9058009489

34 SUKUMARI BIIATTACIIARJI

Hcre Indra is pained at Sachl’s predicament, fecls real sympathy for her and wiscly dcvises a method whereby she is freed from Nahusa's ciutches. But in conjugal liie Indra is far from laithful, actually his frequent unfailhfulness to Sad is a rccurring theme, ahhough Sad is ever failhful to him.

Corning to the two major characlers of the epic - Gandh&ri and DraupadT - we find iwo characters who do not conform to the Dharmaśastra cdicts, at least, not in the core epic. G5ndhari’s lying her eycs so as to deprive herself from the plcasure of seeing can be an act of the ‘pativrata \ it can also be a gesture against the fate which gave her a blind husband. In her impetuosity to get a hundred sons she broke open the large egg; this act was in reaclion to the birth of Yudhisthira, who, according to the law of primogcnilure, would be king after Dhrlaraslra. So she was of a passionate naturę which she generally managed to kecp under control. We have no record of her accusing her husband because he was blind, bul she frcquently went against her husband and reąueslcd him finnly not to support their evil son Duryodhana. She had an innate sense of justice and righteousness and could not support Duryodhana whom her own brolhcr Sakuni led astray. Shc crilicizcd her son and also her husband. Krsna says, ‘Evcn in front of mc, in the open court you have rcpeatedly spoken words of wisdom and justice for the welfare of bolh the bclligcrent sides.*⁸⁷ Herc she plainly went against the numerous Dharmasastra instructions regarding how a wifc should ncvcr conlradict her husband, bul whether his acls arc fair or foul, shc musi follow him abjectly. Hcncc shc had ilouled this rulc consciously, opcnly in the court in front of witnesses. Clearly, this core epic story bclonged to a hoary past when women wcrc regarded as human bcings wilh independent morał identity. Yet, that Gandhar! was a righlcous person according to the epic aulhor is borne out by the fact that her curscs to Krsna camc truć. So she was morę pious than her husband, hence there was an inherent strife in their conjugal lite. We may surmise that sińce shc spoke out opcnly in the court, she did so also when the couple were by lhcmselvcs. Thus the rule of not lalking back to the husband, which was part of the ideał wifc’s codę was not obscrved by this righlcous woman whosc piety was undcrscorcd throughout the epic. When as a moihcr she had a hard limę, she was continually being torn apart by her matemal fecling and her sense of justice - a dilemma which was not fclt keenly by her husband. Hence there was an impenctrable wali betwecn the couple; conjugality could not strike deep roots. Thcy came close lo each olher only through the unmitigatcd adversity, loss and sorrow at the end of the war. Only then this unbearable agony brought them close to each olher.

The heroinę of the epic is DraupadT. We mcel her first at her wedding when, after Arjuna had piereed the larget at the groom - selection ccremony, she advanccd gcntly and bashlully, wilh the white floral garland in her hand