Originally posted by: Chandraketu
I understand the curse that Vishnu received, and why this had to happen, but the script is terrible. It's true that a king's first duty is towards his subjects, but even if Rama had handed over the kingdom to Lakshman and stepped down and accompanied Sita to the forest, the Raghu dynasty wouldn't have unravelled. While Lakshman had declined being the yuvraj, had he been told that the choice was that he make a sacrifice and let Rama retire with Sita and assume the throne, or that Rama & Sita's happiness be ended, he'd probably have accepted the throne, since Rama's happiness meant everything to him.
Also, I understand this was 5000BC and those were simpler times, but even there, there was a vast spectrum of choices between allowing Sita to remain the maharani of Ayodhya, and abandoning her in the forest - choices from stripping her of her royal status but providing her a home of her own, sending her back to Mithila, making her an attendant of Kaushalya - choices that would have allowed the family to experience the joys of giving Kush & Luv a complete family, rather than make them hermits in Valmiki's ashram. Much as I love, respect and worship Shri Rama, I don't agree with this decision of his. Also, he was a God, and could have overruled his people, telling them that Sita had already gone through Agni-pariksha, and that was the end of that matter. It's not a valid argument that he had to follow whatever his people wanted - had they wanted him to launch a genocidal expedition and conquer the world, would he have been obligated to follow that? A king's duty was to guide his people towards dharam, not just do whatever they wanted.
The other terrible aspect to this was the assumption of 'guilty unless proven innocent' rather than the 'innocent unless proven guilty' standard that seemed to be in operation here.
You say that Ram was God so he could have overruled his people. That's true, but in the Ram Avatar, Ram always denied being God, because he wanted to show people how to be when faced with human sufferings. And I don't agree that sending Sitaji back to Mithila would have been a good option. Not at all, because back in those days, sending a wife back to her parents' house was considered a disgrace not only to the wife, but to the wife's family as well. And Ram would not want to insult Maharaj Janak's family by sending Sitaji back, #1, because sending Sitaji back to Janak's household would mean he (Ram) doubts Sitaji's purity too, #2, Urmila, Sitaji's sister, was still a daughter-in-law of the Raghu-vansh, and insulting Maharaj Janak would be insulting her too.
Also, what good would it do if Ram sent Sitaji to serve Mata Kaushalya? No offense, but I don't see the logic in that, b/c Sitaji served Mata Kaushalya anyway everyday. And the the praja would not have been satisfied, b/c Sitaji would still be in Ayodhya.
I don't think the script of Uttar Ramayan is terrible at all. I think it's tragic, yes, but there are sooo many morals in it. And I don't think one can criticise Ram for his action. I certainly feel pity for Sitaji, but she is a great tyagi who gave up her personal enjoyment to uphold the dignity of the Raghu-vansh. She didn't want anyone's pity. And one can't criticize Ram, because he did what he had to do. About the "genocide comment", of course Ram would not have done that, but in the instance of Sitaji, it was different, because his Dharma changed once he became king. And a King's duty is not to shut his subjects' mouths when they expressed their opinion. What if the subjects found something lacking in their king's rule? Is it the Dharma of the King to shut the mouths of his subjects and tell them he is ruling fine?
And the subjects didn't believe that Sitaji underwent the AgniPariksha, because none other than Vanaras saw her do it. What should Ram have done? Made Sitaji do another AgniParikshna in her pregnancy? That would have been a downright cruel act.
Yes, a King's duty is to guide the people to follow Dharma, but when something is said of the Maharani, who is supposed to be the mother of the kingdom and an example to all the women in it, the situation must be thought over very carefully. If Ramji had insisted over and over that Sitaji was pure and he was going to disregard the praja's opinon, people would have said he was not a good king, or one who is ruled by a woman. Remember, when Ram was being exiled by Kaikeyi, Ayodhya's Praja blame King Dasharath for the calamity, because he was letting Kaiekyi do what she pleased. Many called him a womanizer, and Ramji had to convince them otherwise before they respected their king again.
Ramji had no choice but to exile Sitaji, for the sake of his house's dignity. Do you know the story of King Harishchandra, who was the ancestor of Ramji? For the sake of truth and his house's honor, he sold his wife and son in the market. The story of King Harischandra is very tragic, but the morals in it are endless, just like in the Ramayan.
It is very hard to understand some of the actions that Kings performed in our puranas, but the explanations are also really knoweldgeable. For example, many don't understand why Ramji exiled Sitaji, or why Draupadi married all of the Pandavas, or why the Panadavas stayed mute during Draupadi's cheer haran.
All I'm saying is that nothing must be said against Ramji for Sitaji's exile. It wasn't his fault. It was all the fault of Ayodhya's praja.
Anupamaa
