Ordeal by Fire-2-- The case for Sita-piraati - FINAL ARGUMENTS- 2 of 2 (CONCLUDED)

[Guest guest]

Milord "amicus curie", Members of the jury, the

Hon'ble defense-counsel, Sri Sadagopan Iyengar,

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

 

As I rise today today before the court to deliver the

prosecution's closing statement, I confess a grave and

mortal trepidation has suddenly taken hold of me.

 

I stand here today before the court as counsel for

prosecution -- quite firm, on the one hand, in my

resolve to do my job thoroughly: the job of arraigning

the defendent, Sri Rama, for the injustice done by Him

unto my client, Sita-pirAtti.

 

On the other hand, when I realize who it is I am about

to arraign and prosecute, and whom I am about to

gravely charge, I cannot help shudder a little in holy

fear... After all, who am I, a mere worm of a mortal,

to dare arraign the Almighty who chose to live amidst

us in the human garb of Rama?

 

Sir, my sense of fear, however, lasts less than a

fleeting moment. It dissipates as quickly as I realize

who it is that I am representing. I am appearing for

my client, "Sita-pirAtti", who is but human avatar too

of the Consort of the Almighty. She is a Deity no less

endearing and venerable to all of us, and dearer

still, above all, to the Almighty Himself.

 

My fear further gets completely extinguished when I

take a close look at the vast, entire and magnificent

body of evidence which is at hand right here before

me, its nature and purpose too -- Sir, you should

know I'm talking here about the truth of the Srimadh

Valmiki Ramayana. "Know the Truth", is an old saying,

"for the Truth shall set you free". It is on behalf of

that Truth too, besides "Sita-pirAtti" herself, that I

stand before you today to make my case and petition

for the justice that my client so rightly deserves.

 

**************

 

Let me briefly talk to you about the evidence.

 

The Ramayana is a faithful record of the lives of Lord

Rama and Sita-pirAtti as divine incarnations. It

recounts how they took birth on earth and acted out

their respective roles as mere human beings in a drama

they co-scripted, co-directed, co-produced and

co-enacted. And why did they do it? It was for the

purpose of instructing mankind on 'Dharma': that Ideal

which in Man's conception is said to constitute all

that is noblest in human conduct.

 

Having said that much, Sir, I offer this thought to

your lordships for careful consideration: Since both

Rama and Sita-pirAtti were play-actors, they went

about setting both 'positive' and 'negative' examples

of 'dhArmic' human conduct in the Ramayana. They

sought to impress upon Man not only what is "To be"

but also what is "Not to be" (to borrow a useful

expression from Shakespeare's Hamlet). In other words,

through the various scenes in which they played out

the role demanded of them, Rama and Sita each

portrayed not only righteous conduct but

not-so-righteous conduct as well. In episodes like the

"Rama-Bharatha samvAda" and the

"Vibheeshana-saraNagathi", for example, Sri Rama

exhibits to us many lofty standards of "dharma".

Likewise, in scenes like the "sundara-kAnda",

SIta-pirAtti, shows us what high "dharmA" is. But in a

scene like the "agni-parIksha", although there might

be something to say about the righteousness of

SriRama's conduct in it, the real scene-stealer is

"Sita-pirAtti" and she alone! It is entirely her show,

indeed, since the real and substantive lessons of

highest "dharmA" are there to be learnt from

"pirAtti's" role and not from that of SriRama.

 

In trying to unduly project and magnify Rama's image

in that particular scene, the Hon'ble Defense-counsel

has wrongfully sought to steal and appropriate for his

client the thunder that rightfully belongs to Sita.

 

 

******************

 

Milord, hon'ble members of the jury, if we all

properly understood and accepted my submissions above,

then I say we will hardly find it difficult to face

the fact that, in the Ramayana, it is not from Sri

Rama's conduct alone that one may draw lessons on

"dharma". There is plenty more available in the

evidence -- far more, in fact, than some people (like

the hon'ble defense-counsel and his "traditionalist"

commentators, for instance) are normally accustomed to

acknowledge -- there is a great deal more indeed to

learn from Sita-pirAtti's deeds too.

 

Sir, I now further go on to state that there is

nothing in the script of the Ramayana to suggest that

Sita, in her deeds, should never be held to appear

more righteous or more "dhArmic" than Rama. If the

script shows Sita completely overshadowing her

illustrious mate, and if, in a few scenes of their

'avatAric' life together on earth, and particularly in

the "agni-parIksha" scene, we see Sita's conduct

exemplifying a greater "dharma" than Rama's own, I say

that we must not let that fact in any way disturb our

faith in the Almighty. We must not also seek to change

or modify the given script... or otherwise interpret

it in ways which, however well-intentioned they might

be, are still designed to merely fit into our smug

framework of ideological bias and ... or perhaps,

still more probably, just to help calm some wave of

theological doubt down which, alas, has arisen within

us and threatens to rock and perturb the boat of our

inner peace.

 

Our job, members of the jury, I say our job is not to

read non-existent meaning, or otherwise unduly stretch

existent meaning that there is in that body of

evidence called 'Ramayana'. It is not also our job to

go beyond the clearly scripted roles of its principal

characters, Sita and Rama. It is definitely not our

job to imitate what the defense-counsel has done in

his elaborate arguments -- i.e. seeking to divine the

mind of the Divine.

 

Milord, "amicus-curie" and members of the jury, we

hold this trial today of the Divine Couple, engaged

fully as they were in their respective role of

"Plaintiff" and "Defendent" in the "agni-parIksha"

episode. But this is a mock trial. By holding it let

us not in any way fear we are mocking them. On the

contrary, and however ironical it may seem, by

bringing Sri Rama and Sita-piratti to trial in this

august court, and in seeking to playfully "arraign"

one and "seek justice" for the other, actually in a

special sort of way, we honour and celebrate two of

the greatest artists ever to appear on the Divine

Stage-show.

 

*************

 

Let us proceed with the case for prosecution.

 

The particular episode of the "agni-parIksha", and the

events both immediately leading to and following from

it in the "uttara-kAnda", is one where Sita in her

role essayed a "dhArmic" value far greater than the

one Rama demonstrated. It behoves one to glorify

"pirAtti" in this episode and not Sri Rama -- as the

defense-counsel sought to do in his otherwise elegant

article titled "Ordea by Fire-2".

 

The role cut out for the Almighty was to demonstrate a

"dharma" wholly secular in nature. It was "sAmAnya".

No doubt, it represented the highest "dharma", the

highest duty a King, any king, owes his subjects and

the State. And Rama did play that role to perfection

--that role of a king who pursues a pitiless code of

"dharma" for the sake of his people, regardless of

everything.

 

The role the Almighty's Consort had to essay was a far

more complex and formidable one. She had to play the

part of a noble and pitiful lady who is wronged,

reviled and utterly humiliated by her husband in full

view of a watching world.

 

It was a very difficult scene to enact. The script

involved pitting the two principal characters (i.e.

the hero and heroine of the Ramayana), bitterly

against each other. And in the process, Sita had a

message to deliver too -- the message of a "dhArmic"

value more lofty and grand in order than Rama's own.

 

Sita's "dharma" was not secular or "sAmAnya". In

contrast, it was spiritual in character. It was, by

contrast, rather very special, very exceptional... it

was "visEsha".

 

*************

 

In the "agni-parIksha" scene of the "yuddha-kANda" (to

be precise at VI.119.6-8) there is a significant line

spoken by Sita-pirAtti to Rama. It is the line which

clearly makes out the Prince of Ayodhya to be a

"sAmAnyan" in the whole "agni-parIksha" affair.

 

We see Rama fulminating against Sita saying:

 

"Not for your sake, woman,

This war was fought!

It was to redeem my honour!

But I can't take you back

For your sight hurts

As light pains

A diseased eye !

 

All the glory of

pristine womanhood,

All the grace of purity,

and perfection,

All the fire of a true wife

All have taken leave of you!"

 

("sitAyana" by Prof: K.Srinivasa Iyengar)

 

When Sita-piratti listens to the above words, it is

interesting to see almost the very first thing she

says in response:

 

"How can you say these terrible, horrible things to

me?! O! how can you stoop to say these low things to

me as if I were a common woman and you were a common

husband!"

 

It is so remarkable that Sita, for a moment, forgets

all about her chastity, honour and dignity being

called into serious question. Instead all she is

worried about, first of all, is that Rama, her dearest

Rama, the shining paragon of all "dharmA", has

suddenly fallen so low, has stooped to the abysmal

depths of a "sAmAnyan" -- a common man!

 

Given Sita-pirAtti's own words above, there should be

no doubt in our minds, therefore, as to what we must

make of Sri Rama's conduct in this particular episode.

It was "dhArmic", of course... but it was "dhArmic" in

a narrow, secular sort of way... it was "sAmAnya"!

 

***************

 

Which brings us, Milord "amicus curie" and members of

the Jury, to the important task of the prosecution:

the task of framing charges against the defendent.

 

I have before me a host of grounds on which the

prosecution can easily and quite convincingly bring

charges against the defendent. But Sir, I propose to

ignore all but the very last one as being the most

heinous charge:

 

(1) We do not wish to press the charge that Sri Rama

wrongfully doubted the purity of Sita-pirAtti. We

shall ignore it.

 

(2) We do not wish to press the charge that Sri Rama

used invectives of the vilest kind against a poor,

defenceless lady of noble birth. We shall ignore it.

 

(3) We do not wish to press the charge that Sri Rama

heaped indignity upon indignity on "pirAtti"... not

once but on 3 separate occasions -- once in the

"yuddha-kAnda" and twice in the "uttara-kAnda", as

already described in my earlier submissions before the

court (i.e. Posting "1 of 2" in this series).

 

(4) Sir, but we DO WISH to press the charge that Sri

Rama, much as "pirAtti" herself bitterly complained in

the Ramayana, acted like a "sAmAnyan", holding

steadfast to the conduct and "dharmA" that was, when

you carefully examine the facts of the case, far more

becoming of a common earthling than of a moral

celestial!

 

That Sir, is the gravest of all charges which the

Prosecution brings today against the defendent.

 

************

 

In stark contrast to the rather pedestrian

"sAmanyA"-ness (if I may be allowed to coin such an

unusual expression) of Sri Rama's conduct, Milord

members of the jury, I pray that you now pay close

attention to what the Prosecution presently wishes to

present to you as the exceptional ("visEsha") quality

and character of the "dharmA" which Sita-pirAtti, in

her turn, demonstrated to us in the whole affair.

 

Our faith in God is never a constant given. It is

always susceptible to the vagaries of life that all of

us must weather out, whether we like it or not. When

things are all going well with us in life, we

generally find it easy to glow with goodness. When we

have enough wealth, good health and happiness, we say,

"God is good to me. He is happy with my devotion. I'm

happy to be his "bhakta"".

 

But what happens to our Faith when the weather of life

suddenly and rudely turns dark and stormy, as it

sometimes does?

 

What happens to one's Faith when, say, one's only

beloved child suddenly contracts cancer and dies? Or a

hurricane hits town and flattens out one's home and

everything inside it, rendering one totally homeless

and bankrupt overnight? Or, say, one's spouse just

walks out of the marriage one fine morning to go and

live with another?

 

What happens to our Faith when such catastrophes hit

us in life? Faith, the deepest of Faith cultivated

steadfastly over several years, even such Faith

suddenly crumbles within us in those moments. It is

then quite natural for us then to beat our breasts and

wail aloud over our condition, "The God that I

worshipped all these years has forsaken me! For all

the devotion I showed him, this is how he returns it

to me! But why? Why has God heaped such tragedy on me?

Why has he deserted me? And now, why should I have

faith anymore in a God, in this God, who has rejected

and forsaken me?!"

 

That is exactly what all of us will most certainly say

when the Faith that we held dear in our hearts

suddenly fails us miserably. We will then not hesitate

to rebel against and revile the very same God whom

earlier we venerated and worshipped.

 

Our Faith we must realize is always a "fair-weather

craft"...

 

How many of us, on the other hand, can in such moments

of great and painful tragedy conduct ourselves like

Sita-pirAtti did? In the "agni-parIksha" episode, and

in the "uttara-kANda" thereafter, she lost everything

-- her honour, her dignity, her womanhood, her

husband, her place as queen in the palace at

Ayodhya... everything! It was a tragedy of epic

proportions -- tragedy with a capital 'T' -- which few

humans, we know well, can ever bear stoically.

 

And yet, as we see in the Ramayana, did Sita-pirAtti's

Faith in her Rama waver? Did she wail aloud and beat

her breasts in despair like any ordinary ('sAmAnya')

woman or wife would surely have done under similar

circumstances? Sri Rama banished her, heaped

invectives and insults upon her, kicked her out of his

palace and sight.... And for all that she underwent,

do we see her Faith in Her Lord waver one bit?

 

No, never... not an inch!

 

Instead, recall what the "pirAtti", the great and

gracious lady, actaully did say in the final moments

of the "uttara-kAnda":

 

"Take back my message to Ayodhya, O Lakshmana!

 

"First, my prostrations, my humble prostrations, at

the feet of my mothers-in-law as well as then at the

feet of the King. Tell Him then on my behalf, O

Lakshmana, this: "You know Dharma and practise it at

all risks. In your heart you will admit my character

is without a stain. I have never been false to you

whether in mind or in body. Yet because your subjects

suspect my purity, you throw me out.

 

"So be it. I submit."

 

"You honour and love your people, the same as you

honour and love your brothers. If to preserve your

good name among them, I must be sacrificed, I am

content to be sacrificed. As you serve your subjects,

so I serve you, not less but more. This body of mine

is nothing. TO me as to any woman, the husband is

everything, he is kindred, he is preceptor, he is God.

My duty is to be of use to him and in his service to

lay down my life, if need be".

 

**************

 

Let us all ask ourselves this then: When all else

around us has been struck by disaster and tragedy,

when the very reasons and foundations of our Faith in

God lie in ruins around us, how many of us can keep

our faith as steadily as Sita-pirAtti did and,

finally, hold our head high as she did, and say aloud:

 

"So be it! I submit."

 

*************

 

Milord "amicus-curie" and members of the jury!

 

Having shown you that there is a fit against the

defendent Sri Rama, and having also stated our charge

against Him clearly, we have also finally shown the

inherent merits of the case in favour of my client,

Sita-pirAtti! We urge you all to now decide for

yourself bearing in mind only this:

 

The Hon'ble Counsel for Defense, Sri Sadagopan

Iyengar, ended his earlier peroration with the now

famous but clearly fatuous remark:

 

"If Rama did it, it must be right!"

 

Tell me, Your Gracious Lordships, tell me honestly,

does the above statement sound more convincing or more

"dhArmic" to you than this one made by my client

Sita-pirAtti?

 

"TO me ....he is God. My duty is to be of use to

him and in his service to lay down my life, if need

be. So be it. I submit!"

 

*******************

 

(CONCLUDED)

 

Yours most respectfully,

 

dAsan,

Sudarshan

(forever in the service of the defense of my most

Gracious Lady, "Sita-pirAtti")

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your life partner online

Go to: http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony