"Of the two central female protagonists in the epics, Sita is celebrated not because she suffers less visible violation from the 'villain' but because she suffers great humiliation from the hero, her husband-judge Ram." - Karen Gabriel
My "Sita book" (that's what I call it, anyway) has managed to turn me off Sita completely. How is such a turnaround possible, when Sita used to be my favorite Hindu princess? I'll tell you. (In some ways I'm late to the anti-Sita party, I get the feeling that young women in India went sour on her a while ago.)
But in order to explain, I first have to mention a conversation I had a while back with a woman who marched in the Indian feminist movement of the 1980s and now dedicates her life to funding grassroots female empowerment projects. Yes, she's one of those people. She told me about the Indian feminist movement, and I replied that I didn't know there was an Indian feminist movement. (How wrong I was.)
Sita represents the entire feminist debate in this country today. A lot of people in the United States believe that India is an antifeminist country. This is an easy but simplistic assumption and it relies on cultural standards that are, in fact, fluid. For example, I feel that Indians are more respectful towards women than any other society I've ever experienced. But that respect, like all respect, depends on a set of conditions being met.
In that most sacred of Hindu texts, the Bhagavad Gita, women are referred to as the moral pillar of society. Even Krishna takes a break from spiritual vagaries to lay it out straight: when women lose their (sexual) morality, the entire caste system - and all of society - are next in line to fall. In this context, "sexual" is not just about the body but about the uses and functions of female sexuality in general, so the better interpretation of the word "sexual" would be "gendered."
In modern Indian history, there's no greater example of Sita than Kasturba Gandhi. Indians adore Kasturba Gandhi. It's become fashionable nowadays to take issue with Mahatma Gandhi's tactics: his faux-humility, his excessive peace-mongering and his general blackmailing by way of fasting. (I do not joke) Kasturba Gandhi has an entire road named after her in Delhi. Very few people argue about her.
A quick read of her biography reveals uncanny similarities to the Sita legend. Kasturba was a child bride. She followed her husband to South Africa where she took on his causes, marching for civil rights and defending in debates the rights of Indians to their own country. She frequently took her husband's place at events when he was in jail. Kasturba respected her husband's bizarre sexual diktats, much like Sita, who seems to have had very little control over her own sexuality (Rama and Sita were married for 11 years, then they were in the forest for 14 more. But Sita didn't have any children until after the great war with Ravana. Why? If Valmiki knows, in his typical prudish fashion he has decided not to tell. After her rescue, despite all her protestations, Sita's word wasn't good enough proof of her so-called 'purity' - which just goes to show that a woman wasn't viewed as being in control of her own body. No one doubted Sita was telling the truth, not even Rama. So why did she have to go through the trial by fire? Answer me that.)
In fact, Kasturba was a lot like an entire generation of women, ethical and generous, who grew up in the "Gandhi mold." Mahatma Gandhi was a big admirer of women. He respected and appreciated them. He also believed, like Krishna, that what made a woman worthy of respect was how well she upheld the dharmic ideal of womanhood - loyal, brave, forthright, compassionate.
We young Indian women feel very conflicted about this mold. On the one hand, it is clearly limited. On the other hand, that's what our great-grandmothers were like - and we love and admire them and can't think of them as victims.
The role of wife and mother is still holy in India. I recently interviewed the principal of a prominent women's college. When I asked her why she felt women's education was so critical, she said, "When you educate a woman, you educate a family, because women will go on to rule their homes."
She's right. And yet. Sita and Kasturba Gandhi are strong and passionate women. It is difficult to dislike them. But both of them were forced into greatness by the "great men" to whom they were attached. Their greatness was born out of frustration and a lack of options, or at least, we'll never know what they might have done if society had permitted them to question their husbands' decisions.
To admire Sita is to sanction the society that allowed her only one road to greatness. In middle-class urban India, we no longer live in that society. BUT it exists alongside us. It's what the majority of Indians still believe, which makes it very hard to avoid. And that may be why so many young women don't seem to like Sita anymore.
(Related: Ram gets a lot more flak than Sita, actually. Ram was also a creature of roles:he was the obedient son, the strong protector, the selfless king, the faithful husband. I'm sure this weighed on him, but he made it harder for himself by living in constant humorless moral paralysis.)
well, who IS Sita? the young woman who effortlessly lifted the dreaded bow of Parashuram, and chose as her mate only someone who matched her abilities. She also chose to accompany Ram into the forest rather than stay behind in her palace. the 'trial'? I've been conflicted about that for some time. I cannot on one hand forgive Ram. But he was the ruler of the land, and the law of the land demanded that a woman who had stayed away take the fire test to prove her purity. It would perhaps have been unjust of him to bend the rules for his wife. and his unshakable confidence told him she would pass anyway? But, Sita took the test, then left Ram for having made her take the test. Later, when Ram found her and asked her to return, proud woman that she was, she chose to return to the earth rather than re-enter into domestic bliss after her 'trial by fire'. She seems to have controlled her own destiny in many ways....
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you provided the perspective about Ram being the 'obedient son'. Commenting on the social fabric of India based on the story of Ram-Sita is like commenting on the society of Modern USA based on the words of Jerry Falwell, or some such. Ram is one of 10 'avatars' - and each holds up an ideal radically different from the others. Us young girls, when we were growing up in India, were told the story of Sita AND Durga, Padmini and Jhansi ki Rani. From all these varous ideals, we learned that there are many ways to be great, many personas of womanhood that are wonderful. The message from (at least my mom, a high school grad who is one of the most 'educated' women I know. and she's pretty liberated too. She was a stay-at-home homemaker who was also a true 'renaissance' woman - a voracious reader, who swam regularly, wielded a badminton racket as easily as the sitar or a paintbrush) was: "these are all good, worthwhile role models - choose any that 'fit' you. But don't waste your life by avoiding choice. Make sure that when you look back, you feel proud of your life." She taught us to think, dream and act. I was fully 21 before she talked to me about gender and tough choices that lay ahead for me beacuse I was a woman, and how they may be different from the choices a man may make.
And she honored and applauded my choices even where she had made different ones, or where she did not understand fully. She gave me the confidence to know that no matter what the situation, I could walk out of a bad thing and find her supporting me. She embodied the phrase, "if you cannot be a star in the sky, be a lamp in your home". Is she Sita? yes, and more. Did I at any time find her image lacking in breadth or scope? not really.
And even furthermore, the fact that the avatars are of the same entity tells me that its even okay to move from one role to another. which I find liberating.