Originally posted by: Chandraketu
Lalitha is right - they did show it in the previous serial.
But I do hope they don't show that here. First of all, Valmiki has nothing about the relationship between Janak & Rama post Sita's exile, and therefore, the servile grovelling attitude of Janak that they showed in that serial (which even irked Rama himself) was totally uncalled for. We've argued over whether Sita should have gone to Mithila instead, but I'd think that given the events, Rama himself had no right to go there now. The biggest problem I have with this 'poetic license' is the message it seems to endorse that parents-in-law should treat their sons-in-law like gods, no matter how badly their daughters are treated. (Yeah, yeah, Rama didn't 'ill-treat' Sita and did what he had to, but correct or not, that's the perception that would have been created. However, one consequence of this would have been that he'd have lost the moral right to ever go to Mithila again).
One way they could do this is move over to Mithila, and show people of Mithila expressing outrage over Sita's exile, and vowing never to allow their daughters to marry anybody from Ayodhya. In fact, spin in an Avadhi groom about to be engaged to a Mithila bride, and the news coming in of Sita's exile, and then the wedding instantly being cancelled and the groom instantly being thrown out and pelted with chappals. Yeah, it would be unfair to him since he'd possibly be innocent, but no less unfair than his compatriots were to Sita.
Other option - don't show Mithila at all.
Why is it that everyone always forgets about Urmila? Even the people of Mithila seem to have forgotten that Urmila was a daughter of King Janak as well, and actually his biological daughter. Yes, it's terrible that Sita was exiled, but to make the conception that all of the bahus of Ayodhya were being mistreated is just wrong. Lakshman had full right to visit Mithila if Ram didn't, because he was the husband of Urmila, but would he ever visit Mithila again if Ram was banned from going to it? So the alliance between Ayodhya and Mithila would never disappear, because of Urmila, so it would be completely stupid if the Sagars took poetic license to show a marriage in Mithila to a guy in Ayodhya only to end it.😒
What is wrong in showing Janak visiting Ram? Wasn't Urmila living in Ayodhya? So didn't he have a right to visit Ayodhya? Also think about it in this view. It could be said that Janak is being "groveling" as you said, to Ram because he's scared that if he doesn't show friendship to Ayodhya, Urmila will be mistreated. That's the way you are interpreting the relationship between Janak and Ram, as something merely between a son-in-law and a father-in-law, instead of friendship between two Great intelligent Kings.
Also, Janak was a gyani. He was a great King who knew Raj Dharma very well. He was not "groveling" to Ram when he visited Ayodhya, but merely consoling him and making him stronger, because he knew Ram was not "mistreating" Sita but following his Raj Dharma. Janak was not narrow minded like people are today. He was not one to go into rages and bring out a shotgun because his daughter was treated injustly.😉😔
We all know that the Sagars have not followed Valmiki Ramayan in the previous serial. You don't have to remind us with every post, but I enjoyed every single scene they did show with poetic license, because whether or not they were accurate, they made sense with the storyline the Sagars used and they held so many morals. Unlike the storyline being used now, where many things contradict with eachother and it is being shown too dramatic.
And anyway, the Sagars now have used every single scene you did not want them to use from the old one, so most probably, despite what you wish, they'll show Janak visiting Ram. So why can't you let it go that neither Ramanand Sagar or Anand Sagar have followed Valmiki Ramayan precisely and enjoy the serial for its actors instead of the storyline?
Kumkum Bhagya
