Ayodhyavasi

Originally posted by: newmoon

Why is it that when the people of Ayodhya wanted to throw out Kaikeyi, Ramji ignored them. But now that the people of Ayodhya are divided about Sitaji being queen of Ayodhya, Ramji is torn.

Originally posted by: Vibhishna

I had already posted my views on this in 'Doubts and Discussions' thread. But I'll post it here too.

It was difficult for both of them (Ram and Sita). It was totally unfortunate that Sita had to be kidnapped by Ravan. As I have said before, this is a forever debated topic. I had thought about it too. Here is my reasoning:

Ram and Sita are always praised as the eternal couple. He, the perfect man and she as the perfect woman. Ram loved Sita so dearly. He knew and understood her very well. Sita too was ever devoted to her husband always understanding and never blaming him for what had to do.

In Ram's position he had to do what he did. First, it was a total dishonour to him that Ravan had kidnapped her - taken her away when he still lived. Sita had been given in marriage to him and it was his duty to protect his wife, but due to various reasons he couldn't (I'm not blaming him at all - just putting down the facts). Sita had been totally alarmed by Maareech's screams and was concerned for her husband (understandable). Lakshman had to leave - she was so scared that she threatened to kill herself if anything happens to Ram. Ravan had planned it well. And all three of them fell a prey to it. No one can blame anyone else except Ravan. It was a disgrace on Ram - his family, his honour, his bravery - that he let Sita get captured. He fought the war, won it and rescued her. This way, he fulfilled his duty of protecting her and vindicated his honour.

But there still remained the fact that she had lived in another man's home. Though he loved her a lot and was sure that she was always true to him and Ravan could not have done anything to her. He knew that if Ravan ever dared to, she would have killed herself rather than let him do anything. But the society was ever doubtful. A woman who leaves her husband's house and stays elsewhere will never be trusted by the public even though she is blameless. Ram couldn't accept her right away. The society would have said that he was blinded by the love of a woman and he took her back even though she was true. So, to uphold his, his family's honour he told her that she is free to go anywhere she pleases and that he had done his duty of freeing her from Ravan's clutches. This any common man too would have done (in those times - it was necessary to uphold their self esteem and honour more than anything else). A prince and future king of a mighty country would have to set his standars much higher than a common man. Thus, when she heard such harsh words Sita decided to undergo the Agni Pariksha and prove the world she was spotless. Ram never doubted her and it was extreme agony for him to watch his beloved walk into the fire. He too was aware of the disgrace she was being submitted to but he was aware that it was necessary that she vindicated her own honour. If the general public was open minded - the problem would have ended then and there.

But no, the society (with not much literate people and a lot of people who were skeptical) was not satisfied at all. This led to Ram banishing Sita even when she was carrying his heir. When the people started talking that they have to tollerate their womenfolk (wifes and daughters-in-law) leave their house and expect to be accepted back again Ram couldn't tollerate anymore. He was the King of a country - he had to uphold the name and honour of the family, his race. He had to uphold the honour of the country and his people. He could not reason out with that one point - if any woman had ever spoken back to her husband and said that Sri Ram himself had accpeted a woman who lived in another's house and why can't you - that would have been the final disgrace. If this rumour travelled beyond the borders of his kingdom, what will the other countries think of his people, his race and his own conduct and that of his wife - won't they say (the common people again - who constantly look for some news to chew with) that perhaps the whole country was like this? Ram did not have an answer to this - the people had very conveniently forgotten Sita's chastity and endurance and had spoken only of the fact that she had lived in another man's palace. As a king his first and foremost duty was to his subjects. This was why he had to banish Sita, his beloved queen and wife. His agony over the separation was no less than hers.

Did Ram put the blame on himself willingly, consciously and wantedly? I have no answer to this. All I know was that he was conscious of the effects of this - he wont be able to see his wife again (till his subjects accept her), he might not be able crown his son (if a son was born) as king (I said might - when he had banished her he couldn't still contact or correspond with her at all - he wont know what happens to her at all) and since he had taken up a vow that he will mary only once in his life and his one and only wife was Sita, he will practically be heirless (If Kush and Luv had not turned up, Bharat would have been the next king and his sons kings after him - it would still be the rule of the Surya Vanshi) and if the future generations believed his wife to be pure (I'm sure he would have hoped for it) then the blame for banishing a chaste woman - his own wife - the very question asked "How could he do this to her?"

Sita was his wife - his responsibilty. She would always be his wife. But the Queen of Ayodhya must be accepted universally by all in the country. When such an insult (the people saying "Whatever it may have been - she had lived elsewhere") on her the people would have never accepted her whole heartedly as the queen. And Ram would never force his subjects to accpet Sita as the queen against their wishes.

As for Sita, she couldn't help the turn of events either. She understood why her husband took such a decision but that only served to make the agony more painful. She was sinless but she had to bear the shame, pain and torture.

Sita's conduct was most glorious during her captivity but also the most controversial (in those times). Some people have to suffer more than their share because their suffering is not witnessed, not observable and not appreciated. (These words, I have copied word to word from a book - The Story of Rama - Narendra K. Sinha). The people did not ask whether she should be rewarded for her conduct but instead asked shouldn't she be punished for it (living in another's home). The decision of the King was inherent in this attitude of his people. The king, in this matter, was helpless. He had no choice.

Much of the common folk had mis - interpreted this incident. Apart from the rumour of whether Sita was chaste or not, there was the rumour that Ram himself needed proof - he himself tested Sita. Though Ram did not do it for this reason, by asking her to vinidcate her own honour, he did create this impression on his people. I hate it when people catch hold of a wrong concept and blow it up so big.😡

So, the couple sacrificed themselves for the public opinion and to uphold the honour of not only the family but also the whole country.

I hope all this makes sense and its not too winding. I've just put down all my reasoning regarding this issue. Hence, for these reasons - I couldn't blame Ram for it - he suffered by this too. Thus, I decided to just take it as it was presented - an unfortunate incident, though it did good to the world had sacrificed the happiness, peace and the life of a couple who should have lived and enjoyed their life to the fullest.

If there are any points I have missed or if there is any other explanations (for or against) please share it with me.

Regarding Rajmata Kaikeyi, I don't think that the comparison is right. Both their cases were entirely different.

Rajmata Kaikeyi asked for the boons promised to her (I'm not saying what she did was correct) and she did repent her deeds. She had paid dearly for her mistake. Sita was not to be blamed at all. She made no mistake and what was done to her was because her sufferings were not noticed by many. Some people have to suffer more because their earlier suffering is not seen by everyone.