[t'venkatam] Ordeal by Fire- 2 -- The case for Sita-pirAtti- Pro Bono offer for the Prosecution

[Guest guest]

BEFORE THE HIGHEST SUPREME COURT OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF THIS UNIVERSE

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SRIMAN NAARAYANAN

 

S.RAMACHANDRAN a silly mortal with limited

Knowledge working in a private bank in Bombay,

India

.........................................................Applicant

 

Versus

 

Dharma

.........................................................Defendant

 

IN THE MATTER OF: Inquiry into the entire episode of the Appellant’s

Dearest Mother Shri Shri SitaPiratti's ordeal

at the hands of HER husband the illustrious scion of the Solar Dynasty and

the most favorite son of Shri Dasharatha,

Shri Rama

 

To all those who are present, members of the jury, citizens of Ayodhya and

all the devotees at large, the appellant seeks to

summon the following material witnesses:

 

a. The right honorable Wisest Sage Shri Shri Vashista the preceptor for

the Solar Dynasty

 

b. The right honorable Wisest Sage Shri Shri Vishwamitra

 

c. The right honorable wisest author of the Ramayana episode Shri Shri

Valmiki

 

As all the participants including the parties involved are aware of the

background initiated by Shri Sadagopan in his two

part case sheets, the Applicant hereby presents his rejoinder rebutting the

prosecution's contentions in addition to the

various points raised by my right honourable public prosecutor.

 

1. In the first place let us dispassionately look at the qualities

required for a monarch of the stature the defendant client.

Apart from the extraordinary valor, compassion, firmness etc. etc. and so

on, he also should be a visionary. A man who has the

inborn, instinctive capacity to look into the future for each and every

step of his speech and conduct. Each of his decisions has far

reaching consequences and cannot be casually done at a whim. Moreover,

having got tutored at a very young age with the

family's highly accomplished Yogi, the witness (a) Sage Vashista,

especially in his understanding the finer points of the tenets

of "Yoga Vashista", the defendant client cannot claim that he was not

groomed to take on the Royal throne one day in the future

when he attained adulthood. Further, coming from a highly reputed,

respected and venerated race with blue blood coursing

through his veins the defendant client ought to take a balanced approach in

every matter, be it a personal affair or the

public at large.

 

More so, when the defendant client carried the onerous dictates as the

Upholder of Dharma, and propriety, he could

not take any decision without adequate, appropriate consultations with

elders/knowledgeable people like the witness No. (a) and (b),

his own father, and applying his own thought, deeply analyze a given

situation and come out with the most optimum solution.

This was the basic minimum requirement of a monarch of his stature.

 

These being facts, how come then the defendant client acceded to My

Mother's childish imploring for fetching the golden deer?

A leader does not himself do things. He gets the work done. Delegation is

the hallmark of a leader. He has people serving under him

and he makes use of these helpers to accomplish his mission. The CEO just

issues order, charts out the main course of the company

and gives directions. Loyal employees do the actual job.

 

Why then did the defendant client a leader in his own right not order his

beloved brother, who would have been more than happy

to obey his command to fetch the deer?

 

Lest the defendant counsels objects here that his client went forth to

himself fetch the deer out of love and affection and sport

the argument does not hold water since the defendant client was very much

aware of the dangers, the problems, the uncertainties

deep inside the lonely jungle and despite being acutely aware of these

issues and the fact that his beloved wife Shri SitaPiratti

may not be able to defend herself he thought it fit to NOT DELEGATE at this

crucial juncture. Rather he took the a lengthy

step of empowering the perimeter/entrance of his abode with the magical

line and also issued instructions to Shri SitaPiratti

and enjoined his brother to take care of the situation during his absence.

These three decisions namely to empower and put

the magical line, cautioning his wife and asking Laxmana to stand guard

were thoughtless casual reactive impromptu decisions

without weighing the plus and minuses DEEPLY. The defendant client had all

the knowledge, prior information on likely

problems, knew very well the security issues and yet the defendant client

choose the decision which had a high probability

of backfiring. If on the other hand, he had chosen to stay put with his

beloved wife and Delegate his brother to fetch

the deer, then he could have afforded a more certain riskless solution

because his personal presence in these troubled

times would have ensured that neither his wife stepped out to be cheated

and abducted by the imposter Ravanna, but also

Laxmana would have got the deer successfully.

 

The defendant client therefore did not display adequate presence of mind in

a given sudden development and was therefore,

not equipped perhaps to deal with abruptly changing environment and

circumstances. If he was emotionally charged at that point,

then there was all the more reason for him being at fault because he did

not make complete use of his powers, knowledge,

thinking processes to their fullest capacity.

 

I ask all the honorable gentlemen present here, knowing fully well that his

wife though very loyal, kind and devoted to him, was

yet prone to nurse petty whims, more so she being a pampered child in her

home at Mithila. If he had the desire to sportingly

give in to her requests and yet not hurt her, as a more mature person and

the Head of the family he was duty bound to counsel her,

guide her or at least distract her inclinations by charming her with some

witty talk or some other method.

 

By resorting to a knee jerk spontaneous decision done in a moment of

emotional engagement, the defendant client jeopardized

the entire family and his own fortunes in the bargain.

 

2. Historically as the Honorable prosecutor had mentioned to quote "Your

client thus, had an ingrained habit" unquote, I must

Elaborate that apart from this ingrained habit of suspecting, His father

too had the same knee jerk reactionary tendencies and

therefore, it is not surprising at all for the son to exhibit the same

tendencies running in his blood. The defendant’s father

Shri Dasharatha was at his wits end to the sudden evil mechanization of an

inconsequential lowly maid with malafide intent.

For an EXPERIENCED KING who had for his 'sambhandi†accomplished yogis like

Janaka, plus the two stalwart witnesses (a)

and (b) above, especially his royal preceptor and family guru Sage Shri

Vashista. Ignoring all these avenues and also ignoring to

deeply ponder over the patently cruel demands at such a crucial stage, just

before the coronation, Shri Dasharatha reactively

decided instead of being proactive.

 

It is not my case and suggestion that the defendant’s father should have

declined to give in to the cruel demands of one of his wives,

but when you go in for multiple queens as a royal right and privilege, he

should also be acutely aware that 'too many cooks spoil

the broth". The piquant situation was bound to happen any day. He was

literally sitting on a time bomb after casually promising everyone

left right and center and calmly forgetting about it. Let me ask you

honorable gentlemen present? Did the conduct of the

defendant’s father show presence of mind, thoughtful deliberation, deep

thought over the 'emergency crisis' confronting a king

of his stature

 

It is clear that since he had given word he had to now fulfill the demands,

however unfair of his queen. But he could have still

Salvaged from the situation and yet dealt a good blow to the queen for her

arrogant, foolish and unfair demand. What was her

demand? (a) Coronate Bharata her son and (b) banish Rama for 14 yrs. Fair

enough. He could have straightaway confirmed that Bharata

would be coronated for the simple reason that he was aware of the

defendant-client his son's mental make up namely, a loyal son who

would never question his father's decisions and would not blame or

castigate him or hurt him for denying the crown. The defendant

client was too much mature for these petty things, as the father was

acutely aware deep within.

 

As regards the second demand, yes, the father could have commanded his son

the defendant client to take him alongwith his wives

to the forest so that he, the father, could enjoy the company and

protection of his upright son. At this point, when the kingdom

itself was about to go out of his hands, there was no point in the father -

if he were a thoughtful person, a leader with a vision with

foresight - to hesitate for petty things like crown, pelf, kingdom etc.

since he had already groomed an enviable line of succession

in Rama, Laxmana and Bharata etc. It was just time for him to retire and

repair to the jungles for the last ashrama of a man's life.

In fact the second demand could have been construed as a blessing in

disguise.

 

Bottomline: the defendant’s father could have successfully checkmated the

evil intentions by giving in and yet extracting his

pound of flesh in terms of cutting the own noses of the culprits. He had

the time on his side. Instead what did the defendant

client's father do? In a typical knee jerk reaction, he was caught

'MENTALLY' offguard and fell prey to the cheap emotional

blackmails of a jealous servant.

 

Royal households are bound to be full of intrigue, cold wars, loyalty

alignments and internal fights. The king's crown is never a

cushy one. He always needs to be on guard. He has to watch deeply,

remember, recollect in a flash, take hard decisions,

and be firm and try NOT TO GET EMOTIONALLY ENTANGELLED in any issue. He is

also the final arbiter, the judge

for the people and cannot act or give decisions in fickle manner without

proper inquiry. Decisions must be based on judicious

enquiry and not run counter to established principles of judiciary.

 

As the tamil saying goes 'kaadalai ketkapadum poi, kanalum parpadum poi,

teera vizarichupade unmai " (what the ears hear may

be false, what the eyes see may be false, so deeply enquire before

concluding or deciding on the truth).

 

Having been caught off guard and confronting a crisis, what does a good

able leader do? He first tries to salvage the situation.

Not give in mechanically with little or no evidence of deeper deliberations

and consultations.

 

AS THE POPULAR MODERN MANAGEMENT TERMINOLOGY GOES "WHEN THE GOING GETS

TOUGH, THE TOUGH GET

GOING". This was sadly absent in the case of the defendent client.

 

3. Coming to the post-Ravanna scenario at Ayodhya during the cruel

'agni' test thrust on my beloved Mother Shri SitaPiratti.

I call upon all of you honorable gentleman to first and foremost testify

before this h'ble court what does one see when you look at

any picture of the divine foursome - Shri Rama, Shri SitaPiratti, Shri

Laxmana and Shri Hanuman. While Shri Rama and his brother

bravely look at you on the face fearlessly, yet with a benign blessing

becoming their military nature, Shri SitaPiratti’s demure and

tender looks are fastened steadily on HER one and only beloved Shri Rama's

noble feet. While with one hand she is blessing

Shri Hanuman, HER looks are reserved for none in this and any world except

at the Lotus feet of her beloved.

 

Further, my dearest Mother Shri SitaPiratti coming being a natural gift of

the gods to HER foster father Shri Janaka SHE had

to sacrifice a lot vis-a-vis the defendant client. She was her parents'

favorite and a pampered child. At a very tender age

she had to literally uproot HERSELF lock, stock and barrel and literally

give up HER familiar surrounds, friends, doting relations,

the comfort of HER father's palace, gardens etc. and not only adjust

HERSELF to an entirely new family, household, people

and environment, but also to face the ignominy of having to undergo 14

years of forest life with limits on HER food, HER dress,

HER desires and HER comforts. Can any of you gentlemen say with certainty

that such was HER fate or destiny?

 

I call upon witness no.© to take the stand and answer. When he was a

highway brigand he was under the deluded impression

that his family and wife would share his sins of robbing others. But when

they bluntly told him to take a walk and they would

not be a party to his sins, he got the shock of his life and changed

himself. When his own wife of many years refused to take

part in his sins, how can one expect a newly married dreamy eyed young

bride to react when she is told that her husband had

to repair to the forest and live an improvished life for 14 years just

because HER father-in-law had made some promises

long ago to one of his wives and that the dutiful son had no other go but

to obey his father? Honorable gentleman Imagine this

happening in this age?

 

And the age when my beloved mother married Shri Rama was not even in the

Satya Yuga. Truth and Dharma were already blunted

and it would not have been out of place or inappropriate if SHE had argued,

declined to these problem situation. SHE could

have taken the safety route as many in these current times would resort

namely, say bye-bye and shift back to her father's

house and continue to lead the comfortable life and wait for the husband's

problems to get over so that both can once more live joyfully.

 

Did my beloved MOTHER SitaPiratti do any of these arrogant, casual

knee-jerk, emotionally charged reactions?

NO SIRS. SHE being what SHE was and true to HER training, despite knowing

fully well that everyone would support HER, with

deep thought exhibiting extraordinary courage and steel flung her fancy

footwear and silk sarees and readily donned the coarse clothing

as if to signal to HER shell-shocked husband HER full and absolute support

and partnership in his troubles. No one less than Thriuvalluvar

could have aptly described my beloved MOTHER Shri SitaPiratti's undiluted,

unquestioned one track exemplary devotion to HER husband,

when he said of Vasuki his wife that as she was drawing the water from the

well when Thirvulluvar called her. She abruptly

let go the rope and instantly rushed BLINDLY to her husband's call that

even the law of gravity became inoperative and the rope just

stood still without dropping into the well. Even nature was shaken.

 

Even in captivity as Shri Hanuman would have testified, HER constant

concern, thought and feeling was solely on her husband

and mentally seeking his speedy arrival and redemption from the clutches of

Ravanna.

 

When the defendant client did not question and was ready to admit the

brother of his mortal sworn enemy Vibhishna

into a brotherly bondage and lifelong friendship, how could he now

afterwards give in to the clamor of the general populace.

He, being a monarch of his stature, could not afford to take the demands of

the public at face value. It is common

Psychology that the common man irrespective of the state of affairs is

always a gossip monger in terms of discussing

the going-ons in the royal household. We all are even today more interested

in election results, which party is going to upset who,

what etc. and this casual attitude, is perfectly normal.

 

Do we not occasionally, discuss our bosses behind his back? And as in any

rumour, casual talk, gossip it thrives on

constant communication and Mis-representation. Eventually, the molehill

becomes a mountain with no one being

aware of who originated the entire sham.

 

4) Where was the equivalent steadfast loyalty on the part of the defendant

client when the public started making a noise? Again,

True to his ingrained nature, as was his wont in times of crises, in a

typical knee-jerk reaction, he promptly asked my Mother

SitaPiratti to go thru the ordeal knowing fully well at the back of his

mind, deep inside his heart that perhaps he may

not be right. Indeed he was answerable to the people. But if he had calmly

taken stock of the situation he could have

Done something more noble which would have endeared him in the hearts of

the people and this entire controversy would

Not have taken place at all. Given the monumental sacrifices Shri

SitaPiratti underwent without any fault on HER part, and

Occasioned by him in the first place, and being frank with himself for his

proclivity for casual knee-jerk reactions in times

Crisis, he ought to have mulled deeply and in front of the populace bravely

stood his ground and rejected the call of the

People with a “fine, so be it, I still accept HER as there is no fault

attached to HER and I trust HER since the

Entire kidnapping episode was beyond control of anyoneâ€. The entire

population knew well the story, were also happy at the

Defendant client’s return to stake his claim on the throne was in a

receptive mood. Just like a sole bad apple like Manthara

Spoiling the party during the earlier coronation 14 years back, the

washerman’s random gossip-ridden, lazy utterances

Got blown out of proportion into a raging rumour, in a similar manner,

these are testing times for the leader and the

More strong he is internally, the more maturely complete will his decision

be.

 

I end my appeal and beg you all honorable gentlemen to do justice. My

Mother being what SHE IS, SHE even forbade me to

Go into this appeal, but the subject is too disturbing to my feeble mind

that I had to approach your forum and knock on your

Doors. I totally agree with the defendant’s counsel that

 

“For, if Rama did it, it must be correct.â€

 

However, I would like to add the words at the end i.e.†For, if Rama did

it, it must be correct, but only for Himselfâ€

IF this appellent has ERRED THE LORD MAY PARDON the appellent

 

Om tat sat

Tat tvam asi

 

 

 

 

 

sudarshan

madabushi

tiruvenkatam

<mksudarshan2002@y cc:

,

ahoo.co.in> oppiliappan

[t'venkatam] Ordeal by

Fire- 2 -- The case for

07/21/04 06:39 PM Sita-pirAtti

Please respond to

tiruvenkatam

 

 

 

 

 

 

tiruvenkatam, sadagopaniyengar

<sadagopaniyengar@v...> wrote:

Ordeal by Fire-2

 

what He said and did on the occasion, but for us, as

students of Srimad Ramayanam, He would always be the

shining paragon of virtue, the epitome of all merit

and the compulsively righteous monarch, who could

never do wrong. Sri Rama was incapable of wrongdoing.

If some of His actions appear to us to be incorrect,

it is because we apply our own defective human

standards in judging divine conduct, which we have no

business to do.

>

For, if Rama did it, it must be correct.

> dasan, sadagopan

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

 

Dear SrimAn Sadagopan,

 

Thank you for an excellent article based as it is on

traditional commentary of Sri Govindarajan. It is

truly enjoyable. It gives students of the Ramayana

like me an insight into the mind of traditional

'vyAkhyAna-kartA-s' and their style of interpreting

important events like the "agni-parIksha" in the

Ramayana.

 

Since we all say that Rama and Sita-pirAtti were

actors on the stage of Valmiki's Ramayana ("best actor

and best actress" according to our respected SrimAn

Anbil swamy), let us also take the liberty to do a bit

of play-acting ourselves just so we can enjoy the epic

episode a little more, a little longer.

 

*********

 

In your article, you end by saying "For if Rama did

it, it must be correct". It is a line that sounds so

much like an attorney's closing statement in a court

of law. Your arguments too, in fact, are set forth in

the masterly manner of a skillful defense-lawyer

marshalling legal facts and precedents all meant to

secure for the defendant an honourable acquittal on

technical if not substantive counts.

 

Sir, since you have so admirably donned the role of a

defense-attorney, permit me for a while to act the

part of a public-prosecutor appearing on behalf of my

beloved client, Sri Sita-pirAtti, and make my own

case.

 

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

 

Many of the arguments you made, I must respectfully

submit, are tenuous if not wholly untenable. Let's

look at a few of them and reason why.

 

(1) The first argument is that the "agni-parIksha" was

a kind of justice meted out to Sita-pirAtti for the

(Quote) "insults She meted out to Lakshmana, when he

refused to leave the parNashAlA, in response to

MArIcha’s cry for rescue, uttered in Rama’s voice....

It was to atone for this inexcusable conduct towards a

BhagavatA, that Sri Mythily requests him specifically

to make a fire for Her to enter and prove Her

innocence...." (UnQuote).

 

This is not true. Please refer to sarga 59, shlOka

23-24 of the Aranya-kAnda, where Rama clearly lays the

blame for Sita'a abduction on Lakshmana alone and in

fact holds Sita blameless. Lakshmana remonstrates and

tells Rama about all the unpleasant, stinging words

that Sita had hurled at him. What does Rama then say?

 

He says, "I cannot forgive you. You left your post of

duty and left her unprotected. Sita is in danger. Why

did you come, merely because she was angry? When she

became angry, mad, and said absurd things, you became

angry too and came away?! You have disobeyed my

command! No blame rests upon Sita! She became

momentarily mad, but that's understandable. But you,

you cannot get angry with mad people..." (The

suggestion is Lakshmana could have left the scene,

pretending to go after Rama, go a short distance and

hang about in the neighbourhood, out of sight but not

going too far and still being able to protect Sita in

case harm arose to her).

 

The fact therefore clearly shows that Sita had already

been forgiven by Rama for the harsh way she behaved

towards Lakshmana in the Maricha episode. She was

temporarily unhinged of mind in that grave moment.

Women in such moments generally say all manner of

things. It is quite understandable. You cannot take

them to task for it. Having already forgiven Sita in

the "arAnya-kAnda" for the misdemeanour, it is

unlikely that in the "yuddha-kAnda", in the

"agni-pravEsa" episode, Rama would have wanted to

punish Sita again for the same offence. Even in a

legal court of modern days, no one can be accused and

punished twice for the same crime.

 

As for Sita asking Lakshmana to light the pyre (and

not anyone else), far too much meaning is being read

into the gesture when there is none at all.

 

Sita asked Lakshmana to light the fire, because there

just wasn't anyone else around there in the assembly

at that moment whom she could have commanded to do so.

She could not ask a royal person like Vibheeshana to

light a fire. She could not have approached 'vanarAs'

like Sugriva, HanumAn to do the task. How could she

ask bears like Jambavan to light an 'agni-kundam'? She

could not have commanded her own husband Rama to light

the pyre given the blazing mood in which he was! Who

else could Sita then take the liberty to command? And

who else present there other than Lakshmana was a

person bearing a "yagnyOpavitam" -- the minimum

qualification needed by a person to start a Vedic fire

going?

 

(2) The second argument you make is this: (Quote)

"However, for Chakravartthi Tirumagan to have

unquestioningly accepted Sri Mythily, would have

attracted adverse comment from the undiscerning.

Gossip-mongers would have said, “Look at Rama, who is

so head over heels in love with His wife, that He has

accepted Her without question, knowing full well that

she was abducted and was in the custody of the

notorious kAmuka Ravanaâ€. Hence, it was indeed

necessary for Sri Rama to appear to enquire into His

lady’s chastity." (UNQUOTE)

 

This argument is untenable because it is totally,

absolutely inconsistent with what Rama said about

himself in that famous shlOka 33-34-35 sarga 18 in the

"kishkindA kAndam":

 

"sakrudEva prapannAya tavAsmiti cha yAchatE

abhayam sarva-bhUtEbhyO dadAmyEtadh-vratam mamaII"

 

"aanayainam hari-shrEshta dattamasyAbhayam mayA

vibhishiNO vA sugrIva yadi vA rAvANa: svayam II"

 

"I offer protection without reserve to anyone who just

comes and says "please protect me, I'm helpless and

have none else to protect me". From all dangers, from

all enemies, I grant such persons full protection.

Bring such persons to me now. No matter who they are,

whether Vibeheeshana or Sugriva. Even if Ravana

himself were to come and beseech my protection, I

shall embrace him and give him my "abhaya-pradAna"!".

 

After having said all those grand things above, how

can it be argued that it was not possible for Rama to

"have unquestioningly accepted Sri Mythily ..."?. Did

not Sita declare at many places in the Ramayana that

she was like a true "prappana" -- wholly dependent on

Sri Rama, her very life breath? Please read shlOka

4-5, 7-9 of sarga 30 in the "ayOdhya kAnda". In that

scene, Rama is trying to persuade Sita-pirAtti not to

go into exile with him into the forest, but to remain

in Ayodhya and "stay with Bharatha". What does Sita

tell him in that moment? Her words though they sound a

little angry still ring true with all the passion and

pathos of a true "prappanna":

 

"Why are you afraid of taking me with you to the

forest? O Rama, why do you reject me who has no other

person to rely on earth? I am yours entirely, utterly,

and yet you discard me?". Later on in the sarga she

says, "When I am with you Rama I do not want food;

plain fare will be like delicious viand for me. The

dust of the forest on which you have trodden will be

the sandals after my heart; and grass will be the most

luxurious couch. Do not be anxious for me; I shall not

be a burden to you. The place where I can be with you,

whatever be the its name, and wherever it may be, is

heaven to me. If you are not there, whatever place it

may be, it will be "niraya" to me. When you abandon

me, I will not want to live anymore. If I cannot live

without you for a minute, how can you abandon me?"

 

What moving words indeed are the above of

Sita-pirAtti? It brings tears to anyone's eyes. Are

they not the true words of one who is seeking the

"abhaya" of Rama? So then, why is it that the same

Rama who declared he will accord even Ravana "abhayam"

--- that too "unquestioningly" and without any

pre-conditions except the condition of surrender --

why is Rama so reluctant to extend the same privilege

to Ravana's victim, SIta-pirAtti? Why the

inconsistency on the part of Rama? If "charity must

begin at home" why does Rama too not begin granting

"abhaya-prAdanam" first at home to his wife before

offering it to all and sundry of the world? Why is one

standard being applied to Ravana but yet another one

on his poor victim, Sita?

 

(3) Your next argument is this: (Quote) "The

suspicions about Sri Sita’s conduct could indeed have

been voiced and clarifications obtained in private, or

before a select audience of trusted acolytes. However,

the general public would still be unaware of the

proceedings and might continue to think Sri Raghava’s

conduct unbecoming of a scion of the Ikshvaku

dynasty". (UNQUOTE)

 

Further, Sir, you go on to argue: (Quote) "If Sri Rama

were to appear to be apparently satisfied by Sita’s

own words of assurance and sworn protests of

innocence, it would not have been adequate for the

assembled public, who would have thought, “What sort

of justice is this, if the accused person is

exonerated based solely on her own protestations of

innocence?†Hence some solid proof was needed, if the

proletariat was to be convinced as to where the rights

of the matter lay. The agni parIkshA was therefore

necessary. (UNQUOTE)

 

These argument too of the Counsel-for-defense are

rather flimsy. Was Rama always so fastidious and

conscientious about doing things in full view of the

general public? With full, utterly full, transparency?

If He had indeed been so sensitive to public opinion

--to the sacred opinion of "the proletariat", as you

say -- and doing everything under open scrutiny, isn't

it a great wonder that He didn't pause even an instant

to think twice about what the great "general public"

would say when they finally came to hear about how he

got rid off Vali in a less-than-straight duel deep in

the forests of Kishkinda?!! In that episode your

client Rama was too keen on doing just justice, and

didn't evidently worry too much about "justice being

seen to be done"!

 

Surely, Mr.Defense Attorney, you do not mean to say

that Sri Rama after all did apply one standard to

himself and yet another to Sita-pirAtti when it came

to the business of public-relations or public

accountability -- i.e. managing the perceptions of the

public about his deeds? Are you suggesting that your

defendant was in fact more worried about

public-opinion polls than about the moral propriety of

his deeds? One was always under the impression that

your client goes by by the popular name of "rAmo

vigrahavAn dharma"? Are we to revise such impressions?

 

 

(4) The next argument you offer is this: (Quote):

 

"Commentators clarify that the actual purport of Sri

Raghava’s words about Sita being free to live with

Lakshmana, Bharata, et al, is that once abandoned by

her husband, a woman could seek the support and roof

of her husband’s relatives and friends. It was with

this in mind, (that Sita could find support from any

of the worthies mentioned), that Sri Rama’s words were

uttered and not with any other untoward purport, says

Sri Govindaraja (“atra LakshmanAdou mana: karaNam nAma

anAthAyA: rakshakatvEna tat tat grihE vartanam.

BhartrA parityaktAyA: striyA bandhu grihE vAsa

vidhAnAtâ€).(UNQUOTE)

 

With due respects to the traditional commentator he

has taken the trouble to quote, I cannot however help

saying the Hon'ble Counsel for defense is attempting

to put a skillful but deceptive "spin" on the original

stanzas of the Ramayana-text just in order to soften

the harshness and sting contained in Rama's actual

words.

 

I confess I am not an expert in the Sanskrit language,

but what Rama said to Sita-pirAtti is this

(VI.118.22-23):

 

"lakshmanE bharatE vA tvam kuru buddhim yathAsUkhAt I

sugreevE vAnarEndrE vA rAkshasEndrE vibhishINE I

nivEshaya mana: seethE yathA vA sukhamAtmanah: II"

 

The word "yathAsUkhAt" and "yathA vA sukhamAtmanah:",

have unmistakable connotations of what kind of

"sukham" was actually meant, given the particular

context of the Ramayana. So, this is what Rama said,

"Lakshmana, Bharatha, Sugriva or Vibheeshana... you

may go ahead and fix your affections on any one of

these four people. I do not care!".

 

The Counsel for defense, I am afraid, is not only

taking undue liberties with the facts of the case but

also with the language and idiom in which the evidence

is made available before the court.

 

(5) Your next argument is: (QUOTE) "Despite His harsh

words, Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri

Sita’s impeccable character. He knew too that none of

the five elements was capable of causing Her harm,

since all were under the joint command of Himself and

His Consort (“bheeshAsmAt VAta: pavatE, bheeshOdEti

Soorya:, bheeshmAt agnischa indrascha, Mrityu: dhAvatipanchama itiâ€â€”the

Taittiriyopanishad). Since no injury

could be caused by Fire to Sita who was the embodiment

of purity, and since it would prove Her to be

blemishless beyond doubt, Sri Rama didn’t feel any

qualms about permitting Her to enter the fire."

(UNQUOTE)

 

The evidence available in the Ramayana does not quite

support your statement that "Despite His harsh words,

Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri Sita’s

impeccable character". The available evidence in fact

seem to suggest the exact contrary. Your client

appears to have a steady, past record of being

incapable of instinctively trusting people. As in the

present episode of the "agni-parIksha" where we find

that he doubted His own very Consort, so too in the

case of his ally Sugriva and brother, Bharatha.

 

Let the facts speak for themselves.

 

In the "kishkinda kAnda", at one point in time, your

client became enraged with Sugriva when he suspected

the latter was going back on his word given earlier

that a whole 'vanara' would be put at Rama's disposal

in the search for Sita.

 

Again, in the final scenes of the "yuddha-kAnda", when

the whole entourage of Rama, Sita, Sugriva and Hanuman

were returning to Ayodhya, your client called Hanuman

aside to tell him, "Now that we are nearing Ayodhya,

Hanuman, I want you to go ahead of us and see what is

happening in Ayodhya. I want you to report back to me

whether my brother Bharatha is ready to hand the

kingdom back to me on my return or is otherwise

pre-disposed. In which case, if he's changed his mind

and decided to appropriate the kingdom to himself,

then I should know about it. He can of course, if he

wants to, have the throne all for himself. But I want

to know in advance, so go ahead of us and find out."

 

Your client Sri Rama, thus, had an ingrained habit of

doubting the intentions of even those who were closest

to him. In view of the facts above, it would be

difficult therefore to be convinced by what you, my

dear learned defense-counsel, have to say on behalf of

your client -- that He (Quote) "Despite His harsh

words, Sri Rama was absolutely convinced about Sri

Sita’s impeccable character". (UNquote)

 

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

 

Sir, I want to bring my own closing argument in this

case to an end today by saying that my client,

Sita-pirAtti, can have no better counsel to represent

her case than she herself. She speaks later in her own

words, in the "uttara-kAndam" where one can find the

bravest and most eloqent summation of her case. Let me

allow her to do it, for there really is no need at all

for someone like me to hold a brief for my beloved

client. I propose to merely reproduce her own words...

not now but in my next posting. Until then, I say,

"All arise, the Court is adjourned...."

 

Yours respectfully,

 

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

______________________