Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000
Yes it is correct as he did it to stop political unrest in the kingdom . What the dhobi said may be rubbish but it was the voice of the common people . And he could not ignore it . He was not just a lover and a husband but also a king and the responsibility of the welfare of many homes was on his head . If he had kept his wife due to his personal belief in her , dissatisfaction would have spread like forest fire and riots would have broken out in the kingdom where for the sake of one , many lives would be at stake . The decision he took is not popular but it had to be taken and he is called Maryada Purushottam bcoz he took many such unpopular decisions objectively by suppressing his personal feelings . See that era , try not to judge him or any character in the Ramayan by the norms of today . A woman who stayed for months with a rakshasa king who abducted her ...naturally her chastity was spoken about ...whether it was her fault or not that she was abducted is another issue . Chastity meant a lot in those days . Nobody beleved in their hearts inspite of the agni pariksha that the rakshasa had spared her just like that ...though no one was saying it openly , and the drunk dhobi's words were the pulse of the common man that Ram sensed .
He then took that tough painful decision . She on her part brought up the twins alone ...single parenting in that era . She understood his decision making process . By the time the twins were found the sentiments of the commoners had diffused ...Ram's action of leaving his wife had calmed them down . It was astute political foresight . They then did not question the birth of the twins but demanded they should be brought back . But Sita now shone as an individual and declared she was tired of being treated like a point to be proved to the subjects ...that she had enough . She gave the twins to him , told him to take care and embraced death . She knew that era would not let her live in peace . Neither was she wrong nor he . They both kept their personal feelings aside and made some decisions . My POV strictly .
Originally posted by: koolsadhu1000
Yes it is correct as he did it to stop political unrest in the kingdom . What the dhobi said may be rubbish but it was the voice of the common people . And he could not ignore it . He was not just a lover and a husband but also a king and the responsibility of the welfare of many homes was on his head . If he had kept his wife due to his personal belief in her , dissatisfaction would have spread like forest fire and riots would have broken out in the kingdom where for the sake of one , many lives would be at stake . The decision he took is not popular but it had to be taken and he is called Maryada Purushottam bcoz he took many such unpopular decisions objectively by suppressing his personal feelings . See that era , try not to judge him or any character in the Ramayan by the norms of today . A woman who stayed for months with a rakshasa king who abducted her ...naturally her chastity was spoken about ...whether it was her fault or not that she was abducted is another issue . Chastity meant a lot in those days . Nobody beleved in their hearts inspite of the agni pariksha that the rakshasa had spared her just like that ...though no one was saying it openly , and the drunk dhobi's words were the pulse of the common man that Ram sensed .
He then took that tough painful decision . She on her part brought up the twins alone ...single parenting in that era . She understood his decision making process . By the time the twins were found the sentiments of the commoners had diffused ...Ram's action of leaving his wife had calmed them down . It was astute political foresight . They then did not question the birth of the twins but demanded they should be brought back . But Sita now shone as an individual and declared she was tired of being treated like a point to be proved to the subjects ...that she had enough . She gave the twins to him , told him to take care and embraced death . She knew that era would not let her live in peace . Neither was she wrong nor he . They both kept their personal feelings aside and made some decisions . My POV strictly .
Originally posted by: nila_music
Hey all..i am silent reader in this forum...so thought of asking u guys something...well now the episodes are dealing with sita's kidnap...but want to ask u something...r u ppl justified with what lord ram did with sita devi when he heard ill things about her in ayodhya after they returned..from vanvas..u all know that lord ram sent sita devi to the forest...do u think it is correct??😕
comment:
p_commentcount