SKR-Of loops and symbolisms#2:30/04:P.107 - Page 46

Originally posted by: sshirley

Anita and DD, totally agree with both your points..

DD - u said if Bharat had been consulted the result would hv been different.. how?

I also agree that Bharat would have handled this matter differently since he's like ram. But my question is how Bharat or Ram (if he had been there) would have handled it?

Originally posted by: Ankita.11

Yes..a thought provoking question...izzat and all are evils of our mindset..most important is self-respect,not bowing down before evil..Izzat is not the conditions that have been set up by few orthodox humans.it is keeping our morality right at all times at all conditions

Originally posted by: daydreamers

This is only and only in line with SKR..

Ram modified the tradition of killing the horse of ashwamedha yagya.

Bharat went against parampara and maryada.

What more can I say? 😉😉

Ram would have followed prakriti and convinced the praja, the way he did during ashwamedha.

Cmn to bharat, he is one emotional person... But again right in terms of prakriti...

His presence definitely would have changed smthn..

But u need to c what's active on the palace front..

It is sanskriti in the face of mandvi and shatrughna..

Bharat and urmila are reflections and hence prakriti.. And both are out. Bharat is away and urmila is asleep.. BINGO!!!!!

Mandvi and shatrughna are shadows.. And what marks the existence of shadows? Its the perception...

Shadows can be acknowledged easily as u can find them following footsteps of the individuals.. But to mark reflections one needs a deeper understanding... They are not readily noticeable. You need to mark their minute details.. And bharat is acknowledged the same once he does the tyaag. Now urmila will be acknowledged the same when she does her share of tyaag...

The sleep is going to stir everyone out of their deep slumber of agyaanta.

You acknowledge things when they are absent..

And now prakriti as a whole is out of ayodhya's palace...

And c the irony.. The state will be with sanskriti for 14 long years.. And once the prakriti is back, they fail to acknowledge it because of half knowledge and myopic vision...

Originally posted by: deejagi

Sorry guys, I can't do a thorough analysis today as I am sure if I start to do , I may not stop it and currently I have no time with me. just having my lunch after an hectic half day in Office and post lunch will be more taxing. So just thought of peeping and landed square into the pool of debate.

Ok just few words here about Shathrugan and his justice. Sorry I will not quote Prakrithi & Samskriti here but just plain thoughts.

The question what would have happened if he had given the ruling in favor of the girl? As mentioned by the citizens, that would have opened up all new perspective on the institution of marriage and family. Today the girl and her father claimed that she was innocent and just to save her life from the swirl wind, she stayed with a man for few days alone and nothing wrong transpired between them. But she has no alibi to support her words or justification, not even her father knew what happened during the course of those days except for her explanation. As a father he accepted the same on face value and since he knew his daughter, he even believed her. But to give a Judgment, one needs witness and these people don't even have the man in question with them and that would have saved them a bit. After hearing the case, the first thing Shathrughan did was check with the Sr. minister who had served the state for longer than his age about what is the punishment for such crime or mistake and the minister said with command that she should be banned from state and sent to forest. the way it was voiced was like she should be sent to forest for ever and may be that was how it was practiced during Dasharth or his ancestors regime. But Shathrughan after seeing the girl and also after analyzing the factors and to prevail the Harmony of the society , gave his judgment of 2 years term in forest at state expense and security. A nominal punishment so that others don't follow the same.

When I said others, I didn't mean the women alone, it can be men as well. Whatever happened now unknowingly will happen knowingly and they can cover up the case with some other excuse. Even if a man abducts some lady and later claim he did nothing and no harm was caused to the lady, the court will have to agree to him as they will have to give justice based on his favor. The punishment was an eye opener for others to not to commit such mistakes.

And Shathrughan could not go to Bharath and asked for his advise as he had to proclaim the judgment then and there. Had Bharath been available at the court and if Shathru had ignored his presence and went ahead with his declaration, then he should have been condemned but not now. Shathru did take the opinion of the elder minister who had served his father for long and at whom the subjects kept the respect on high pedestal.

Sorry guys, need to end here. let me see, if I can do justice to Lakshman & Sita debate or action & reaction, may be later.

Originally posted by: sshirley

Well said

So Bharat would have tried to convince the praja

But then like the ppl said would it have set a bad example n others would have followed?

Originally posted by: daydreamers

Jaya thank u for giving the other side. *high five* same thots here also.. But I ges I was too much into sanskriti prakriti..

And yes that's the very reason I didn't blame shatrughna. He gave a nominal punishment to the girl with protection...

To announce decisions one needs proofs and witnesses... But shatrughna did pay heed to the Father's words. He gave a nominal penance...

But c when u see the whole scene as a larger picture it comes across that shatrughna is at fault. And this can be the reason that yday's episode might have gained thumbs down...

But when we see the details we notice that what shatrughna did was Ram's knowledge ( giving the girl protection) and acted as per lakshman's way ( following rajdharma or giving punishment)

I had drawn a parallel between sumantra and bharat during the time of ram's coronation announcement. The walk of siya ram on the streets.. It was sumantra who accompanied them...

Again today it was sumantra who gave advise..

If bharat would have been there the scene would have been totally different... "Emotions"...

And c the way shatrughna announces the decision.. It wasn't a stern decision... It was smthn that he was compelled to do in the name of what has been going on for years but he offers his own twist... A nominal punishment with protection.. But did the father realise this?

I connect this with rishi mudgal's scene.. Both shatrughna and lakshman had disturbed his tapasya. He was angry. But once he hears their stand he is ready to help them...

Shatrughna today applied both wisdom and action.. But was the recipient ready to understand?

And this myopic vision is going to take sita in a tough place...

Today the myopic vision of the other praja made the Dhobi's girl a victim and tomorrow the myopic vision of the dhobi will make sita the victim.. And when this happens I want shatrughna to have the fb of this sabha...