The Wagering of Draupadi

Posted by Harsh Nevatia Jul 14, 2008

I have recently encountered two different arguments concerning the wagering of Draupadi by Yuddhishthir, her husband and the eldest of the Pandavas.

The anti-Hindu argued that the Pandavas were righteous therefore everything they did had to be praiseworthy. They wagered their wife in a dice game. Therefore in Hinduism wagering of wives is a praiseworthy practice.

The pro-Hindu replied that the wagering of Draupadi was not a willful act. The Pandavas were invited to the dice game by their King and uncle, Dhritarashtra. Being obedient nephews they had no choice but to agree. Everything that took place thereafter was given tacit agreement by Dhritarashtra. And the Pandavas were helpless because they were bound by duty to obey their elder. Therefore in Hinduism obedience of elders is the praiseworthy practice. Dhritarashtra was on the side of the evil. And therefore compelling someone to wager his wife is an evil practice.

The assumption by the anti-Hindu that the personages in Hindu scriptures are either totally good or totally evil is flawed. All human beings have a combination of good and evil. When the good dominates we say that they are good and vice versa. Yuddhishthir was basically a righteous person, with one flaw. He loved gambling. The conclusion cannot be that gambling is good. The conclusion has to be that a good person can have flaws.

The pro-Hindu person argued that Yuddhishthir wagered his wife out of compulsion and not out of choice and therefore was not accountable for it. This is blind rationalization. If Yuddhishthir could not refuse the game of dice he could definitely refuse to wager his wife because she was not his property. Yuddhishthir’s act was at best one of misplaced righteousness and at worst the desire to win back his losses of the earlier wagers.