Vibhishana deserted Ravana before the battle and joined Rama’s army. His aid and advice were very helpful to Rama’s forces on several occasions. Because of this, many consider Vibhishana a traitor responsible for Ravana’s downfall. They argue that a powerful king like Ravana, who had defeated even the gods, would not have been defeated if not for Vibhishana. They also see Vibhishana as an ambitious and greedy man who desired the throne of Lanka, willing to sacrifice his brothers and relatives to attain it. There is even a saying in Hindi—Ghar ka bhedi Lanka dhaye, meaning that a traitor within the house causes its downfall. Is this criticism of Vibhishana as a traitor justified?
First of all, we need to see if Vibhishana’s behaviour matched his nature or not. Ravana and Vibhishana, though brothers, were totally opposite in nature. Their mother was a rakshasi while their father was a rishi. Ravana took after the nature of the rakshasas and was prone to anger, greed and jealousy since birth. Vibhishana, on the other hand, took after his father and was calm, peaceful and god-fearing. He was known as a dharmatma—a pious soul. He could not be expected to go against his nature and his morals for the sake of kinship.
As a brother, he gave wise advice to Ravana. He said, ‘The illustrious Rama’s wife was wrongly abducted. He is full of valour and follows dharma. A pointless enmity with him is futile. Maithilee must be returned before he and his army of apes destroy Lanka.’ When Ravana did not heed his advice but abandoned him, Vibhishana was left with no choice but to join Rama.
Lanka had been destroyed and needed a king to rebuild it. At such a time, it was not only Vibhishana’s right, but his duty, to become the king of Lanka.
Some people say that Vibhishana could have stayed neutral. He could have decided to go and settle somewhere else and not participate in the war. This is what Ravana’s son, Indrajit, also told his uncle. However, we have to keep in mind that the battle between Rama and Ravana was the ultimate struggle between good and evil. Everyone had to pick sides. Remaining neutral would have been an option if both sides were good, but that was not the case here.
Some people also say that, after Ravana’s death, Vibhishana should not have accepted the throne of Lanka. But the fact is that there was no other option left. All of Vibhishana’s brothers and their children had been killed.Lanka had been destroyed and needed a king to rebuild it. At such a time, it was not only Vibhishana’s right, but his duty, to become the king of Lanka.