Scan barcode
A review by srivalli
The Liberation of Sita by Volga
medium-paced
2.5
2.5 Stars (Super Long Post Alert)
One Liner: Could have been wow, ends up okay (with a fair bit of ideology sprinkled in)
The book is a collection of five interconnected short stories leading to a common point- Sita’s Liberation from this world at the end of Ramayana. It was first written in Telugu as Vimukthi and translated into three Indian regional languages before being released in English.
In this book, Sita meets and learns from other ‘minor’ women characters like Surpankha, Ahalya, Renuka Devi, and Urmila, after being abandoned in the forest and raising her twin sons as a single mother. The book is supposed to re-produce the narrative to show Sita’s journey to ‘self-realization’ and, ultimately, liberation.
Now, the Goodreads blurb also calls the book Volga’s feminist best. The notes at the end emphasize that the book is not simply retelling but revisionist retelling, where the author makes up her own scenes to change the narrative to suit their ideas and viewpoints. The book doesn’t claim to be faithful to the original. I appreciate the move to make the stand clear, except that this could have been mentioned in the beginning (not many read notes at the end).
I realized that (some) retellings follow a similar pattern:
· Strip the original characters of their agency and turn them into empty shells
· Add attributes and traits based on personal opinions
· Rewrite scenes as required
· Give back a teeny % of their original characteristics disguised as someone new
· Call it an empowering revision or retelling from a unique perspective
Anyway, back to the book. This will be a long review, so be warned. I’ll do my best to structure it for better clarity.
The book starts with a story titled The Reunion, where Sita meets Surpanakha. However, I’ll start my review with the fourth story, The Liberated.
The Liberated
Sita is back in Aydhoya with Rama after the exile, war, and agni parikha. She is eager to meet her sister Urmila only to not find her in the welcome party. Sita goes to meet Urmila in her quarters (and not the palace. They lived in the same palace, with each wing belonging to different members of the household).
Urmila has locked herself in and refused to meet anyone for those 14 years. She and Sita have a conversation about Urmila’s ‘sleep’ throughout the period. This is by far the best story in the book. It uses the original premise of Urmila sleeping for 14 years straight so that Lakshmana can stay awake and guard his brother and sister-in-law.
Here, the author discusses the concept of sleep. Who said it has to be literal Zzzzz? So, Urmila explains how she went through a series of emotions when Sita left with Rama, and Lakshmana followed them and how locking herself in a room due to anger turned into introspection, acceptance, and self-realization.
I love how Urmila is very clear about what she expects from her husband. They weren’t the same people as 14 years ago. He would have to accept the new her to find peace because she is at peace with herself and is willing to offer the same to her husband if he was ready to accept it.
A great perspective, but somehow diluted by the lengthy monologue where Urmila’s journey is summed up in the driest way possible. What may have sounded heartfelt in Telugu reads like a script in English (and not for the first time). Also, Lakshmana doesn’t just go away with Rama. He informs Urmila. They have a discussion, and then he leaves.
I can’t help but wonder why Sumitra doesn’t get a single mention in the book (not even in this story).
Music of the Earth
This is Ahalya’s story, majorly revamped from the original. Here, Sita meets Ahalya twice- during exile and after being abandoned.
I like how Ahalya doesn’t want pity or to be treated as a victim of patriarchy. She talks about how truth and untruth don’t have clear-cut distinctions and cannot be generalized. Good again. She also advises Sita to not agree to a trial set by a man. Agreed again.
However, this story is marred by a few issues:
- Anti-Brahmanism
- Superimposing Aryan invasion theory
- All men are bad rhetoric (actually, only Brahmin and Kshtiya men are bad, that too if they belong to Arya Dharma)
- A controlling and authoritative Rama (apparently this is the standard Marxist theory; got to know when researching for this review)
- A meek, weak, and naïve Sita who sounds more like a petulant girl from finishing school in love with a Duke than the woman she is. (this must have influenced Sita’s character in Kaikeyi)
What’s the point in referring to her multiple times as the Daughter of the Earth if she is stripped of all the characteristics that make her who she is?
I don’t think I’ll understand why authors need to turn one character weak to elevate another? Why can’t two strong women co-exist and learn from each other? Isn’t that what feminism should be about? Strong doesn’t equate to flawless. It doesn’t mean the character doesn’t have any vulnerability.
And… the biggest issue is the rewritten version of Ahalya’s story. Why not use the original to initiate the all-important decision as it was done with Urmila’s story?
Imagine Ahalya and Sita meeting after Ahalya returns to her original form from being a stone.
Imagine Ahalya asking Sita, “why is that one man decided he could satiate his desire by tricking a woman, why is that another man decided he had the power to curse her for it, and why is that the woman had to lie as a lifeless stone until a third man arrived years later to relieve her from the curse? Why couldn’t the woman decide what she wanted to do after the incident? Why is it that she had to go back to normal after everything had happened?”
And then continue with Ahalya talking about how her time spent as a stone gave her a lot to think about and that she doesn’t owe an explanation to anyone. When there is enough in the original to raise questions (which is the true intention of the scriptures), I see no reason to create new scenarios.
Oh, before I forget. Sita referring to Ahalya as ‘sister’ in a couple of dialogues made me wince. It would be ‘mother’. Sisterhood in feminism doesn’t have to be so literal.
The Sand Pot
This story is about Renuka Devi, Parashurama’s mother. This one suffers from the same issues as the previous one. A needlessly rewritten version when the original could have delivered a greater impact.
This one also messes up Sita’s character arc to accommodate a discussion about ‘civilization’ and ‘forest life’. On one page, Sita is the Daughter of the Earth and someone who is the best when immersed in nature. On the next page, we have a Sita asking Renuka, ‘why should people be uncivilized and behave like animals’.
For goodness sake! Nature’s child wouldn’t go around insulting animals or questioning nature’s laws so that she can be lectured by another woman who opposed patriarchy.
And I’m tired of this Aryan invasion/ migration theory being forced on Ramayana. (More about this next) As a Dravidian, I don’t really care for the North-South divide some people are so determined to establish.
The Shackled
This is Rama’s monologue about his life and love for Sita. He reflects on his life and how being a king meant he had to sacrifice his personal life, and the time with Sita in exile was the best part… and you can guess the rest.
I’m not sure what to make of this one. Is it a genuine attempt to present Rama’s side of things (as I have been told the author is mature and balanced, unlike… well, you know if you know)? Or it is an attempt at damage control by trying to act balanced?
I don’t know.
I’m torn because even though this story gives Rama POV (and let’s consider it a genuine attempt), it comes at the end. So, the last chapter ends with Rama telling the readers that Sita attained liberation while he was still shackled to his Arya Dharma (whatever that even means).
Honestly, this is not what I want from feminist fiction. I want Sita to Show me how she liberated herself. The book has to end with Sita going back into the earth and showing that it inst because she wants to get even but because she has truly freed herself from the bonds in the mortal world and is ready to move on to the next spiritual level. It means she has nothing to tie her to this world- neither love nor hatred.
Sita going back into the earth is my favorite scene in the epic, and the book, for all it does, alludes to it multiple times but doesn’t ‘show’ it to me. A wasted opportunity, IMO.
The Reunion
This is the first and weakest story in the book. The author mentions that she wrote it in response to protest Doordharshan’s denial of airing her drama, and it shows. This was meant to be played on stage, not read on paper.
On stage, dialogues aren’t just words. They are accompanied by the actor’s expressions, body language, voice, intonations, and setting. So when Surphnakha ‘tells’ her story to Sita, we aren’t just reading them. We’ll be feeling the words sink into our minds as our eyes watch the scene.
In the book, the story is as dry as parched earth despite having some powerful words to establish emotion. Was it an issue with the original, or did the translation mess it up? No idea.
That said, this one also suffers from the same ideological thrusting when unnecessary. For example,
- Rama and Sita are Aryans, and Rama wants to spread Arya Dharma in the south
- Demons are called aboriginals so that the rishis can be colonizers and invaders (nevermind the Brits & Portuguese, darling)
The author wanted a humane version of Surpanakha. I completely agree with the thought. Just because she belongs to the rakshasa clan doesn’t make her emotions any less valid.
However, Surpankha is what I consider a larger-than-life character (like her brother, Ravana). She has 1000mg potency and strong emotions. What we get is a diluted 50mg version. Though I like how she takes solace in nature, builds a wonderful garden, and even finds a man who loves her for who she is (after being disfigured), I don’t see the need to suppress her natural flair and sensuality to make her seem human.
Let her be flawed and still command empathy from readers. A single dialogue saying she loved her beauty and was proud of her nose doesn’t really suffice. Show her attitude and the change in her over the years. By the way, how many of you know that Ravan killed Surpanakha's husband because he was an enemy, and this is why she lived in the forests (and eventually came across Rama)?
In this story, Sita compares her ‘metal’ jewelry with Surpanakha’s flower jewelry. This one made me laugh as it reminded me of the extravagant gold ornaments we see in mythological Telugu movies. Seems the author took inspiration from those. And, of course, yet another attempt to strengthen one character at the cost of another.
Sita’s Erratic Character Arc
The stories were written over the years and stitched together to form a book. This is way too evident in the overall structuring and character development. There are bits and pieces of Sita’s strength (when she agrees to angi pariksha) or when she is a single mother who gets overshadowed by the desire to strengthen other women and drive ideological narratives of Arya and whatever.
Come on! Here’s a woman who spent 13 years in a forest, one year in a captive, and multiple years as a single mother in a forest ashram. I wish there was more to show the grit and the strength of her will she inherited from her mother (earth).
I like that her archery prowess is mentioned. However, it could have been better utilized. Luv and Kush and Rama have a small but intense face off in the forest (related to the Ashwamedha horse). Rama wonders who the ashram kids are as they display immense archery skills that almost equate his own. Sita arrives at the scene when she realizes what’s happening. That’s when Rama knows how the twins are.
Moreover, Rama’s family, the ministers, and half of Ayodhya arrive to ask Sita to go back to the kingdom. Rama doesn’t send her summons (as if she’s an employee on a long leave). Sita gets the last word and goes into the earth in front of a huge audience, right in the middle of the forest. That is who is she is.
The Illogical Arya Dharma Theory
Now comes the main issue with the book. It continuously tries to force the Aryan invasion/ migration theory in the Treta Yug. So if Parasurama and Rama (and Sita) were Aryans and Ravan, Surpanakha were Dravidians, which god is an Aryan, and which god is Dravidian?
Ravan was a hardcore Shiv bhakt (until his ego took over his wisdom and turned him into an arrogant man). So, does it mean Vishnu is an Aryan and Shiva is Dravidian? Furthermore, Ravan’s father was a rishi (sage). He was no aboriginal.
Then, why does Rama pray to Shiva and Sita pray to Gowri (Parvati)? Why does Hanuman, who is Shiva’s essence, become a Ram bhakt?
If Shiva is also an Aryan, why does Ravan, a Dravidian, consider him his god? Does it mean that Ravan was an Aryan though somehow Surpanakha is a Dravidian? Did the aboriginals pledge loyalty to one Aryan over the other? Why?
And if Dravidians were true natives of the land, why is that nature give birth to an Aryan woman (Sita) and make her destiny’s child? Is it not unfair that she considered her ‘real worshippers’ less than Aryans (if she did)?
As a Dravidian with Dravidian ancestors, I’m having an identity crisis here (not really).
Long story short, Arya ≠ Aryans.
An Arya is ‘a true gentleman or woman’. It has nothing to do with their skin color, features, or region. Unarya is the opposite. Even Ravan is called Arya (or Aryaputra) and so is Vaali.
Read this little snippet for more or check out Ami Gantara’s Ramayana Unrevelled.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/hindudecoloniality/posts/577937237399044/
The End Notes in the Book
I agree with the author when she talks about the issues in the Telugu publishing industry and the lack of translations from Telugu to other national or foreign languages.
Conclusion
The Liberation of Sita has a great concept and shows glimpses of philosophical understanding of the issues. However, it ends up as a below-average piece that doesn’t do justice to most of the characters. As with other retellings, this book, too, suffers from the presumption that the only way to challenge something is to rewrite a new story.
The purpose of scriptures is not to establish blind rules (contrary to popular assumption) but to encourage people to think, speculate, and take what is good for them.
Scriptures are mirrors. They show who you are more than what they are. If you look into an ocean and can’t see beyond your crooked eyeliner, it’s not the ocean’s fault, nor is it shallow and useless.
I can only hope the original is more intense, balanced, and critical than this weak translation in English. Words like machines, mechanical, charge, cities, etc., sound rather odd in mytho-fiction.
***
P.S.: This is exactly why I don’t read so-called retellings and revisions. I end up writing a thesis instead of a review.