Sita and Rama

[Guest guest]

It is known that Vishnu took the form of Rama provide the world a model

of conduct. Why then was it the proper mode of conduct for him in the end of

the Ramayana to dessert Sita in the forest when she was pregnant, just

because a commoner spoke falsely about her? Why didn't Rama owe Sita a

greater obligation to care for her, and his children, than caring for what an

outsider said? This has been really bothering me because I know that God

does not act without meaning. Yet, what is todays society suppossed to learn

from this?

[Guest guest]

> It is known that Vishnu took the form of Rama provide the

> world a model of conduct. Why then was it the proper mode of

> conduct for him in the end of the Ramayana to dessert Sita in the

> forest when she was pregnant, just because a commoner spoke falsely

> about her? Why didn't Rama owe Sita a greater obligation to care

> for her, and his children, than caring for what an outsider said?

> This has been really bothering me because I know that God does not

> act without meaning. Yet, what is todays society suppossed to

> learn from this?

 

Here are some of my own thoughts on this question. Rama is the

epitome of good conduct, as a son, as a husband and as a ruler.

Before he composed the Ramayana, Valmiki asked Narada,

 

ko-nv-asmin sAmpratam loke guNavAn kaSca vIryavAn |

vidvAn ka: kas-samarthaSca satyavAkyo dr.Dhavrata: ||

 

The Ramayana was composed after Narada told him that the one answer

to this question was Rama, the king of Ayodhya.

 

Rama's qualities as a man are described by the words guNavAn,

vIryavAn, vidvAn, and samartha: - all very praiseworthy, no doubt.

However, Rama's actions as a ruler are to be understood specially

from his characteristics as satyavAkya: and dr.Dhavrata:. Rama's

actions are deliberately shown to be those of an ideal man, not

those of God. The powers that are available to Krishna in the

Mahabharata are not available to Rama. Rama relies solely on his

skill in archery to kill Ravana, unlike Krishna who kills Sisupala

with his cakra.

 

No issue is ever straightforward in our epics. Both the Ramayana

and Mahabharata present complex situations where it is difficult to

understand what is dharma and what is not. The Mahabharata is even

richer in such moral complexities than the Ramayana.

 

I view Rama's abandonment of a pregnant Sita as one such complex

issue. Rama is an ideal monarch and at the same time, an ideal

husband. In classical representations of a monarch, his

responsibilities to his subjects are paramount. Rama shows how to be

an ideal monarch, by example, whereas in the Mahabharata, Bhishma

teaches Yudhisthira by precept.

 

Rama, as the ideal monarch, is completely unlike a feudal monarch,

who views his "divine right to rule" as licence to do whatever he

wants. Rama is presented as ever responsive to the concerns of his

subjects. As a husband, he had a duty towards Sita. But as a ruler,

he also had to protect her reputation as the queen. That is why he

asked her to go through the agni-parIkshA, so that Sita's fidelity

was proved before a large audience. Even after that, years later,

there was one subject who doubted her. At this juncture, Rama's duty

as a king responsible for his subjects took precedence over his

duty as a husband responsible for his wife. The subject who

criticized Rama and Sita was not really an outsider to Rama, because

of Rama's duty to him as his king. Thus, the only way to protect

the ideal queen Sita is by sacrificing the wife Sita.

 

It is important to remember that even after sending her away to the

forest, Rama remained true to Sita. He did not marry another woman,

even though polygamy was very much allowed. When performing the

aSwamedha sacrifice, he had a golden image of Sita stand in for her.

All these actions pointed to his subjects, that in his eyes, Sita

was his only wife, and that his physical abandonment of her was only

in keeping with his dharma as a rAjA.

 

Earlier in the Ramayana, there is an episode in which Rama's duty

as a son takes precedence over his duties as a prospective monarch -

when he was told to go the forest. It is tempting, in the modern

context, to analyze these two episodes to mean that in a

patriarchical system, a man's duty to his wife was the least

important. But that is not really the case. At the time he was told

to go the forest, Rama was not yet the king. At this point of time,

Rama's duty to the subjects was more indirect, and in a sense he

himself was a subject of the king, his father. So, his duty to be

true to Dasaratha was more important. Even though Dasaratha himself,

in his heart of hearts, did not want to exile Rama. In all

occassions where personal life and public responsibilites conflict,

Rama is a satyavAkya and a dr.Dhavrata. Nothing could cause him to

abandon a course of action once he had decided upon it. Thus, he did

not cut short his stay in the forest even after Bharata and Kaikeyi

themselves requested him to do so.

 

Rama, Lakshmana and Bharata are all depicted as such uncommon men

that they are somehow superhuman. It is very easy for human beings

to be tempted to a compromise. Even so, the sense of duty that

Lakshmana and Bharata exhibit, is to some extent driven by emotion

rather than reason. Lakshmana's emotional attachment to Rama is

legendary. Even Bharata's refusal to take advantage of the situation

and become king, is driven more by emotion than by reason. However,

emotion can be a double-edged sword, and neither Lakshmana nor

Bharata can reconcile themselves with Rama's decision to send Sita

away. Rama is the one person who does not let emotion ruin his

reason, so much so that he may even be criticized for being cold and

unfeeling. On the other hand, he shows in real life what the Gita

teaches -

 

sukhe du:khe same kr.tvA lAbhAlAbhau jayAjayau tato yuddhAya yujyasva

 

In happiness and in sorrow, in victory and in defeat, Rama's

actions are always reflective of his equanimity and a complete

absence of personal desire.

 

In modern society, what does all this mean for us? Nothing

directly, as there are no real monarchies any more. However, it does

mean several things indirectly. Putting an elected representative

like a president or a prime minister, in place of the king, the

immediate lesson is that such a functionary has to be himself

completely above reproach. He need not be called upon to separate

from his wife for some reason, because modern society is structured

very differently from the ancient, monarchical setup. But a ruler

has many other relationships too - with his stockbrokers, his

accountants, his lawyers, his various advisers, his relatives, and a

whole host of other people. It goes without saying that all these

relationships must also be beyond reproach. He must put his public

duties and responsibilities above his personal likes and dislikes,

and he must be prepared to even sacrifice his personal life and

loves for the sake of his public life. It is needless to emphasize

how important this is, in the context of Watergate, Iran-Contra,

Whitewater, the Bofors scandal in India, and the recurrent financial

scandals in Japan.

 

 

Regards

 

S. Vidyasankar