As a king, who had to put an example to his Praja, wasn't it was Ram's responsibility to give an explanation? Wasn't he right in this case then?
If we apply this to our current scenario, won't we question our ruler if he's involved in any scam? Would we want him to come clean? What if he doesn't care about her accusations thinking that it was one odd person's opinion and it doesn't matter? We would be livid with anger, because we believe our ruler, who rules us should be an epitome of righteousness. If Ram hadn't bothered about the fisherman's opinion, what example would he set to the future generations?
The trust part was already described by Palin, so I would touch another side of the coin.
You know when I was a child I read this story of the fisherman who accused Sita. There was a back story to him.
There were two parrots at Valmiki's ashram. It was the time when Valmiki was writing Ramayana, and it indeed is happening, although at a slower pace in real life.
Once these two parrots flew to Sita's palace and were discussing about Ramayana and the man who's going to come to Sita's swayamwar. A curious Sita asked the parrots more details since it was her future they were discussing about. When the parrots told her they don't know more, Sita locks up the female parrot in Pinjar and asks Male parrot to go back and let her know.
Male parrot flees to Aashram, but couldn't get the details and female parrot dies. Knowing this, the male parrot would die too before throwing a curse that Sita should also face the separation from her life partner as he did. And in next birth, the parrot was born as the fisherman.
Now who to blame?
I ask the same question again, what is right and what is wrong?
Last but not the least, I don't believe Ram was happy with Sita's separation. Nothing could pain more than separation, and nothing could pain more than knowing that you are responsible for it somehow...
[/QUOTE
Mujhe ye parrot vali story k bare me nhi pata tha...
Thanks for sharing...
1.2k