Syama Draupadi The Dynamic Twilight Iron

Śyāmā Draupadī, the Dynamic Twilight Iron-Lady
In this paper, I would discuss on one particular aspect or epithet of Draupadī, which is
frequently overlooked, or if noted, not enough looked into, perhaps from a consideration
that it is ‘innocuous’ and its connotation ‘obvious’; yet, as I would argue, that very
epithet if understood, can help us with better understanding of Vyāsa’s mind and
Draupadī as a character in the Mahābhārata (Mbh.)-Itihāsa, and how she is intrinsically
weaved into the themes, messages, fabric and architecture of the Text.
That aspect or epithet is Śyāmā that Vyāsa uses about Draupadī. Vālmīki too uses the
epithet about Sītā1, therefore, it has a traditional, cultural and historical context. Besides,
Mārkaṇḍeya’s Rāmāyana (Rām.) being part of Mbh., Sītā is Cultural Memory to both
Vyāsa and Draupadī, and archetype to Draupadī because she identifies her with Sītā.
Draupadī is regarded śyāmā several times; four times by Kunti bṛhatī śyāmā
/strīdharmiṇī kṣatradharmaratā sadā (5.88.85a, 135.17-18); bṛhatī śyāmā śrīmaty
(15.23.9a); śyāmā /yoṣitāṃ śreṣṭhā (17.1.30), once by Yudhiṣṭhira - bṛhatī śyāmā
buddhisattvaguṇānvitā/ yoṣitāṃ śreṣṭhā (Yudhiṣṭhira: 17.3.36), and once by Sudeṣṇā -
sukeśī sustanī śyāmā pīnaśroṇipayodharā (4.8.11a).
It is to note that Śyāmā occurs four times as a phrase with Bṛhatī (epithet of Sarasvatī and
Uṣā, and manifestation of Vāk as Chanda)2 – once in association with Dharma
(Strīdharma and Kṣātradharma), once in association with Buddhi, and once with sheer
physical beauty. Therefore, in Draupadī's case, Śyāmā must be understood with the
associative words and their connotations including their associative connotations; and
those words too must be understood in the ‘light’ of Śyāmā. Signifiers in association and
mutual relation, modify the Signified. Here, as I would discuss, much is ‘unsaid’ than
‘said’ in Śyāmā, that is, Śyāmā creates the Dhvani (Ānandavardhana Dhvanyāloka)
Regarding the matter of exploring a particular epithet or word, I would defend that I am
following methodology suggested by Mbh. herself. Vaiśaṃpāyana, Vyāsa’s Śiṣya and
narrator to Janamejaya stresses on Nirukta3 in understanding Mbh., and Ugraśravā Sauti
reiterates same4. Kṛṣṇa praises persons conversant with Vedas through knowledge of
Nirukta, and Thinker of Artha (Meaning) of Words (niruktaṃ vedaviduṣo ye ca
śabdārthacintakāḥ; 12.330.18a). Only the Surface Layer Meaning of a Word is not
enough; one has to understand through etymology, and then further delve deep to look
into the Three Hidden Layers of Vāk.5 There is more to Śyāmā than meets the eye (ear?).
This brings us to famed Vyāsa-Kūṭas too. Usually, difficult Ślokas are taken to be Vyāsa-
Kūṭas. However, ‘difficult’ is subjective, and actual word for Vyāsa-Kūṭa in Mbh. is
Granthagranthiṃ - the Joint or “knot” to the Grantha –Granthagranthiṃ tadā cakre
munirgūḍhaṃ kutūhalāt; 25)6. In Aitareya Araṇyaka (AĀ) (2.1.6.1), Vāk is the rope of
breath (Prāṇa), and the Names are the Knots. Now, Vāk being identified with Anuṣṭup
Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 1 of 23

Asst Professor in English,
Kalyani Mahavidyalaya
Chanda (1.1.1.14), I suggest, Vyāsa’s “Knots” – Granthiṃ are therefore, to be found in

Names and epithets that occur in Anuṣṭup Ślokas, and not in ‘difficult’ Ślokas as a whole.
Every Word in this Śloka deserves study. Kutūhala indicates curious, wandering and
‘exploring’ nature (in case of Nārada too - sarvajñaḥ sarvadarśī ca sarvatra ca kutūhalī;
12.315.17c); and gūḍhaṃ is one alternative name of Kānīna-Putra in Mbh. 7. Vyāsa
himself, Karṇa and Ghaṭotkaca are such offsprings. Ahalyā (Rām-1.47.19), Satyavatī and
Kunti (3.290.6a) engage in intercourse in Kanyā-hood out of Kutūhala. Nārada once says,
“Curiosity is the stain of women” (strīṇāṃ kautūhalaṃ malam; 12.315.20c), and Vidura
tells Dhṛtarāṣṭra - kautūhalamalā sādhvī (5.39.64c). The spectre of Patriarchy looms, no
doubt, on Kutūhala, and the comments may sound derogatory; however, they are not; and
I suggest Granthim connects with Woman’s Evolutionary Nature by kutūhala. Gūḍhaṃ
is even Draupadī's epithet, her unparalleled mark of beauty - as Sudeṣṇā says -
gūḍhagulphā (4.8.10a) (one whose heels are not prominent), gūḍhasirā (4.8.12c) (one
with scarcely visible veins). Etymologically, Gūḍha is Guh+ dha = “secret bestowing or
placing”; however, it is Gū + dha too, connoting “going to bestow (merit)”; and we shall
see, how this “going” motif – the dynamic Foot (Pada)– is recurrent and common
metaphor for Vāk, Śrī, Kāla and Daṇḍa connecting with and ‘illuminating’ Śyāmā.
Vyāsa-Kūṭas – we know were devised and uttered by Vyāsa to keep the scribe Ganeśa
busy thinking over their significance while Vyāsa could compose more Ślokas. Thus,
Granthim implies Intelligent (Buddhi) Vāk with Ambiguous import, and Upāya
(Strategy/Policy). If Ganeśa has to think over a Śloka, it does not necessarily mean it is
difficult; rather it suggests significance hidden in the words and even outer meaning (that
is, even the Surface Layer meaning might be Signifier to some hidden Signified).
In Mbh., Buddhi is Feminine principle. Granthim has to be Feminine too, being product
of Buddhi, Vāk and Ambiguous in nature (like Evolutionary Nature of Woman). Further,
if Kutūhala is Mala of Woman, let us note that in Puraṇik narrative, Ganeśa has his birth
from Pārvatī’s Mala. Even the word Kūṭa suggests Ambiguity. On one hand, Kūṭa
connotes “the bone of the forehead with its projections or prominences, summit, head, i.e.
the highest, most excellent” denoting Wisdom; on the other, Kūṭa connotes “false, untrue,
deceitful, illusion, fraud, trick, untruth, falsehood, a puzzling question, enigma.” If Kūṭa
connotes “head”, and gūḍhaṃ Karṇa is implied in Vyāsa’s Granthim Vyāsa-Kūṭa, let us
not miss that Karṇa is rejected by Śyāmā Draupadī and beheaded by Śyāmo Arjuna; and
Śyāmo is one epithet of Iron, just as Kūṭa connotes Iron too!
It is with understanding as above that I would now explore the significance of Śyāmā.
1. Śyāma Characters of Mbh.
Vyāsa uses the phrase bṛhatī śyāmā in case of three other women too – Ambikā,
Ambālikā (te cāpi bṛhatī śyāme nīlakuñcitamūrdhaje, 1.96.54a) and Hiḍimbā (keyaṃ ca
bṛhatī śyāmā sukumārī tavānagha, 1.139.20a) – the former two Vyāsa’s “Niyoga-wives”

and the later, known as Rākṣasī – and Bhīma’s consort. Other than the obvious, what
could be common among Ambikā, Ambālikā, Hiḍimbā and Draupadī?
Śyāma with the feminine ā connotes - “a woman with peculiar marks or characteristics
(according to some ‘a girl who has the marks of puberty’, ‘woman who has not borne
children’, “a female of slender shape”), or “woman in the midst of youth”, or “night”, or
“shade, shadow”, or even “Cow.” Given the immense physical beauty of the women, “a
female with slender shape” or youthfulness – goes well with them particularly with
Draupadī; and the other connotations play in ironic ways. Vicitravīrya dies childless, so,
Ambikā and Ambālikā “has not borne children” until the Niyoga, and then too they agree
reluctantly. Draupadī and Hiḍimbā remain childless at the end, as if they have not “borne
children.” Besides, Draupadī being Kanyā archetype, “a girl who has the marks of
puberty” gains significance in her case. We shall see how the other meanings manifest.
To my knowledge, commentators, translators, interpreters and scholars have not taken

bṛhatī śyāmā as phrase, but as separate words; and have taken Bṛhatī to connote large,
large-framed, one with good or excellent physique, one with superior limbs and body,
Lofty etc. Haridās Siddhāntavāgiś takes Bṛhatī as a flower, and Śyāmā as the colour of
that flower in case of Ambikā and Ambālikā.
Interpretations agree that Bṛhatī refers to Draupadī’s Body or Body-Space; however, one
clue that it is more than that is the fact that “large-framed” is discordant with her Śrī
aspect. I have discussed that Bṛhatī actually refers to her Vāc-Sarasvatī Archetype. 8
Given that Draupadī is dark-complexioned with the other name Kṛṣṇā, the epithet Śyāmā
appears to be natural about her9. Hiḍimbā might be Śyāmā in that sense, but that does not
definitely apply to Ambikā and Ambālikā. In Draupadī's case, Śyāmā and Kṛṣṇā become
alternate Signifiers by the force of the Signified – Black and Dark. However, are they
synonymous? Or, are there ‘shades’ of difference? Śyāmā, we know, means ‘shades’ too.
If Śyāma and Kṛṣṇa are synonymous, are the four Kṛṣṇas in Mbh. ‘the four Śyāma’ too?
Among them, Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa is called by both names Kṛṣṇa and Śyāma– but, it is
mostly in Puraṇik narrative that he is famed as Rādhā’s Śyāma; Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vyāsa
is Kṛṣṇa, but never called Śyāma; Arjuna has Kṛṣṇa as name, and Śyāma as epithet (and
Bhīma too is regarded śyāmo yuvā10 and Nakula is Śyāma11) – though not much used.
Śyāmā as epithet of Ambikā and Ambālikā should be a pointer to their importance – they
mothered Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Pāṇḍu in Vyāsa’s seed in Niyoga custom – so, in a way, they
are the Mother of Mbh.-Itihāsa next to Vyāsa’s mother Satyavatī, because without them,
the Kuru-Pāṇḍava narrative would not have been possible. If this is their important role –
there is another frequently overlooked.
Ambikā and Ambālikā’s consent (or as Chomsky would say ‘manufactured consent’) to
the Niyoga marks the end of Bharadvāja Aṅgirā bloodline in Kuru Vaṃśa and begins the
Vaśiṣṭha bloodline. One surely remembers that the Pūru-Bharata Vaṃśa has been in

reality Bharadvāja Aṅgirā blood because Duḥṣanta-Śakuntalā’s son Bharata gave away
his throne to Bharadvāja’s son Bhumanyu (lebhe putraṃ bharadvājād bhumanyuṃ nāma
bhārata; 1.89.18c). Vyāsa-Vaśiṣṭha’s entry in Kuru Vaṃśa by Satyavatī’s Will, ends that
Bharadvāja Aṅgirā bloodline. That entry, or rather Vaśiṣṭha revival, courtesy Satyavatī,
to consider from a mundane point of view, is Political. In a way then, Ambikā and
Ambālikā assume the role of “Protector” not only to Bharatavaṃśa, but also to Vaśiṣṭha
interest and Vyāsa’s future Itihāsa-Kāvya. They also assume the role of Bṛhatī-Vāk in the
sense that Vyāsa’s biological and poetic creativity manifests owing to them. 12
In Ambikā and Ambālikā’s case, there is another dimension. Satyavatī’s concern in the
Niyoga is arājakeṣu rāṣṭreṣu (1.99.40c) and arājakaṃ rāṣṭraṃ (1.99.41a). Arājaka
Raṣṭra unleashes Mātsyanyāya (“Law of Fishes”), a central theme in Mbh. One Key
character in the Mātsyanyāya-System is Niṣāda-Fisherman, who is Śyāmo, Red and
Black in Varṇa (Colour) (Bandyopadhyay 2012b) – marking Śyāmā connection with
Mātsyanyāya. Niṣāda is Fifth Varṇa, just as Mbh. is Fifth Veda.
Why Hiḍimbā? No doubt, she too is a very important character. And if we try to imagine
her as Rākṣasī the way comic books, fairy tales, cinema and T.V serials portray Rākṣasī,
she is literally Bṛhatī indeed. However, her importance lies elsewhere. Her individuality,
independent-mindedness, sexual assertiveness, going against her own culture and rules of
convention, her “live-together” with Bhīma sanctioned by Kunti and Yudhiṣṭhira, her
protecting the Pāṇḍavas and Kunti during their post-Vāraṇāvata Forest Exile – all these
make her remarkable and Mother of Feminism. Indeed, she becomes Kunti and the
Pāṇḍavas’ “Protector” during their hazardous Forest Exile, thus assuming the role of
Arrester of Mātsyanyāya in Forest. She subverts her own cannibal Big-Fish brother
Hiḍimba from eating up the Small-Fish Pāṇḍavas and Kunti.
When Hiḍimbā approaches Bhīma, she takes up “Bhima's feet on her lap to press them
with her soft hands (bhīmasya pādau kṛtvā tu sva utsaṅge tato balāt; 3.13.87a).” Later,
when Kunti and Pāṇḍavas proceed towards Ekacakra, they have Hiḍimbā at their ‘head’
(hiḍimbām agrataḥ kṛtvā; 3.13.97c), that is, Hiḍimbā leads them, further implying, they
follow Hiḍimbā’s Foot-Steps – Pada – a very significant motif in Vāk-allegory. If Head
signifies Brāhmaṇa, and Foot signifies Śūdra, we find this combined aspect in Draupadī
too – pointer to a Paradox – that I regard, the White-Black Paradox, the mark of Śyāmā.
It is befitting that Hiḍimbā should later gain Devī-status (- she is worshipped even today
in Himācal Pradeś). By sanctioning her “live-together” with Bhīma, Kunti and
Yudhiṣṭhira violate all Dharmaśāstrik norms – by allowing a younger brother to produce
child outside a Vedic marriage tie before the eldest’s marriage; and Kunti is remarkable in
accepting Ghaṭotkaca as the eldest 13 of the Pāṇḍavas’ sons. Ghaṭotkaca too is Kānīna-
Putra like Vyāsa and Karṇa, because Bhīma could not have married an Rākṣasī as per
Dharmaśāstrik norms. Hiḍimbā marks the Dharmavyatikramī role14 of Pāṇḍavas (as well
as hers), followed by their other Dharmavyatikramī polyandrous marriage with Draupadī.

I suggest that the bṛhatī śyāmā characters, Ambikā, Ambālikā and Hiḍimbā, are involved
in some sort of revolutionary acts in standard of then Vedic Orthodoxy. They also assume
a “Protector” role as Arrester of Mātsyanyāya. Doesn’t it point to the role of bṛhatī
śyāmā Draupadī too? Śyāmā, in any case, contains a Dharmavyatikrama dimension.
Kunti regards Draupadī - sarvadharmaviśeṣajñāṃ (5.135.11a), sarvadharmopacāyinī

(5.135.15a), and then says bṛhatī śyāmā /strīdharmiṇī kṣatradharmaratā sadā (17-18).
So, in Draupadī's case, we have to understand bṛhatī śyāmā in context with Dharma and
Kṣātradharma, and particularly sarvadharmaviśeṣajñāṃ – “specialist in all Dharma” –
these are words that Vyāsa is not lavish about any other character in Mbh.
Another time Kunti says, śyāmā /yoṣitāṃ śreṣṭhā (17.1.30) – that is, Śyāmā Draupadī is
best among women, and here, in context, Śyāmā is not merely Black/Dark; it has the
connotation of ‘youthful’, and with śreṣṭha, it is exclusive And when Yudhiṣṭhira tells
about Draupadī- bṛhatī śyāmā buddhisattvaguṇānvitā/ yoṣitāṃ śreṣṭhā (17.3.36), it
contains all the ‘Key-words’ of Mbh. philosophy, particularly Sāṃkhya Darśana –
Buddhi, Sattva Guṇa – therefore, bṛhatī śyāmā is bound to be more in case of Draupadī –
more ‘unsaid’ than ‘said’, more ‘unuttered’ than ‘uttered’ – the Dhvani.
Then again, bṛhatī śyāmā should be read in context with all other eulogistic words that
Draupadī merits –manasvinī (1.175.8a); dharmārthakuśalā dharmacāriṇī (Vidura,
2.69.9); dharmacāriṇīm (Saṃjaya: 2.72.6c); sarvadharmajñāṃ paribhūya yaśasvinīm
(Dhṛtarāṣṭra: 2.72.13c); priyā ca darśanīyā ca paṇḍitā ca pativratā (3.28.2a); teja eva tu
kevalam (Dhṛtarāṣṭra: 3.228.9c); sarvadharmopacāyinī (Kunti: 5.135.15a); rājñā
dharmajñā dharmadarśinī (12.14.4c). Draupadī is sarvadharmajñā - which connotes
“Śauca-purity, of speech, body and mind, Kṣamā-forgiveness, Satya-truth, Dhṛti-
constancy, Smṛti-memory” (12.207.6a) (trans. Bhattacharya)
One easily notes, Draupadī is constantly associated with the word Dharma and
Puruṣārthas – her adeptness in Arthaśāstra (Politics and Economics) clearly stated
(dharmārthakuśalā dharmacāriṇī), and adeptness in Kāmaśāstra implied with ‘modesty’
(sarvadharmaviśeṣajñāṃ … sarvadharmopacāyinī; that is, ‘all’ Dharma cannot be
excluding Kāmaśāstra). More than that, she is constantly remembered as one with
exceptional Vidyā, Buddhi and Prajñā – and all these attributes reminding of and marking
her Vāc-Sarasvatī aspect. Śyāmā, in her case, illuminates and is illuminated by epithets.
Now, to delve further deep into the significance of Śyāma, let us start with the Vedas.
2. Śyāma in Vedas, Śyāmā as Twilight, Rotation of Day and Night, and Iron
In ṚgVeda, we have the word Śyāva (connected with śyāma) connoting “darkbrown,
brown, dark-coloured, dark” (e.g. at RV- 1.70.1c; 1.117.8a, 24a as proper noun; 1.126.3a;
2.10.2c; 6.15.17d; 6.48.6d etc.). At RV- 3.55.11, we find both words Śyāva and Kṛṣṇa –
nānā cakrāte yamyā vapūṃṣi tayor anyad rocate kṛṣṇam anyat |

śyāvī ca yad aruṣī ca svasārau mahad devānām asuratvam ekam || RV- 3.55.11
While Griffith15 and Geldner 16 take Śyāva and Kṛṣṇa as synonyms, I go with the idea that
here Kṛṣṇa connotes Dark, and Śyāvī is a proper noun - “Twin sisters … one glowing,
the other dark; śyāvī and aruṣī the two sisters …”17
Since Aruṣī connotes “dawn”, then Śyāvī connotes “Dusk” – both representing Twilight
and Joint of Day and Night. Śyāmā, connoting evening is Sītā’s epithet in Rām. -
saṃdhyākālamanāḥ śyāmā dhruvam eṣyati jānakī (5.12.48a). We have seen, Vyāsa-Kūṭa
- Granthim is ambiguous zone like Twilight that even Ganeśa cannot easily understand.
Śyāvī and aruṣī (RV- 3.55.11) associated with Kṛṣṇa (obviously reminding of Viṣṇu/
Kṛṣṇa and Cakra connection) suggests Rotation (cakrāte) and thus connects with two
other Ṛks that use the words Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna to represent the Rotation of Day and
Night (ahaśca kṛṣṇamahararjunaṃ ca vi vartete rajasī vedyābhiḥ; RV-6.9.1)18, and
White-Black Paradox (kṛṣṇārūpāṇyarjunā vi vo made viśvā adhi śriyo dhiṣevivakṣase;
RV-10.21.3)19. At another Ṛk, the Earth and Sky are akin to Day and Night that “keep
revolving as though mounted on a wheel (vartete ahanī cakriyeva)” (RV- 1.185.1). The
Twain (Earth and Sky, or Day and Night) is Footless but creates offspring with Foot (2).
These Ṛks, therefore, throw significant light on the allegorical significance of the relation
of Śyāmā-Draupadī, Kṛṣṇa (also with Viṣṇu via Cakra) and Arjuna. If Arjuna and Kṛṣṇa
are Day and Night, then Śyāmā-Draupadī as Twilight is In-Between them; enlightening
why Draupadī loves Arjuna the most, and Kṛṣṇa is her most trust-worthy Sakhā. Śyāmā
has individual existence, with both Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna aspects in her Self. Similarly,
Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna too have Twilight aspect. This Twilight manifests in Arjuna as
Savyasācī (both righthand-lefthand) and Bṛhannalā (both male-female), in Kṛṣṇa as his
Kūṭa-Buddhi (Truth and False Ambiguity) and in Draupadī as Queen-Dāsī double role.
In ŚB, “The Year, doubtless, is the same as Death; for he it is who, by means of day and
night, destroys the life of mortal beings” (10.4.3.1); and Rotation of Day and Night is
Yajña (3.2.2.4). The Rotation of Day-Night and Śyāvī-Āruṣī rotation is thus linked with
Kāla-Time and Yajña; and Draupadī too is Yajña-born like Vāk and Sarasvatī.
Vyāsa is no doubt Prajāpati’s archetype (Sullivan 1994). In a ŚB myth, like Prajāpati

(1:6:3:35)20, Vyāsa’s Twilight-Joint-Granthims enables him to relax in his poetic creation
because they keep Ganeśa busy. This enlightens the fact that the parvans or parvan-
divisions are Vyāsa-Kūṭa too! I have discussed elsewhere the significance of the Mystic
Number "18" of the parvans and how they represent Bṛhatī-Draupadī. If Prajāpati’s
restoration is through Agni (ŚB-10.1.1.3), I would say, Vyāsa’s restoration is through
Yajña or Agni-born Agni-Draupadī. Śyāmā-Kṛṣṇā Draupadī is Vyāsa’s Human Muse.
Śyāma is first found in Atharva Veda (ca. 1200 BCE) – for example at 8.1.9a21
(connoting Black, referring to Yama’s black dog; the previous verse mentions Tamasā)
and 11.3.7a22 (epithet of iron; Griffith translates “grey iron”). Not forgetting that in Mbh.

we have Yama-Dharma in Dog-form, and taking the four Vedas as a whole, we thus get
significant connotations of Śyāmā as below –
i) Black/ Dark
ii) Twilight / Joint (White-Black Paradox) – Kāla-Time
iii) Iron (Black Metal)
If Mbh.-Itihāsa precedes Atharva Veda age (c.a. 1200 BCE), which is likely, given
mention of Janamejaya Pāriksitạ in Atharva Veda (20.127; and Gopatha Brāhmaṇa-
1.2.5a), then Śyāmā significance of “Iron” bears Cultural Memory of Mbh. Itihāsa; and if
Mbh.-Text is later to Atharva Veda age (which, the Present Text certainly is in many
parts and layers), then Present Mbh. bears the Cultural Memory of those Śyāmā
significances. Let us register that Black/Dark is not just binary to White/Light, but has a
higher dimension – DARK/BLACK – encompassing both Dark-Light and White-Black;
it is the DARK/BLACK that prevailed everywhere before the Creation (tama āsīt tamasā
gūḷamagre; RV- 10.129.3a). As we shall see, Śyāmā has this higher dimension too.
3. Śyāmā, Kṛṣṇā, Sarasvatī, Kāla-Time, Śrī and Woman’s Evolutionary Nature
Śyāmā and Kṛṣṇā – both epithets and name of Draupadī, are even directly connected with
Kāla-Time because they are Kāla-Time’s epithets too. Asura King Balī regards
personified Kāla-Time as “A dark man (Śyāmo), standing there, dreadful, having bound
me like a brute bound with rope (ayaṃ sa puruṣaḥ śyāmo lokasya duratikramaḥ /
baddhvā tiṣṭhati māṃ raudraḥ paśuṃ raśanayā yathā; 12.220.82).” In the Mausala
Parvan, personified Kāla wanders around the houses of the Vṛṣṇis and Andhakas,
foretelling their doom, and he is “A dark (Kṛṣṇa) reddish-brown person with shaven
head, dreadful and monstrous- karālo vikaṭo muṇḍaḥ puruṣaḥ kṛṣṇapiṅgalaḥ (16.3.2).”
The descriptions evoke the imagery of Kāla as Vyādha/Niṣāda (also Red and Black), the
central metaphor in another central theme in Mbh. – Mātsyanyāya (Bandyopadhyay
2012b). We have seen and see further, how Śyāmā connects with Mātsyanyāya.
The four Kṛṣṇas of Mbh. share the Kāla-Time aspect. In one myth, Kāla is Śiva-Rudra
and born of Nārāyaṇa’s Krodha – (kālaḥ sa eva kathitaḥ krodhajeti mayā tava,
12.330.70a). Both Śiva and Viṣṇu-Nārāyaṇa are ‘Key players’ in Bhūbhāraharaṅa
Project. The ex-Indras and then Indra (Śakra) take birth as the Pāṇḍavas owing to Śiva,
who creates Śrī as Draupadī for the Pāṇḍavas (śriyaṃ bhāryāṃ vyadadhān mānuṣeṣu,
1.189.29c); further confirmed in Svargārohaṅa Parvan that śūlapāṇi-Śiva created Śrī as
Draupadī in human form (śrīr eṣā draupadīrūpā tvadarthe mānuṣaṃ gatā) (18.4.9-10).
Draupadī, in her Vāc-Sarasvatī aspect, has even deeper connection with Śiva. Draupadī's
other name Kṛṣṇā is also Sarasvatī’s epithet. Śāṇḍilya Upaniṣad in explaining the sacred
syllable Oṃ (AUM) states: “The letter ‘M’ has as its visible symbol Sarasvati, an aged
woman of black colour riding on a bull, having a trident in her hand (makāramūrtiḥ
kṛṣṇāṅgī vṛṣabhavāhinī vṛddhātriśūladhāriṇī sarasvatī bhavati, 17).” Here, Sarasvatī is
not only Kṛṣṇā, her connection with “M” and her appearance as vṛddhā in the sense “old”
associates her with Pralaya – the Universal Dissolution by Kāla-Time – and Kṣatriya-
destruction is Draupadī's Life-Purpose too. Vṛddhā – however, may also be in the sense
of mature and intellectually ripe, that is, Prājña – because Sarasvatī is associated with dhī
and Prajñā. Interestingly, in the image of vṛṣabhavāhinī triśūladhāriṇī (riding on ox and
holding trident – Triśūla) – we find Śiva-Maheśvara too. Like Śiva, rather preceding
Śiva, Sarasvatī has male-aspect Sarasvan in ṚgVeda – making her the Original
Ardhanārīśvara. ŚB mentions another significant connection of Sarasvatī and Black by
associating Sarasvatī with ‘Kṛṣṇa’ (Black) of the Eye, and Indra with White in the Eye
(12:9:1:12). GB mentions Viṣṇu as Black – and the word is Kṛṣṇā (viṣṇudevatyā kṛṣṇā
varṇena, 1,1.25q), pointing to the fact that in Vyāsa’s Original Mbh., perhaps Draupadī
was the Original Avatāra – Viṣṇu’s female incarnation. This idea is further bolstered by
Viṣṇu’s residing in Foot23, and we shall see the importance of Draupadī's Foot.
Kāla-Time associates with Woman’s Evolutionary Nature. Mbh. defines a woman's

nature in terms of mobility when it says, “Women are by nature mobile, difficult to
provide unconditional service to, their very qualities difficult to comprehend; as are the
uttered sentences of the wise men so are women” 24. Elsewhere, Balī too compares Śrī
with Cow in his discourse on Kāla and Śrī’s ‘fickleness’ (actually Evolutionary Nature):
“Like a cow abandoning one drinking hole, she will go again to another (12.220.44-46).”
According to Yāskācārya, Kāla has been derived from (the root) kal, meaning, “to go”.
Both Kāla-Time and Śrī are anīśa – without master (12.220.94), and Kāla-Time moves
Śrī from one place to another (12.218.10). Śrī moves on, and ‘prājñasya puruṣasyeha’ is
Vāk. Thus, Kāla-Time, Vāk and Śrī are natural archetype of Every-Woman. Indeed Every-
Woman is Śrī (śriyā striyam, GB-1,1.34i). Śyāmā-Kṛṣṇā Draupadī is Every-Woman’s
archetype. As we have seen, Vyāsa-Kūṭa too as gūḍhaṃ has significance of “going.”
4. Śyāmā and Iron, Vajra and “Iron-Lady” Draupadī
Śyāmā is one epithet of Iron, implying Śyāmo is Red and Black, the colour of Twilight.
Discussing on Śyāmā-Draupadī, the metaphor “Iron-Lady” naturally comes to mind. Her
Kṣatriya-spirit, inner strength and unbreakable will leaves no scope for any debate – the
Red in Śyāmā signifies Kṣatra Guṇa. Given the importance of Iron in Mbh. Itihāsa (Late
Vedic Age) and in the Text as trope, we shall see that Iron is not mere metaphor in
Kṛṣṇā-Śyāmā-Draupadī’s case, but in fact, she as “Iron” is intrinsically weaved into the
Text. Discussing on Vyāsa-Kūṭa, we cannot miss that Kūṭa also connotes “an iron
mallet” (kūṭonmuktaṃ musalaṃ; 16.5.5e) – that kills Babhru before Kṛṣṇa’s eyes.
Like Śyāmā in Atharva Veda, Kṛṣṇa is one epithet for iron – Kārṣṇāyasam (Iron/Black
Metal). In Mbh., the word Kārṣṇāyasam is found several times (e.g. 3.212.14, 5.133.1,
7.131.36a, 12.120.19 and 13.48.32b*311_1). An etymological significance of Vāsudeva-
Kṛṣṇa’s name is Iron25, and his Cakra is Iron-made (10.12.20a). I have noted that Cakra
is metaphor for Kāla-Time – Wheel of Time (RV- 1.164.2, 48), thus connecting the theme
of Iron and Kāla-Time. The Four Kṛṣṇas - Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vyāsa, Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa,
Arjuna-Kṛṣṇa and Draupadī-Kṛṣṇā therefore, bear the common epithet of Iron and Kāla-
Time. Iron, Niṣāda and Kāla-Time26 share the Varṇa (Colour) of Red and Black. The
Niṣāda is also metaphor for Kāla-Time, and the four Kṛṣṇas share all these aspects
(Bandyopadhyay 2012b). Iron thus connects with the theme of Mātsyanyāya (Niṣāda
being the Fisherman), Kāla-Time and Vyāsa-Kūṭa.
Indra’s Vajra is frequently associated with Āyasa in ṚgVeda (e.g. RV- 1.80.12; 1.81.4;
10.48.3; 10.96.3; 10.113.5) and Mbh. In RV, Vajra is female – “the lightning's daughter
(pāvīravī tanyaturekapādajo)” (Griffith: 10.65.13). The word pāvīravī is used twice in
RV (6.49.7; 10.65.13), Sarasvatī associated in both cases, signifying wise use of Vajra.
Arjuna is one name of Indra (ŚB-2.1.2.11) and epithet of Vajra (e.g. indro
haryantamarjunaṃ vajraṃ, RV- 3.44.5). Arjuna’s famed bow Gāṇḍīva bears the
significance of both Vajra and granthi - (gāṇḍī + va =“like vajra-granthi”); just as
Kṛṣṇa’s Iron-made Cakra too is compared with Vajra - vajranābham ayasmayam
(10.12.20a). Śyāmā-Draupadī thus links with Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna through Vajra and Kūṭa.
Kṛṣṇa’s killing Kaṃsa (literally white copper, brass, bell-metal) may be read as a
metaphor for Iron killing White Copper etc. (the White vs. Black metaphor still in view)
– marking an age of transition to Iron Age; transition –Twilight or Joint – granthi again.
Draupadī is Vāc-Sarasvatī archetype; and Vāk is associated with Vajra in ṚgVeda:
“Sakhā Viṣṇu and Dyaus make room for Vāk so that she appears as Vajra (sakhe viṣṇo
vitaraṃ vi kramasva dyaurdehi lokaṃ vajrāya viṣkabhe), and together they slay Vṛtra
and free the Rivers and let them flow at Indra’s command (RV- 8.100.12)”
Jihvā is Vāc-Sarasvatī (jihvāyāṃ vāk sarasvatī; 12.231.8), and Nārāyaṇa-Puruṣa’s Jihvā

is vidyut (vidyuj jihvā ca nirmitā; 12.335.47c) – connecting Vāk with Vajra. Now, Jihvā
has a destructive connotation too. Jihvā is associated with Kāla (e.g. Menakā speaks of
Viśvāmitra’s tongue as kālajihvaṃ; 1.65.38c). Jihvā as Vajra is Daṇḍa – VāgDaṇḍa.27
Draupadī, the Iron-Lady’s VāgDaṇḍa to her husbands and adversaries needs no
discussion. I will come back to the connection of Śyāmā and Daṇḍa soon.
Whether Āyasa mentioned in ṚgVeda is Iron or Copper or alloy is an ongoing debate.

Based on the most popular dating of ṚgVeda from 1500 BCE – 1200 BCE, Witzel (1999)
suggests that “ṚgVeda (RV) is a bronze age (pre-iron age) text” and marks1200 BCE as
“that of the earliest appearance of iron in the subcontinent.” The statement on dating of
Iron is of course a typical Witzelian whim, because “Recent excavations in Uttar Pradesh
have turned up iron artifacts, furnaces, tuyeres and slag in layers radiocarbon dated
between c. BCE 1800 and 1000” (Tewari). According to another view, “Rapid
developments in iron making and its use took place around 1400 B.C. The history of
early iron smelting, practised by the tribal artisans in different regions of ancient India
dates back to 1300 to 1200 B.C” (Vaish 2000). Thus, even if ṚgVedic period commences
in 1500 BCE, Iron is even earlier (1800 BCE) or contemporary; and from this point,
Āyasa mentioned in ṚgVeda is definitely Iron (Chakrabarti 1992).28 Or, we may concede
to the extent that even if Āyasa mention in older parts of ṚgVeda (which could be even
15000 BCE29 or 3000 BCE30 according to Max Muller) is not Iron, later mentions
definitely are. Witzel (1995 [2001]) at least concedes; “The Mbh. thus reflects, not unlike
the Iliad, a Late Bronze or Iron Age text that was finalized much later,” and that Atharva
Veda mention of Āyasa is Iron. 31
Considering that South Pāñcāla (Drupada’s kingdom, Draupadī's birth place), Magadha-
Kāśī belt (Jarāsandha’s, and later his son, Pāṇḍava ally Sahadeva’s kingdom) and Vatsa
were the ancient centres of Iron mining 32, I would go this far to suggest that one cause of
Kurukṣetra War was control over Iron mines. It is not logical to think that such a massive
Kurukṣetra war took place with only the ideological motive of seeing Yudhiṣṭhira on
throne. Every war has Artha (economics) as motive and justification. Śyāmā Draupadī as
cause of war may be read as an allegory of war over Iron and with Iron.
Considering that Sarasvatī dried up around 1800 BCE, the advent of Kali Yuga and life
and death of Kṛṣṇa therefore coincides with these historically significant events –
Sarasvatī’s drying up, and discovery and use of Iron. The Puraṇik concept of Yuga places
Mbh. in the Twilight (and let us note the Twilight again!) of Dvāpara Yuga and Kali Yuga
(antare caiva saṃprāpte kalidvāparayor abhūt / samantapañcake yuddhaṃ
kurupāṇḍavasenayoḥ // 1.2.9).
Kali Yuga is the Black age, and this is the age of “Black Metal” Iron too, that is, the
discovery of Iron onsets the Kali Yuga. Duryodhana too is hailed as Kali’s incarnation
(kaler aṃśāt tu saṃjajñe bhuvi duryodhano nṛpaḥ; 1.61.80a), and his thighs are
compared with Vajra (vajrapratimagauravam; 2.63.11c). Therefore, the conflicts in
Mbh., particularly between the Kṛṣṇas and those carrying Kṛṣṇa-aspect (Black) has the
significance of Iron vs. Iron – rather, conflict over Iron. Blue and Black – Nīla and Kṛṣṇa
– are considered the worst colours (Sanatakumāra – kṛṣṇasya varṇasya gatir nikṛṣṭā: 12.
271.37; Yudhiṣṭhira - nīlāṃ kṛṣṇādhamām: 12.271.67). Besides, Black – associated with
Tamaḥ– represent lie, deception, Naraka/Hell (Bhṛgu: 12.183.2) and Adharma
(12.183.5). Kali Yuga is ‘tāmasaṃ yugam’ (3.148.33) and the age of deceit (3.188.14-
15).’ Nārāyaṇa becomes Kṛṣṇa in hue in Kali Yuga (Mārkaṇḍeya: 3.187.31) and Viṣṇu
assumes Kṛṣṇa colour - kṛṣṇo bhavati keśavaḥ (3.148.33). Therefore, like Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇā-
Śyāmā Draupadī too has significance of Black vs. Black in Kali Yuga. The connection of
Sarasvatī and Kṛṣṇa (Black/Dark) is first found in ṚgVeda though in an oblique way
through Āyasa. At ṚgVeda 7.95.1, Ṛṣi Vaśiṣṭha Maitra-Vāruṅī regards Sarasvatī as their
(men’s) sure defense and fort of Iron (eṣā sarasvatī dharuṇamāyasī pūḥ).
Sarasvatī is created Bṛhatī for victory like a Chariot (ratha iva bṛhatī vibhvane kṛto, RV-
6.61.13). Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa (PB) associates Bṛhatī with Vajra or Daṇḍa (7.8.10).
By means of the Bṛhatī, Indra hurled his Vajra on Vṛtra (bṛhatā vā indro vṛtrāya vajraṃ
prāharat, PB 8.8.9). This takes us back to the Vāk and Vajra connection at RV- 8.100.12.
Draupadī is indeed Pāṇḍavas-Indras’ Vajra. In one myth, Draupadī was Mudgalānī re-
born. Mudgala’s wife Mudgalānī is called ‘Indra’s dart’ (RV- 10.102.2). Śyāmā Draupadī
is indeed Indra-Yudhiṣṭhira’s dart, the personified Vajra-Daṇḍa of the Pāṇḍavas.
5. Śyāmā Twilight, Uṣā, Cow and White-Black Paradox

Śyāmā is Twilight. Kṛṣṇa is born in the Twilight of Yugas at the junction of Dvāpara (the
third) and Kali (the fourth Yuga)33; so is Śyāmā-Kṛṣṇā-Draupadī.
I have noted that Vyāsa has Prajāpati-aspect and at ŚB 1.6.3.35, Prajāpati’s “joints are the
two junctions of day and night (twilights)”, and at ŚB 1.6.3.27, Yājñavalka equates Vāk
with Anuṣṭup Chanda and Prajāpati. Draupadī thus embodies and represents the “Vyāsa-
Kūṭa” - the Granthim. Draupadī as Śyāmā (having connotation “shade or shadow”)
implies her role as the White-Black Paradox, which aspect is shared by the Niṣāda-
Fisherman (or Vyādha), as Arrester of Mātsyanyāya and Upturner of Mātsyanyāya
(Bandyopadhyay 2012b). Her Śrī-aspect further bolsters this idea. In Mbh., Śrī is White,
being born from a golden Lotus from Viṣṇu’s brow - viṣṇor lalāṭāt kamalaṃ sauvarṇam
abhavat tadā, 12.59.133 (reminding of Athena’s birth from Jupiter’s brow in Greek and
Roman mythology -), and Black, having Śūdra origin (1.60.9-14) and born of manual
labour34- thus, both Brāhmaṇa and Śūdra, like Pṛthivī35. Further, Go-Granthim means
dried cowdung, which is endued with Śrī (13.81.1a; 13.81.23). Cow is Vāk36, Granthim is
product of Vāk-Cow, while Kāvya is the Milk of the Cow37. Vyāsa’s Granthims have the
utilitarian significance of Cowdung because they keep Ganeśa busy while he composes
Ślokas. Granthims are indeed the Śrī of Mbh. Similarly, Sarasvatī in her Intellectual and
Sattva aspect is White, and as Kṛṣṇā, Black. As I mentioned, one connotation of Śyāmā is
Cow, and Cow is shared metaphor for Earth, Śrī, Vāc-Sarasvatī, River and Kāvya.
In another PB (12.5.8.9) and ŚB myth, Indra can kill Namuci with Sarasvatī and Aśvins’
help by being at the Joint of Day and Night – the Twilight, and Sarasvatī suggests the
strategy of using Foam with Agni (Dry) and Soma (Moist) to serve as Vajra (which is
thus neither wet nor dry – an Ambiguity) with which Indra beheads Namuci (ŚB-12:7:3:1-
3). The narrative suggests Sarasvatī’s role as Strategist or Policy-Maker of Upāya. We
find Draupadī in similar role; she acts as Yudhiṣṭhira’s Minister or Advisor. Duryodhana
and Karṇa are Namuci archetypes38, and this illuminates Draupadī-Sarasvatī’s Political
Role too in the Dice-Game Sabhā and elsewhere.
Śyāmā-Twilight Draupadi’s Sri Aspect and Vāk-aspect connects her with another ṚgVedic
Goddess – Uṣā – Twilight-Dawn. In PB, Indra kills Namuci at dawn. Goddess ‘Dawn’ in
ṚgVeda signifies ‘hope’ (Ṛṣi Aurobindo). Like Vāc-Sarasvatī, Uṣā is connected with
Kāla-Time. Hope – the Goddess Dawn – “hath emerged from darkness (Kṛṣṇā)
(1.123.1)” Uṣā is Bṛhatī (2); she is “Revived and ever young (yuvatiḥ punarbhūroṣā, 2).”
Uṣā is “nobly born (3)”. She empowers, so the Ṛṣi prays, “may we subdue him who
worketh evil with our car the guerdon (5).” She is also subject to Ṛta – “Her birth is from
Kṛṣṇa-Varṇa…The Maiden breaketh not the law of Order, day by day coming to the
place appointed (ṛtasya yoṣā na mināti dhāmāhar aharniṣkṛtamācarantī) (9).” Uṣā is
Kanyā and goes to him who loves her (kanyeva tanvā śāśadānāneṣi devi
devamiyakṣamāṇam) (10)”. She is ‘polyandrous’ i.e. she can be everybody’s
simultaneously; there are other Dawns but Uṣā surpasses them all (na tat te anyā
uṣasonaśanta) (11). Uṣā is rich in prosperity and progressive force, and she is vigorous,
as the Ṛṣi imagines (aśvāvatīrgom atīrviśvavārā yatamānā raśmibhiḥ sūryasya). The
Dawns depart and come again and again (i.e. the inevitable cycle of Hope and Despair in
human psyche) assuming their wonted forms that promise happy fortune (12).” Thus, Uṣā
is Śrī too. The Ṛṣi prays –
“Obedient to the rein of Law Eternal give us each thought that more and more shall bless
us (ṛtasya raśmimanuyachamānā bhadram-bhadraṃ kratumasmāsu dhehi). Shine thou
on us to-day, Dawn, swift to listen. With us be riches and with chiefs who worship (13)”.
Uṣā’s Kṛṣṇā association, her being Kanyā and Bṛhatī, her indomitable spirit of revival,
her royal aspect, polyandrous aspect, her superiority to ‘other dawns’ (co-wives and other
women), her being vigorous, her moving aspect (carantī) and ‘‘Obedient to the rein of
Law Eternal” – all confirm Draupadī as Uṣā’s archetype. In Mbh., Draupadī’s hopes
never wane. Even Bhīma once speaks in favour of compromise, never Draupadī.
Uṣā is “refulgent White from out the darkness (śukrā kṛṣṇādajaniṣṭa śvitīcī)” – and this
White-aspect is Draupadī's Sāttvikā Guṇa - buddhisattvaguṇānvitā (17.3.36). The Ṛṣi’s
prayer to Uṣā – “Let the words of Truth be spoken; let the deeds of wisdom be performed
(udīratāṃ sūnṛtā ut purandhīrudagnayaḥ śuśucānāsoasthuḥ; RV- 1.123.6)” – marks
Uṣā’s Vāc-Sarasvatī aspect too.
If Śyāvī-Śyāmā-Twilight is Draupadī's Dark-aspect, then Uṣā-Twilight is her White

aspect; however, in ṚgVeda, Uṣā is also the White-in-Black Paradox, that is, she is the
White in the Dark too. For example, at RV- 10.127.7, the Ṛṣi addresses Rātrī as Uṣā,
rather, the Ṛṣi finds Uṣā in Tamaḥ-Kṛṣṇa Rātrī too.39 As Twilight, Śyāmā-Draupadī is
thus Uṣā, whose mystery is never to be resolved!
Draupadī's Twilight or Paradox-aspect is manifest in her shifting or rather ‘rotating’

roles. Like Vāk, she is Raṣṭrī, the Queen; she is Dāsī as Sairandhrī (also under threat of
subjugation as Dāsī by Duryodhana); however, in relation to Pāṇḍavas, she is the
Twilight Ambiguity – both Head and Foot, both Queen and Dāsī. After marriage, she lies
at the feet of her husbands, however, when she is exhausted, trekking, Nakula-Sahadeva
takes up her foot40. Head and Foot are significant imageries in Mbh. Hiltebeitel mentions
the Ślokas mentioning Draupadī's Foot, and translates Foot as “path” (draupadyāḥ
padavīṃ caran as “walking the path of Draupadī”) (Adluri and Bagchee 2011, 283), and
thereby misses the significance of Foot (and Head too).
6. Śyāmā, Daṇḍa and the Foot in Motion
Śyāmā is the Varṇa (Colour) of Daṇḍa; Daṇḍa’s complexion is nīlotpaladalaśyāmaś

(12.121.14a) – the same complexion of Draupadī – nīlotpalasamo (1.155.43a; 1.175.10c)
marking her connection with Daṇḍa, and Daṇḍa Nīti too in her Vāc-Sarasvatī aspect41.
Daṇḍa moves on Earth (daṇḍa eva hi sarvātmā loke carati mūrtimān; 12.121.17c).
Daṇḍa thus associates with Kāla-Time. Draupadī is Foot in Motion. The etymology of
Draupadī illuminates on Pada-signficance. Draupadī’s father is Drupada. Etymologically
Drupada is dru + Pada – that is, the Foot that is in motion/gati (√dru = going, moving /
gati)42. Draupadī’s name bears the same significance – the Pada that is in motion.
Draupadī as dharmārthakuśalā dharmacāriṇī (Vidura, 2.69.9) and dharmacāriṇīm
(Saṃjaya: 2.72.6c) mark the Foot-aspect, literally “walking the Foot of Dharma” –
shared aspect, marking Vāc-Sarasvatī, Śrī, Earth and Śūdra43 connection.
Kunti tells Arjuna to follow Draupadī's footsteps (draupadyāḥ padavīṃ cara, 5.88.79c;
5.135.19c, and Nakula says he would follow her foot-step (2.68.45a). In ṚgVeda the Ṛṣis
follow the trace of Vāk by Sacrifice - yajñena vācaḥ padavīyamāyan (10.71.3). Draupadī
is Śri (1.189.29c; 1.190.18a) and Śri connotes “to go to” implying motion and movement.
Śyāmā-Daṇḍa is associated with God forces of Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Lakṣmī, Nīti, Sarasvatī,
and Jagaddhātrī (12.121.22-23), and Brahmā, Sarasvatī, and Vaśiṣṭha (12.121.11-12).
Some names of Daṇḍa are Dharma, Śrī, Vijaya, soul of Rudra (asaṅgo rudratanayo),
doer of good (śivaṃkaraḥ) (12.121.19-21). The four Kṛṣṇas (and Pāṇḍavas) are
associated with these God forces, and all speak of Daṇḍa. Vijaya is one name of Arjuna.
Arājaka is absence of Daṇḍa and unleashes Mātsyanyāya (12.122.19-21); thus, Daṇḍa is

Protector of People particularly the Weak. The Ideal King abiding by Rājadharma is the
Daṇḍadhara having Benign-Fisherman aspect (Bandyopadhyay 2012b). I have noted
Satyavatī speaking of Arājaka to Śyāmā Ambikā and Ambālikā.
In Bhīṣma’s teachings on Rājadharma, Kṣatriyas are Daṇḍadhara (12.73.7a); for the

benefit of Prajā, Daṇḍa assumes form of Kṣatriya (daṇḍaḥ kṣatriyatāṃ gataḥ;
12.121.39a), and is ever awake (tasmāt prajāḥ pratiṣṭhante daṇḍo jāgarti tāsu ca; 38c.
also 12.15.2c, Arjuna). The Daṇḍadhara Ideal King is also ever awake (12.104.11c), and
is Upturner of Mātsyanyāya (atandritas tu prāyeṇa durbalo balinaṃ ripum; 2.14.8a;
Bhīma). Finance is all-important in executing Daṇḍa44 - a time-tested fact – and Bhīṣma
says that on Finance depend External and Foreign Affairs and Policies of the Raṣtra45.
Similarly, like Śyāmo-Daṇḍa, Śyāmā Draupadī is kṣatradharmaratā sadā (Kunti:

5.88.85a, 135.17-18); and as in-charge of Treasury or the Chief Accountant or the
Finance Minister or Financial Advisor (ekāhaṃ vedmi kośaṃ vai patīnāṃ
dharmacāriṇām; 3.222.54c) of Indraprashtha, she would work day and night (that is, ever
awake), sacrificing her ease (sukhaṃ sarvaṃ parityajya rātryahāni ghaṭāmi vai; 53c),
and all the while devoted to her cause. Public Welfare is her motive; Draupadī says, when
the king is Daṇḍadhara with prajā sukham or public welfare as his central motive, he
shines (kṣatriyo bhāti) (12.14.14). This illuminates Draupadī's administrative acumen as
illustrated in Draupadī-Satyabhāmā episode in the Vana-Parva (3.222-223).
Daṇḍa is Dharma46 – Draupadī's Mission and Vision or Life-Purpose. In Bhīṣma’s

discourses on Rājadharma, Daṇḍa is connected with Dharma (e.g. 12.121.8c-9a).47
Dharma has “Śūdra”-role to Daṇḍa (= Śūdra as Foot of Puruṣa, a functional role, and
not ‘caste’; RV- 10.90), Dharma at the service of Good Governance - presaging the
concept of Daṇḍadhara as Public Servant. Duḥśāsana (Duḥ + Śāsana) trying to disrobe
Śyāmā-Draupadī is therefore, also an allegory of Misrule’s lapse of Daṇḍa.
Bhīṣma connects Śyāmā-Daṇḍa with Teja, Vāk, and Buddhi -
“Teja- energy, Karma-acts, Pāṇḍitya-learning, Vāk-Śakti-eloquence, Tattva-Buddhi-

keenness of Understanding,--all these …are forms of Daṇḍa in this world. Hence, Daṇḍa
is exceedingly multiform.” (12.121.32)48
Similarly, Śyāmā-Draupadī is Teja’s Self (yajñasenasya duhitā teja eva tu kevalam,

3.228.9c; Dhṛtarāṣṭra’s words), Vāc-Sarasvatī (as Pāṇḍava-Indras wife, she is Śacī too49;
one connotation of Śacī is Eloquence), and associated with Buddhi [bṛhatī śyāmā
buddhisattvaguṇānvit (17.3.36)]50 which is hailed as the highest principle in the Gīta -
buddhau śaraṇam (Gīta-6.24.49)51. Buddhi is hailed as Dharma’s wife - buddhir lajjā
matiś caiva patnyo dharmasya tā daśa (1.60.14) - and so is Draupadī, the wife of
Dharma-Rājā or Dharma-Putra Yudhiṣṭhira. In Mbh., Buddhi is Feminine52 leaving no
doubt that the poet has Draupadī in mind.
Chāndogya Upaniṣad relates Itihāsa-Puraṇa (Mbh.) with Teja and Yaśa; and in Mbh.,
Śrī is frequently associated with Teja and Yaśa. Vyāsa says Sattva Guṇa creates Teja
(sattvaṃ hi tejaḥ sṛjati, 12.231.14c), and Bhṛgu tells Vasumān-Janaka that with Natural
Teja one can go together with Upāya (Strategy/Policy) (tejasā śakyate prāptum
upāyasahacāriṇā, 12.297.22a) – let us note again, the Foot in Motion. Draupadī's Śrī and
Vāc-Sarasvatī aspects unify through Teja, and she thus embodies Mbh. Itihāsa-Puraṇa.
The Daṇḍadhara is Protector, Arrester of Mātsyanyāya and Upturner of Mātsyanyāya

(Bandyopadhyay, 2012b). Draupadī herself deconstructs the notion of Pati as male-
protector when she tells Kṛṣṇa that wife too is Protector to her husband53 – reminding of
Sarasvatī’s similar role as Protector in Vedas. Sarasvatī is Pati – Puṣṭi-Pati – in ŚB.54
This Puṣṭi or prosperity aspect of Sarasvatī again identifies her with Śrī-Lakṣmī. I have
already noted the “Protector” aspect of the other Śyāmā women, particularly Hiḍimbā.
No wonder that even in Buddhist tradition, in Lalitavistara, the Kavi remembers

Draupadī and Sītā together as protectors (24.136).
7. Śyāmā, Earth, Nirṛti, and the Dice Game
Śyāma represents the colours dark-green or dark-blue (Hopkins 1883) - and both colours
are associated with Pṛthivī. She regains virginhood after every harvest; she is Kumārī, the
eternal virgin. Draupadī is Kanyā; she too regains her virginity after living with each
husband (babhūva kanyaiva gate gate 'hani; 1.190.14c). Similar is the case with
Satyavatī and Kunti receiving boon from Parāśara and Sūrya respectively. Like the Earth
Mother, Draupadī's Mother-Role is realized even by her husbands (māteva paripālyā ca
pūjyā jyeṣṭheva ca svasā; 4.3.12; Yudhiṣṭhira says). Her birth is connected with
Pṛthivī.55 She emerges from Yajña-Agni, but she rises from the Earth and for the Earth.56

Śyāmā, through dark complexion, and via Earth, connects with Nirṛti too. In Taittirīya
Brāhmaṇa, Nirṛti is described as dark, dressed in dark clothes and her sacrificial shares
are dark husks. (I.6.1.4). According to Sharad Patil (1974), Nirṛti is Earth-Mother: “Nirrti
was the triune mother of the tribe”.
Nirṛti herself is Twilight Ambiguous because she has both Benign and Malign aspects.
Her Dark-aspects are often taken as negative aspect. According to Gargya quoted by
Nirukta, Nirṛti means untruth or evil. In post-Vedic Brāhmaṇical literature Nirṛti ‘stands
for everything evil and deathlike’ because Nirṛti is generally taken to mean, "absence of
ṛta, lawless". Sharad Patil opines that ‘this theory fails to explain the original, non-Aryan
and non-Brahminical, meaning of Nirṛti’, and prefers Sakatayana’s explanation that Nir
(in Nirṛti) ‘does not reverse the meaning of rti, but buttresses it.’ (Patil, Apr 1974)
Though I do not agree with Patil’s use of terms like “Non-Āryan” or “Brāhmaṇical” –
which makes no historical sense – I agree with Patil that RV- 10.114.2 identifies Nirṛti
with Vāk. In Mbh., Vāc-Sarasvatī is Goddess of Bala (Power) and also proponent of
Daṇḍa Nīti – the most essential in Rājadharma for the Ruler to be Daṇḍadhara. At Ṛk
8.24.24, Indra is the knower of Nirṛtis (vetthā hi nir{ṛ}tīnāṃ), implying, the Ideal King
Indra must know Nirṛtis – that includes knowledge in Woman’s Evolutionary Nature.
The Karṇa Draupadī ‘continuous opposition’ – that is, the opposition of Karṇa (Ear) and
Vāk (Speech, Words, and Language) can be best understood in the light of one Vidura-
Dhṛtarāṣṭra conversation, in which Vidura advises Dhṛtarāṣṭra – “One who causes pain
to others by rude, cruel and harsh Speech like Thorns, is one who is connected with
Alakṣmī; such a person carries Nirṛti in his mouth”57 (Trans. Author)
Here Vidura (or, Vyāsa, we may say) equates Alakṣmī and Nirṛti and poses both as
opposite to Vāk-Sarasvatī (residing in mouth/Tongue), implying, Lakṣmī and Benign
Nirṛti are same as Sarasvatī – reconciling Draupadī's Śrī-aspect and Vāc-Sarasvatī aspect.
In the ṚgVedic Ṛṣi’s vision, Nirṛti exists in her Negative-aspect as long as there is Tṛṣnā,
and then, Nirṛti is slayer, very powerful and cannot be destroyed (RV- 1.38.6).
Duryodhana-Duḥśāsana-Karṇa’s Tṛṣnā (Kāma-desire) for Śyāmā-Kṛṣṇā-Draupadī
unleashes her ‘Black’-destructive Nirṛti-aspect, and the trio is finally doomed.
Patil (Mar., 1974) has noted with reference to Taittirīya Saṃhitā (11.4.8) how Nirṛti has
significance in Dice Game and the ritualistic symbology of Dice in Raṣṭra. Dice Game
ritual was performed to apportion the phratry land among the phratry brothers.
Explaining Vedic dicing, Vedic Index states, “No (dicing) board appears to have been
used, but a depression on which the dice were thrown (adhi-devana, devana, irina) was
made in the ground”. “The dice or aksas originally were lots whose function was to
apportion equally the communal property among the members of a tribe.”
This gives us clue why Yudhiṣṭhira agrees to play Dice Game. Personal motives to win
have been there58; however, the impersonal interest has been Raṣṭra. The lost side would
be the winner’s symbolic Dāsa to serve the Raṣṭra. Yudhiṣṭhira loses by ineptness to
Śakuni’s mastery (3.35.12), but Duryodhana takes the symbol as literal, and even extends
that to consider Draupadī a Dāsī. Śyāmā Draupadī, on realizing matters, plays a
Proactive-role to set things right. In Dice-Game Sabhā, she appears with all Twilight-
Ambiguity (ekavastrā adhonīvī rodamānā rajasvalā) in all the aspects of Vāk and Nirṛti
to counter the Nirṛti-Vāk in Karṇa’s Tongue (“Nirṛti in his mouth” – mukhe nirṛtiṃ
vahantam, 5.36.8b). It is then Black against Black – that Kṛṣṇa signifies. Draupadī's
Performance salvages the Pāṇḍavas. 59
8. Śyāmā, Rasa Tattva and Varṇa System

If the Present Written Mbh. dates anywhere between 400 BCE to 400 CE, then the
interaction of Mbh. with NŚ is not only logical, but also inevitable. The interaction is
imminent from thematic point of view too. Performance is an important theme in Mbh.
All the major characters are imagined as “players” for Krīḍa60 who descended on Earth to
act and advance Śiva and Nārāyaṇa’s project of Bhūbhāraharaṅa.
Śyāmā represents the Varṇa (Colour) of Śṛṅgāra Rasa (NŚ 6.42)61. In that light of Rasa
Tattva, Śyāmā-Draupadī epitomizes Śṛṅgāra Rasa. She is often praised as
Anavadyāṅgī62- an epithet that Vyāsa uses only about women with vitality like Pṛthu’s
wife, Śakuntalā, Devayānī, Kunti, Sūrya’s daughter Tapati, Vāsukī’s Sister Nāginī
Jaratkāru, Mudgala’s wife Nāḷāyanī, Damayantī and Sulabhā. In the context of Mbh., the
word Anavadyāṅgī is not an ‘easy’ word63 – it suggests a Woman who can by her Body-
Presence alone evoke Kāma in the Mind of a Male-Gazer who has not attained Balance
of Puruṣārthas, that is, a seductive Body-Presence – whether intentional or not.
Ānandavardhana in Dhvanyāloka states that some Rasas are in Bādhya-Bādhaka-Bhāva,

that is, one kills the other. Śṛṅgāra-Bībhatsa, Vīra-Bhayānaka, Śānta-Raudra, and Śānta-
Śṛṅgāra are in such relation (Dhvanyāloka- 3.23). Śṛṅgāra Rasa is in Aṅgāṅgi-bhāva
with Vīra, Hāsya, Raudra, and Adbhuta Rasa (3.23).
Similarly, Śyāmā-Śṛṅgāra Draupadī kills Bībhatsa-inclined ones. Anavadyāṅgī Śyāmā

Śṛṅgāra Sītā and Draupadī assume destructive form for those with Svabhāva-inclination
to Bībhatsa as in case of Rāvaṇa, Duryodhana, Jayadratha, Kīcaka and Jatāsura. They
bring about their downfall in their Kāma-striken misconceived Śṛṅgāra64.
NŚ associates Bībhatsa-Rasa with Mahākāla, and Bhayānaka Rasa with Kāla-Deva

(6.45). Further, Kṛṣṇa is the colour of Bhayānaka Rasa, and Nīla is the colour of
Bībhatsa-Rasa (6.43). Draupadī's aspect of Kṛṣṇā-Kāla-Time is therefore, in both
harmony and conflict with her Śyāmā-aspect. Her complexion has the Blue aspect too.
Arjuna is Bībhatsu – the one without Bībhatsa-Rasa. Draupadī loves him the most.
Draupadī-Śyāmā’s evocative Śṛṅgāra Rasa and simultaneous destructive aspect is more

explicit in Sudeṣṇā’s eulogy (Sudeṣṇā is etymologically “great in giving liberally”) –

“O thou of faultless limbs, O thou that art endued with large eyes casting quick glances,
he upon whom thou wilt look with desire is sure to be stricken (prasaktam abhivīkṣethāḥ
sa kāmavaśago bhavet). O thou of sweet smiles, that possessest a faultless form, he that
will behold thee constantly, will surely catch the flame (anaṅgavaśo bhavet). Even as a
person that climbs up a tree for compassing his own destruction, even as the crab
conceives for her own ruin (yathā karkaṭakī garbham ādhatte mṛtyum ātmanaḥ), I may,
O thou of sweet smiles, bring destruction upon myself by harbouring thee.” (4.8.24-26)
Earlier, when Jayadratha abducts Draupadī, she tells him her destructive aspect using the
same crab imagery - ādāsyase karkaṭakīva garbham (3.252.9c).
Śyāmā Śṛṅgāra being in Aṅgāṅgi-bhāva with Vīra, Hāsya, Raudra, and Adbhuta
(Dhvanyāloka - 3.23), the same Śyāmā assumes a different dimension in case of
Draupadī's husbands - Pāṇḍavas – evoking Vīra Rasa and Raudra Rasa in them, and
inspiring them to Adbhuta action, and with her Sakhā Kṛṣṇa, evoking Hāsya Rasa.65
The colour Śyāma also associates with the Vaiṣya and Śudra Varṇas (NŚ 21.113)66, just
as the Varṇa Kṛṣṇa too is associated with Vaiṣya and Śudra (ŚB-13.2.2.19). In Mbh.,
Kṛṣṇā is the colour of Śūdras (12.181.13c). Gaura is the colour of Devas, Śyāmo is the
colour of Nārāyaṇa, Nara, Nāga, Dānava, Daitya, Rākṣasa, Piśāca (NŚ 21.96-100).
Śyāmo is unique because the highest and lowest Beings share it as the common Varṇa.
Draupadī's sons are incarnates of Viśvadevās who are Vaiṣya-Gods (ŚB- 2.4.3.6; BrU
1.4.11-14). They are also Śūdra (Jaiminīyabrāhmaṇa -II.101; III.101; Sāṃkhyāyana
Āraṇyaka -1.7). Thus, Draupadī and the three other Kṛṣṇas are associated with Common
People – the viś – and this shows their Pro-People philosophy of life. We have noted
Draupadī speaking of Prajā Sukha or Public Welfare in her discourses on Daṇḍa.
We have noted that Draupadī is Foot in Motion; and Viṣṇu is Śūdra-God and resides in
Foot of Beings. Śūdras are Viṣṇu’s self (Parāśara: 12.285.28). Viṣṇu resides in the feet
of living creatures - krānte viṣṇur (Vyāsa: 12.231.8a). In NŚ, Śyāmo-Śṛṅgāra’s Deva is
Viṣṇu (6.42-43), that further points to the fact (and remembering Gopatha Brāhmaṇa
association of Viṣṇu and Kṛṣṇā) that Vyāsa originally imagined Draupadī as the Viṣṇu-
incarnate in Mbh.
9. Śyāmā, the Principle of Creation and Destruction/Dissolution
In Chāndogya Upaniṣad (CU) (8.13.1), Śyāmā is the principle of both Creation and
Dissolution/Destruction –
śyāmāc chabalaṃ prapadye |

śabalāc chyāmaṃ prapadye |
aśva iva romāṇi vidhūya pāpaṃ candra iva rāhor mukhāt pramucya dhūtvā
śarīram akṛtaṃ kṛtātmā brahmalokam abhisaṃbhavāmīty abhisaṃbhavāmīti ||

“From the dark I attain to the variegated, from the variegated I attain to the dark.
Shaking off evil as a horse his hairs, shaking off the body as the moon frees itself
from the mouth of Rahu, I, having fulfilled all ends, obtain the eternal Brahman-
world – yea, I obtain it.”
I would postulate that the principle of Śyāmā here in CU transforms into Śyāmā-Mā or
Goddess Kālī in late Puraṇas. In Śāṇḍilya Upaniṣad, the Varṇa Kṛṣṇā is associated with
Sarasvatī and with the principle of Dissolution. In explaining the sacred syllable Oṃ
(AUM), the Ṛṣi says: “The letter ‘M’ has as its visible symbol Sarasvati (17).” Draupadī
as Śyāmā is therefore, the Śyāmā-principle of CU and the Sarasvatī.
In Mbh., Sarasvatī is associated with Kāla-Time (9.36.15c), and in BrU, the Birth of Vāk
is associated with Mithuna (Sex or Evolutionary Nature), Death, Devouring and Hunger
and Kāla-Time (1.2.4). Hiltebeitel’s theory of Draupadī's identification with Kālī is
therefore, unnecessary and holds no ground. Further, the theme of “impurity” that
Hiltebeitel associates with Draupadī's menstruation and disheveled state is equally
absurd. Staking on Kālī, he misses Draupadī's Vāc-Sarasvatī aspect.
In the light of CU, the epithet Śyāma does not merely refer to Draupadī's youth and
beauty and physical complexion, but to her simultaneous Creative and Destructive
aspect. Regarding this Destructive aspect, Vyāsa is explicit about Draupadī like Vālmīki
about Sītā.67 When Draupadī is born, Vāk says about her –
tāṃ cāpi jātāṃ suśroṇīṃ vāg uvācāśarīriṇī /

sarvayoṣidvarā kṛṣṇā kṣayaṃ kṣatraṃ ninīṣati //
surakāryam iyaṃ kāle kariṣyati sumadhyamā /
asyā hetoḥ kṣatriyāṇāṃ mahad utpatsyate bhayam // (1.155.44-45)
10. Conclusion
I have discussed that the epithet Śyāmā attributed to Draupadī by Vyāsa does not merely
connote “dark-complexion” or “youth” or “Physical Beauty”; but Śyāmā is indeed rich in
connotation and associative connotations, refers to, and suggests the principles of
Creation-Dissolution/Destruction, Kāla-Time, Twilight, Granthim, Kūṭa, Iron, Vajra-
Daṇḍa, Pṛthivī, Vāc-Sarasvatī, Buddhi and Śṛṅgāra Rasa.
In the present Rām and Mbh.-Text which are undoubtedly products of layering, editing
and interpolations over the ages, as also owing to the dominant interpretative tradition of
culture, the role of Sītā and Draupadī have been relegated almost to secondary role to
their husbands and male counterparts, though there are visible traces in the same texts
that their roles as envisaged, imagined and created by Vālmīki and Vyāsa have been
primary and central. Without Draupadī's Active and Proactive-role in the Original Text,
Vyāsa could not have said - asyā hetoḥ kṣatriyāṇāṃ mahad utpatsyate bhayam.
In this paper, I have discussed and tried to show that Draupadī's Original Proactive role
may still be understood by examining and exploring certain clues left by Vyāsa, which

could not be tampered despite layering, editing, tampering and interpolations over the
ages. The epithet Śyāmā is one such clue and Key to unlock Vyāsa’s mind.
The four Kṛṣṇas, Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vyāsa, Kṛṣṇā-Draupadī, Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa and

Arjuna-Kṛṣṇa, all are thus inter-connected and share each others’ Self. Considering that
among them, Draupadī has the additional and more complex significance of Śyāmā, that
Kṛṣṇā is both Viṣṇu and Sarasvatī, and that the epithets and attributes are predominantly
Feminine, Draupadī cannot be considered secondary to the other three Kṛṣṇas; rather she
is the Centre of them, epitomizing Mbh. Itihāsa-Puraṇa through Teja and Yaśa.
Note:
All citations of Mahābhārata are from Critical Edition of Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, and all other citations are on the basis of the text entered by Muneo Tokunaga et
al., and revised by John Smith, Cambridge, et al. and procured from “GRETIL -
Göttingen Register of Electronic Texts in Indian Languages and related Indological
materials from Central and Southeast Asia” <http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil>
Abbreviations:
Aitareya Araṇyaka – AĀ
Chāndogya Upaniṣad – CU
Bṛhadāraṅyaka Upaniṣad - BrU
Mahābhārata – Mbh.
Bharata Muni's Nāṭyaśāstra – NŚ
Rāmāyana – Rām.
ṚgVeda – RV
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa – ŚB
References
1) Adluri, Vishwa., and Joydeep Bagchee, eds. 2011. Reading the Fifth Veda: Studies on
the Mahābhārata — Essays by Alf Hiltebeitel, Volume 1. Leiden, Boston: Brill
2) Aurobindo. “The Secret of the Vedas”, in The Complete Works Of Sri Aurobindo,
Volume 15, Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust 1998
3) Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit (2012a). Rape of Draupadī. Lulu Inc. ISBN 978-1-105-
40299-9
4) Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit (2012b). Mahabharata: Matsyanyaya Game of Power.
Lulu Inc. ISBN: 978-1-300-47354-1
5) Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit (2014). Yudhiṣṭhira/Pāṇḍava and Draupadī marriage:
Coded Message of Ideal Governance, and Rājadharma. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Sciences and Humanities. Vol.1, No.1, January, 2014, ISSN 2348-3822 p-84
6) Bhattacharya, Pradip (2016). Trans. “The Complete Śānti-Parva (Part-II: Mokṣa-
Dharma)”, in The Mahābhārata of Vyāsa. Writers’ Workshop, Kolkata, India
7) Brodbeck, Simon, and Brian Black (2007) ed. Gender and narrative in the
Mahābhārata, Routledge
8) Chakrabarti, D.K (1992). The Early Use of Iron in India. Oxford University Press
Delhi

9) Edgerton, Franklin (1936). “Indirect Suggestion in Poetry: A Hindu Theory of Literary

Æsthetics”. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, American Philosophical
Society, Vol. 76, No. 5, pp. 687-706
10) Hiltebeitel, Alf. The Ritual of Battle: Krishna in the Mahabharata. State University
of New York Press, Albany, 1990
11) Hiltebeitel, Alf (2001). Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader's Guide to the
Education ofthe Dharma King. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
12) Hopkins, Edward W (1883). “Words for Color in the Rig Veda.” The American
Journal of Philology, Vol. 4, No. 2, The Johns Hopkins University Press pp. 166-191
13) Kaelber, Walter O (1976). "Tapas", Birth, and Spiritual Rebirth in the Veda. History
of Religions, Vol. 15, No. 4 (May, 1976), The University of Chicago Press pp. 343-386
14) Ludvik, Catherine (2007). Sarasvatī: Riverine Goddess of Knowledge, From the
Manuscript-carrying Vīṇā-player to the Weapon-wielding Defender of the Dharma, Brill
15) McGrath, Kevin (2009). Stri: Women in Epic Mahabharata. Harvard, 2009
16) Patil, Sharad (Mar., 1974). “Distribution of Communal Wealth in Ancient India: Dice
and Agriculture”. Social Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 27-45
17) Patil, Śarada (Apr., 1974). “Earth Mother”. Social Scientist, Vol. 2, No. 9, Social
Scientist, pp. 31-58
18) Sullivan, Bruce M (Summer, 1994). “The Religious Authority of the Mbh.: Vyāsa
and Brahmā in the Hindu Scriptural Tradition”. Journal of the American Academy of
Religion, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 377 -401
19) Tewari, Rakesh. The origins of Iron-working in India: New evidence from the Central
Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas. [Tewari has been Director, U.P. State
Archaeological Department, Kaisarbagh, Lucknow, U.P, India]
<http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore.html>
20) Vaish, A.K. et al. (January-March, 2000) (National Metallurgical Laboratory,
Jamshedpur, India). “Historical perspective of iron in ancient India”. Journal of
Metallurgy and Materials Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 65-74. ISSN 0972-4257
< http://eprints.nmlindia.org/1471/2/65-74.PDF>
21) Witzel, Michael [1995 (2001)]. Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual
parameters.
22) Witzel, Michael (1999). “Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Ṛgvedic, Middle
and Late Vedic)”, in Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies. Volume 5, Issue 1
1 In Vālmīki’s Rāmāyana, Kausalyā regards Sītā as Śyāmā - “That Seetha, who is a young lady in the prime of her youth and very
delicate (sā nūnaṃ taruṇī śyāmā sukumārī sukhocitā; 2.55.4)”; Rāma, being Kāma-struck in spring, remembers Sītā as Śyāmā after
she has been abducted by Rāvaṇa – “She in midst of her youth, eyes like lotus petals, also soft-spoken one is my dear one (śyāmā
padmapalāśākṣī mṛdubhāṣā ca me priyā; 4.1.22)”, and “one who is in the mid of her youth, moonfaced, and with the radiance of
lotuses in her eyes (śyāmāṃ candramukhīṃ smṛtvā priyāṃ padmanibhekṣaṇām; 4.1.45). There is one reference where Śyāmā
connotes the dark parlour that Sītā’s complexion assumed being exposed to sun – as in the following verse stated by Lakṣmaṇa –
“Seetha becoming swarthy by sun’s heat, but not brightly (sīteva cātapa śyāmā lakṣyate na tu śobhate; 3.15.14).” Once, Sītā is
compared with the evening – saṃdhyākālamanāḥ śyāmā dhruvam eṣyati jānakī (5.12.48a). And in another case, Sītā is called Śyāmā
in association with the beauty of her eye and slender body - śyāmāṃ kamalapatrākṣīm upavāsakṛśānanām (5.56.51c). As we can see
from above, Sītā is called Śyāmā mostly relating to her Physical Beauty – particularly in association with the beauty of her eye and
skin, and her power of evoking Kāma even in Rāma’s mind. [All translations by Desiraju Hanumanto Rao]

2 See – Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. Draupadi, the Brhati Shyaamaa, the Lost Sarasvati – 10-Oct-2015
<http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=48832>
3 bhāratānāṃ mahaj janma mahābhāratam ucyate / niruktam asya yo veda sarvapāpaiḥ pramucyate (1.56.31)
4 “Being esteemed superior both in substance and gravity of import it is denominated Mahābhārata …He that knoweth its meaning i s
saved from all his sins – niruktam.asya.yo.veda.sarva.paapaih.pramucyate (1.1.208-209).”
5 Vāk has four layers – the ‘visible’/audible part is the Surface Layer, while there are Three Hidden Layers of Self. See- RV-
1.164.45; Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 4:1:3:16; 4:1:3:17
6 Here, I am taking the Ganeśa-Vyāsa episode as an integral part of Mbh., not discussing on its presence/omission in recensions
7 Karṇa is Kānīna (5.142.25; 5.143.3; 5.138.8); however, he is also regarded as gūḍhotpanna (1.2.88; 12.1.21; 15.38.14)
8 See – Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. Draupadi, the Brhati Shyaamaa, the Lost Sarasvati – 10-Oct-2015
9 Śyāma connected with √śyai connotes – “black, dark-coloured, dark blue or brown or grey or green, sable, having a dark or swarthy
complexion (considered a mark of beauty).” All connotations used in this paper are from Monier-Williams.
10 Kunti regards Bhīma as śyāmo yuvā at 1.184.6c
11 śyāmo yuvā (2.58.11a; by Yudhiṣṭhira)
12 However, this “blood” is not in any rigid sense. The Vaśiṣṭha revival through Vyāsa is also the revival of Ancient Vaśiṣṭha
tradition, in which, Ṛṣi Vaśiṣṭha Maitrāvaruṇī regards the ancient Aṅgirās as his forefather (RV- 7.42.1; 7.52.3). Aṅgiras connects
with mouth, therefore, with Vāk (BrU-1.3.8), belongs to the Sārasvata race (Mbh. 3.81.164a), and Vyāsa is Nārāyaṇa’s Vāk,
Apāntaratamā’s incarnation, and “abode of Sarasvatī” (7.172.43c), pointing to why Aṅgiras hymns dominate in Vyāsa’s edited Vedas.
13 tvaṃ kurūṇāṃ kule jātaḥ …/ jyeṣṭhaḥ putro 'si pañcānāṃ sāhāyyaṃ kuru putraka (1,143.35d*1569_5-6). Ghaṭotkaca too
considers himself a Kuru family member (bhīmāt khalv aham utpannaḥ kurūṇāṃ vipule kule / pāṇḍavānām ahaṃ putraḥ; 7.131.61).
14 They are Dharmavyatikramaḥ as Gautama Dharmasūtra suggests (1.1.3), and indicators of courage and greatness (dṛṣṭo
dharmavyatikramaḥ sāhasaṃ ca mahatāṃ). Āpastamba Dharmasūtra states same (2.6.13.7) and calls such person ‘Tejo’ who incur no
sin on account of their greatness (teṣāṃ tejo.viśeṣeṇa pratyavāyo na vidyate – 2.6.13.8).
15 “Ye, variant Pair, have made yourselves twin beauties: one of the Twain is dark, bright shines the other; And yet these two, the
dark, the red, are Sisters. Great is the Gods' supreme and sole dominion.”
16 Geldner: “Die Zwillingsschwestern haben sich verschiedene Farben zugelegt, die eine Farbe dieser beiden glänzt, die andere ist
schwarz. Die dunkle Nacht und die rötliche Usas sind Schwestern. - Gross ist die einzige Asuramacht der Götter.”
17 Thadani, Giti. Sakhiyani: Lesbian Desire in Ancient and Modern India. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016
18 The Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇa has almost the same first line as in RV- 6.9.1 with variation
19 See – Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. Krishna and Arjuna on One Chariot - Rotating Night and Day; 27-Feb-2012.
20 prajāpaterha vai prajāḥ sasṛjānasya | parvāṇi visasraṃsuḥ sa vai saṃvatsara eva
prajāpatistasyaitāni parvāṇyahorātrayoḥ saṃdhī paurṇamāsī cāmāvāsyā cartumukhāni
21 śyāmaś ca tvā mā śabalaś ca preṣitau yamasya yau pathirakṣī śvānau
22 śyāmam ayo 'sya māṃsāni lohitam asya lohitam
23 The Vaśiṣṭha School of Thoughts associate Viṣṇu with Śūdra. Śūdras are equal to Brāhmaṇas, and Śūdras are Viṣṇu’s self
(Parāśara: 12.285.28). Viṣṇu resides in the feet of living creatures - krānte viṣṇur, implying Viṣṇu’s Śūdra-self (Vyāsa: 12.231.8a).
24 calasvabhāvā duḥsevyā durgrāhyā bhāvatas tathā / prājñasya puruṣasyeha yathā vācas tathā striyaḥ // (13.38.24)
25 “I cultivate the earth by being Black Iron (Kārṣṇāyasa); or, as I am Black in colour, I am Kṛṣṇa -
kṛṣāmi medinīṃ pārtha bhūtvā kārṣṇāyaso mahān / kṛṣṇo varṇaś ca me yasmāt tasmāt kṛṣṇo 'ham arjuna (12.330.14)
26 Bhīṣma describes Kāla as- kālo lohitaraktākṣaḥ kṛṣṇo daṇḍī sanātanaḥ 13,134.057d@016_0203
27 ‘VāgDaṇḍa’.(Gautama Dharmashahstra -2.3.1; Vaśiṣṭa Dharmaśāstra -17.61; Bauddhyayana -2.6.11.23

28 "It should be clear that any controversy regarding the meaning of ayas in the Rgveda or the problem of the Rgvedic familiarity or
unfamilarity with iron is pointless. There is no positive evidence either way. It can mean both copper-bronze and iron and, strictly on
the basis of the contexts, there is no reason to choose between the two."(Chakrabarti, D.K. The Early Use of Iron in India. Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1992)
29 Max Muller admitted the purely speculative nature of his Vedic chronology, and in his last work published shortly before his death,
The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, he wrote: "Whatever may be the date of the Vedic hymns, whether 15 hundred or 15,000
B.C.E., they have their own unique place and stand by themselves in the literature of the world."
30 On facing severe criticism from some other German Indologists of the time, Max Muller later recanted: "I need hardly say that I
agree with almost every word of my critics. I have repeatedly dwelt on the entirely hypothetical character of the dates I ventured to
assign to the first three periods of Vedic literature. All I have claimed for them has been that they are minimum dates" (Preface to the
text of the Rigveda, Vol.4, p.xiii). Further: "It is quite clear that we cannot fix a terminum a quo, whether the Vedic hymns were
composed 1000 or 2000 or 3000 years BC, no power on earth will ever determine" (Collected Works, Vol.II, p.91).
31 Michael Witzel, “Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India. Data for the linguistic situation, c. 1900-500 B.C.”
32 Tewari, Rakesh. The origins of Iron-working in India: New evidence from the Central Ganga Plain and the Eastern Vindhyas.
http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore.html [Tewari has been Director, U.P. State Archaeological Department, Roshan-
ud-daula Kothi, Kaisarbagh, Lucknow 226 001 (U.P.)]
33 dvāparasya kaleś caiva saṃdhau paryavasānike / prādurbhāvaḥ kaṃsahetor mathurāyāṃ bhaviṣyati // (12.236.82)
34 Śrī represents crop, that is, the result of toil. In the Samudramanthana Mythical Narrative, Śrī rises during manthana (śrīr anantaram
utpannā ghṛtāt pāṇḍuravāsinī / / 1.16.34). I interpret that as implying Śrī’s birth through manual labour
35 Pṛthivī is Śūdra (RV-10.90.14; Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad- 2.1.4; Bṛhadāraṅyaka Upaniṣad.1.4.13); however, in Pañcaviṃśa Brāhmaṇa
(15.4.8), Pṛthivī is Brāhmaṇa; Agni is Brāhmaṇa; Agni is Pṛthivī (āgneyī pṛthivy āgneyo brāhmaṇa).
36 In RV “The Deities generated Vāk the Goddess, and animals of every figure speak her. Vāk is the Gladdener, yielding food and
vigour; she is the Milch-cow Vāk (devīṃ vācamajanayanta devāstāṃ viśvarūpāḥ paśavo vadanti / sā no mandreṣamūrjaṃ duhānā
dhenurvāgasmānupa suṣṭutaitu (8.100.11).” In BrU, 5.8.1, “One should meditate upon Vāk as a Cow (vācaṃ dhenum upāsīta)” etc.
37 “Like a cow endued with excellent milk, she (Word without utterance) yields diverse kinds of meaning (gaur iva prasravaty eṣā
rasam uttamaśālinī)” (14.21.17a)
38 They are ‘naturally’ Namuci as opponents to Pāṇḍava-Indras – see e.g. RV- 1.53.7, 5.30.7-8 etc.; see also Hiltebeitel 1990, 264;
Duryodhana echoes at Mbh. 2.57.8 verbatim Namuci’s Belief at 12.219.8.
39 upa mā pepiśat tamaḥ kṛṣṇaṃ vyaktamasthita / uṣa ṛṇevayātaya (RV- 10.127.7)
40 tasyā yamau raktatalau pādau pūjitalakṣaṇau / karābhyāṃ kiṇajātābhyāṃ śanakaiḥ saṃvavāhatuḥ // (3.144.20)
41 In Bhīṣma’s imagination of Daṇḍa, Nārāyaṇa creates himself as Daṇḍa in Human Form (Puruṣa), Dharma is Daṇḍa’s Foot, and
from that Daṇḍa-Form’s Dharma-Foot, Sarasvatī creates Daṇḍa Nīti (tasmāc ca dharmacaraṇāṃ nītiṃ devīṃ sarasvatīm /
asṛjad daṇḍanītiḥ sā triṣu lokeṣu viśrutā; 12.122.25).
42 The significance applies to Drupada because Pāñcāla, during his time moved away from inhuman practices like human sacrifice
(Jantu sacrificed by his ancestor for 100 sons) and Vedic Orthodoxy lost its seat.
43 Puruṣa Sūkta (RV- 10.90)
44 arthakāmaḥ śikhāṃ rājā kuryād dharmadhvajopamām / nityam udyatadaṇḍaḥ syād ācarec cāpramādataḥ /
loke cāyavyayau dṛṣṭvā vṛkṣād vṛkṣam ivāplavan // (12.120.9)
45 kṣayaṃ śatroḥ saṃcayaṃ pālanaṃ cāpy; ubhau cārthau sahitau dharmakāmau /
ataś cānyan matimān saṃdadhīta; tasmād rājā buddhimantaṃ śrayeta // (12.120.39)
46 Yāskācārya in Nirukta says: “Daṇḍa is derived from the √ dad, meaning to hold.” Daṇḍa is thus no different from Dharma because
Dharma stems from √dhṛ that too means, “to hold.”
47 “That upon whom all things depend is called Daṇḍa. Daṇḍa is that by which Dharma is kept up. He is sometimes called
Vyāvahāra.” (yasmin hi sarvam āyattaṃ sa daṇḍa iha kevalaḥ / dharmasyākhyā mahārāja vyavahāra itīṣyate; 12.121.8c-9a)

48 tejaḥ karmaṇi pāṇḍityaṃ vākśaktis tattvabuddhitā / evaṃ daṇḍasya kauravya loke 'smin bahurūpatā // (12.121.32)
49 See – Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. Why Draupadi is Sachi-Indrani? – 24th April, 2011
50 Śyāmā-Sītā’s mythical birth is associated with Buddhi (Rāmāyana-7.17.8)
51 dūreṇa hy avaraṃ karma buddhiyogād dhanaṃjaya / buddhau śaraṇam anviccha kṛpaṇāḥ phalahetavaḥ // (Gīta-6.24.49)
52 for example, Buddhir dharmārthadarśinī, 12.59.107 (Daṇḍa Nīti); svāminī buddhir, 12.246.9; paramikā buddhiḥ, 12.308.31a;
tatrātiśayinī buddhis tat saukṣmyam, 12.308.81c; buddhiṃ me viddhi brāhmaṇīm, 14.34.12
53 Draupadī tells Kṛṣṇa – “A wife also should protect her lord, remembering that he is to take his birth in her womb! (bhartā ca
bhāryayā rakṣyaḥ kathaṃ jāyān mamodare; 3.13.62c).” Later, Draupadī repeats same to Bhīma (4,20.27d*405_2).”
54 Sarasvatī is Pati – “May Sarasvatî, prosperity , the lord of prosperity, bestow prosperity upon me at this sacrifice, svâhâ!' Sarasvatî,
taking the oblation, departed and restored her prosperity to her.” (sarasvatī puṣṭim puṣṭipatiḥ puṣṭimasminyajñe
svāhetyāhutimevādāya sarasvatyudakrāmatpunarasyai puṣṭima; 11.4.3.16)
55 the Mythical Narrative of Sītā’s birth too is explicit about her connection with Pṛthivī (and indeed she returns to Pṛthivī again)
56 śriyas tu bhāgaḥ saṃjajñe ratyarthaṃ pṛthivītale / drupadasya kule kanyā vedimadhyād aninditā; 1.61.95
57 (aruṃtudaṃ paruṣaṃ rūkṣavācaṃ; vākkaṇṭakair vitudantaṃ manuṣyān /vidyād alakṣmīkatamaṃ janānāṃ; mukhe nibaddhāṃ
nirṛtiṃ vahantam, 5.36.8). KMG translates: “That worst of men is of harsh and wrathful speech, who pierceth the vitals of others with
wordy thorns, beareth hell in his tongue, and should ever be regarded as a dispenser of misery to men.”
58 Yudhiṣṭhira admits that he lost because he had played badly (3.35.12a), and that he cast the dice desiring to snatch from
Duryodhana his kingdom with sovereignty (ahaṃ hy akṣān anvapadyaṃ jihīrṣan; rājyaṃ sarāṣṭraṃ dhṛtarāṣṭrasya putrāt; 3.35.2a).”
59 See- Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. Ekavastrā Draupadī, Performance, Politics and Mahānagnyā Vāk.
60 A recension adds that all Kṣatriyas are Devas – and the Devas came to ‘sport (krīḍāṃ)’ on earth (18.5.34, 34x*30_1).
61 śyāmo bhavati śṛṅgāraḥ sito hāsyaḥ prakīrtitaḥ / kapotaḥ karuṇaścaiva rakto raudraḥ prakīrtitaḥ // BhN_6.42 //
gauro vīrastu vijñeyaḥ kṛṣṇaścaiva bhayānakaḥ / nīlavarṇastu bībhatsaḥ pītaścaivādbhutaḥ smṛtaḥ // BhN_6.43 //
62 Mbh. CE - 01,151.052d@094_0003; 01,157.016d@096_0013; 01,175.008a; 01,175.010a; 03,248.011c; 03,248.012c
63 Sītā too is hailed as Anavadyāṅgī (Vālmīki Rāmāyana - 3.41.2a; 3.45.28c; 5.32.11c)
64 Rāvaṇa falls for Anavadyāṅgī Sītā; and his Kāma for Sītā in misconceived Śṛṅgāra that brings about his downfall
65 See – Bandyopadhyay, Indrajit. “Mahabharata: Draupadi, Body Language, Eyes, and Vyasa’s Poetry” 27-May-2013
< http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=14473 >
66 brāhmaṇāḥ kṣatriyāścaiva gaurāḥ kāryāstathaiva hi / vaiśyāḥ śūdrāstathā caiva śyāmāḥ kāryāstu varṇataḥ // BhN_21.113 //
67 Similarly, in the Mythical Narrative of Sītā’s birth, Vālmīki says that she was Vedavatī in her earlier life now born in Tretā Yuga
with the purpose to destroy Rāvaṇa – tretāyugam anuprāpya vadhārthaṃ tasya rakṣasaḥ; 7.17.31


Syama Draupadi The Dynamic Twilight Iron

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Syama Draupadi The Dynamic Twilight Iron

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Syama Draupadi The Dynamic Twilight Iron

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Śyāmā Draupadī, the Dynamic Twilight Iron-Lady

Śyāmā Draupadī, the Dynamic Twilight Iron-Lady

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 1 of 23

Chanda (1.1.1.14), I suggest, Vyāsa’s “Knots” – Granthiṃ are therefore, to be found in

1. Śyāma Characters of Mbh.

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 2 of 23

To my knowledge, commentators, translators, interpreters and scholars have not taken

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 3 of 23

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 4 of 23

Kunti regards Draupadī - sarvadharmaviśeṣajñāṃ (5.135.11a), sarvadharmopacāyinī

nānā cakrāte yamyā vapūṃṣi tayor anyad rocate kṛṣṇam anyat |

Vyāsa is no doubt Prajāpati’s archetype (Sullivan 1994). In a ŚB myth, like Prajāpati

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 6 of 23

3. Śyāmā, Kṛṣṇā, Sarasvatī, Kāla-Time, Śrī and Woman’s Evolutionary Nature

Kāla-Time associates with Woman’s Evolutionary Nature. Mbh. defines a woman's

4. Śyāmā and Iron, Vajra and “Iron-Lady” Draupadī

Draupadī is Vāc-Sarasvatī archetype; and Vāk is associated with Vajra in ṚgVeda:

Jihvā is Vāc-Sarasvatī (jihvāyāṃ vāk sarasvatī; 12.231.8), and Nārāyaṇa-Puruṣa’s Jihvā

Whether Āyasa mentioned in ṚgVeda is Iron or Copper or alloy is an ongoing debate.

5. Śyāmā Twilight, Uṣā, Cow and White-Black Paradox

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 10 of 23

If Śyāvī-Śyāmā-Twilight is Draupadī's Dark-aspect, then Uṣā-Twilight is her White

Draupadī's Twilight or Paradox-aspect is manifest in her shifting or rather ‘rotating’

6. Śyāmā, Daṇḍa and the Foot in Motion

Śyāmā is the Varṇa (Colour) of Daṇḍa; Daṇḍa’s complexion is nīlotpaladalaśyāmaś

Arājaka is absence of Daṇḍa and unleashes Mātsyanyāya (12.122.19-21); thus, Daṇḍa is

In Bhīṣma’s teachings on Rājadharma, Kṣatriyas are Daṇḍadhara (12.73.7a); for the

Similarly, like Śyāmo-Daṇḍa, Śyāmā Draupadī is kṣatradharmaratā sadā (Kunti:

Daṇḍa is Dharma46 – Draupadī's Mission and Vision or Life-Purpose. In Bhīṣma’s

Bhīṣma connects Śyāmā-Daṇḍa with Teja, Vāk, and Buddhi -

“Teja- energy, Karma-acts, Pāṇḍitya-learning, Vāk-Śakti-eloquence, Tattva-Buddhi-

Similarly, Śyāmā-Draupadī is Teja’s Self (yajñasenasya duhitā teja eva tu kevalam,

The Daṇḍadhara is Protector, Arrester of Mātsyanyāya and Upturner of Mātsyanyāya

No wonder that even in Buddhist tradition, in Lalitavistara, the Kavi remembers

7. Śyāmā, Earth, Nirṛti, and the Dice Game

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 14 of 23

8. Śyāmā, Rasa Tattva and Varṇa System

Ānandavardhana in Dhvanyāloka states that some Rasas are in Bādhya-Bādhaka-Bhāva,

Similarly, Śyāmā-Śṛṅgāra Draupadī kills Bībhatsa-inclined ones. Anavadyāṅgī Śyāmā

NŚ associates Bībhatsa-Rasa with Mahākāla, and Bhayānaka Rasa with Kāla-Deva

Draupadī-Śyāmā’s evocative Śṛṅgāra Rasa and simultaneous destructive aspect is more

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 16 of 23

9. Śyāmā, the Principle of Creation and Destruction/Dissolution

śyāmāc chabalaṃ prapadye |

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 17 of 23

tāṃ cāpi jātāṃ suśroṇīṃ vāg uvācāśarīriṇī /

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 18 of 23

The four Kṛṣṇas, Kṛṣṇadvaipāyana Vyāsa, Kṛṣṇā-Draupadī, Vāsudeva-Kṛṣṇa and

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 19 of 23

9) Edgerton, Franklin (1936). “Indirect Suggestion in Poetry: A Hindu Theory of Literary

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 20 of 23

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 21 of 23

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 22 of 23

Indrajit Bandyopadhyay Page 23 of 23

You might also like