Unequal Justice of Ayodhya

How is it possible that Ayodhyavasis allowed Kaikeyi, a queen who caused their King's death and exiled their beloved Ram to continue to live in their city while Sita who displayed every good quality is rejected by them? If Ayodhyans forgave Kaikeyi because Ram forgave her, this forgiveness should also have been extended to Sita who was re-accepted by Ram after Raavan's death.

Maybe it's because they felt threatened by the fact that Sita could be so, divine, and so pure, and couldn't probably relate to her, but could relate to this grey, more human side of Kaikeyi.

Originally posted by: newmoon

How is it possible that Ayodhyavasis allowed Kaikeyi, a queen who caused their King's death and exiled their beloved Ram to continue to live in their city while Sita who displayed every good quality is rejected by them? If Ayodhyans forgave Kaikeyi because Ram forgave her, this forgiveness should also have been extended to Sita who was re-accepted by Ram after Raavan's death.

I have learnt from life that righteous people have to give a lot more agneepariksha than the one's that are not. People make righteous people to go through hell for even the smallest error that they make. I think probably that's Gods way of testing them to take them to the highest spiritual level. Sita's case was to prove that.

@newmoon I have lot to write on this question. But have already written quite a lot on it in the symbolism thread. Could you please read that. it is a sticky now.

Originally posted by: raima18

I have learnt from life that righteous people have to give a lot more agneepariksha than the one's that are not. People make righteous people to go through hell for even the smallest error that they make. I think probably that's Gods way of testing them to take them to the highest spiritual level. Sita's case was to prove that.

Ayodhya did provide unequal justice, no doubt. But it was Raj Dharma that exiled Queen Sita. Note here, when I say Queen, I mean Queen. The wife resided with the husband Shri Rama. The King Shri Rama did exile the Queen.

Thank you all for responding. When I said Ram re- accepted Sita, I meant in the eyes of Ayodhyavasis who thought he was overlooking her previous transgressions which of course there were none. Sita was given a cruel punishment because she was thought to be impure, any other woman in this situation would not have survived. This means the punishment in Ayodhya for being considered impure was death. On the other hand, Kaikeyi who was Queen at the time committed treachery, disloyalty to the crown and even caused the King's death and this is a pardonable offense. I am not saying Kaikeyi should be punished, I just find it strange that for Ayodhyavasis, a woman's perceived impurity is considered a more serious offense than treachery and conspiring against the King.

Originally posted by: newmoon

How is it possible that Ayodhyavasis allowed Kaikeyi, a queen who caused their King's death and exiled their beloved Ram to continue to live in their city while Sita who displayed every good quality is rejected by them? If Ayodhyans forgave Kaikeyi because Ram forgave her, this forgiveness should also have been extended to Sita who was re-accepted by Ram after Raavan's death.

Kaikeyi was punished for her sins, in front of their eyes, so the praja did not revolt against her. She indirectly killed her husband, her son Bharat renounced her for 14 years, and she lived in utter isolation without seeing any of her ambitions come to fruit, and she did penance for those 14 years, so she was suitably punished.