Sangh Parivar

Why attack "Sita" alone?


: The Jaina and Buddhist hypocrisy[1]
is picked up by the selective scholars, researchers, bloggers etc.,
under the guise of feminism, women lib etc., throwing venom on "Sita".
Really, it is not known why she has been targeted for more than 2500
years, or 3500 years according to different estimates. That such
importance given to her, however shows her established status of
chastity, ideal womanhood and model wife. It is unfortunate that only
"Sita" is targeted - Why? If women are really worried about the welfare
of women in India or elsewhere, they have to consider all women without
any bias, prejudice or ideological disposition. Nowadays, certain women
are coming out as "feminists", but exhibiting perplexing
characteristics, dispositions and expressions. If a critical study is
undertaken, an Indian woman or global woman has to view every
woman-character, whether it is historical, pre-historical,
semi-historical, mythical, legendary or whatsoever nature. But, it is
not done.

The pattern


: A careful study of such literature shows a pattern, design or modus operandi
as the Jaina and Buddhist versions are simply copied, modified and
custom-made according to whims and fancies. Recently, Paula Richman[2]
(editor)'s "Many Ramayanas" has been discussed in some forums, just to
tarnish the image of Ramayana. Whenever Ramayana becomes popular,
anti-Ramaya campaign would be triggered to counter it. It has to be
pointed out that a woman-historian of stature – Romila Thapar[3] has not been exception to this syndrome. This time, it was Karunamnidhi[4], who initiated such activation through his famous questions of "Who is Rama? In which Engineering college he studied?
And so on! Romila came out this time also, but only support Karunanidhi
ideologically burying all her historical knowledge and expertise[5].
The DK has tried its best, but it failed, because, their own leaders
have only "exhibited the character" of "Ravana". They have / had more
than one wife one many wives with or without concubines. So not only
Sita, Surpanaka, Mandodhari and other Ramayana or other women had /
have to be afraid of them.  And ironically, none of the wives or women of Black Parivar want their husbands or would-be's  to be "Ravanas".

Ramayaya, Kimayana, Hemayana etc


: I just reproduce what TOI has given as the new version:

"Hema Ramakrishna[6],
60, has thrown fresh light on the quintessential Indian drama. Giving a
new dimension to the Rama-Sita relationship, a Bangalore-based author
has written a poetic English play, Sanctuary, that
inverts several accepted standards in the Ramayana. In her foreword to
the play, she says her work is part of the intellectual and emotional
churning in the country, post-Babri Masjid demolition in 1992.

Her story de-glorifies both Rama and Ravana. Hers is a strongly feminist view






[7]






:
Rama's treatment of two women-Sita and Surpanaka-comes under the
scanner. Hema says, "Rama is that perfect being that can do no wrong.
No doubt whatsoever is cast on his person, never mind how fraught his
actions are with expediency, especially when it comes to the shabby
treatment of his wife. And the unsavoury details of Surpanaka's
mutilation.'' The play has been published by a Lankan bookhouse. But
the Lanka in the play is not the same. It is Ranka, located in the
'Mahasamund' Bay of Bengal, next to Orissa's Chilka lakes. The other
changes are practical- Ravana is not ten-headed. He has ten men beheaded to ward off his predicted "untimely death''






[8]






. Hanuman and gang don't build a bridge across the sea






[9]






,
but Vibhishana, Hanuman, Rama and Lakshmana swim with Vanaras to
Ravana's island and sneak in through a secret way into the
palace-castle. There is no war.

The street-smart Rama knows Vanaras cannot match Ravana's crack army. He marches into Ravana's bedroom in the night and kills him






[10]






.
Surpanaka is the story-trigger, Ravana kidnaps Sita because his sister
is mutilated by Rama and Lakshmana. The demon king tells the audience:
"What ruffians to attack a woman like this!'' Sita comes in just one
scene, but Hema endows her with doom. The invasion of Ranka is because
of her, "a mere woman'', much to the Vanaras' disgruntlement. Hema's
reworked storyline is all in reported speech: Sita fights Ravana, but
cannot match his force. Her tongue is cut for cursing him[11].

She
loses speech, beauty, vitality and cowers in fear in Asokavana. Rama,
repelled by the changes, rejects her. The Agni Pariksha conveys new
thought. Hema makes it an angry rejection of male-dominance






[12]






: Sita jumps into Ravana's burning funeral pyre and dies, leaving Rama guilt-ridden. The end is Trikala Narada's epilogue: "Long
before the first poets sang of him, Rama's name and fame were well
known. But somewhere along the way, on the long and dusty road taking
us back to Ayodhya, many changes crept into being. For it is we who
invent our myths, we who create them, shape them and sing them out..



''

This
golden rule has to be followed for all women, but not followed!
However, they go on discuss about the Rama's ill-treatment of Sita.

The psyche, syndrome and pathology


:
Psychologically, their inferiority complex works opposite with
superiority complex. They have only one agenda - attack, abuse or even
blaspheme Ramayana, you get attention of all easily. But, they may or
may not realize its seriousness. It is just like calling one's own
mother a prostitute (Though I am very sorry to use such expression, as
otherwise, people understand only such language in some cases). As they
characterise the suffering of Sita in a negative or so-called
de-glorified way, they should depict the other popular or this type of
de-glorification, street-smart heroines, women and goddesses. But they
do not do. Why their minds have been diseased with such mindset? Why
their thinking has been carcinogenic stopping all thought processes?
Perhaps, we have to follow the prescription of Tiruvalluvar!

"Demythologization and de-glorification:
When the critical edition of Ramayana was prepared, many scholars have
involved in it. Thus, the de-glorifiers, manipulators and blasphemers
must know about the "critical edition". But, they are not worried about
it, but they want only Apocryphal





[13]





Ramayanas
and not critical edition of Ramayana. They also go on produce more such
trash – "Apocryaphal Ramayanas" against Valmiki Ramayana. Thus, if the
blind can ride, they can use winds as chariots or even aeroplanes.
Thus, "Kimayanas" or "reverse-Ramayanas" cannot be fit into any
historical or critical studies, but it is some sort of "secular
Romances" in India with "romantic atheism".

"Demythologization"
has been the removal of "myth" in ancient texts in historical
perspective. As many historians and archaeologist have done it, H. D.
Sankalia in his books have pointed out that the following could be
historical facts, as such facts were known to Indians since at least
1000 BCE. As he had been an archaeologist, he has demythologized
Ramayana and brought it to human understanding. However, in spite of
his scholarship and professorship, he never discussed low about
Ramayana.

But,
other historians do – Romila does, as pointed out – a de-glorification
process? How atheist Karu-like personality and the woman-Romila could
be thinking in the same way when the question of rama comes? When the
issue of historicity of Rama comes? What is that coincidence or
psycho-pathological matching?

Separation of male-female, husband-wife etc


:
In modern context, man and woman, if they want, they can live together,
have sex, raise or abort children and divorce or go away. Again the
divorced or separated man and woman can repeat the process on the
principles of "independence" or "right of living and separation",
"right to have sex" and so on. None can question. When man-man and
woman-woman relationships are also accepted, or opposed, such
relationships are glorified, publicized as hall-mark of progressiveness
and freedom of expression of sex[14]. However, in  everty
society, irrespective of divisions, differences and variance, all
people and animals follow the pattern of one man-one woman relationship.

Again note, recently a Supreme court Judge has opined that the Hindu Marriage act has been responsible for maximum divorces





[15]





.
It has to be noted that Indian tradition does not sanction divorce,
though, historical evidences have been there. However, of lte, there
have been few cases reported every year, because of modernism,
westernism and women could not cope up with such modernization
processes at one side and other traditional and conservative system
followed.

"Clooneyism" exhibited in theological attack on Hindu Goddesses


:
How professional bias could affect this subject could be noted from the
book / study of one Harvard University Professor Francis X. Clooney[16],
S. J., in his comparison of Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary. As the
paper of K. V. Ramakrishna Rao criticising his study is available in
the internet, the appropriate portions are reproduced here for
convenience[17] (three paragraphs with tables – all italicized): For Clooney's reaction, in turn to his paper, see the referred to websites[18].

"Hindu Goddesses and the Virgin Mary"




:
This is the subtitle of the recent book of Clooney mentioned above,
which has been dissented, refuted and disapproved by the involved
Vaishnavites. They have been totally dejected and dismayed, the way in
which he collected the inner information from them and now using,
rather misusing in different way. Under the guise of "Comparative
Theology", he has tried to compare certain Hindu Goddesses with the
Mary taking the following six works:

Here, the important differences are tabulated as follows:

Clooney's Claim of Understanding of Hindu Goddesses through Mother Mary




: The following description has been faithfully taken from his recent work without changing crucial words.

ð
 




Hindus
Goddesses have fascinated Clooney for many years since 1973.He has
approached his counterpart-theology as a Christian, as a Roman Catholic
and a Jesuit priest encountering the faith and cult of goddess
tradition.

ð
 




He
claims that he has himself translated and read the Hindu works of hymns
quoted closely in light of their traditional commentaries.

ð
 




However,
he admits that it is no small matter to recommend that Christian
theologians take Hindu Goddesses seriously and study the goddess hymns
with theological care, as Christian theology is rooted in biblical
tradition deeply dedicated to the one true God and also, seems, to dismissal of the idea of goddess.

ð
 




He
also confesses that although Christian tradition does include instances
of reflection of God as mother, their implications are minimally
developed.

ð
 




With
all the prohibitions of Christian dogma, he notes that several books
have helped him understand that the rich and unsettling possibilities
of the cult of Mary, and to see how Mary, the one who helps Christians
to understand Sri, Devi and Apirami.

ð
 




Here, he reveals his real intention to elevate Mary and degrade Hindu Goddesses.

ð
 




Realizing
his theological attack now on their Goddesses, Vaishnavites condemn his
prejudiced convictions, professional bias and unethical professional
handling of "Comparative Theology" coupled with religious superiority,
theological arrogance, holy imperialism,  all definitely leading to fundamentalism and terrorism.

The
traditional and modern Vaishnavite scholars have also surprised to note
and doubt as to whether a mischievous religious fundamentalist and
communalist had hidden under the veil of professorship, that too,
coming from big Universities to make such comparison and
representation. The inter-religious dialogue should be frank and
mutual, giving equal rspect to the respective beliefs dealt with. The
"believers" with whom Clooney had such "dialogues" should have been
informed about his motive, norms and standards. But, he did not so. He
approached them as a researcher, posing as devout person to understand
Hindu Goddesses, made close friendship with temple priests, entered
temples and mutts, observed rituals and rites (liturgy), learned the
nuances of Vaishnavite theology and finally tried to denigrate and
disparage with his sophisticated language, professional bias and
scholarly colonialism. He cannot have any standards to measure the
divinity of Mother Goddesses, when he cannot accept to have any
"Mother" equal to his "Mother Mary". He cannot coolly claim that Mary
helped to understand Hindu Goddesses, when he has cheated genuine and
honest believers, in fact, who have helped him. Thus, it is really,
theological fraud, religious deceit and (un)faithful sham inflicted on
Hindus under the guise of Inter-religious dialogue and inculturation,
which will have serious consequences in Indian society.

Historical Mother Goddess, Hindu Goddesses and Christian Mary




:
The Mother Goddess concept, worship and their archaeological evidences
have been abundant in ancient civilizations, thousands of years before
the advent of Christianity and elevation of Mary, though not as an
independent Goddess, but as "Mother of God", as Jesus was the "Only Son
of God". Scholars[19]
have also pointed out the development of Virgin goddess myth from the
Zodiac, the Black Virgin / Goddess, Ishtar, Isis, Mayadevi, Devaki and
others. For example, the Black Virgin depicted in four scenes on the
inner walls of the Temple of Luxor inscribed by King Amenhotep III is
dated to 1538-1501 BCE. The cult of Virgin Mary, thus developed out of
such images and in later times, was overlaid the cult of Jesus and its
adoption led to the issue of Mother and Woman. However, Christian
clergy have never wanted to place Mary above Jesus Christ. Of course,
surprisingly, for Joseph, there is no place here. There is no such
problem of Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth etc., in Indian context.
Perhaps, that is why Pius IX decreed in 1854 that Mary was free from
original sin "in the first instant of her conception". As pointed out
Hindu Goddesses can exist independently or with their counterparts.
Son-god is always placed below Mother-god in the divine pedestal,
whereas, in Christianity, there has been a lot of theological
controversy and dogmatic debate about such exigency. The name "Mary" is
considered to have been derived from different myths[20] –

ð
 





Mirium



, a name already existing among the Jews and Gentiles;

ð
 





Myrrha



, mother of Adonis in Syrian cult;

ð
 





Maira



, mother of Hermes in Greek mythology;

ð
 





Maia



, daughter of atlas;

ð
 





Maya



, mother of Buddha.

ð
 





Merris



, the Egyptian princess who found the babe Moses.

ð
 





Meri



, one of the daughters of Ramses II.

But,
Sri, Devi or Apirami has no such confused mythical development. Their
origin is traced back to Vedic and pre-Christian periods. Thus, they
have clear independent concept, worship and religious incorporation. In
fact, the male-female rivalry noticed in Puranas have been settled
through Artha-narishwara concept (Male-Female
Combined Godhead or to show that God is neither Male nor Female at
higher / divine level and stressing gender equality a lower / human
level). Why Clooney has not touched upon such concept is not known.
Moreover, as he has taken three Hindu hymns depicting three different
Hindu Goddesses, he could have taken three Christian Goddesses for
comparison or better understanding.

Thus,
if he could understand Hindu Goddesses through Mary, being "a scholar,
professor and member of the academic community", ignoring other
aspects, it is not known as to how his study could have been objective,
reasonable and comparative so that he could "welcome his fellow
scholars for their reactions", as he has offered in his Preface (Nearer
the Goddess). As a scholar, he must have recorded the historical
background of Mary also for understanding of Christian and Hindu
Goddesses in his Comparative theology

."

Thus,
this has been a classical case of Christian attack on Hindu Goddesses
at the cost of morbid elevation of Mary with sheer religious arrogance.
While the atheists and feminists attack differently, this type of
refined theologians posing as scholars and professors attack Hindu
religion. As Paula Richman has also done in the same way, Clooney does
it in a different way, but the target has been the same. And our
atheists, feminists and other progressive and secular categories have
been so happy to use such materials against Hindu religion. Of course,
the print and electronic media gives maximum publicity with clout of
Harvard University, Oxford University, Duke University and so on. What
is this psyche?

Why Mary, Kathija etc, are not studied by the feminists


:
According to Christian belief Mary was married to Joseph, but she begot
Jesus Christ through "Holy Spirit" known as "Immaculate conception".
None discusses such process in the feminist or atheist aspect. Jesus
Christ, her son once asked, "Who are you" and so on? Again, they do not
see anything unusual or accuse him of neglecting mother or motherhood
or womanhood. There have been many incidences narrated where the
Apostles, Popes, Saints and priests had / have ill-treated, exploited
and molested women, but, they never conducted or do not conduct any
study. Lakhs or millions of women – ladies and girls were killed or
burned at stake declaring them as "possessed" or "witches". The
witch-hunting was in practice even during 19^th century in
Europe and UK-University conducts course on "Witch-craft"! How the
British cheated Indians in misinterpreting "witch-burning" and
"widow-burning" has been pointed by recently[21], which exposes the hallowness of Indian historiography and the woman's response to the issue.

Coming
to Islam, the position of women has been highly controversial, though
the orthodox claim that Koran has given the maximum liberty and rights
to women. The marrying of Kathija, an elderly lady by Mohammed and
later marrying his own daughter-in-law, and other women etc., are not
discussed in the feminist circles or studies. How the men exploit women
by having up to four wives at a time, clitorectomy, women-slaves,
harems etc., are not discussed. The sklave-trade carried on by the
Mohammedans, particularly by the pirates has been the blackest chapter
of woman-history in the world. They do not discuss. They just think it
would be some sort of "Salman Rusdhism" inviting thr wrath of Islamic
jihadis with fatwas.

These are given only for illustrative purpose and not exhaustive.

Misinterpretation of mylogization or de-glorification


:
Atheists approach mythology as "totally myth", untruth and hence easy
for their criticism. Thus, they are or need not bother about
demythologization to find out the truth in it. Glorification,
veneration, exaltation and deification come only for the appreciating
class, whereas for the people who decide to criticize, only
disparagement, denigration, defamation, deprecation, disrespect,
blasphemy and all play into the role of the critic.

Feminists
too one way or the other tread on such path without any real analysis
or criticism. In a secular society during the age of globalization,
they must have come out of such mindset and interpret. After all
mythologization has been making history, past events or human imprints
in an exaggerated way suitable to the public for entertainment also. In
movies, a lot of things are depicted and people know they are not only
myth, but also untruth, but still people enjoy and the film-makers
provide more-more exaggeration, myth and untruth.

The atheists and feminist do not question as to –

Ê





how a woman comes in less dress or no dress;

Ê





how a single woman mating with many men and vice versa;

Ê





how a woman is gang-raped;

Ê





how women are acting in such scenes just for money;

Ê





and
so many other vulgar, violent, unimaginable depictions that a man
cannot imagine or depict in such a way under normal conditions;

Ê





Meta-cinematographic computer graphic depictions (which need not be explained).

Appreciating
the myth of non-Hindu religions, but deprecation of myth of only Hindu
religion in the context of atheists, feminists or both joining
together, the important question arises – why such partiality, bias,
prejudice and selection? How the myth, mythology, superstition,
blind-belief, religious and dogmatic fallacies, miracles etc., of
non-Hindu religions become acceptable to their intellect or their
wonderful brains become inactive to think and express their liberal
criticism accordingly? If a psychological critic fails in her / his
psychological study psychologically, then anybody can question her /
him.

In
Christianity, Islam and other religions myth, mythology, superstition,
blind-belief, religious and dogmatic fallacies, miracles etc., have
been historicized or censored completely so that they are not
discussed, debated or analyzed. In fact, they have more such factors in
their literature. Moreover, only edited or authorized versions are made
to circulate suppressing the original literature from the common people
and public.

In
western countries, "Female Christs", "Female Prophets" and such
concepts and facts have been discussed, debated and recorded. But, here
not only the western or eastern scholarship, even the Indian
scholarship has been silent about it. However, if "Sita" has to be
criticized, all scholarships join  together. This rarest if rare phenomenon only provokes me many times.

Bangalore, Sita and Feminism


: In the context, the repeat of 2005 by Hema or "Sowmiya Aji Mehu" or mentioned as "Sowmya Ali"
by the atheist now in Bangalore is significant. Earlier, Rajasekhara
Shetty used to conduct such gimmicks from Bangalore. Of late, with the
rise of MNCs, Bangalore becoming hub of IT, it has become haven for
Islamic terrorists also. So, naturally others too follow the suit to
choose Bangalore for their activities. But, there has been a book
written by V. Suryanarayan and published in Bangalore itself in 1992,
wherein he has dealt with the issue critically. Coming to "Hemayana",
the following points are noted:

·        

Is it actually feminist scanning or feminist sadism psychologically?

·        

When
she has decided to fly in imaginary world, she should thought about
Ravana cutting Sita's tongue and other torturous acts committed on her.

·        

The play features a deglamourized Sita, who loses her beauty and vitality with the rape. Wonderful, indeed the scanning!

·        

In fact, I need not discuss such things, as only imagination roosts without anything.

·        

"An
enraged and despairing Sita jumps into Ravana's funeral pyre", yes, she
is not Sita and also Sita of Valmiki Ramayana, but Hema's "ayana" –
"Hemayana".

·        

If
her imagination has not been conditioned, tainted or imbibed, the, she
should start scanning, all women like Sita. Can she take the cases of
Mary and Kathija?

·        

Nandi, can you recommend her?

·        

Like Kimayana, why there has not been any "Gibal", "Kiran" etc. or Hemable, Hemakuran?

·        

Being a woman, that too so popular, how she could have forgotten those two Goddesses, ladies or angles or simply women?

Here comes the hypocrisy, scanning duplicity, feminist selectivity, women supporting womanizers and so on.

Conclusion


:
After attending many meetings, seminars and conferences, particularly
and carefully listening to feminists and later having discussion with
them at the hall / auditorium and as well as in person, it is noted
that in most of the cases, the women-speakers, female-activists,
writers, and all types feminists have had the following experiences:

Ê





Love-failure, at school, college or neighborhood levels.

Ê





Pre-marital
experiences from touching to sex levels affecting them psychologically
after marriage or during intercourse with the present husband.

Ê





Divorce, Second marriage with children with indifference of the second husband.

Ê





Divorce, second marriage without children but husband living.

Ê





Inter-caste marriage, clash of thinking, culture etc.

Ê





Once being very orthodox, but now not-so due to above factors and as well as not willing to follow on economic grounds.

Ê





Ideological differences among the educated, elite, and well-earning categories.

As
they have crossed all levels, they are not bothered about anything and
therefore, they have decided to talk and write anything, as long as
they are allowed to do so with compensation. Particularly, the
retired-women have been notorious in this aspect, as they play
double-game – portraying as "saviors of women" outside but "torturing
their aged husbands" at home! Many self-respect husbands do not tell
openly or suppress the fact by not inviting friends to their houses, as
they could not honour the friends even with water.

The
same psyche is noted among the atheists. Early childhood influence,
cinema-attraction, hero-worship, etc., make them to take shelter under
the acts of "substitution" or "compensation" by admiring such
"unsuccessful acts" getting fulfilled through their heroes. Even after
the death of the personalities or ideologies, they are required for the
cure of psychic disorders and diseases. But, when they come to public,
they affect and spoil others going "abnormal" or to "extreme ends".
Thus, the cases of political schizophrenia, ideological schizophrenia,
atheist schizophrenia, feminist schizophrenia, secular schizophrenia
etc., have been on increase day by day. Recent trend has been senile
schizophrenia!

VEDAPRAKASH

13-07-2008.