Odisha Review April - 2015

Draupadi - A Changing Cultural Image

Dr. Shruti Das

A culture is perceived and experienced through This article proposes to analyze the image
certain perceivable entities that can be seen and of the passive Draupadi from The Mahabharata
embody essence of that particular culture. It is as an image of abject suffering, meant to be
known as cultural myth that is created by the sacrified in the fued between the Pandava and
culture’s value system and operates as a major Kaurava Princes, and weigh her against the
influence on that society. C. Larson (Web) holds character of Draupadi, who is also known as
that, cultural myths are always carried through Yajnaseni, the one who was obtained from
cultural images and are instrumental in influencing sacrificial fire for the benefit of society. The same
and persuading the public. In fact, these myths Draupadi is portrayed as Yajnaseni in the award-
propagate that wisdom that is essential for good winning novel Yajnaseni written by the noted Odia
living comes through ‘challenge and suffering.’ feminist writer Pratibha Ray. Draupadi of the
Women in Indian myths have been constructs of original epic is a beautiful princess, subservient to
culture oscillating between challenges of identity the authority of her father, Drupada, the King of
and suffering for family and state. Cultural myths Panchala. Beautiful and coveted, her story is a
therefore become fundamental aspects of a society saga of suffering and disgrace. Passively she takes
and are intertwined into its fabric. They give one everything in her stride as she adheres to her
a sense of identity and space. This space has been dharma. Subjected to polyandry, Draupadi finds
usurped by patriarchy, which has marginalized the her five husbands discarding her repeatedly: each
position of woman to that of subjectivity. The takes at least one more wife. She loves Arjuna,
voice of a woman in almost all cultures, down the man who had actually won her in the
history, has been silenced and rendered passive. swayamvara, but she never gets him to herself
Indian mythology is replete with such cultural for he marries Ulupi, Chitrangada and has
images. The great Indian epic The Mahabharata Subhadra as his favourite wife. Yudhishthira, the
has also portrayed women as passive. In the epic, eldest of her five husbands, pledges her like chattel
woman is relegated to the position of subject and at a game of dice and she bears insult and disgrace
commoditized, often used as an object of the male in the name of dharma. Ray rewrites the character
gaze. She has only one objective, that is, to of Draupadi in Yajnaseni, as a new woman who
preserve her ‘Dharma’ and to be useful to men questions her ‘dharma’. She is not afraid of
without any objection to any injustice meted out expressing her resentment towards the ills done
to her. to her in the name of culture. While succumbing

66
April - 2015 Odisha Review

to polyandry, she questions its justification; resents religious duties central to Hindu ethics. It was
being gambled upon in the court and offering her equated with duty and morality. Krishna, one of
body as an extension of commodity, she also the major patriarchal figures, who dominates the
refuses to accept a passive role like her epic, affirms that adherence to dharma is the
counterpart, Draupadi, in the original ultimate good and most valuable of human goals.
Mahabharata. Trapped as she is inside cultural He advocates dharma as the consequence of
and sexual politics, she is not afraid of expressing intrinsic good. Joseph Dowd discusses
her desire for the third of her five husbands, consequentialism in this context. He says that
Arjuna. This paper will make a socio-cultural “Consequentialism is one approach to ethics. For
analysis and examine the swayamvara and consequentialists, the sole aim of morality is to
marriage episodes involving Draupadi and bring produce good consequences” (36). Rules and
to light how the new Draupadi ‘writes back’ or actions sometimes do not complement each other
resentfully vocalizes the wrongs done to her by in the Mahabharata as Krishna constantly
Hindu patriarchal culture. considers the utilitarian consequences of dharma.
Culture as a concept has been defined Dowd analyses this in terms of act -
consequentialism and rule-consequentialism.
veritably in its multiple dimensions. Raymond
Proper rules are said to lead to good action that
Williams has described culture as “general process
have a good consequence. “According to act-
of intellectual, spiritual and aesthetic development”
(1976, 80). It is acquired and cultivated and is “a consequentialism, the right action is whatever
particular way of life, whether of a people, a action maximizes intrinsic goods. According to
rule-consequentialism, right actions are actions
period or a group” (80). It can be said to be “the
that obey certain rules, where the rules have been
signifying system through which necessarily . . . a
chosen based on their tendency to maximize
social order is communicated, reproduced,
experienced and explored” (1981, 13). Culture intrinsic goods. However, despite their
is a practice that embraces social, political and disagreements, consequentialists agree that the
point of morality is to maximize intrinsic
economic institutions. The practice constitutes
goods”(36). Dharma which equals duty and
meanings, values and subjectivities. Jordan and
morality cannot be a synonym for rules rather,
Weedon in Cultural Politics claim that “everything
in social and cultural life is fundamentally to do Dowd explains that, “Krsna’s moral system is
with power. Power is at the centre of cultural called dharma-consequentialism because it says
that right actions aim at maximizing global
politics. It is integral to culture” (11). They explain
adherence to the rules of dharma; this is very
that meaningful practices in society “involve
different from saying that right actions themselves
relations of power ” (11) and the cultural
discourse operates upon domination and adhere to the rules” (47).
subordination. Power enables patriarchy ‘to During the period a different dharma was
realize for themselves particular possibilities which constituted for women known as stridharma or
it denies others’(11) - in our case women. Women duties of women in life as prescribed by the
are to accept the meanings, social and moral dominant patriarchy. The most popular Hindu
values as defined by the dominant male. Hindu orthodox, Brahmanical text that prescribes
cultural ethics in the times of the Mahabharata dharma is Manusmrti or The Laws of Manu. It
considered dharma to be a system of social and grants women a severely limited position as a wife

67
Odisha Review April - 2015

and householder. In many ways, The Laws of new household and family, a woman was seen as
Manu subordinates women, recommending that a link or mediator between these two families,
they should never obtain any kind of independence which, according to Jamieson, was a dangerous,
or autonomy (Doniger 115). The Laws of Manu “anxiety-inducing” position (253).
discusses to great length marriage and the Draupadi becomes a willing gift to the
relationship between man and wife. The text Kuru household. Her anxiety of being in the role
suggests that a husband should be considered the of the mediator in her father’s design to avenge
“god” for a wife, which consequently, in theory, his insult by slaying Drona; and her in-law’s pawn
would create a relationship based not on equal to get her father’s clan to fight for them in the
companionship, but on hierarchal dominance. “A battle of Kurukshetra as her dharma remains with
virtuous wife should constantly serve her husband her throughout the epic. She becomes a subject
like a god, even if he behaves badly, freely in the discourse of hegemony and domination. The
indulges his lust, and is devoid of any good episode that follows is the concern of this paper,
qualities.”(115). The religion or duty of a wife the post-swayamvara marriage of Draupadi to
therefore does not primarily consist of worshipping the five Pandava brothers is an exercise in the
a deity, but worshipping her “caretaker” and head discourse of hegemony, power and domination.
of household who, as a male, is inherently closer Hegemony needs to be understood in the
to the gods. Thereby, she would justify her Gramscian terms. Giovanni Arrighi analyses
stridharma. The laws further recommend that Gramsci’s concept of hegemony in his book, The
women should always be under the authority and Long Twentieth Century: Money, Power, and
supervision of male authority figures throughout the Origins of Our Times. He notes the
every stage of their life (363). After this discussion Machiavellian characteristics of the term and says
on what dharma entails, it is pertinent to look at that hegemony is different from pure and simple
the ‘Swayamvara Parva’ in Vol 1 of The domination; it can take the form of a “combination
Mahabharata where Draupadi is paraded with of consent and coercion.” Consent, he notes, is
a garland before a mass that measure her up. Her associated with moral leadership, or as we have
father proclaimed “He that will sting this bow and seen in the case of Krishna, dharma-
with these well-adorned arrows shoot the mark consequentialism, while domination implies “the
above the machine shall obtain my daughter” (Roy use of force, or a credible threat of force”.
420), offering her as a prize and commoditizing Hegemony adds itself to domination and ‘accrues
her in this manner. Draupadi meekly walks up to to a dominant group by virtue of its capacity to
the Brahman who has won her and accepts him place all the issues around which conflict rages
as her husband. At this point Stephanie Jamieson’s on a “universal” plane’ (28). “Universal,” Arrighi
discussion regarding Hindu marriage comes to explains, is “seen as the organ of one particular
mind. She argues that the rite of marriage reduced group, destined to create favourable conditions
a woman’s status to an object or commodity while for the latter’s maximum expansion” (28). In this
at the same time granted her an elevated position context it is equally pertinent to discuss Robert
in society. She describes a Hindu daughter’s Cox’s analyses of Gramsci’s concept of
arranged marriage as a “simple exchange token “hegemony”. Like Arrighi he notes the
between two family groups” as well as a “gift” Machiavellian root of Gramsci’s understanding of
and “piece of property”(253). As a “gift” to a power. He says that for Gramsci power is “a

68
April - 2015 Odisha Review

necessary combination of consent and “O king, do not make me a participator in sin !

coercion”(164). According to Cox hegemony Thy behest is not conformable to virtue ! That is
prevails when “the consensual aspect of power is the path followed by the sinful. Thou shouldst wed
in the forefront”(164). Because hegemony is first then the strong-armed Bhima of inconceivable
“enough to ensure conformity of behaviour in most feats then myself, then Nakula, and last of all,
people most of the time”, coercion will be mainly Sahadeva endued with great activity. Both
latent and used only in particular, deviant situations Vrikodara and myself, and the twins and this
(164). maiden also, all await, O monarch, thy commands.
This is particularly true in the When such is the state of things, do that, after
Mahabharata, where the dominant Patriarchy reflection which would be proper, and
led by Krishna lays down rules or dictates of conformable virtue, and productive of fame, and
dharma which has to be followed unquestioned. beneficial unto the king of Panchala. All of us are
Draupadi’s consent is consensual and the episode obedient to thee. O, command us as thou likest !”
of marriage of Draupadi to five men is a case in 432.
point. After the Swayamvara the Pandavas On hearing this all the brothers look
returned to the Potter’s hut and presented lustfully at the beautiful princess and covet her.
Draupadi to their mother Kunti as alms won for Yudhisthira to create favourable condition for his
the day. Kunti instructs them to share amongst clan decides on something very improper. We
them equally whatever they had won. “Enjoy ye read: “And the King then, from fear of a division
all (what ye have obtained)!” (432). Then she sees amongst the brothers, addressing all of them, said
Draupadi and is anxious : “The auspicious Draupadi shall be the common
‘Oh, what have I said?’ And anxious from fear of wife of us all !”” (433). This according to the
sin, and reflecting how everyone could be scriptures should have been sacrilegious and
extricated from the situation, she took the cheerful profane, but in the Mahabharata is not
Yajnaseni by the hand, and approaching considered so, rather it gains sanction of society
Yudhishthira said, ‘The daughter of King as per utility and the theory of consequentialism.
Yajnasena upon being represented to me by thy Morality becomes a devise of power and
younger brothers as the alms they had obtained, something unthinkable becomes proper.
from ignorance, O king, I said what was proper, Draupadi, the woman, is commoditized. She is
viz. Enjoy ye all what hath been obtained. O thou treated as a passive object who should silently
bull of the Kuru race, tell me how my speech may and tacitly consent to follow her stridharma of
not become untrue ; how sin may not touch the obeying and consenting to whatever was
daughter of the king of Panchala, and how also prescribed as her lot. She has no objection to
she may not become uneasy !’ 432. becoming the wife of five men and “cheerfully did
Mother Kunti addresses the eldest son Yudhisthira all that she was directed to do” (435). Draupadi
and brings the issue of morality so that her dharma is projected as a stereotype of the Hindu docile
is not violated and her words are not disobeyed. woman who has been described elaborately in
Yudhisthira addresses Arjuna as he is the winner terms of physical attributes but has no character,
of Draupadi to take some action and preserve voice or opinion, instead she consents to the
dharma. The ever obedient Arjuna subservient dominant male who subject her to latent coercion
to hegemony replies: in the name of dharma and greater good. After

69
Odisha Review April - 2015

marrying the five brothers Draupadi eats meagerly, been completely marginalized in the original text,
serves her mother-in-law and husbands. She but Ray’s narrative appreciates the education of
sleeps at the bottom of the grass mat with five Yajnaseni. Arjuna says: “I had heard that the
pairs of legs of her husbands resting on her body. princess is adept in the scriptures. Then I believed
The Mahabharata explains that, “though she lay that for women to know scriptures meant learning
with the sons of Pandu on that bed of Kusa grass them by rote like parrots. But now it appears that
along the line of their feet as if she were their nether you have not memorized the scriptures but
pillow, grieved not in her heart nor thought internalized them. You are not only knowledgeable
disrespectfully of those bulls amongst the Kurus” but full of wisdom too. I admit defeat before you”
(434). Draupadi, the woman, the daughter, the (52). The narrative here is not reductive rather it
wife is rendered passive a ‘nether pillow’, and is culturally and socially engaging taking
completely marginalized. She has no feelings and cognizance of the important and participatory role
is said not to “grieve in her heart”, nor think about of woman in society.
the men with disrespect.
The same scene of marriage and passive
Pratibha Ray’s Yajnaseni offers an acceptance of polyandry as consequence of
alternative narrative diffused in the same space utilitarian dharma is narrated in Ray’s Yajnaseni.
as the Mahabharata. Elaine Showalter in her As Yudhisthira, the elder brother, informs their
book A Literature of Their Own discusses a mother, Kunti about a prize they had won that
narrative that resists the traditional or ‘masculinist’ day, she instructs them to share it equally amongst
narrative. This narrative that depicts conscious them. After seeing Draupadi, Kunti is put in a
resistance is the alternative narrative or the dilemma of preserving her dharma while violating
‘feminist’ narrative. Ray’s novel is situated in the the stridharma of Draupadi. She is aware that
times of the Mahabharata, the characters, theme “it is an insult to her [Draupadi], an undying limitless
and plot are the same, yet the narrative grammar shame” (56), yet for her Machiavellian aims she,
in Yajnaseni problematizes the subjectivity of the Krishna and the five brothers advocate a wrong
passive female. Remaining within the ambit of in the name of dharma as it suits to unify the five
Hindu moral order and ethics, Yajnaseni/ brothers. Draupadi’s passive position in the
Draupadi questions the equation of domination traditional narrative space of the Mahabharata is
and subordination. The novel and the central disturbed in the narrative of the novel. She does
character Draupadi/Yajnaseni resist simplification. not silently and “cheerfully” accept her
Yajnaseni is the embodiment of a scripturally predicament. She says:
learned woman who had been neutralized in the
epic. In Ray’s novel although she faces daily My mind rebelled. Did I have no say? . . . I had
humiliation, she rises above domination remaining placed the garland of bridegroom-choice around
within the Hindu relegio-cultural space. She the neck of one already. By law, and according
preserves, protects and propagates the spiritual to dharma, it was he alone who was my husband.
essence of Hinduism but not as an instrument, but … Why should I accept the other brothers as my
as a participant. Yajnaseni fills the silent narrative husbands? Would that not destroy my dharma?
space of the traditional text by describing the post- The very idea was ridiculous: one woman to live
swayambara and pre-marital relationship between as the wife of five men ! … Why should I silently
Draupadi and Arjuna. Draupadi’s learning has bear such an insult? … bereft of reason and

70
April - 2015 Odisha Review

judgment, would these brothers impose upon me Yajnaseni seethes with anger even as she
their whimsical authority and should I accept realizes that she has no alternative but to accept
that ? 56. hegemony of patriarchy, “ Was it the integrity of
The dilemma is resolved as hegemony my womanhood that was of greater moment to
overrides reason. Tactfully, using latent coercion me or the mother’s word, the protection of my
Kunti wins the consent of subordination from husband’s and his brother’s dharma? To sacrifice
Draupadi, who is made to believe by both Kunti myself for safeguarding the dharma of others –
and Krishna that accepting five husbands is for was that my duty or was it my duty to choose
greater good. Hegemony prevails and consensual one husband for the sake of my self-respect and
aspect of power comes to the forefront and happiness?” (60). Dharma-consequentiality and
ensures conformity, in this case Draupadi consent through latent coercion inform the
accepting five husbands in the name of universal narrative which would otherwise have escaped
good. Arjuna in the pretext of preserving dharma the traps of patriarchy and claimed to be a
says, “we shall all enjoy the princess equally. She complete alternative feminist narrative. The
will be the wife, according to dharma, of us all” narrative of Ray’s novel engages in a socio-
(57). Unlike, in the traditional Mahabharata, political debate and ultimately Yajnaseni confirms
Draupadi reacts and engages in a mental battle to the dogma of hegemony. Dowd’s theory of
born of insult and anguish. Anger burns within her. consequentialism is self-evident as Yajnaseni
She refuses to accept the cultural significations, undergoes a traumatic internal debate and forces
the meanings, social and moral values as defined muteness upon herself. She reasons:
by the dominant male. She revolts from within :
“the mother’s words would not be honoured. The
I wished I could turn into a searing flame of the brothers would be guilty of violating the mother’s
sacrificial fire and destroy the world and in it these command. My husband, too. In fact, his sin would
five brothers too. If my husband were to turn into be greater. In such circumstances would I be able
a fistful of ashes I would not be sorry. He who to found a household of joy with my husband?
could hand over his wife to another man for fear From the very beginning I would become the target
of his own dharma being destroyed, might be the of everyone’s aversion for not honouring the
most virtuous soul in the world, but he could never mother’s and the elder brother’s words.
be a proper husband for any woman of Ultimately my husband, would blame me for
discrimination.57 turning him into a rebel against his mother. In such
Draupadi in Ray’s novel is not ‘cheerful’ a situation, how could I speak out my mind
in accepting the directions of domination. She openly?” 59.
understands the cultural politics and that cultural
Pitting dharma, duty, morality and
discourse operates upon domination and
happiness against practical reality, Ray’s narrative
subordination. She sees through the game of
very subtly points at the coercive power of
power that enables patriarchy to realize for
themselves particular possibilities which it denies hegemony that demands and ensures consent
others. Kunti and her sons preserve their dharma through moralizing. Draupadi does write back in
destroying her’s. “All of them wanted to Ray’s Yajnaseni. She is not at all the passive, silent
accomplish their own aims by using me, but were woman subservient to patriarchal authority. She
chary of acknowledging it” (60). does not accept the prescribed stridharma

71
Odisha Review April - 2015

without questioning it. It is interesting to note the shamed and small in front of her daughter-in-law,
same scene on the first night that she spends with who would eventually come to know about this,
her husbands and mother-in-law at the potter’s and had hence hatched such a conspiracy and
hut. Similar to the narration in the original had “deliberately compelled her daughter-in-law
Mahabharata, Draupadi/Yajnaseni lies down at to accept five husbands”(66). She again thinks
the feet of the five husbands. In the original that Kunti had used her as a pawn in her selfish
masculinist text Draupadi had no objection to her design to acquire power for her sons; “was it that
situation, in fact we are told that she happily for subjugating the hundred sons of her elder
accepts her situation and position. But not Ray’s sister-in-law, Gandhari, and giving the throne to
Yajnaseni. She is shocked and scandalized that her own sons, it was essential for them to remain
ten feet rest on her body, she ridicules the dharma: one in heart and soul and, therefore, she cast her
“Making a cushion of my body of five elements, daughter-in-law into this terrible predicament?
all ten feet would be placed on it. This would be (66). Theme and plot remaining the same Ray’s
my appropriate dharma as a woman!”(65). She Yajnaseni acquires a distinct and different position
further introspects and agonizes, saying “But a in the narrative. She writes back to patriarchy’s
woman going to bed at the same time with more cultural and sexual domination of the woman who
than one man – how shameful and painful it was! is supposed to bear all silently and passively. The
Who besides myself would realize this: how narrative becomes subversive; addresses dharma
shameful it was for me to touch the feet of five or morals as used for the convenience of the
husbands all together?” (65). dominant oppressor and exposes the ills of Hindu
patriarchal culture. Meaning and equivalence
The narration here challenges the wisdom
of the narration in the epic Mahabharata where undergo a cultural transference in Ray’s
characterization of Draupadi. By transplanting the
no one can conceive of questioning authority.
Subtly suggestive of an anti-hegemonic alternative cultural image of Draupadi and using her alter-
name Yajnaseni, the narrator faithfully retains the
narrative Ray’s Yajnaseni becomes subversive.
originality of the image and at the same time creates
The nightly conversation between Draupadi and
Kunti that is absent in the original Mahabharata a different cultural image of Draupadi. This new
image addition takes on the added flavor of the
is an important devise in Ray’s novel. Kunti tells
Yajnaseni about her own marriage and about the present socio-cultural myth of the emancipated
woman.
manner in which she had obtained her sons in
order to appease her anger. Interestingly, this
serves just the opposite. Yajnaseni, rightly or
wrongly, understands that Kunti had deliberately
placed her in such a shameful predicament.
“Mother’s own conscience must at times have
been weighed down with a sense of sin, shame
and hesitation. She would have felt guilty. Perhaps
even at such times she would have become the
target of scorn and ridicule” (66). Yajnaseni Dr. Shruti Das, P.G.. Department of English, Berhampur
presumes that Kunti must not have wanted to look University, Berhampur.

72