An unrealised truth in Ramayan

I happened to see a tweet today, describing Lord Rama as a bad husband, a remark which came in the wake of the recently released film called “Sri Rama Rajyam”. The person who so tweeted, obviously, did not like Rama disowning his pregnant wife Sita from the kingdom of Ayodhya and I know many of the people who have read this part of the story would have developed the same sort of view on the lord.

I am writing this article specifically to eradicate this type of negative thought on “Rama”. Any one who has read “Valmiki Ramayana” in full would really think twice before giving such a shameful verdict on Rama. First of all, everyone should know that Rama loved Sita to the core and he loved her more than anyone else. I can show an example to accentuate my point.

When Rama, along with Lakshmana and Sita, was proceeding to a dense forest called “Dandaka Vana” a hugely gigantic demon by name Viraada abducted Sita in the former’s presence. So far then, Lord Rama, whenever anyone spoke ill of Kaikeyi for her hand in the exile of Rama for fourteen long years, he came to her rescue by instructing others not to speak anything wrong about her as he treated her to be his own mother.  But, this time when Viraada fled with Sita, he got so angry and frustrated in seeing his beloved wife in the hands of a demon that he, for the first time, rebuked Kaikeyi in her absence by citing her to be the reason for such a precarious situation which Sita was experiencing. This itself proved how much Rama was affectionate towards Sita.

Any way, now coming to the banishment of Sita from Ayodhya, we should think as to why Sita, who was so dear to Rama, should be sent out of the kingdom? My answer is Rama did it not because he did not trust Sita but because he did not trust the people of the world who could speak in any tone about anybody, be the topic of the subject was a “Pathivratha” like Sita. True, Sita had proved her purity to the whole world by prevailing in the “Agni Pariksha” immediately at the end of the war where Ravana was killed. But the spectators of that incident were just “Vanaras” from Kishkinta and ofcourse the demon king “Vibishana”. The people of Ayodhya did not witness it. So, how would one expect them to believe how chaste Sita was?

Infact this was the reason a few section of people doubted “Mata Sita” and for that very purpose Rama asked Sita to be sent out of the kingdom. Those who superficially look into this incident, as many people today are doing, will not understand as to why it was done. Imagine what would have happened if Rama did not do it and kept Sita with him till he left for “Vaikunta”. The people of Ayodhya would have continued assassinating the character of Sita and if that had happened then the whole of them would have become sinners only to suffer severly in hell for their wrong doing.

Rama, being the king of Ayodhya,  thought it was he who should save his own subjects from enduring such a punishment. So, what did Rama do? He thought of putting the blame on himself by disowning his dear wife. Only because he did this, people of Ayodhya were able to witness how immaculate Sita was when earth split into two, therby swallowing her only to prevent the holy feet of her to touch the sinful earth anymore. Afterwards, the same people, who had a thing or two to say about her, now realized how bad they were in misjudging her and thus they were freed from their sins.

That is the beauty of the kind hearted Rama who wanted his subjects not to commit sins at the expense of his spending time with Sita all through out his life. Rama, thus, decided to take it upon himself the burden of getting injured by the volley of verbal arrows showered by ignorant people like us who feel Rama as a bad husband and all.

People may ask in such a case “Okay, we don’t doubt Sita anymore because of this act of Rama but we are any way targeting Rama blaming him for this act. Is it right?” If this was the question then I would say “Yes it is not right but it is better that we say ill about Rama rather than saying something extremely bad about Sita”. That is the beauty of our Indian society and culture which rate the chastity of our women above all else.

So, considering all these things we should thank Rama, on whose selfless act, we keep “Mata Sita” in high regard even today.  It is true that Sita requires no more recognition for her purity but considering the people in this world who are “gossip prone” what Rama did was absolutely correct.                             

More importantly, Rama gave respect to his subjects more than his own family unlike some of our politicians who treat family more than public, come what may.