Today is 15th Feb and it's been one day since Valentine Day is over. News channels are full of news showing the moral police (moral or immoral, I sincerely wonder) trying to tame the boys and girls bent on spoiling our Bhartiya Sanskriti (Indian Culture). Well, like millions of other people watching the news even I watched it, surfed channels after channels, grumbled over their acts and moved on to the next channels to see something different. Call it my fortune or something else, I got to see my own culture on some other channels at the same time. On NDTV Imagine, these days they are broadcasting Ramayana. It's almost in the last stage of Ramayana. Ravana has been killed and Lord Ram has saved Sitaji from Lanka. Today's episode had the story showing SitaJi going through the Agni-Pariksha to prove her chastity. I watched it for some time, with, let me be frank, a great surprise, as to what our culture teaches us about women. On another channel (it was some Star channel, I guess), there was Mahabharata being aired. It was the Mahabharata story shown in the form of an animated movie. As it was a movie, it went on very fast. Again there were many parts of the story, e.g. Madri (mother of Nakul and Sahdev) getting Sati (practice of being burnt alive with the dead body of her husband) after the death of Pandu, Gandhari choosing to be blind all over her life after getting married to a blind person, Draupadi marrying to five pandavas without any protest, Pandavas betting their own wife in the game of chausar etc etc, made me wonder, if this is what our Bhartiya Sanskriti teaches us about women!!!
It made me really think and ponder over the position our culture has given to the women in society. When we were kids these stories were taught to us and we learned them most reverently. At that time Sitaji going for Agni Pariksha looked like the most noble thing a woman can do. I must agree that I could not understand much of what was going on and why it was being done. I was a kid and unaware as well as ignorent of many things in life. Now that I have my own conscience and logical power, I can and would ask, why was it necessary for SitaJi to go for the chastity test ? She was in captive by a demon king. She had no power whatsoever to fight with him, otherwise she would not have been in captivity for fourteen long years. If God Ram had the right to ask her to prove her chastity, so had Sitaji from her husband! But that did not happen. It was the woman who had to prover herself, without any protest and only then she was accepted by her husband. we all watched it, and clapped too!!! Moral of the story, Ramayana teaches that between husband and wife, its the wife who should always do the sacrifice, large or small, irrespective of the enormity.
Talking about Mahabharata, I simply shudder describing the way women have been portrayed in this story. Some of the examples I have already given above in the first paragraph. There are plenty of them in Mahabharata which clearly shows that women had no self identity, no individual character without their husband. A woman's husband could make her a Dasi in one moment, just because he had nothing else to bet, and in the next moment someone could take all of her dignity in front of the eyes of hundreds of people. There were many such stories. we all watched it, and clapped too!!! Moral of the story, Mahabharata teaches us even worse, about the status and position a woman in a man's life, than Ramayana.
Now I want to ask Mr Mutalik and to all those countless abc dal and xyz sena people, what kind of culture do they want the girls of today's India to learn ? There was a time when a completely servile wife was looked upon as an epitome of culture and civilization. But at what cost ? She had no freedom in life and was molded into thinking that she should have no wish to have any freedom in life. Do you guys want that kind of culture brought back to today's society ? If today's girl wants to break those shackles and want to have little more freedom and independence for a better life, what's wrong with it ?
There can be pages after pages written on this issue. But I would like to stop it here, hoping that I have been able to make my point clear to the reader of this blog. Having said that, I must add that there are many good examples to emulate in these epics and we must follow them. But as far as the status of women is concerned, we are far better-off now than then.
Jai Hind !
9 comments:
Mr. Brajesh,
I think before you pass any comment on Indian epics like Ramayana, you should do some research and just not post comments based on some stupid serials. These serials are full of sensationalism, sex and impurity. If you are interested to find out the reason, please have patience to go through the literature. Dont just curse holy books like Ramayana. Let me justify you why-
Your point for agni pareeksha :
1) When Ravana abducted her, she had formed two "swaroops", one which was pure and kept intact inside "Agni" by lord of fire. The other one was her shadow. Lord Rama knew about this and he had entrusted Agnidev to take care of Sitaji. This justifies why Lord Rama INDIRECTLY hinted (and not asked..check your words )Sitaji to go through the fire so that everyone could see the original "swaroop". I dont know if they showed this on the TV. But check ramcharitmanas for it.
2) Lord rama NEVER asked Sitaji to give agni pareeksha. He told her that she was free to go anywhere she liked.
The only reason why he killed Ravana was that he was a good devotee, searching for inner peace. (and not DEMON as referred by you) {BTW we can discuss pages on greatness and bad qualities of Ravana. For this, you have to read these books in detail. For your FYI - Sitaji was daughter of Ravana. Google it.}
2) There is one more version. Lord Rama was "ideal king". His dharma was to be a king first (maintain the reputation of raghukul vansh) and husband second. He had accepted Sitaji after agni pariksha. However, when washerman questioned Sitaji's character, Lord Rama realized that it is the time to take the blame on himself and suffered by asking Sitaji to go to hermitage. He also explained the reason behind it. He knew that Sitaji was pure. Nobody (including Lord Shiva) could question her character. Hence, he requested Sitaji to leave the kingdom. This killed all the aspersions and bad remarks. Such was the devotion of King toward his kingdom (Dont compare satyug with kalyug. You will never find leaders like this.)
Your point on keeping women in shackles :
Ramayana's concepts are very deep and pure. It is difficult to arrive at a conclusion by reading just one paragraph (HALF KNOWLEDGE IS WORSE THAN IGNORANCE). Nowhere it is written in Ramayana that girls should not be allowed to go out and be kept in shackles. Instead, girls had tremendous power(do you remember kaikaiye ?) Girls used to fight wars during that time. How many girls do you find today fighting on Indo-Pak border ? The time is different. That age was satyug - so called as ideal yug or lord's yug. This is kalyug. Things are expected to go bad. Remember, girls are the back-bone of the family. If girls are not controlled and respected, then the whole family ruins. Everyone knows how respected was Kaikaiye, Sitaji, Shabri and surpanakha (for ravana). I have seen many kids getting spoilt because their parents are spoilt. Also, lord rama was "ideal-man". Even, lord rama and lord lakshmana lived a life of devotee. If they could have wanted, they could have easily had fun with Surpanakha. But they didnt. Thats why - try to understand the depth of concepts before making premature conclusions and ORKUT updates.
Your point as to why didnt Sita didnt ask lord Rama to give agni pariksha:
- Nobody had asked sitaji to give agni parikha. She did it herself. Please check your records. It was generousness of Sitaji that he didnt pass bad remarks on Lord Rama. {Analogy - this shows that virtuous women have tendency to let go things generously. She trusted him. how virtuous she was!}
Any more questions ? I am posting this anonymously. Don't try to guess who I am. I am sorry for spelling mistakes. Shoot as many questions as you want.
-A proud Indian.
@Anonymous
Hats off to you man. Brajesh raised a very valid point about what exactly is our Indian culture. But you could not understand a damn thing and like many other orthodox idiots pointed out only those things about which there is no concrete proof. Are you a member of "Shri Ram Sena"?
Not posting it as anonymous. Only cowards do that.
Manish
This is my response to Mr. Anonymous' comment on my blog.
Hi Mr. Anonymous,
I never intended and will intend to denigrate the greatness of Ramayana. I have mentioned in my post that there are many, in fact countless good things about the epic and if one follows them he can be one of the greatest human being on the earth. But, not everything about it is that great. This is my opinion, you are free to agree or disagree with it.
Your comment clearly shows that you have one strong belief about it, that it was Satyug and whatever happened then was correct, and we must follow it blindfolded. With this belief in mind, you can give some reasoning to each and every question one can raise over the practicality of events depicted in Ramayana.
I refuse to accept that!! My main point in the blog was to highlight the condition of women in the society. And I repeat, that I find women better today than in that so called SATYUG.
Coming to the points put forward by you, this is what I have to say.
1) [When Ravana abducted her, she had formed two "swaroops", one which was pure and kept intact inside "Agni" by lord of fire...........]
These stories are written and manipulated countless times by many author of Hindi and Sanskrit literature. I don't have any belief in "swaroops" and all that. Also I do not know if Lord Rama hinted her to enter into the fire or asked her to do that. May be in some book this might be written. I would be more than happy if that is true and would be happier if you show me that she never entered into the fire. What I have seen and heard is that lord Rama asked her to do so, and even those serial-makers have given references of many many books. I hope they are wrong and you are true.
But at the end of the day, it was Sitaji who had to enter into fire to prove her chastity, and it showed that a women, if touched by more than one man, can be asked, or hinted, if you so please, to prove herself pure. Though Raja Dashrath could marry more than one women and was called an ideal husband and a moral king. (You must be knowing that our religion today does not approve of it and even you can't negate that today's practice of monogamy is better).
2. [Lord Rama NEVER asked Sitaji to give agni pareeksha. He told her that she was free to go anywhere she liked...]
I am extremely happy to know that.
[ The only reason why he killed Ravana was that he was a good devotee, searching for inner peace. (and not DEMON as referred by you) {BTW we can discuss pages on greatness and bad qualities of Ravana. For this, you have to read these books in detail. For your FYI - Sitaji was daughter of Ravana. Google it.} ] ..
hmmm.. yes even I have heard all of these. But accepting these raises more questions in my mind and the more practically I tend to think, the more confused I become, about my own "dharm-granthas". So I can't comment on this.
3. [ when washerman questioned Sitaji's character, Lord Rama realized that it is the time to take the blame on himself and SUFFERED BY ASKING SITAJI TO GO TO HERMITAGE....]
So Lord Ram suffered the pains of separation by asking his wife to live in hermitage. Well, that's equally true for Sitaji too. She too had to suffer the same, additionally it was she who was chosen to live as a hermit, just because the people of Ayodhya thought she was not pure!! What kind of image and position a woman enjoyed in that yug, I fail to understand.
4. [Nobody had asked sitaji to give agni parikha. She did it herself..]
Here you are contradicting your self. You just said that Lord Rama hinted her to do this.
5. Girls used to fight wars during that time. Do you remember kaikaiye ?
Yes I do remember. I will go to the next part of the story. It is said that when one of the wheel of the chariot of Raja Dashrath came out during the war, she put her fingers in that place and the did not let the wheel come out of its place. Do you believe that ?? I don't. I wonder if she was there to fight or to help her husband in any unimaginable circumstances. Even if I believe it, again, it was a nari-tyag only.
Well, well, well.. I guess I should stop here.. I am not an atheist, who takes pleasure in belittling something, which is revered by millions of people. I am just trying to be little more practical than I was in my childhood when I watched these tele-serials for the first time. My purpose is absolutely not to malign Ramayana in any way. My family is a great devout and my dad is a big big devotee of Hanumanji. My blog was written in response to the demands being made by the religious fanatics like Mutalik. They want sacrifice only from the women and are not ready to give any thing in return. This is something I am not ready to accept. If you support them, I have no issues. You are free to do what ever you want, but only till the point it does not hurt some one else's constitutional right to live and enjoy life. I end the mail by repeating myself that as far as the condition of women in today's world is concerned, we have done much more progress and are far better off.
Regards,
Brajesh Sinha
My comments :"
1) When Ravana abducted her, she had formed two "swaroops", one which was pure and kept intact inside "Agni" by lord of fire...........
>> see whats written infront of you. check ramcharitamanasa. dont pose such stupid questions.
2. Lord rama NEVER asked Sitaji to give agni pareeksha. He told her that she was free to go anywhere she liked...
>>>you are confused. thats obvious
3. when washerman questioned Sitaji's character, Lord Rama realized that it is the time to take the blame on himself and SUFFERED BY ASKING SITAJI TO GO TO HERMITAGE....
4. Nobody had asked sitaji to give agni parikha. She did it herself..
>>> Lord didnt ASK her to do so. He hinted her to go through the fire so that he could have the original swaroop. I am corroborating my point#1.
5. Girls used to fight wars during that time. Do you remember kaikaiye ?
>>> People trusted girls to the extent that they used to take them to wars. girls were of equal status.
But I too would like to keep it in dark, as u wished so.
>>> You will never know my gender and who i am. One hint - i am a very religious gal. check your orkut friends - who is "religious" gal. i cant disclose my name.
"Hats off to you man. Brajesh raised a very valid point about what exactly is our Indian culture. But you could not understand a damn thing and like many other orthodox idiots pointed out only those things about which there is no concrete proof. Are you a member of "Shri Ram Sena"?
Not posting it as anonymous. Only cowards do that.
Manish"
Manish : first of all, have you read ramayana ? if not, i dont want to argue with people possessing inadequate knowledge.
Mr. Brajesh is religious but he forgot to understand the base of religion. Religion has not been made to make distinction between gender, caste, creed etc. but it has been made to unify people for common purpose. please do your homework and then talk with me. dont just BS publicly.
regarding my profile : i dont think my identity makes a difference. you should consider my arguments and try to fight with instead of trying to know who i am. Let me give you some hint. I am a girl who is very devoted to books like Ramayana, Mahabharata, puranas. It requires a lot of patience to understand these texts (which you metro guys dont have!!). You guys spend time in bars, drinking and thinking which girl is "maal". See yourself before trying to comment on others. I have the courage to stand against what Mr. Brajesh's voice. I am a girl and I know what's true and what not. You dont have to tell me that.
Someone has rightly said, " First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do."
Anonymous!
Hey Anonymous!!!
You opened my eyes. I am very thankful to you. I never realized that I am a metro guy (born and brought up in a small city). And I have done lot of sins. I go to bars, drink unholy drinks and call jhakaas girls "maal". Yesterday only I went to City Center Maal oops Mall (see my language is also corrupt. Oh almighty God!! forgive me please) And there I stared at so many patakha items (maal girls). This damn place is so cool. But now that you have made me realize, I will always STARE at maal girls with full respect. And I will start reading the spiritual books like Ramayana, Mahabharat and Purans. Can you please help me find these great book? Or probably I will go to crossword at City Center Maal...oops I did it again..I am really sorry,its Mall.
Brajesh..you also realize that you are a metro guy from Motihari and your life is full of sins. Few days back only you showed a mast maal in office, you remember you unholy man. This religious lady has given you a chance for repentance. Else you will go to hell (of course with me).
But I have an idea before going to hell we will form two "Swaroops" and will give the pure swaroop to Agni, provided Agni is still providing these services, so only our shadow will go to hell.
Anonymous religious girl, I am really thankful to you. May Lord Rama bless you!!
Now onwards a religious non metro guy,Manish
I guess this discussion is taking an ugly turn. I would like Mr. or Ms. Holy to stop making any comments on the blog, as your views are completely and radically opposite to what some of us, unholy mortals have. And you must have realized that it's very difficult, rather impossible, to change some one's point of view by having a discussion like this. Hence its better if all of us stop here.
Post a Comment