The lockdown gave space for creative juices to flow uninhibitedly. Underdogs being a favourite there was a toss in to debate the various characters of the different epics. Undoubtedly, the hot picks were the heroes and heroines. Taking a cue from the vernacular debates, we chose carefully the topics avoiding the minefield.
The list of topics emerged and we settled for Who was the greatest of them all- Urmila, Mandvi, Srutakirti? The omission of Sita was obvious and intentional to ensure a level playing field.
The first speaker pitched in for Urmila, the spouse of Lakshman of Ramayana. Basing his case for her on the epic poem by the legendary Maithili Sharan Gupt, he reasoned that she though a princess did not have the occasion to choose her spouse. Thereafter, despite her beauty she played second fiddle to Sita. Her husband did not stand to reason unlike Rama and left her behind to take care of his mothers. Fourteen long years she spent unaware of her husband's whereabouts or exploits. Still she obediently followed the instructions of her spouse. Quoting extensively from the epic poem, he reasoned that a lady of such stature was given a raw deal. The assertions of the speaker matched the aggression of Lakshmana and the judge held that this also ought to be added in her favour,
The second rose to buttress the case of Mandvi. He had none to rely upon. He implored to contrast the fact that while Sita and Srutakirthi were with their spouses, Urmila did not have the occasion to see him for fourteen long years, He also mentioned the fact that she also did not have the right to choose her spouse. Mandvi had to face the piquant situation being away from her husband Bharata who chose to live in solitary exile. She lacked a support system in the face of she being the daughter in law of Kaikeyi. He added, tongue in cheek, imagine what insinuations she ought to have faced from her own sisters let alone others in the palace and the kingdom. At this stage, the judge held his own by calling the third speaker to state his case.
The third one was known for his wit. Still all in the room felt his was the weakest case. He rose confidently and asked, "Sir, was Srutakirthi also not deprived of her right to choose her spouse? Therefore, holding Urmila or Mandvi to be great on this count would not be possible." The judge nodded his consent.
"Then", he continued, "Sir, may I ask you in the 14 days of lockdown, would your spouse say she is happy with you being at home?". The serious debate was now turned lighter with laughter all round.
He now paused to continue with a chuckle, "Sir, today's women are unable to tolerate their husbands at home for fourteen days at a stretch. Imagine Srutakirti she not only lived with Shatrugna who in reality ruled in the name of Rama on behalf of Bharata but was never considered a queen. Added to these woes she also had to contend with the fact that she had to listen sympathetically about Sita, Urmila and Mandvi with all responsibilities and no authority. She also had to get approvals of Rama through Bharata."
After a deep pause he said, "Sir, on a serious note Sita was on exile under the influence of sages till the last year of exile, Urmila and Mandvi were separated from their spouses but it was Srutakirti and Shatrugna who sacrificed their family life unlike Pandu of Mahabharata." He, thus emphatically rested his case.
The judge ruled that the three women set sterling examples of womanhood for the entire mankind (pun intended) and with a wry smile said," I do not hold a candle to any of the lofty ideals of these epic characters. Therefore, my wife not being pleased with my lockdown or Corona should not be an yardstick while I will request her to take a leaf out of the book of Srutikirti to bear with her untold hardship."
The joy of finding a meaningful pasttime spanning all the generations was thus celebrated.
No comments:
Post a Comment