When Men Discuss Sita's Agnipariksha

I find men discussing the position of women and their dignity and honour in society quite amusing because I am not sure if honour and dignity have been defined or conceptualized from the point of view of women. In my head these terms have nothing to do with a woman, they belong to and in a man’s world or dictionary. Yet, innumerable discussions focus on women’s dignity and honour. What do these words mean?

Thanks to my grandmother watching programs, with volume level higher than usual, on an Odia channel ‘Prarthana TV’ since six in the evening I overheard a discussion on Sita’s Agnipariksha (in a show named Tarka Bahu Dura). I was intrigued. Three men were discussing an issue that had a woman at its centre – one of the men being the host. The two other men appeared to have opposing views on the matter. However, these opposing views centred on the credibility of Ram being ‘Maryada Purushottam’. 

What caught my attention was the idea of a ‘Chhaya’ (shadow) or ‘Maya’ Sita being abducted by Ravana instead of real Sita. One of the speakers stated that according to the Puranas, Sita was kept safe with Agni Dev before the abduction and was replaced with a duplicate one in the forest. I found it interesting considering that one of the latest trends in Indian fiction is that of mythological retellings. Also, I have always been intrigued by mythologies and legends. However my interest wasn’t shared by the other women in the family. My grandmother commented that it’s a lie. My mother jested without paying much attention, “What Chhaya Maya Sita, what are they talking about?” The other speaker talked about injustice towards Sita by Ram in the broader aspect of speaking for women.

Source: www.hindikunj.com

There was a discussion on the kind of love shared between Ram and Sita when the former speaker mentioned that Ram asked Sita for an Agnipariksha knowing that his love won’t be misunderstood by her. The immediate response to it was that if that was so then why couldn’t Ram believe in the same love and accept her without the Agnipariksha? Why did she have to understand? And, if she underwent the Agnipariksha then why was she again exiled upon returning? The obvious and perhaps the only answer was that it was for the praja or the subjects of the kingdom. This segment dwelled on the shared love and how both the people involved were unhappy about it. Yet, they understood the responsibilities that followed their royal designations. Towards the end, perhaps one of the audience members mentioned that if their royal positions were to be considered then Sita should be considered a subject of Ram first rather than his wife or queen, implying that if he considered his subjects claims on purity then he should have also been just towards her. This comment shed a whole new light on the episode of Sita’s exile for me.

Returning to the Chhaya/Maya Sita - the former speaker claimed that Agnipariksha was important for the real Sita to emerge from the fire as the duplicate one enters it. If that were the case, there shouldn’t have been any case of (im)purity at all. Sita had not only remained ‘untouched’ in Lanka but also safe under Agni Dev’s wing. Hence, Ram cannot be considered Maryada Purushottam, according to the opposing speaker.

The thirty minute discussion mainly focused on the injustice towards Sita but there was barely any talk of Sita as the subject. The subject was Ram, for the most part. ‘Why he had to do what he had to do and how it affected him while she understood it all for she shared a kind of love that’s no longer found in present day relationships!’ As I mentioned earlier, it might have appeared that the debate was between the injustice done to Sita and the Ram being Maryada Purushottam. From the point I was hearing it, the talk was entirely about whether to glorify Ram or not. Also, one of the concerns raised to question Ram's principles was, how could he accept Luv-Kush as his sons without requiring similar proof?

Moreover, three men discussing something like this uncannily resembled the perceived notion of the epic – Sita gets no voice (perceived notion being the keywords here). I believe that people in a position of power can be catalysts to the stories of the oppressed getting a visibility, to begin with. They shouldn’t be telling the story but using their power for such stories to be heard or read. So, when men use words like ‘naarishakti’ or ‘naariwaad’ with respect to dignity and honour, I find the entire discussion interesting yet hollow in terms of productivity because it still ends up in glorification  of men.

I have been trying for a long time to find a definition of shame from a point of view of women along with dignity and honour. I’d love to see women coming on such platforms to either redefine such terms or just dismiss them as meaning nothing perhaps. In last couple of years, I have turned conversations about women empowerment, education or jobs into white noise. These seem nice over evening tea and even give a false sense of being progressive. I don’t interfere because I haven’t figured out a way to explain people how language is gendered – especially when it’s seen merely in terms of use of pronouns. Moreover, "how can honour not be a woman’s concern to begin with?"

If it is one, I am sure it doesn't begin and end with her body. 

Ps. Please don't go #NotAllMen on the title. Suggest another maybe?