Read on Twitter
Some more objections by Author of that article in The Pritnt. I will answer each and every one of them here. https://twitter.com/ujaanghosh/status/1257474451886813185
First point he raised is about Suchismitam and he says expressions has been used in Mahabharata many times for women in times if distress, but what I am astonished at is shear neglect of context and common sense.
He says that word is used for Mata sita by Lakshman when she was worried about Shree Ram amd Charusmita was used for her by Ravan. And that she would not be smiling then
But he failed to make a clear distinction These words were NOT used by author but rather people present there
But he failed to make a clear distinction These words were NOT used by author but rather people present there
Lakshman says Seeta mata has a sweet smile while try to pacify her, whereas Ravan used Charusmita, to in a way taunt Mata sita. But in context of Subhadra it is used ny narrator himself to describe the situation. Context is very different.
So this neglect of context and just looking at word used ignoring who used it shows lack of understanding of sanskrit and style of poetry used.
He again and again repeats Bala is used so it is force, I would like to remind him that "Bala" is NOT used in original verse, Aropayat is used which means to Raise up towards himself. Bala was used in one of the Hindi Translations
It is written आरोपयद् Meaning Raised her towards himself at once or instantly raised her up, Guards were surrounding her who didn't get enough time to stop Arjun. He took Subhadra from custody of Soldiers against soldier's wishes, so his hostility was aimed towards Soldiers.
Upto next point, you say if a girl once abducted is cannot be married elsewhere, this is wrong, have you read it? It says people of Dwarka were ready to go after Arjuna to get back Subhadra, Even there could have been a was with Pandavas. Why will that try to get her back?
Clearly it is not as you say, Also Subhadra would have said something against it wouldn't she? Why she did not protest? Clearly she was willing
And again Ignoring Bhagwat Puran completely without and base show clear Bias, it is a text written at a point of time in history, why can't you accept that? Why it is you discard Purans as source of history?
At the end I would say I respect only truth not individual opinion on basis of assumptions, No attempt to target Dharma will be taken lightly, also earlier when you yourself said there are not enough evidence from MBH for this but you still assume she did not give consent.
This is not the case of Your interpretation vs mine, this is clear case of not being able to understand a text and then assuming according to convenience.
Let the truth prevail.
विष्णवे नमः
Let the truth prevail.
विष्णवे नमः
