She is portrayed as the good and loyal wife but her decision to renunciate Rama and rendering her kids motherless is the watershed moment for women suffocating in society, family, and stereotypical barriers.
On the other hand, Sita’s grace, love, and patience endured many injustices - right from following Rama to the forests, Ravana’s abduction, agni pariksha and suffered for an illogical man’s rant. Kaikeyi, no doubt, disturbed many lives and do not prompt an ideal portrayal but, interestingly on contrary, Karna from Mahabharata is hailed for his morality and philanthropy and liberally judged for choosing companionship over dharma (righteousness) which is morally wrong and otherwise would have stopped bloodshed. The boons are strategically used when the clout of being the favorite queen is coming to an end it is ironical that she has to anchor her son to acquire status again. Moreover, Kaikeyi’s desire is denounced as motherly love, selfishness, and falling prey to Manthara tactics but the pressure of not acquiring power being a warrior queen is never considered. Kaikeyi is blamed for demanding her son to be the king instead of the rightful heir, Rama but King Dasaratha’s incapability, vulnerability, and untruthfulness in callously granting unconditional boons and not fulfilling his earlier promise is never ostracized. The age-old Ramayana reveals how women - irrespective of their (mis)deeds - are scapegoats to men’s failures and circumstances in an unequal world. But, in a crisis, society takes the side of men as women are levied with high morals, their ambitions criticized and evils judged brutally. Women’s social confinement is camouflaged in the name of protection.
0 kommentar(er)
