Sthree Dharma

[Sunder]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->To summarize, the point I am trying to debate here is limited to the "extent of women independence and freedom” for a successful family life and good culture of the nation. My concern here is, of late, women is taking ‘independence and freedom’ for granted and crossing beyond their limits.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Freedom by definition has no limitations. If there are limitations, then it is not called freedom, it is called containment.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is that responsibility ?
To the best of my knowledge when you define responsibility, there will be an override on the freedom and independence.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Freedom is the ability to exercise one's will without any coercion or constraints. Freedom is the ability to move around unrestricted by 'external' pressures. Responsibility can best be defined as how Accountable one is for their actions. Responsibility and freedom are NOT mutually contradictory. A King has full freedom to exercise his will over his subjects. But he is responsible enough not to kill everyone in his kingdom just because he has the freedom.

I hope this point is clear.

You have posted a few questions which seem to have had my attention.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Women have the freedom and independence to have sex with everyone in the society ?
   If not, will you define this as a rule (or) how will you define ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. I honestly believe that any being belonging to the animal kingdom have the freedom to mate with anyone of it's choice. If not, then the process of natural selection would be meaningless.

Just because women have the freedom to mate with anyone of their liking would not mean they would be irresponsible enough to. Sadly, in most cases, women end up in marriages with men they hate to live with and are stuck in marriages that they cannot get out of (and vice versa).

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2. Women can walk without dresses in the public ? If not, where is the limit ? How will you define?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, they CAN walk without dress in public (as do some tribes) and as did our ancestors.. Does this mean they are irresponsible enough to? There again comes the difference between freedom and responsibility. By posing this question, you are strengthening my point and not countering it. Hope you follow this.

Honestly, I would be more worried about men walking about undressed in public. They should be the ones restricted from wearing dabba-kkattu.

(I am sure I know your counter questions to my answers above.) and no, none of the women related to me are irresponsible enough to do any of the above.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3. The freedom and independence given to women is not restricted to the interests of the family ? It means, the husband and wife can take their own decisions ? Incase of conflicts, who will take the final call ? Is it again open ended ?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A free and independent wife (not an arrogant one), would contribute to solving family issues. If there is a conflict in a family, the SANE one will take the final call. And most importantly, the one who is wiser enough to see Dharmic values will have the final say.

Let's say for example, a husband is a chronic alcholic. His wife has a mind of her own and forbids him from drinking. This is a typical family conflict in India.. Here, I would think the final call would be that of the wife and not that of the alcholic husband.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Is not Janaki obey Rama ? She had delivered the responsibilities of a good wife. She did not even look at other men.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, this was Her Impeccable Character. Her freedom was never restricted. Rama never beat his wife or threatened her into submission. She had the freedom of choice.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When Rama suspected her, she did not divorce him. Instead she proved to him that she is a good wife without any blemish. Calling by name is not the big issue. How Janaki called Rama during the normal times ? Overall, if you take , Janaki is submissive to Rama. Probably, you can correct me if I am wrong. I have limited knowledge in the Vedas.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

First, Ramayana is not part of the Vedas. Second, Janaki Matha was not submissive to Rama, nor was he submissive to her - but they were complementing each other instead of being supplementary of one another. Thurd, Janaki matha called Rama by name at all times (she had used other epithets too.) and finally, <b>Rama did not suspect Janaki nor did He ask Her to prove Herself.</b> This is never in the Original Ramayana. (If you read the Yuddha Kanda in Valmiki Ramayana, Rama tells Janaki that she is free to go wherever she wishes to now that she has been freed from Ravana's clutches. She chooses to go into Agni voluntarily, and she was never asked by Rama.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Let us take bible or quran. In Bible also, it is cited that “respect your husband as like God”. Same way quran is also clearly mentions that the “head” of the family is the husband.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry, but neither Bible nor Quran has anything to do with the character of Indian culture.

Raja, a responsible couple are the happiest ones. If I force my wife to be submissive, then some day down the lane I would wonder if she is with me because she loves me or because she fears me. If she lives by my wishes, then she is not living HER life, she would end up living MY life, which is not what I desire.

I have one question for you. Would you force your wife into submission or have a meaningful discussion when there are family issues..?