MIthila's Pain - Page 3

You're right about their relationship, but I was talking about external forces that could affect the marriage. Yeah, during the exile, he built the bridge to Lanka where most would have given up, she rebuffed all the offers of Ravan and so on. But the one thing that did batter their marriage was his duty to his subjects not to foist on them a queen they didn't respect. The stuff about him sleeping on the floor is Ramanand Sagar's invention, not there in the epic: point is that once he exiled her, they were for all practical purposes divorced, and custody of their twins just shifted from mom to dad once mom went underground.

It's not that Uttarkand is the only metric by which I'm judging the marriage: I'm just stating that there should be no external factors that would cause an erosion in the marriage, the way Rama's royal duties forced one in his.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

You're right about their relationship, but I was talking about external forces that could affect the marriage. Yeah, during the exile, he built the bridge to Lanka where most would have given up, she rebuffed all the offers of Ravan and so on. But the one thing that did batter their marriage was his duty to his subjects not to foist on them a queen they didn't respect. The stuff about him sleeping on the floor is Ramanand Sagar's invention, not there in the epic: point is that once he exiled her, they were for all practical purposes divorced, and custody of their twins just shifted from mom to dad once mom went underground.

It's not that Uttarkand is the only metric by which I'm judging the marriage: I'm just stating that there should be no external factors that would cause an erosion in the marriage, the way Rama's royal duties forced one in his.

I wouldn't consider it a divorce, because even as per Valmiki Ramayan, Rama never abandoned her. He told Lakshman to leave her at Valmiki's ashram. The ashram was at the border of Ayodhya, so one can argue that it's still within Ayodhya kingdom. Sita simply shifted her residence from the palace to the ashram. Also as per Valmiki, it's indicated that Ram did know about his sons being born. It's never explicitly said, but Sita was never known as Vandevi in the ashram. She was Sita only, the queen of Ayodhya, so why wouldn't Ram know? Also, did Shatrughan meet Sita at the time of Luv Kush's birth, and he met her as Sita and not Vandevi, right? So wouldn't Shatrughan inform Ram that his sons were safely delivered?

Ram may or may not have slept on the ground during UK, that's beside the point. But he never did remarry even though the praja wanted him to. Much as he "appeased" his praja by removing their queen physically from the palace, he still considered Sita as his wife and the Queen of Ayodhya, which is why he installed her golden statue on the throne during the ashvamedha yagna. This in itself is why I don't consider them "divorced". Ram never remarried, not even in Uttar Kand. Sita was still his wife and the Queen of Ayodhya, as he proved to the people. Him placing her golden statue next to him was like a slap in their face. He basically told them, "I ain't remarrying to satisfy your unjust desires. Sita is my queen whether you folks like it or not."

So even physically separated from Sita, she was still very much there in his heart and in the kingdom. Even while fulfilling his Raj dharma, Ram still found a way to keep his promise to Sita. If that's not love, what is? How many people today would be that faithful to their wife, even in her absence?

When our elders compare Ram-Sita to present day couples, this is what they're saying IMO, that the couple is able to display such love, faith and trust in each other.

I only had one problem with the Sunaina scene, ke RSji probably should have been more careful of what he was projecting.

I mean Seeta might've gone to the forest out of her own will, but Sunaina's response was potentially very dangerous for the aam Indian folk because they follow Ramayan in their lives to a T and that dialogue might have protected at least one domestic abuser from having a complaint lodged against them kyunki ladki-waalon ko bolne ka adhikaar nahi hai.

I can only imagine this!💔😭

Originally posted by: proteeti

I only had one problem with the Sunaina scene, ke RSji probably should have been more careful of what he was projecting.

I mean Seeta might've gone to the forest out of her own will, but Sunaina's response was potentially very dangerous for the aam Indian folk because they follow Ramayan in their lives to a T and that dialogue might have protected at least one domestic abuser from having a complaint lodged against them kyunki ladki-waalon ko bolne ka adhikaar nahi hai.

I agree w/ you, but keep in mind that this serial was made in the late 80s, when society was far more misogynist than it is today

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

I agree w/ you, but keep in mind that this serial was made in the late 80s, when society was far more misogynist than it is today

They re-shot significant parts of SK, I think they could've easily toned down that part. 🤔

From what I recall, SK had a big break in b/w, which is why Swapnil Joshi was gone, and some actors, like the Dushashan actor also changed. But after Ramayan, the cast went their own separate ways: not sure they had everyone the needed to reshoot these sort of parts, like the one about the ladki-walis not having any rights to say anything

I don't recall this scene too vividly but from what I remember, Sunaina's whole tone is sarcastic, nothing she's saying is meant sincerely because of how hurt she is. Still possible for viewers to misinterpret, I guess, but the intent of the scene is not to be instructive, whereas the dialogues between Dashrath and Janak when the groomsmen arrive in Mithila--where they go back and forth in a kind of adorable humility contest--actually *is* supposed to be an example/social message for the audience to take away about the equality between both sides of a marriage.

Originally posted by: .Vrish.

From what I recall, SK had a big break in b/w, which is why Swapnil Joshi was gone, and some actors, like the Dushashan actor also changed. But after Ramayan, the cast went their own separate ways: not sure they had everyone the needed to reshoot these sort of parts, like the one about the ladki-walis not having any rights to say anything

Ookie I get it now. Thanks! 😳

Originally posted by: MagadhSundari

I don't recall this scene too vividly but from what I remember, Sunaina's whole tone is sarcastic, nothing she's saying is meant sincerely because of how hurt she is. Still possible for viewers to misinterpret, I guess, but the intent of the scene is not to be instructive, whereas the dialogues between Dashrath and Janak when the groomsmen arrive in Mithila--where they go back and forth in a kind of adorable humility contest--actually *is* supposed to be an example/social message for the audience to take away about the equality between both sides of a marriage.

I guess. Even Janak's advice to Sunaina ke please shut up this is jamai raja kinda ticked me off too. I get it ke she was trying to be sarcastic, but the overall tone was pretty serious. 😔

@Juhi I hated the comparison of the lead to SriRam in the show of my DP, but most of the shows even with the lead being as bad as possible bring the comparison with SriRam

However I did like the comparison of the lead couple in the show of our current textile minister with RamSita.

No one could reach the level of love between RamSita but they showed utmost love n trust+ respect for each other. Even a separation between them didn't bring any difference in their feelings for each other

@Janki However if you ask me personally I will never want to be in a relation like Ram Seeta. After having had the love and togetherness of the kind they had a separation because that's necessary for your duty would probably not be possible for me

Also I want to second Juhi here, the difference between Brahmanic and Abrahamic religions is that while the former gives to the right to Question, to amend and to criticize Gods or practices as you do to your friend, pester for your wishes as you do to your father and just hide in Its lap (metaphorically) like you do with your mother, the Abrahamic religions commands you blindly follow the practices and fear It.