DOTW: If Dasharath had not killed Shravan - Page 2

Originally posted by: Mandodari

WOW! What a great question Chandra. There could be 2 reasons for Dhasarath not doing that.

1) Nobody bothered to resolve the issue. No one sent for Bharath immediately and bothered to ask him if he will take the crown. Ram, Lakshman, and Sita decided to go to the forest.. Dhasarath died in a couple of days and only then was Bharat asked to come back to Ayodhaya. I have always wondered why no one sent for Bharath as soon as Dhasarath asked for the boon. Why didn't they ask Bharath if he wanted the kingdom or not? If Bharat had said "yes" then Ram could have gone to the forest. If no, Kaikeye's boons would have been worthless and Ram could have been crowned. I guess then there would be no Ramayan. The purpose of this avataar was to kill Ravan and the other asuras.

Sorry, that should read "as soon as Dasarth granted the boon."

Originally posted by: Mandodari

Oops! forgot the other reason. There is no precedence for Dhasarth to divide his kingdom. I think he Ikshvaku/Raghu Vamsis' family/king culture gave the throne to the eldest son, always. Also, only Dasarth had 4 sons, whose birth times were so close to each other. This was a new experience for this Vansh. So, Dasarth, I think, bungled. Ram, IMHO, probably learned from his father's mistake and divided the kingdom among his brothers. Also, since the birth times were so close, all of them probably had a claim to the throne.

Not to sidetrack this discussion, but what Rama did was similar to what was done at least twice in the Chandra-vansh. Yayati's 5 sons all inherited kingdoms, and King Pururava, who had quintuplets from Urvashi, had each of them start separate kingdoms and dynasties. Similarly, Rama wanted to spread the Raghu dynasty and honor the fact that all his nephews were also of full royal lineage - grandsons of Dasharath and Janak/Kushdhwaj. Otherwise, it's curious that he'd give kingdoms to both his sons, rather than ask Luv to serve Kush like Lakshman served him, and do likewise for the younger sons of all his brothers (Angad serve Chandraketu, Shatrughatee serve Subahu, et al).

But back on topic - had Dasharath simply annexed another kingdom, given it to Bharat and Shatrughan, while giving Rama and Lakshman Ayodhya, he could have spared everyone, including Kaikeyi and Manthara, all that heartache?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Kaikeyi asked for her 2 boons with the expectation that she would then be the rajmata, and continue to enjoy the privileged status of favorite queen that she did under Dasharath. She also expected that it would make Bharat happy, and Kaushalya and Sumitra unhappy. Once Bharat made his feelings known, she undoubtedly regretted what she had done. Unfortunately for her, due to Dasharath's death, she was in no position to undo it.

However, had Dasharath survived Rama's departure, then, on Bharat's return, once he mutinied against Kaikeyi for this, she would have taken back the boons that she asked, and Dasharath would have been only too glad to accept it for a substitute. Rama left to fulfill his father's vow, but once that was revoked by mutual agreement between Dasharath and Kaikeyi, he would have been under no obligation to stay on in the forest. Remember, the reason he stayed on was that his father was in no position to acknowledge Kaikeyi's revokation of the boons he granted her. But if he was there to do it, Rama would have been as compelled to return as he was anyway after 14 years.

Exit question: why didn't Dasharath, unlike Rama, simply split his kingdom between his sons, or conquer a new kingdom for Bharat?

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Not to sidetrack this discussion, but what Rama did was similar to what was done at least twice in the Chandra-vansh. Yayati's 5 sons all inherited kingdoms, and King Pururava, who had quintuplets from Urvashi, had each of them start separate kingdoms and dynasties. Similarly, Rama wanted to spread the Raghu dynasty and honor the fact that all his nephews were also of full royal lineage - grandsons of Dasharath and Janak/Kushdhwaj. Otherwise, it's curious that he'd give kingdoms to both his sons, rather than ask Luv to serve Kush like Lakshman served him, and do likewise for the younger sons of all his brothers (Angad serve Chandraketu, Shatrughatee serve Subahu, et al).

But back on topic - had Dasharath simply annexed another kingdom, given it to Bharat and Shatrughan, while giving Rama and Lakshman Ayodhya, he could have spared everyone, including Kaikeyi and Manthara, all that heartache?

Okay. I did not know about Yayati. I also agree with Godisone that Luv and Kush were twins and giving the kingdom to just one twin is not fair. IMHO, I think the 4 brothers were twins too, technically. They all came from the same payas. To reply to the topic question, I don't think Kaikaeyee would have agreed to that. Ayodhya was the crown jewel of the Ikshvaku/Ranghu Vansh. I am pretty sure she would have wanted Ayodhya for her son Bharat. Even if Dasarth had annexed another kingdom and given it to Ram/Lakshman she would not have liked that. Ram/Lakshman would have become powerful rival kings of Bharat. This is why she wants 14 years Vanvas for Ram. She probably thought that 14 years was enough to dampen his spirits and he would be older too. She might have hoped that Ram would just settle in the forest after 14 years.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Exit question: why didn't Dasharath, unlike Rama, simply split his kingdom between his sons, or conquer a new kingdom for Bharat?

Kekayi demanded whole kingdom in Bharat's favor. Kingdom was never a problem. What hurted Dasrath in a fatal way was Kekayi's 14 yrs exile demand. Dasrath said that he has no problem in declraing Bharat as his successor but she shud revoke her 14 yrs exile demand. But kekayi replied that she want both

Great Dotw janaki di. I want more participation in all thread but I can't due to some schedule. Only after 15th I will be able to give more time on net😭. anyways I will try to come with my POV latter😃

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Kekayi demanded whole kingdom in Bharat's favor. Kingdom was never a problem. What hurted Dasrath in a fatal way was Kekayi's 14 yrs exile demand. Dasrath said that he has no problem in declraing Bharat as his successor but she shud revoke her 14 yrs exile demand. But kekayi replied that she want both

Of course, Dasharath was ignorant about how evil and selfish manthara was, but the point of my question is that if Dasharath had decided to create 2 or 4 kingdoms for them, then Manthara may have been satisfied, particularly if Bharat had been given Ayodhya, and Rama had been given a different kingdom. The reason the 14 years was demanded was to give the people of Ayodhya time to get used to Bharat as a ruler: initially, Kaikeyi was hesitant to ask, but Manthara explained why she needed it.

Another point of my exit question was that Dasharath could have created the precedent that Rama ultimately did. And on the other point made by Godisone, it wasn't just a question of age - all the sons of Lakshman, Bharat and Shatrughan, irrespective of their ages, were made rulers. We know that Kush and Luv were twins, but is there anything anywhere that suggests that Urmila, Mandavi and Srutakirti also gave birth to twins, or did they have single babies twice spaced apart by a couple of years or more? The idea, as I understand it, was to create as many Raghu dynasties as possible - in this case 8, irrespective of the ages of the princes.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Of course, Dasharath was ignorant about how evil and selfish manthara was, but the point of my question is that if Dasharath had decided to create 2 or 4 kingdoms for them, then Manthara may have been satisfied, particularly if Bharat had been given Ayodhya, and Rama had been given a different kingdom. The reason the 14 years was demanded was to give the people of Ayodhya time to get used to Bharat as a ruler: initially, Kaikeyi was hesitant to ask, but Manthara explained why she needed it.

Another point of my exit question was that Dasharath could have created the precedent that Rama ultimately did. And on the other point made by Godisone, it wasn't just a question of age - all the sons of Lakshman, Bharat and Shatrughan, irrespective of their ages, were made rulers. We know that Kush and Luv were twins, but is there anything anywhere that suggests that Urmila, Mandavi and Srutakirti also gave birth to twins, or did they have single babies twice spaced apart by a couple of years or more? The idea, as I understand it, was to create as many Raghu dynasties as possible - in this case 8, irrespective of the ages of the princes.

I think doing any bargain here in granting boon wud have amounted to harm the image of Dasrath n Ram was well aware abt it so he (Ram) immedately resolved to fulfill his step-mother's wish

Okay, but I was thinking about before Dasharath thought of crowning just Rama, not as a bargain after Manthara brought it up. After all, when Dasharath proposed to Akshavati that he marry Kaikeyi, he did promise him that her son would succeed him to the throne. Doing something like this would have enabled him to both keep that promise, while also having the joy of seeing Rama crowned.

Also note that since Bharat always ruled in Rama's name and put his padukas on the throne, it's incorrect when people refer to him as the king or emperor. Kings or emperors have representatives or proxies, but not substitutes.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Okay, but I was thinking about before Dasharath thought of crowning just Rama, not as a bargain after Manthara brought it up. After all, when Dasharath proposed to Akshavati that he marry Kaikeyi, he did promise him that her son would succeed him to the throne. Doing something like this would have enabled him to both keep that promise, while also having the joy of seeing Rama crowned.

Also note that since Bharat always ruled in Rama's name and put his padukas on the throne, it's incorrect when people refer to him as the king or emperor. Kings or emperors have representatives or proxies, but not substitutes.

Chandra, here is a link. I am posting it here again. I found these articles archived at chennaionline.com. All aspects of Ramayan are discussed. The main page is here:

http://archives.chennaionline.com/festivalsnreligion/religion/

The author of these articles discusses the validity of the promise given to Kaikeyee's father. I found it very a interesting read. Here is the link to that.

http://archives.chennaionline.com/festivalsnreligion/religion/religion400.asp

I am not a scholar so I cannot answer your question. I hope the links I have provided will answer the question for you. I hope it does