Patel's Theory Of Abuse And Mahabharata

Indian abuses are often laden with creative copulative nuances. Those against whom such abuses are hurled don’t take them as insulting as the one that has religious subtext.

Akar Patel in the latest Lounge issue put to rest some doubts on this subject. However it raises fresh few ones.

Akar Patel:

Perhaps men did not abuse one another during the Heroic age. There is not a word of sexual abuse in Iliad (though Achilles does call Agamemnon kunopa: dog-face). Presumably this is because they could settle it with swords.

…

All abuse attempts to dishonour. Abuse is a male weapon, because honour is a male virtue. Most words of abuse are coined to hurt men. A woman is attacked through allegations of promiscuity, not incest. A woman using sexual abuse is not convincing and her words do not sting, because she cannot penetrate.

Here, am I the only one to stuck at some contradictions. Wars from puranas are mostly fought to regain honour – the most conspicuous among them Mahabharata where Draupadi convinces Yudhistir to take on to Kauravas. Though immediate provocation to 18-days war is to reclaim lost kingdom, the real roots of Mahabharata war, we discover, are in Draupadi vastraharan act. It leaves Pandavas sulking.

Here I let myself enter into realm of fantasy to draw some interesting conjectures, though the extended ones for personal consumption.

If Duryodhana indeed wanted to dishonour Pandavas, how heroic character would have reacted during Mahabharata eon. Elsewhere, what could have been Shukracharyas reaction when he learns Yayati has entered into adultery by mating Sharmishtha. Imagine if Amit Varma belonged to same epoch, how his peppered WTF remarks would evoke reactions from Bhishma, who sermons the rajsabha on dharma post the dice game.