This Post is a response to the one my dear wife wrote about Ramayan after our discussions and debates over it. Hence I am also partially responsible for her outrage and had to write this to clear the cobwebs………….
Hmm… I see a lot of Anti male chauvinism and anger here… Point to be noted here. Isn’t fighting against male chauvinism called female chauvinism? Isn’t that sexual discrimination too? Well all I am saying is, if you want to do something, do it softly, mildly. The best way is to ask neutral questions without really getting so emotional about it.
Although the original post has come out only after discussing with me, still I am against it, because it portrays such strong emotions.
Ok let me, humbly try to dissect the original post and make an attempt to explain this. Later I will dissect the comments posted here too.
Let’s see.
Swayamwar Muckup: Firstly It was not King Janak’s clause. It was only a test of strength and determination. A convenient way to find the strongest and the most determined. But as we all know the final decision lies with the princess. There is a reason why they call it the swayamvar and not a pratiyogita. “Swayam” meaning self and “var” meaning husband. The princess chooses the husband herself. In our case the princess happened to be the avatar of Shri MahaLakshmi ji, who in all her divinity knew who Shri Ram really was. And as far as breaking the bow goes, the bow was too old and unstrunged for too long. Perhaps it couldn’t withstand the pressure of being strung.
Banwaas muckup: I am not a chauvinist. At least I feel I am not. But one must understand that a man has responsibilities besides his wife. He didn’t insist on Sita to come with him. In fact he requested her not to. Secondly going to the forest was his father’s order and the royal order too. He was bound by his responsibilities towards his father and the king. But one must also understand that at times it is difficult to understand the ways of God. “Leela” as we call it, it was a part of a master plan. Ram not only went to get his wife back, but destroyed a lot of demons and monsters on the way. Ram, Sita and Ravan were only the major players. The true purpose was to arrive at a balance of good and evil. Of course this could have been done in a much better manner. Sita didn’t have to get abducted. But again it could be a way to exemplify that even the Gods are at times bound to the happenings of fate, once they take human form.
Prove that you didn’t sleep with Ravan: Agni is not a negative thing. Although the way we know fire (in the modern world), it is supposed to have only one characteristic, to burn things. But Agni, as portrayed in our culture, has many forms with many qualities. There is an “Agnihotra” ritual that actually invokes the healing properties of fire. Even hunger is a form of Agni known as “Jatharagni”. We at times do not interpret things the way it was originally intended. We should also consider the Agni Pariksha a means to cleanse someone who has spent an entire year with demons and monsters.
Bali was a monkey. An animal, creating havoc over the forests, because of his uncontrollable rage against his brother. What do we do when a lion or a tiger starts killing men and cattle alike and destroying too many lives. We hunt it down. We don’t battle him man to man, because it is not a man we are fighting with. it is a monster. Rama was a Kshatriya. He was born to destroy evil. He didn’t even have to take human form to destroy evil he could have just moved his finger lying on the lap of Shesha naga in the ocean of milk and all evil would have destroyed. But he chose this manifestation and he played by the rules.
Exile Part II: it is not really just a washerman (not a fisherman) shouting. Rather it was the general respect of the populace that Sita was losing. Although it was a monarchial system of governance, Rama was very democratic. He bowed down in front of the general opinion of the populace and had to let Sita go. Now he could have walked away with her into the forest and he didn’t. There could have been a hundred reasons. He was the reign king of Ayodhya, the people could have objected, of letting him go to the forest. What one must understand is that this Mahakavya has been written twice by 2 very wise men. Valmiki and Tulsidas. I cannot believe that they would originally intend Rama to be selfish and a Chauvinist. Also this again was a part of the master plan. Lava and Kusha were destined to be born at the Ashram of Valmiki and get proper training from him.
Later Sita took solace with mother earth. Her purpose of her manifestation was complete. Immediately after Sita left, after crowning Lava and Kusha as princes, Rama also takes Samadhi and returns to his celestial form as Vishnu. Doesn’t appear that bad when you look at the larger picture does it?
Swayamwar: This is not in any way a ceremony to disrespect women or consider them to be a commodity. This is a ceremony to give voice to the bride and let her choose her groom. I do not see how we can disrespect womanhood through swayamwar even if we intended to, real hard.
Ashwamedha Yagya: This yagya is not a representation of Violence and wars. If someone might have misunderstood the true intent of Ashwamedha, let me clear it out. When you run a large kingdom, there are always rebels who want their own territory. The reason could be anything starting from not wanting to pay taxes to having their own kingdom. Again there are neighboring kingdoms that want to snatch a part of yours. Greed has no bounds. Ashwamedha Yagya was a peaceful way of ensuring stability. A horse and a small platoon goes around. Whoever catches the horse has a battle with the reigning king. It is not a full-fledged war. Nobody gets killed and peace is ascertained.
Godhead: we did not elevate a normal human being to godhead. We created a perfect human being (fiction) to create an example. Every Avatar of Narayan creates an example. This one perhaps creates an example of sacrifice and responsibility. But we didn’t look at it like that, now did we?
How to treat women: do we not have enough examples of how to treat women in Sanatan Dharma? I think we are the only culture (or one of the very few) in the world who have goddesses with equal and sometimes more power than the Gods themselves.
Exploiting the Vanar community: forgive me but I had to laugh at this one. Are you saying that Rama had to exploit the Vanar community to wage a war against Ravana? I just think we should think what we are thinking before we even think about thinking it. That’s all I want to say :)
I might not have answered all the questions, but again the idea should be to ask questions and gather wisdom before we really start pointing fingers. Isn’t that conventional wisdom?
