Post 5/?
And the [color="#0000FF"]"Draupadi was gender-oppressed" conclusion that Rajeev drew[/color] does not apply. Really wish well-meaning individuals would stop envisioning gender oppression where (and when) there was none. Nationalists do harm than good by name-dropping it where it does not apply.
Draupadi is seen by Hindus as an exemplary character and remembered among 5 sacred women. While the heroes had moments when they were ready to relent, she refused to forget the injustices done and insisted that the Kauravas must be made to face the consequences. She was not a mere receptacle reacting to outside forces, but the driving force of the MBh. She was the sole reason the Pandavas didn't forget it all/throw in the towel and go find some other lands to rule: IIRC she kept goading them to destroy the Kauravas, reminding them of the humiliation (=device) she suffered and reminding the Pandavas of their promise to her that they would avenge her and what they owed to Dharma. Draupadi was their conscience and their memory driving them.
Compare to the horror that Indian society is today: sexual violence against Hindoo women by christoislamics, communists and psecular anti-Hindus going unpunished. (<- Shows that actual gender oppression exists now rather than in the past.)
While Draupadi's not actively taking revenge herself - and she didn't need to with 5 super-kShatriya husbands - she was nevertheless an active agent in the Kauravas' demise. Of course, IndraaNi could have knocked out the Kaurava army with her divine pinky hurling her Vajram from atop Airaavatam, but that was not the intended end for the MBh: Krishna was meant to guide the Pandavas to victory and so she had to play the injured party that served as her husbands' motivation and conscience concerning the pursuit of justice.
In some ways, one could perhaps see both Sitaa and Draupadi as actually playing the roles of bait, to get the adharmic side to cross the line, which infraction is then used against the villains: to rout Ravana and his gang, and to rout the Kauravas and drive home the point on dharma. In both cases, the Devas winning over the Asuras in the beyond, and dharma over adharma.
Further, for Rajeev to speak of gender oppression implies that this was institutionalised (else he would have referred to "Draupadi Oppression" instead). But some other women including wives of the MBh heroes were active against enemies. E.g. Satyabhaamaa accompanied Sri Krishna in his battle against Narakaasura, and when IIRC Krishna was temporarily knocked unconscious, his wife Satyabhaama got doubly angry and continued to take on Naraka's army with her arrows. I heard the tale itself when I was little, but turns out it's from the Harivamsha. [Some Hindoo-made paintings of Satyabhama in action - showing her arrows plunging into the Narakasura's heart - have captions stating that it depicts the scene where she kills Narakaasura.]
And Chitrangadha, wife of Arjuna, is supposed to be another female warrior. (Just like in Raamayanam, Bharata's mother Kaikeyi was a warrior, and possibly any of the other 2 raaNis of - correcting silly typo: NOT DhritaraaShTra but - Dasharatha too.)
So Draupadi can't be a victim of "gender oppression", since others of her and earlier times were not victims of any such (implicitly systematic) oppression. One doesn't see Arjuna or Krishna or anyone bat an eyelid at the notion of some of their wives going into battle, which implies that the lines for what professions and what training Hindoo women could have so long ago were either drawn very differently from a more recent period in the modern world (the christian west) or not drawn tightly, or else there were no lines as to which professions were open to them - within the same restrictions as that of their men: i.e. varna. (And MBh and Ramayanam were well before Chanakya's advice to hire female bodyguards for their suitability.) Draupadi may not be as active on her own behalf as some other wives in MBh's Vedic society, but in real life too, not everyone is the same and hence doesn't have the same hobbies and interests. Kshatriya men had a duty to be active kShatriyas all through the prime of their life - and they could not really get out of it even if they theoretically wanted to - while for kshatriya women, bearing arms appears to have been a right not a duty. So one wonders why no one ever writes that the Pandavas were the oppressed ones. By their birth duties. By their misfortunes throughout the MBh. Etc. But then, they take it all in stride and don't behave like victims of fate, but meet their challenges and circumstances as heroes - which they are. And while Draupadi does not directly effect redress for her suffering herself, she remains likeable, and is believable in her role as heroine. Also, if one looks closely, her weapons *are* her husbands and she wields them with devastating effect against her enemies.
The oft-implied anti-human (including anti-female) notion is that only females in the MBh, Raamayanam etc could represent Hindoo women or their aspirations. Or that only the male heroes of the MBh and of other Hindu literature would represent Hindoo males. Utter nonsense. The Hindoo Heroes - of either gender - represent the idealism of all Hindoos (including animals**), who find identification with them all. Hindoo men never pretend an especial claim on the Pandavas merely for being men also, as if gender (of all absurd things) was the minimum requirement that makes a Pandava etc. Nevertheless, this weird notion seems to proliferate among modern types. And I think it is this notion that's also behind Rajeev's sympathising unnecessarily with an alleged "gender oppression" of Draupadi: the statement becomes the vehicle of his sympathising with women in general/with general gender oppression.
In reality, Hindoo women do not peculiarly restrict themselves to identifying with Draupadi and Kunti and Gandhari etc in the MBh, but with all the persons of the Hindoo epic. That's another reason why - when the anti-Hindu fembots in India whine about "oh poor Kunti/Sitaa/..., so oppressed by patriarchal Hindoo society", in the hopes of alienating Hindoo women from Hindoo-ism - they fail miserably. Anti-Hindu fembots in India peddling their subversions concerning the Ramayanam and Mahabharatam etc find equal success among male feminists and female feminists, but never among Hindoos. The whole "Draupadi was gender-oppressed" is a grave insult to all Hindoos, including Hindoo females.
** Animals reminded me: IIRC, when the Pandavas are exiling in a forest, Yudhishthira dreams that all the forest animals come to him with tears in their eyes and plead to him about his brothers hunting their kinds in the forest. As a consequence, YudhiShThira relays his dream to his brothers and the Pandavas pack up and leave the forest. This is yet more Hindoo sensibility and behaviour. (And also very Indran, the protector of all animals, who seek refuge in him.) The heroes' choice here makes its point eloquently without ever resorting to beating you over the head with it. They lead by example and action, rather than dreary moralising. I like that they cared.
IIRC Rajeev Srinivasan mentioned Karna as "caste oppressed" and even brought in Ekalavya. Oh no not again. Besides, both are veiled Kshatriyas: MBh tells us Karna is the Pandavas' own elder brother and Harivamsha apparently intimates that Ekalavya is the royal cousin of Krishna who had been abandoned too or else accidentally lost, though by his father this time.
As for Arjuna's insult to Karna during their early meeting, it is so obviously out of character - he doesn't generally step on people who haven't had the same advantages as himself, or go out of his way to hurt people who are on unequal footing: even later heroes never did that. That Arjuna nevertheless steps so far out of character as to say something that hurts Karna to such an extent that it propels the latter to hate Arjuna and to throw his lot in with the dubious dharma of the Kauravas, is yet more argument that it is all a fateful conspiracy to unfold the greater plot of the MBh.
Still, Hindoo listeners/readers are clearly meant to disapprove of Arjuna's high-handedness in this incident and to laud Duryodhana for the reverse and to feel for Karna. So that between them, the point was well made. And again without moralising.
And the [color="#0000FF"]"Draupadi was gender-oppressed" conclusion that Rajeev drew[/color] does not apply. Really wish well-meaning individuals would stop envisioning gender oppression where (and when) there was none. Nationalists do harm than good by name-dropping it where it does not apply.
Draupadi is seen by Hindus as an exemplary character and remembered among 5 sacred women. While the heroes had moments when they were ready to relent, she refused to forget the injustices done and insisted that the Kauravas must be made to face the consequences. She was not a mere receptacle reacting to outside forces, but the driving force of the MBh. She was the sole reason the Pandavas didn't forget it all/throw in the towel and go find some other lands to rule: IIRC she kept goading them to destroy the Kauravas, reminding them of the humiliation (=device) she suffered and reminding the Pandavas of their promise to her that they would avenge her and what they owed to Dharma. Draupadi was their conscience and their memory driving them.
Compare to the horror that Indian society is today: sexual violence against Hindoo women by christoislamics, communists and psecular anti-Hindus going unpunished. (<- Shows that actual gender oppression exists now rather than in the past.)
While Draupadi's not actively taking revenge herself - and she didn't need to with 5 super-kShatriya husbands - she was nevertheless an active agent in the Kauravas' demise. Of course, IndraaNi could have knocked out the Kaurava army with her divine pinky hurling her Vajram from atop Airaavatam, but that was not the intended end for the MBh: Krishna was meant to guide the Pandavas to victory and so she had to play the injured party that served as her husbands' motivation and conscience concerning the pursuit of justice.
In some ways, one could perhaps see both Sitaa and Draupadi as actually playing the roles of bait, to get the adharmic side to cross the line, which infraction is then used against the villains: to rout Ravana and his gang, and to rout the Kauravas and drive home the point on dharma. In both cases, the Devas winning over the Asuras in the beyond, and dharma over adharma.
Further, for Rajeev to speak of gender oppression implies that this was institutionalised (else he would have referred to "Draupadi Oppression" instead). But some other women including wives of the MBh heroes were active against enemies. E.g. Satyabhaamaa accompanied Sri Krishna in his battle against Narakaasura, and when IIRC Krishna was temporarily knocked unconscious, his wife Satyabhaama got doubly angry and continued to take on Naraka's army with her arrows. I heard the tale itself when I was little, but turns out it's from the Harivamsha. [Some Hindoo-made paintings of Satyabhama in action - showing her arrows plunging into the Narakasura's heart - have captions stating that it depicts the scene where she kills Narakaasura.]
And Chitrangadha, wife of Arjuna, is supposed to be another female warrior. (Just like in Raamayanam, Bharata's mother Kaikeyi was a warrior, and possibly any of the other 2 raaNis of - correcting silly typo: NOT DhritaraaShTra but - Dasharatha too.)
So Draupadi can't be a victim of "gender oppression", since others of her and earlier times were not victims of any such (implicitly systematic) oppression. One doesn't see Arjuna or Krishna or anyone bat an eyelid at the notion of some of their wives going into battle, which implies that the lines for what professions and what training Hindoo women could have so long ago were either drawn very differently from a more recent period in the modern world (the christian west) or not drawn tightly, or else there were no lines as to which professions were open to them - within the same restrictions as that of their men: i.e. varna. (And MBh and Ramayanam were well before Chanakya's advice to hire female bodyguards for their suitability.) Draupadi may not be as active on her own behalf as some other wives in MBh's Vedic society, but in real life too, not everyone is the same and hence doesn't have the same hobbies and interests. Kshatriya men had a duty to be active kShatriyas all through the prime of their life - and they could not really get out of it even if they theoretically wanted to - while for kshatriya women, bearing arms appears to have been a right not a duty. So one wonders why no one ever writes that the Pandavas were the oppressed ones. By their birth duties. By their misfortunes throughout the MBh. Etc. But then, they take it all in stride and don't behave like victims of fate, but meet their challenges and circumstances as heroes - which they are. And while Draupadi does not directly effect redress for her suffering herself, she remains likeable, and is believable in her role as heroine. Also, if one looks closely, her weapons *are* her husbands and she wields them with devastating effect against her enemies.
The oft-implied anti-human (including anti-female) notion is that only females in the MBh, Raamayanam etc could represent Hindoo women or their aspirations. Or that only the male heroes of the MBh and of other Hindu literature would represent Hindoo males. Utter nonsense. The Hindoo Heroes - of either gender - represent the idealism of all Hindoos (including animals**), who find identification with them all. Hindoo men never pretend an especial claim on the Pandavas merely for being men also, as if gender (of all absurd things) was the minimum requirement that makes a Pandava etc. Nevertheless, this weird notion seems to proliferate among modern types. And I think it is this notion that's also behind Rajeev's sympathising unnecessarily with an alleged "gender oppression" of Draupadi: the statement becomes the vehicle of his sympathising with women in general/with general gender oppression.
In reality, Hindoo women do not peculiarly restrict themselves to identifying with Draupadi and Kunti and Gandhari etc in the MBh, but with all the persons of the Hindoo epic. That's another reason why - when the anti-Hindu fembots in India whine about "oh poor Kunti/Sitaa/..., so oppressed by patriarchal Hindoo society", in the hopes of alienating Hindoo women from Hindoo-ism - they fail miserably. Anti-Hindu fembots in India peddling their subversions concerning the Ramayanam and Mahabharatam etc find equal success among male feminists and female feminists, but never among Hindoos. The whole "Draupadi was gender-oppressed" is a grave insult to all Hindoos, including Hindoo females.
** Animals reminded me: IIRC, when the Pandavas are exiling in a forest, Yudhishthira dreams that all the forest animals come to him with tears in their eyes and plead to him about his brothers hunting their kinds in the forest. As a consequence, YudhiShThira relays his dream to his brothers and the Pandavas pack up and leave the forest. This is yet more Hindoo sensibility and behaviour. (And also very Indran, the protector of all animals, who seek refuge in him.) The heroes' choice here makes its point eloquently without ever resorting to beating you over the head with it. They lead by example and action, rather than dreary moralising. I like that they cared.
IIRC Rajeev Srinivasan mentioned Karna as "caste oppressed" and even brought in Ekalavya. Oh no not again. Besides, both are veiled Kshatriyas: MBh tells us Karna is the Pandavas' own elder brother and Harivamsha apparently intimates that Ekalavya is the royal cousin of Krishna who had been abandoned too or else accidentally lost, though by his father this time.
As for Arjuna's insult to Karna during their early meeting, it is so obviously out of character - he doesn't generally step on people who haven't had the same advantages as himself, or go out of his way to hurt people who are on unequal footing: even later heroes never did that. That Arjuna nevertheless steps so far out of character as to say something that hurts Karna to such an extent that it propels the latter to hate Arjuna and to throw his lot in with the dubious dharma of the Kauravas, is yet more argument that it is all a fateful conspiracy to unfold the greater plot of the MBh.
Still, Hindoo listeners/readers are clearly meant to disapprove of Arjuna's high-handedness in this incident and to laud Duryodhana for the reverse and to feel for Karna. So that between them, the point was well made. And again without moralising.