She was always in love with someone, and whenever she fell in love, the person became her whole life.
Anton Chekhov, in ‘Darling’
“Even if we love them with our entire being, even if we’re willing to commit the most heinous sin for their well-being. We must understand and respect the values that drive them. We must want what they want, not what we want for them.”
Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni, in ‘The Forest of Enchantments’
I read a short story (Darling by Anton Chekhov) and a novel (The Forest of Enchantments by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni) this week because of the book club I’m part of. It caused a huge wave of emotions in me. This exercise also prevented me from binge watching Instagram reels or scrolling my Twitter/X feed.
The two stories gave me insight into the complex inner lives of women, showing me that they can sometimes be manipulative, cruel, and devious while appearing as victims outwardly.
I could map these behaviours to people I knew in real life. In these stories, I found that the same person could exhibit both admirable and despicable behaviours.
I am trying to draw a parallel between two entirely different stories, I will write about them individually before touching upon the connection.
Ramayana — Irredeemable?
Firstly, I must credit this book for introducing me to the nuances of each character of Ramayana with greater depth. It made me realise that I had read this story from a children’s book almost twenty years ago.
It exposed the weaknesses of both Rama and Sita quite extensively. Though the prose could have been better in a few places, I feel it does add value to the reader’s experience throughout the book.
One of the members of the book club called Ramayana an irredeemable myth and spat on the author for not being radical enough. This was a revolting thought when I heard it for the first time because I have been idolising Lord Rama right from childhood. He is a role model in some ways.
I partly agreed to this interpretation (i.e. irredeemable story) midway after reading a very disgusting dialogue by Sita. I can also understand that Rama, Dasharatha and Janaka have been portrayed as flawed heroes or losers in some parts of the narrative.
But the book made me realise that Lord Rama as portrayed in the myth is imperfect.
But, I still worship Rama. In real terms my emotional connection with this deity is forged by the good values that he helped propagate in the world.
The net impact of Ram’s legacy is largely positive and one worth embracing. At the same time, it is important to note that his bookish adherence to dharma can be counterproductive and cause harm to loved ones.
A battleground for Feminism?
If one goes by the description of Janaka in this book, one can conclude that he doesn’t even deserve to be a ruler. But somehow this softie portrayal has impressed the female reader as the character is more palatable when compared to a more toxic-masculine alternative.
Janaka’s portrayal appeals to the core audience of the author who consist of women subscribing to different shades of feminism (ranging from give-us-equality to kill-men).
It’s true that Rama and male characters are callous and unreasonable by modern standards. But it doesn’t make sense to apply the standards of today to a period when these myths were composed. The fact that the deity Rama is sacred to millions makes it harder to analyse or criticise in a calm or callous manner.
If the author’s narrative is accurate, Rama did violate Dharma at the time of the bow-test and during the murder of Vali. He is not a textbook truth-teller in that sense. But in front of the public he wants a crystal clear image because he is concerned about his legacy as a perfect ruler.
This made me realise that I have developed similar instincts over the years. I am very concerned about my image. But does that make me less authentic? I don’t believe so.
Anyway, I don’t think that unfair treatment meted out to women in the modern era can be attributed to ‘bad’ lessons learnt from Ramayana. Also, good lessons learnt from Ramayana can’t be sustained if there’s no inherent good in the individual who claims to be inspired by it.
It’s an intense story, real or fictional, that captures human frailties, love and variety of other emotions. Overanalysing it and deifying/villainising the story would be a waste of time.
Olenka’s Shaky Core Self
There are hundreds of opinions about how love changes an individual. Some say that it completely transforms a person. Others say you should protect your individuality. There are no universal rules. Individuals need to find out what works for them.
But surely these two alternatives come with some risks and advantages. A person who completely merges their personality with another like how Olenka does in this story might find it hard to command respect in the equation. It can also lead to devastating sorrow if the relationship built this way collapses.
On the other hand, a person who is too protective of their individuality might never get a chance to deepen a relationship. They might see the other person as dispensable and feel more eager to drop the ball when things get hard. I am not sure if am explaining the emotional ledger of loss and gain accurately in this narrative.
The shape-shifting nature of Olenka, a single competent women as she navigates her relationships is quite reminiscent of behaviours I have seen in real life. Those who adopt this mirroring habit eventually feel that they are not worthy of any love at all.
They accept that every relationship is bound to end and sometimes sabotage it willingly even if the partner was a decent guy. Of course, that doesn’t happen here.
The answer lies somewhere in between. I can say what works for me. I have a strong core personality and set of interests. But it is not so rigid that new things can’t be added around it, provided the new ‘things’ are compatible with my core persona.
I would probably check out songs and shows recommended by a partner but I would not gobble it up blindly. If I don’t like these songs/shows I will not listen/watch them completely. I have reached the optimum point where I have a core self and have enough space for someone to add some new things to it.
Sita and Olenka
Now coming to the grand reveal of my thoughts around the two stories, I see huge parallels between Sita and Olenka. Both adopted the priorities and needs of their partners and ignored the difficult task of building their own persona.
It almost felt that both saw marriage and service to the husband as the core goal of their life. In addition the involvement of gods and rakshasas in Sita’s story makes it more complicated and difficult to distill.
As a result of this life-goal they eventually ended up submitting to the man’s needs all the time while battling a huge void within themselves whenever they were treated unfairly by male figures.
In case of Olenka, the veterinarian puts her down when she tries to participate in a conversation. Rama sends Sita to forest and puts her through Agni Pariksha.
The absence of a core self in both women prevented them from leaving a partner who did not respect their needs. Instead they romanticised humiliation and called it sacrifice. That was the fundamental error. And we fail to recognise the root cause.
Instead critiques of Rama or Ramayana or even Olenka’s partners bash the external events which doesn’t really provide any long term solution to fundamental problem.
The real solution for both Sita and Olenka was to develop their own personality, priorities and boundaries earlier in their lives. That would have made their relationships happier and more fulfilling.
This conclusion applies to both genders, not just women. Have a strong core self that helps you find meaning in life even when you’re alone. The core self is the shield against an abusive or unhappy relationship.