Dear friends,
on 13th Augusut I posted a lengthy post and a part of it is a bone of contention for several members and I reproduce that part -
"That is why, repeatedly we see the names of lord rama and lord krishna as our ideals on this web site, to whom we have to follow. Lord Rama belonged to feudal system and his values cannot be and shall not be applicalble in present era. What to talk about Lord Krishna, a polygamous, prevailing in half-slavery system."
After that Ms. Avnish Kaur gave several responses in various posts on this subject, they are on 14th August at 23.41, 23.44, 23.46, 23.55 and on 15th August at 00.00, at 1.26, 17.42. She was raising several points but she very seriously not put any objection to any of these posts. But strangely on 18th August at 21.34, after five days of my posting, she came out with "hurt" feeling and posted as follows:
IN the name of Feudal and capitalist sytem no one is allowed to insult god rama and krishna as feudal and polygamous including mr / mrs prabhakar. he needs to apologize for insulting god.
Now why this delayed and strong reaction, people can guess. But after this comment she repeatedly raised the bogey of hurt feeling in various posts. I least bother about those acidic comments, but I thought a clarification is required. Hence, my clarification. It is not at all apology.
Why I said Lord Rama belonged to feudal system, because by that time, human beings left the forests and started to habitate at river beds and agriculture started. With the agriculture farmers community came up. The birth place of lord Rama was near Sarayu river (according to the stories I heard) and it shows, the previous jungle life was ended in Aryan Community and agriculture mode of productions started. Further, having one wife and to commit to her only was also noble thought in feudal system. Hence, Lord Rama's devotion to Sita and exemplyfyng that character along with Lord Rama shows that he belonged to feudal system. That is altogether different thing that his other 3 brothers were also commited to monogamy, but they were not that much prominent and why, you people, who thoroughly read the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, can explain to the general public. The reference of washerman was also there. I hope, every one accepts that Ramayan Period was certainly before the birth of Christ A.C. Before A.C. in India, farming was the main occupation after slavery system. Hence, I categorized Ramayana period as feudal period (predominant mode of production was agriculture and not hunting). If any one has any issue about this, and want us to believe that Lord Rama belonged to 20th century and 21st century, I do not have any objection, because that would not create any hurdle to discharge my responsibility.
Now coming to Mahabharata, the relationship of Draupadi with five husbands, the King Pandu (father of Pandavas) having two wives, when Pandavas went to vanavas, whether Bhima meets Hidamba and Hidambi (Cannabals), reference of Bakasura (cannabal) indicate that in that period hunting and rearing the domestic animals were predominant occupations and in certain tribes, cannabalism was prevailing. Lord Krishna's main occupation was described as rearing cows. Now, Ms. Kaur has objection of my referring him as polygamous. Lord Krishna, as per scripttures had definitely Rukmini (the eldes and peace loving lady), Satya Bhama (very jealousy) and six more important wives. If a person is committed to one lady he is monogamous, if with two bigamous and more than two, polygamous. If, Ms. Avnish says that what I heard is humbug and Lord Krishna had one wife, then also, I have no issue. After all, they are epics and by hearing only I have been saying. If she wants me to believe that Lord Krishna was a monogamous like lord Rama, I have no objection, as it would not hurt me to discharge my responsiblities.
But raising this bogey after a week and later on continuously nagging about this simple issue is somewhat strange thing.
