9058009498

44 SUKUMARI BIIATTACIIAHJI

prescriplive scnnon which Draupadl of the interpolalcd porlion givcs to Salyabhama; thc wife‘s role is tolal self-abncgation, scrvicc to the utlcrmost, not only to the husbands but to their other wivcs and to their fivc hundrcd maid-scrvants. She should forgo hcr own desircs and pleasurcs and live only lor thc husband 's eomforl, plcasure and well-being. Nolhing in thc seriptures punishes a man for bcing libidinous or for overstcpping thc boundaries of the marital conlract; but although scurrilous remarks aboul fcminine scxuality are strcwn all over the epic, yet society, the husband and his family expected slrict adhcrence to monogamy in the woman. Thcrc was no provision, aeknowlcdged by the ruling power-group in the society for thc woman indulging hcr dcsirc outside the bond of marriage. If and whcn such an abcrralion happencd, the woman was to be punished in a crucl and horrcndous manner.

This double standard vitiated the private area bctwccn the husband and wifc; it lcft the man absolutely free to satisfy his libido within and outside wcdlock and kept the woman a prisoner in her own homc. The earlicr parts of the cpie, howcvcr_t kncw, preserved and lolcratcd a morę human codę of conjugal conduct. Whcn Brhaspati *s wife Tfirfi was abduclcd (prcsumably with hcr consent) by Soma and borę the son Budha to the lallcr, Brhaspati insislcd that Tara return to him with the son. We rcmcmber Menelaus accepling and living again with Helen after she had been abduclcd by Paris. Brhaspati ’s humane action was treasured in popular mcmory, but Rama could not bring himself to accept thc innocent Sita. The R&mSyana v8nanis have human values and Sugriva livcd with T3r3 even after she had lived long with Valin. These remain isolated episodes not to be applied to real lilc. Bolh ArundhalT and Anasuya lcft their husbands at their free will, bul whcn they returned their husbands rcccivcd them back without a murmur. In a living, dynamie conjugal relation, there has to be this kind of resilience, thc realislic desideratum which placcs love and allcgiance above temporary lapscs, mishaps or transgressions, especially where even after the body has bccn “tainted", there is thc inner vitalily in bolh the partners to acknowlcdge it for what it is, and not inllate it bcyond all proporations. A hcalthy conjugal lite regards the mind as the surer basis of conjugality. Oncc thc mind is devalucd in conjugal lifc, the wife’s rcmissness - voluntary or accidcntal - are judged by the society, ‘the morał husband*. It finds hcr guilly and punishes her. Gone is the free and frank friendship, the equalily of the spouses, the channs of lovc, and thc voluntary services and sacrilices by bolh partners. The poetry and musie of such a lite are not compatible with suspicion, wardership of the husband and a slrict one-sidcd codę of conduct. The sole bcncfil of the virtual imprisonment of the wife is the guarantee of a truły legilimate hcir. But thc price*in terms of the forfeiled conjugal bliss appears to be disproporlionatcly hcavy.

I submit that at one time vitality and dynamism did characterize conjugal