Posted: 14 March 2013 at 2:24pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by koolsadhu1000Yes it is correct as he did it to stop political unrest in the kingdom . What the dhobi said may be rubbish but it was the voice of the common people . And he could not ignore it . He was not just a lover and a husband but also a king and the responsibility of the welfare of many homes was on his head . If he had kept his wife due to his personal belief in her , dissatisfaction would have spread like forest fire and riots would have broken out in the kingdom where for the sake of one , many lives would be at stake . The decision he took is not popular but it had to be taken and he is called Maryada Purushottam bcoz he took many such unpopular decisions objectively by suppressing his personal feelings . See that era , try not to judge him or any character in the Ramayan by the norms of today . A woman who stayed for months with a rakshasa king who abducted her ...naturally her chastity was spoken about ...whether it was her fault or not that she was abducted is another issue . Chastity meant a lot in those days . Nobody beleved in their hearts inspite of the agni pariksha that the rakshasa had spared her just like that ...though no one was saying it openly , and the drunk dhobi's words were the pulse of the common man that Ram sensed .
He then took that tough painful decision . She on her part brought up the twins alone ...single parenting in that era . She understood his decision making process . By the time the twins were found the sentiments of the commoners had diffused ...Ram's action of leaving his wife had calmed them down . It was astute political foresight . They then did not question the birth of the twins but demanded they should be brought back . But Sita now shone as an individual and declared she was tired of being treated like a point to be proved to the subjects ...that she had enough . She gave the twins to him , told him to take care and embraced death . She knew that era would not let her live in peace . Neither was she wrong nor he . They both kept their personal feelings aside and made some decisions . My POV strictly .
You know, I think this is the first time I have agreed with you in this forum!
Your explanation is exactly why I have never faulted Shri Ram for Sita's vanvaas.
I think the problem is that many people analyze Ramayan by today's norms. The feminism which is rampant today is very unforgiving of Shri Ram. But we should never analyze epics of the past by the norms today. Chastity was far more valued during Lord Ram's times than it is today.
Today dating, live-in relationships, and " physical relations" before marriage are all acceptable and thought to be the norm, so the huge emphasis on chastity placed in Ramayan is not understandable to many people. They do not understand why the people of Ayodhya were disturbed by the thought of an unchaste queen.
I am definitely not saying it's Sita's fault that she was kidnapped. I just empathize with both Ram and Sita's actions in Uttar Kand, not only Sita's. Shri Ram may have exiled her, but he did not live a happy life himself. The wife whom he loved more than his own life, he had to exile her. It's comparable to Dashrath exiling Shri Ram to the forests for 14 years. Dashrath could not live without Ram. Similarly, Ram only existed as a body in Ayodhya, but his soul was with Sita.
It is written not only in the Ramayan but also in the Vedas, that a King has NO right over his personal life. He may be the King, but he is the servant of the people. If necessary, a King must sacrifice every relationship in his life for the sake of his people, whether it be his mother, father, brother, sister, or wife. He must even sacrifice his life if need be. Although Ram is the one who ordered Sita to be left in the forests, it was actually the people of Ayodhya who exiled her. Ignoring their words would create political unrest in his kingdom, and that would not reflect well on Ram Rajya.
You correctly said that Sita not only married a man, she married a King. She herself knew the limitations of a King, which is why she did not revolt when Ram exiled her. She brought up her sons to respect their father and never once blamed Ram himself. She blamed the people of Ayodhya for creating the dilemma in her husband's life, but never once did she point a finger at Ram. Sita herself was educated and well-versed in the vedas. She knew what her husband's duty as a King was, and she supported him till the very end.
Both Ram and Sita were ideal human beings in their own way. Ram is called Maryada Purushotham because he respected EVERY relationship in his life, including that of a King and his people. He was not only a husband. He was also a King.