9058009495

CONCEPT OF CONJUGALITY IN THE MAJIABIIAKATA 41

an expcnsive commodity; naturally the bride and hcr family wcre reduced to an infcrior position; She became a ward who dcpcndcd on the husband for loaf.¹⁰⁷ Now in the new social set-up the wite rcecivcd shock in her marital State; “events that are most radicalizing for womcn... marrying and finding out thal it is how women are treated there; marrying and finding out that it is not yet an equal parnership. ”¹⁰⁸ Oncc shc submilted to it_f she was doomed to remain a second class Citizen.

In the now changed roles the assigned area of labour for the husband and wite changcd: he produced food, providcd shellcr and security, while she produced children, rcared them, prepared food and gcncrally supervised the smoolh running of the household. DraupadT in the corc cpic did all this and was also P2ndavas* treasurer i.e., a measure of indepcndcnce and a role of significanl rcsponsibility was still assigned to hcr. Bul gradually family financcs wcre fully controlled by the husband; during his absence she could make the nccessary expcnditure but could not, on hcr own initiative, give or lend anylhing. This seriously altectcd the conjugal rclalionship; hcr judgcmcnl was not irustcd, nor was hcr impulse to give or lend rcspcctcd. Shc remained financially subservient to her husband.

Inside the house she looked after the children, cldcrs, co-wives and dependants. Hers was thus a role of conslant alert aciiviiy which invoIved much care and much sclf-sacrifice. DraupadT ^fs words to Salyabhaina bear this out, “Convcntions of care which are associated with idealized images of feininine goodness or fcmale sclf-sacrifice.”¹⁰⁹ Hcr sclf-sacrifice was taken lor granted; vcrse after insipid verse makes a virtuc of this social and familial necessity, story after loadcd story repeats this self-sacrificc in dilTcrent contcxts. But if one of the conjugal partners is expected to make all the sacrifices, and the other accepts it as his due, and as a matter of coursc, then this is bound to affcct the nuanccs of conjugality belween them. The husband dcinands and receives, the wife serves, forgoes and unconsciously suffers from a sense of forced marlyrdom, unless she reccivcd adcqualc loving response which could not always be guarantccd. When Alri *s wifc, the saintly Anasuyfi lcaves hcr husband or when Vasistha’s wife ArundhatT refuses to stay with her husband, clcarly they had grounds for their decisions, and socicty still allowed this degree of conjugal freedom.

Behind hcr sphere of aclivity being pushed indoors, there was another factor: the weallhy section of the society detennined to bcqucalh their wealth on the truły bcgollen son. How could they ensure it cxccpl by making surę that all acccss to unrclated malcs was denied to hcr. Hcr honour, preslige and position in family and socicty depended soldy on hcr ability to produce małe children. M2dhavl, the pretty daughter of king Yayati was lent to G&lava who had approachcd the king for the instructor’s fees, and to whom the king plcaded dcpleted coffers, but instead of money hc lent him his daughter.