The First of Feminism

On eve of International Women’s Day, as I was in my argumentative best on feminism, the story of Draupadi, one of the prime heroes from the epic saga of Mahabharata undoubtedly taken to centrifugal part of our discussion yet hard to deny.

The daughter of Dhrupad married to five Pandavas gain prominence among critics, audiences, and modern liberators (to be politically correct) precisely for two reasons. First, she was the first of the heroine who practice fraternal polyandry unlike any of her Greek or Roman counterparts and secondly, for having publicly outraged in the courtroom of Kauravas.

Unlike the popular belief, she was not the only heroine who was openly disrobed in an assembly before the elder statesmen. But Hellenic history records that Phryne, a famous hetaera (courtesan) of Ancient Greece (4th century BC) accused of profanity and was also publicly outraged by one of her lovers, Hypereides who while defending her in a trial tore open the robe and display her breasts that moved the judges to change their decision and acquit. (This reminds me of Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction).

The comparison between Draupadi and Phryne is though not parallel but nullifies her (Draupadi) being the sole character who faces outrage and qualify to feminism. In addition, Phyrne was a prostitute while Draupadi was always referred as ‘queen to Pandavas’ (although, Karna the foster child to Kunti called her a ‘whore’ during the game of dice), belonging to royal lineage thus not equating to Phryne. Well, time to think upon the event once more before I confirm.

Interestingly, the question is yet to answer on does Draupadi truly qualifies to be a feminist. Having said that, my so-called repute as ‘a feminist with phalluses’ is now debatable so, rationalizing my thoughts on the foray of scriptural text is to self defense before, you take to brickbats.

One prevalent forms of Vedic race, popularly known as, Mon-Khmer origin of Shaktism follow matriarchal practices or matrilineal succession that indicates dominance of women in the society. I believe this belief is the source to the popular Hindu belief wherein ‘the daughter-in-law is much respected since she’s the carrier of Holy Grail’. Prevalence of polyandry amongst Vedic Aryans is one of the accepted forms, if the ‘man of the house’ is medicinally ‘loss of serum’. Thus, opting to polyandry alliance doesn’t distinctively qualifies Draupadi to be a feminist vis-à-vis other heroines based on the above argument.

Except Bhisma (the only true blood), other generations from the epic drama is born out of legal wedlock either by force or choose to be impregnated by others (e.g. demigods or saint) and not to the direct lineage of Hastinapur. In fact, the first three Pandavas fathered by demigods (e.g. Sun, Vayu, and Indra) to Kunti with consent to her husband. The second wife of Pandu also followed Kunti and mothered to two sons. Thus, all five Pandavas are not directly born to the king but others.

Vedic rule solemnizes that a wife is allowed to ‘have it’ with consent to the husband to other three men (either Brahman or god or belong to the bloodline) to borne son. This customary practice is not only evident in case of Kunti and Madri but also applied to other queens of ‘Hastinapur’. Both the brothers – Dhritarashtra ad Pandu are not the direct lineage to the father but fathered by Vyasa (foster child of Satyavati). In purview to the above case-in-question, if Draupadi qualifies to be a feminist for practicing polyandry she’s not an exception. What makes her distinct however, she chooses to live with five men and not three (defying the Vedic rules of ‘wifehood’) by choice, thus drawn closer to Phryne—the Hellenic courtesan.

This analysis is crucial primarily to find an answer whether Yudhisthira—the eldest of Pandavas have right to lose Draupadi in game of dice and whether the Kauravas were justified in their act at the courtroom game. To be honest, dissemination of events in court room will earn more brownie points to Kauravas than the Pandavas or Draupadi herself. Since, Draupadi does not qualify for ‘wise-sanctioned limit’ under the Vedic rule, the wise king and son of Dhamma does lose his right of ownership. According to Vedic belief, a wife is the possession to her man so Yudhisthira having pawned his wife is righteous for having put Draupadi on sale to the game of dice. But, critics having questioned the act finally opened the Pandora box to the inevitable question of ‘whether Draupadi qualifies to merit of being a wife’ to Pandavas. If not, then Kauravas were not wrong in having stripped a courtesan.

Interestingly, despite modern liberators argue and defend Draupadi as one of the early and true feminist from India she never really becomes a role model like Sita. Draupadi is closer to the times of today and to Phryne. She deserves the attention of the modern women largely because she revolted against all oddities and survives. The transformation does truly bring back to the foray among the leading feminists of all time irrespective of her role and the interpretation under Mahabharata.