This content was originally posted by: ShivangBuch
Joker lolz. Joker hi to sab cards ko jeet leta hai. Trump card. Most important card. Aur sab ko hasaataa aur khush karta bhi hai aur all rounder hai. Badbad nahi behena. Gyaanvaani. Par lene ke liye hi itni thi ki pratibhaav dene ka samay hi nahi raha.😊 Fanfic me bhi participate karunga avashya.😊 Pakka.👍🏼 Jab thoda aur time milega aur topic mere natural thoughts ka hoga. And I forgot to comment about the appropriateness of all the scenes in that Anup Jhalota song video which were so nicely made appropriate with the lyrics. I have heard 8-9 Anup Jhalota songs and 5-6 are with me in my laptop, a couple as favourite videos links on Orkut and lines of one of them written in my Orkut profile too.
Abhi pehele Urmila-Sita ke topic par aa jaataa hun straightaway. Regarding the husband-wife relationship part of the topic, Lalita and Gunia are already doing amazing job and they are expressing themselves so brilliantly which also happen to be the expression of our thoughts. So I might enter into that part of the debate later.
Well prima facie looking, Urmila's action is clearly superior over Sitaji's action in the sense of following of duty. But if we go into more depth of it, we can achieve harmony between decisions of both. First of all, I will put forward my views about why Urmila's action is more ideal than Sitaji's for a daughter in law or wife with the analysis on the surface and then I will eventually come to conclude my view that both were equally correct and ideal in actions without contradiction.
The reason why Urmila's action is more imitable/ideal grossly is that the 'Sense of duty and sacrifice' content was more in her decision than Sitaji's decision. Sitaji's choice was more as a matter of exercise of right (zidd) than exercise of duty (As she didn't submit to the wish of Ramji and demands to carry her with him). Her sacrifice was physical - her body to go through the pains of thorns and stones of paths of the jungle and winds of the winter and heat of the summer. But Urmila's pain/sacrifice was emotional. 14 years of life without company of husband. And yet she accepted it just to follow the order of husband. Sitaji's sentence to Sumant that "Stri ke saare naate keval uske pati se shuru hote hain aur pati par hi khatam ho jaate hain", contradicts with her stubbornness in not following the order of Ramji to stay in Ayodhya only.
Now coming to analyze the subtle part of the analysis. If we try to compare the two cases carefully, both are not exactly equal. And therefore, it can be shown that Sitaji's choice was also righteous and very much justifiable. It is just that her behaviour was not grossly imitable without understanding the implicit reason. Very much like Ramji's all actions are there to grossly imitate also and set standards for all men but Krishna's all actions despite being all righteous shouldn't be imitated without the same intention/essence as they were all having subtle interpretation of dharma which only HE could know.
(1) Sitaji refused Ramji to stay in Ayodhya but it can be easily made out that Ramji's order was not that strict or serious order but only a concern shown for his wife whose body wasn't meant to go through the pains of the jungle. So refusing to follow Ramji's order is not breach of duty really speaking. On the other hand, Lakshman's instructions to Urmila was very clear and purposeful to allow him to follow his karmpath well.
(2) For any ordinary two couples of the today's family, modern day people might think that they all 4 (2 couples) could have stayed for 14 years happily together. But we all know what kind of servant Lakshmanji was and wanted to be. He was going to serve Ram-Sita day & night without even sufficient sleep keeping himself busy for every little routine work to make the stay in the forest smooth. Urmila with him in the forest would have made it difficult for him to accomplish this purpose of his as his time would have been distributed. Then the entire purpose of Lakshman accompanying Ram-Sita is lost. Such was not the case with Sitaji. She was not going to be a hurdle in any manner in Ram's kartavya path in the forest of Sant samaagam and Sant sanrakshan. On the contrary she accompanied Ramji in sant samaagam and also she proved to be the main weapon for Ramji in the story of dharmsansthaapan (though this last point can't be validly put as we must keep the perspective of only Human Ram & Sita who were not aware about the future if we are talking about their socially ideal roles, still she had all potential to support as sahdharmachaarini for 14 years by living together.).
(3) Now coming to the main point. The really subtle difference. Whether for Sitaji, sewa of Kaushalya-Dashrath should be priority or sewa of husband. It is over here, the real point of debate lies. It is true what Sumant said to Sitaji that a daughter in law has to fulfill duty towards all in laws because they become her parents too after the marriage (a marriage is not just the relationship of two persons but two families and sometimes two states). And same duty Lakshman expected and Urmila followed. Wife has to share the duties of husband what husband can't fulfill (Bharat-Mandavi scene). Sitaji denied Sumant to do that clearly rejecting all social relations other than that of husband. Here we need to interpret the rationale hidden between the words I feel. We need to hear the unspoken words. We need to read between the lines. I think there is difference between Ram's vanvaas and Lakshman's vanvaas. Ram was given vanvaas officially (although he took it happily). Lakshman voluntarily/informally/by personal choice selected vanvaas. Since Lakhman was not given the deshnikaal (he was entitled to all the luxuries of Ayodhya or any other city anytime officially), it was not inappropriate for Urmila to stay in the palace of Ayodhya and have access to the palace comforts by husband's will from the point of view of outsiders (Jaise koi vaishya pati voluntarily in the normal course of choice of path/occupation of life, apna vaishya dharma nibhaane pardes barson tak vyaapaar ke liye jaataa hai). In case of Sitaji, it was the question of self respect /honour/ swaabhimaan/ khuddaari. Even though, Ram followed merrily the unspoken words of Dashrath as orders and Dashrath didn't explicitly order Ram to leave home, the exile was still exile. Ramji was forced not to access the luxuries of Ayodhya or any other town (and not Lakshman). And hence the intricacies of the situation didn't suggest Sitaji to stay where her husband wasn't ALLOWED to stay. Then from anyone's point of view, staying of Sitaji in Ayodhya wouldn't have been regarded as staying for serving parent in laws but for continuing to enjoy the comforts of palace which was actually of no value for Sitaji and so she did what suited to the greatest wife. It is over here, her words to Sumant strictly indicate that "Stri ke saare naate uske pati par khatam ho jaate hain." That palace was of Sitaji only because it was the palace of Ramji and only until Ramji's relatives wanted Ramji to stay over there with them. Jahan pati ko rehne nahi diya gaya wahan koi kyun rahe? If I think deeply, where is the duty? There is no duty of daughter in law towards in laws when the husband himself is deprived of his rights as son for 14 years by family. Where is the question of duty of serving in laws then logically? Very practical and rational approach too in my view. On the contrary, she was too humble and down to earth while replying to Sumant and not rude at all for Kaikei like Lakshman was (because she knew that Dashrath & Kaushalya were also very sad with whatever happened and they were not at fault and didn't want her or Ram to leave them) and yet firm, clear in mind and honest about her thoughts. And if not in Ayodhya (which was already eliminated rationally from self respect point of view), she had only two choices: Either Mithila or Vanvaas and out of which what she selected clearly shows her sense of duty (voluntarily accepted equal sacrifice in life as that of husband). Now so far as demanding the right (strihath) to stay with husband is concerned, here also she was very clear that if she wasn't allowed to do that, she wouldn't be able to stay alive any further day as she was afraid then that she wouldn't be able to tolerate the pain of separation (It was the intensity of her love at that young & delicate age given that situation of exile given to Ram - the fact that she actually had to tolerate the pain of separation forcefully twice in life in future and she did that too is another thing).
I luvd Ur view regarding dis topic as well! Krishna is Purna Purush himself......no one but Krishna himself can be Krishna!😃 
comment:
p_commentcount