The Irony of Ramayan
The following may not be palatable to some staunch devotees of Ram.
If you are one of them, please read no further.
I do not expect anyone to agree with my views presented below. You may accept all, some or none of my statements or just ignore this post after reading it. If you are still reading, here is the irony.
Sitaji had to go under ground not because she was a sinner
but because she was not a sinner.
(I am looking for a shlok by shlok English translation of the Uttar Kand of Valmiki Ramayan. Until I find it, I can only present the authentic Hindi translations from the publication by Gita Press, Gorakhpur. The English translations entered in black italics are attempted by myself and far from perfect. Please feel free to suggest better ones.)
Just look at the beginning of Valmiki Ramayan. Following are the first two shlokas of its Bal Kand, the first chapter of the epic. The following two shlokas and translations are from IIT Kanpur's web site https://www.gitasupersite.iitk.ac.in/. The site does not have Uttara Kand.
तपस्स्वाध्यायनिरतं तपस्वी वाग्विदां वरम् ।
नारदं परिपप्रच्छ वाल्मीकिर्मुनिपुङ्गवम् ।।1.1.1।।
Ascetic Valmiki inquired of Narada, preeminent among the sages ever engaged in the practice of religious austerities or study of the Vedas and best among the eloquent.
कोन्वस्मिन्साम्प्रतं लोके गुणवान्कश्च वीर्यवान् ।
धर्मज्ञश्च कृतज्ञश्च सत्यवाक्यो दृढव्रत:।।1.1.2।।
"Who in this world lives today endowed with excellent qualities, prowess, righteousness, gratitude, truthfulness and firmness in his vows? .... " and so on.
'Truthfulness' (सत्यवाक्यो) was supposed to be one of the noble qualities of Ram.
Was he truthful? Certainly not as regards his behavior with Sita.
Please consider the following last utterances of Sitaji. They are copied from Valmiki Ramayan, Uttar Kand, Sarg 97
(उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ९७ श्लोक १३-१ ६ page 883-4) as translated by Gita Press, Gorakhpur. Please understand its implications.
सर्वान्समगतान्द्रुष्ट्वा सीता कापायवासिनि |
अब्रवीत्माञ्जलिर्वाक्यमधोद्रुष्टिरवाङ्ग्मुखी || १३ ||
उस समय सीताजी तपस्विनियोंके अनुरूप गेरुआ वस्त्र धारण किये हुए थीं | सबको उपस्थित जानकर वे हाथ जोड़े, दृष्टि और मुखको नीचे किये बोलीं - || १३ ||
At that time Sitaji was dressed in orange clothes appropriate for nuns. Knowing that everyone was there, with folded hands and head and sight downward, she spoke.
यथाहं राघवादन्यं मनसापि न चिन्तये |
तथा मे माधवी देवी विवरं दातुमर्हति ||१४||
'मैं श्रीरघुनाथजीके सिवा किसी पुरुषका ( स्पर्श तो दूर रहा ) मनसे चिन्तन भी नहीं करती; यदि वह सत्य है तो भगवती पृथ्वीदेवी मुझे अपनी गोदमें स्थान दें ||१४||
"I do not even think about any man other than Shri Raghunathaji (touching out of question); if this is true may Mother Earth place me in her lap"
मनसा कर्मणा वाचा यथा यथा रामं समर्चये |
तथा मे माधवी देवी विवरं दातुमर्हति || १५ ||
'यदि मैं मन, वाणी और क्रियाके द्वारा केवल श्रीरामकी ही आराधना करती हूँ तो भगवती पृथ्वीदेवी मुझे अपनी गोदमें स्थान दें || १५ ||
"If I am worshiping only Shriram by mind, speech and action, then may Mother Earth place me in her lap"
यथैत्सत्यमुक्तम् मे वेद्मि रामत्परं न च |
तथा मे माधवी देवी विवरं दातुमर्हति || १६ ||
'भगवान श्रीरामको छोड़कर मैं किसी दूसरे पुरुषको नहीं जानती, मेरी कही हुई यह बात यदि सत्य हो तो भगवती पृथ्वीदेवी मुझे अपनी गोदमें स्थान दें || १६ ||
"I do not know any man other than Shriram, if this statement by me is true may Mother Earth place me in her lap"
This was, in effect, a request to Goddess Earth for permission to commit a suicide and help in doing so. In response to these shlokas, Goddess Earth opened up and a seat came up. She sat on it. It went back into the ground. Her sons were deprived of their mother.
In fact she was 'virtue personified' (मूर्तिमती सत्क्रिया). Ram left her no alternative. He was 'male suspiciousness personified'. (मूर्तिमान शंकाशीलता)
The following narrative is the result of my critical reading of Yudhdha Kand (युध्ध काण्ड) and Uttar Kand (उत्तर काण्ड) of the real original Valmiki Ramayan. (I did read the other kands also but a little less carefully.) I referred to two different translations of the epic published by two different organizations as online books with all its 24,000 Sanskrit shlokas and their Hindi meanings. The publication by Gita Press, Gorakhpur, is somewhat more convenient to refer to. It is available at https://archive.org/details/ValmikiRamayanIGitaPressGorakhpur/page/n1/mode/1up for Part 1 and at https://archive.org/details/ValmikiRamayanIIGitaPressGorakhpur/page/n3/mode/2up for Part 2.* For each mention of a shloka therein, page numbers, as displayed at the bottom of each page on the screen, of this version are added in the text below.
Ram is worshiped as an incarnation of Lord Vishnu as a human being for the specific purpose of killing Ravan. (युध्ध काण्ड, सर्ग ११८, श्लोक २८, page 627) Ravan was granted a wish that he could not have been killed by any Dev or Danav. He did not include a human killer under the impression that humans were too weak to kill him. Ram did not kill Ravan soon after growing up although he did kill some other demons. None of the people who had complained to Vishnu about Ravan conveyed it to Ram. On his part, Ram waited many years until Ravan abducted Sita, only for the selfish motive of upholding his own personal reputation. (युध्ध काण्ड सर्ग ११५ श्लोक १५ - १७ page 623) Unlike other incarnations, he could not single-handedly kill Ravan. He sought and received help from Hanuman, Sugriv and many others. Maybe that was the limitation (मर्यादा) of being a human.
Whatever the great successes and virtues he is praised to have had, they are gravely clouded by his inhuman treatment of Sitaji.
I became curious when I read that Ravan could not rape Sitaji. He was cursed by Brahmaji that his heads would shatter into hundred pieces if he raped a woman. (युध्ध काण्ड, सर्ग १३, श्लोक १४-१५ page 268). I combed through the two kands to find out the truth about Sitaji's suffering. Ram would not have known about the curse. Therefore he told Sitaji that "Ravan must not have stayed away from you for a long time"**. 'सीते ! तुम-जैसी दिव्यरूप-सौन्दर्यसे सुशोभित मनोरम नारीको अपने घरमें स्थित देखकर रावण चिरकाल तक तुमसे दूर रहनेका कष्ट नहीं सह सका होगा || २४ || (युध्ध काण्ड, सर्ग ११५, श्लोक २४ page 623). Ram ignored the fact that Hanumanji had found Sitaji not in Ravan's 'home' but in Ashok Vatika. Had Sitaji become pregnant soon after returning from Lanka, there would have been the possibility that she was carrying Ravan's baby. But the pregnancy happened a long time after staying with Ram in Ashok Vanika in Ayodhya. (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ४३ श्लोक २५-२६ page 785).
The reason why Ram became suspicious of Sitaji's 'purity' is known only to him. But Ram did indicate indirectly that he had been suspicious (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ९७ श्लोक ३-५ page 883). The Hindi meanings of the most relevant verses (shloka No. 3 and 4) are:
प्रत्ययश्च पुरा वृत्तो वैदह्या: सुरसन्निधौ |
शपथश्च कृतत्स्तत्र तेन चेश्म प्रवेशिता || ३ ||
"एक बार पहले भी देवताओंके समीप विदेहकुमारीकी शुद्धताका विश्वास मुझे प्राप्त हो चूका है | उस समय सीताने अपनी शुद्धिके शपथ की थी, जिसके कारण मैंने इन्हें अपने भवनमें स्थान दिया था || ३ ||
"Earlier also I had received assurance of Videhkumari's chastity in the presence of gods. At that time Sita had provided the proof of her innocence which is why I had provided her with a place in my house."
लोकापवादो बलवान्येन त्यक्ता हि मैथिली |
सेयं लोकभयाद् ब्रह्मन्नपापेत्यभिजनता |
परित्यक्ता मया सीता मया तद्भन्क्षन्तुमर्हति || ४ ||
"किन्तु आगे चलकर फिर बड़े जोरका लोकापवाद उठा, जिससे विवश होकर मुझे मिथिलेशकुमारीका त्याग करना पड़ा | ब्रह्मन्! यह जानते हुए भी की सीता सर्वथा निष्पाप है, मैंने केवल समाजके भयसे इन्हें छोड़ दिया था; अत: आप मेरे इस अपराधको क्षमा करें || ४ ||
"However, later on there was a strong public opinion that compelled me to banish her. Brahman although knowing that she was sinless, I had banished her for fear of society; therefore please forgive me for this crime I committed"
The part "बड़े जोरका लोकापवाद उठा" (there was a strong public opinion) was a blatant lie. There is no mention of the people forcefully, or even mildly, criticizing Ram for accepting Sitaji. (No one, except his personal cohorts, ever said anything, bad or good, about Sita in the Uttar Kand period. I challenge readers to find even one shlok in Uttara Kand that refutes this statement.) Ram did not make any inquiry to find out people's opinion about Sitaji until she became pregnant. Nor had any person, other than Ram's close friends like Bhadra and others (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ४३ page 787), expressed it anytime anywhere. More than about a month after Ram's coronation, Bharat had praised Ram without mentioning any public comment regarding Sitaji. (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ४१ श्लोक १६-२२ page 783)
When in AshokVanika, Ram expressed pleasure about Sitaji having become pregnant and asked her desire. (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ४२ श्लोक ३१-३२ page 786). Actually, he was pretending to be happy. He immediately went to another room and asked his friends there about people's views regarding Sitaji. As regards बड़े जोरका लोकापवाद Ram was referring to the report he heard from his own friend named Bhadra stating how the people were badmouthing Sita. (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग 43 श्लोक १६-२२ page 787) The other friends present there agreed with him. Ram had made no attempt to verify that report separately and independently. Please feel free to go through the books and find any shloka that would indicate that Bhadra was not lying.
A conspiracy had been set up to hurt Sitaji. Valmiki might not have been aware of such a conspiracy for getting rid of Sitaji under the false pretext (બહાનું) of लोकापवाद. Until Sitaji got pregnant long after his coronation (રાજ્યાભિષેક), Ram did not bother to find out people's opinion. He asked about it only after she became pregnant. Without consulting guru Vasishth or mother Kaushalya, he hastily acted as if, for some reason, he was suspicious about Sita's fidelity. Even the pregnancy was kept a closely guarded secret. Sitaji had been sent and left alone so far away that she could not have returned to Ayodhya. If you carefully read Valmiki Ramayan, there was no washerman (dhobi) or any private citizen who accused Sita of 'impurity'. Dhobi was introduced in the fake Ramayans written long after the original real book.
मेरे इस अपराधको क्षमा करें proves that he knew he was guilty of punishing an innocent person. Nevertheless in the next shloka he still insisted that Sita must prove that she was 'pure'(शुध्ध) in front of the people assembled there.
जानामि चेमौ पुत्रौ मे यमजातौ कुशीलवौ
शुद्धायां जगतो मध्ये मैथिल्यां प्रीतिरस्तु मे || ५ ||
'मैं यह भी जानता हूँ कि जुड़वे उत्पन्न हुए कुमार कुश और लव मेरे ही पुत्र हैं, तथापि जनसमुदायमें शुध्ध प्रमाणित होने पर ही मिथिदेशकुमारीमें मेरा प्रेम हो सकता है '|| ५ ||
"I also know that the twin boys Kush and Lav my own sons. Neverthless I can love Mithileshkumari only upon her being proven pure in the presence of the populace."
The phrase कुमार कुश और लव मेरे ही पुत्र हैं proves that, for a reason known only to him, Ram had suspected Sitaji of having been pregnant by someone else when he had exiled her far away about 12 years ago.
Brahmaji, Mahendra (Indra) and other gods, having nothing better to do, rushed there to see Sitaji proving her innocence ('purity'). (Shlokas 6,7 and 8, check out yourself from the book). They could have and should have prevented Sitaji from entering the 'rasatal' (रसातल) but did not. (उत्तर काण्ड सर्ग ९७ श्लोक १९ - २० page 885) Why? Because a woman's life did not matter to them, only one organ of her body did. Young boys Lav and Kush still needed their mother but it was ignored.
दृष्ट्वा देवानृशीन्श्चैव राघव: पुनरब्रवीत् |
प्रत्ययो मे नरश्रेष्ठ ऋषिवाक्यैर कल्मषै: ||९ ||
शुद्धायां जगतो मध्ये वैदह्याम् प्रीतिरस्तु मे |
सीता शपथसम्भ्रान्ता: सर्व एव समागता: ||१० ||
देवताओं तथा ऋषियोंको उपस्थित देख श्रीरघुनाथजी फिर बोले --'सुरश्रेष्ठगण ! यद्यपि मुझे महर्षि वाल्मीकिके निर्दोष वचनोंसे ही पूरा विश्वास हो गया है, तथापि जनसमाजके बीच विदेहकुमारिकी विशुद्धता प्रमाणित हो जाने पर मुझे अधिक प्रसन्नता होगी' ||९-१० ||
Upon seeing that gods and sages had arrived, Raghunathji said again -- "Great gods! Even though I am convinced by the utterences of great sage Valmiki, I will be more pleased upon validation of Videhkumari's purity in front of the public."
He wanted extra delight and satisfaction. What a cruel indifferent (निष्ठुर) man!
All this means that Sita was used only as a tool and made to undergo tests of chastity (purity) just to satisfy Ram's vanity (મિથ્યાભિમાન), clear his suspicion while seeking cheap popularity. As a result, Sitaji had to spend 12 years as a sinner adulteress and their two sons had to miss their father's attention during their nurture. Ram avoided his fatherly responsibility of helping raise his sons.
Some people are led to believe that Ram sacrificed Sitaji's happiness in the interest of the people of his kingdom. Nothing in the real Ramayan supports that belief. Nothing bad was going to happen to the people had Sitaji not been sent away. Nothing good happened by sending her away. If you find any evidence in the real Ramayan for that belief, please convey the full details to me so that I will modify this part of this post accordingly. None of the residents of Ram's kingdom or even outsiders, except Bhadra and his cohorts, had ever said anything, bad or good, about Sitaji. There is no mention whatsoever about any such criticism in Valmiki Ramayana.
Was Manusmruti in force during Ram's life? Is there any shloka in Manusmriti that would require a king to punish an innocent person solely on the basis of people's gossip? Does Manusmriti also require a wife to keep proving her innocence repeatedly throughout her life? If you find the answer, please convey it to me. I will check it with my copy of Manusmriti.
Did not Ram have to exchange the seven promises of Saptapadi vows during his wedding to Sitaji? If so, did not he violate them by not protecting her reputation against baseless accusations?
There are many variations of the events in the fake Ramayans written later on. Only Valmiki's version is authentic because he wrote it प्रत्यक्षमिव as if he was seeing it happening. Our religious leaders and the masses have been misled by the copycat writers like Tulasidas etc. The spurious additions to the original must be discarded. A partial list of such falsehoods, is available at https://gu.wikipedia.org/wiki/રામાયણ
We have been misled for centuries. It is about time to realize and accept the truth. We keep reciting सत्यमेव जयते. Did it? No. Sitaji's truth was defeated by Ram's lies who used maneuvering, royal powers and hypocrisy to win.
I have been advised not to go into details because, after all, Ram was only an imaginary hero of a fiction. My response is a little too long to include it here. If at all you care to know it, please visit my separate post Valmiki’s Role in Ramayana
Those readers who still want to ignore Sitaji's suffering and keep worshiping this man may keep doing so. Their core values (જીવનનાં સિદ્ધાંતો અને ધોરણો) are different from mine. I believe in upholding the truth and justice, insisting on humanitarian ways (માણસાઈ) while punishing the guilty and supporting women's respect (નારી સન્માન). Therefore I cannot join the popular flow (ગાડરિયો પ્રવાહ).
----- 000 -----
___________________________________
* The other version I read was downloaded from: https://www.onlinesanskritbooks.com/2019/08/valmiki-ramayan-in-hindi-free-download.html. It was translated by Shri Chaturvedi Dwarakaprasad Sharma, a well respected writer and scholar in Hindi literature, and published in 1927 by Ramnarayana Lal, Ilahabad, UP, India.
** This shloka is translated in the above version as "हे सीते! तुम्हारा दिव्य और मनोहर रूप देख रावणने जो चाहा होगा सो किया होगा, क्योंकि तुम उसके घरमें बहुत दिनों से रहती ही थीं || २४ ||" (युद्ध काण्ड सर्ग ११८ श्लोक २४ page १२९१). It may be noticed that the Sarg numbers in the two translations do not match with each other nor do the Hindi translations.