ABSTRACT
In the following, the arguments that are exchanged between a man and a woman – here Yudhis
˙ t ˙ hira and Draupadı¯ – will be analysed against the
background of the mutual dependence implied in their social relationship. It will be shown that the debate serves to negotiate a relationship that has become problematic because the partners have been deprived of the chance to perform their inherited social roles. This seems to be especially critical
when the husband and wife are a king and a queen. The reason for the special quality of this relationship lies in the fact that, in the social structure depicted in the Maha¯bha¯rata, gender relationships are defined by marriage or other kinship ties, which in turn reflect the status of the partners in the social hierarchy. Moreover, this status has to be represented and performed, since it is observed and commented upon by others, be they those who appear in the epic as characters, bards or ‘the people’ (jana), or the audience of epic text when it is recited, read or otherwise published.3 The task of ‘representation’ was a particular challenge for the aristocracy, as they were charged with representing society not only as an ordered whole, but also as legitimate, beneficial and – not to be neglected – aesthetically satisfying. When I use the term ‘representation’, I do not understand it primarily in the more modern sense of ‘political representation’ as it is the case, for instance, in the pars pro toto structure of democratic systems. Rather, I refer to a pre-modern sense in which the upper strata of a hierarchically organized society represent the values and powers that guarantee the functioning of society.4 In this case representation is located on two interrelated levels: firstly – and this is well studied – the king must be able to exercise his power and maintain social order; secondly – and less studied – he should represent the orderliness, appropriateness and legitimacy of this social order by living up to its values, in brief by incorporating them as the king. However, this incorporation is only complete with a queen at his side. It is the very corporeal dimension of representation, its visibility and material character, that constitutes its attraction in the eyes of the others, be they family members, other kings, gods and goddesses or – not to be forgotten – the other social strata. I am going to argue that this ‘representational’ quality of kingship is an important feature of the discourse between exiled Draupadı¯ and Yudhis
˙ t ˙ hira in the A¯ran
˙ yaka-
parvan.5 It is a feature closely connected to the implications of the socially accorded roles of husband and wife. The discourse is a negotiation of a crisis in their relationship, because Yudhis
˙ t ˙ hira is no longer the royal husband
Draupadı¯ once married. In losing everything during the dice game, he has lost their status; therefore she demands him to take action. Seen from the perspective of the aforementioned construction of gender relationships, the crisis emerges because their customary roles as each other’s husband and wife are no longer in harmony with their royal status. This causes grief, complaints and controversies. The question then is: how does one represent one’s status when one has lost it? Or, to address the issue of the debate in the A¯ran
˙ yakaparvan, how can one be Yudhis
˙ t ˙ hira’s wife without being
a queen, and, conversely, how can one be Draupadı¯ ’s husband and not be a king?
