The king was defeated and killed for abducting a queen of another king. The brother of the killed one was made the new king as the conqueror had no intention of ruling the captured kingdom. The brother benefited for switching sides, to the just side, just in time realizing that just always wins not just but emphatically, though late.
We do know which story that it is all about. It is said that a women cannot rule a land. Why is that so? If she is capable and has a council of members to guide her, why can’t she? The great conqueror erred twice or on even more occasions for different reasons.
To upkeep the law of the land, the surviving brother was married to the widowed queen and then made the ruler. Another reason said is to avoid the widowed queen committing suicide on having lost her husband.
Rules could have been re-written thousands of years ago and paved way for women’s rights if the lord in human form had wanted. But he didn't. No details about if the widowed queen was happy to marry the husband’s brother, who is already married as well. Right from those days it is all male chauvinism be it the lord.
If the women had no right to rule, then at least the law could have been changed for the brother to rule without having to marry his brother’s wife. The conqueror as the conqueror had all the powers and as the lord even more. He could have, but he didn't.
On the second occasion, having returned to his kingdom to assume the rightful rulers role, forced his wife to clear the Agni Pariksha to prove the world that she is chaste enough though having been in captivity for years at her abductors place.
There could be several views in support and against these two issues, but being a form of a lord, if needed equality could have been made to prevail.
He could be portrayed as the greatest ever single girl husband but on these two counts, he can be sued for practicing and propagating male chauvinism.
Don't you think so???
Male Chauvinism of the Lord…
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire