So, Madam X sent me a link to an animation which drew parallel to Sita's ostracization by Ram to a lady being dumped by her boyfriend. I was quite apalled at the whole thing. Madam X told me that I might not appreciate a feminist point of view to the whole Sita episode. I said, the perspective could be subjective , but must be presented in a mature fashion so as to be able to communicate the exact view point. I sent Madam X a detailed reply :
"...... Wht do you get when you superimpose a picture over another one.... either its too beautiful or its total confusion...
I think the animation is totally confused... it just uses alot of , "possibly or may be or this or that... too many assumptions in a story that is already filled with assumptions....
It was not funny, not empirical, nor analytical, not critical.... I do not know what it was...
May be you want to call it "a point of view" or an "interesting observation.."...... Its just quite a churlish act of creativity...thats about it...wouldnt give it too much importance...
Though am not religious myself nor proclaim to be a "Samaj Ka thekedaar", but I do feel that traditions, stories, myths which have ramifications over faith of people must not be ridiculed or desecrated in any manner..... It alright to have a different view to "art", 'cause thats the way its supposed to be you know.... "Art" is how you want to interpret it... But you cannot be giving too much importance to an item which is based on assumptions and deriving comforting justifications from related civilizations....
Its nothing to do with Hinduism or anything that I was hurt when I saw that video, but I think I would be equally hurt if somebody pokes fun at Islam or Christianity or the Sikhs.. I mean there is no harm in a little humour..... but not going overboard by presenting a serious view to subjects underlined with religion......"
Madam X responds:
"...............Thanks for taking the time out to read & present your views.
As I understand, you would disregard ‘alternatives’ to established scared elements unless scientifically analyzed & ‘proven’ through evidence. That’s fairly logical. Intellectual dishonesty by any standards is not acceptable. Using intelligence to seek the truth & allowing the evidence to lead to a particular conclusion instead of deciding what the truth is and then rationalizing preconceived ideologies is the right way to approach it.
With that sort of an approach, I am sure you go beyond established sacred elements to see why they were established in the first place. Because accepting an established standard may be comforting but attempting to know more about the past may be more satisfying from the above perspective. And people like us who have a ‘curious’ nature may have an advantage to be more satisfied! Don’t you agree?
I’m sure, you’d argue that you and I have no business debating religion/culture/tradition because we simply don’t know enough about the topic! After all, between you & me, what we do know about Valmiki’s version of Ramayana is primarily what we saw Ramamand Sagar create for the Television and Amar Chitra Katha comic books. You may also argue that ideas generated by ‘non-academic’/’under-educated’ people like us are oversimplifications or merely superficial! I couldn’t agree more.
When I sent this link to you last night, I reiterated that it’s someone’s hypothesis, i.e. a proposed explanation not proven explanation. My idea of sending you the link was to suggest that there may be many other views to the same historical story. Not to say that Mr. Aiyar’s version is even remotely correct. But simply that ‘principally’ there may be many alternative explanations for most things. Just that. Perhaps I should have picked a better example!
As expressed yesterday, no offense or malice meant. It’s an attempt by a curious, untrained mind (read mine) having genuine and reasonable doubt and a desire to know more about our ancients. So don’t be hurt. Hinduism is too ancient a tradition to be visibly changed or wiped out at least in our lifetime! About poking fun at religion. Yes, anything that is blasphemous, volatile or provocative and might offend the religious faith of others must be debated before it is released. Not because it’s ‘wrong’ to do so but simply because it ‘hurts’ people.
Lastly, to quote MK Gandhi, I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. To make this quote relevant in this context, let’s keep our minds & hearts open as far as possible! .........."
