"यदिहास्ति तदन्यत्र यन्नेहास्ति न तत् क्वचित् |"
"Whatever is here is found elsewhere, but what is not here is to be found nowhere else' claims the Mahabharatha (Mbh) about itself. True to its rhetoric, for generations now, the epic has continued to enchant, enthrall and intrigue us at the same time.
Talking of the intriguing aspects of Vyasa's epic, the one that has possibly been debated the most is the case of Draupadi's five husbands.
Not surprising though, considering that through large parts of our social history, we have been known to be a largely polygamous, and in very recent times, a monogamous society. We don't find mention of too many instances of polyandry in our stories. Although it is believed that women in the early vedic age were free to take any man besides their husband, that practice apparently was brought to a stop by a sage, who could not tolerate seeing his mother go away with a man who was not his father. So, one woman having multiple sex partners was probably not very common in the later vedic period.
Social historians too opine that polyandry as a system was not prevelant among Aryan tribes.
But there are other scholars who point out that Draupadi came from Panchala desha, where polyandry could have been an accepted social practice. Panchala desha is today identified as the area around present day Himachal Pradesh and Nepal. And in these mountainous regions where land is scarce, fraternal polyandry was common and is believed to be in practice even today among Tibetans, the Nepalese and the Paharis of Himachal.
The idea behind fraternal polyandry was simple - it was to prevent the division of the limited land available in the mountainous regions. By marrying the same woman, brothers managed to keep the land together and avoid fragmentation.
This explanation would have been perfectly satisfactory to justify Draupadi's marriage, but for the fact that Pandavas had no plans of settling down in Panchala and rule over it; instead, they wanted to go back to Hastinapura to stake their claim to the Kuru kingdom. While they might have wished for a powerful ally in Drupada, they did not show any interest in his kingdom.
Nor did their marriage to Draupadi gain them instant lordship over Panchala as the Parshatas (Drupada's tribe) were not matrilineal. This is clear as Dhrishtadhyumna, Draupadi's brother, is identified as the king's heir apparent (although he was not the eldest of Drupada's sons, but that's another story!).
If this seemingly plausible explanation is ruled out, how then do we explain Draupadi's five husbands?
Of course, the epic itself offers several explanations for Draupadi's 'vichitra vivaha' in the form of backstories.
On hearing the suggestion by Yudhishtra that Draupadi marry all the brothers, King Drupada's initial reaction is one of shock. The king counters the suggestion by saying that such an arrangement is unheard of in the society. Yudhishtra disagrees and cites the case of Jatila who married the saptharishis. But this does not satisfy Drupada.
Subsequently, the revered Krishna Dvaipayana himself enters the scene to convince Drupada to accept the marriage by narrating two stories that explain why Draupadi was destined to be the wife of five men.
The story wherein Draupadi in her earlier birth sought five boons from Lord Shiva asking for five elevated qualities in a husband is quite well known. In the other story, the sage tells the king that the Pandavas were actually Indras in their previous birth and Draupadi was goddess Shri. The Indras were ordained by Lord Shiva to be born as Pandavas and marry Shri who was to take birth as Draupadi.
Although, details of the second story are sketchy, both these stories nevertheless make it clear that Draupadi's marriage to the five brothers was pre-ordained, had divine sanction and was hence acceptable. And more importantly, the marriage was to be considered a unique arrangement and was not to become a societal norm.
Of course, one is not sure if these stories were part of Vyasa's original epic or if they were later day additions. As the popularity of the epic spread, it is believed that several layers of content were added to it to make the epic appealing to a wide audience with diverse cultures.
Some scholars are of the opinion that several backstories in the text as we know it today, including probably Draupadi's, were not part of Vyasa's original epic.
And some have even taken the explanation beyond stories to give it a metaphysical perspective by comparing the Pandavas to the five elements which converge into the kundalini shakthi, namely Draupadi.
To me the explanation that the polyandrous marriage was actually Kunti's idea (as suggested by some) seems the most plausible one.
Kunti, like her grand mother-in-law, Satyavati, was a very smart woman. After the incident at the lac house at Varanavrata, she was probably convinced that the Kauravas were a formidable force to be reckoned with. If at all the Pandavas had the faintest chance of regaining their right to rule, it was possible only if they stayed united. So, when opportunity came knocking in the form of Draupadi, she seized it. What better way to keep the brothers together than for them to have a common spouse? So it is quite possible that it was a deliberate decision by Kunti to have Draupadi marry all her sons. In any case, it certainly was not the result of a misunderstanding on her part as it is made out to be.
Interestingly, even as Kunti implicitly suggests the idea, she goes against her own stance not to unite with more than three men in order to beget sons. Earlier in the epic, she turns down Pandu's request asking her to invoke the mantra (given to her by Durvasa) for the fourth time (after the birth of Arjuna), citing that a woman having a relationship with more than three men is considered a woman of loose morals. Going by her own definition, Draupadi becomes a fallen woman by marrying five men.
In other words, Kunti deftly bent the rule of chastity for the women of those times (making Draupadi a scapegoat in that course!) in order to keep her sons together.
But Kunti was not the lone decision taker here. Yudhishtra had a role to play too. According to the epic, Kunti wanted Yudhishtra to endorse her decision. She consulted him and urged him to think of a way her directive that Draupadi (as the bhiksha) be shared could come true. This set Yudhihtra thinking, for he possibly found some merit in her suggestion.
Here, we must remember that the brothers had been roaming the forest for a long time without a consort (except Bhima who took Hidimbi). And their chances of getting back to civilisation looked bleak at that time. So when the lovely Draupadi was asked to be shared among the brothers by their mother, the idea was far from repulsive for them. According to the epic, 'one look at the radiant Draupadi put the brothers' senses on a turmoil.'
The wise Yudhishtra could make out what was running through his brothers' minds. He, as advised earlier by Vyasa, wanted to avoid any conflict among the brothers. So, he pronounced, "this fortunate Draupadi will be a wife to all of us'", rendering him equally complicit in the decision.
And so, just as the Tibetans and Paharis adopted polyandry to keep their lands from division, the Pandavas took a common wife to stay united and consolidate their collective skills that would eventually help them win the war.
Thus, one finds that the reason for Draupadi to take five husbands was a practical one grounded in the harsh and cold reality of the day. The Pandavas were wifeless, landless and titleless, and desperately needed each other to reclaim their rights to the throne of Hastinapur. Towards that end, Draupadi was to be the thread that was to keep them bound together.
P.S: The views expressed here are mine unless stated otherwise, and are based on a reading of Bibek Debroy's translation of the critical edition of the Mahabharata.
