SKR-Of loops and symbolisms#5: Hard way and Smart Way : P.88 - Page 69

@ jaya Di even I had thought about that daughter giving agnipariksha but then I shut my thoughts off. U have voiced my thoughts.

Originally posted by: Cluny123

@ jaya Di even I had thought about that daughter giving agnipariksha but then I shut my thoughts off. U have voiced my thoughts.

Though ram by vindicating Sita in the society kind of gets justice for the girl too but then justice delayed is justice denied.

Let's wait for shruthi Di...

And the dhobi calling calling ram a patni bhakth though in ram rajya everyone had to be satisfied, u can't keep tolerating such characters right. In star mb shishupal insults arjun telling that he become a warrior only after cutting ekalyva finger and insults each pandavas. It's not that they were wrong and finally he insults draupdi but Krishna kills him and doesn't prove draupdi purity there. Though her purity is shown to the world in the infamous hall of dice. Hadn't Krishna shut him up by killing him. I am aware of the 100 mistakes story and then zero tolerance to be shown by Krishna to shishupal. But still this was his final mistake isn't it?

pls answer on why Ram had to do this I am sure there is a reason but am not yet Getting it.

Krishna killing Shishupal for accusing Draupadi is completely different from Ram killing the Dhobhi for questioning his acceptance of Sita. There Shishipal accused Draupadi directly but here the Dhobhi didn't say Sita was wrong or did something wrong or limpure. All his question was on Ram's trust in his wife and how far that is right? that was a case of pure aggression while the later was out of pain and vengeance. Ram knew the person (the Dhobhi before hand) since his childhood and knew what sort of man he was personally. If such good person utters something of that grave insult, he feels there should be some back story to it and that is what made him falter his steps. Everyone knew Shishupal as a wrong man but Bhadra was a matured man with down to earth character who had rejoiced the news od Ram's marriage and coronation. If such a person talks bitter about his king, Ram felt something has gone wrong somewhere somehow and he had to rectify that and failing which might affect the linage of King Raghu. ram was a man of words and he had given his words to his praja in open court that they can lodge their complaints on anyone including him fearlessly and they will get justice. then if he kills the man for questioning his act, will that make him Maryada Purushotham?

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=4704195&PID=136695000&#p136695000

Originally posted by: shruthiravi

@DD EHT was superlative that is why it shutdown in 8 months 😆😆😆. You need some brain to understand perceptions 😆😆

Originally posted by: deejagi

Krishna killing Shishupal for accusing Draupadi is completely different from Ram killing the Dhobhi for questioning his acceptance of Sita. There Shishipal accused Draupadi directly but here the Dhobhi didn't say Sita was wrong or did something wrong or limpure. All his question was on Ram's trust in his wife and how far that is right? that was a case of pure aggression while the later was out of pain and vengeance. Ram knew the person (the Dhobhi before hand) since his childhood and knew what sort of man he was personally. If such good person utters something of that grave insult, he feels there should be some back story to it and that is what made him falter his steps. Everyone knew Shishupal as a wrong man but Bhadra was a matured man with down to earth character who had rejoiced the news od Ram's marriage and coronation. If such a person talks bitter about his king, Ram felt something has gone wrong somewhere somehow and he had to rectify that and failing which might affect the linage of King Raghu. ram was a man of words and he had given his words to his praja in open court that they can lodge their complaints on anyone including him fearlessly and they will get justice. then if he kills the man for questioning his act, will that make him Maryada Purushotham?

Originally posted by: Cluny123

Agreed but my point is not ram killing him. In fact what I felt wrong was one praja coming and calling the King patnibakth. Ram was completely right in letting him go free yesterday for he had not been here for 14 hrs he needs to introspect. I agree he abided such maryada to become maryada purushottam. Thanks for explanation jaya Di😃wanted to understand the difference between the two scenarios.

That shows Ram practiced what he preached. Freedom of speech. He wanted all his Praja's to be fearless and question any injustice befall on them. I will tell you one incident from Ramayan which shows the level of justice Ram practiced.

Once Ram was walking on the banks of river and after sometime, he was tired of walking and thought of taking a break from his walk and stood there enjoying the beauty of mother nature on horizon and he had placed his bow (one tip) on the land while holding the bow. After sometime, he felt, he was not alone in that location but some one else also there and looked around and called out for the other person. finally he got the answer from beneath and when he down casted his eyes, he found he had placed his bow on a frog and it was in tremendous pain but was reluctant to ask him to lift the bow. On seiing that he questioned the frog why he didn't tell this, the Frog said, if someone else had aused him pain or injustice, he would have gone to Lord Ram for justice but when Lord Ram himself had caused it, where will he go for justice?

Even the animals had complete faith in his justice, so how will a man who was pained not open up to him? The dhobhi was not an educated man who could talk in policed way, he was a lay man and his language was in that level only. Everyone knew ram agreed to Sita's words to take her to forest and he never refused Sita anything. Hope you understand why he called patnibakth. It was not ill meant but was a reality (bakthi had to be replaced as premi) 😊

That shows Ram practiced what he preached. Freedom of speech. He wanted all his Praja's to be fearless and question any injustice befall on them. I will tell you one incident from Ramayan which shows the level of justice Ram practiced.

Once Ram was walking on the banks of river and after sometime, he was tired of walking and thought of taking a break from his walk and stood there enjoying the beauty of mother nature on horizon and he had placed his bow (one tip) on the land while holding the bow. After sometime, he felt, he was not alone in that location but some one else also there and looked around and called out for the other person. finally he got the answer from beneath and when he down casted his eyes, he found he had placed his bow on a frog and it was in tremendous pain but was reluctant to ask him to lift the bow. On seiing that he questioned the frog why he didn't tell this, the Frog said, if someone else had aused him pain or injustice, he would have gone to Lord Ram for justice but when Lord Ram himself had caused it, where will he go for justice?

Even the animals had complete faith in his justice, so how will a man who was pained not open up to him? The dhobhi was not an educated man who could talk in policed way, he was a lay man and his language was in that level only. Everyone knew ram agreed to Sita's words to take her to forest and he never refused Sita anything. Hope you understand why he called patnibakth. It was not ill meant but was a reality (bakthi had to be replaced as premi) 😊

@jaya I agree to your view on dhobi that he is having a plan for getting equal justice after seeing today's episode. Reason he brings out the hypocrisy. See the people questioned his daughter, but supports Ram but when asked how many will imitate Ram's action no one raises the finger. I would say it was one of the most beautiful scenes of SKR. Ram seeing the hypocrisy of his own land. Today episode had everything purity, justice and power. Posting analysis soon.

15/9/2016

What an episode today. I loved it to the core. I was always concerned about how Ram took the decision to abandon Sita. Today they showed his journey to that decision. First he asks Vasishth on how a king can perform the roles of being a father, son and husband. Look at the most interesting aspect he never tells why he is asking such questions. Vashistha says his actions has to emulated by praja if he does any action as a father, son or a husband. One of the most interesting aspect of that discussion was Ram telling Guru Vashisth when he was leaving for Vanvass he saw his father in confusion. At that time he only thought about the maryada of his kul but today he is understanding his father. I loved it because Ram as a son couldn't understand what Dasrath as a father was feeling when he had to do the vachan palan as a king. Now Ram is in the same situation. He is going to be a father. And his role as a king and his role as a father contradicting. Vashisth says what Dasrath had for him was moh. He should not succumb to moh or desire. It is not good for a king. Another interesting dialogue happens in the praja that king is their father. So for king it is not about justice to his own blood , but also to the praja who are also his children. Does Ram emulate Dasrath. What makes him different from Dasrath. It is the universal decision he takes without succumbing to moh or only thinking about his kids.

Then he goes to his mothers. I loved here also he doesn't tell the real reason. All the 3 queens tell him if a society thinks a woman impure then whatever she does they will still consider her impure. Kausalya tells the image of a woman is decided by the society as they please according to their needs. Sumitra says a king has to take decision satisfying the perception of society else it can create riots. So 3 questions come up there for Ram. First if a society treats a woman impure how will her purity established. Second doesn't a woman has a right to create her image. If yes how will he give her that. Third if every decision has to be from the perception of society how that perception can be changed.

So all the 3 things weigh heavily on the king and when he goes around in Ayodhya he witnesses the hypocrisy first hand. Not a single Ayodhya vasi approves or want to emulate his decision of taking his wife back who was in Ravan's custody. It pains the husband Ram that his wife whose purity is vouched by the God of Agni himself is berated like this. He comes and places his crown on the throne , telling he doesn't want it. Because it is creating impurity for his pure wife. But the crown follows him. That was the most beautiful scene of today. He holds the power. Power to change perception , power to establish the purity of a woman, power to give a woman right to create her own image independent of the ugly society. The hard painful power. He has to do it devoid of his desire to be with his wife, his unborn children.

Dhobi says Ram has to sacrifice his wife. Ram will sacrifice the queen sending Shivers in Ayodhya, but he will keep his wife as the golden statue mocking the Ayodhya vasis telling them indirectly Sita is impure for Ayodhya and Ayodhya only but for Ram she is pure.

Loved the last scene where Sita says in Ram's decision there will not be any problem or any injustice for Sita. She trusts him. Ayodhya is going to send Mahalakshmi of Ayodhya to jungle. Everyone is going to suffer. And the past just like the Shanta who went alone to where Rishisringa was Sita will go alone to Valmiki Ashrama. Hypocrisy of Ayodhya stands exposed which was not there when Shanta went. With Sita there will be murmurs. Right and wrong will be discussed and it will start the beginning of a change in Ayodhya .

If anyone ask me was there no way just see the way rape is discussed in the country before Nirbhaya and after Nirbhaya. Today people talk about it. A time was there when there was no conviction on rapes, no cases registered. Today case is registered. Though a long way to go punishment does happen, conviction happen. And Rape is no longer a taboo of discussion. Even men discuss about it. Yes it needed a brutal murder of a girl for the hypocrite society to wake up. Because till then rape was something that happened to low caste, villages etc etc but Jyoti Pandey was the quintessential middle class girl. It happened to her and the perception changed.

I have a point to make.