Response to Mrs. Lavanya Ratnam's question

[Guest guest]

Dear Mrs. Lavanya Ratnam,

Welcome to the group.

 

The answer for the issue raised by you about Rama deserting his pregnant

wife Sita (at the comment of a Dhobi) is rather difficult to answer to fulI

satisfaction. I will make an attempt:

 

Rama was the king of Ayodhya. A king has to set an example to his subjects.

As is the king so are the subjects.

It fell on Rama's ears that

a certain dhobi was criticizing about Rama accepting back Sita, who had spent

an year in Ravana's house.

 

For every one loud mouth, there may be hundreds whispering the same

sentiment. Rama, obviously could not bare the possible ill-reputation that

may come upon him as well as the Raghu family. Although he had previously

tested for himself the chastity of Sita, it is immaterial at this point. What

Rama was doing was for satisfying public opinion. As a ruler of repute, this

is very important, even if the comment is made by an ordinary subject.

Because, rulers and their families have previleges not available to common

people and also have a greater responsibility and accountability, which oculd

mean an undue suffering. Thus, he banished Sita. It is quite clear that he

did not do this happily. He entrusted his most trusted brother Lakshman to

do this job.

 

In this context, I like to share another episode from recent History, which

may be relatively easier for us to comprehend as per the modern standars set

by our present day rulers.

Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister with a fairly good popularity.

Raj Narain (a common man who always did his laundry in public), her opponent,

challenged the election in the court based on the mal practises conducted by

her during the polls. He won and the court invalidated Mrs. Gandhi's victory.

The opposition members of the parliment demanded her resignation. Mrs.

Gandhi glued herself to the Prime minister's chair and imposed national

emergency, telling that the whole nation was in danger. The only thing that

was in danger was her seat(even that is questionable as she could have easily

come back considering her popularity). Not only that, Indira Gandhi brought

her goonda son Sanjay Gandhi (worthy of only banishment) into forefront and

he ran the affairs (did goonda giri) without any elected office!

 

-K. Sreekrishna (tatachar)

 

Here are few other instances in Ramayana which are not straight forward. Yet

th eon eraised by you tops them all.

1. Dasharatha sending his tender son's at the behest of Vishvamitra

 

2. Vali Vadha by Rama by shooting an arrow from behind(hiding)-By the way

during British Raj, Valivadha was been disputed in the

regular court setting with pertinent attorneys representing both sides. I

don't know the outcome.

 

3. Rama's caronation fixed by Dasharatha at a time when Bharatha and

Shatrugna are away. No plan was made to send words for them to attend the

event.

 

4. Dasharatha giving payasam to only Kausalya and Kaikeyi.

 

5. Lakshmana's treatment of Urmila: Leaving her behind and asking her not to

shed even a drop of tear. If Sita has to accompany Rama, why not Urmila

accompany Lakshmana?

 

6. Rama asking Sita to prove her chastity by Agnipravesham.

[Guest guest]

---------------------

Forwarded message:

RANGASWAMY

Tatachar

96-01-16 09:37:35 EST

 

Dear Sreekrishna,

 

I would like to add to your list of unexplainable actions in the

Ramayana.

 

(1) The maiming of Shoorpanaka (It was the rule in those days that

a woman approaching a man in love should not be spurned, much less

maimed.).

 

Also, I beg to disagree with another aspect of your post: "Rama tested

Sita's chastity for himself". This seems to imply that Rama doubted

Sita's chastity while she was in Ravana's Ashoka Vanam. I don't think the

Lord

ever doubted Sita's single minded devotion and dedication to him.

Testimony in support of this fact can be obtained from the Lord's reaction

upon hearing Anjaneya's narration after returning from Lanka.

 

It was only to establish to the rest of the world that Sita had not been

tainted even though she spent several years in Ravana's Ashoka Vanam that

Rama required her to go through the Agni-Pariksha.

This was also done with the view that no stigma should be attached either

to him (the Lord) or to the Raghu dynasty.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Muralidhar Rangaswamy