Fyodor
Dostoevsky refers to a gruesome murder on the opening chapters of ‘The Idiot’.
He was referring to ‘Crime and Punishment’, but he being Dostoevsky, was without
doubt reacting to the deterioration in contemporary social life in Russia at
that time.
We
are presently reading about a similar dreadful event in an ‘advanced’ world where
a much educated married female colluded with her lover to finish off her current
family. So much for ‘harmony at work’! It is a long journey from the Ape to the
Man and many are there who could not finish it yet.
Years
ago, a leading publication in India came out with a cover story on the Women of
epics wherein bloodshed was the order. It was with great enthusiasm that one
started reading this rather disappointing compilation by different authors. The
editors in this case obviously presupposed ‘epic’ to be ‘Indian’. Even among
those Indian, they chose only Ramayana and Mahabharatha. They chose ten females
without any hint of the syllogism in choosing the names or them in any
ratiocinative order. Who were they? Sita, Draupadi, Tara, Kunti, Kaikeyi,
Gandhari, Satyavati, Mandodari, Ganga and Ahalya.
There
were no authentic names on the subject. Writers spread their self-indulgence
throughout the blurb, without giving a new slant to any story. The story failed
to suggest what is parallel for the modern woman. Is it feminism? Is it life
and times of women post 2000? It did not give any direction to the reader,
apart from the usual rhetoric. Except one, nobody visualized the psychological
perspective of the characters in the epics, with suggestions to the modern
woman. However, she too escaped by quoting instead of sharing her views.
Two
of the selected characters, Kaikeyi and Gandhari, did not have multiple spouse
(or were not so accused) and may stand apart as unique role models for the new
woman. It is not explained why they are among the others. ‘Little known facts’ are sometimes misleading
as in the cases of Tara and Kaikeyi. Tara is a well-respected figure in
Ramayana. Sugreeva protects her by taking her as ‘wife’ and not as outrageously
suggested by sexual relationship. One should doubt Sugreeva’s capability for
that! Kaikeyi of course went with Bharatha, among others to meet Lord Rama,
immediately after Dasaratha’s death.
Let
us take one by one,
Sita
Sita
was the reason for the epic ‘Ramayana’. The sole purpose of Avatar of Lord Rama
was to kill Ravana. He fails in life afterwards. The situation involving
disappearance of Sita is to be further researched as it is close to self
abdication by sinking into an abyss. Why the bard refused Sita ‘Swargarohana’
or ‘Moksha’ like others? Is Lord Krishna making up the folly of Lord Rama by
protecting 16008 women as wives and caring for numerous Gopikas? Is Radha, a
repetition of Sita?
Draupadi
Draupadi’s
relationship with Lord Krishna is not examined. Lord Krishna however, saw her
as the life partner of Arjuna, Krishna’s cousin and close friend.
All
the same let us not forget that Krishna also perceived his sister Subhadra as
the chariot of Arjuna! During the time just before the War, was Lord Krishna
remorseful about Draupadi? Krishna blesses her that all her wishes would come
true. If she could not keep her karma, by loving Arjuna more than others, how could
this failed character be a role model?
Tara
We
should not miss the advice of Lord Rama to Tara after Bali’s death. She has to
live to make Angada, the King. Here, everybody understands Sugreeva as a
frivolous character. He is survived because of his intelligent ministers. Sugreeva
sends Tara to pacify an angry Lakshmana when Sugreeva fails to deliver help in
finding Sita. After Ravana’s death, Sita insists on meeting and bringing Tara
to Ayodhya. Tara did command respect.
Kunti
Kunti had the most troublesome life.
That she is adopted explains many things? This must be why she looked beyond to
seek happiness. Only Lord Krishna could foresee that she couldn’t feel
comfortable in Hastinapura after the death of King Pandu. This is why he sends
a messenger. She was of Yadu clan and was among wily Kshatriya Kuru kings and
ministers.
If a female child was unwelcome in
those days, how come a king adopts her? If Dharmaputra carried the image of
sage Vidura, then whose image Karna carries to be called, ‘Suryaputra’? In the
light of stories of child abuse, she is a role model in stark contrast.
Kaikeyi
She
was the most beautiful queen among the wives of Lord Dasaratha. She helped
Dasaratha in war, sitting beside him! We understand that on the occasion of the
name giving ceremony of all young princes, Guru named Bharatha so because he is
to be an expert in ruling the country. So, he is rightfully the King. Here, it
was the tradition, which necessitated in his abdication of throne. (The same
tradition, later do not help Prince Duryodhana in Hastinapura!) Once her role
is over, Kaikeyi is forgotten in Ramayana. Only Lord Rama understood and
continued to support her, despite once losing patience over the suffering of
Sita.
Gandhari
Gandhari
had to marry Dhritrashtra, who was the eldest of the two Kuru Princes. Remember
that all other kings were afraid of Prince Bheeshma. Gandhari blindfolded and
sacrificed her life. Duryodhana is their eldest son and Hastinapura should
naturally belong to him. When Akroora reached Hastinapura at the behest of Lord
Krishna, the knowledgeable King sends him back, saying, will of the God
prevails. Why should Gandhari curse Lord Krishna after the war? Lord Krishna
does not give any detailed teaching of Dharma to her at this stage, so unlike him,
but bows to destiny. Gandhari stands in contrast to Kaikeyi.
Satyavati
She
has little to offer to any woman. She has not made any decision, all by herself
which could affect the epic Mahabharata. Even if it was she, who demanded her
sons to inherit the throne, she might only have learned from past ‘mistakes,’
and to look beyond. She was however not in a position to prevent any
alternative outcome.
Mandodari
Her
resemblance to Sita must be peripheral. It is said that she survived a lost
daughter to the Sea. Mandodari knew that her husband’s actions would land him
in trouble. When Ravana managed to get all around him including his son killed,
this was so intolerable that she looses her patience and aids Angada in a
certain way to disrupt Ravana’s ‘Homa’. Ravana, is one who was destined to be
killed only by Lord Rama. Mandodari is a role model in endless patience and
tolerance and not as suggested to be an early (helpless) acolyte of Ravana.
Ganga
When
analyzing Ganga’s actions, we should think why the eight vasus did not wish to
live on earth after their birth. Is it OK if a sage curses somebody to be
‘born’ on earth? The eight vasus were taking refuge in a slip of tongue by the
sage Vasistha. Vasistha meant that they should experience the agony of life on
earth. Ganga obliges to save them. Now, this is a most precious thought as
unlike any other occasion, we come close to the biblical belief that if born on
earth, one suffers and might do evil. Traditional Hindu thought follows that,
through birth as ‘man’, one can lead life to Moksha (Purushartha), whereas no
other form of life has this benefit. One gets this special form, after being
born in several other forms. What do we learn, then, from Ganga?
Ahalya
Versions
on her story differ. One view is that Indra took the guise of sage Gautama to
sate his selfish lust. Gautama on his return from bathe sees Indra’s semblance
and questions him, upon which, he curses Indra. We don’t know the truth except
that she was to await Moksha by the touch of another man!
Victims of a virtuous world
Many
women characters in Epics like Ramayana and Mahabharatha, are made victims of the
circumstances. They were as confused as we are when they had to make important decisions.
The result was war, destruction, agony and suffering. Lord Krishna stands
apart. He was the ultimate teacher and
protector. Yet, he could not prevent the end. He could not influence everybody.
Despite
the above examples and most modern psychological help, we are seeing that Men
and Women lack ability for logical reasoning and analysis, in expressing
emotions. It is a long way to a satisfactory emotional quotient for everybody!
We are seeing the end result, all around us.
In
the Ahalya’s case for example, can we say that, if both were aware of the attraction
for each other (as suggested in one version) and if they analyzed the
alternatives, results could have been different!
We
all should learn on our ‘response’ to emotions. We need learning and not role
models and this is unfortunately continuous throughout life. We can become
better individuals. It is a choice.
----------------------