The word Ramayana means Rama’s progress or movement. The Ramayana is Rama-centric. The other itihasa, the history of the lunar dynasty, the Mahabharata, has no such focus on one specific individual alone.
Therefore, in the Mahabharata, we come across the views of multiple protagonists and all of them have a point of view. In this respect, the Mahabharata is like a novel.
The Ramayana is like a short story. We never get to know what Urmila, Lakshmana’s wife, thinks.
For that matter, for the most part, we don’t get to know what Lakshmana thinks either. I have used the word Ramayana. Which “Ramayana”?
There are non-Sanskrit versions of both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, and our views on individuals and incidents are often shaped on the basis of retellings in these.
When we seek to “judge” Rama, we typically depend on these. For Sanskrit retellings, there may be minor regional variations, but the Mahabharata is one unified whole. Indeed, there is now a Critical Edition of the Mahabharata, brought out by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
Even for Sanskrit retellings, there are five versions of the Ramayana story: Valmiki Ramayana, Adhyatma Ramayana, Yoga Vasishtha Ramayana, the Kalidasa version in Raghuvamsham and the Rama story in the Mahabharata.
They differ. For the Valmiki Ramayana, there is a Critical Edition brought out by Baroda Oriental Research Institute and some bits are not part of the Critical Edition. An example is the position of the nakshatras at the time of Rama’s birth.
The Uttara Kanda, large chunks of which have been excised from the Critical Edition, is clearly a later interpolation. One is not being unnecessarily pedantic.
Before “passing judgment” on Rama, as people are often prone to do, one should ask, which Ramayana? If it is the Valmiki Ramayana, is it the Critical Edition? Does one include Uttara Kanda? The differences can be significant.
Rama was wrong. Rama was unfair. I often hear such statements. These statements reflect incomplete comprehension of what our itihasa/purana texts propound.
There is nothing “wrong” or “right” in absolute terms, in black and white. This was never a binary world, there were shades of grey. There is always a conflict between two or more pulls of dharma, pulling in different directions.
There is no obvious optimal, and given the trade-offs, an individual chooses and bears his/her consequent karma. Karma is the flip side of dharma, the two are linked.
That’s the core problem. I am perfectly within my rights to say—given a specific situation and specific context Rama faced, I wouldn’t have behaved the way Rama did. In that conflict of dharma, I would have chosen differently.
That is my right and had I behaved that way, would have been my karma. But a strong statement like Rama being “wrong”?
The moment I do that, I am displaying a great deal of arrogance about my knowing what is right and wrong.
That’s compounded by my applying today’s value judgments (from Kali Yuga) to Treta Yuga. For instance, a person with very strong views recently told me, “Rama was a bad husband.”
We certainly have a conception of husband and wife today, of conjugal married life. But the way a husband and wife were jointly required to undertake tasks of dharma then, was quite different. Rama was from Treta Yuga, the person with strong views is from Kali Yuga.
Dharma progressively declines from Satya Yuga to Treta Yuga, declines further from Treta Yuga to Dvapara Yuga and declines the most in Kali Yuga.
To repeat the analogy used, dharma has four feet in Satya Yuga, three in Treta Yuga, two in Dvapara Yuga and one in Kali Yuga. But oddly, in Kali Yuga, we are more sure about what constitutes dharma than anyone in Satya Yuga ever was.
We should remember how the Valmiki Ramayana starts. Valmiki asks Narada, “Right now, who in this world is valorous and possesses all the qualities?
"Who knows about dharma and about what has been done? Who is truthful in his words and firm in his vows? Who also possesses good conduct and is engaged in the welfare of all creatures? Who is also learned and capable?
"Who alone is the handsome one? Who has control over his own self and has conquered anger? Who is radiant and devoid of jealousy? When his anger is aroused in a battle, whom are even the gods scared of ?”
(All quotes are from my translation of the Valmiki Ramayana, published by Penguin.) Who is truthful in his words and firm in his vows? Who has control over his self and has conquered anger? If we understand this trait, we will begin to understand Rama’s behaviour.
As an example, take the incident of Vali being killed, often cited as an instance of Rama being unfair. We may think we are discovering something new.
However, in the Valmiki Ramayana, this is what Vali himself tells Rama. “What qualities have you achieved by slaying someone who was not facing you? I was engaged in fighting and have met my death because of you… In my kingdom, or in my city, I have not committed a wicked act towards you. I do not know of any violent deed that I have done towards you… My skin cannot be worn.
The virtuous shun my body-hair and bones.
My flesh cannot be eaten by those like you who follow dharma… Had you fought with me in an encounter when I could see you, you would have been killed by me today...” Invoking dharma and artha, there is a strong indictment and I have only quoted a fragment. Rama has a point by point rebuttal, but the initial lines are, “Without knowing about dharma, artha, kama and the contracts that people follow, why are you now reprimanding me in this childish way?... I have a friendship with Sugriva and it is just like that with Lakshmana.
I will give him his wife and kingdom, and he will do what is best for me. In the presence of the apes, I gave him this pledge.”
There is a lot more that Rama says, but this is the crux, not only for this incident, but Rama’s conduct in general. Rama and Sugriva had a pact of friendship and walked seven times around a fire as a pledge. (We think seven steps around a fire are only for a bride and a groom getting married. That ritual is observed for any pledge of friendship. Saptapadi isn’t only for man and wife, it is for all friends.) Sugriva pledged to do everything possible to get Sita back, Rama pledged to do everything possible to make Sugriva the king and get his kingdom back. He was honouring the contract and being true to his words, a defining trait for everything Rama did. Both in the Manu Smriti and Mahabharata (Shanti Parva), there is a listing of 17 most important types of civil cases a king must get tried in order of priority. In both lists, right at the top, we have breach of contract. Let’s move on to the Shambuka incident, from Uttara Kanda.
An aged Brahmana’s young son has died and he comes to the palace, lamenting and searching for justice. Rama summons Brahmanas (Markandeya, Moudgalya, Vamadeva, Kashyapa, Katyayana, Jabali, Goutama and Narada), ministers and traders to find out what has happened. Narada replies, “O king! Listen to the reason why this child died before his appointed time... Earlier, in Krita Yuga, only Brahmanas were ascetics... In Treta Yuga, there were Brahmanas and Kshatriyas who tormented themselves through austerities… When Dvapara approached, Vaishyas started to engage in austerities... However, Shudras did not obtain the right to perform the fierce austerities of dharma. Those born in Shudra wombs will only obtain the right to perform austerities in Kali Yuga. O Rama! O king! In Dvapara, a Shudra is performing a great act of adharma.
Within the limits of your kingdom, he is performing great austerities. An evil-minded Shudra is performing austerities. That is the reason this child has died.” There can be a broader debate on rigidities of the varna system. So far as Rama is concerned, as a king, it is his dharma to protect his subjects and a Brahmana’s son has had an untimely death because the king has failed to protect the virtuous and punish the wicked. This is not Rama’s decision alone. It is also what the ministers and advisers tell him. Rama finds Shambuka and kills him. The Brahmana’s son comes back to life. Immediately thereafter, Rama visits the sage Agastya, who applauds his deed. As a king, Rama has pledged to protect his subjects, whatever are the costs.
That pledge over-rides everything else. Indeed, true to that vow of kingship, King Harishchandra got into all his problems. rom the Uttara Kanda, we also have the story of Lakshmana being banished. Kala (time) arrives and wants to meet Rama alone. The conversation must be private. Violators will be instantly killed. Therefore, the guards are sent away and Lakshmana is stationed there instead, to prevent anyone from entering. Unfortunately, the angry sage Durvasa arrives at the time and demands that he be allowed to see Rama immediately. “O Soumitri! Present me before Rama this very instant. Otherwise, I will curse the kingdom, the city, you and Raghava. I will not spare Bharata’s sons and yours. I am incapable of restraining the rage in my heart any longer.” Confronted with his own conflict of dharma, Lakshmana goes and interrupts the conversation between Kala and Rama. After Durvasa leaves, Lakshmana tells Rama, “O mighty-armed one! You should not be tormented on my account… Slay me without hesitation and fulfill your pledge... Men who do not keep their promises go to hell. If you are pleased with me and if you are favourably disposed towards me, slay me without any hesitation. Make dharma flourish.” Lakshmana understood Rama perfectly well.
After consulting his ministers, Rama replies, “Let there not be a catastrophe. Therefore, I am casting you away. Virtuous ones have decreed that killing and abandoning are both regarded as the same.” Lakshmana, his companion of several years, was instantly exiled. We think of Sita being banished, we don’t normally think of Lakshmana being banished. Rama’s attitude was gender-neutral. We shouldn’t read a gender angle into Sita’s banishment. The incident of Sita’s banishment occurs in Uttara Kanda. A report is brought to Rama. “O king! Hear about the agreeable and disagreeable words citizens speak in the crossroads, the forests and the groves… Raghava killed Ravana in the battle and got Sita back. Turning his back on any intolerance, he again brought her back to his own house. But what kind of a heart does he possess? He finds pleasure and happiness with Sita. Though Ravana had forcibly abducted her earlier, he takes her up on his lap.
She had been taken to Lanka and had been confined in Ashokavana. She had been under the subjugation of the rakshasas. Why does Rama not find this reprehensible? We will also have to tolerate this from our wives. Subjects follow whatever a king does.” Rama summons his brothers and tells them, “Hear what the citizens are saying about me and Sita. There is great and terrible condemnation among the residents of the city and the countryside …In my inner soul, I know that the illustrious Sita is pure. That is the reason I accepted Vaidehi and returned to Ayodhya. However, grief because of this great condemnation is shattering my heart now… Scared and terrified of condemnation, I am prepared to give up my life and all of you, not to speak of Janaka’s daughter.” He exiles Sita, who eventually finds herself in Valmiki’s hermitage, where she delivers Lava and Kusha. Note that Rama never married again. Note also that husband and wife are required to jointly participate in sacrifices and rites. That was the notion of a couple then.
For every sacrifice that Rama undertook thereafter, a golden statue of Sita was kept, so as to comply with this requirement. The ordeals by fire are what Rama gets condemned for most often. The first of these doesn’t even occur in Uttara Kanda, the segment with later interpolations. After Ravana has been killed, Sita has to be brought into Rama’s presence. When Rama instructs Vibhishana to bring Sita before him, Vibhishana tries to clear the place of the ordinary people. Rama’s response reveals quite a bit about his character. “Why are you making these people suffer? Cease this attempt to disperse people. They are my own people... There is no sin to women being seen at time of adversity, hardship, war, svayamvara, sacrifice or marriage. She has simultaneously suffered from war and great hardship. There is no sin to her being seen, especially because this is in my presence. O Vibhishana! Let her be brought quickly before me. Let Sita see me stationed here, surrounded by all the large numbers of my well-wishers.”
The ordeal by fire occurs in public, not with a limited presence of close friends and companions. When Rama finally meets Sita, the words are quite harsh. “Having defeated the enemy in a battle, you have been won back by me. I have thus achieved what could be accomplished through manliness… When you were alone, you were taken away by a fickle rakshasa. That was a taint brought about by destiny. As a human, I have vanquished it... Let it be known to you that this exertion in the field of battle, accomplished well because of the valour of my well-wishers, was not undertaken for your sake. My conduct has always been such as to ward off bad reputation in every possible way. I have cleansed the blemish that was associated with my famous lineage.
You are standing in front of me and there is a doubt about your character… Therefore, you have my permission to go wherever you want.” This leads to the incident most people are familiar with, the first ordeal by fire. After Agni pronounces Sita to be pure, Rama says, “Before the three worlds, Sita certainly needed to be purified. The auspicious one has dwelt for a long period of time in Ravana’s inner quarters. Had Janaki not been purified, virtuous people would have told me that Rama, Dasharatha’s son, is foolish and is driven by desire. I know that Maithili, Janaka’s daughter, is single-mindedly devoted to me and that her mind is only on me. However, I am devoted to the truth. For the sake of persuading the three worlds, I ignored Vaidehi when she entered the fire.” It was about persuading the worlds, not Rama alone.
That’s the reason the trial had to be in public. As I said at the beginning, if it is the Valmiki Ramayana, Rama’s conduct is about being true to a pledge and not committing breach of contract, regardless of the consequences. That was his dharma and karma. Before we condemn his action, the least we can do is to understand his reasons and that can only be one by reading the Valmiki Ramayana, or whatever Ramayana we choose as database. Bibek Debroy is Chairman, Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, and an acclaimed author. He has translated the Valmiki Ramayana (3 volumes).