Nature: Frogs and Flying Insects!

When I go to our village, I can see a lot of animals, birds and insects which I never see in cities. Fireflies (jugnu) come at night, Indian Blue Jay (Neelkanth) bird can be seen, I can spot a pair of parrots (tota) sitting on a tree nearby and in the end, “frogs” (medhak) popup every night. So, I was at my village and every night a lot of frogs would come out of nowhere and start hunting for insects. I wondered where they were all through the day; since they came out only during the night!

One day, I heard the sound of some frogs during the day time! I tried to look in that direction and I found that the sound had come from a packet which was kept on the stairs. So, the frogs were either inside the packet or below it. I removed the packet with the help of a stick. And I could see three frogs below it!

One of the frogs was bigger than the others. All three frogs looked frightened and within a few moments, they started moving and changing positions to find a safer position. In the end, the bigger frog covered the smaller frogs below its body! I was surprised to see how the smaller frogs were comfortably hiding below the body of the bigger frog; as if they had no shame! But in the end, I concluded that perhaps the bigger frog was the mother of the smaller frogs and that was why it was protecting them.

The other day my mother pointed out to another scene. A flying insect which is perhaps found mostly in villages near farms, had collected soil at the corner of one wall near angan and had covered all its eggs with it. After a few days, the soil became dry and then the flying insect would come and one by one made holes in the clay structure and took out its kids! We wondered how nature had given that small insect enough intelligence to know how to protect its eggs and how to take the kids out at the right moment.

Such small incidents point to fact that nature has given all species with enough intelligence to do the best for their children. There are very common traits which are common in all, but the willingness to make all efforts to ensure safety of children is a trait which is common in all species.

Hats off to the miracles of nature!

- Rahul Tiwary

India: The Migrant Crisis of Year 2020

Newspapers and media these days are covered with images of migrant workers walking their way home. It paints a pitiful picture. There are pictures of people carrying small kids in their arms and walking; where men are trying to ferry their family in a makeshift cart; a man carrying his mother on his back; a woman pleading for help while her husband is lying injured in a road accident; people being looted on their way home; men walking for several days dying from exhaustion; and the list goes on. It is a humanitarian disaster.

I have been trying to avoid exposure to too much media on such negative news. But then above image caught my attention. The primary reason was the young boy who reminded me of my son; with his long hair and an innocent look. In fact, his look startled me, and I was left frozen for some time. This kid does not know what is happening around him. He just knows that his mother is carrying him. He seems slightly thirsty. His hand is in dropped position, perhaps indicating that he is a bit tired; or perhaps he had just woken up in the morning when this journey started and hence he is in a bit ‘hangover’ from the sleep. Or perhaps he is a bit “disappointed”.

“Disappointed” is a great word for the current situation.

As we all know, our government made a quick and abrupt decision to impose complete “Lockdown” all over the country without giving any advance warning. If there was such a warning period, people could have prepared for the long turbulence that was to come. People at unsafe places or in unsustainable situations could have reached safer places or home. While it started as just a three weeks’ lockdown, it was clear from the beginning that the virus was not going to get away just in 3 weeks (as we had seen from China’s experience) and there would be need to extend the Lockdown. But our government did not share any of the future roadmap with people. People did not know how long Lockdown would go on. It created a ground for unconfirmed news and rumors to go around. There were fake WHO guidelines circulating on Whatsapp and people sharing whatever junk news they could get hold of; since such a crisis was unprecedented and government seemed to be equally clueless. Since State governments were in touch with people on the ground, they played regional and divisive politics with the migrant workers. Most migrant workers came from poorer States to richer States and in the States where they were stuck, most of them were not enrolled as “voters”. The migrant workers became “no one’s baby”. Their current State did not want them in since they saw them as a “liability”. On the other hand, their home States did not want to take them fearing that they would bring virus along to their villages where there were no medical facilities. The situation was a perfect ground for exploitation and severe helplessness gripped migrant workers.

These poor migrants would have seen worse times. The feeling of “helplessness” would not be something new to them. So, they packed their stuff, sold some, carried what they could and started on a journey. Hence, we are witnessing one of the worst internal mass migration situations since the partition of India. It may not be worst in a physical sense, since we now have better roads, safer law-and-order situation and occasionally helpful people and govt organizations helping these travelling migrants with food and water. But it is worst in the sense that it could have been largely “avoidable”.

What if our government gave 7-10 days window at the beginning where people could travel and get to reach a safe place before Lockdown would start? What if our State governments did not see these migrants as “another state’s problem” and provided them with food and house rent since most migrants had lost their jobs, so that they could just survive where they were! What if their home States tried to take them home without having them to travel long distances under the sun on foot? What if there was a better way to manage this crisis? What if this is largely a “man-made crisis”?

The feelings of helplessness and disappointment are not only in these migrant workers who are tolerating hardships and trying to survive and protect their dignity. The feelings of helplessness and disappointment are also in other citizens of our country who are watching their fellow ones suffer in this manner. We have collectively failed these migrant workers. We have collectively failed our poor. We have collectively failed our country.

In these circumstances of sadness and disappointment, we can only pray that this crisis goes away quickly and does not aggravates further. May migrant workers be able to survive and live with some dignity. May our politicians are less divisive and more sensitive to poor people’s plight. When this crisis is over, may we can still be proud of our country.

- Rahul Tiwary

Watching Old Movies During Lockdown

During Lockdown, I watched several old movies and it was very different from the way movies of current times are. It reminded me of how time is changing, relationships are changing and our society is changing too.

Gardish: In this movie, the relationship between father and son was really interesting. Amrish Puri played the role of “old fashioned” father who was a very strict, authoritative figure in the house and Jackie Shroff as son who was always misunderstood and shown little empathy towards. Watching this movie, it seemed I was watching a movie from some different world. It was very engaging and interesting. Even Mukesh Rishi has done an epic role of a dreaded villain.

Ye Mera Dil To Pagal Hai: https://youtu.be/7AjiKd07N5I

Wo Lamhe (2006): This movie shows the other side of life of movie starts very well, especially the actresses. Kangana Ranaut plays the role of an actress fighting mental health issues. She looks very different in this movie. In fact during her younger days she looked very different and kept changing with time. She has played this role of a disturbed actress very well. Now Shiney Ahuja played the role of a not-so-famous film-maker. I had not watched his movies so far and perhaps this is his first movie that I watched. And he totally impressed me. He has a slightly sad look on his face. And he is able to express various moods of the story very well. Perhaps he has remained an underdog, or perhaps his career was cut short due to the allegation against him and he could not achieve his full potential. Shaad Randhawa has played his role very well. He too is a great talent who underachieved if we look at the potential. The songs of this movie are great. I am surprised why the movie could not do very well on box office. I read that this movie was based on Parveen Babi’s life story.

Chal Chalen Apne Ghar: https://youtu.be/mzEWcwDmUKs

Kya Mujhe Pyar Hai: https://youtu.be/Gg6NMU4ivXM

Bin Tere Kya hai jeena: https://youtu.be/IP1f7yDp4qk

Tu Jo Nahin Hai To Kuch bhi Nahi https://youtu.be/3dSLo0EUK-g

So Jaaun Main: https://youtu.be/NRjaeYRITHc

Taal: Watching ‘Taal’ the second time seemed like going through a wonderful world which has gone now (forever). I remember the time when this movie had released, and it had generated a great craze and it was super hit! It had set a benchmark for the future movies at that time. What a great picturization of a simple story, what a sensitive portrayal of roles, and how each character has done a great justice with one’s roles. What a fantastic story. Aishwarya was at her best and Akshay Khanna and Anil Kapoor are epic. I also remembered now how I used to be a fan of Akshay Khanna during those days. This is also a movie which I think can be watched many times. And its songs are epic songs and evergreen ones.

Nahin Samne https://youtu.be/bNK94h7vUeA 

Bali Umar Ko Salam (1994): I happened to watch this movie now. When it was released in early 1990, I was too young and I did not even hear about this movie or its actors. But now after watching it, this looks like a cult movie or one of the cult movies of its time. I saw its actors Kamal Sadanah and Tisca Chopra for the first time and both have been great in this movie. Both were so talented that I wonder why they did not become superstars! This is a movie where an Angry Young Man meets an Angry Young Woman – both are absolutely hot blooded youth who go around doing what they wanted. In one incident, Kamal saves Tisca but the later accuses him of doing a “staged” fight, accuses him of rape and gets him arrested by the police! In another instance, she drives a truck and flattens the auto-garage where Kamal worked! The whole treatment to the story has been done so differently as compared to the movies from current time. It was indeed like watching a movie from another time and space.

Dastak (1996): Dastak was a psycho thriller film directed by Mahesh Bhatt and written by Vikram Bhatt. It was also the first movie of Miss Universe Sushmita Sen. I guess her voice would have been dubbed, but she did a fine performance in the movie. And she looked so different at that time and I had no memory of her looking like that. This movie had Sharad Kapoor and Mukul Dev, both newcomers at that time, and both are my favorites. Both Sharad and Mukul have done a good performance in the film and it does not look like their initial period film. I read that this movie flopped, perhaps because it was a different kind of movie at that time and it did not have big names in it. But comparison can be made with SRK’s Darr which was also a movie based on story of a psycho man following a girl. It was interesting to watch this movie from an old world since I did not know about this movie till now even though it had my favorite actors in it.

Kanubhai and Shivalakshmi Gandhi: Mahatma Gandhi’s Grand Son and Grand Daughter-in-law

During the famous Dandi March or Salt March, a photograph of Gandhi ji had 'gone viral' (using the modern term for 'becoming famous') where he was shown walking with a small kid holding his walking-stick. That small kid was his grandson Kanubhai Gandhi. Kanubhai Gandhi was son of Gandhi ji's third son - Ramdas Gandhi.

Kanubhai Gandhi went to the USA and served as a scientist in NASA for 25 years. He was married to Shivalakshmi. In the year 2013, the couple returned in India and settled in Surat, Gujarat. The couple did not have any children. Hence they started living in an old age home (Ashram). In the year 2016, Kanubhai passed away. After demise of her husband, Shivalakshmi ji lived in Ashrams and of late she had settled in Bhimrad village of Surat.

Shivalakhsmi ji had made a Shivalakshmi Kanubhai Ramdas Gandhi Charitable Trust in Surat and gave away all life-savings of the family to it. The trust worked for education and healthcare for women and children as well as spreading the message of Gandhi ji. The family left total of around Rs 12 Crore for the trust to be used for social cause.

There is a news from yesterday that Shivalakshmi ji has passed away due to old age related ailments at the age of 94. Om Shanti.

- Rahul Tiwary

Society: Children Reaching Police Stations with Piggy Banks

Today, our world is facing the Coronavirus crisis and Lockdown related economic challenges. In midst of this crisis, we do get many news of personal courage and sacrifices. We keep hearing news where doctors, medical staff, policemen or even common people are shown going out the way to help the needy including stray animals. But there is one news which keeps appearing and I feel displeasure seeing it. It is the news about children going to police stations carrying their ‘gullak’ (piggy banks) and giving away all their savings for the cause of our nation. Many times, parents also accompany them. Such news keep appearing in the news portals and media; for example here. But what objection do I have against such humble gesture?

Every time I see such news, I feel sorry for the “risk” these kids are taking on themselves. Every time they are venturing out of their homes to go to the police station, they are taking a risk of being exposed to the Coronavirus infection. Why do they do it? Why are their parents supporting them in taking this risk? Do they want to make their kids compassionate by helping them in such activities? Or, are parents doing this to get themselves and their kids in the News? Do they plan to frame such newspaper cuttings and hang on the wall? Is this worth taking the risk?

There are alternative ways in which parents can help their kids show compassion and do something for their nation. For example, if kid insists on donating the money, perhaps inspired by the TV news channels or by someone else from neighborhood who did this, parents can get the kid take out the money, count it, then take it and do equal contribution to the PM Cares Fund using digital methods like BHIM UPI or Wallet Apps like Paytm. They can show the kids how money is getting transferred and how they are getting a confirmation or “Thank you” message on the screen and kids would understand that. If there are families who do not have access to digital media, one can simply convince the kids to keep the money counted and to donate the money only when the Lockdown is over.

I seriously think that the risk these parents are taking is not worth it. The Police should also stop posting such news on social media and encouraging more kids from taking such a risk.

I hope we shall see less such news going forward. It is really nice to raise compassionate kids, but it is equally necessary to keep them safe. Remember: “Safety First”.

- Rahul Tiwary

Hinduism: Mahabharat: Why Abhimanyu Had a Short Life

In the great war of Mahabharat, although many great warriors fell and a lot of them touch readers, there is one Abhimanyu who touches one and all like no other. It is because of his age – he was only 16 years old at the time he was killed fighting – and the manner in which he was killed by a group of 7 Kaurava warriors while Abhimanyu fought alone. It is one of the most tragic events of the great war.

Some people ask why did Abhimanyu have a short lifespan. Why Lord Krishn let it happen to him, why he did not protect him like he protected Draupadi. I tried to search about it and found the explanation here.

Why Did Abhimanyu Die Young

In Mahabharat, it is mentioned that Abhimanyu was the re-incarnation of son of Chandra, the Moon-God. When Chandra was asked to let his son incarnate on earth, he made a pact that his son will only remain on earth for 16 years, as he could not bear to be separated from him any longer than that. So, Chandra's son was born as the son of Arjuna and Subhadra.

From Mahabharat [Link]:

"And, O monarch, learn that king Yudhishthira was a portion of Dharma; that Bhimasena was of the deity of wind; that Arjuna was of Indra, the chief of the celestials; and that Nakula and Sahadeva, the handsomest beings among all creatures, and unrivalled for beauty on earth, were similarly portions of the twin Aswins. And he who was known as the mighty Varchas, the son of Soma, became Abhimanyu of wonderful deeds, the son of Arjuna. And before his incarnation, O king, the god Soma had said these words to the celestials, 'I cannot give (part with) my son. He is dearer to me than life itself. Let this be the compact and let it be not transgressed. The destruction of the Asuras on earth is the work of the celestials, and, therefore, it is our work as well. Let this Varchas, therefore, go thither, but let him not stay there long. Nara, whose companion is Narayana, will be born as Indra's son and indeed, will be known as Arjuna, the mighty son of Pandu. This boy of mine shall be his son and become a mighty car-warrior in his boyhood. And let him, ye best of immortals, stay (p. 144) on earth for sixteen years. And when he attaineth to his sixteenth year, the battle shall take place in which all who are born of your portions shall achieve the destruction of mighty warriors. But a certain encounter shall take place without both Nara and Narayana (taking any part in it). ...... Then when numberless heroes and mighty car-warriors will return to the charge towards the close of the day, my boy of mighty arms, shall reappear before me. And he shall beget one heroic son in his line, who shall continue the almost extinct Bharata race.' Hearing these words of Soma, the dwellers in heaven replied, 'So be it.' And then all together applauded and worshiped (Soma) the king of stars. p. 145

Message from Abhimanyu’s Story

At the same time, I remember from my childhood how this story is remembered among the masses. In folk stories among common people, it is often mentioned that if Subhadra did not sleep, then Abhimanyu won't have to know only half of the method to handle Chakravyuh. Hence message is that while listening to Satsang or religious programs, we should not fall asleep and need to be attentive otherwise half knowledge can be harmful for us.

Why Shri Krishn Did Not Save Abhimanyu

The reason why Shri Krishn won’t have saved Abhimanyu may also be simply because he would already know about his fate. Hence, he won’t have interrupted in it.

There is another reason which explains how things happened and how different and multiple reasons are responsible for some event.

How Abhimanyu Was Killed

Kauravas had planned a Chakravyuh to trap and kill many warriors from the Pandavas army. It is said that among the Pandav army, only Arjun knew how to handle a Chakravyuh. But on that particular day, he had gone too far away fighting and hence could not reach there in time. Then Abhimanyu came forward and volunteered to try and destroy the Chakravyuh since he had heard about the way to enter it while being in his mother Subhadra’s womb. Although he had not heard about the way to come out of the trap, since the story got interrupted as Subhadra had fallen asleep. Hence it was agreed that while Abhimanyu will take the lead and enter the Chakravyuh, his uncles Beem, Nakul and Sahdev will follow him and also enter it, so that they could tackle the difficult part together and ensure safe return.

But while Abhimanyu went inside the Chakravyuh as planned, Bheem and others were stopped outside by Jayadrath who was a great warrior from Kaurava’s side.

How could Jayadrath stop these great Pandavas?

Jayadrath was king of the Sindhu rajya and married to Duryodhan’s sister Dushala. While Pandavas were serving 12 years “vanvas”, once Jayadrath had seen Draupadi in the jungle and tried to take her as his queen by abducting her. Pandavas got to know about the abduction, chased Jayadrath down and defeated him. Since he was their relative (Duryodhan’s brother-in-law), they did not kill him, but Bheem shaved his head as a mean to disgrace him. Jayadrath wanted to take revenge on Pandavas for this disgrace and hence did harsh penance to earn a boon from Lord Shiv. He asked for a boon that he would be able to defeat the Pandavas. But Lord Shiva told him that it was not possible to defeat Pandavas, but he can give him a boon that for one day, he would be able to control the Pandavas except Arjuna. It was because of this boon, that Jayadrath was able to contain Bheem and other Pandavas outside the Chakravyuh itself.

Therefore, we can see from this incident that Abhimanyu’s death was an event of a big misfortune. Jayadrath’s boon came into play due to which Pandavas' plan of Bheem and others entering Chakravyuh along with Abimanyu did not work. And Arjun was not around that day otherwise he would have been successful in defeating Jayadrath and saving Abhimanyu. And then, all this was not possible since it was planned by fate that Abhimanyu would die young so that he can return to the celestial god Chandra.

Btw, the next day of the fight, Arjun defeated and killed Jayadrath.

Legacy of Abhimanyu

It is another touching story of how Abhimanyu’s wife Uttara was expected at the time of this battle and she gave birth to a son later on - Parikshit. Parikshit goes on to inherit the throne of Hastinapur after Yudhisthir and expands the kingdom and its civilization immensely. After Parikshit, his son Janmejaya goes on to rule.

Therefore, Abhimanyu, even if he died young, in fact shaped the history of our country Bharat Varsha. 

Abhimanyu will always be remembered by one and all for being a great son, a great warrior and someone who sacrificed his life for his Dharma.

- Rahul Tiwary

रामायण: क्या सीता परित्याग तर्कसंगत है? | Hinduism: Was Banishment of Sita a Logical Incident?

क्या सीता परित्याग तर्कसंगत है? ऐसा सोचते ही दो बातें पहले ही आ जाती हैं - क्या धर्म के मामले में "तर्क" का प्रयोग व्यावहारिक है? और क्या "रामायण" को सिर्फ धर्म ग्रन्थ मानना चाहिए या फिर एक ऐतिहासिक अनुलेख भी? पहले, धर्म में तर्क पर आते हैं। किसी भी विषय में यदि तर्क का प्रयोग न किया जा सके तो वह विषय क्या एक सिर्फ "अंध विश्वास" में परिवर्तित नहीं हो जाती? 

मैंने स्वामी विवेकानंद आदि को पढ़ा है। इससे मैंने सीखा कि हमारे धर्म में तर्क करना अच्छा माना गया है। शाश्त्रार्थ के ऊपर पंडित लोग तो कई दिनों तक बहस किया करते थे। आदि शंकराचार्य ने भी किया था। यह ज्ञान मार्ग है। सिर्फ "भक्ति मार्ग" में ही "अंध विश्वास" ठीक माना गया है शायद। पर सिर्फ अंध-विश्वास किसी भी धर्म को आगे नहीं ले जा सकता। अंध विश्वास की कमजोरी को क्रिस्चियन मिशनरीजन ने काफी उपयोगी माना है। वे तर्क के आधार पर हमारे भगवानों को गलत साबित करते थे और लोगों को अपने धर्म को खराब समझाकर धर्मान्तरण कराते। अगर हम खुद ही तर्क करके अपने विश्वास को व्यवहारिकता के आधार पर रखकर प्रतिष्ठित रखेंगे तो कोई बाहरी हमें बेवकूफ नहीं बना पायेगा। 

अब सीता के परित्याग और "उत्तर कांड" या "उत्तर रामायण" के ऊपर आते हैं। रामायण में बहुत सी घटनाएँ हैं जो व्यक्तिगत रूप से मुझे पसंद नहीं हो सकती हैं - जैसे राजा होकर भी उन्होंने केवट को गले लगाया, जो भी जैसा भी हो उनके शरण में आया तो उन्होंने अपनाया - ये सब मुझे "अनावश्यक" और "अति भावुकता" लगी। पर उन्होंने किया और मैंने माना - मैंने इन घटनाओं में अच्छे पक्षों को देखा और इनमे अच्छा सन्देश देखा। इससे ये घटनाएँ मुझे श्री राम की महानता के उदाहरण लगे। पर सीता त्याग और उत्तर रामायण में मुझे एक भी अच्छाई नजर नहीं आई। मैंने खोजकर पढ़ा इस बारे में - तो चक्रवर्ती राजगोपालाचारी और अन्य विद्वानों का लिखा पढ़ा कि उत्तर रामायण बाद में जोड़ा गया खंड है, वाल्मीकि के मूल रामायण के कई शताब्दिओं बाद उसे वाल्मीकि रामायण से जोड़ दिया गया। तब मुझे बात समझ में आई। मैं ऐसा मानूंगा और इसके कारण हैं: 

श्री राम का जन्म एक "आदर्श राजा" का जीवन दर्शित करने के लिए ही नहीं हुआ था। राजा हरिश्चंद्र "आदर्श राजा" का जीवन सन्देश दे चुके थे। तो फिर रामावतार को किस रूप में समझें? जैसा श्री कृष्ण ने गीता में कहा, जब-जब धरती पर पाप की अधिकता होती है, भगवान पाप का नाश करने हेतु अवतार लेते हैं। यही विष्णु के हर अवतार ने किया, नरसिंघ से लेकर परशुराम अवतार से कृष्ण अवतार तक - बुद्ध ने भी अपने तरीके से पाप का नाश ही किया। 

इसीलिए हमें राम के जीवन को विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों से तुलनात्मक रूप में देखना और समझना चाहिए। शिव जी से तुलना नहीं कर सकते, शिव विनाशक हैं, विष्णु पालनकर्ता - राम के जीवन को किसी और देवता से तुलना न करके, विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों के साथ देखकर ही समझना चाहिए।

तो मेरा समझना है कि राम अवतार धरती से राक्षसों (अधर्म) के विनाश और धर्म की स्थापना के लिए हुआ था। (हनुमान जी के अवतार का भी कारण यही था - और श्री राम के कार्य में हाथ बँटाना था।) रावण वध से पहले उन्होंने असंख्य राक्षस मारे और रावण वध के साथ राम अवतार का प्रयोजन पूरा हो गया - ऐसा समझा जा सकता है। तो रावण वध के बाद ,अयोध्या लौटकर राजसिंहासन पर बैठकर राम अवतार ख़त्म हो जाना चाहिए था। विष्णु के अन्य अवतारों को देखकर सोचिये - उनका "प्रयोजन" पूरा होने पर सब चले गए थे। अवतार एक खास प्रयोजन के लिए ही होता है और उसके बाद उसकी जरुरत नहीं रहती। जैसा परशुराम ने भी कहा कि राम के आने पर मेरा प्रयोजन नहीं बचा अब। जैसे राम के आने पर परशुराम अवतार का प्रयोजन समाप्त हो गया, वैसे ही रावण वध और सीता को वापस लाने के बाद राम के अवतार का प्रयोजन समाप्त हो जाना चाहिए था।

"सीता त्याग" से राम के अवतार का कोई प्रयोजन पूरा होता नहीं दीखता। मुझे इसमें सिर्फ एक सन्देश समझ में आता है और वो है कि "अगर प्रजा गलत सोचे तो राजा को प्रजा की गलत धारणा को सुधारने के बदले प्रजा को सही साबित करने के लिए खुद के धर्म का त्याग कर देना चाहिए"। इसे निम्नांकित बातों से समझें: 

१. राम का धर्म था सीता की रक्षा करना 

२. राम ने शादी के समय सीता की रक्षा का वचन दिया था और अग्नि के समक्ष प्रतिज्ञा ली थी 

३. सीता निर्दोष थीं और निर्दोष को सजा देना अधर्म है 

४. प्रजा की धारणा गलत थी और अगर राम सीता का त्याग कर देते तो प्रजा की गलत धारणा सही हो जाती - "देखो सीता ने कुछ गलत किया था, तभी तो राम ने उनका त्याग किया?", लोग ऐसा सोचते 

५. सीता की अग्नि परीक्षा हो चुकी थी और इस कारण फिर से परित्याग की घटना अतार्किक लगती है 

इन कारणों से मुझे सीता परित्याग की घटना तर्कसंगत नहीं लगती। श्री राम के धर्मपरायण जीवन से यह घटना और ऐसे व्यवहार की कल्पना तर्क संगत नहीं लगती। यही लगता है कि यह कहानी बाद में जोड़ी गई है, जैसा सी. राजगोपालाचारी जी ने भी लिखा है। क्या ऐसा "बाद में जोड़ना" संभव था? हिन्दू सनातन धर्म के सारे ग्रन्थ पहले "मौखिक" रूप में ही थे, लिखा उन्हें बहुत बाद में गया। पुस्तक रूप हमारे ग्रन्थ में तो हाल में प्रिंटिंग के अविष्कार के बाद आये। मौखिक से लिखित रूप में भी लेखन एक बार में नहीं हुआ, और इसी दौरान त्रुटियों या जोड़-तोड़ की पूरी सम्भावना रही होगी। 

कुछ लोगों के ख्याल से सीता त्याग प्रभु राम की ही एक "लीला" थी और इससे श्री राम की कोई शिकायत नहीं होती। ऐसा भी माना जा सकता है। 

खैर, मैंने जो पढ़ा और अपने विचार से सोचा, उसे तर्क के आधार पर तौल कर अपनी धारणा बनाई है कि सीता परित्याग की घटना तार्किक नहीं लगती। 

- राहुल तिवारी 

Earlier Posts in this Series: 

Did Seeta’s Exile really Happen?

Shri Ram Never Banished Ma Sita to Forest 

Subscribe to Blog Using Email

Here is the process to subscribe to this blog by emails. Once subscribed, you would receive my new blog posts by email every time a new one is posted!

On my blog, check the right hand side bar and there you would see “Follow by Email” button and a box below it.

Enter your Email ID (e.g. …@gmail.com) in the field and press on “Submit” button.

A new popup window will open like this (check if you need to allow popups on your browser temporarily if you do not get this window).

Next, click on the box before “I’m not a robot” as highlighted in below screenshot:

Next, you will get a confirmation message:

Check your email and approve it by clicking on the link. You would get a confirmation.  

After this, you will start getting new blog posts right in your Email Inbox!

- Rahul Tiwary

बत्तमीज से दोस्ती का परिणाम | Making Friends With Bad Behavior

एक महानुभाव ने फेसबुक पर एक फ्रेंड (दोस्त) बनाया। शुरू में ही समझ आ गया कि दोस्त "बत्तमीज" था। पर "मेरे साथ ऐसा नहीं होगा" के अति-आत्मविश्वास से ग्रसित महानुभाव ने कोई कदम नहीं उठाया। बत्तमीज दोस्त आए दिन एक-एक कर किसी न किसी को अपने गुस्से का शिकार बनाता। महानुभाव सौम्य स्वाभाव के थे, डर जाते पर कुछ किया नहीं। "निगेटिव" को नजरअंदाज कर "पॉजिटिव" पर ध्यान केंद्रित किया। बत्तमीज दोस्त की लिखी बातें ज्ञान-वर्धक जो थीं! 

एक कहावत है - "मेमने की माँ कबतक खैर मनाएगी"। एक दिन महानुभाव का बुरा दिन था। बत्तमीज दोस्त के "हत्थे चढ़ गया"। बत्तमीज दोस्त ने अपनी "परंपरा, प्रतिष्ठा और अनुशासन" का प्रदर्शन कर सबके सामने महानुभाव की आरती उतारी। ऊपर से दोस्ती तोड़ ली सो अलग। 

महानुभाव पछताए कि क्यों इस दिन का इंतजार किया - "मेरे साथ नहीं होगा" की मानसिकता पर उन्हें खेद हुआ। 

बत्तमीज से दोस्ती का परिणाम अच्छा नहीं हो सकता। आज नहीं तो कल, उसके दुष्परिणाम भुगतने को तैयार रहें! हमारे ऊपर वाले महानुभाव जैसा न बनें। 

- राहुल तिवारी 

Society: Should Marriages Be Saved At All Costs?

I remember an old incident. There was a viral video being shown on TV and circulating in the media at that time. It was a scene from CCTV camera of some home in Gujarat where a daughter-in-law was beating up her mother-in-law with a wooden stick. The old lady was sleeping on a cot when the daughter-in-law enters and starts beating her up brutally with a wooden stick. She beats her up black and blue. The incident had invited large scale condemnation. To that, one person said something which remained in my memory forever. He said, “When the man tries to save his marriage at all costs, such things happen”.

I think what he would have tried to say was that every big incident had some background. If a person does a small wrong thing and gets away with it, the person may be encouraged to feel safe and might do a bigger wrong deed next time. If that is also ignored by others, the person may do still bigger act next time. This goes on and one day we hear news like the above incident. No one becomes a hardened criminal at once – normally there is a “background”, as we see in the movies too.

Realizing this, it can be argued that the above woman may have done some smaller sins before and would have gone unpunished. Hence, she would have ended up doing the above. What is the message for married people from this?

The message is that one should not ignore small incidents of bad behavior from one’s spouse. It is true for men as well as women. If they would ignore small incidents of abusive behavior, the spouse may be encouraged to do worse next time. The idea is to stop the evil from sprouting into a big tree by stopping it while it is just a small thing.

At the same time, if the threshold has been crossed, one should have the courage to “let go”. One should not tolerate abuse just to save one’s marriage. Of course, this does not mean that one should always expect “perfection” from one’s spouse. Mistakes happen and we all do mistakes. But intentional abuse is a different thing and we all can identify when it happens. In such cases, one should be ready even to sacrifice the marriage rather than keep tolerating the abusive behavior from one’s spouse. What is the threshold and when to know that time is up? It is an individual case and one can decide this for oneself. And of course, never feel shy to take expert help from others before making the decision.

- Rahul Tiwary

Thoughts: God is With US

Looking at injustices and all the wrong things (apparently) in this world, we may wonder where God is. For example, when someone accuses you of something and you fail to convince the other person. Or else, you yourself want to know what is true and what is not totally true since there have been conflicting thoughts in your mind. And hence you wish if you could talk to God for a moment and clear the things out. You wish it would have been so good if God was with you in a “communicable” state.

You may wonder if you can just apply your “mind” and get the work done. First of all, mind may not be the best thing to trust in many conflicting situations. As we know, brain stores information but the older the information gets, it is sent back in the database even to the “archive”. You would be able to recall some old things with some difficulty and some things would be totally inaccessible now over the years. But some data would be with you always, in clear terms. So, the mind works in terms of physical storage of information and is not something where God can live.

Hence, if God decided to live with us, where can he live? Would he go for the “heart” then? Of course, no. Our heart may want ice-cream in winter or may want you to smoke or drink. Heart can go wrong in many situations. So, heart can’t be trusted either.

Now comes “conscience”. Let us evaluate if God can live with us in or as our conscience. First, you can only talk to your conscience when you are truly with yourself. Next, your conscience can never lie to you. It will always tell you honest things, even if it is self-criticism. It can be recalled anytime and anywhere. That is why think that God lives with us in or as our conscience.

Hence, if you want to find out what you really want, don’t ask either your mind or your heart. If you want to find out if you like or trust another person or not, or what you really think about something, you can only trust your conscience. Talking to your mind can be too ‘heartless’ and talking to your heart may be too ‘out of our mind’.

Hence, I prescribe that we should talk to our conscience very regularly. We should talk to our conscience every day and in every situation. If we are clear in our conscience, then we shall feel light. Then we shall have no doubt and we shall not be confused about anything. Try it out!

- Rahul Tiwary 

Television: Ramayan On DD National During Lockdown - Modern Commentary (Rolling)

Due to ongoing National level Lockdown, government decided to air Ramayan TV Serial on DD National TV Channel after many years. I had watched it during childhood. Much time passed ever since I got opportunity to watch it now. And due to many social political events and Lockdown imposed stress, I decided to keep writing a few comments on the scenes going on TV. Hence this can best be understood if you are watching the episode of Ramayan on DD National TV Channel and reading my commentary in parallel. I know it will be difficult to simply read the comments and recall the scene, but I am still posting it to save my commentary as a record. 

Sita ji looking at Durga ji idol in Mandir as if the idol was a real person. What expressions! And wonderful music/songs

***

I still don't get it why Shiv dhanush broke while #Ram ji was only picking it up.

***

Raja Janak and Rani are visibly disappointed when no one seems to be suitable to marry their daughter. Unlike modern TV inspired "Father of the Bride" types who are jealous of their prospective son-in-law! Time has changed.

***

Lakshman disobeyed elder brother Ram and got family into problem. Sugreev disobeyed elder brother Bali and got himself into problem. What is the problem with these juniors?

***

Shri Ram trusted Lakshman; so he did not hold grudge against him for losing Sita ji. But Bali suffered from pride, so he punished Sugreev for disobeying him. It resulted in Bali's destruction. Lesson: (1) Arrogance is bad; (2) We should trust family.

***

If anyone went in front of Bali, half of his strenght would get transferred to Bali.

Similarly, any country which does business with China loses half of its industrial prowess to it.

***

Shri Ram used the word "Vadh" for what he did to Bali. Vadh = Assassination. As per Ram, it is noble if done to protect Dharma.

But modern law prosecutes all assassins with 1st degree murder. Modern law is more Bali and less Ram.

***

Bali asks Shri Ram why did he kill him. He says - "Enemy of a friend is enemy." Today no country practices this policy better than the #USA.

While #India follows: "Everyone is my friend because I am a nice guy". Hence we are in a soup.

***

Shri Ram was foreign policy genius. He killed Bali and gave throne to Sugreev. He killed Ravan and gave throne to Vibhishan.

Today, toppling foreign govts and doing regime changes to setup friendly govts is a practice done by the #USA.

***

Ravan's father was a Rishi (sage). From his first wife, Kubera (god of wealth) was born. But his second wife was Kaikasi, a demon, from whom Ravan, Kumbhakarn and Shurpanakha were born.

Message: If you marry a demon, your children will be demons.

***

Bali was not a good person. But he was brave and strong. At his demise, we can feel sorry. It is only because of his few good qualities.

Ramayan and our scriptures teach us that bravery and power are good only if these are combined with Dharma.

***

Bali's biggest sin was that he kept Sugreev's wife Ruma after throwing him out. And Bali's last wish was for protection of his wife Tara.

No one thought if Ruma/Tara did not want to be with Bali/Sugreev, they always had option to take their lives. But they chose to re-marry.

For keeping those women with them, Bali and Sugreev became bad in the eyes of others. But for choosing to live with these other men, Ruma/Tara were not defamed.

Here we have society's bias against men at display.

For same reason, in K. M. Nanavati case (subject of movie 'Rustom'), Prem Ahuja was considered "guilty" while Nanavati's wife Sylvia was considered a "victim".

***

14 years of 'Vanvas' was a symbol of all the problems married people face in life.

Shri Ram, Sita and Lakshman showed us how to ride over rough tides, with patience, together and mutual respect.

***

Just when Lakshman ji was about to get "best brother ever" award, Bharat ji arrived on the scene and pulled the target much higher.

This reminds us of Indian Cricket Team which had so many great batsmen that you never knew who was the best.

***

Sugreev got 4 months of home quarantine due to rainy season, and he spent it watching dance performances.

Just like many people confined at home due to lockdown are "quarreling" instead of spending "quality" time.

***

As Pacifiers: Hanuman ji is much better at pacifying Lakshman ji than Tara.

Hanuman ji is honest, shows empathy and cites facts. Tara is much preachy - it could have backfired.

***

Sita ji was quarantined in Lanka and had no work to do. Hence she sat below a tree and kept thinking about Shri Ram, her savior.

Today, bored people in #Lockdown21 keep thinking about #ChineseVirus, their culprit. That is the difference.

***

Sampati tried to reach the Sun. Hanuman ji tried to eat the sun. Both were powerful and hence tried to achieve the difficult task. But both were childish.

Message: Never underestimate the importance of formal education.

***

All the demons Hanuman ji is finding enroute Lanka are ugly.

Who says looks don't matter?

***

Bali's wife Tara was a good person. Ravan's wife Mandodri was a good person too.

Inference: It seems even bad men do not want to marry bad women!

***

While Hanuman ji is scanning entire Lanka, I can't spot a beggar there. It seems there were no homeless and beggars in Lanka.

Oh, I forgot - Rakshas were "non-veg". So are Chinese.

***

How to spot Sita: A lady who is sad because of missing husband.

How to spot Ravan: A man who is happily sleeping alone despite having hundreds of wives.

How to spot Ram: A sane person surrounded by monkeys in a jungle.

***

No animals were hurt during making of Ramayan serial.

Because humans played their parts.

***

Hanuman ji killed Ravan's youngest son Akshay Kumar. Still he sent his other son Indrajeet to fight him. It shows how seriously Ravan loved his "garden" :)

Message: Not all "nature lovers" are nice people.

***

Hanuman ji is the perfect combination of humor and wisdom

***

The manner in which Ravan's Senapati is swallowing his #thook, it is sure that he is not a Muslim during Lockdown era.

***

Hanuman ji first gives 'gyan' to Ravan and when he does not listen, he punishes him.

Problem with modern times is that bad people are given only gyan and no punishment.

***

The intelligence with which Ravan understood the "monkey psychology" about their tails, it is clear that he had some experiences with monkeys.

Monkey king Bali had defeated Ravan earlier and punished him too. 

***

Ravan saw his Lanka burning; just watched it, did not react, and moved on.

Had it been Modi ji, he would have come on national TV, announced lockdown and merger of 15 banks, and asked people to eat icecream next entire day to cool off the heat.

***

Ravan hated Vibhishan, he sent him away but didnt kill him. Bali got angry with Sugreev, sent him away but didnt kill him.

We can clearly see they had mercy on their brothers.

But Vibhishan got brother Ravan killed and Sugreev got Bali killed.

***

It is difficult to believe that Ravan and Vibhishan were brothers from same mother and father while they have such different nature.

It tells that each soul is different and making its own journey in life.

***

Ravan's messenger was impressive; he pitched it so well. But Sugreev rejected it.

Sugreev had benefitted from Ram, so he was unlikely to change. Had Ravan tried to send similar message to Angad, that might have worked.

***

If there are threats, people can support even evil dictators if they are strong and protective - e.g. Ravan or Bali. Or Mughals.

If peace comes, people can support weak leaders since risk is low. E.g. Vibhishan. Or Nehru, MMSingh, Kejriwal.

***

Shri Ram is discussing with others in his team about how to meet the challenge of crossing the sea. It was because he respected others.

Compare that to the dictatorial Managers who think employees are not competent to make useful suggestions!

***

Shri Ram decided to "ask" the Sea god for a way across the sea. It is unthinkable in usual scenarios.

How often our problems could be solved quickly only if we thought to "ask" others! Only our ego stops us from asking others.

***

When Shri Ram "asked" Sea god for something, he did not listen and risked his life. When powerful people "ask" something, it must be taken seriously.

PM Modi knows this. Hence he took Mr. Trump's "ask" (for medicines) very sincerely and did not do same mistake.

***

Shri Ram made a Shivlinga (symbol of Shiva) on the sea beach and worshipped Shiva. Some get confused since Ram is God too.

Sri Ram was God himself, taking an "avatar" to teach humans how to live. Worshipping God is part of that teaching as well.

***

Shri Ram performed Puja while his army built the giant bridge.

Associating a great work with a noble cause is a great motivator. Productivity will rise if employees know that their employer is a noble person/entity.

***

Ravan made his people believe "all is well" through dance performences. Hitler and all dictators play it cool too, to show they are in command.

Contra was done by PM Modi today when he spoke in empty room through a mask. Since he believes only fear can save people now.

***

Ravan was over-confident. And Mandodari was over-panicking.

Whoever said "opposites attract" did not think that sometimes opposites also drain each other out.

***

In Ravan's court, Indrajeet is sharing his own opinions but still empathizing with, respecting and agreeing to Ravan.

Indrajeet is an arrogant over-confident person too; still he is able to maintain the fine balance since he respects Ravan.

***

Listening to how Ravan is giving military commands, it is clear that he is a War Veteran and his army is Battle Ready.

I am worried that for long time, Indian Army has not taken part into real wars. Hence Supreme Court is inducting women into it.

***

The way Vibhishan is guiding Ram and his army, it is clear that he is 'Master Mind'. Had he chosen to play 'double game', Ram's army would have been trapped and completely destroyed.

We should never make our entire strategy based on one man's mind

***

Shri Ram has such a pleasant personality that we tend to forget that he is a Prince and well versed in Military affairs.

But the moment he changes his tone and gives command, we get goose bumps. Jai Shri Ram!

***

There is no better War Cry than "Har Har Mahadev!"

To the believers it gives an adrenaline rush like nothing else and to the enemies it terrifies and shrinks their hearts like fearful lambs.

***

It pains to see young Angad being sent as messenger to enemy camp so near to the war. In today's times it can be said that he was sent because he was "expendable".

Yet Shri Ram gave everyone a chance to be hero. It was Angad's chance to be a Hero.

 ***

Persuading Ravan to surrender and return Sita looks like an absurd idea. Ravan was known to be a great warrior who had even defeated Indra.

It seems the persuasions are more to send a message to public to explain difference between right Vs wrong.

***

Seems what Angad did was playing to his "own strength". E.g. if he fought Indrajit in archery, he would have got defeated like Hanuman ji had.

Playing to one's own strenth, one can defeat even much stronger competitors.

***

Like Ram wanted to show life of an "ideal man"; Sita ji was also teaching how to be an "ideal wife".

Alas, today's modern women have learnt more from American women than from Sita. I am sure they would be finding Sita and Mandodri regressive.

***

Kaikei may be a better role model as per today's feminist morality.

Kaikei took part in wars (men's domain), made her own demands (her life, her choice) and made her husband suffer (feminism's 'nirvana').

***

Gada is a weapon of ancient Hindu Gods.

Do you know that Gada originated in India? During wars, the strongest warriors in the army would use Gada as it needed high strength apart from skill.

***

Ravan's idea to have 1:1 fight with Ram to settle it should be appreciated. Ram should have taken the offer.

Everyone on Ram's side kept "insulting" Ravan. But now Ravan has easily defeated Sugreev and Lakshman. Actions speak louder than words!

***

Seems just killing Ravan was not Ram's idea. That would have been temp relief.

Idea was to openly establish what is right and what is wrong; hence public humiliation and insults to Ravan. And Ram wanted to kill all other incorrigible Rakshasas too.

***

Kumbhkarn worshipped his elder bro and gave up his life for him. Same for Lakshman.

In Indian culture, elder bros are fatherly figures. They also treat younger bros like sons.

It was not so in Muslim dynasties where bros killed bros for throne.

I have read that in medieval Islamic dynasties, there was no such rule that elder brother would inherit the throne.

Hence as per custom, brothers would fight and the one who killed or chased most others would become the king. Even if he was the youngest brother.

***

Kumbhkarn followed his family dharma by remaining loyal to his brother. He would die with satisfaction.

Vibhishan got his brother killed. He will live entire life with regret.

Vibhishan should have quit Ravan but should not have got him killed.

***

Vibhishan wanted to rule Lanka with dharma; hence he gave up loyalty to his family. 

But he forgot that he was not immortal. In a few years a new barbaric king could reign and Adharm could return. So was his disloyalty and blemish worth it?

But if brothers start killing brothers, entire society would collapse. Hence I think Vibhishan was wrong. He should have just abandoned Ravan but should not have got him killed like that. Sri Ram would have found a way to kill Ravan on his own.

***

If he looks funny, if he sounds funny, then he must be funny, right? Kumbhkarn was not your regular funny guy.

All epics show some complex characters who are neither 100% good nor all bad. Reflecting on those, we can get some useful insights.

***

Ravan was an unparalleled victorious king. His sons and brothers were great warriors. His capital was made of Gold i.e. he was very rich. Still, he met his end.

If God is not with someone, all his material wealth and powers can't help him.

***

If Ram wanted, he could have got Sita back without a war. E.g. a flying monkey warrior or a secret airplane could have brought her back.

But it seems he used this opportunity to fulfill his plan to eliminate all Rakshas from this earth.

***

Ravan had an intelligence failure.

It was a blunder to keep a "saintly" Rakshasi like Trijata to guard Sita.

***

Can't see Vibhishan fighting yet. He is just busy revealing Ravan's secrets and guiding Ram. Seems he planned to get the throne without fighting.

Similarly, employees with poor technical skills often indulge in office politics to get promotions.

***

In childhood, these flying arrows with animated sparks around those looked so fascinating!

After growing up, these arrows still look fascinating!

***

It seems "sledging" during Cricket is inspired from wars during Ramayan!

Everyone is chiding others before and during fighting!

***

Seems Ravan and Ram had a personal issue. Lakshman insulted Ravan's sister, Ravan abducted Ram's wife. Crimes are personal in nature. Why should there be a full fledged war between two armies? There should have been 1:1 contest to settle the matter.

***

Shri Ram watching the war from sidelines while monkey warriors and Rakshas killed each other is not a good scene.

It still seems that there should have been only a 1:1 fight between Ravan and Ram. Innocent monkeys and rakshas did not need to die.

***

Use of Brahmastra is being shown lightly. But I have read that Brahmastra was like Nuclear Weapon, it would not only kill the target but would do widespread destruction. Hence it was used only when all other options failed.

***

Warriors are invoking divine weapons and using those. To earn those weapons they had done immense tapas earlier.

Tells we can have power only if we do enough sacrifices to earn those. Nothing comes for free. Except free power in Delhi upto Rs 800.

***

So many innocent folks died just because Sita ji wanted her pet deer. Just because Surpnakha could not control her lust. Just because Kaikei was too greedy. Just because Manthra was allowed to counsel a queen.

***

It was Lakshman ji who harmed Surpnakha, but Ravan took revenge on Ram.

Why?

***

Shri Ram did not have kids yet. Perhaps he won't understand Ravan's plight.

***

Meghnad is so loyal. His parents would be proud of him. From their point of view.

***

Actor playing role of Meghnad should get  national award for best acting. His only competitor seems to be actor playing Sugreev.

***

I remember I was impressed with Meghnad even during childhood.

Despite his birth based circumstances, he was brave, loyal, family man, strategist, and confident. He was almost Kshatriya like. He was even handsom; did not have bad hair/moustache.

***

Looking at the war, it is clear that Ram's army had decided to kill all enemies and take no prisoners.

Options: Ravan's sons could have been defeated but let go, or cut their hand and let go, or capture them alive and bargain for Sita's exchange.

***

All sons and brothers of Ravan are dying. But Surpnakha is missing from the scene. Why is she not fighting the war? If women were not allowed in war, she could have disguised herself as a man and gone to fight it. After all, she started it all.

***

I read: Surpanakha is not mentioned in the Ramayan again and Valmiki does not comment on her eventual fate. But perhaps she would have continued to live at her brother Vibhishan's court, when he succeeded Ravan as King of Lanka."

***

Whenever an army comes out of Lanka's Main Gate, it appears as if villagers are running away after looting free stuff from Rahul Gandhi's "Khaat Pe Charcha" rally.

***

It seems people during Ramayan times did not know any 'gaalis', otherwise there would have been many 'beeps' while Lakshman and Meghnad challenged each other.

***

Hanuman ji acted like an Opener in a Cricket match who got out quickly. Now he is not removing his gloves and pads and watching the next batsman hit boundaries with eagerness. "Maar Kohli, maar!": Rohit Sharma.

***

Lakshman ji was the first famous person who went on 'coma'. Pray, get well soon

***

Meghnad says that a son's dharma is to serve his father. Kumbhkarn says a brother's dharma is to serve his elder brother. There is no problem if a man serves another man. But the moment a woman says it is her duty to serve a man, be it her father or husband, it becomes offensive.

***

Meghnad is an underrated character of Ramayan. He looks like an ideal son.

***

If Dashrath did a mistake, Shri Ram would just obey him without questioning him. On the other hand, Meghnad would counsel him and suggest. Though if needed, he would even give up his life for father.

Meghnad is an alternative model of an ideal son.

***

Divine weapons declined to hurt Lakshman even if Meghnad used those against him. It is "not fair" from Meghnad's point of view. If Shri Ram and Lakshman had to not play within the rules of the game (nature), why all this drama of war etc?

***

Meghnad did not do any crime but got punished. So did Kumbhkarn and other warriors of Lanka.

This is why the "leader" should always be ethical and wise. Otherwise a mad king can get everyone destroyed.

***

Entire Lanka is getting destroyed just because Sita ji was held captive there. Why did not they, including Mandodri and 'Nanaji', try to set Sita free or send her off secretely so that the root cause of their destruction could be eliminated?

***

When Ravan says, "Nana ji", it seems something is wrong. How could a person like Ravan say something so cute.

Human expectations are like that - we expext bad people to be totally evil and good people to be totally flawless. This is "human bias".

***

Ravan became unconscious and his sarathi took him away. When he wakes up, he returns to fight. But Shri Ram calls him a coward and accuses him of running away from the war; which was not true. This part of the "script" is weak, Ramanand Sagar Sir.

***

Jamwant attacked Ravan while he was fighting with Vibhishan. This must not be as per "dharma". But everyone would look the other way because he is part of the "good guys" team.

***

Whenever Ravan's army comes out of Lanka's main gate, it seems loafers are running out of a quarantine facility. And the monkey warriors start fighting them immediately. War breaks out even when the main gate is still open!

***

Vibhishan never dreamt of defeating Ravan and hence never dared to fight him earlier. Now he picks up Gada and goes to fight when he sees Shri Ram taking arrow aimed at him. It is an early example of "guilt trip".

***

It seems "shields" were not yet discovered during Ramayan days, otherwise Shri Ram need not come before Vibhishan to save him. Perhaps because both bow & arrows and Gada engaged both hands and hence no hand was free to hold a Shield.

***

After day's war is over, Lanka's soldiers are once again running towards the main gate in exaxtly the same manner they came out of it in the morning. Seems there is good arrangement of tasty food inside.

***

Before this, Shri Ram had killed Tadaka who was female. Hanuman killed Simhika, female shadow-demon. In Mahabharat also, Shri Krishn had killed Putana. Evil has no specific gender. And Ravan would care least about gender before killing someone.

***

When Ravan decides to kill Sita to end the cause of the war, an old guy asks him not to do it since women were "avadhya" (non-killable) as per "dharma" and Ravan abandons the idea. As if Ravan really cared about Dharma! This is perhaps weak script.

***

Ravan says that only a King should give punishment to others and Ram was not authorized since he was living life of a Tapaswi.

Modern law would tell that Ravan was correct and Shri Ram should have filed an FIR instead of taking law in his hands.

***

Ultimately it has come to a 1:1 battle between Shri Ram and Ravan. Seems all others died for nothing.

***

All Rakshasas and villains keep laughing aloud as if they are very happy. Their laughter is a symbol of their arrogance.

Earlier PM Modi had joked at Congress's Renuka Chowdhury that "Since Ramayan show, we heard this kind of laughter only today".

***

Ravan is dead. Whole world is safer now. More than that the law is established that Evil should be destroyed.

***

Vibhishan is telling us that we should say nice things to evil people only after killing them.

***

Vibhishan is crying like an evil woman who would torture her husband until he is alive, but the moment he dies she will start crying and saying nice things about him.

***

The amount of footage our TV serial has given to Vibhishan seems unnecessary. It is distracting. 50% of our focus is wasted on a Rakshasa named Vibhishan. Main focus should have been on Shri Ram.

***

It seems Malyavan "Nanaji" was waiting for this moment. He seems fully prepared for Ravan to die so that he could surrender and save his own life.

***

It seems there was no "democracy" in those times. Who should be the king of Lanka was decided by a foreign power Shri Ram.

***

Vibhishan is a role model for "dhongi" people. How can he cry like this when he wanted this so much for many years and had worked so hard to get to this day?

***

Ravan's effigy is burnt every year so that people are reminded that evil needs to be destroyed.

Evil should not be allowed to die a natural death because then evil's evil children will continue to rule. Evil needs to be stopped now, ASAP.

***

Lakshman ji did "Rajyabhishek" of Vibhishan as well as Sugreev. Not Shri Ram.

Tells that devotees of Ram (God) have to do much of the good work themselves. God does things by the hands of devotees.

***

Sita ji is frozen after hearing the good news. Sometimes you wait for something for whole life and when it comes, you don't know how to react!

***

It may look like Shri Ram has saved Sita, but it can also be understood that Sita ji has also saved Shri Ram. Her very "faith" would have inspired Shri Ram to do impossible tasks.  Metamorphosis of a Prince into God.

***

Sita ji and so many sages and saints were saved because of their "faith". If they did not keep faith, Shri Ram would have just passed by and they won't have recognized him and would never get saved. Hence it said that faith can move mountains.

***

The fire ritual (Agnipariksha) was a symbolic ritual to show the power of a 'Sati' woman. That such a woman becomes so divine due to purity of her soul that she can do impossible tasks like walking in fire.

***

Some egoists quote "Aham Brahmasmi" to prove that they are also God. But Shri Ram who is God, is saying that he is "manav". It is humility.

***

Dashrath ji is now taking back his "shraap" (curse) on Kaikeyi. Logically, if he could take his curse back then he could also have taken his boon ("vardaan") given to Kaikeyi back earlier!

***

After winning two states, Shri Ram is now returning to his home state. He had that clarity and control.

In Game of Thrones on the other hand, after winning key battles, good queen Daenerys decided to go on further; and became "Mad Queen".

***

Bharat ji had done no crime. But he suffered every moment in guilt for 14 years. Sometimes children have to suffer due to bad Karma of their parents.

***

Shri Ram's footware were kept as a symbol by Bharat so that Ram can be the symbolic King while Bharat acted as a trustee.

During #ShaheenBaghProtests, the women also symbolically left their footware at the protest site when they couldn't continue.

***

Widows of Dashrath ji are wearing all white clothes; white being symbol of purity as well as grief. But today, except in villages, Hindu widows can be seen wearing colored dresses. If they are young, they can also remarry and make fun.

***

Valmiki Ramayan ends after Shri Ram's coronation. The later part called "Uttar Ramayan" is a later addition and it has all the controversial but not real parts like Sita's exile or Shambuk vadh.

Shri Ram Never Banished Ma Sita to Forest

***

- Rahul Tiwary 

Ads During Ramayan On DD National 

Divyanka Tripathi is giving better returns on equity to #Ghadi Detergent than Amit ji. Kyonki unke paas bhi Ghadi hai!

***

In #Goldi Masale Ad, when Salman Khan says, "Jahan bhi jaye Rishte banaye", he has that knock in his voice which borders on some evilness.

*** 

In #PolicyBazar ad, when the guy says, "Mahanga Nahi hai!", it is a perfect mixture of begging, boosting, helping and giving one gentle final push into the well.

***

In #IRDAI Ad, man craves for oily food, woman stops him. Man fails to do Yoga, women pity him. Woman is shown fit and jogging.

But this is not "gender bias" since here only all "men" are shown stupid.

***

The girl in Zalim lotion ad should get national award for gender equality because she said, "hame bhi hota hai!"

So far only men were defamed in all anti-khujli medicine ads.

***

DD is showing Ads of #Mahabharat during Ramayan.

It is like bride's sister comes along with the bride to meet the boy. It is confusing and better be avoided.

*** 

Seems #IRDAI is spreading misconception by saying, "tum dono ne apna beema karaya?"

Conceptually only earning member should take Life Insurance to protect dependents. If both husband and wife work, no one is dependent.

***

DD is showing Ads of #Mahabharat during Ramayan.

It is like bride's sister comes along with the bride to meet the boy. It is confusing and better be avoided. 

- Rahul Tiwary