DOTW:Would you have criticized Rama if.... - Page 3

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.

Originally posted by: samirah23

This is a big point - any wife would want her husband to support her and stand up for her - and here, he abandons her while in a pregnant state and does not even know where she is going and if she is alive. He doesn't know the whereabouts of his children yet. At least he should have found a way to take care of her.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Chandra the answer of the ques u aksed depends upon the time n situation. No ques of we people critisising Ram arises as we know the whole story. We know that He n Sita Ma were avtars..we know how she was abducted ......where she was kept ...her determination.. Even befor we knew the story of Ramayan we r worshiping THEM as Gods. From his childhood a Hindu kid sees the idol of Ram -Sita in their pujarooms. He/she worships THEM as Gods before he actually studies the epic Ramayan or watches its dramatic adaption. So no question of we criticizing Ram for not asking Sita to give Agni Pariksha or exiling her arises. Sita's Agniparikha n her second exile or her last pariksha makes us cry. These r the most tragic parts of Ramayana. Notwithstanding that it cant be answered whether we wud hv critisized Ram or not. But if I were born with same mentality in during Ramyan period i wud not hv critisized Lord Ram
I wud've critsized Ram today had he not taken any action to restore the image of Sita. I wud've criticized Ram had he taken force or violence to restore the image of Sita like a ruthless dictator.

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

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

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

Not a very sound argument - as demonstrated in the case of Lakshman. There, after Lakshman passed on, Rama announced that he was going to follow him and would install Bharat as the ruler (who declined it in favor of K-L) We touched on this before, - Rama's decision to follow Lakshman wasn't liked by his subjects, unless they could come w/ him.* Rama could have done just that w/ Sita, and a wife is closer to a person than even a sibling.

The two people who were most dear to Ram were Sita and Lakshman - my guess is that Ram consoled himself when Sita was lost - he had Lakshman with him and his sons were still young and he had done nothing as a father to them both. As time moved on he must have done what all a father must do for his sons. When Lakshman too left the world and his duties all fulfilled, he must have felt there was nothing holding him back. Both Sita and Lakshman now gone - he must have felt more lonely than ever. When Sita left him, he could have consoled himself that Lakshman was still with him. It is true that a wife is closer to a person than a sibling but Lakshman was more than just a sibling to Ram. He was always with Ram right from his childhood - Ram was never separated from him at all. I guess that Lakshman's death must have given Ram more grief than Sita's. Someone whom he had lived with for so many years was gone and he couldn't take it any more. Besides, there was nothing else for him to live for - his sons were grown up and capable of ruling the country, the country itself faced no threats or harm. He was satisfied that he had done his duty and decided to leave the Earth himself.

As for the latter argument, it defies sense - if Rama suspected Sita, he'd have disowned her as a husband, not followed her to the forest. So how would such a decision have made people think that he endorses their suspicions? In fact, his critics are on more solid ground when they argue that by exiling Sita, Rama seemed to be endorsing their suspicions, which is one of the reasons this move of his was so controversial in the first place.

When have rumours ever been sensible? I was saying that the rumours would have circulated so. That was the main problem - if the citizens of Ayodhya had ever stopped to think if what they were saying was logical, all this wouldn't have happened. All they would do is ask blandly "What is the proof?" What I meant was that the people would think Ram was more attached to Sita than he should be. It would have set a bad example - Ram had abandoned his duties for a woman. Their minds would never catch up with the actual truth.

The responsibilities of a king are huge. Even the slightest fault will cause disaster. A king is trained to think above the common mind and yet be concious of the mentality of the common people. The reason he is king is that he is much more than a common man. He is trained to think, act and live that way. The wishes, feelings and the satisfaction of the people matters the most to the king - for he had willingly accepted to take care of them and manage the whole country. A king sacrifices a lot for his people - for their well being but all the citizens think about is their own life and gossip on every bit of information they can find on their king. The reason - the king (and the queen and the rest of his family) are the ones in the spotlight - the king has to be perfect. Otherwise not only his own citizens, but the citizens of the other countries too will laugh at not only the king but also the whole country.

*Incidentally, since all this is supposed to have been done for a salutary effect, how is the people following their king to heaven an ideal? So whenever a ruler of any kingdom died/dies, should all his people have followed him? 😕 This decision to allow them to come w/ him just to make them happy was assinine! Rama's reign is over, just accept his successor and die whenever your time comes. That's what all rulers did/do - they go to heaven themselves when their time comes, and their successors inherit their populaces. Only argument in this case was that Rama didn't want K-L to inherit populaces who dissed their mom, and so he agreed to their puerile request.

Originally posted by: Khalrika

U guys are constantly forgetting one thing. Sita was their Queen who sat on the throne along with Ramji to rule. So the praja had every right to question her. Ramji could not have abdicated at this time because as a King he cannot run away from his duty by abdicating the throne.

Lakshman, on their other hand was not their king or yuva raj or anything like that. He was just Ramji's brother, a prince maybe, but just a family member living in the palace doing Ramji's commands. Lakshman's actions did not affect the praja in any way.

Sitaji's actions did. Her children would have become the rulers of Ayodhya one day. So, Vibs reasoning is very valid and spot on.

Even if Ramji had followed Sita to the forest the praja would not have accepted L-K as their kings without Sita's pariksha. The only way Ramji could have made his sons kings, even if he were abdicating, was by asking for the oath from Sita.

Vibs is spot on with her reasoning. 👍🏼