The Many Shades Of Sita In Bollywood

Hindu mythology and Indian cinema share a mother-son relationship: the former produced the latter. In 1910, at a Christmas cinema show, Dadasaheb Phalke watched Life of Christ (1907). Before he reached home, an idea solidified into a resolve: making a movie on Lord Krishna. Even though it didn바카라�t materialise, he persisted with a mythological, Raja Harishchandra (1913), for his debut.

Four years later, he found his biggest success in Lanka Dahan, where an effeminate waiter, Anna Salunke, played both Rama and Sita. The movie ran from seven in the morning to twelve in the night at the West End Cinema in Bombay, where devotees from nearby towns and villages flocked to the theatre; in Poona, the crowds bashed against the doors; in Madras, the earnings had to be taken in a bullock cart protected by cops. Such zeal, intensifying in the subsequent decades, reinforced a crucial fact about cinema: that it performed, according to professor John Lyden, a 바카라�religious function바카라�.

바카라�Cinema has a mystical quality,바카라� writes film scholar Rachel Dwyer in Filming the Gods, 바카라�in that we may not understand films but we feel them and respond to their emotions.바카라� So a myth-making art form had to meet the literal myths, defying logic, deifying actors, sanctifying beliefs. Only a mythological could compel Mohandas Gandhi to watch his only film, Ram Rajya (1943). Such dramas remained a prominent presence in Hindi cinema post-independence, but they truly came to the fore in the late 바카라�80s, when the serials Ramayana and Mahabharata aired on Doordarshan. Many Bollywood filmmakers, too, have adapted the Ramayana and derived inspiration from it, turning Sita into a literal and a metaphorical figure, showing the varied possibilities of female divinity in an industry dominated by men.

Consider Khal Nayak (1993). Suffused with references to the Ramayana, it posits fascinating interpretations of Sita: bold, cunning, conforming. Ganga (Madhuri Dixit), a cop accustomed to swearing, impersonates a courtesan to trail the Ravan-like Ballu (Sanjay Dutt), notices his (latent) humanity, and tries to change him. Yet when he expresses his love for her, she says, 바카라�Main kisi aur ki ho chuki hoon [I belong to someone else]바카라�, as if objectifying herself. When she faces a trial for betraying the state (and her partner), it바카라�s a man, Ballu, who vouches for her 바카라�purity바카라� in the courtroom.

Sooraj Barjatya바카라�s Hum Saath Saath Hain (1998) adapts the Ramayana in the mould of a family drama. Its Sita (Tabu) is so devoid of agency, wit, and personality (and at times a literal voice) that she elicits nothing but pity. Barjatya바카라�s films바카라�revering Hindu marriages, filial duties, patriarchal expectations바카라�present a cheery version of the Hindu Rashtra. So the movie informs us, more than once, that even though born and bred in pardes, Sadhana hasn바카라�t forgotten her sanskaar. She never acts, questions, or retaliates. (She바카라�s so docile that her epitaph could have read: Born. Smiled. Died.)

Such portrayals of Sita abound in Bollywood films. They depict her like a traditional heroine: diminishing her identity and tying her essence to a man. In Adipurush, Janaki (Kriti Sanon) hardly utters a line without invoking her husband (Prabhas). She continues to talk about his bravery, even when she is in danger. Even in RRR (2022)바카라�an inventive adaptation, where Hanumana saves a kidnapped Rama바카라�the portrayal of Sita (Alia Bhatt) remains as muted. The symbolic Sitas in Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham and Gadar (Kajol and Amisha Patel) are devoted figurines바카라�the former just has a sense of humour.

Mani Ratnam and Rajkumar Santoshi, though, have challenged themselves as well as their audiences. Raavan바카라�s Ragini (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan) is fierce, fearless, relentless; she rebuffs, challenges, threatens. When her captor바카라�s (Abhishek Bachchan) backstory moves her, she prays in front of a Vishnu statue, asking for ruthlessness, not compassion. When she meets her husband Dev (Vikram), a cop, she asks him a question that cuts deeper than it seems: 바카라�Did you come here for me or for him?바카라� And when Dev questions her character and demands a polygraph test, the lines between Rama and Ravana begin to blur.

At one point in Lajja (2001), Janaki (Madhuri Dixit), a theatre actor, enacts a scene from the Ramayana. Her boyfriend Manish (Samir Soni), playing Rama, has dumped her minutes before the play, calling her promiscuous. As his Rama continues to malign Sita, Janaki recognises herself in the deity바카라�her suffocation, her humiliation, her frustration바카라�and sees Rama in her partner: his arrogance, his ego, his entitlement. 바카라�Was it my fault that Ravana kidnapped me?바카라� she asks him. 바카라�I want an answer: Do you love me?바카라� He talks about upholding society바카라�s ... 바카라�I바카라�ve married you,바카라� she interrupts him. 바카라�Not society.바카라� A defiant Sita makes the audience restive. But she doesn바카라�t care. Dancing in a party of one, she unleashes a tandav. 바카라�Are you with me? Answer me. Tell me.바카라� When Lakshmana coaxes her into giving the agni pariksha, she snaps, 바카라�Aye, I don바카라�t want to prove, disprove anything. Especially to someone who doesn바카라�t believe me, doesn바카라�t trust me. And since we바카라�ve both stayed away from each other, we바카라�ll both step into the fire.바카라�

In current times, such scenes would be snuffed out. Or many more in Nina Paley바카라�s Sita Sings the Blues (2008), an animated musical, which tells the stories of Rama and Sita intercut with the filmmaker바카라�s own souring romance. Three shadow puppets provide crucial context (and consistent humour). Here바카라�s how one of them paraphrases Sita바카라�s threat: 바카라�You still have one last chance, Ravana, because once Rama comes here, you know, your ass is grass.바카라�

Dignifying Sita바카라�s perspective, it foregrounds several aspects of the epic ignored by many Indian directors. After the Lanka war, Sita steps into the fire to prove her purity, then endures another humiliation when Rama, hearing rumours about her in his kingdom, banishes her to the forest. A pregnant Sita, escorted by Lakshmana, makes the long journey, spilling rivers of tears over a literal river. In the forest, she continues to pine for her husband, gives birth to Lava and Kusha who, via Valmiki, learn to sing songs 바카라�praising바카라� Rama: 바카라�Sing his love, sing his praise/ Rama set his wife ablaze. Got her home, kicked her out/ To allay his people바카라�s doubt.바카라�

An obvious question: How can the Sitas of Adipurush and Hum Saath Saath Hain differ so much from the ones in Lajja and Sita Sings the Blues? Its answer prompts another question: What do we talk about when we talk about the Ramayana: Valmiki바카라�s (the original) or Tulsidas바카라� (a 16th-century adaptation)? Have countless Bollywood filmmakers prioritised one version over the other, shrinking and obscuring Sita? The latter, written in accessible Awadhi, outweighs the former in popularity and reach. They also have crucial differences, such as Valmiki바카라�s Ramayana not mentioning the Lakshmana Rekha. The 16th century version also depicts a much more hagiographic portrait of Rama as compared to the original.

바카라�Unlike Rama, whose divinity increases after the Valmiki text,바카라� writes Wendy Doniger, a renowned Indologist, in The Hindus: An Alternative History, 바카라�Sita was a goddess before Valmiki composed the story.바카라� Valmiki does 바카라�not erase바카라� her divinity but 바카라�largely ignores it바카라�, adds Doniger, whereas Rama, a 바카라�god in the making바카라�, has 바카라�moral imperfections바카라� that 바카라�future generations바카라� scurry to erase. 바카라�The two meet in passing,바카라� she concludes, 바카라�like people standing on adjacent escalators, Rama on the way up, Sita on the way down.바카라� This compulsion to favour one character in lieu of another arises from the very essence of the epic. 바카라�Rama바카라�s mistreatment of Sita,바카라� explains Doniger, 바카라�creates a problem바카라�the justification of Rama바카라�that inspires later Ramayanas to contrive ingenious solutions.바카라�

Sometimes what we read in a text바카라�or what text we choose to read바카라�says as much about the piece as it does about ourselves. So you wonder what would have Hum Saath Saath Hain바카라�s happy family looked like had Barjatya preferred Valmiki over Tulsidas? Because, according to Doniger바카라�s translations, the filial relationships in the original are far more complex. Here바카라�s how Lakshmana reacts when he finds out about his brother바카라�s banishment: 바카라�The king is perverse, old, and addicted to sex, driven by lust [2.18.3]바카라�바카라�referring to Kaikeyi바카라�s 바카라�sexual blackmail바카라�. Rama is as scathing: 바카라�I think kama is much more potent [for him] than artha or dharma. For what man, even an idiot like father, would give up a good son like me for the sake of a pretty woman? [2.47.8-10]바카라�

When Sita hears Rama바카라�s wail in the woods, she urges Lakshmana to help his brother. He refuses, recognising the trick, saying Rama can take care of himself. 바카라�You want him to perish, Lakshmana, because of me,바카라� she says. 바카라�For with him gone, what could I, left alone, do to stop you from doing the one thing you came here to do? I would not even touch another man, not even with my foot [3.43.6-8, 20-24, 34].바카라� 바카라�Damn you, to doubt me like that,바카라� Lakshmana replies, 바카라�always thinking evil of others, just like a woman [3.43.29].바카라� Valmiki바카라�s Sita, explains Doniger, is 바카라�not a doormat바카라�. She even clashes with Rama on issues that probe his character. When they enter the forest, she asks him why he 바카라�carries weapons in this peaceful place바카라�, translates Doniger, especially as he바카라�s 바카라�adopted the attire (and, presumably, the lifestyle and dharma) of an ascetic바카라�. He says his weapons will protect Sita and other defenceless animals. In an 바카라�impassioned discourse against violence바카라�, Sita tells him that she fears 바카라�he is by nature inclined to violence바카라� and just carrying the weapons 바카라�will put wicked thoughts in his mind [3.8.1-29]바카라�.

But as times changed, so did the conception of Sita. The 바카라�later Brahmin imaginary바카라� diluted her 바카라�dark, deadly aspect,바카라� writes Doniger, 바카라�and edited out her weakness to make her the perfect wife, totally subservient to her husband. How different the lives of Indian women would have been had Sita, as she is actually portrayed in Valmiki바카라�s Ramayana (and some other retellings), been their official role model?바카라�