I found the incident between Duryodhana and the gandharvas highly amusing. Duryodhana is trying so hard to put down the Pandavas, but in this case his plans comically backfire. It's like a scene out of a cartoon: Duryodhana in all his bluster arriving to appear pompous and grand, only to be placed in chains and need to be rescued.
Another comic scene is Arjuna becoming a "eunuch." It's really only a disguise for him, so he doesn't seem too disappointed to be stuck in a group of palace women for a year! In fact, for being exiled and in hiding, the Pandavas don't have a rough time of it during this thirteenth year. It's almost fun for them, pursuing dreams and interests within someone else's royal court, without the kingly responsibilities they will have upon their return.
But the conflict with Draupadi being pursued by the queen's brother disturbed me. There's the old theme of men being ruled by their lust, incapable of resisting acting upon it even when they know it will have negative repercussions for them. And then to want to throw out Draupadi, place her on her attacker's funeral pyre (like how wives traditionally burned themselves with their deceased husbands)?! Talk about victim blaming! While I typically enjoy reading ancient literature like these epics, sometimes the outmoded views of gender relations kill the atmosphere...
Draupadi fending off Kichaka's advances
Raja Ravi Varma, c.1848-1906
source: Wikimedia Commons
I definitely agree that the obsolete gender roles can add a level of discomfort to reading these stories. Sometimes even within the same epic, the same character can be portrayed in a really interesting, admirable way -- like Draupadi arguing for her freedom after Yudhishthura's disastrous dice game -- and sometimes, like this story, things just get weird. I guess that just comes with the territory!
ReplyDelete