9058009485

CONCEPT OF CONJUCALITY IN TIIE MAIIABI1AKATA 29

but she sluck to hcr.tcnns. Shc cvcn insislcd on ignoring thc rulc of primogeniture and had thc younger son VicilravTrya crowncd becausc the cldcr one was unsuilablc.⁶³ Hcre was a woman whosc poliiical dccision differed with her own bargain with her husband.

The young girl SaradandayanT was appointed by her elders to eonceive from a Brahmin; she borc three sons to him and chose to live with him aflcrwards.⁶⁴ Shc hcrsclf took thc finał dccision regarding her conjugal lite. Evcn thc lnonslrcss Hidimba insislcd on marrying Bhlina and tlnally married him, ihcy had a long honcymoon. Aftcr Ghatotkaca was bom, shc lcft, inslructing her son to help thc Pandavas in cvcry way.⁶⁵ Whcn UlupT, a widów of the Naga tribc leli in lovc with Arjuna, hc rcsislcd her at lirsl but slayed with her for three ycars only.⁶⁶ Al Manalura howevcr, Arjuna leli for CilrarigadS, her falher claimcd thc son Arjuna would beget in Citrarigada as his own (puirikapuira). Then Arjuna lcft her aftcr three years.⁶⁷ In thcsc unions of the Pandava brolhers we are told of the background and the rcsult, but the aclual conjugal lifc is not prcscnlcd to us. These are unions brought about by lovc on cilhcr sidc, rcciprocatcd, then aftcr the offspring arrives, thc husbands Icavc their spouses. In thc case of Arjuna, howcvcr, he met UlupT and Citrańgada again, when hc came to Manalura with thc sacrifical horsc. At UlupT *s initialivc Babhruvahana slallcd thc horse, a llght cnsucd, Arjuna died but was rcvived through UlupT’s minislralion. This dctail contains a proof of UlupT’s wilcly regard for Arjuna, also her molhcrly pride against her co-wilc^vs son and exemplillcs a noble aspccl of the hcroic ksalriya wife's clcvated sense of wifcly duły. The Naga woman vindicatcd her husband ’s and son's reputalion. On a higher piane than thc Iow mundanc one of mere cxislential silualion, shc displayed her conjugal loyally. As did the monslress Hidimba who had cnjoincd thc son to scrvc the Pandavas becausc she lovcd one of them, the son laid down his lifc obcying his monslcr-molhcr’s order.

Technically, thc case of Puru and Pramadvara does not lali wilhin the purvicw of conjugality, becausc their wedding was only a lew days away whcn Pramadvara died of snakc-bilc. Puru was ovcrwhclmcd with the grief. Lcarning of her death he lcft his mourning friends, went out and entering a dcep forcsl wailed inconsolably. Later, hc shared his span of life with the dcad girl, so that shc was rcvived and bccame his wifc.⁶⁸ Herę was gcnuinc love, dcep and sponlancous. Within a social codę where the wifc scrves her husband in lifc and cvcn sometimes cremalcs herself on his funcral pyrę, where inslances of the husband sacrillcing anylhing precious lor the wifc are cxlrcmcly rarc, this is a rather oulslanding instancc of thc husband’s conjugal love for the wife-to-bc.

In a minor cpisodc Śukra*s daughlcr DcvayanT had to go as part of the bridal enloura"'* to Yayati ’s pałace, but Śukra had forbidden Yayati to enjoy hcr.^6g P'-' whcn she saw Sarmislha bcaring sons to Yayati, in sccret