The role of democracy in Ramayana and its controversial results

With Ram Janmbhumi’s Pran Pratishtha India is seeing a massive awareness of India’s ancient epics like Ramayana among the young people, which is a good thing, many will find help with their own lives by learning from the ideals of Shri Ram.

However, when it comes to the Uttar Kand of Ramayana, there’s a sharp turn in the story, which not many people talk about, or those who oppose Ramayana or the Hindus in general use it as a weapon to point towards it and deface Ramayana.

What is that chapter and why is it so controversial — it’s a complicated story altogether, and nonetheless it is well known life of Ram was not a happy one, he always found himself at a fork in the road, and he made decisions that would be not what the general public would make in this day and age.

After all, Ramayana and other epics from ancient India are not just stories of people, but people who had to take difficult decisions to choose one Dharma over another.

Story of the Fisherman’s wife

After Ram, Sita and Lakshman’s return to Ayodhya, there was happiness in the people, but when have happiness lasted forever?

There’s a tale in the Uttar Kand of Ramayana that when King Ram started ruling, there was a case of a fisherman’s wife spending the night at some other man’s home. For obvious reasons the Fisherman didn’t like it, had quarrels with her wife and finally they took the matter to the King’s Court, in front of Ram. The man didn’t trust her wife and wanted to separate with her, while the woman tried convincing him she was not cheating him.

Upon hearing the man’s side of story, the furious woman, who was frustrated for being questioned about her chastity, she couldn’t take it more and in front of the entire court consisting of ministers, as well as the public spoke out loud and said “If Sita, the queen, can live a year in another man’s house and return and become our queen and nobody questions her, why am I being questions for just staying one night at some man’s house?”

That one statement shook everyone who heard it. Upon hearing this King Ram responded to the woman and told that Sita had to go through “Agnipariksha” (trial by fire) in his and Sita’s defense.

After that there were voices from the crowd saying that the people of Ayodhya were not there to witness it, how can we believe it even happened, these were obvious questions by the public, in any democracy the public should have the right to criticize the Governing body and that is what was happening.

He, Ram, was a great King, and his people loved him always, but these criticism felt like arrows on his heart, coming from the very people they always loved him as their ruler.

The aftermath of the trial

I won’t go into the detail of what happened about the trial / court hearing. Some decisions were taken, but it doesn’t matter what in this case.

But because of this court hearing within days it was the talk of the town and what had happened in the court. People were talking about it, shared opinions. Some supported Ram, some questioned Sita. It was all seeming like what any democracy looks like. People weren’t afraid of their life for speaking against the royalty, that is what Ram Rajya was.

But that came to haunt Ram himself when soon there were incidents of woman, especially young women feeling like they are not answerable to their family or partners about where they go at nights and this caused a lot of tensions and unrest in the public overall. It seemed like because Sita, a woman, who spent a year in a stranger’s home can sit in the throne with the King, why are they answerable to the society about where they go.

Soon, the public’s opinion on this matter shifted towards dismay for the fact that Sita sat on the throne as a queen. Upon learning about this from his informants in the city of Ayodhya, Ram had to take a step to avoid a civil unrest, he either leave his Kingdom and give up on his duty as the King to be with his wife, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in uncertainty and insecurity (after all it was an era where security of a kingdom depended upon its King) or leave his wife, Sita.

Taking the final decision

Sita heard about all of this and he knew the consequences if Ram decided to leave his post as the King, she knew that would only bring disrespect to this great King’s image, that he, for his family, for his wife, for lust, for love, whatever people may call it, left his duty as the King.

She knew Ram had to choose between the two. Between thousands of people of Ayodhya vs his wife.

She talked to Ram and told her she would volunteer to go away so that the people can’t question his husband. And thus the decision was taken and Sita left, she didn’t even leave and went to his father’s Kingdom, where she would have lived very comfortably. But she went to live in exile, under the care of a father figure, Rishi Valmiki, the author of Ramayana.

Compare that with what happens today — when elected officials would give more importance to their family and friends when it comes to it. Even if that mean’s difficulty for the public.

Ram’s life after Sita’s exile

Ram was childless, the Kingdom of Ayodhya had no heir. The topic of Ram getting married again and bringing in a new queen was not secret, it was suggested to Ram but he didn’t. His oath to never take any other woman as his wife to Sita was kept. Even being a King, he lived rest of his life without a partner.

How many men today, with the power and might of King Ram, will live without a wife, that too at such a young age? Not many.

But once he chose his duty as a King over the duty as a husband, he didn’t fall to lust and went ahead with marrying another young beautiful woman.