The role women play?

Uski Roti (Your Bread, Punjabi; 1969)
Direction: Mani Kaul

A discussion came up with a friend the other day. Rama and Sita are hailed as exemplary beings who lived to the expectations of how a human should live on Earth. Take the perspective of Sita. A princess by birth, not exposed to the rumble and tumble of living in the wild, had no choice but to follow her husband, Rama, when the King decreed that he should spend 14 years of exile in the jungle. Playing the role of a good wife, she just followed without any opposition. 

Through no fault of hers, she had to endure the kidnapping and incarceration in Lanka. She did not develop Stockholm Syndrome but stayed steadfast that her beau would save the day. When she was eventually rescued and finally returned to Ayodhya, she was not hailed as a good wife. She was instead used as a bad example when a dhoby refused to accept his wayward wife back to fold after being caught in a possible remorseful affair.

Rama, living up to the role of a King, and Sita, the symbol of a chaste Queen, had to endure tests of fidelity. Sita took all these in stride. When a pregnant Sita was sent off to the jungles a second time, her thoughts were only about who would perform her wifely duties in her absence. It seems that she had no resentment against the King for the turmoil she had to endure in the name of royal reputation. Such is said to be the role of a good Indian wife - to trust that the husband would do the correct thing for the household and its family members. Of course, neither everyone can be Rama nor can everyone be a Sita!

Fast forward to the present. A modern person cannot stomach all this bunkum. To him or her, individual liberty is prime. Individual rights, freedom of expression and non-conformity to traditional, seemingly archaic, unscientific dogma are essential. Maybe in that way, this movie highlights the patriarchal nature of our societies and how females have to play the part of a quiet wife. This can be quite challenging when a traditional society expects a female member of a community to be seen, not heard. She is expected to perform her preset duties and not question or give opinions! But then, detractors would assert that eventually, the wayward husband came back to his senses, and that is the role of a wife, a stabilising figure.

This 1969 award-winning new-wave cinema movie from the land of Kamasutra is a non-linear presentation of a tale of philandering inter-city bus driver, Sucha Singh, and his obedient wife, Balo. The wife faithfully prepares his daily supply of meals to pass to him when he passes the village bus stop. Sucha Singh is a creep. He comes home only once a week. He spends all the time immersed in the pleasure of alcohol, gambling and his mistress.

Balo, who lives with her younger sister, is quite aware of her two-timing husband. She hangs on, maybe due to financial dependence or avoiding the stigma of being a divorcee or just hoping that he will repent. At the same time, Balo has to fend off an aggressor from her sister. 

In this profoundly slow-moving presentation which focuses a lot on inanimate objects and body parts rather than on faces, we get a flip flop between the present and past of what happens in Balo and Sucha. A simple story that brings back the memory of our past when days felt like longer than 24 hours and a year felt like a lifetime!

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The dilemma of a King?

Lost Loves (Arshia Sattar; 2011)

Exploring Rama's Anguish

The question is whether the so-called divine scriptures are indeed infallible sacred decree or just mere guides for humanity to use as a precursor the complete the building block of life. Is it really God's orders or is it the human interpretation of what is best for mankind?

If the holy texts are indeed supreme, can it be deliberated or argued? We, the human race, used to live at a time when avenues were open for debates. Paradoxically, at this time and age when literacy is at its highest peak since the beginning of history, these doors are precariously shut. No place for questioning!

Are the powers that be hiding something?

I had always been under the impression that a King by the name of Rama as a human in flesh and blood, did actually walk on Earth. His subjects were have been awed by the dramas that revolved around the royal family. Their actions and decisions must have been closely watched by his citizens and be awed. Human beings always look at role models to follow. In those days, with the absence of Kim Kardashian and Kanye  West to set the precedence, the royalties must have been the trendsetters. With a little bit of exaggeration here and a little glorification there, Rama, his consort and his brothers must have attained demigod status, if not Supreme God Himself.

I found this book quite refreshing. Written by an articulate Muslim author whom I had the chance to listen to at the Georgetown Literary Festival, she had earlier been involved in the translation the whole of Valmiki's Ramayana from Sanskrit to English.

The thing is whether to consider Rama as a reincarnation of God when he made all His life and royal decisions or did he make them as a mere mortal, as a ruler?  

The author looks at the what can be construed as Rama's imperfections. One controversy is the slaying of a Sudra ascetic, Shambukha, for masquerading as a Brahmin. The seeming brutal beheading of a man standing on his head is justified as his karma to be slain by the Lord Himself. Others criticise it pure caste consciousness.


The deceitful slaying of Vali, the Monkey King, when Rama wanted an army from Sugriva is questioned. Perhaps, Rama feels that Vali's usurping of Sagrivi's kingdom and wife was immoral. But then, it may have wrong for Rama to take sides and kill Vali when he was vulnerable when he was caught unawares, being garlanded. The truth of the matter may be different, and perhaps Rama was using Ayodhya's social mores to judge inhabitants of Kishkindha, the Varana (monkey) kingdom.

Ayodhya, Kishkindha and Ravana's Asoka garden in Lanka had different standards for women. In Ayodhya, the fairer sex is expected to be demure and bashful. In Kishkindha, however, wife swapping is an acceptable practice. In the demonic world of Lanka, open display and promiscuity were enjoyed.

Sita is viewed as a pitiful victim at the hands of Rama. Imagine being swept off her feet at the prospect of being married to the future King, only to be out-manoeuvred by a conniving young step mother-in-law at the last moment just before the coronation. Then being banished to the jungles for 14 years. The sojourn in the forest was no walk in the park too. Kidnapped by an evil king, only to be rescued much later, life afterwards was no better. Through no fault of hers, Sita is taken away but, she gets the impression that she was accused of having a whale of time partying. She has to prove her chastity to shut the gossiping mouths. Of all the persons, even her husband cannot stand by her but decide the satisfy the people's evil tongue. It is as though she is made the scapegoat to proof Rama's mantle as a just ruler. 

It also appears inhumane that Rama should banish his pregnant wife to the woods just because of the evil words of a dhoby and his unfaithful wife. It is a bad example to have the princes grew up in the wilderness without knowing their father.  Is that what a father should do? Did Rama fail to perform his dharma as a father figure?

Arshia Sattar
Credit: Flickr

Mutilation of Surpanakha, Ravana's sister, of cutting off her breasts and her nose, is an overkill - all because of her promiscuity towards a married man. If Rama were God, would He not seen her real intentions of wanting Ravana to be killed or that it would be the road to His misery. 

Perhaps, Rama was just a man, trying to do the best thing as a ruler; not to be swayed by the lure of the flesh as his father, Dasaratha, was - crumbling to the charms of his younger wife, Kaikeyi, Dasharata had to go back on his word on the throne. Was this why Rama was so cold towards his wife? Maybe Rama loved his wife, if his constant display of Sita's figurine during essential functions, in her absence, is any proof.

If Rama was sent off to live the jungle to live as an ascetic, why is depicted with weapons and continued to consume meat? And he continued to display his sorcery in jungle politics.

There are many regional addendums to the Valmiki's Ramayana. Uttara Kanda and Bala Kanda are examples of such scriptures. Philosophical discourses on these texts only show that answers in life are not so black or white. It often manifests in varying shades of grey.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/riflerangeboy/

Queen sings the blues!

Sita Sings the Blues (2008)

Director: Nina Paley

Since its first narration as way back as 7th century BCE and its additions over the centuries, it has fascinated many. The epic poem has been analysed, reanalysed and re-interpreted from so many angles. Ramayana continues to be a source of inspiration for many on Rama, the obedient son, the brother, the King, the husband, the warrior and the avatar of Vishnu Himself.

This time around, this animated production looks for the epic from Sita's viewpoint, as a wife yearning for Rama's trust and acceptance. Using 1929 catchy blues songs by Annette Hanshaw as the main background score, the movie depicts a miserable Sita who yearns for Rama's love. Through no fault of her, she is accused of infidelity. Rama, the stoic king, is depicted as the cold-hearted husband who is more interested in reputation and living up the citizen's approval rather than standing up for his wife.

Running parallel to the main storyline is the contemporary story of Nina, the director, and her relationship with her husband who deserted her in real life. Like Rama, he becomes cold after his trip to Trivandrum, India. Like Sita too, Nina is wronged and becomes the wife who is the victim of the husband's unknown train of thought.

The film portrays Sita as the innocent victim of the times who is made to prove her purity. At every juncture, she is assumed to be the guilty. Her words carry no weight, and she has to depend on the elements of Nature to prove her chastity. She has to perform the fire ritual repeatedly to this effect. After sacrificing fourteen years of princely life to stay a pauper's life because of internal political wranglings, she is banished again to the jungle, pregnant, lonely and broken. Is it all for love? How long can a lady take all these beatings?

Naturally, this film drew flak from ultra-conservative Hindu groups who perceive this film as degrading to the image of Rama, the avatar of the Supreme Being, Lord Vishnu. He is portrayed as the aloof and cold King who is more interested in living to maintain a pristine image and feeding to the public gossips rather than doing the 'right' thing. Lord Rama and His actions have been an exemplary moral code for generations all this while. To question this, they say, is sacrilegious.

https://asok22.wixsite.com/real-lesson 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/riflerangeboy/

Two sides of the coin?

The Ramayana

R.K. Narayan (1972)

We all know the story of the Ramayana. The original epic poem contained 24,000 verses and 500 chapters, written by Valmiki in 4 BCE. It has many versions as it had been translated into many Indian languages and non-Indian languages. As the Hindu influence spread over the archipelago, Ramayana had been narrated in Thailand, Malaya. Indonesia and Burma. The version that was written by the Tamil poet, Kamban, is said to give plenty of weightage to Ravana's courts' proceedings and Sita's predicaments after the well-fought war against Lanka. 

The discourse that went on among the Asura brothers on the days before the Northerners' attack is worthy of mention. It tells us a lot of how civil servants or any member of an organisation would (‽ or should) react in a case of a moral dilemma. When Raavan summoned his brothers to help him out against attack from Rama's Army and his band of monkeys, each of them responded differently. 

Vibishana, the honourable one, totally disagreed on Raavan's action of kidnapping somebody's wife against all her cries and pleas and justifying his misdeeds as a tit-for-tat against violence against their sister. He did not want to condone any of his actions. Hence, he fled the scene and did not want anything to do with the defence of Lanka. But, he went on to volunteer information to the enemy which eventually caused Raavan's downfall. Is that right? It could a subject of protracted discussion.

Then, there was Kumbakarna, another brother who also did not approve of Raavan's kidnapping of a respectable woman. Because of the brother's previous help to him and the fact that 'blood is thicker than water', Kumbakarna decided to stay back and fight for his brother. To him, the familial bond was more important than judging the merit of Raavan's misdeeds.

On the other hand, Kuberan the sloth was oblivious to everything that was going on. He was in a deep slumber as he always was when all these was going on. Only when he was provoked at the climax when everything was going on, he charged headlong. By then it had a little bit too late. Does that not remind you of many around us who seem aloof of their surroundings. Only when things go pear-shaped, and things hit the fan, do they suddenly peel open their eyes to see.

Sita's Fire Ordeal
exoticindiaart.com

If you think Ramayana is all about the stoic Rama and his stance of facing all adversities like a good son and a good ruler, you are wrong. Sita had her fair chance of misfortunes. She thought she was getting married to be a queen, but turns of events eventually made her end up dressed in bark parchment to undergo exile in the forest for 14 years. As if that was not enough, Sita had to be kidnapped. Despite being faithful to the vows she made to the celestial bodies during the wedding, her chastity was suspected. Of all persons, it had to be Rama. She saw the change in him after the release from Lanka. Rama did all the search and fight not for love and affection but as a duty. Anyway, that is what is expected of a king-in-exile when his consort is abducted. And of all things, Sita had to prove her innocence via a fire ritual. For Rama, the people's perception was more important. Is this the Dharma that he talks about? Things were never the same after that. Her later self-imposed exile is a testimony of that.

People spent a lifetime trying to read and re-read the Ramayana to understand the wisdom imbibed in its poem. Narayan condenses the whole epic into a small, readable edition for the general public to peruse in any way they want; as a story, a philosophical discourse or a holy book.