Grossly misinterpreted 'Laxman Rekha'

Laxman rekha is not mentioned anywhere in Valmiki Ramayan. But it is there in some later versions. It is debatable as to how this story originated. However, the purpose of this post is something different. The purpose is to look into the meaning of Laxman Rekha and see how it has been misinterpreted.

At present "not crossing Laxman Rekha" means to be within the limits prescribed by code of conduct or to act within the limits of one's authority. When a woman is asked to be within Laxman Rekha, then it often means that, being a woman, she should have little freedom.

Often people blame Laxman for putting limits on women's freedom. But it is gross misinterpretation of what Laxman did.
Laxman asked Sita not to cross the line because he wanted to protect Sita. He had no intention of curbing her freedom. Even now, when somebody's life is known to be in danger, he is often given police protection and he is asked not to go anywhere without the security. Can we say that there is any injustice in giving him police protection? Not at all. How can saving's somebody's life be injustice to him? If we know that somebody in our family will be in danger when he goes out, then we tell him to be within the house. There is no injustice here because we are merely trying to save his life.

Likewise, Laxman should not be faulted for asking Sita not to cross the line. If Laxman did not draw any such line and it was merely the imagination of the authors of some versions of Ramayan, who added this story, then we can blame the authors for writing something incorrect. But we must not blame the authors (nor the character Laxman in those versions) for curtailing the freedom of women.

Rather it is the fault of the people who interprete Laxman Rekha in wrong way and use it to justify treating women as some jail inmates.

By including things like Laxman Rekha there writers have insulted both Seeta n Laxman. i just hate this concept. These writers have insulted Laxman also.

Purvi,
Why do you consider this as insult? How can protecting somebody be an insult?

That's a good point, akhl. Laxman rekha is considered to be an insult for some women today, but it doesn't seem like one in the Ramayan even if it only says so in some versions only.

Originally posted by: akhl

Purvi,
Why do you consider this as insult? How can protecting somebody be an insult?

What is ur view? If it was not in original story why some later writers included it?
What was there intention when they included this concept?

Protecting somebody is never a insult. But its insulting when people blame Sita for crossing Laxman Rekha or maryada Rakha (though originally there was no such things). At that point I found it insulting. Even that dialogue used in Thursdays episode "Stri jab apni maryada laang deti hai to phir waapas nahi jaa sakti" --this dialog was insulting. I found it insulting when people blame only Sita for her abduction.

laxman leaves the cottage in anger beacuse Sita says some hurtful words to him. He didn't draw any laxman rekha.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

What is ur view? If it was not in original story why some later writers included it?
What was there intention when they included this concept?[/quote]
I do not know why this story was added. This story was told by people through oral tradition even before Tulsidas wrote Ramacharitmanas. May be they wanted to show that women should have less freedom. But we cannot claim that this was their intention. In fact, making any such claim will be stretching our imagination too much. It is quite possible that they simply wanted to show that Laxman cared for Sita's safety.

[quote]Protecting somebody is never a insult. But its insulting when people blame Sita for crossing Laxman Rekha or maryada Rakha (though originally there was no such things). At that point I found it insulting. Even that dialogue used in Thursdays episode "Stri jab apni maryada laang deti hai to phir waapas nahi jaa sakti" --this dialog was insulting. I found it insulting when people blame only Sita for her abduction.[/quote]

I agree with you here. But this is the fault of the people who blame Sita and not of the authors of these versions of Ramayan, which mention Laxman Rekha. For some reason, I have not been watching any serial (neither on TV nor online) for many weeks. I came to know now that such a dialog was used in Thursday's episode. But why blame those authors who added the story of Laxman rekha?

[quote]laxman leaves the cottage in anger beacuse Sita says some hurtful words to him. He didn't draw any laxman rekha.

But can we claim that the authors who wrote about Laxman rekha had the same intention as the present day people who use the excuse of Laxman rekha to insult women?

Originally posted by: akhl

But can we claim that the authors who wrote about Laxman rekha had the same intention as the present day people who use the excuse of Laxman rekha to insult women?

To find out the true intention of those writers who first added that concept of laxman Rekha we need to do more research n study. But for the time being I want to say that this concept in insulting.

I have no doubt abt Laxman's devotion. He was selfless. He is the greatest TYAGI. He sacrificed all his pleasures for his Bhaiya-Bhaabi

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

To find out the true intention of those writers who first added that concept of laxman Rekha we need to do more research n study.[/quote]

I agree. But the problem is that it is still not known how this story originated. Tulsidas has not clearly mentioned about Laxman rekha but he has hinted it in Yuddh Kaand. But it is obvious that the story existed even before Tulsidas wrote it.

[quote]But for the time being I want to say that this concept in insulting.[/quote]
And I like to give those authors the benefit of doubt till their real intenion is known. Suppose people had not interpreted "laxman rekha" to insult women, then also would you have thought that the story of laxman rekha was demeaning to women?
[quote]I have no doubt abt Laxman's devotion. He was selfless. He is the greatest TYAGI. He sacrificed all his pleasures for his Bhaiya-Bhaabi

Agree completely.