Yesterday, I saw a puppet theatre on Ram (not Rama). It got me thinking on two points---the notion of valour and portrayal of women. Now, don't get into the 'sigh! here it goes again' mode...
So let me start with the first one--- valour. Now, we know a bit about the Mahabharat and Ramayan (I choose not to suffix the two with an 'a'-- since I do not like the colonised English when it comes to Indian proper nouns) and have witnessed that the display of valour and bravery has mainly been through two things---war and women! 'How?' you might ask. The Pandavs fought Kauravs and won, so ofcourse they are hereos and Draupati being disrobed in front of everyone was the symbol of Kauravs' pride, Bhishm's inaction and Pandav's inability to protect their woman from injustice. Similarly, in Ramayan, Ram's victory over Ravan was a sign of his valiance and his command to Sita to go through the 'Agni Pariksha' is still upheld as a mark of justice.
Now, here my problem begins, if winning a war is the mark of heroism, then where does Gandhian philosophy of non-violence fit in, considering our heritage and history is full of bloodshed? Also, in the modern times, the defeat of Germany or rather Hitler is seen as a victory of democracy, well for me, it was the only way to save capitalism. I'm not supporting Hitler here, but the fact, that USA should not be seen as a hero here.
So let me start with the first one--- valour. Now, we know a bit about the Mahabharat and Ramayan (I choose not to suffix the two with an 'a'-- since I do not like the colonised English when it comes to Indian proper nouns) and have witnessed that the display of valour and bravery has mainly been through two things---war and women! 'How?' you might ask. The Pandavs fought Kauravs and won, so ofcourse they are hereos and Draupati being disrobed in front of everyone was the symbol of Kauravs' pride, Bhishm's inaction and Pandav's inability to protect their woman from injustice. Similarly, in Ramayan, Ram's victory over Ravan was a sign of his valiance and his command to Sita to go through the 'Agni Pariksha' is still upheld as a mark of justice.
Now, here my problem begins, if winning a war is the mark of heroism, then where does Gandhian philosophy of non-violence fit in, considering our heritage and history is full of bloodshed? Also, in the modern times, the defeat of Germany or rather Hitler is seen as a victory of democracy, well for me, it was the only way to save capitalism. I'm not supporting Hitler here, but the fact, that USA should not be seen as a hero here.
Secondly, why does questioning woman's honour and self-respect always a label of chivalry or justice? Also, is it necessary that the one who wins the war is the hero while other, a villain? Was Ravan really wrong in abducting Sita, since Laxman cut his sister's nose? As far as we know, Ravan never misbehaved with her. So was he really a villain? Was he not more talented, knowledgeable and admirable than Ram?
I also despise how women are portrayed in such mythologies. If Sita had to prove her purity, then why not Ram? Was he also not away from her? As a friend pointed out to me last evening post the show (Amitesh, this is for you), Sita managed to bring up her sons on her own and decided to renounce worldly life as an act of defiance and protest. But we see this only as an act of sacrifice...
So what am I blabbering for so long...simply that non-violence is only mentioned when our 'heroes' saw it convenient and war cropped up only when they knew that they could win it. Also, characters like Draupati and Sita do not really portray subservient, docile and timid characteristics of a woman. Their acts said much more, but we see it as a weakness rather than their strength.
War does not portray the 'good' against the 'bad', it only reflects its need to show who is more powerful. I think its also about time for women to speak up rather than silently act, as perceptions might distort their actions...this world can only hear the ones who are the loudest! so hell be one!
5 comments:
my two cents- why women are treated as objects or collateral in wars & mythologies?
You kinda justified Ravan's abduction of Sita for taking revenge of his sister's nose? It's like if I tear your notebook, you will harm any of my female relative in return? Laxman hurt Shurpankha because she was annoying him. That's normal when a male annoys another male and doesn't budge on polite request to shutup. But Ravan followed or established the practice of making female, an object.
Similarly, why draupadi is an object (like land, or money) that a man can gamble ?
Why women are still bought and sold like commodity?
Nice piece. Though I disagree that Gandhian Principle is always the best policy. If anyone believes we got our independence due to Gandhi only that would be a mistake. And our Gandhian Principle has built an India which is percieved as 'weak' in the face of Pakistani and Chinese onslaughts!
As for Sita and Draupadi, they serve as the traditional Indian male fantasies! The 'mohakabyos' were after all authored by men :)
@Kaushik da--- I never really believed in Gandhian philosophy, but the point is that his non-violence stand is globally recognised, but isn't there a strange dichotomy?? our civilisation has been shaped through wars and here this man spoke of non-violence...I completely agree to your male-fantasy argument! where were the women writers!i wonder
I have been following your blog for quite sometime now. You write rarely, but you write so well!
Women have always been powerful. Has anyone ever imagined a womb to tomb journey in a world sans women!? Quite impossible isn't it? In all her maturity, in all her kindness, in all her giving-spirit, they have become the indispensable pillar of existence itself. Unfortunately and tragically, for some, their modesty has deprived them of this apocalypse, yet.
The examples you cited from the mythologies are also found in other civilizations and are actually in practice is smaller or greater versions even today.
While on one hand there was Helen as a catalyst in the raging war of Troy (in epics), on the other hand there have been the Amazon warriors (women) amputating their body parts to be better archers(in reality)!
Men, mostly, educated and uneducated, rich and poor, valiant and weak, all alike have never lost a single chance to abuse a woman as an utility - be it for waging wars, as an excuse to wage a war, as a machine to serve meals, to rear children, or an object of snide remarks... et al.
At times like this and under such atrocities, the world suddenly seems too big and not all women can form that one, single congregation that will have the force to outnumber these sycophants. It has been tried and it has failed. Each woman must stand for her own.
DISCLAIMER: I don't hate all the men. But, there are some who you can't help but detest.
Ankita--thanks for your insights and comments :) saw your safarnama! :)
Love-Tushita
Post a Comment