Doubts and Discussions from the Ramayan - Page 98

One thing I have a doubt with:

Originally posted by: Chandraketu

The Avadhis did have a right to who their queens were, or weren't. But they didn't have any rights or inputs into the private lives of their kings. Like Dasharath had 350 wives other than KSK, but nobody ever bothered about them. Sita's status could have been like them. In fact (while it's not in Valmiki), even Rama drew the line at a point - when some suggested that he re-marry, he rejected such popular desires. So it's not like he blindly acquiesced to everything his subjects wanted. And if he denied them the 'right' to a new queen, he would have been on the same legal plane in denying them the 'right' to a divorced/separated Sita.

There was no such legally recognised right to elect , right ot speech n expression in those days as it exits tody in may of the civilised nations. the existence of such right totally dependent on the will of the ruler. In case of subjects of Raghuvanshi ruler such right existed because of custom or convention of this dynasty. But that too dependent upon the will of the ruler. Danda a suryaanshi was exile because of public complaind against him. Dasrath decided to make Ram king because public wanted that. I agree avadhis had no right in private life of their king. But no king how powerful he may be can ever stop his subject form thinking anything or can stop such thought from getting spread or can ever compell them to truly respect or worship anyone on whom they have doubt. Even Hitler cud not do that.

Why u want to Sita to be like one of those forgotten 350 queens? Public slander affected Ram because Sita was his ego. Sita desrved respect from subjects. Ram wanted to praja to respect her n worship her for her greatness n satitva. Is comfort everthing? Ramayan wud have never been happy ending had it not happened. Did prosecuting all Avadhis for defaming Sita or severe punishment wud have served the purpose? I think no

He rejected public demand to remarry to show them that he abandoned her only because he is king of this country but as husband he respects her. I dont agree with u that he blindly acquiesced to everything his subjects wanted. A good king is one who can foresee future n can take apt decison in present. Lord Ram had a object behind all his decisions. He knew how to react in response to any public demand n waht will be its future results.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

One thing I have a doubt with:

If the Praja of Ayodhya were so offended with Sita Mata being queen, why didn't they protest to her being made queen during the Rajyabhishek? It was rather cruel of them to doubt her a whole two years later, don't you think? And especially when she was pregnant. I can never understand how they were so heartless.

They did not protest to her being made queen, so they had no right to protest her being queen once the Rajyabhishek was already over.

Even is todays democracy public will seldom dare to do so. They never thought taht Ram will take such step for their slender though they wanted it. Gossip, paraninda paracharcha r something which r as old as human civilisation. No ruler can ever completely wipe off it. They never protested openly. Gossips r never official. They were showing respect to her which was fake. I mean they were showing fake repect to her. that's why Ram employed guptachars spies to find out what public actually thinks abt Ram's administration

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

One thing I have a doubt with:

If the Praja of Ayodhya were so offended with Sita Mata being queen, why didn't they protest to her being made queen during the Rajyabhishek? It was rather cruel of them to doubt her a whole two years later, don't you think? And especially when she was pregnant. I can never understand how they were so heartless.

They did not protest to her being made queen, so they had no right to protest her being queen once the Rajyabhishek was already over.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

Sorry Vibs & loveanime, did not see your posts, looks like we 3 some similiarity in our posts....

Deepa, no need to apologise at all. Even if we three had posted similar views, each one's points can tell something new.

And wonderful explanations both of you. Sorry, I seem to be replying late for it all. I just couldn't get here sooner.

Originally posted by: chen2chic

TRUE - Agreed....

Oh........thats interesting.......they worship Ram in protest, Chalo achchaa hai, kisi tarah se Ramji ko mante to hain.....

Ok now for the exit question (taking Chandra's style): Its evident that Ayodhya was not the capital after Ram for the next generation of Raghuvanshis. Did some future king make it a capital later?

I agree on that point too. People from Mithila would have wanted their princess to remain with honour wherever she was.

I had heard that people of Janakpur hesitate to give their womenfolk in marriage to people from U.P. But I never knew their worship was a protest . . .

Ayodhya was not the capital after Ram's departure from the world. It was Kush who shifted his capital from Kushavati to Ayodhya. One night, the village Deity (Graam Devta) of Ayodhya came to Kush and said that after his father left the Earth Ayodhya was in ruins and was deteriorating. She also told Kush about the greatness of Ayodhya and that it should be left to be in ruins. Kush agreed and shifted his capital to Ayodhya. He gave Kushavati to Brahmans to do penances and austerities and shifted his capital with all its people to Ayodhya. The people of Ayodhya had left the Earth along with Lord Ram. I think there was no one staying in Ayodhya at that time. I think this was why Kush accepted. He need not think of the people responsible for his mother's suffering. The land was not at fault for what its people did.

Originally posted by: _LalithaJanaki_

The circumstances also matter. There's a difference in going to a parent's house for protection and because your husband sent you. It would have been a disgrace for Sita, because it would seem as if Rama was disowning her and believing the allegations made by his praja. But the Pandavas were exiled, and Indraprastha was no longer theirs. They had no home or property to call their own. Their wives had no protection, so it would not be disgrace at all to stay in their parents' home. What do you expect? Them trying to seek protection from Duryodhan?

And to go to a parents' home for a visit with the permission of their husband is also not disgraceful. Sita also would have gone to her parents' home shortly into her pregnancy had the praja not doubted her, because it was a common custom that a woman would deliver her child in her parents' home and return after that. The Baby Shower was also customarily done in a parents' home.

So there's a difference between being exiled to a parents' home by a husband and going on your own accord with the husbands' permission, or sometimes, along with him. So you can't compare Sita with Subhadra. The praja never doubted her, and she was not the chief queen of Indraprastha. Draupadi was the chief queen, and she went into exile with her husbands. Moreover, there never came a time when Subhadra's chastity became a doubt, and a possibilty of her exile arose.

And of course customs changed drastically between Treta and Dwapar Yugs, just like they changed drastically between Dwapar and Kali Yugs. Ulupi does not even come into consideration when comparing with Sita. Ulupi was what, the 2nd wife of Arjun? And Arjun was the 3rd brother, so he was not even King. Where she spent her time was beyond the care of the Indraprastha praja. Moreover, she was a Naga Kanya, and their customs differed from humans, just like the Vanaras customs differed from humans.

I agree with Lalitha Janaki.

I'm sure Sita would have accepted to live with her family if she was allowed to reunite with them honourably.

Dasrath had 3 principal queens and so the people did not bother about the others.

The queen had to be accepted by all the subjects but the King remarrying or taking a new queen was his personal matters. He had the right to accept or decline. He did not blindly acquiesced whatever his subjects wanted. The people did not want Sita for a queen and hence he had to send her away. He did not disown her as his subjects wanted. That was his personal decision. Whether he wanted Sita to be his wife or not was his own decision and here the people had no rights to force their opinion. And the people seemed to be satisfied and did not press the issue saying Ram should have divorced Sita.

As for Shubadhra, when Arjun was in exile she lived with her parents and brothers. The same was suggested for Sita too when Ram left for exile. But she chose to remain with her husband. Maharaj Dasrath suggested that if she did not want to live in Ayodhya she can live in Mithila till Ram comes back which she declined. Uloopi was left behind and Chitrangada's marriage was done under the conditions that she and her son remained with her father. As Lalitha Janaki pointed out, there is a deffernece between the wife sent to her parent's home with due honour and when she was sent back to her parents home when the people were gossipping about her honour with the knowledge that she would not be taken back. When Shubahdra was left in Dwaraka, everyone knew that Arjun would take her back when he came back from exile.

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Congrats to Ananya on becoming a goldie. Keep posting n enlighten us dear

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Great discussion going on

Congrats to Ananya on becoming a goldie. Keep posting n enlighten us dear


I want to share my views on some of the issues raised here

@ sending sita to her father's house instead of valmiki Ashram

Sending wife to her father;s house is not always insulting as Subhadra , ulupi, chitrangada too live in her father house. But those circumstances were totally differnt.. Sending wife to her father's house when people were gossiping abt her chastity is indeed very insulting. Who knows people of Mithila wud hav started saying the same or wud have casted the same doubt . Common mass follow the trend ..the wave . they have sympathy for Sita because she suffered all these. who knows they too might have behaved like Avadhis after some years. doubts need no logic . they r highly infectious . they can spread like anything n can spoil vivek (right judgment ). What was done by Lord Ram was apt for that situation

@ taking away from her title of queen n allowing her to live in Ayodhya in place of sending her to ashram

Whole purpose of sending her to valmiki Ashram was to uphold her honour . People forgot all her sacrifices. The only thing they remembered was her abduction.....her stay in lanka.
Sita has been described as Ram's ego by Valmiki. Her honour was more dearer to him than his own

For pregnant Sita after getting stripped from the queen titlle because of Avadhis n then stay in Ayodhya in palace of any queen mother or stay in mithila wud have been very insltuing. This wud have made her very weak. N what abt Luv kush they too wud have never got their rights n honour had Ram not sent her to Valmiki Ashram when she was pregnent. No one knew where Sita was sent except Ram n Laxman. For Avadhis it was abandonment which they wanted. Valmiki Ashram was more pious than Ayodhya infact the best place then where she cud take refuge. All such dirty slander wud have made her life miserable. Ayodhya had turned very unsympathetic to her. Raghuvanshis never worried for comfort or luxuries. Ram has seen her strength during vanwas. He was confident that Sita can lead Ashram life n can give good upbringing to luv kush. He knew that her sacrifice will one day make Avadhis feel ashamed of their thoughts.Ram wanted to show that he is not blinded by "moh " of Sita at he same time he has never severed marriage tie with her n Sita is worthy of being worshiped as epitome of purity. . Uttar kand gives true lesson of love n sacrifice. As king if he can abandon Sita for his subjects at the same time as husband he can renounce all royal luxuries for her. He didnt marry for second time n led a hermit life in palace to give give message to world that as king he abandoned her but as husband he has always respected her. That's why he installed her golden statute for performing Yagna

Originally posted by: coolpurvi

Even is todays democracy public will seldom dare to do so. They never thought taht Ram will take such step for their slender though they wanted it. Gossip, paraninda paracharcha r something which r as old as human civilisation. No ruler can ever completely wipe off it. They never protested openly. Gossips r never official. They were showing respect to her which was fake. I mean they were showing fake repect to her. that's why Ram employed guptachars spies to find out what public actually thinks abt Ram's administration