~The TV Shows Thread~

[GunnerY2J]

16 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

Yup, Duryodhan insulted her, but without any right to. For reasons -

 

1) Draupadi was the very last bet. But before that bet, Yudhistira had already bet himself and his brothers and lost. So Pandavas had no right to bet anything at that point. But Duryodhan still demanded this farce continue, and this was pointed out by Draupadi in court, when she said that both she was her own person and no one could bet her, and the Pandavas had already lost themselves, so they had no right to bet anything further.

 

2) Duryodhan further insulted Draupadi, when he pointed to Draupadi and indicated his thigh, insinuating Draupadi should sit there/lie with him. This infuriated Bhima further, who vowed that he would break Duryodhan's thigh for this insult. And this was exactly what Bhima did on the last day of Mahabharat war, when he struck Duryodhan's thigh and broke it to defeat him in the mace fight. Otherwise, hitting anywhere below the navel (Including the thigh) was not considered to be honorable in a mace fight.

 

So yes, Kauravas spoke what they wanted and insulted Draupadi as they pleased. Pandavas could do nothing at the time. But every insult was paid for later down the line.

Again you are right and giving plenty of correct facts which are a bit irrelevant to what I am saying.

 

I am saying Pandavas betting Draupadi was more disgraceful than Duryodhan insulting Draupadi, also Draupadi had now become duryodhan's daasi after the bet, and everyone accepting that was disgraceful, so logically (not humanely) duryodhan did what he did with his maid and within his power after winning the bet which should not have been done in the first place by Pandavas.

 

Pandavas should not have placed a bet on Draupadi for a start and the only thing they should not have done.

 

Duryodhan is wrong for sure, all I am saying the pandavas are more wrong or at least equally wrong/at fault for this very instance.

 

 

[roun90]

Just now, GunnerY2J said:

Again you are right and giving plenty of correct facts which are a bit irrelevant to what I am saying.

 

I am saying Pandavas betting Draupadi was more disgraceful than Duryodhan insulting Draupadi, also Draupadi had now become duryodhan's daasi after the bet, and everyone accepting that was disgraceful, so logically (not humanely) duryodhan did what he did with his maid and within his power after winning the bet which should not have been done in the first place by Pandavas.

 

Pandavas should not have placed a bet on Draupadi for a start and the only thing they should not have done.

 

Duryodhan is wrong for sure, all I am saying the pandavas are more wrong or at least equally wrong/at fault for this very instance.

 

 

 

True, it might be a bit irrelevant. But then this comes to my mind -

 

The Pandavas are already slaves of Duryodhan. As slaves, they have no right to go against his will at all. So was betting Draupadi truly done of free will? Or was it just a farce, an act - that was carried out to insult Draupadi further. And if the Pandavas refused, might not Duryodhan have done worse to Draupadi? The Pandavas had come to court in good faith, without any arms, armor or army. They had come there believing in Duryodhan, and at worst, they thought that their own relatives, including highly respected elders like Bhisma, Dhritarashtra were there. So no overboard injustice would be carried out. And yet, in that very court, they saw that Duryodhan could stoop to any levels, Draupadi could be insulted openly (This insulting was started before the bet I think), and in the very open court, in front of all elders, Dusshasan dragged Draupadi from her room to the court by her hair and tried to disrobe her. Yet the respected Elders were silent and let this go on.

 

So had the Pandavas not gone ahead with the farce, might not Duryodhan have done worse to Draupadi? Might he not have tried to take advantage of and tried to kill her then and there? Truly, did the Pandavas really have any choice in the matter at all at that time?

[GunnerY2J]

3 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

They had come there believing in Duryodhan, and at worst, they thought that their own relatives, including highly respected elders like Bhisma, Dhritarashtra were there.

So had the Pandavas not gone ahead with the farce, might not Duryodhan have done worse to Draupadi? Might he not have tried to take advantage of and tried to kill her then and there? Truly, did the Pandavas really have any choice in the matter at all at that time?

Right, that we ll never know and yes, Pandavas might be forced later to bet if they refused but that also we ll never know.

And this is just personal assumption with little to no value but i d say duryodhan would not kill/molest Draupadi if he didn't 'own' her or won the bet. (He feels a bit 'proud' 'man' to kill an independent woman) 

 

but more assuredly I'd say the fact that duryodhan did what was within his rights (according to the bet) also stopped the respected elders from stopping him, so he'd have been stopped if he tried to do it without the bet - and everyone in that sabha was at fault of course.

 

 

 

Also, very irrelevant and on a different note, but I hated that Draupadi very disrespectfully denied karna to perform in her swaymwar where every prince was invited and karna was indeed a king at that time, Caste based discrimination for showing individual brilliance by both Pandavas and Draupadi (for Arjuna but still) is disgraceful.

 

 

[roun90]

14 minutes ago, GunnerY2J said:

Right, that we ll never know and yes, Pandavas might be forced later to bet if they refused but that also we ll never know.

And this is just personal assumption with little to no value but i d say duryodhan would not kill/molest Draupadi if he didn't 'own' her or won the bet. (He feels a bit 'proud' 'man' to kill an independent woman) 

 

but more assuredly I'd say the fact that duryodhan did what was within his rights (according to the bet) also stopped the respected elders from stopping him, so he'd have been stopped if he tried to do it without the bet - and everyone in that sabha was at fault of course.

 

 

 

Also, very irrelevant and on a different note, but I hated that Draupadi very disrespectfully denied karna to perform in her swaymwar where every prince was invited and karna was indeed a king at that time, Caste based discrimination for showing individual brilliance by both Pandavas and Draupadi (for Arjuna but still) is disgraceful.

 

 

 

This was again a serial invention. From what I know, Karna had tried in her Swayamvara and failed, just like everyone else. Also from what I had read online - Suta ≠ Sudra. Suta is the son of a Kshatriya (King class/Warrior Class) and a brahmin (Priest Class). It's not considered a lower caste. And Charioteer (Ratha) was considered a very prestigious job, not a lowly one. For example, Shalya, who was a great king himself was considered a great charioteer and served as such to Karna. Draupadi did not insult anyone in her Swayamvar AFAIK.

 

Definition: Sūta (Sanskrit: सूत) refers both to the bards of Puranic stories and to a mixed caste. According to Manu Smriti (10.11.17) the sūta caste are children of a Kshatriya father and Brahmin mother. The narrator of several of the Puranas, Ugrasrava Sauti, son of Lomaharshana, was also called Sūta.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sūta

 

And from what I read, in very ancient times, even Sudra were to be treated with respect, and caste discrimination was not much practiced. It was the Dwapar Yuga after all, in which people were more righteous than the present Kali Yuga.

 

Also, Duryodhana did not do anything "Within His Rights". A Proud, righteous person would never have tricked his people to come as guests and tried to burn them alive. A righteously proud person would never have rigged a dice game to steal from people who came in good faith. And Duryodhana knew the dice were rigged, mind you. Also, the Pandavas had come there under guarantee of safety from Dhritarashtra. The fact that he did nothing as his nephews and their wife suffered, and said wife was almost physically abused says a lot. Also, even with the bet, Duryodhan had no right to disrobe Draupadi. She was her own person, who could not be bet and certainly could not be insulted and harmed physically in open court.

Edited May 16, 2020 by roun90

[quixote_1989]

[GunnerY2J]

38 minutes ago, roun90 said:

 

Also, Duryodhana did not do anything "Within His Rights". A Proud, righteous person would never have tricked his people to come as guests and tried to burn them alive. A righteously proud person would never have rigged a dice game to steal from people who came in good faith. And Duryodhana knew the dice were rigged, mind you. Also, the Pandavas had come there under guarantee of safety from Dhritarashtra. The fact that he did nothing as his nephews and their wife suffered, and said wife was almost physically abused says a lot. Also, even with the bet, Duryodhan had no right to disrobe Draupadi. She was her own person, who could not be bet and certainly could not be insulted and harmed physically in open court.

proud in a negative way who considers man above woman.

 

Yes, I know he knew it was rigged, but also the multiple trickery or favours done by Pandavas in the actual war was also not fair.

 

And within his rights not in terms of  humanity but rules wise, theres a reason why everyone in the sabha didn't stop as 'they' did believe that duryodhan had won her

never even denying what he did was wrong,

Everyone in the audience was at fault,

 

she could not be bet, yet she was by the Pandavas -

let's not go into what would have happened in another scenario - we don't know.

 

In the end I am not defending duryodhan, no one should or can defend him, 

 

only that everyone in that sabha was at fault including the Pandavas (more or less) and we can't look at Pandavas as godly men.

She couldn't be bet, yet she was.

 

 

 

That's all.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by GunnerY2J

[roun90]

Just now, quixote_1989 said:

 

Why the emoji?

[North]

 

All for it if they do it right this time!

 

[Aftrunner]

I am enjoying this Mahabharata discussion. Its pretty much a repeat of the discussions we used to have back when we saw the old one.  

 

Its such a fantastic story. With a big budget, it could easily be a better version of LOTR or GOT. Two or Three seasons of 10 episodes each. Cough up the money Netflix. 

[Bird Bird Bird]

Pataal Lok - Goddamn better than GoT. 

[hope]

1 hour ago, Bird Bird Bird said:

Pataal Lok - Goddamn better than GoT. 

Hearing a lot that the show is Anti Hindu. Some nasty stuff shown about Indian goddeses. True that? 

[KWC]

1 hour ago, hope said:

Hearing a lot that the show is Anti Hindu. Some nasty stuff shown about Indian goddeses. True that? 

 

I don't think there is any anti hindu stuff at all!

[Pushy]

saw Hundred, was pretty decent.

[Bird Bird Bird]

2 hours ago, hope said:

Hearing a lot that the show is Anti Hindu. Some nasty stuff shown about Indian goddeses. True that? 

WTF. No. It's as real and gritty as they come. 

[Django_3101]

Pataal Lok is just amazing. 6 episodes in and damn, what a show! Jaideep Ahlawat has totally nailed his role. Dark and still manages to distract viewers with funny one liners, just feels like how people talk in real life.

 

"Roti khake jayega?"  was the best till now

[Black_Hawk]

Any Sons of Anarchy fans here?

[achilles]

On 5/16/2020 at 9:50 PM, Aftrunner said:

Its such a fantastic story.

 

Want to start reading it. Any recommendation for which version/author I should pick up? Only have a vague idea of the story, KvP etc. 

[hope]

Finished Pataal lok dayum. Amazing show.

 

Finished in one night. Couldnt keep down. 

 

Brilliant stuff. 

[KWC]

9 hours ago, Black_Hawk said:

Any Sons of Anarchy fans here?

 

Brilliant show, the ending was kinda wonky but entertaining throughout!

[Big Boss]

Good to know people enjoyed Pataal Lok. IMO best Indian TV series. Also the amount of stupid butthurt on social media about the series is pathetic. Just enjoy show for what it is.