A story is
told by Viswamitra as he leads Ram and Lakshman to the ashram of Gautam-a
sage, Royal teacher of King Janak and ‘most honoured by the Gods who dwell above
the sky.’ The story is famous as the story of Indra and Ahilya.
I don’t want
to get into the details of the story which has been retold for generations via the
Valmiki Ramayan and many others who had read or heard the Ramayan and many
know(actually they think they know!) that Ahilya, being driven by lust kept
immoral relationship with Indra-king of Gods and cursed by her husband into
becoming a stone until Ram noticed, came and touched her. Have we been diverted
from the truth? Yes, we have been diverted from the truth.
1. What Valmiki Ramayan Says
The Ramayan describes her as counter-part of Gautam until this incident and even lists her as Pancha Kanya (also known as Five Satis-Devotees of their husbands) along with Sita, Tara, Mandodari and Draupadi. (It is strange that all these women suffered male domination!) The arrival of Indra is described as in the lines below:
‘It chanced the saint had gone away,
When Town-destroying Indra came,
And saw the beauty of the dame.’
When Town-destroying Indra came,
And saw the beauty of the dame.’
Based on
these lines, I don’t see Ahilya as the culprit because she did not even have a hint
that Indra was coming. I find the culprit in Indra(Why is he being culprit in
my every post?). Ramayan of other writers of have given in details, the preparation
made by Indra and cause of Gautam’s absence which I don’t think should be detailed. I am concerned with everything that happened after the sage's departure.
2. What I have to Say
What was her
reaction after seeing her husband coming back so soon and knowing that he was
Indra instead? This question is important if we regard Ahilya as
a noble woman. She was wife of one of the most heeded scholars of that age and
happy with her conjugal life. Then could she have submitted herself to Indra at
once to fulfill fer lust? That’s not possible at all. ‘But touched by love’s unholy fire, She yielded to the God’s desire.’
Such defaming lines have been used for Ahilya in Valmiki Ramayan but don’t the two word’s
“God’s desire” not explain that Ahilya was under the authority of Indra. Who is
the culprit-- Indra, the mightier who suppressed a lady, or Ahilya-- the
inferior? The answer should have been Indra, but our blind-folded eyes see guilt
on Ahilya. Shame on us!
Had this
incident been a matter of love affair or adultery, I would not have to
speak against Gautam, what he did to his wife might have been pardonable but
this is a matter of crime. Crime on Ahilya by a male dominant society! Indra
tricks Gautam into going out of the house at night, comes in his guise and
meets Ahilya whom he tells who he is. She is then seduced by the king of Swarga Just as in modern times, this was a crime then but the victim was much victimized than
the culprit. (Such trend still exists, must be the remnants of the past!)
After
returning from the river, feeling that the daylight was far off, Gautam sees
Indra rushing in a hurry. Ramayan says he was cursed but I don’t believe it.
Had he been cursed, how could he forever become the King of Gods! He then
curses the lady to remain as dead as stone and goes away saying he cannot
accept her. (Life OK’s Mahadev showed that the curse on Indra was lifted by
Parvati on the request of young Ganesh. How could anyone, that too a woman,
lift the punishment for such a crime on mere request of a child? Was she afraid
of Indra? Had she not lifted the curse and punished Indra even more, there
would have been an inspiration for a secured society for women at present. Alas! That did not
happen, not even on a contemporary show.)
Being a wise
sage, why could Gautam not accept his wife or revolting against Indra? This idea haunts me whenever I read, watch or hear the story and I imagine him doing so. But what I imagine had not occurred at all! Gautam was a
learned-man(educated man) and though people say such men are wise, I don’t
think so. They are actually the ones who live for the prevalent traditions of
the society. Gautam is the best example of Rousseau’s citizen. Yes, he was
scared of the society. What would others say if he accepted a woman who had
“crossed her limits”? He knew the question would arise and instead of
answering, he abandoned his wife at the state of distress. This led the society
to believe her as the culprit and apparently, Indra benefited. As a king, no
one would raise questions on him and what would have happened if he was
questioned? All the blame would go to the dame who had no one to support. What
became of her life? Everyone knows--as dead as stone and the one who regained a
little consciousness when Ram kicked her. (Ramayan says that Ram touched Ahilya on her head to bring her back to consciousness. It is to be noted that very few people visited that lonely cottage after Gautam left. Vishwamitra, Ram and Lakshman had reached near the cottage in the evening and Ram had been curious of Ahilya. How Ahilya survived that long might be a different question, but Ram kicked her during her unconsciousness. And it might have been other body parts as well, not only the head!)
I often
think, “Had Gautam defended his wife and made Indra confess his sin, there would
have been a more secure society for women.” His action might have affected him then but would have created ideal society for women.
Conclusion
The present society-it lives in
duality. Sometimes it says Ahilya a scarlet woman and sometimes respects her as
devotee to husband(who left her at time of distress!) This duality, which still
exists, would have been ended a long time ago had Gautam raised his voice
against the crimes of the SHAMELESS Indra.[i]
Conclusion
The present society-it lives in
duality. Sometimes it says Ahilya a scarlet woman and sometimes respects her as
devotee to husband(who left her at time of distress!) This duality, which still
exists, would have been ended a long time ago had Gautam raised his voice
against the crimes of the SHAMELESS Indra.[i]
[i]
The texts in Italics have been derived from The
RÁMÁYAN of VÁLMÍKI Translated into English Verse, Ralph T. H. Griffith, 1870-1874.
No comments:
Post a Comment