Meta - Parallels between Baahubali and Ramayana - I
(This is going to be half-assed, because poor Medha is sleepy and exhausted.)
To me, she resonates with Kaikeyi the most and the least. It is halfway between a parallel and an anti-parallel, the way I see it.
Most depictions of Ramayana has Kaikeyi loving Rama as much as or even more than her own son, Bharat. For all intents and purposes, it would seem to be the same with Sivagami and Baahu, who is not the son of her womb, unlike Bhalla. While I personally believe that she loved both all the same and gave her best to do right by both, would I be very wrong to say that perhaps, just perhaps, she was more attached to Baahu because she found comfort in his values? Or the fact that Bijjaladeva didn’t surround him with His High Nastiness supported her comfort. It is not the same with Kaikeyi and Bharat, of course, but the thing remains that the dynamic works.
It works even more when Kaikeyi/Sivagami is influenced to scratch Rama/Baahu out of her good books. Only difference, Bhalla influences Sivagami (from the shadows), while Manthara influences Kaikeyi. Kaikeyi/Sivagami actively work against Rama’s/Baahu’s coronation and use their influence to bring it into effect. And then there is the exile.
Here can come another parallel between, wait for it… Manthara and Sivagami. Yes, I do see that Manthara works better with Bijjaladeva. @mayavanavihariniharini has pointed it out as well. However, if we consider the deeds, rather than the personality – doesn’t she gel better with Sivagami? It is canon that Bijjaladeva had very less inkling of his son’s true plans about the marriage proposal. I did say that Bhalla influenced Sivagami to make him the king, but he didn’t tell her directly. He only brought the events into motion. Manthara, however, used her words, cajoled and coerced Kaikeyi to do what she did. Sivagami? She had no such person to whisper in her ear – she was intelligent enough not to listen to her husband (at that time, before AmarSena happened - after which, I don’t know how much Sivagami took his words to the heart). Oh no, the idea of dethroning Amarendra and making Bhallaladeva the king was all hers, unlike Kaikeyi, who mainly (‘canonically’?) got the idea from Manthara.
Well, at least Manthara had a point. Dasaratha did promise the throne to any son Kaikeyi may give him. And Bharat could have held the throne as well as Rama, I believe. Both Manthara and Kaikeyi knew that. But Bhalla? Sivagami knew Bhalla’s capabilities. Sivagami could have opted for another method. Sivagami knew that Bhallaladeva’s ruthlessness was better served on the battlefield than on the throne. But no, she didn’t. She was her own Manthara, mumbling misdeeds in her own ears.
Now, allow me to act on a personal grudge against Kaikeyi (the only I have - one I formed only after seeing Baahubali). I strongly dislike how Kaikeyi uses her… what would be called ‘feminine wiles’ to activate the incipient boons from Dasaratha. I am all for paradoxical characters, and that we see both the wily side of Kaikeyi as well as the warrior-charioteer side is stimulating, alright. And of course, in a patriarchal society, women have been reported to frequently use such wiles, and I fully approve.
What I don’t approve of, is the shadiness of it all. Kaikeyi sure has authority, as the king’s supposedly favourite queen. Sivagami makes a decision, and she too is in a position of power to make it happen. One would say, that Dasaratha, unlike Bijjaladeva, is the king and the only decision-maker, but time and again we have seen how the monarchs in Ramayana, or at least, in the Raghu dynasty, are bound by their word - ‘praan jaaye par vachan na jaaye’.
What wouldn’t I give for a Kaikeyi who storms in the courtroom, in all her red-gold finery (instead of the wan state she adopted in the kosaghar to mutely protest), and demand that her son be made king, invoking a promise made to her father years ago, in full view of all concerned, bearing all affronts from courtiers and looking Rama straight in the eye. Knowing Rama, knowing the Ikshvakus, it would work too. And ah, that’s what Sivagami would have done, if you know what I mean. The anti-parallels, see?
Could there be a parallel with Surpanakha, for she is the one to muster Ravana’s army against Rama due to an insult? Seeing that Sivagami was the voice behind the intent to kill Amarendra based on a (perceived) transgression…
Now, now, I get that I have angered so many people with this, paralleling (and anti-paralleling, mind ya ;p) this best-loved woman with the three female characters categorically accepted as the villainesses of Ramayana. However, let me make it clear that I am all (and only) for grey characters. I am unsure about Surpanakha’s extremely controversial topic, but Kaikeyi and Manthara do not strike me as the villains in the text. This just goes a little way to show that.
Afterthought: Could Sumantra too be a parallel for Sivagami? He was the Prime Minister of Ayodhya, basically chief advisor or right-hand person of Dasaratha, which seems to be Sivagami’s own position in Bhallaladeva’s court. Canon suggests that Sivagami did not fully know that the punishment would be exile for Amarendra and Devasena, asking the minister as she did. And while her conviction was clear, her reluctance to actually exile them is a personal headcanon. Sumantra was the one who acted as the charioteer, that is, unwillingly sent off Rama-Sita-Lakshman to exile. So… *scratches head*
Tagging @teambaahubali and @teammahishmati for Meta Entry - Milana - Summertime Challenge.
