Posted:
Originally posted by: Chandraketu
Well, the theory doing the rounds here (which I consider very plausible, btw) is that Rama chose to divert public slander of Sita to a criticism of him. Had he done what I suggested above and massacred all the gossips, he'd still be criticized and diverting attention from innuendo about Sita, but without making her suffer. You are forgetting that in those times, kings had dictatorial powers, including in Ayodhya. So Rama was under no obligation to reward public innuendos about Sita by having her go through the Agni-pariksha.
Sorry, but no! If a Queen conspires to change the succession plans, like Kaikeyi did, it is a public affair. But if it's a question of whether the King believes in his queen or not, that's his and his affair alone, and nobody else's. Also remember, Rama forced the public to accept Dasharath/Kaikeyi's decision, and that too on a question that directly affected them, so don't say that he had no power to force his will on the public. If he could get the public to go along with a decision that so directly affected them, then how can one claim that he couldn't have done the same with a decision that had nothing to do with them - namely what he did in his private time? Also, the queen was a mere figurehead, and not an alternate ruler, as was the case with, say, Rani Durgavati or Rani Lakshmibhai of Jhansi. There was never any question of Sita ruling Ayodhya, or running things.Again, no it wasn't. I'll get to it later when the subject of the vanvas comes up, but like I once pointed out, there were a lot of things Rama could have done short of exiling her.
True, we should continue this discussion after it comes up in the serial, but I'll just say one last thing before we put this discussion on pause.
Sita being exiled may or may not have been necessary for the times back then, but I think in the long run, it helped people believe in her innocence. Like today's contemporary people: people worship Sita because she is the epitome of chastity, but if she had not had that exile back then, how many of today's people would have doubted her chastity?
Because Sita was exiled, she went back to Mother Earth by proclaiming her innocence. Mother Earth took Sita onto her lap as a proof of her virtue. It was the ultimate test that erased all doubts from the people of Ayodhya. But by then, it was too late. Sita had already gone. If she had stayed back in Ayodhya and went to Vaikunta the same way as Rama, rumors of her reputation would have travelled from generation to generation, and who knows how terrible they might have been today?
So maybe Sita being exiled was not necessary then. Who knows? I don't know Raj Dharma, so I can't say, but in the long run, I feel that it was necessary, because Sita is now revered as one of the greatest Pativratas Stris. There is no doubt of her virtue.
