DOTW:Would you have criticized Rama if....

Okay, before you instinctively hit the No button...

We've discussed exhaustively whether or nor Rama did the right thing in case of the Agni praveshna, Sita's exile, and his final asking her for her vow. I'm not trying to re-create that long drawn discussion here. Today, I'd like to flip the question and frame it as a hypothetical the other way.

Let's say, in the Ramayan, the story flows normally, but the following never happened:

• Agni praveshna
• Sita's exile
• Sita's final vow

Oh, and let's say, for this example, that people in Ayodhya did have their doubts about Sita, but Rama simply ignored them and went about his business. After the war, he simply accepted Sita as she was, took her to Ayodhya, let her give birth to Kush and Luv, brought them up w/ the rest of their cousins, installed all 8 brothers on thrones when they came of age, and at the end of it all, RLBS and SUMS all peacefully and happily returned to Vaikuntha 😍😍😍😍

Would you have criticized him had he taken such decisions❓ Or more precisely, would you have criticized those decisions of his had he gone that route❓

P.S. Please - no 'he had to do all that he did b'cos....'. We know all that. I'm just curious whether people would have supported the opposite decision had Rama taken it and gone the other way
VIewbies note: I think this is a good topic for discussion so sticking it up as DOTW

it really depends on the situation. i mena had rama done that, things wud have been def different , and now sitting about 1000 yrs or so after that happened who knows we wud have criticised ram as an arrogant ruler who paid no heed to what his subjects though.

Hi - the first agnipariksha, Sitaji understood why she had to do. This was enough for me. But, the exile and then asking for another test/oath was too much. Agni was not even able to touch Sitaji - this is no ordinary woman.

yes & no

Good questions, Chandraketu. As Tannistha said, it depends on the situation and on a person's point of view.

We have already discussed why Ram did what he did.

As to whether I would have criticized Ram if he had taken such decisions, my answer is no.

First of all - it was a very tricky situation Ram faced. He had to choose between the duty towards his people and the duty towards his wife.

Secondly - it was HIS decision. He knew very well about his wife and ignoring the FALSE rumours would have told the world that Ram still trusts his Sita. Yes, that would not have suppressed the rumours and many would have criticized that he forgot his duties because of a woman and tarnished the honour of his ancestors. The people did not understand the strength of Sita's character - the only thing that was stuck in their minds was that Sita was a woman who had lived in another man's house for so long. Though it was a matter between them, the decision could have effects beyond the four walls of their home, hence the calamity. If Ram had decided to honour Sita for being true to him always, then, I feel that there was no need to question it.

Lastly - from what I can understand of Ram and his character, he would not have taken these decisions unless he can handle the situation without causing any upheaval and bringing down the glory of his family and the country. Could Ram have stamped out the rumours by showing his support and trust that Sita was pure and honouring her? If he could have done that, then definitely, Ram would have taken this decision.

Good Poll Chandra!

I would probably have criticized him a bit for not doing something when people were doubting his wife's honour. As a husband, he had to protect her dignity too (besides his raj dharm) and to simply ignore the accusations and let people go on saying that stuff about Sita would be...uncomfortable. Maybe he should have devised an Agni Pariksha for the people: all subjects who doubted Sita would have to walk through fire. If they burned their suspicions were wrong. If they remained untouched they were correct. 😆

How about this: what if Rama had abdicated the throne in Bharata's favour and left with Sita? This way he wouldn't have had to abandon his (pregnant) wife and he wouldn't be "forcibly" keeping Sita as the Queen when people suspect her. As it is Bharat was doing an excellent job ruling Ayodhya. This would have taught quite a lesson to the people of Ayodhya since they would have lost both Rama and Sita due to their stupid suspicions. 😉

Originally posted by: Kal El

I would probably have criticized him a bit for not doing something when people were doubting his wife's honour. As a husband, he had to protect her dignity too (besides his raj dharm) and to simply ignore the accusations and let people go on saying that stuff about Sita would be...uncomfortable. Maybe he should have devised an Agni Pariksha for the people: all subjects who doubted Sita would have to walk through fire. If they burned their suspicions were wrong. If they remained untouched they were correct. 😆

How about this: what if Rama had abdicated the throne in Bharata's favour and left with Sita? This way he wouldn't have had to abandon his (pregnant) wife and he wouldn't be "forcibly" keeping Sita as the Queen when people suspect her. As it is Bharat was doing an excellent job ruling Ayodhya. This would have taught quite a lesson to the people of Ayodhya since they would have lost both Rama and Sita due to their stupid suspicions. 😉

Good idea Kal El - this Agni Pariksha sounds better. 😆
😆
Even if Ram had given the throne to Bharat (as he planned to when he heard the rumours), the blame would still follow him. The people would have talked that Ram preferred Sita to his duty. By excusing himself from his duty just because he wanted to be with Sita would have made the people think that their suspicions are true and that Ram accepts it by stepping down from the throne. Though we know that Devi Sita was pure, those people could not have understood it all.