Family Tree of the Kuru Dynasty of Hastinapur - The Kauravs and The Pandavs

Draupadi’s Question

In one of the most important incidents with far-reaching consequences in Mahabharat, Draupadi poses a question to the Kuru Court. The question stumps the luminaries present on various counts. Some try to avoid it and some try to answer in their own ways.

When Yudhisthir is challenged by Duryodhan to a game of dice he agrees to Shakuni, the clever master of dice, to play on behalf of Duryodhan. After losing all his belongings, he offers one by one his brothers and then himself as stake, loses promptly and declares he has nothing more to offer. At that point Shakuni suggests, “there is still one stake dear to thee that is still unwon... Stake thou Krishna, the princess of Panchal. By her, win thyself back.” [Sabha Parva, Section LXIV]*. Yudhishthir, thinking in a typical gambler’s way, imagines that Draupadi will bring him luck as he had gained Indraprasth after marriage with her, offers her in a gamble to win back what he has lost and ends up losing her too.

In a disastrous sequence of events Duryodhan first orders Vidur to take Draupadi to the maids’ quarters. However, Vidur refuses castigating Duryodhan and opines that she is not a slave, since Yudhishtir lost her after losing himself. Then Duryodhan sends a messenger to take Draupadi to the servants’ quarters. Draupadi, having ascertained that Yudhishthir lost himself first and then her, refuses to come to the hall as she was in her monthly period and clad in but one garment. Instead she raises the question implying, “How can Yudhishthir offer me as stake, after he has lost himself?” Duryodhan sends back a message asking her to come to the court and present her question in person. When the messenger fails to bring her to the hall, Duryodhan orders Duhshasan, who drags her by the hair to the hall.

Draupadi then poses the question to the assembled gathering. The Kuru elders Bhishm, Vidur and the preceptors Krupa, Dron are unable to provide a clear answer to Draupadi’s question, nor does Dhrutarashtra. Even Yudhishthir does not answer Draupadi.

Vikarn, one of Duryodhan’s younger brothers, unable to brook the atrocity committed on that chaste woman, ventures to offer his answer. His reply is quite logical and precise. He opines that Draupadi has not been won by Duryodhan on three counts. First, gambling is one of the four vices attributed to Kings. The acts of person engaged in a vice cannot be said to be of any authority. Secondly, Shakuni prompted Yudhishthir to offer Draupadi as stake; Yudhishthir did not do so on his own volition, which is against the rules of the game. Thirdly, Draupadi is not only Yudhishthir’s wife but the common wife of all five brothers and since he has not taken permission of his brothers, he cannot offer her as stake. Lastly, Yudhishthir had lost himself, so he had no right to offer Draupadi as stake. He concludes, “Drapadi has not been won by Duryodhan.”

Duryodhan’s friend Karn counters Vikarn’s statement by saying, “Yudhishthir had already lost her when he lost himself.” Strangely enough, in the same breath Karn contradicts himself by saying, “O handsome one, select thou another husband now, one who will not make thee a slave by gambling... Thy husbands that are slaves cannot continue to be thy lords any longer...”

In my own view, a fitting reply to Karn’s contention that ‘Yudhir lost her when he lost himself’, would be ‘why did Shakuni then suggest to Yudhir to offer her as wager, if she were already won?’ Shakuni is the mastermind behind all of Duryodhan’s plots. He would not suggest Yudhir to play again with Draupadi as stake, if she were already won. Surprisingly, no one in Mahabharat extends this argument.

Various scholars have diametrically opposite opinions on this issue. In Ravindra Shobhane’s opinion, Draupadi is a supercilious and vain woman and her question is preposterous (Mahabharatacha Moolyavedh, Dr. Ravindra Shobhane, p. 134). Whereas M.A. Mehendale applauds Draupadi for her very intelligent question (Prachin Bharat Samaj Ani Sanskruti, Pradnyapathshala Mandal, Vai, 2001, p. 65-83). He examines the whole sequence of events step by step. He points out that, when the Kuru leaders fails to answer her question, Duryodhan asks the Pandavs to answer it. Bheem, out of respect to Yudhishthir deigns, but Arjun asks, ‘whose owner can he be when Yudhishthir lost himself.’ It is after Arjun’s answer that Dhrutarashtra conferred boons on Draupadi. Using this opportunity, Draupadi asked for Yudhishthir and then the other Pandavs to be released from slavery. It is important to note that she did not ask herself to be freed from slavery for she had already proved that she was a free woman.

Unlike Ravindra Shobhane, I consider Druapadi to be one of the intelligent women in the epic. It will not be out of place here to recall a dialogue between Draupadi and Krishna’s wife Satyabhama while the latter visited the Panadavs in the forest during their period of exile. In that conversation, Draupadi tells Satyabhama, that ‘she managed’ ‘the staff’ and ‘the treasury of Indraprasth.’ [Van Parva, Section CCXXXI]* This does not concur at all with the view that her question to the court was supercilious. In fact if she had not posed this question, she along with the Pandavs would have become Duryodhan’s slaves. One has to conclude, that it was Draupadi who, with her intelligent question, rescued the Pandavs from slavery.

The house of lac at Varnavat

When Duryodhan plotted to burn alive the Pandavs and their mother in a house made of resins at Varnavat, minister Vidur tipped them of the conspiracy and made arrangements to rescue them by sending a miner to dig an underground passage beneath their mansion.

Kunti arranged feasts to distract Duryodhan’s man Purochan (or Virochan) who was in charge of construction of the house and was watching the Pandavs. The epic says that on the night the Pandavs planned to escape via the secret tunnel, drawn by fate a woman and her five sons arrived at the feast. They became inebriated and slept in the mansion and were charred to death when the Pandavs set fire to the building before escaping by the underground tunnel. The discovery of the carcasses of these six at the site led people of Varnavat to believe that the Pandavs had perished in the conflagration.

Some scholars have concluded that the Pandavs deliberately invited the six unfortunate persons and let them sleep in the house, in order to escape. The question is - could Yudhishthir the Just have indulged in such a heinous crime?

A careful examination of the various aspects of this issue can help in solving this mystery.

1. The Kauravs had planned to instantaneously burn the Pandavs in sleep with chemical fire, for they knew that if the Pandavs woke up when the house was set on fire, they could easily escape. Bheem could bring down the building with a kick or Arjun could invoke the water weapon.
2. This means the remains of the Pandavs would be at the spots where their beds stood and not elsewhere in the building.
3. The guest woman and her sons could not have slept in the royal beds. The epic does not say that the Pandavs enticed them to sleep in their beds. And even if the visitors agreed to do so, how would Purochan, who was on constant guard, allow it?
4. Anyone who has seen the result of a cremated body knows that all that remains is a handful of charred bones. There was no need to substitute and let six people burn instead.
5. The entire rescue operation was planned by Vidur and executed by his men – he had not only sent a miner all the way from Hastinapur to dig a tunnel to escape but also appointed a person with the secret word to lead them to the ship he had kept ready at the river to transport Pandavs when they emerged from the underground tunnel. Vidur’s man was careful enough to close the mouth of the tunnel located in the house the day after it was burnt down. This shows the extent of Vidur’s planning. If it were necessary for remains of bodies to be found why would Vidur leave to chance for exactly one woman with five sons to arrive for dinner and burn in place of Pandavs? He would have simply asked his man to place a handful of bones in the places where Pandavs slept, but he didn’t do it for it was not necessary in that chemical fire.

Indeed, Yudhishthir and Kunti were known for their compassion. One may recall the compassion with which Kunti offered her own son to replace the victim from the Brahmin’s family who had given the Pandavs shelter at Ekchakra. Her compassionate nature was also evident when she brought up Madri’s children with more care and affection than she brought up her own children. The same can be said of Yudhishthir; when the Yaksh at the lake offered to revive one of his dead brothers, Yudhishthir opted for one of Madri’s sons to live, and not one of his own brothers. His compassionate nature also showed when he pardoned and released Jaidrath after the latter was caught trying to abduct Draupadi. He did the same with the Trigart King Susharma when the latter was captured in the battle of Virat.

If at all Vyas had really shown Yudhishthir/Kunti deliberately causing someone to burn in their stead, Vyas’ stature as author would be considerably diminished for it would run totally against the grain of his main characters.

The only conclusion one can draw from these observations is that the Pandavs need not, could not and did not deliberately cause the tribal woman and her sons to burn in their place and their death was purely accidental.