This has been a subject of hot contention for a long time. Feminists have always portrayed this one event as the clinching evidence that Rama was not such an ideal man, after all. They claim this shows Rama as a person not to be emulated, because he didn't treat his wife right. And they have succeeded in inculcating this opinion into our heads. There are a lot of people these days who ask the same question: "If Rama was such a nice guy, how could he banish his pregnant wife to the forests?"
Of course, our feminists conveniently forget, it was Rama who started the tradition of monogamy or eka patni vratham. Before, that everybody practiced polygamy. Even his father was married to three wives. They also forget the fact that Rama didn't remarry once Sita left his life. He preferred to suffer it alone, because he never suspected Sita in the first place, and she always remained a wife to him.
So why did he send her to the forests? Understanding what kind of a person Rama is, certainly helps in unraveling this question.
There are two kinds of ethics: absolute and situational. Absolute ethics are those that won't change according to your convenience. That is, there are no double standards. If I consider something as wrong, it's wrong whether you do it or I do it. There are no special treatments. Situational ethics are very hazy. What's wrong or right is determined according to how it affects us. Quite a few people change their ethics when they think, by following what they believed earlier was right, they would cause problems to themselves.
Rama practiced absolute ethics. He followed his code of honor even if it caused him the utmost pain. For him, there were various priorities in life in the following order: obeying his parents' commands - father's first and then the mother's, being a just king (since he was born to rule), protecting and caring for his wife, helping his friends, punishing evil-doers and so on.
Rama never changed this order. He followed it come what may, whether it was for his betterment or detriment. When Dasaratha ordered him to leave to the forests for fourteen years, that came before anything else and he obeyed his father without hesitation.
Rama didn't care about riches or power. After conquering Lanka, which was full of immeasurable treasures, he left it without second thoughts. For him, the mission was accomplished when he freed Sita and punished Ravana for his evil deed.
He could have returned to Ayodhya after his father's death, when everybody including Kaikeyi, who was primarily responsible for the banishing of Rama, requested him to do so. But he didn't. He was bound by the word given to his father and the fact his father was dead, didn't change anything.
In fact, the only time Rama lost his composure was when he discovered Sita had been abducted. He even contemplated suicide. For Rama, there is nothing more precious than Sita.
Again, we come back to the original question. Why did he leave her when he loved her so much?
Rama had only two choices before him, when his spies informed him that a drunken man has refused to take his wayward wife back, by saying he wasn't foolish like Rama who adopted Sita after she has been with Ravana for many days.
The first was to abdicate his throne and and leave Ayodhya with Sita. This was his preferred choice. But nobody agreed to take his place, despite his numerous requests. And he couldn't abandon his responsibility and walk away from his Dharma.
The second was to banish Sita from Ayodhya so he can rule as a king with the full mandate of the people. With no alternatives left, he exercised this choice. And by doing so, he took the entire blame on himself for generations to come and absolved Sita at the same time.
Whether Rama is a concept or a God, there is much to learn from his life, especially in today's world of spiritual depravity and moral relativism.
Post a Comment