Click here for the previous question
Question - 30
Is there any rationale behind the numbers 12 or 13? On what basis the exile period for the Pandava-s was determined to be 12 years with an additional year added?
Answer:
The number 12 seems to indicate a full term. Rama was in the womb for 12 months - the total number of months in a year. The Sun covers the same number of signs in a year. Vasishtha's daughter-in-law, Adrishyanti claimed that her child was reciting the Vedas in her womb for 12 years! In the context of Vedic recitation, Jupiter (Brihaspati) being the signifactor, she could have referred to the time taken by Jupiter to complete one round around the zodiac which is roughly equal to 12 years.
In the case of retribution for certain offences, the punishment is for 12 years according Manu Smriti (11-102). For stealing the wealth of a Brahmin or for slaying a Brahmin, the punishment was banishment from the country and living in the forest like an ascetic for 12 years.
In Valmiki Ramayana, when Bharata was informed of Rama's exile, his immediate reaction was to know whether he stole the property of any Brahmin or harmed any virtuous person or desired another man's wife. His queries indicate that these acts invited exile to the forest for 12 and more years. In Rama's case it was 14 years.
Applying the rationale of these stipulations followed in the olden days to the exile of Pandava-s, they didn't steal the property of the Brahmins or virtuous persons, nor slayed any Brahmin, but in the case of woman there is a subtle issue of Dharma which Draupadi herself raised when she was humiliated in the Kaurava-sabha.
Her status as the wife of five brothers was against the norm of the day as known from frequent derisions thrown at her. Notwithstanding that her status was approved by her mother in law, it remains questionable if it was approved by the ethics of the then society. Since the tenets of Dharma are very subtle for us to understand, I am left with pointing out what could be her status as the wife of the other four if she is accepted as being won in the dice game as a property of the eldest Pandava. By the way everyone accepted the 12 year exile period, her status as the wife of 5 men seems to have been one of thorns which however was not outwardly expressed.
From another angle, Pandu relinquished the throne in favour of his elder brother Dritharashtra and left to the forest where his five sons were born. On their return to the country troubles had started. What would be the stance of the Kaurava-s who had legally inherited the kingdom from their father that was legally given by the father of the Pandava-s?
When they were not willing to and not bound to part with any part of the kingdom, the ceding away of a territory to the Pandava-s however barren it may be, under coercion and persuasion by the elders would be seen by them as injustice meted out to them. From this angle, the Kaurava-side contention will be that of losing their wealth for no fault of theirs. On that basis too, they can ask for the exile of the Pandava-s for 12 years (Manu Smriti). We should remember that no one including the all-knowing Bhishma could speak against the Kaurava-s for their desire to retain the entire property.
When the Kaurava-s could not subdue the Pandava-s by other means, they must have felt justified in the 12 year exile demand in the dice game, as legal heirs to the kingdom. The way the elders had kept quiet through all these goes to show that the elders were not able to take contrary stance with reference to this clause on exile.
The extra year (13th year incognito living) was sought as a buffer to enable the Kaurava-s to pick them out and push them back to another round of exile.
2 comments:
Pandu d not hand over kingdom to Dridharashtra,who was ineligible to rule, but had lust for power. Pandu with magnanimity went into exile, and Dridharashtra was only a caretaker King. When Pandavas returned after father's death, they were entitled to the throne. There is nothing legal in Kauravas inheriting the throne. However, Indraprasta was rightfully given to Pandavas, which was also usurped in a game of dice. Draupati sat in the last game with Pandavas, because she wanted the punishment of 12+1 year exile to them.
You have written as if Pandavas illegally claimed the throne, which is not correct.
@ Mr. T S Srinivasan,
The aim of this article is to probe the rationale for 12 years. It is not my case to say who is right and who is not, but to grasp the conflict between morality (dharma) and legality running in many contexts in the epic - to name a few, in the dice game, vastraharan, Bhishma's reply to Draupadi, the silence of Gandhari until she noticed the bad omens and such other events - and how each side had their own justification.
The exile clause was used only in the 2nd time. Though it was meant as stake for whichever side lost, it was actually meant for the Pandavas, if we go by the discussion among the Kauravas before they decided to go ahead with that stake. They knew very well that Shakuni would win for them - so went about calling the Pandavas back with a clause that whoever lost should go on exile. It was not just leaving the country but leading ascetic life, clad in deerskin. The same was done to Rama. All the issues I hinted here appear in the Ramayana, with Bharata wondering whether any such things were committed by Rama.
That offers the clue on why exiled life without any comforts was suggested in the first place. Any of the causes may fit with the case of Pandavas. It can even be just about one round of 12 years. I am just presenting from all angles.
Post a Comment