Madhuvidya

SR No.: 006525
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2001
Total Pages: 762
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Literature, & Philosophy
File Size: 17 MB

Page 461

194
M. A. MEHENDALE
The second point is with reference to Vikarna's reply. Before Arjuna gave his decisive reply, five persons - Vidura, Bhisma, Vikarņa, Karna and Bhimahad replied or attempted reply Draupadi's question. Of these the replies of Vidura, Bhişma, Karoa, and Bhima were paid no attention to - and this on good or plausible grounds: Vidura's reply went unheeded probably because he was dāsiputra and also because he was known for his partiality towards the Pāņdavas ; of Bhişma, because he could not decide the question one way or the other ; of Karna, because he spoke out of turn; and of Bhima, because the reply was irrelevant. But this cannot be said of Vikarna's reply. He, as a Kaurava, replied when the question was addressed to the Kauravas ; his reply was straight to Draupadi's question ; it was unambiguous, and was based on certain grounds which he detailed in so many words. And yet Duryodhana completely disregarded it! To say that Duryodhana neglected it because Vikarṇa was younger to him,' or because the reply was not favourable to him is not convincing. It is likely that Vikarna's reply had no effect on the outcome in the assembly because he did not find any Kaurava to support him. But more than this it is not possible to say at this stage.
And the third point that needs consideration is the way Bhişma deported himself throughout the Assembly sitting. One cannot but say that his attitude towards Draupadi's question was unbecoming of him; and since Draupadi was not only insulted with abuses, she was also a victim of molestation, his attitude must be judged unpardonable.
When asked a question, one may reply to it if one knew the answer. If not, is it necessary to say in so many words: 'I am not in a position to answer the question'? Assuming that there are occasions when this becomes imperative, was it necessary for Bhişma to do so twice ? Moreover, on the second occasion he shifts the responsibility of answering the question to Yudhisthira and feels himself free. Did he not know that Yudhisthira, when asked by Draupadi and by Duryodhana to answer the question, had not done so ? Hence the attitude of Bhisma towards Draupadi's question scems quite improper.
If Bhisma on his part felt that the question raised by Draupadi was insolvable. should he then not have given the benefit of doubt to Draupadi ? He was face-to-face with an impudent Duḥśāsana constantly tugging at the hair of Draupadi. The moment Bhişma saw this, he should have told Duhšāsana that he was in the Assembly of civilized Ksatriyas and not in the den of hooligans. He ought to have commanded Duḥśāsana to leave Draupadi alone. The Grand Sire of the Kauravas did not rise to the occasion and hence his behaviour becomes unpardonable,
1 Vikarna was considered to be one of the four important (pradhana ) Kauravas 1.90.62.
Madhu Vidyā/436