@Arti,
See, we have the reason why Lakshman did not take Urmila with him to vanvaas. Like you yourself said, only a celebate could kill Meghnad and if we follow the theory that Ram, Sita, and Lakshman knew what was to happen, then they were prepared for it. Bringing Urmila with him would not have resulted in the death of Indrajit.
Also, I don't quite agree with the comparison of Urmila and Parvathi/Sati. As for Shakuntala, she was not a Goddess so I do not quite care what she did, but Urmila is a part of Lakshmi so I would like her to be like Sita in conduct. Parvati and Sati were poorn avatars. They were already wed to Shivji as Gauri and took rebirth for several reasons. People think that before Sati, Shivji was not married but that's not right. Ma Gauri and Shivji were always married, so Sati and Parvathi meeting Shiv before marriage was not wrong. Also, they were never born as humans but into Gods' families, so the expectations of society were different.
Urmila on the other hand was born to a human King, so as a Goddess incarnate she would have shown ideal behavior just like Sita by not meeting another man before her marriage. She may have met Lakshman by accident once or twice, but to see her deliberately chasing after him is not something I'd like to see. The picture of Urmila I have in my mind is that of a pious lady.
I am also curious why far more attention is given to Urmila than Mandavi. It's true that Urmila suffered separation for 14 years, but so did Mandavi didn't she? Though Bharat was much closer than Lakshman, he refused to see Mandavi until 14 years so she suffered the same separation. So I wouldn't say Valmiki and Tulsidas were "unfair" to these sisters. Any author writes the most on his main character, and the main characters of Ramayana are Ram, Sita, and Lakshman so obviously they would be written about the most.
I am not against Lakshman and Urmila's relationship being explored, but I'd like it being done in accordance to the customs of treta yuga. I'd like to see Urmila a bit more dignified in her behavior, and Lakshman while he did serve Ram was not quite so rude. They are not Jodhaa Akbar. They were Gods so the romance between Gods should be shown in a more divine light.
[/QUOTE
i m not comparing sati or parvati with urmila i m saying parvati and sati were bound to rules and regulation too their father had imposed certain restrictions on them ... but still they defied their father instructions...being the god and goddess the duties and bondage increases manifold yet they went against their society to set an examples of love to set the fundamental love is above all it stands above the traditions and norms of the society... urmila didnt went to any stranger she went to him on the reassurance of lord rama to her father that urmila is the responsibilty of lakshmana his future bride..lord rama had clearly said to her father his brothers will look after his daughters they were their goom and there was silent acceptance from the father she went after hearing such words from lord rama...where is it written a girl couldnt meet her would be husband to seek apology...she wasnt doing a sin or things like that and she didnt went to confess her love she just went to seek an apology...how did it broke the maryadaa ok even if he wasnt her husband still she would have and should have aplogized for her rude behaviour to the guest remember lakshman was her guest and she was his host and keeping in mind.."athithi devo bhav"... the apology was required and regarding the treatment of mandavi is concerned... mandavi was with bharat or not its not clear ...in valmiki and tulsidas ramayan nowhere its mentioned that bharat refused to see mandavi no certainly not...if i take reference from other version in some version its stated mandavi also lived with him and they followed ascetic life there was no need for refusal as ramji lived with sitaji... y would bharat refuse to see her besides there is no strong ground to refuse her to be with him...definetly not as strong as lakshmana had...ascetics did have wife that time didnt they???...in other version its stated bharat asked mandavi to take care of his mothers but she occasionally use to pay visit to him.and inform him about the kingdom and his mother kauslya and sumitra remember ram took the promise to look after kauslaya maa and sumitra maa he had to be informed about that...she had a ascetic life too if i go by ur theory still her husband was near her she could atleast see him from distance but was lakshman present near???? did urmila had any source to see him from the mere distance??? no absolutely not ...the reference of mandavi isnt clearly given any versions... so there a viewer may conclude either case .(either she was with bharat or she was in ayodhya but had an oppurtunity to see her husband )... lakshman was never present with urmila and its not me who talks about this unfair treatment shri maithalisharangupt and sir rabindranath tagore and several various ppl including mr atal bihari bajpai talked about this lady .and the treatment she underwent...definetly tretayug character was pious but the character of satyayug were more pious yet some or the other dared to broke the standards of the society...
for me it isnt tht issue... may be ppl take it as offence, but i found it interesting and tht y i m here i love the equation they brought i m seeing as akhbar and meera i m not saying they are presenting as one their elobration and prespective is much more boarder than mine and i m here to appreciate it ...its my POV i m not at all judgemental...
Edited by arti07 - 12 years ago
