The Ramayana is one of Hinduism’s most holy texts, and one that all Hindus, including myself, certainly respect. But any type of idea or faith is only made stronger through constant questioning and challenging of orthodoxy, and so I’d like to discuss some aspects of the Ramayana that give me pause. To preface, I am by no means a textual expert on the Ramayana (or any other Hindu text), and am not looking for a textual debate, but rather a debate about ideas and themes. The few ideas and themes that I find disenchanting in the Ramayana are those of obedience and of the treatment of women.
Rama’s obedience to the rules of family and law is certainly admirable, but at times can be disconcerting. As a member of the ruling family who clearly garners the most praise and respect from his people, Rama’s decision to travel to the forest because of his father’s bad judgment decades earlier, despite the fact that his brother, Bharat, is ready to restore him as King, and the fact that Rama would certainly have the public support to take back the throne if he desired, poses the question of which is more important: a responsibility to the people and a moral duty, or a responsibility to misguided laws and wishes made long ago (in this case, by a stepmother, Kaikeyi)? One of Rama’s character marks was his will to always, without fail or exception, obey the laws and norms of his society and family. As a contrast, in the Mahabharata, Krishna encouraged and told Arjun he had to fight against members of his own family, even if it meant that he would be breaking societal norms. Arjun had a greater moral duty to fulfill. This is not to say the rule of law is not important; the last eight years have shown us that obeying the rule of law is of utmost importance in a democratic society. But the Ramayana does not discuss the rule of law in a democratic society; it discusses societal and family norms that are many millennia old.
The most disconcerting element of the Ramayana is the general treatment and portrayal of his wife, Sita. Sita is nothing if not a good wife and friend to Ram; she goes with him to a dangerous forest for 14 years, after all. And to his credit, Ram (with the help of Lakshman, Hanuman, and a formidable monkey army) goes to Lanka recover his wife from the demon, Ravana. The trouble starts afterward, when Ram has his wife, Sita, march through a fire to prove her faithfulness to him through her years in captivity. The logical justification for this is fairly light, at least by my progressive standards: if Sita was possibly unfaithful to Rama during her captivity by a huge, ugly, demon, it probably was not by choice, and in this case, Ram is looking to punish her for being raped by a demon during his absence. Not only this, but why is Ram’s faithfulness never questioned? Between a highly eligible heir apparent to the throne and a woman imprisoned by a cruel demon, it seems sensible that one would worry slightly more about the faithfulness of the crown prince.
Despite the humiliating nature of the very action, Sita does walk through the fire and proves her obedience to Rama. Yet because people of the empire spread rumors about her supposed infidelity, Rama sends her on a second exile to the forest to live with the sage Valmiki, where she lives briefly before re-entering the Earth. The message that Rama’s action sends about the treatment or image of women is very sad. Sita did nothing to deserve a second exile and a depressing and lonely end to her life, and what does it say about a man when he values the pristine image of his royal throne above his wife’s well-being and happiness? Many will argue that Rama was just following the societal norms of the time, to which I would argue, if Rama was one of the greatest figures in our entire religion’s history, why did he not break convention for principles (women’s equality, general fairness) that are almost universally respected by good people in today’s world?
Many counter-arguments will be proposed to the points I make here, and I hope they will be. A common one might be that the Ramayana must be read in the context of the time period it was written in; I will agree that human society has definitely become more progressive since the time of the writing of the Ramayana, but I would also say that it is then necessary to change our views of the story for the times. There are still a multitude of worthy lessons to learn from the Ramayana; Rama is no doubt a good person, Lakshman is a very loyal and admirable character, Hanuman is courageous and unbelievably brave, and Bharata is a wise and kind brother to Rama. The Ramayana, however, just as the Bible is in Christianity, must be viewed with a critical eye as well; our faith and culture must promote gender equality and flexibility of thought and doctrine if Hinduism is to stay relevant in the future.
Related posts:
4 Comments
I disagree on a number of your points stated above. In most conventional readings of the Ramayana, the entirety of the epic’s climax is the proof of Ram’s faithfulness and loyalty to his wife, Sita.
You ask why “Ram’s faithfulness [is] never questioned?” In fact, a large part of the epic’s reading is on Ram’s expression of devotion to his wife. Even after Sita disobeys Ram, leaving the circle he draws around the hut in the woods, Ram journeys tirelessly to Lanka to save Sita from Ravana. When Hanuman reaches Sita, she refuses to leave with him, instead waiting for her husband (Ram)—whom she trusts to come rescue her in person. If there exists any question of Ram’s loyalty to his wife, wouldn’t his commitment to rescuing her offer a resounding answer?
On the other hand, Sita’s “agni pariksha” is brought on NOT be Ram, but by people who criticizing Sita of being unfaithful. If my reading of the Ramayana is correct, I don’t believe Ram ever directly questions Sita, but rather he has her undergo “agni pariksha” to quell those in his court who questioned her loyalty to Ram. This is perhaps just an extention of Ram’s steadfast adherence to social and moral law.
I also find your description of Ram as “highly eligible” as being demoralizing to the tale. Rather, Ram is firmly bound by the moral and social laws that govern his marriage to Sita even in her absence. This a reflection of Ram’s adherence to social code, which you mention, as well as his own internal responsibility and loyalty he sees due to his wife. The relationship of Ram-Sita portrays an idealized monogamous relationship that is distinct from all the other marriages portrayed in the epic. It is very forward thinking in its conceptualization of marriage for Indians. The marriage is based on an equal footing among both the man and woman—the woman is (to a degree) an equal to her husband. Sita accompanies Ram on his exile, and Ram provides protection for Sita. (Gandhi in fact idealized this relationship for this reason.) While Ram serves as a classic heroic figure, saving Sita (read “damsel in distress”), within their marriage, there is no question to the contrary of faithfulness. The two of them are fully and undoubtedly faithful to one another.
On the other hand, the relationship between Kai-kai and the Emperor is marred by her use of blackmail and bribery to advance her own motives—her son’s ascension to the throne. Though led on by her maid, she is cunning and willing to cross her nephew Ram, who is still loving and demonstrates respect for his “aunt”/(“stepmother?”) even after she pushes for his banishment. Kai-kai’s actions ultimately lead to her husband’s death, as he fails ill to the despair accompanying his separation from Ram. Thus, Kai-kai is the epitome of the wife who is not faithful to her husband, not in terms of being sexually faithful but on a deeper level of demonstrating loyalty to a husband’s desires and needs. However, even in this marriage, the Emperor demonstrates respect for his wife’s wishes—however terrible they are. She had saved his life once, and therefore was granted two “boons” to be cashed in at any time. The Emperor honors this promise fully when she asks him to exile Ram and ascend Bharat to the throne. Thus, even this represents an empowering of woman’s rights within the context of an Indian marriage.
Your reading of women’s rights is in the Western context, values that have been adopted only of late (the last half-century in fact). I think Sita is adequately portrayed as a strong and capable female character, resisting temptation while in Ravana’s hold and initially following her husband faithfully into exile. Ram tries to convince her to stay behind as he goes into exile, but she faithfully follows him into exile as fulfilling her duty and obligation as a wife (a contrast to the abuse of spousal power exhibited by Kai-kai).
An important qualifier: the most difficult part of analyzing the Ramayana I think is that the characters must be read in the context of the epic. Ram is an avatar of the Lord Vishnu, one of his physical births on Earth. Ram’s character is therefore idealized to be devoid of flaw—as an avatar of a god. (Perhaps the greatest flaw of his character is that in fact, he doesn’t have any! Such a position could be argued—this “superflaw” leads him to go into exile, leading to the death of his father, but good comes of this eventually since he defeats Ravana as a result.) Similarly, Sita is an avatar of Lakshmi (Vishnu’s “wife”). Thus, their marriage is the idealization of this divine matching of Vishu and Lakshmi. Taking this into consideration I think helps explicate the actions and motivations of these characters. They HAVE to be understood as manifestations of gods.
Both of you hit on pretty valid points. In terms of questions like whether Rama or others instigated the “agni pariksha”, questions like these are entirely dependent on which translation of the Ramayana you read.
One thing to keep in mind when reading epics like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata is which translation you are reading, and what sort of agenda the writer has. I went through C. Rajagopalachari’s (Rajaji’s) Ramayana in my junior year of high school, and women were not portrayed that favorably. When Sita fell for Ravana’s ruse, Rajaji adds a line that went something like “the weak-wittedness of women makes them conducive to manipulation” – I forget the exact wording. But, this makes sense as Rajaji is a traditionalist who grew up in a patriarchal, Tamil Iyengar household. Overall, translation is an important factor when analyzing these sorts of issues in epics.
Hi Rohan !! Just read, your article on Ramayana and Sitaji. You have prefaced it perfectly saying that, Ramayana is certainly a matter of respect for all of us Indians, and by discussing these things, you can certainly know more about them.
Firstly, let us first understand that, although Ramayana and Mahabharata are epics, but Rama and Krishna are (Avatar or The Lord incarnate) as its also mentioned by ASHIN in the last paragraph of his comment. It is said in the scriptures, that if you want to follow a religion you have to have faith, and without faith, nothing is possible. To give a simple example, when you have a barber cutting your hair, you have faith in him, that he would only cut our hair and not our throat. This is a small example and may be a bit funny, but its just explains that even for such a small purpose you need faith, than in religion you need to have a faith. Its mainly because, there is a vast difference between the Lord Incarnate and us human beings.
Secondly, as asked by you, ‘ why did Lord Ram, need to go in forest, bad judgment of his father, and in contrast to that, Lord Krishna asking Arjun to fight against his own family’. Again, if you see, there seems to be a contrast in the actual decision, but indirectly, both have tried to destroy the evil. Lord Rama, went to forest not only because of his father’s judgment, but for ending the evil Ravana. And, Lord Krishna asked Arjun to fight to destroy Duryodhan, Shakuni etc. They were evil and they had to be destroyed. And, in Ramayana, the Family values shown is of highest quality. The brotherhood between Lord Ram and Bharatji is fabulous, he did govern Ayodhya until Lord Rama arrived, but never sat on throne, instead, kept the holy sandals of Lord Rama.
As regards to Sitaji, I almost agree to entirety of Ashin’s comment. The only thing is, that Lord Rama and Sitaji never had the problem of faithfulness. They always had the faith between them. But as Rama was the Lord himself, he just wanted to set and example, that how a couple should live and to what extent they should have the confidence between each other. What we are trying to see is just a direct part of Ramayana, but indirectly, it tries to convey us, that we should also have such kind of high family values, brotherhood, and faith among each other after marraige. Sitaji walked through the fire, not as a punishment, but to show the generations to come, that this should be the level of confidence one should have in there better-half, which is ofcourse, rare in today’s world.
I think that the question of respecting a woman doesn’t arise, because at no point there is no disrespect shown to Sitaji except while Ravana kept her under his possession.
This was my view and comment, on what little I have known Ramayana. There viewpoints are bound to differ, so please dont hesitate to share it. THANKS !!!!
This thred is a month old but love Ramayana the best english translation i have read is by Hari Prasad Shastri. Just saw an interesting clip.. on the Ramayana.. not so true to orginal but raises some of the same questions.. here it is: http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/blog/watch-sita-sings-the-blues-online/347/
my thoughts..
i really like such engagements of the ancient and modern.. the point i would make. is that it was not so much just about Rama saving His reputation… but it was about a shared vision of a perfect world… the whole central theme & description of “Rama Raj” ..where even nature is in perfect synchrony, what to speak of the lofty expectations for a ruler, who is actually responsible (meaning its up to him to, for example, reverse the injustice of an untimely death..(went all the way to Yamaraja) unlike modern politicians who say “I’m responsible” but do not have to suffer any consequence for “being responsible” and are not expected to right all the wrongs)
From what i gathered from the Ramayan it was not at all about Rama’s ego being pricked or reputation being spoiled that lead to banishing Sita, but it was about a rulers responsibility to set a perfect as possible, moral example..for the ideal example of a King and to forgo His own pleasures (Sita was the most beautiful Goddess.. and He was deeply in love with her, so Rama was punishing Himself as much as Sita) .
In this ancient but in many ways eternal human vision of an idyllic harmonious society, though our modern eyes, it seems to be a totally unrealistic dream of perfection. But the notion in the Vedic age was that by attaining this high flawless, personal standard of caricature.. and morality, where the lives of the leaders are perfect and above criticism, was the only way to achieve a society that lived by dharma. Our modern sensitivities, say the higher standard is to be forgiving, kind, tolerant to your wife /partner … but then again the modern world has next to none of this sense that a leader is actually responsible for anything… such as an untimely death of a child… or crime or etc. We had a married President famous bj’s from his intern. Another President that started a war based upon gut feelings (faulty = no intelligence) with relatively little personal consequences. So perhaps its good to look towards the other extreme… to find some practical middle relevant ground?
Or to help form our own visions of a more ideal modern world. Where there is a responsibility to set an example-link, acknowledgment (of personal integrity) between leaders and the citizens? Maybe our world is a mess because we do not dream hard enough on how much better it could be? At the same time the Ramayana tells us that even in the perfect world, with the perfect wife Sita and best husband Rama and the near perfect Kingdom of Ayodhya… life on earth is always fraught with imperfection, but we have to keep striving for and imagining perfection in order to get closer to it. That is the central message i hear, and that the most important part of that imperfect perfect world, is the strength of Love bonding between Man and wife Parents and children Leader and citizens… whether in exile or kidnapped on an Island… devotional Love holds the world together. Sita did not disappear into the ground never to be seen again… she returned to Rama for eternity.. this is called vipralambaha love in seperation, portraying these lila epics minus the philosophical underpinings leads to much confusion.
Post a Comment