Originally posted by: shruthiravi
7/10/2016
Yesterday's episode had many pertinent questions. The most prominent one being justice for Sita. But before I come to that I will look into the aspects of why Sita's murti and why Ram didn't search Sita. And Sita's dialogue I am the cause of sadness and I am the cause of happiness.
First and the foremost Luv-Kush says if Ram has kept Sita it means he has accepted Sita. Then why instead of searching Sita in the jungle, he is keeping murti. That means he is egoistic. Yes it is a very valid question. But the point here is this is where we have to differentiate Ram the king and Ram the husband.
Before I come to discuss on that let me take you back to the Juvenile Justice Law amendment. This law was not amended for ages. And even in the case of the 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Kasab the defense had tried to make use of this law telling Ajmal is a juvenile. But I guess the bone marrow test or something of that sort proved him to be above 18 and he was tried as adult. But the point is if the test had proven him to be juvenile no judge would have been able to give him death penalty. He could have got the maximum 3 years punishment. It is different what the judge feels as a person, but when he sits on the chair he can take decision only on basis of what is written in IPC. Same happened with the juvenile of Nirbhaya case.
And even when I write this today in the rarest of rare gesture Supreme Court is going to hear the review plea on its judgement in the sensational Soumya rape and murder case in an open court. Visitors, media persons are allowed to witness the trial. Govindachamy the prime accused in the case has been let off the noose by SC based on a technicality. He was awarded the noose by both the fast track and Kerala High court. The judgment was criticized not only by the civil society but also by many prominent judges and lawyers across the country.
Now what is the difference between juvenile of Nirbhaya case and Govindachamy in Soumya case. In the former judge cannot do anything because IPC says so. But in the latter the judge has to look at the overall picture and not one technicality that is missing. Because in Govindachamy's case section 302 can be imposed even if Soumya has jumped from the train. What do you expect a girl to do whose head is smashed against the door of the train and a man is trying to rape her. Last ditch attempt to protect her honor she jumped. And the animal called Govindachamy ( sorry I am not civil enough to call him human) raped this girl who was lying in the track half dead with serious head injury. Attack, forcing to death and brutal rape. Does section 302 looks improbable. The technicality the SC argued was no evidence Govindachamy pushed. Does only physical push classify for section 302. These were some of the questions that were raised in Soumya case.
Now let us come back to SKR. Ram was not the judge of Soumya case. He was the judge of Nirbhaya juvenile case. As per the law of the land he had to banish his queen. Because the law says so. Ram the husband loves his wife, but Ram the king has to take decision based on law. Same thing applied by Shatrughna.
So can the amended juvenile justice law applied to Nirbhaya killer. No. It can be used only in future. Same is with Sita. If Sita is called back that means Ram didn't understand the laws and made a judgement. No. Ram made the judgement perfectly as per the existing laws. So here it is not Ram, but the laws are outlived. It is not Ram, but laws need change. Calling back Sita would have meant again Ayodhya will escape. Ok we repented, Maharani is back. Everything backs to normal. While the law remains the same. To ensure law is changed Sita should not be called back.
Ram delivers on the vachan to his praja that he will rule as per the law and to his wife that he will only have one wife. Sita banishment is based on the law of Ayodhya. A woman who stayed in other man's premise is impure. So Ram the king and Ram the husband becomes correct in keeping the murti and not searching Sita. It has nothing to do with Ram's ego or Ahankaar, but it creates the beautiful perception of ego and Ahankaar for Luv-Kush to question him.
Now Sita's dialogue 12 years back she was the cause of sadness and now she is the cause of happiness. See when Mahalakshmi is send away from a home can anybody be truly happy. Will the kingdom have prosperity in real sense. They thought by having her as Queen the maryada is getting polluted, but after her banishment these people were afraid to look inward and lived in misery. She is the cause of happiness. Because Sita who went away 12 years back had lot of questions, unanswered grievances, still it is the vachan that Ram gave to her and her kids that kept her going. But Sita of today has her questions answered when she sees the murti and she blesses Ayodhya. That means true happiness will comeback. By staying true to her Raghunandan has ensured she brings only happiness to Ayodhya.
Now last but not the least. Justice. Savitha justice is not yet served for Shanta. It will be served only when laws of Ayodhya change. It will be served only when the society who rejected girls like her, gets rejected by a woman when Sita does Bhoomipravesh. That is the justice for Shanta. Rejection of Ayodhya and its one sided rules that are tilted unfavourably against woman by refusing to come back.
Let us come back to Luv-Kush. Actually they reminded me in a way of Arjuna standing against Bhishma in MB. What is the difference between Arjuna and Luv-kush. Why Arjuna had to be given knowledge of dharma by Krishna, why Luv-Kush didn't need it. Reason is perception. Luv-Kush doesn't know who Ram is. For them he is an unjust king. Arjun knows who is Bhishma to him. His Pitamaha. Interestingly Luv-Kush are Ram's blood children, while Arjuna has no blood connect with Bhishma. Still Arjuna hesitates to take the bow. If they had grown up in palace, their perception would have been different. They would have imbibed the toxic Raghukul ki maryada. But growing up in a pristine environment has instilled in them a sense of dharma that is inline with rules of Prakriti.
Luv telling horse would have made many places under Ram's kingdom. If it is comes to Valmiki Ashram it will also become Ram's kingdom. They will not allow that. Now what is the symbolism of it. People under Ayodhya means, people under its toxic Sanskriti and toxic laws. Valmiki Ashram is a place where Sanskriti and Prakriti co-exist. If you allow the toxic Sanskriti to enter Valmiki ashram then that place also will lose its purity.
So the boys are not battling against Ram, but they are battling against the toxic sanskriti of Raghukul. Same principle Krishna tells Arjuna. You are not fighting the person, what they are trying to protect.
If you look they tell Laxman if he really cared for Sita, he should have stayed with her and took care of her. He shouldn't have left her in jungle because the king told so. In the question to Laxman Luv-Kush tell him if he had wanted, he could have raised the voice against the adharma that is being done to Sita. When adharma happened to Ram and when at the receiving end was Kaikeyi all the 3 brothers were quick to punish her and show their allegiance with dharma. But while on the receiving end was a woman and it is the man who did adharma why the same voice didn't come out. It was a beautiful question on gender disparity. How the so called people who tell who follow dharma are also biased. Ram's hands were tied. As he is the judge. But were the hands of brother's tied. Bharath argued on Dharma with Ram. Why they couldn't have argued on Dharma with Ram again. Here is the beauty of Rama. He had given his brothers freedom to defend his bhabi if they had wanted, whereas Yudhi takes away that freedom from his brother's when he makes them slave one after another. Unfortunately none of the brothers rise to the occasion.
Even now Laxman has his ego. Yes he says what happened to Sita is bad, but he has to protect Ayodhya's sanskriti. When it comes to that sanskriti it doesn't matter to Laxman he is going to fight 12 year boys. Because Ayodhya Sanskriti is over and above the right questions of the youngsters. They are asking justice for Sita. Instead of telling let me see what can be done, Laxman raising his dhanush means he has chosen adharma.
Parallel is Abhimanyu in Chakravyuha. 16 year old is brutally murdered to protect the system. Parallel is Soumya judgement. Technicality is used to defend a criminal like Govindachamy. Used to protect the perpetuators of a worst crime against a woman. Rape.
Ram was the judge of Nirbhaya case. He had to go as per law. But his brothers and other Ayodhya vasis could have discussed the futility of such a law, questioned Ram, challenged Ram. They didn't do it because according to them what Ram did was dharma. Same thing with Panchali. When she raves and rant the whole kurusabha stands mute because they feel what is happening to her is dharma.
A Valmiki was needed to awake luv-Kush towards Dharma. A Krishna was needed to awake Arjuna towards Dharma. We have to see awakening always happens through a third party who observes both sides neutrally and then comes to the decision of what needs to be changed.
Hindi TV Shows
Veer Hanuman
