Swara Bhaskar's insensitive remarks on Jauhar scene from Padmavat- Page 5

I could do that, Nathu, but that's not the subject of this thread.

Don't get me wrong when I tend to look for the historical unfolding of certain practices... it's for my personal better understanding... to me, the way Bhansali pictured the Jauhar left a bad taste, but I don't judge the women... it had been a very understandable reaction to choose the selfkilling instead of the physical and emotional tortures they would have been subjected to... women worldwide did it in wars... It need deep desperation but also inner strength and courage (in this case)... but jumping into fire (and also making kids do that) may not have been a woman's choice if it hadn't been imposed on them by a mindset built on male perceptions.

As for Swara... I don't care what exactly she wrote... I don't care about her, actually.

Originally posted by: Clochette

I could do that, Nathu, but that's not the subject of this thread.

Don't get me wrong when I tend to look for the historical unfolding of certain practices... it's for my personal better understanding... to me, the way Bhansali pictured the Jauhar left a bad taste, but I don't judge the women... it had been a very understandable reaction to choose the selfkilling instead of the physical and emotional tortures they would have been subjected to... women worldwide did it in wars... It need deep desperation but also inner strength and courage (in this case)... but jumping into fire (and also making kids do that) may not have been a woman's choice if it hadn't been imposed on them by a mindset built on male perceptions.

As for Swara... I don't care what exactly she wrote... I don't care about her, actually.

Unfortunately there will never be a thread on Halala and mutah in bollywood forum, cos no bollywood celebrity will dare to speak on that topic for obvious reasons. But you are free to write that essay on Halala and mutah in the CA section of this forum. I will be eagerly waiting to read that essay of yours 👍🙏

As for Woman choosing Jauhar... Woman wouldn't have chosen to die at all if there was a choice. The only choices they had was to either die immediately or get daily death in the hands of those barbarians. Strange that no body criticises those invaders that didn't leave them any choice.

There were many wars within Hindu rulers in India but never once did hindu women of the losing state have to perform Jauhar cos none of the Hindus indulged in necrophilia.

You say it may not have been a woman's choice but what if it indeed was? You have no idea of the moral code followed by Indian woman, especially the Rajputs of that era. Some people argue that they could have chosen an easy death, if not for a mindset built on male perceptions, and let the invaders r@pe their dead bodies. But the Rajput women had such pride in their lineage & dharma that I'm sure, being a Rajput myself, that they themselves wouldn't want their dead bodies to be defiled in that manner.

You may not know but in Hindus we have the tradition to honour even the dead body. It is given proper respect with pooja and kriya karm while cremating after death. It's extremely important to have a proper cremation after death for next life. The dead body doesn't just lose its importance after death so that it can be eaten by cannibals or defiled by necrophiliacs. That's our belief system as Hindus. Sanctity of dead body and its cremation is very important for Hindus just like it is burial for muslims and Christians. The woman did that cremation for themselves, in Jauhar, as there would be no-one to do that for their dead bodies, instead only the Barbarians who would defile their dead bodies. I hope you are understanding this concept....

I know some people may find it hard to believe but Rajput woman themselves had those ideas of self respect and sanctity of their dead body, being Hindus, without any mindset imposed by male expectations.

Letting dead body being eaten by cannibals or defiled by necrophiliacs is against this traditional belief of Hinduism. I'm sure you or others may find male influence, patriarchy etc even in this but that's the way Hinduism and it's beliefs have always been. It will take leftists many lifetimes to change the core beliefs of Hinduism so as to destroy it finally.

I know all that, Nathu... and I also think that cremation is something I would like to get done with my dead body, too.

But my question would always be: Was it Really the Women's idea? (there are two distinct views about the agency of the women - in general - about the performance of Jauhar)...

The Rajput/historical view (like in the poem Padmavat) presents Jauhar as a voluntary, heroic choice made by queens and noblewomen to protect their honor, dignity, and also lineage (that's why Bhansali made it a triumph).

A more critical view argues that "choice" cannot exist in a deeply patriarchal society where a woman's entire value was tied to her chastity and her husband's honor. The intense societal conditioning, paired with the horrifying reality of wartime enslavement, effectively forced women and children into the fire under extreme psychological coercion.

I'm just one who asks questions and looks for answers which are logical... and maybe, for proud Hindu women (of noble descent or not) it was logical to jump into the fire.

Maybe, with another view on women by men, the women would have preferred to fight the invaders as much as the men did...

Originally posted by: Clochette

I know all that, Nathu... and I also think that cremation is something I would like to get done with my dead body, too.

But my question would always be: Was it Really the Women's idea? (there are two distinct views about the agency of the women - in general - about the performance of Jauhar)...

The Rajput/historical view (like in the poem Padmavat) presents Jauhar as a voluntary, heroic choice made by queens and noblewomen to protect their honor, dignity, and also lineage (that's why Bhansali made it a triumph).

A more critical view argues that "choice" cannot exist in a deeply patriarchal society where a woman's entire value was tied to her chastity and her husband's honor. The intense societal conditioning, paired with the horrifying reality of wartime enslavement, effectively forced women and children into the fire under extreme psychological coercion.

I'm just one who asks questions and looks for answers which are logical... and maybe, for proud Hindu women (of noble descent or not) it was logical to jump into the fire.

Maybe, with another view on women by men, the women would have preferred to fight the invaders as much as the men did...

Even after explaining all the significance of Hindu traditions and beliefs about cremation and sanctity of dead body and that all Hindus men or woman believe in it, you are still stuck on whether or not it was women's idea, patriarchal society, and what not. Anyways I tried my best... 🤷

Looking forward to reading your essay on Halala and mutah in CA forum, debate mansion or any other forum of your choice 👍

Oh look another sermon on sanctity. Who would have thought.

So after a lifetime of subjugation by the father , subjugation by the brothers if any , subjugation by the husband and his family, fending off sexual assault if they were lucky enough to have never endured it , after walking on eggshells ALL their lives , médiéval women were supposed to also make the sexual perversion of men,( Muslim men alone let's say , but men nevertheless) THEIR problem. And since there wouldnt be anybody to cremate them they were supposed to go cremate themselves alive so that no nécrophile would get to touch them after their suicide. Sort of like Muslim women wearing the hijab all day every day even in the peak tropical summer , just so that no pervert would ever get aroused by seeing the stupid hair on their heads. It's almost like treating women like shit and blaming them for what men do has no religion. At least bigots and misogynists can find some common ground.

Rajput men however were exempt from the sancity of the dead body thing. Their bodies after they fell in battle were allowed to rot away because having a penis already guaranteed their quick journey from this world to the other without the extra steps of purity and sanctity. So they never had to set themselves on fire. What a load of BS. Actually I'm beginning to get why those women were eager to kill themselves. I would too if this is the shit I had to live with. The necrophilia argument is such nonsense because often men slaughtered the females in their families with their swords when a pyre wasn't available. The irony in this case is that Khilji was most likely homosexual and if anybody had to worry about getting f#d in the arse pre or post death it was the men. And in many Muslim cultures sodomy in the absence of women was and is pretty common.

It's always people who know nothing about Hinduism that start preaching about it. Suicide is strictly forbidden by the shastras . it's one of the deadliest sins . It's after many millions of births (8.4 million ) that a soul attains a human body. According to Hinduism anything that happens to you is your karma from previous births and trying to evade that by destroying your body would incur more negative karma and would lead to ages of suffering where the soul would wander about in despair. There literally are stories about places in Rajasthan that are haunted by dead women from history and those stem from this belief. Secondly murdering your kin is as much of a grave sin. Several women who committed jauhar were known to have thrown their screaming babies and toddlers into the fire.

I knew the question about cremation of men dying in battlefield would be coming and they didn't disappoint

Anyways what do you expect just because their bodies could not be cremated or defiled the Rajput men should stop fighting the muslims?

In Ramayan, shri Ram sent the body of Ravan with full respect to his wife Mandodari who also didn't perform Jauhar or sati. Mutual respect was maintained for the dead even amongst the opposing sides in Hindus.

But this wasn't the case with Hindu vs Muslims. Either way men would have died if they didn't fight, with or without cremation. But the kshatriya men dharma is to fight and die in the battlefield while fighting. Its called attaining Veergati. Rajput men cannot abandon their dharma just for the fear that their bodies may not be cremated or defiled. With Rajput women this was not the case. They had the choice to perform Jauhar but some also chose not to do that, while allowing themselves to become s3x slaves. I'm sure the horror stories of their fate as s3x slaves would have inspired more women to perform jauhar.

As for suicide prohibited in shastras, what would one say to sati performing self immolation in her father daksha's yagya?

But who am I trying to explain... The ones whose brains are still stuck in P3nises, V@ginas and Ass3s 🤷

Originally posted by: NathuPaapi

@bold - While you are at it, please write an essay on Halala and mutah marriage as well, cos unlike jauhar or sati that no longer happen, halala and mutah do, even now. I think it would be better if you direct your efforts to stop malpractices of present rather than the ones that existed in history. Not speaking against Halala and mutah is also supporting crime against humanity. Islamic women are women too.

Sorry to have to quote it although it is another subject... I can't do a thread about it but I can post my essay if somebody else makes a thread about both these Islamic parctices and tags me

Originally posted by: Clochette

Sorry to have to quote it although it is another subject... I can't do a thread about it but I can post my essay if somebody else makes a thread about both these Islamic parctices and tags me

Ok I'll make a thread just to read your essay. 👍

Btw... I already know what question (taunt actually) will be coming next. Lets see if they disappoint or not

Nathu, you use a very common rhetorical tactic to defend historical practices: using a universally accepted tradition (the sanctity of cremation) to mask a specific systemic injustice (that only women were expected to burn alive).... You are shifting the goalposts. You want me to focus on how Hindus treat dead bodies, while I was correctly focusing on why living women and children were forced into those fires.

Maybe you ignore how social conditioning works. If a society conditions you from birth to believe that your only value is your purity and your husband, and that surviving him makes you a cursed outcast, you will "choose" the fire. ... Indoctrination is not the same as free will. The fact that victims are brainwashed into accepting their own destruction does not mean the system isn't oppressive.

In my opinion, in the case of Jauhar, the primary fear was not what enemies would do to dead bodies; the fear was that the enemy would capture, enslave, and rape living women. It is the patriarchal view that a woman is better off dead than "soiled" by another man. the fire is the 'logical' consequence of an accepted tradition relative to dead bodies.

While I respect the spiritual importance of cremation in Hindu tradition, equating the treatment of a corpse with the burning of living women and children is a false equivalence, imo. Framing Jauhar purely as protection against necrophilia seems like an excuse to me because this requirement was strictly reserved for women...