#arsu

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.

The moment Arjuna reaches Prabhasa, after twelve long years of travel, Krishna appears, and practically drags him back to Raivataka. Here, I kind of have to mention, Krishna and Arjuna, when together, have no sense of personal space. This is, however, the first time we see the level of their intimacy, at least in Mahabharata. For that one day they pretty much sit, eat, talk and sleep on the same asana. Even when Krishna then takes him back to Dwarika, their closeness only increases, much to, I imagine, the discomfort of the more traditional parliamentarians.

Then comes a festival on Raivataka, where Arjuna sees Subhadra, and immediately goes mad, much to the abject delight of Krishna. He in fact takes great pleasure, to tease the heck out of Arjuna at this point.

Arjuna however, doesn’t like Krishna’s initial idea to ask Vasudeva for permission. He does understand that no matter how liberal their upper-class society is at this moment, Arjuna and Subhadra are still first cousins, and we in fact see the Yadavas later object to the kidnapping based on this fact alone.

Krishna, in response, does say something a little controversial, “There’s no point in betting on a swayamvara, as she’s a young girl, and her mind may be fickle. Hence, kidnapping is the best option.” This was probably (and I’m reaching here) less about Krishna’s misogyny and more about the Yadavas’ (frankly, kind of valid) issue with Arjuna and Subhadra’s blood-family situation.

Now, interestingly, after two marriages, for his fourth one, Arjuna decides that he must take permission from Yudhishthira (was he afraid that Yudhishthira might hand him back to Balarama later, if he didn’t sort this beforehand?)

And hence, shubhasya sheeghram, the next morning Arjuna is tip-top dresses and armed, and picks up Subhadra when she’s on her way back from Raivataka.

Obviously Dwarika’s parliament is in uproar. Balarama, however is the only person to defer to common sense, as he hands over the ‘mic’ to Krishna, albeit after cussing Arjuna out pretty thoroughly. Krishna gives a few reasons (a bit flawed, but okay) for his support and recommendation for peace:

He doesn’t like an arranged marriage, as he feels it is as though the bride is treated like an animal who is ‘sold’ from one family to another (don't like how you got there, but congrats, I agree).

In a swayamvara, there’s no telling what Subhadra might to (or be made to do).

Arjuna is a kshatriya, and he doesn’t look good getting married in a ‘tame’, arranged ceremony, and the kidnapping raises the ‘value’ of Subhadra herself (like I said, flawed)

If the Yadavas now try to stop him, and an entire army (known for being tide-turning mercenaries btw), go after and get defeated by a single man, how does that look, before the international community?

Kunti’s gotra changed once she was adopted by Kuntibhoja, so legally, Arjuna and Subhadra are no longer first cousins (but still second or third, though!)

Arjuna is still, biologically their first cousin, so fighting a battle against family would be counterproductive, and make other kingdoms look down upon them (ironic, and you just said he wasn't! xD).

Arjuna is a great warrior, and any kingdom would be lucky to make him a permanent ally.

In Kashiram Das’s version, we see Subhadra in a more active role. Here, Daruka, who was driving the chariot, refuses to let Arjuna fight when Krishna’s sons challenge him. So, Arjuna ties him up, and hands over the reins to Subhadra, as he goes ahead and defeats everybody.

Well, after one year of marriage, Arjun remembers his vanavasa again, and goes to Pushkar, to spend the remaining time.

Then finally, he returns to Indraprastha, and straight to Draupadi, who promptly directed him to return to his ‘newer-model’ and stay there, among other things. So, Arjun did exactly that.

Interestingly, it is his idea to dress up Subhadra as a gopa woman, and send her in to mollify Draupadi instead. It works, only somewhat. Draupadi is impressed with the gesture, but she is still angry. She says to Subhadra, “Nihsapatno-stu te pati.” This on-the-face translates to ‘may your husband not have any enemies’. However, sapatn[o/i] also means co-wife (‘sautan/shotin’).

Dr. Bhaduri interprets this as: ‘may you have no co-wives’, by which Draupadi still keeps Arjuna on the rack, as an extension of her previous comment.

I also like the other reading which is: ‘may your husband have no co-husbands’: a covert expression of how tired she was starting to get of her husbands’ antics and marriages.

The gods of the Kingdoms

the style was inspired by the lineless lasso tool jumalanpelko style! love the comic and the art and wanted to try a version of it :)

lore time below if you’re interested!

The Arabian god Arsu riding a camel

Limestone relief from Dura-Europos, Syria

Parthian period, ca. 100-199 CE

Okay so:

Arsu: female, likes to run around and go nuts, very wishy washy and never follows a single rule (the rules that the two sides set up with eachother are an exeption but she still struggles with not breaking them) mischievous

Azizos: male, prefers staying in one place, very loyal and never breaks the rules, normally the less chaotic one (although some chaos is to come out of following. every. Single. Rule.) less outgoing and avoids interactions with anyone thats not his sister(kinda avoids her to)

+ a bonus celdez