(2.5)
More often than not, I end up loving any book based on the historical epic 'The Mahabharata'. However, this book let me down in so many ways. I think I went into it expecting a whole new take on the Mahabharata's most misunderstood character, Draupadi, but boy, this book kept emphasizing on the fact that Draupadi was a product of a patriarchal society and the epitome of feminity. It irked me to see that a 'new age' retelling of the epic decided to completely blow the fierce, resilient, unwavering Draupadi out of the water. When I first heard about this book two years ago, the idea of a 'balanced portrayal' of one of the strongest female characters in our epics had me sold completely. And by completely, I mean hook, line and sinker. But then, everything fizzled out once I actually started reading the book. From there on, it was a very downhill reading experience.
Draupadi takes us through her life, event by event, right from her birth from the fire altar to her death as she sets foot on the Himalayas and this entire book is supposed to be a 'letter' of some sort, for the future generations to read. Born with the sole purpose of vanquishing adharma and destroying the Kuru clan, she is promised as a reward to the best archer in the world who manages to pass an extremely difficult archery test. No surprise. Here's were Krishna's cleverly orchestrated plan comes in and she is given as a gift to Arjuna, following which she is asked to be shared with his four brothers as well. Lots and lots of suffering right there. So, the real question is, does Draupadi come up with an argument for the injustice which was being done to her? You bet. But she never voices a solid one. That was my main problem with this book. The 'Krishnaa' which Pratibha depicted was very much a woman who lived in an era where patriarchy ruled supreme. I understand that women were supposed to be at their husband's beck and call all the time, but man, she is Yajnaseni! Draupadi is worshipped as a goddess in some temples of South India as an embodiment of the Goddess Kaali. Naturally, I expected her to raise her opinions. But no. The Pandavas here don't even give a penny to her thoughts, which leads me to the second point. The portrayal of the Bhim and Arjun was so inconsistent. In the first 200 pages, they preached on and on about how the ideal woman should behave and in the last 200 pages , they were all so considerate about Draupadi. Yuddhisthir is 'God-like'-unperturbed, passive. You're left wondering if this is the same Dharmaraj Yuddhisthir that we were told stories about. Here's an example:
Before justice, dharma, tolerance, forgiveness and generosity his wife's honour,helplessness,grief,pain and insult were nothing today him. Seeing my bewilderment,helplessness,anger and disgust, he would recite ethical axioms to me, "Yajnaseni! You are intelligent and learned. If a person does not protect himself, no one can save him. Carefully avoid falling victim today Keechak's lust. Do not do anything whereby our secret will be in danger. For,then we will be helpless. The time together reveal our identity has not yet come. With so many beautiful women in Virat's palace, why did Keechak's eyes fasten on you? You ought today have been careful from the beginning... "
Uh-huh. And another:
"The obsession of winning Draupadi can make anyone go mad. What is the fault of Jayadrath?"
But I said, "So the fault is mine? That it is sanctioned by the scriptures for the woman right be enjoyed by the enemy after her husband has been defeated in battle, is the true fault. But who will understand that? Who will oppose the scriptures?"
I would have loved to see some substance in the characters of Nakul and Sahadev, but Nakul was depicted a narcissist, who was obsessed with his looks, which I guess he was, but I needed a tad bit more about his military prowess. Sahadev chipped in with reasonable arguments, but considering the fact that Draupadi is the one who's narrating the story, it seems okay. Or is it really?
The portrayal of Karna was very lacklustre, to say the least. I don't know. He just seemed so confused about his love (yeah love and admiration) for Draupadi and yet, at the same wanted to make Draupadi suffer terribly due to her calling him a 'charioteer's son'and not marrying him in the Swayamvara. Plus, he is extremely rude to Draupadi(explains his bitterness) but then the very next second, he is deeply ashamed for having hurt her?
There were a few saving graces: the raw vulnerability of Draupadi during the vastraharan was exceptionally well done. Her pain and anguish were so palpable. The descriptions of Draupadi's feelings,Krishna and the writing in general were good but were a bit choppy at times owing to the translation maybe.
Ravan abducted Sita but did not rape her. Despite finding her alone he did not misbehave with her. Despite being moved by his perverted lust, he did not touch her body in the Ashok forest. He only kept begging her for love. That was natural. But here, wicked people, driven by perverted lust, are insulting the bride of the Bharat dynasty and stripping her body naked in the assembly hall! Such a gross outrage on womanhood will never be wiped out in history. The descendants of this country will blame the Kuru king for this. This lawless, gross injustice and tyranny of the Kuru clan will demean the entire male sex for all time. It will outrage all the chaste women of the Bharat dynasty and the entire female sex on earth. For this insult there is no forgiveness, for this sin there is no expiation.
I could ramble on and on, but it'll be a never ending discussion. In brief, this book was ordinary at best. Nothing great. A shadow of Draupadi's rebellious self surfaced here and there, but that was it.