Once again we have Suresh ( http://www.jambudweepam.blogspot.in ) as a guest blogger on random. A little longer than a usual post , I did have a choice to post it in two parts but it would have lost its essence and here it goes " In defence of Rama "
It is ironic that the only Puranic male character who has some claims towards striking a blow for male-female equality is the one character that needs defending against accusations of Male chauvinism. In an era where chastity was imposed only on women and born to a man who was well-known for the multiplicity of his marriages, Ram is the only character who accepted and lived by the idea that chastity was as applicable to men as to women.
Three major accusations are raised against Ram. Firstly that Sita had to follow him to the forest; secondly the Agni-Pariksha and lastly the abandonment of Sita when a Dhobi took exception to Ram taking back Sita after her long incarceration by Ravan. Lots of ridicule has been heaped on Ram - for the last two in particular – and, largely because feminists seem to have swallowed – hook, line and sinker - the spin put on these acts by male chauvinists of later days.
There is another male character that followed Ram to the forest – Lakshman. He was also married and, yet, his wife Urmila is not the subject of any diatribe for not having lived up to her wifely duties. Even though it was at Lakshman’s behest, if Society had thought of this as a wifely duty, there would have been a hue and cry about this fact. The fact remains that (a) there was no duty imposed on the wife to follow her husband like Mary’s little lamb (b) It was Sita who insisted on following Ram to the forest because she loved him too much to stand the separation and (c) Ram dissuades her from following him citing the hardships that she would have to face but is unable to sway her.
So, when a husband of today seeks that his wife follows him wherever he went a la Sita, the proper retort is that, “If you were Ram, I’d love you like Sita and follow you. But if you were Ram, you would love me enough not to ask me to follow you into hardship!” Unfortunately, the standard reaction is to heap ridicule on Ram!
The one thing that is discounted when it comes to the other two incidents is that Ram loved Sita. He goes mad with grief when Sita is abducted. When, on the battlefield, a Maya Sita is slaughtered he drops his weapons and feels that pursuing the battle further is pointless. That, in fact, gives the lie to the statement he makes before the Agnipariksha about fighting the battle only for his honor. If it is difficult to swallow the idea of a man loving his wife, think then of the fact that Ram never remarried after putting Sita aside and lived a life of chastity till the end.
Ram was not only a husband. Ever since Bharat met him at Chtrakoot, he knew he was to be the King. The King was expected to be an upholder of Social values – no matter how unjust they may be for order is better than anarchy – and if he is seen to have bent the rules for his own benefit he leads to anarchy. “Yata Raja Tatha Praja” as the saying goes!
To have accepted Sita without a qualm would have lead to people in his country considering that the King did not respect the rules by which Society abided. Further, for a man who had practically just got off the chariot of the King of the Gods, it need not be difficult to believe that the God of Fire would not harm his beloved since she was chaste.
Much is also said of the way Ram abandoned Sita merely because a dhobi told his wife, “I am not Ram to accept a wife who lived in another man’s house”, especially with reference to the fact that Sita had already proved her chastity by going through fire. Again, the decision was not based on what Ram thought of Sita or what he would have preferred to do. If one were to assume the fact that he loved Sita to distraction, he would have loved to have his children born in his palace and lived around him or, even, that he would have preferred not to live in total abstinence, it would be easy to understand that his own preference would have been to ignore the dhobi. What, then, caused him to set aside his beloved wife?
In an era of no you-tube, no TV, no Facebook ot Twitter, the people of Ayodhya could not know of the Agnipariksha except through the words of people close to Ram. In any case against the powerful, proof positive would be difficult to obtain to prove a person guilty. The rulers of then were expected to live by a harsher standard of justice and accusation was considered sufficient for punishment – the “Caesar’s wife has to be above suspicion” phenomenon. In the event that Ram had ignored the dhobi, it is not difficult to see how the people of Ayodhya may have considered Sita as less than chaste over a period of time and started citing that as an example for their own transgressions of the law.
It was Ram the king who had to decide to put off Sita much against Ram the husband’s preferences. He lived by the law that the ruler has to put the good of Society above his own personal loss. If that is difficult to swallow as an explanation, consider the fact that he had to later sentence his beloved younger brother – Lakshman – to death for transgressing an order under unavoidable circumstances. If, indeed, one had to think of Ram as unfeeling it is nonetheless true that he was no male chauvinist – after all Lakshman was not female.
We live in times when it is considered acceptable that people in power use their power to save their kith and kin from the results of their own transgressions and, thus, find it difficult to understand why a ruler could punish his kin – when he knew they were innocent. The idea that Society suffers a moral malaise if the ruler is even thought to have set his own preferences above the law has, unfortunately, become totally alien to us.
Accusing Ram of chauvinism is not only unjust, it is unproductive as well. Our Society is still largely composed of people who revere Ram as God incarnate. By accepting the male chauvinistic spin on his actions and heaping ridicule on him we only preach to the already convinced. It is best to propagate his sense of male-female equality and his attitude towards the duties of a ruler, as indeed was probably intended by the writers of the Puranas.
photo credit google search
Very nicely written. Rama bowed to the perceptions of his people and didn't spare Sita even though she was innocent. This is completely against today's accepted principle of law that let a hundred guilty go unpunished, but not a single innocent should mistakenly be punished.
ReplyDeleteRama couldn't manage the perceptions of his people. He failed in PR. :) He should have got a female PR agent (a la Nira Radia). :D The moral of the story is perception is bigger than the truth.
Hmm Well We can look at it from two sides, maybe Ram should have given up the rule to be with his wife, if bharat did it then why not RAM.
ReplyDeleteon other hand I liked the reasons you have given they stand true..
I guess it is true that we all have our own views and will see it that way depending on what situation one is ..
Bikram's
Nice work... Keep Blogging! Cheers!
ReplyDeleteThis is a nice article which attempts to portray things from the perspective of Lord Ram. But the defenses offered with respect to some points in question can be taken down point by point.
ReplyDeleteBefore questioning the defenses offered above, some things need to be accepted.
Lord Ram never did anything to displease others. In fact, he tried to please other people even at the expense of his own happiness many times. He never had any ill-feeling towards anyone.
Secondly, he truly loved his wife. And I believe he never doubted her in any way. His remaining devotedly single even after Sita wasn’t with him shows his loyalty to her.
And obviously, Lord Ram was a learned scholar and a great warrior.
But now to the points being defended in this article, there are a few points in response.
a) About Sita following Ram to the forest, he shouldn’t be held responsible for a decision she made. On this I’m with the author.
b) About the ‘Agnipariksha’, the author says that “To have accepted Sita without a qualm would have lead to people in his country considering that the King did not respect the rules by which Society abided.” So, shouldn’t we be questioning the rules by which society abided ? Just because the society followed a rule which was flawed, should have the King followed it blindly too ? The King who, by his position and good sense, should have at least tried to change a rule which only questioned a woman. Of course Ram trusted his wife completely, but why still did he needed the acceptance of the society to underline it ? Shouldn’t a great king be setting examples for the society to respect a wife rather than suspecting her ? Why should he be following a flawed rule of the society himself ?
c) The author says “In the event that Ram had ignored the dhobi, it is not difficult to see how the people of Ayodhya may have considered Sita as less than chaste over a period of time and started citing that as an example for their own transgressions of the law.” What exactly is the transgression of the law here ? Sita was forcefully taken to Lanka, she did not go there on her own will. But that is not the point. Again, according to the so-called ‘law’, the onus lies on the woman to prove her chastity. In other words, Ram was submitting to the thought that if he doesn’t set an example (though actually he trusted his wife completely) people would stop suspecting their wives if the wife had been to someone’s else’s place (even forcefully). Why, even though being a sensible person, was Ram giving in to a flawed mindset ? Isn’t it wrong to punish an innocent person merely on the basis of an accusation just to set an example ? The society never cared for any such examples anyway.
The author also says that “The King was expected to be an upholder of Social values – no matter how unjust they may be for order is better than anarchy – and if he is seen to have bent the rules for his own benefit he leads to anarchy. “Yata Raja Tatha Praja” as the saying goes!” In other words, being a king, Ram had a great responsibility towards the people. So, then why did he give preference to an unjust demand of his step-mother (forced on to his father) and live in the forest even while the kingdom required his administration. Of course no one doubts the capabilities of Bharat as a king, but obviously, wouldn’t Ram himself be better to have taken over the administration ? Why then, did he prefer his promise given to his father over his responsibilities to the kingdom ?
The points made above are not meant to accuse Lord Ram. Obviously he must have taken those decisions according to the best possible sense at that time in the existing conditions and with the best intentions. But these points intend to question the mindset of people today which they base on the social norms prevalent in those times and justify the mindset on the basis of what Lord Ram did.
Let me address these points : 1. It is naive to expect Society to change overnight. Also, when a King changes a rule that Society lives by when such change is to seen to be to his benefit then people do not see it as a wrong rule being changed but as the King re-writing rules in order to suit himself. If that impression is given by the king then people in Society will cite that to break any rule as it suits them leading to anarchy. 2. When Ram ceded the throne to Bharat, he was a prince and not the king nor even the crown prince, yet. The whole issue was about who would succeed Dasarath - thus, it cannot be said that he abandoned his kingly duties by obeying his father. As for Bharat giving it up, he did not take it up in the first place. He only accepted to rule Ayodhya on behalf of Ram. So, de facto, Ram was king since the time Bharat met him at Chitrakoot.
DeleteI find a lot of reactions come about what Society would or could care for in terms of examples. If everyone thought so, you would have no Buddha, no Mahatma Gandhi and, of course, Lord Ram seems like someone out to please others instead of a man of principle setting examples about how to live as a human and as a King.
Apropos of punishing an innocent Sita, I'd like people to consider whether protestations of innocence from the kin of the powerful today - even when they are declared innocent by a court of law - are accepted by Society. The powerful are seen to be able to prove what they want to prove regardless of the truth of the incident. This is the very reason why a suspicion of guilt on the part of one of the royal family was sufficient reason for conviction for Ram. That law did not apply to the rest of Society where proof was required.
Sir, I find it my failure that my words seemed to convey something that I didn’t want to convey. Still, I would like to try again.
Delete1. Nowhere in my comment did I mention about my expectations of society to change overnight. It takes ages to change. But does that mean one doesn’t ever start ? Do you think the ‘India Against Corruption’ movement was started expecting everything to change overnight ? Change takes place, but only when there is a start.
You say, “when a King changes a rule that Society lives by when such change is to seen to be to his benefit then people do not see it as a wrong rule being changed but as the King re-writing rules in order to suit himself”. So does that mean a King continues to follow a flawed rule just because he pre-conceives how the society will view it ? If the rules of the society are so strong and rigid, do we then even need any law constituting agencies ?
In our present system, we have a ‘constitution’ and the provision of a legislature for the framing of laws. In those times, there weren’t such institutions. The King was the supreme power to create and enforce laws. If the King was so unsure of his own authority, how could the society and its flawed rules be checked ? No wonder even today evils like child marriage and dowry are rampant just because many parts of the society still believe in those in spite of them being illegal.
2. Once again, nowhere did I say that “he abandoned his kingly duties by obeying his father”. Of course he wasn’t the king when his father passed away. But then, when his people needed a king after his father’s death, should he not have returned to take care of the administration instead of a “on behalf of” king taking on the responsibility ?
When you say that “I find a lot of reactions come about what Society would or could care for in terms of examples. If everyone thought so, you would have no Buddha, no Mahatma Gandhi and, of course, Lord Ram seems like someone out to please others instead of a man of principle setting examples about how to live as a human and as a King.”, I agree to your point and disagree to it too. Obviously, Gandhiji set so many examples through his personal life. A lot of people understood those and followed them. But there are many who accuse him of using those examples to suit himself. So, the society is composed of different mindsets. It would have been the same in the days of Lord Ram. If he would have changed a rule, there would be many who would understand and follow it. But again, there would be many who would see it as something to suit himself and hence break more laws. Considering the society to be composed of only the second type of people is not very sensible.
And lastly when you say that “This is the very reason why a suspicion of guilt on the part of one of the royal family was sufficient reason for conviction for Ram.”, (I’m taking it that you are referring to Sita here), I just want to ask you what guilt was actually being suspected on Sita’s part ? If the guilt refers to Sita being disloyal to Ram while she was in Lanka, I rest my case feeling sorry for the mindset which always puts the onus on the female to prove herself innocent if accused. What if a dhobi’s wife (or say, a carpenter’s wife) accused Ram of the same guilt while he was away from Sita ? What would Ram do then ?
And finally, I would like to thank you for a sensible and detailed reply to my initial comment. Looking forward to your reply to the points I mentioned here so that I may benefit more from your views. :-)
Let us start with the understanding that Society was unjust towards women. The requirement of chastity was an imposition on women exclusively and it did not matter whether the woman was a willing accomplice or an unwilling victim. The reason, possibly, was that for religious rites as well as inheritance it was the a patriarchal system and, as the saying goes, maternity is fact paternity is faith. Thus, the chastity of women was probably a requirement both economically and religiously in the minds of people. Changing ideas about that involved a lot more than trusting your wife or not. You wanted to be sure that it was your son who was inheriting your wealth; the King's son who was succeeding to the throne; and your son who was performing your last rites - and all of this was predicated on the chastity of women. Unjust, yes, but changing that mindset involved changes in the way Society operated. Probably much more than one King could pragmatically change in his lifetime and certainly not if he plunges the country into a succession battle with questions being raised about the paternity of his sons.
DeleteBeing a leader also is to acknowledge limitations to how much can be changed in a lifetime. Also, it is easier for the King to do so when he himself is not a party to the decision. Thus, had it been some other man and wife, Ram could well have put forth the change that you seek but the fact that he was himself the concerned party made it impossible to do so. Kindly remember that there are a number of laws even today that are being observed in the breach because Societal systems are too difficult to change - Dowry, for eg ; Caste discrimination for another. And, unlike the governments of today, the ideal KIng Ram had also to ensure that the consequences of his actions also do not disrupt Social harmony.
Your point about taking up Kingly duties hinges on the assumption that Ram thought he was the best person to rule Ayodhya. What if he had thought that Bharat was equally as good? At that time the choice could be made purely on the basis of the fact that he had made his promise and he would live up to it, else he would lose the moral authority to rule the country and, anyway, Bharat was as good.
Let us take the India against Corruption reference. Do you not see that they want it overnight - the Lokpal bill? There is a huge inertia in Society about set ideas and legislation cannot change it. Where Society as a whole disagrees with a law, the law is ignored as I have cited above. When someone who breaks the law has the tacit support of Society, trying to enforce the law leads to Social unrest. If you fail to enforce the law, however, respect for the law goes down - all laws - and that leads to anarchy. Any King who thought he was omnipotent and could change anything has ended up a tyrant - no matter how good his intentions.
Like I said, all reactions to Ram and Sita have assumed that his decisions relating to her had no other repercussions. In a wider sense, everyone sees that imposition of the requirement of chastity on women as something only related to mutual jealousy and with no other social ramifications. Accusing Ram of that guilt would not cause any doubts about the maternity of Luv and Khush; accusing Sita of lack of chastity could cause later doubts about the paternity. I did say Society was unjust but as a King, Ram had to uphold the existing order of things and certainly could not modify things when he was the perceived beneficiary.
Thanks again for a prompt and detailed reply.
DeleteOnce again, I would like to repeat the last paragraph of my first comment where I said, “The points made above are not meant to accuse Lord Ram. Obviously he must have taken those decisions according to the best possible sense at that time in the existing conditions and with the best intentions. But these points intend to question the mindset of people today which they base on the social norms prevalent in those times and justify the mindset on the basis of what Lord Ram did.”
As you pointed out in both your replies that Lord Ram took those decisions for the benefit of the society and that is what I referred to in my comment initially. What I was pointing out that even great Kings have been unable to correct the flaws of the society which you have agreed to by your replies. And thus, even today, the society continues to practice what it feels best for its own interest however flawed it may be.
Though I would like to make a small point to your last paragraph where you said, “Accusing Ram of that guilt would not cause any doubts about the maternity of Luv and Khush; accusing Sita of lack of chastity could cause later doubts about the paternity.” I never raised the issue of maternity or paternity here. I was referring to the accusation of disloyalty which could have been made to Sita as well as Ram. Just because Ram’s disloyalty (hypothetical of course) couldn’t question the paternity of the successors, would that disregard any accusation or guilt on his part ? I’m talking of morality here and not legality. I still ask what would Ram had done if he was accused similarly. Would he have given up his throne and gone to the forest as well ?
You say, “You wanted to be sure that it was your son who was inheriting your wealth; the King's son who was succeeding to the throne; and your son who was performing your last rites - and all of this was predicated on the chastity of women.” So, in other words wasn’t Ram trying to be sure about this too ? So, wasn’t he being selfish by doing this ? Or was he just upholding the existing rules of the society. Wasn’t he being personally benefited by preventing a false successor to his throne ?
We in our society have mixed up the concepts of religion, rituals and societal rules. Many times, what’s practiced in the society is attributed to religion. When you say that “the chastity of women was probably a requirement both economically and religiously in the minds of people.” I wouldn’t disagree with you on that as a fact. But I would question it as a flawed mindset. Just because something is followed by the society, doesn’t make it moral or valid. Before you comment on the rigidity of society, I would myself agree that mindsets are rigid. But isn’t it wrong ? No wonder not a single religion in the world provides for gender equality in its true sense.
Just as a woman’s chastity is questioned to verify the paternity of the successors, shouldn’t a man’s fidelity be questioned if only on moral grounds ? It may not have consequences on legal issues of paternity, but so should males be above any accusation or guilt ?
I still maintain that whatever Lord Ram did was according to the best possible intentions. But I still question the mindset both back then and even now.
We seem to be in agreement on all issues! The point I was making was not about whether the discrimination was morally correct but about why Ram would have thought that it was in the interests of his kingdom to put aside Sita despite wishing not to. There is no disagreement on the fact that such expectations by Society were unjust as I indeed pointed out in my original article. The purpose of the article was only to point out that the actions of Ram did not justify painting him as a male chauvinist and that seems to be your view as well. And, indeed, Ram at least set the tone for considering that male chastity was as important as female chastity - so on the issue of moral grounds you cannot fault Ram. He is the King who lived a celibate life after putting aside Sita - as witness the fact that it was a pratima of Sita he had to use for his Aswamedha Yagna since he had no other wife.
DeleteAs for the mindset, I am afraid that any social system is bound to have some element of injustice in it. This one is unjust to about 50% of the population and hence deserves to be eliminated but there seems to be no social set-up absolutely bereft of injustice.
Ah! I missed a few points in your riposte! Ram had no doubts about Sita and, thus, he had no reason to suspect 'false successors' etc. The point I was trying to make was simply that no matter how much Society revered a King it would stoutly oppose any relaxation in the rules relating to the chastity of women - as long as these considerations existed. And, Ram, as an upholder of the existing Society had no choice if he wanted to maintain Social harmony in his Kingdom.
DeleteSince the only driver for sending Sita to the forest was to keep order in his Kingdom, the issue does not arise of Ram going to the forest on any such accusation. In fact, given the Society of the day any such deed on the part of the King would not even be considered immoral/illegal. Thus, from the point of view of maintaining Social harmony, there would be no need for Ram to go to the forest. Else, Ram certainly would have.
Understand the fact that the Society of that day was unjust. Ram, himself, was not but as a King he had to uphold the Social order of that day. So, the fact that Ram would do some things and not do some things to uphold the extant social order does not say that Ram was unjust - only that the Social order of that day was and Ram, as King, had to perforce uphold it.
I was trying to explain why he had to uphold it when I talked bout how it had consequences going beyond the family alone.
In all this discussion, the one thing that keeps getting lost is the fact that a King sets aside his own wishes in order to serve his Society. Something that is non-existent in Society today. The Purana attempts to set that as the dharma of the King - that his duty to Society has to be above all other considerations. We choose to view the Purana from the standpoint of today and keep nitpicking about what Ram ought to have done - as though we have managed to do far better with the problems of today. Forget the act and see the mindset of how someone, whom you see as all-powerful, sees himself only as the servant of the Society he rules!!
Sir, as has been pointed by you repeatedly, Ram acted to uphold the social norms (even though they were unjust) and maintain social harmony. All his decisions were taken in view of the larger good of the society. Right ? So we should accept him to be the ideal King.
DeleteAnd also he took those decisions not because he was a male-chauvinist but because the social norms required him to. But him being the ideal King cannot and should not be taken as justice to his wife. He could either be an ideal King or an ideal husband. And he chose to be the ideal King. But we try continuously to portray him as completely ideal in all respects which is not possible.
We should accept his actions in terms of the ideal King and admire him for that. But we should also accept that he couldn’t be the ideal husband. The truth is, he couldn’t, even if he wanted to, as one decision couldn’t benefit both ways. He was rightly, the true servant of the society. But not the ideal husband.
hmhm.... A really well constructed article and valid arguments in the comments section.
ReplyDeleteWell- I do have my reservations about RAM- but I cannot fully agree with each and every argument that you have put forth. No, I don't disagree directly but I think a lot of nuances are missed.
First of all- I have nothing against Ram. He did the best according to his time and society.
I would like to question the interpretation of Ramayana as such.
---- I think that each and every action has it's own positive and negative aspect. And whatever Ram would have done- there is always going to be someway to criticize the same.
---- I think we are caught up with argument of whether Ram is a good guy or a bad guy, than understanding that -- Life is ambiguous. There is no real good or bad. You will have choices which will affect everyone and that can be positive for some, negative for some.
---- In Ram's case, he always took the side of the society rather than for his own kin. He knew what he was doing and he chose it with a clear mind. I think, whats much needed here- is not the certificate that Ram was good but an accreditation that Ram was ready to face personal loss and pain for what he believed to be greater good.
---- Trying to define someone even a mighty figure, like Ram from legends Like Ramayana - is (I think) a very perverted notion.
---- People have to know that life is ambiguous not just for us but If there are gods- then it's even more walking in the grey for them. I would not want to be in their shoes.
And Suresh- I am waiting for your comment on my take. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd in that trying to define Ram- I meant trying to define Ram in Black and White - ie in extremes. And I Feel that should have used the word twisted rather than perverted in that line. It doesn't sit well with the content.
ReplyDeletemy apologies for that- If I would have offended anyone. (As of Ram is a sensitive topic and I respect that)
What do you expect me to say Muthu? You talk of nuances missing - do not indicate what. It is easy enough to say something like that but without specifying the nuances you leave me with no way to agree or disagree with you.
DeleteIn any case, the article was not intended as a complete dissertation on the character of Ram. The idea was limited to telling that the acts of Ram vis-a-vis Sita did not qualify him to be called a male chauvinist.
As for whatever else you have said, have I not been saying exactly the same thing? That Ram did what he did for the greater good? And upholding an unjust Social order - does it not leave room for ambiguity? So if you tell exactly what I say then what take do you expect from me?
And as for defining Ram - perverted or twisted - I was not even attempting it! I was only questioning a certain interpretation of Ram's certain actions. Btw, the Puranas and Upa puranas are supposed also to teach you the right way to lead life - thus, interpreting the Puranic characters' motives and actions are well within the limits of what is expected.
hmhmhm... When I wrote the initial comment, I misplaced the article as a character dissertation on Ram and that was the reason behind my comment. And yes, I agree that, you have started the article with clear notion of defending ram on being portrayed as a male chauvinistic.
Delete-- And No, I am not an expert on Ram, just my knowledge of what I remember when I read Ramayana almost a decade back.
And I learn something from commenting here. When I think that by saying that I am waiting for your comment- I propagate the misplaced righteousness of my own comments. (I should not have put it out like that) My failure to answer to your question on nuances justifies that.
And While writing this particular comment, I did not take care to go though my own words in a more careful manner. What I was thinking in my mind, when I wrote the comment was - Usually when people discuss Ram, a lot of nuances are missed and people go for a black and white description of the character, rather than appreciating the ambiguity.
Yes, you are right. I have written your same views but in an alternate viewpoint.
If possible, i would like to take back that nuances comment. But I have done it, not so proud of it but yeah, I did it.
I am coming here from your other post on criticism on blogs.
hmhm.... Yes, it's not easy to take criticism(for me), but when its valid. My love for writing and improving the same takes precedence over the pride I have for what i write.
And I straight away would like to clarify that my commenting on your post has nothing to do with your critique on my blog
hmhm... Today i learnt something and the above comments will stand here to say the same----
Always read your own comments twice before posting.
I am so sorry for all the horrible grammatical mistakes and typos. My power was out when I was commenting(and My UPS power is extremely short) and I just did not want to delay the much needed reply.
Deletehmhmhm.... I think that I got carried away with the Idea of people always defending Ram as a Supreme being that I failed to realize all you were doing is to defend him from on particular allegation. And that in a single sentence sums up my earlier comments.
And there's nothing more to my misplaced comment than that and I must have been more careful when commenting. (Will do so from now on).
I am afraid Muthu that if you will take no care to read a piece and no care to read your comment as well as comment on the piece 8-9 days down the line, you do lay yourself open to assumptions about your behavior, even if those assumptions are actually unwarranted!
DeleteThat gives a totally new angle to it! Nice read :-)
ReplyDeleteThanks Akanksha!
DeleteIt is obvious from the post and the following comments that the author wanted to clarify how Lord Ram was not a male chauvinist and took those actions in the best public interests to uphold social norms and preserve social harmony.
ReplyDeleteBut as someone else mentioned in his comments above that there are always two facets to a decision. It is beneficial to one while not so for the other. So, while it should be accepted that Ram acted in the best of society’s interest, as the author states that “that a King sets aside his own wishes in order to serve his Society”, it should also be accepted that his decision was unjust towards Sita. Just because he was following his duty as a King doesn’t cover up for the injustice to Sita.
It should be accepted as a decision for the good of social harmony while being unfair to Sita. If one imagines such a decision was good for Sita too, then that cannot be accepted.
This post was intended to defend the decision taken by Ram in terms of social good and clarify his intentions as a just King. But Ram’s acts as a fair King cannot be used to ignore or defend the injustice towards Sita. He could have been a fair King or he could have been a fair husband. But his decision cannot portray him as both. Whatever he did cannot be taken as ideal both for a King and as a husband.
So, this post clarifies the reasons why Ram had to take those decisions as a King. And so, he should be considered as an ideal King. But considering Ram as an ideal husband as well and taking everything he did to be ideal in all aspects is wrong.
I have no intention whatsoever about discussing whether Ram was an ideal husband or not, nor indeed was that the subject matter of the article. The only issue I intended discussing was whether his acts towards Sita were actuated by male chauvinistic tendencies or not - and on that, I think, there is no disagreement with you.
Deleteok. this article tries to defend ram's actions based on a king's duty. but still it cannot defend the injustice meted out to sita.
ReplyDeleteExcellent Article !!!
ReplyDeleteI used to be a very big hater of Ram as a child. As I gained more maturity, I go to "understand" his point of view too.
Yes, loving the family before loving the nation/ world is the norm today and people often fail to pay attention to how much pain both Ram and Sita must have tolerated just to "let the justice prevail".
I am not in favor of Sita leaving her palace and going elsewhere, But I appreciate her and her husband's sacrifice and effort in "keeping the people first".
Again, Excellent Article !! thanks for writing such stuff :)
Please find here a defence of Sri Rama's conduct and an explanation for his actions in the Ramayana.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.docstoc.com/docs/78041026/In-Defence-of-Sri-Rama
Definitely believe that which you stated. Your favorite reason appeared to be on the internet the simplest thing to be
ReplyDeleteaware of. I say to you, I definitely get irked while people
think about worries that they plainly do not know about.
You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out the whole thing without having side-effects , people can
take a signal. Will probably be back to get more.
Thanks
My web site - Dragon City Cheat Engine