On reading my earlier post a reader had suggested a book which I am assuming is Yuganta by Irawati Karwe. I found a version online and downloaded it and am reading it now. It is an analysis of the various characters in the Mahabharata. I have nothing against women per se, and I am all for equality between men and women. In fact I support women's empowerment (conditions apply). Somehow two articles on the epics I read, both by women, have raised my hackles. One was an extremely feminist view of the Ramayana where the author(ess?) lambasts the treatment meted out to Sita - how she went to the forest at such a tender age, her banishment to the forest etc). I wish to point out that Sita went willingly against all advice for her to stay back in Ayodhya. I cannot totally explain the banishment part but let me just say that I would probably like to have a discussion with that lady (the writer).
One of my colleagues is from IIMA's agri business program. Apparently Yuganta was recommended reading by their ethics faculty member. The writer raises some questions about Bhishma - did Bhishma accomplish anything via his vows consiering that a lot of strife happened anyway, why did he accept the general's position for the war etc. I am not a scholar of her level but I shall attempt to answer her questions on the various characters in my next few posts.
Krishna says in the Gita to do one's work because it has to be done, without expectation or concentrating on the results. I would answer her question about the utility of Bhishma's vows via this sloka. Tomorrow the Prime Minister can say that given our history with Pakistan the Kashmir issue will never be resolved and give up peace talks. Is that justified. Here I must confess that my argument can be given by some as an example of the concept called reductio ad absurdum introduced to me by Sheldon Cooper of the sitcom, The Big Bang Theory.
She asks why he was silent when Draupadi was being humiliated. There is a story I read in a Telugu children's magazine. I do not know whether it exists anywhere in Hindu literature or is a fabrication but it provides an answer. When after the war Bhishma tells the Pandavas some good practices to be followed an angered Draupadi questions him as to why he was silent when she was being humiliated and is spouting advice now. He answers her that as a subject of Duryodhana/Dhritarashtra he could not go against his liege. Why Bhishma took up the generalship can probably be answered by combining the logic of the present and the previous para.
I think I shall have quite a few bones to pick with the author.By the way, after reading Ashok Banker's version of the Ramayana I posted a comment on his site expressing my anguish. It does not seem to have been approved (will it be?) and is not visible now. I shall post a link to it if it does get approved.
10 comments:
Really insightful :-)...
i eagerly await the posts yet to come
Am not much into mahabharata ...
but iv a few questions ...
1. What was Sita's age when she went into d forest ? if she were young , wudnt she be very impressionable and do wat the society expected of her ...
2. You said Bhishma cudnt go against his liege ... wasnt he a vassal himself ?
3. And i blv Krishna said do whats right, wateva d consequences or costs ... and the right thing was to protect Draupadi wasnt it ?
several issues -
1. you say - "i am not against women per se"..ahem...per se????
2. your thoughts contradict themselves. Krishna said "karm kar, phal ki ichcha mat kar" which translates to - do your duty without expecting any returns. At the time of draupadi's harassment, his duty as an elder and as an advisor would've been to protect her honor without bothering about what it did to his chances in the court or after life.
3. Yes, Sita went willingly to the forest only in the hope that her husband considers her an equal and will protect her honor and integrity. Forgive me if you think this is sacrilegious, but if Ram was not able to protect her, it wasn't her fault, was it? Also, she did not expect he would trust a washerman more than his beloved wife and send her away to repay her devotion towards him. Probably if she had known her husband was so gullible, she would've not gone to the forest in the first place.
In all, i do think women have been mistreated in our epics and then excuses have been made to try and condone that ill-treatment. That you would try and add to those excuses is pretty sad VC :) I have a higher opinion of you than that!!!
@anonymous -
1) I am not sure but she was probably around 16 when she went to the forest. At the same time Valmiki (as per a puranic scholar Sri Malladi Chandrasekhara Sastry) apparently also said that Sita was not born as a child. When Janaka found her below the earth she was already a young woman. I believe this is apparently not shown in any of our modern day movies or literature.
2) I think you meant something else. If he was a vassal he would be even more bound not to say anything against his lord.
3) As I said, he was bound by his loyalty to the person who gave him his food (that tale might be apocryphal for all I know). At the same time, I am not saying what Bhishma did was dharma. If I remember right I did not say anywhere that Bhishma was faultless :) By the way, I am not defending Bhishma but the entire court could be held responsible. In the Dhaartarashtra (the correct word, not Kaurava) camp, I think either Yuyutsa or Vikarna was the only one who opposed Draupadi's humiliation.
@Faguni -
1) Look up the meaning of per se :) I like women!
2) Read point number 3 above.
3) The belief in her husband must have been inherent in her whether she was at the royal court or in the forest. I believe Sita went because she felt it was her duty to follow her husband and not because of any other motivation or belief or thought. Further, I believe Lakshmana had warned Rama against pursuing the deer. Rama had left him to guard her. It was Sita who made him leave her (in search of Rama no doubt, but it was Sita who did that) AND then crossed the Lakshmana Rekha (I do not know whether this tale is actually Valmiki's or a later insetion).
1. It was Wikarna who was the only one to have opposed it and Vikarna also fought with the Pandavas during the war.
2. Per se means as such. Not exactly the terminology you would use for unconditional love. Feels like you mean you will love women if they lost their womanly characteristics :D
3. The debate about Bhishma's conduct during Draupadi's harassment stems from a more basic debate about who should the man be loyal to - his provider or his will to do the right thing. I would always take the side of the man who fights against evil, even if the evil if his provider. That is what makes heroes, not loyalty towards a provider who is the perpetrator of evil. Being the most learned man in the court and also the eldest, it was his responsibility more than the rest of the court to take action against the injustice. If he remained dumb and blind, the rest of the court just followed in his footsteps.
4. For Sita - yes, she did all that you said. But a person remains devoted to their partner only on the belief that the partner is just as devoted. If the partner belies that trust, it is wrong, isn't it? Also, if Sita lived away from Ram for a year, even Ram lived away from her on his own. If she did not doubt his chastity, who gave him the right to raise doubts about her. Additionally, Ram should've realized that the fact that he was able to defeat Ravan had a lot to do with the will shown by Sita in his captivity. If Sita had given in to Ravan, there would've been no battle and no victory for Ram. Ravan had already suffered a moral defeat at the hands of Sita and hence went to battle a psychologically weaker opponent.
1) The person who fought with the Pandavas was Yuyutsa not Vikarna.
2) I can't argue if you wish to split hairs!
3) I have nothing to say against that. You make sense. I say again that I did not say Bhishma was the embodiment of dharma.
4) Trusting someone in expectation of something? That is selfish love or selfish trust. What you described about Sita is one of the things make Indians revere her. Rama did not abandon Sita because he did not love her but because as a king he was bound to listen to his citizens. Similarly, the pareeksha was to silence the world than because Rama doubted her.
Yuyutsu, sorry
@VC
Ans 1 : Thats a fact I did not know, so cant comment ... But if Sita wasnt born on this world, then probably our moral and ethical systems arent applicable here ...
Ans 2 : I think you probably meant something else when you said "Bhishma cudnt go against his liege" ... Liege , as far as i know, is a person who owes allegiance to someone else, in this case Bhishma himself was Dhritarashtra's liege, right ?
Ans 3) Good you pointed out that you took an Objective view of Bhishma's stance, coz the tone of your pose seemed to suggest otherwise, even though you've given no evidence to support his stance.
Ans 4) Ram may have had Sita take the Pariksha to quell his subjects' doubts. But isnt that still Gender inequality ? Y cudnt he undertake that test himself coz he was alone too and he too might have given in to carnal temptations ... Y wud no1 doubt him ? .. And as a King , wasnt he supposed to set an example for his subjects and be a champion for Gender equality ... But then again If he wasnt born here like Sita, our ethics , do they hold here ?
Also, I agree with what the Lady above has to say, on most counts ...
A nice article nonetheless, kudos to you...
Keep 'em flowing ...
And yeah , Id like it if you could post something Good/Objective about Ravana ... am an admirer of his, from what little I know and sick of him being made out the villain all the time ...
Whatever may be the term, if Bhishma was under someone then he would have found it difficult to go against that person even if what he was doing was not right. That was my point.
I was probably subjective to an extent, as I said that writeup had kind of irritated me.
Interesting point about Rama, but I would like to point out another thing. After Sita was kidnapped Rama spent his time more or less in the public eye and among people who might be considered to be "good". That was not the case with Sita. She was surrounded by (mostly) undesirable characters.
Furthermore, Ravana could have had Sita by force (though I believe he was constrained by a curse from forcing himself onto women), that was not the case with Rama.
Another point is that whether we like it or not, there are some biases against women in our world :)
I think that article on Ravana is an interesting point. I shall try my hand at that.
Post a Comment