasa the next night.

It is told that Ambalika gave birth to Pandu, a son with faint and pale complexion, because she had fainted. Ambika gave birth to a blind son,

Dhrutarashtra because she had closed her eyes. Vidura was born of the dasi. It is described that this dasi did not feel repulsion like the two queens and pleased Vyasa. The two queens are not active at any

stage. They could not protest openly and the levirate was imposed

upon them. The clan was always greater than a person. Myashti 195

(individual) was valued to be nothing before samashti (community) and especially so if it was a woman.

In this way the Mahabharata shows a wide variety of traits of and attitudes towards women. The status of women among the

Pandavas and that among the Kauravas seems to be somewhat different. After considering the prominent individual women characters in all the three epics, now we can compare their status and the attitude towards them in their civilizations. 196

NOTES

1. Mahabharata 231.

2. Ibid. 254.

3. "Epic Women" 146.

4. Mahabharata 1059.

5. Kalidasa, Raghuvansha ed. G. R. Nandargikar (n.d. Delhi : Motiial Banarasidas, 1971)245.

6. Mahabharata 1059.

7. Ibid. 374.

8. Ibid. 373.

9. Ibid. 891.

10. Ibid. 367.

11. Iravati Karve, Yuqanta (Hyderabad : Disha Books, 1990) 76-78.

Hereafter cited as Yuqanta.

12. Mahabharata 374.

13. Sharad Patil, Das Shudra Slavery (New Delhi : Allied Publishers Private Limited, 1982)117.

14. Mahabharata 371.

15. Ibid. 406.

16. "Epic Women" 147.

17. Shri Vyasa, Shrimat Bhaaavata Mahapuranam (Gorakhpur : Geeta Press, 1980)63.

18. Mahabharata 1059.

19. Ibid. 1007.

20. Ibid. 1007.

21. Ibid. 2878.

22. Ibid. 2878.

23. Ibid. 2877. 197

24. Yuganta 48.

25. Mahabharata 154.

26. Ibid. 1971, also 1975.

27. Ibid. 1950, also 1988.

28. Ibid. 1973.

29. Ibid. 170.

30. Ibid. 1101. 31. Ibid. 2514.

* ie * -k *