Untitled

Just how unemployed are these whores to intentionally comment against DRAUPADI in her own reels 😭?

Why are these whores so insecure to the point that they start barking star plus mahabharat shit ?

Bitch doesn't even know that kunti is the biological sister of Vasudev but then starts taunting others with their Half baked delusional fake stories?

#Subhadra and her fans both aren't very good with their blood relations topics during their schooling i guess that's the reason their idol ended up marrying her "COUSIN BROTHER ARJUN" AND HER FANS DEFEND HER INCEST BY CALLING DRAUPADI disgusting NAMES IN DRAUPADIS OWN REEL WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEIR INCEST IDOL.

#Subhadra has the dumbest fandom in this world who romanticize their idols own kidnapping as a love story 😂 and bark shit against DRAUPADI in every DRAUPADI reel.

#Like seriously do they even have brains ?

#tch how can I expect religious people to have brains 🤣😂🤣 that would be to much of my expectations

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

If your mind is set on her, I can speak to my father myself.”

blessings of the gods and all the brahmanas, Subhadra circumambulated the

mountain and set out for Dvaraka. Kunti’s son rushed at her and forced her

onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet-smiling one, that tiger among men set

out for his own city on his chariot, as if on air. On seeing Subhadra thus

carried away, all the armed soldiers who were with her raised an alarm and

dashed towards the city of Dvaraka. They arrived at the assembly hall

named Sudharma and recounted the story of Partha’s valour to the presiding

officer.

13 On hearing this, the presiding officer sounded his war drum, one

that was ornamented with gold and had a terrible roar. On hearing that

sound, the Bhojas, Vrishnis and Andhakas then gave up their food and drink

and came to the assembly hall.

‘Those tigers among men, the Vrishni and Andhaka maharathas

14

ascended their thrones, decorated with gold, covered with excellent

cushions and adorned with gems and corals, with the radiance of blazing

fires, like a hundred fires on their sacrificial altars. When they were seated

like an assembly of gods, the presiding officer and his companions told

them about Jishnu’s

15 conduct. On hearing this, the warriors among the

Vrishnis, their eyes red with drinking, were intolerant of Partha and

arrogantly stood up. “Quickly yoke the chariots, bring our lances, fetch the

best bows and large armour.”

Where in the entire incident subhadra took reins of the chariot like you commented? calling me brainless when you literally invent your own delulu love story to white wash the kidnapping of a woman is low like really low ewwww.

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

If your mind is set on her, I can speak to my father myself.”

blessings of the gods and all the brahmanas, Subhadra circumambulated the

mountain and set out for Dvaraka. Kunti’s son rushed at her and forced her

onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet-smiling one, that tiger among men set

out for his own city on his chariot, as if on air. On seeing Subhadra thus

carried away, all the armed soldiers who were with her raised an alarm and

dashed towards the city of Dvaraka. They arrived at the assembly hall

named Sudharma and recounted the story of Partha’s valour to the presiding

officer.

13 On hearing this, the presiding officer sounded his war drum, one

that was ornamented with gold and had a terrible roar. On hearing that

sound, the Bhojas, Vrishnis and Andhakas then gave up their food and drink

and came to the assembly hall.

‘Those tigers among men, the Vrishni and Andhaka maharathas

14

ascended their thrones, decorated with gold, covered with excellent

cushions and adorned with gems and corals, with the radiance of blazing

fires, like a hundred fires on their sacrificial altars. When they were seated

like an assembly of gods, the presiding officer and his companions told

them about Jishnu’s

15 conduct. On hearing this, the warriors among the

Vrishnis, their eyes red with drinking, were intolerant of Partha and

arrogantly stood up. “Quickly yoke the chariots, bring our lances, fetch the

best bows and large armour.”

Where in the entire incident subhadra took reins of the chariot like you commented? calling me brainless when you literally invent your own delulu love story to white wash the kidnapping of a woman is low like really low ewwww.

And I have nothing else to add further. I can block you for using such a language with me. I've had discussions in the past on this platform with people who have not agreed with me but there has never been any cuss words involved.

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

If your mind is set on her, I can speak to my father myself.”

blessings of the gods and all the brahmanas, Subhadra circumambulated the

mountain and set out for Dvaraka. Kunti’s son rushed at her and forced her

onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet-smiling one, that tiger among men set

out for his own city on his chariot, as if on air. On seeing Subhadra thus

carried away, all the armed soldiers who were with her raised an alarm and

dashed towards the city of Dvaraka. They arrived at the assembly hall

named Sudharma and recounted the story of Partha’s valour to the presiding

officer.

13 On hearing this, the presiding officer sounded his war drum, one

that was ornamented with gold and had a terrible roar. On hearing that

sound, the Bhojas, Vrishnis and Andhakas then gave up their food and drink

and came to the assembly hall.

‘Those tigers among men, the Vrishni and Andhaka maharathas

14

ascended their thrones, decorated with gold, covered with excellent

cushions and adorned with gems and corals, with the radiance of blazing

fires, like a hundred fires on their sacrificial altars. When they were seated

like an assembly of gods, the presiding officer and his companions told

them about Jishnu’s

15 conduct. On hearing this, the warriors among the

Vrishnis, their eyes red with drinking, were intolerant of Partha and

arrogantly stood up. “Quickly yoke the chariots, bring our lances, fetch the

best bows and large armour.”

Where in the entire incident subhadra took reins of the chariot like you commented? calling me brainless when you literally invent your own delulu love story to white wash the kidnapping of a woman is low like really low ewwww.

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

If your mind is set on her, I can speak to my father myself.”

blessings of the gods and all the brahmanas, Subhadra circumambulated the

mountain and set out for Dvaraka. Kunti’s son rushed at her and forced her

onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet-smiling one, that tiger among men set

out for his own city on his chariot, as if on air. On seeing Subhadra thus

carried away, all the armed soldiers who were with her raised an alarm and

dashed towards the city of Dvaraka. They arrived at the assembly hall

named Sudharma and recounted the story of Partha’s valour to the presiding

officer.

13 On hearing this, the presiding officer sounded his war drum, one

that was ornamented with gold and had a terrible roar. On hearing that

sound, the Bhojas, Vrishnis and Andhakas then gave up their food and drink

and came to the assembly hall.

‘Those tigers among men, the Vrishni and Andhaka maharathas

14

ascended their thrones, decorated with gold, covered with excellent

cushions and adorned with gems and corals, with the radiance of blazing

fires, like a hundred fires on their sacrificial altars. When they were seated

like an assembly of gods, the presiding officer and his companions told

them about Jishnu’s

15 conduct. On hearing this, the warriors among the

Vrishnis, their eyes red with drinking, were intolerant of Partha and

arrogantly stood up. “Quickly yoke the chariots, bring our lances, fetch the

best bows and large armour.”

Where in the entire incident subhadra took reins of the chariot like you commented? calling me brainless when you literally invent your own delulu love story to white wash the kidnapping of a woman is low like really low ewwww.

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

If your mind is set on her, I can speak to my father myself.”

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

for kshatriyas. O Partha! But that is uncertain if one doesn’t know the

inclination. Those who are learned in the ways of dharma say that for

kshatriyas, who are warriors, abduction for marriage is permissible. O

Arjuna! Therefore, abduct my beautiful sister. Who knows what she might

do in a svayamvara?

Your so called god literally said that he doesn't know if subhadrra will choose arjun in swayamar or not hence kidnap her 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 yes he knows her enough to say that kidnapping her is best because she ain't choosing arjun in swayamar 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

From subhadrra harana parva bori ce enjoy 💪🏾🤣🤣🤣

Again,you didn't really counter my argument,you just went off the rails.

Usha abducted Anirudh,

Ulupi abducted Arjun,

And Rukmani asked Krishna to technically kidnap her -

And uhm.....it could be a description of Subhadra a sweet smiling one who was being abducted and yk, not that she was smiling while being abducted.

And about Krishn saying that abduction is the best form of marriage......one thing we should all realise is that the original text were written in Sanskrit. Hell they weren't even written. They were seen, told to others in form of stories, and then one day written. And then they change from household to household. There are many many versions of Ramayana for example. Everyone has their own interpretation and understanding.

Something which is being translated has undoubtedly been corrupted. Cause honestly, we don't know. Indian literature was BURNED. ERASED.

These are not emotions speaking, these are facts.

We don't know sanskrit and yk, Sanskrit is a hella confusing language.

People read that Lord Rama used to eat the mass of fruits and say he was a non-vegetarian while in Valmik Ramayan, Hanuman ji is saying Ramji never ate an animal. The text refers to fruit pulp and not an animal.

Similarly, many things can be misread and many things can also be translated wrongly ON purpose.

And this is not only about the Hindu epics and holy texts,

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.

I just realized something striking about the Indian epics: they only seem to recognize kidnapping as a serious form of abuse or crime when the woman is already **married**—meaning she "belongs" to another man. But when an unmarried woman is abducted, it's rarely treated as a real crime or even acknowledged as abuse. In their worldview, it appears that kidnapping violates a sort of "men's code": you don't steal a married woman because she's already claimed as someone else's property. An unmarried woman, however, has no "owner" to defend her honor or stake a claim, so her abduction isn't seen as a big deal.

Take these examples from the Mahabharata:

- Bhishma abducts Amba and her two sisters (Ambika and Ambalika) from their swayamvara to secure brides for his half-brother Vichitravirya. The two younger sisters eventually accept the marriage (to the stepbrother), and no one bats an eye. But Amba, who was in love with someone else (King Salva) and had already chosen him mentally, protests fiercely. Yet no one—not Bhishma, not the Kuru elders, not even the other kings—treats her abduction as a crime or offers her real justice. She's left to fend for herself, her suffering dismissed, and her plight fuels a lifelong vendetta that ends tragically.

- Then there's Arjuna's abduction of Subhadra. Krishna himself advises Arjuna to kidnap her because, as he puts it, Subhadra might not choose him in a swayamvara—she could pick someone else. So Arjuna forcibly takes her away during a festival outing. The Yadavas (including Balarama) get furious and want to chase after them, but not primarily out of concern for Subhadra's well-being or consent. Their outrage is mostly about the insult to their family honor and prestige—how dare someone "steal" their sister like that! 😂 Krishna has to calm them down, and the whole episode gets romanticized later as a grand love story.

It's honestly hilarious (and frustrating) how people spin the Subhadra-Arjuna episode as some sweet, consensual romance. Subhadra was given zero real choice in the matter—Krishna explicitly says she wouldn't have picked Arjuna in a self-choice ceremony, so they bypass it entirely through abduction. Fans who idolize Subhadra should actually be outraged at Krishna and Arjuna for disregarding her autonomy and right to choose her own groom. And don't get me started on Balarama and the Yadavas—they cared more about their bruised egos and "family honor" than about whether their sister was genuinely okay with being dragged off. 🤣🤣

In short, these stories reveal a deeply patriarchal lens where a woman's agency only matters if it affects a man's claim over her. Unmarried women? Fair game for heroic "abductions." Married ones? That's crossing the line. The double standard is glaring.

The text reflects a deeply patriarchal framework where a woman's "value" or protection often hinges on whether she's already "owned" by a man through marriage. Unmarried women could be abducted under the guise of rakshasa vivaha (marriage by capture), which was explicitly praised for brave Kshatriyas in certain contexts—Krishna even endorses it for Arjuna, saying forcible abduction is applauded.But once a woman is married, abducting her crosses into violating another man's property rights, triggering outrage (as with Ravana's abduction of Sita in the Ramayana, framed as the ultimate adharma).

In the examples mentioned:

Bhishma's abduction of the Kashi princesses — It's treated as a bold, heroic act to fulfill family duty. Ambika and Ambalika adapt and marry Vichitravirya, so the abduction is "justified" in outcome. Amba's refusal and prior attachment to Salva are dismissed; her trauma and quest for justice are sidelined, leading to her tragic fate. No real condemnation of the act itself.

Arjuna and Subhadra — Krishna orchestrates the abduction precisely because he doubts Subhadra would choose Arjuna in a swayamvara. The Yadavas' anger (led by Balarama) is framed around family honor and the insult of being "robbed," not Subhadra's feelings or autonomy. The text later describes (comparing ther union to Shachi with Indra or Shri with Krishna) even duryodhana was compared to indra lol, but it's after the fact—consent is retrofitted, and the episode gets heavily romanticized in modern retellings, TV serials, and fan narratives as pure love at first sight or mutual destiny. The original Vyasa text is far more pragmatic and political: it's an alliance-strengthening move between Pandavas and Yadavas.

And yes, the hypocrisy in modern adaptations is ridiculous. Endless romantic dramas glorify Arjuna-Subhadra as this swoony, consensual epic love story while portraying Draupadi's polyandrous marriage as tragic, burdensome, or miserable—often emphasizing her "suffering" under five husbands, the dice game humiliation, exile hardships, etc.

But the original Mahabharata (in sections like the Adi Parva) explicitly counters that narrative about Draupadi. After her marriage is settled, Vyasa describes her as extremely happy with the five Pandavas:

"Krishnaa [Draupadi] followed the wishes of all the five sons of Pritha, who were lions among men and immeasurable in their energy. She was extremely happy with the five valourous ones as her husbands, like Sarasvati with her elephants, and they were also delighted with her."

This simile (Sarasvati surrounded by her elephants—symbolizing abundance, harmony, and mutual joy) paints a picture of contentment and prosperity. The Pandavas abide by dharma, the family thrives, sins are absent, and happiness prevails. There's no dwelling on misery or resentment here; it's presented as a successful, dharmic arrangement that benefits everyone.

In contrast, Subhadra's happiness with Arjuna gets no mention, nor emphasized with the same detail or communal prosperity angle as Draupadi's. Subhadra's story fades into the background after Abhimanyu's birth, while Draupadi remains central through trials and triumphs.

Modern serials and fictions flip this: they amp up Arjuna-Subhadra romance (often inventing mutual pining, secret meetings, etc.) while making Draupadi's life look endlessly tragic—focusing on jealousy, inequality among co-wives, or her "sacrifice." It's selective storytelling that reinforces certain ideals (monogamous romance = ideal) while downplaying the epic's own portrayal of Draupadi's fulfillment in her unique marriage.

While there are no doubt instances of misogyny in the Mahabharata,you seem to misidentify representing something to glorifying it.

First of all,Amba's Abduction

Amba's abduction is something that seems to be portrayed by the very text as something bad that happened,as it clearly mentions the suffering Amba went through. I don't see how this is a glorification of abduction,when the story itself tells of her pain.

She even has Lord Parashurama fight Bhishma,and the former agrees to do so. Mind you,this is an avatar of Vishnu,Parashurama is a sustainer of Dharma,and the fact that he agrees to fight against Bhishma,clearly proves that the text considers what happened to be Adharma.

And then Amba is even reincarnated as Shikhandini,the daughter of king Drupad,who later turns into a man,and is on the side of the pandavas in order to get revenge on Bhishma. The pandavas are supposed to be the tools to sustain Dharma. Why would the Mahabharata portray Shikhandi(who wanted revenge on bhishma for his past life) on the side of the "good guys" if the text was glorifying what happened?

Mahabharata in this case is merely telling a story,not glorifying it.

As for Subhadra's abduction

According to the BORI CE edition of the Mahabharata,it says

"The mighty armed one rushed at her and forced her onto his chariot. Abducting the sweet smiling one,that tiger among men set out to his own city on his chariot,as if on air"

Why would the text describe her as "the sweet smiling one" if there wasn't some consent involved? Sure,it doesn't mention her giving prior consent,but no one would be smiling at getting abducted all of a sudden.

So you want to discuss events from Mahabharat.

Subhadra haran - Subhadra is the sister of Balaram and half sister to Krishna. She was born way after their birth. So they practically raised her as a daughter. since Balaram was the eldest son of Vasudev, and also the brother of Subhadra, he had a say in who he arranged her marriage with. He wanted to arrange a swayamvar and would have made sure Duryodhana wins. Or another version states that Balaram had already made up his mind about wanting to get Subhadra married to Duryodhana since he was his favourite student. Subhadra already liked Arjun but because he was married and much older than her, she never expressed it explicity (like how Rukmini wrote to Krishna about her affection and they eloped). But Krishna knows about Subhadra's feelings and arranged for Arjun and her to elope. Because that's the right thing to do. And also because Arjun was on the side of Dharma unlike Duryodhan.

And if you want let's just assume that she didn't like Arjun. But she didn't like Duryodhan either(which was the case of Amba, when she was abducted she already was in love with some other king/prince). And Krishna fed her with stories of Arjun and him on adventures and how good Arjun is at archery, he must have praised Arjun for his skills. And maybe to save his sister from getting married to Duryodhan, he arranged for Arjun to kidnap. Who would anyone have your sister married to? Both candidates were favourites of each brother. And she chose Dharma. And plot twist, when the Yadavas found out Arjun had abducted Subhadra, Subhadra took the reins in her instead to show that it wasn't Arjun abducting her. And come on, do you not know about divine interventions? If Krishna had not arranged for this to happen, Abhimanyu wouldn't have been born, Abhimanyu's son was the only heir of the Pandavas. So the whole divine order would have been disturbed.

And about the abduction of the princesses of Kashi. The swayamvar was arranged, kings and princes were present. They tried to fight Bhishma. But Bhishma managed to abduct the sisters on behalf of his half brother. And we know that is one of the reasons of the downfall of their family. Vichitravirya dies without heir, the sisters have sons via Niyoga, and even then the sons are incompetent, and their sons are hellbent on destroying each other and eventually everyone dies on the side of Adharma. And like @i-like-to-eat-cotton mentioned Amba convinced Parshuram to fight for her honour. Eventually she takes her life after praying to Lord Shiv to be able to exact her revenge.

While these actions alone cannot be defended, and neither we nor the texts in any way defend it or glorify it, all we can do is take lessons from these. That abduction is an immoral act. And just because a misdeed went unpunished in the past doesn't mean it will be forgotten. No misdeed goes unpunished.