Recently a politician remarked comparing badly dressed women to the mythological character Surpanakha. Who is Surpanakha?
Surpanakha, a character from Valmiki’s Ramayana, a demoness in her literary portrayal, sister of the mighty Ravana. Personally, one of the greatest Shiva bhakts, demon-brahman, highly knowledgeable, and a great scholar, Ravana has always been an object of mystery and curiosity.
Apart, coming back to the demon damsel, some texts describe her as a thin, slender beautiful person with brown eyes and her portrayal in other media is that of a wild being.
She being from the demon clan or close to that, had her own rules in life. She never held herself back and got what she wanted. Dressed as she wanted and was a total Boss-Lady! Never waited for her parents to find her the “perfect family” to fit into, of course with the additional ‘husband guy’; always expressed openly her deep-seated and shallow love and feelings of want and pleasure. Never body-conscious, considered herself very beautiful; not very sure whether it was confidence or delusion, but given today’s Climate crisis-ridden Kali-yug, either of the two works.
Had this been on someone’s Tinder bio today, they would’ve been such a steal! Then why is she regarded as such a negative persona? Why the antagonist tag? Why is she used as an insult?
So getting back to the context in which the politician quoted her, “badly dressed” women are comparable to Surpanakha, saying that one should wear decent clothes in public places so that “wrongful thoughts do not arise in anyone’s mind”. [Courtesy: The Hindu]
Imagine a woman, so unbothered, unfiltered and badass in Treta Yug [Time period of Ramayan, tentative]. If she can do it, what is wrong with us even trying it? I mean, if someone called me Surpanakha, it would honestly be a compliment, something close to badass-boss-woman!
Not that Sita didn’t get the opportunity of Swayamvara, but was it all that objective and totally up to her to decide and stand by what she wanted to do? I don’t think so….especially after reading Devdutt Pattnaik’s Sita’s Ramayana. Now I don’t usually have the patience to read fiction for fun, but I do fast reading for the material of use-value. The gist I gathered out of it was that there was always some underlying patriarchy to what Sita’s decisions and choices responded to.
Now we all know, Ram decided to carry on with the Vanavasa [exile] and Lakshmana also decided to tag along. Sita being the dutiful wife, she also went along. Picture the perfect epic that we all are so used to. Let us for a moment consider this, what if Sita had been exiled? Would she have gone alone? Would Ram have agreed to tag along? Or would she just have been denied permission under familial pressure, just like we get denied permission for stayovers? I haven’t seen my boyfriend, now fiancé get denied permission for going out, because it’s too late or that it’s a new friend…. Sometimes I wonder whether it is just that they impose something or that I don’t have the heart to rebel?!
Our mythology and history have been full of characters/people that have inspiring backstories, good parts and bad parts. Women characters that if rebirthed into the modern world, would make much more sense than then.
Sita is no doubt an ideal impression of a dutiful wife and devoted person for many, but if you ask me…..Surpanakha is the ‘it’ girl, confidant, over-confident, who walked around to slay the world and its beings, figuratively and literally. She was just probably born in the wrong Yug [Era].
She would’ve ruled the world right now, and imagine her as the most powerful leader right now….What a place that would have been…! 😉
Image Credits: www.indianwomenblog.org
Ms.Iyer @aamchi_mumbai 