Sita’s Banishment
I cannot remember when I first heard the Ramayana or who told me the story. I imagine it must have been my mother when I was very young, but I have no memory of it. When I was around 7 , my grandfather, a Rama-bhakta himself, gifted me and my sisters a book called The Prince of Ayodhya. And I was hooked. It was a story and at the same time, because it was the story of Rama, it was a true story, one that thrilled and inspired me. It’s been a long time since then, yet, even now as I straddle the fence between faith and disbelief, the Ramayana is so much part of my life that in times of great stress, I find myself comforted by writing or chanting the name of Rama.
One thing that has troubled me tremendously though, is the banishment of Sita. After pining for Sita for over a year, raising an army and building a bridge to cross the mighty ocean, after fighting and killing and much destruction, Rama banishes Sita simply because a washerman doubts her faithfulness? So NOT happening! In the first version of the Ramayana that I read, the story simply ends with Rama and Sita assuming the throne. In fact, I have it with me now, and this is what it says:
The King and the Queen were supremely happy and ruled the kingdom for a very long time….During their long reign, there were timely rains, the crops never failed and famine was unknown in the land…All the people in the kingdom were well-fed, well-clothed and well-protected…The names of their King and Queen were ever on their lips…In fact, the long and prosperous reign of Rama and Sita was a Golden Age, the like of which is unknown in the annals of men.
A ‘live-happily-ever-after’ ending, just like any child would want. It was much later that I heard the other ending, the one in which Sita is abandoned and left to raise her children alone. Even as a young girl, it came as a small satisfaction to me that Sita later expresses her anger at Rama’s unjust abandonment of her and chooses to return to her mother, Bhoomi Devi.
As a practising Hindu and as a feminist, how does one reconcile this unjust treatment of one of a great heroine by someone who is revered as the ideal man? I mention as a practising Hindu, because I assume that for an atheist, the question would be irrelevant. For someone who loves the story, however, it is difficult to believe in the ideal of Rama when confronted with his cruelty to Sita.
One explanation that is usually offered is that while Rama was an avatar of Vishnu, he was still a mortal man, and therefore, he had his failings, one of which was that like other mortal men of his time, he was ready to cast aspersions on his wife. Another is that he was first a king, and then a husband, and as King of Ayodhya, he could not have a queen the public did not believe in. In this version, the washerman is only a symbol of public opinion in general. A third option is to believe that Sita’s banishment is simply not part of the original Valmiki Ramayana, and therefore does not need to be included. Indeed, Ashok Banker’s Ramayana series (which reintroduced me to the joys of the Ramayana) takes this track, and personally, it is the option I find most comfortable.
There is a fourth opinion, based on a more esoteric reading of the incident; for instance, this interpretation by a Vaishnava teacher, which sees Rama’s banishing of Sita as a desire for a more intense experience of love, in the form of separation. To my logical mind, that is a little hard to swallow. After all, Rama already had experienced separation for a year; why would he chase it again?
Do you have a version of Sita’s abandonment that you can live with or has it led you to reject the Ramayana altogether? Is Rama simply an unjust man obsessed with the notion of purity or a righteous man faced with difficult circumstances or do you prefer to believe that it simply didn’t happen that way? Do share!
I think characters like Rama and Yudhishthira were created to prove that, “dharma” of the king was more important than his own personal life. So in the process of “being a just king”, they let down their women.
That Vaishnava teacher could be “faking”. His opinion could be; all is fair with god and godesses, don’t destest them and strip their characters, just worship them.
And well Sita’s version, here is a brilliant piece that I loved and had posted on my blog long ago. Let me know what you think.
Anaya Neruppu
Sorry! that’s the Agni the Fire God’s version @ the Ashokavan, where Sita was held captive.
And if you like to read it in Tamil, here
Anaya Neruppu by Kamal Hassan
I dont think highly of Ramayana and I feel he was an unjust person who left his pregnant wife just because of public opinion. He could not stand up for her!
I don’t think highly of any of our religious texts including Ramayana and Ram especially…
@ Praveen - yes, that is one way of looking at it (though to my mind, Yudhishtira is much more human and fallible than Rama and his gambling away of Draupadi totally kills him as an embodiment of Dharma). Thanks for the links - will go through.
@ Reema/Bones - you guys are clear on where you stand, unlike me
I love reading the Ramayana..and I usually stopped where Rama gets Sita back to Ayodhya…I dont like reading beyond that..because, like you, I always chant Rama’s name when I am down and somehow I dont want to accept the fact that he was unjust to his wife…I think he was unjust…Even if the washerman was public opinion, he could have always stood by his wife and made the public realise that she was right…
Me too,I have not read the Ramayana beyond when Sita comes back.
I do not find it relevant after that.
I was reminded of these very questions when I watched Sita Sings the Blues (again!) recently. I would love to hear Ramayana being told from Sita’s point of view. A dear friend and I were discussing what Sita must have felt being held captive in Ashokavanam. Would she not have been the slightest bit attracted to the devilishly charming Ravana? So much of our literature is based on the woman being chaste and denying herself of all pleasure. But she was human after all! And wouldn’t it have been natural for her to feel empathy with and allure for her captor (Stockholm syndrome, possibly?)?
I digress. A thought provoking post, well written as ever.
Mani Ratnam’s forthcoming film Raavan (Tamil version Ashokavanam) is supposedly told from Sita’s point of view, partly. This could well be a romour. But she falls for Raavan is what I keep reading on the net.
*rumour
Apparently the film is about, what if Sita falls for Raavan..?
Hi. My first visit to your blog. I find the Ramayana too simplistic and linear. The characterisation of Rama is unidimensional. All good and a smidge of bad. I don’t really consider Rama to be the ‘ideal man’. I prefer the characters in the Mahabharata. I can relate better to them, their virtues and vices. And my FAVOURITE is Krishna. He’s a real dude! Back to Sita, I read one of Banker’s books on Ramayana and was very intrigued by his interpretation of Sita as a warrior princess. Having a contemporary sensibility and being a feminist, none of the explanations for Rama’s behaviour towards Sita appeal to me. And the Vaishnava one amuses me the most. Rama as a masochist who loves pain? I think not.
@ammani
Interesting theory. I never thought about the Stockholm syndrome.
@ R’s mom/Chowlaji - yes, I find this convenient too
@ Ammani - interesting. I always thought that Rama and Sita were bound by a very deep love. After all, Rama is a person who ‘chooses’ to have only 1 wife in an age where having more than 1 was legally and morally sanctioned. So, Sita’s continued love for Rama while in the Ashokavanam and therefore her disinterest in Ravana, is to me quite plausible. After all, not every abducted person suffers from Stockholm syndrome, though yes, it is a plausible alternative too.
@ Praveen - I bet that is going to raise some hackles.
@ Deepa - welcome here. I know many people find the Ramayana linear, but to me, there are so many ways to interpret the actions of the characters. Of course many of the explanations for Rama’s behaviour don’t sound reasonable today. The Ramayana is very much a product of its times, I guess; given that, I still find a lot of value in it, though as a feminist, I can well understand why you’d choose to reject them.
What about the 1000’s of vanaras that gave their life solely so that Rama could win Sita back? Thanks to Rama they lost their lives in vain.
There are so may different ways Rama could have dealt with the issue of his subjects doubting his wife’s chastity. For one, he could have once again placed his slippers on the throne and gone back to the forest with Sita. From my grandmother’s tales, Ayodhaya was so prosperous during Bharata’s rule that all its subject lit lamp with ney (ghee) when Rama came back from his vanavasa. So, I don’t think they would have really suffered if he went away the second time round either.
Ok, I’ll stop before I rant any further!
Another nicely written piece Apu
Actually our Hindu Gods do have failings so the option you feel comfortable with is I think the most accepted version. The problem is that it sets a precedent. Failing or not, it is something that is the done thing, because after all we are human. That is why I don’t like any of these myths and legends. At every step you will find something that would make anyone wanting justice cringe. If our culture dies one day, it is because it has denied justice and equal treatment to one half of the human population.
@ Anu/Nita - both of you have adopted a very logical approach. The truth is that most of our legends/stories have hajaar problems like these. The question is, does that make them worthless or is there something to learn and enjoy despite these? For that matter, I think myths all around the world have problems. I mean, look at the Greek myths - a set of more unjust, bloodthirsty gods would be hard to find. The difference is that they don’t worship them any longer…so that makes it easier for those people to look at them simply as “myths” I suppose.
@Apu: Agree with you. No myth is perfect. And, what about oedipus complex in Greek myth? I am an atheist, but have always loved reading our indian mythology. I am not sure if any other myth in the world has so many plots and subplots as Mahabharat, yet making it a gripping read.
Hope you got to read that link I posted.
I would look at Ramayana and Mahabharata as interesting - even brilliant, in case of Mahabharata, works of literature. I don’t think Rama or Yudhishthir were ideal men - and it bothers me when our Bollywood or TV serials use them as role models. I feel a lot of Indian men are obedient sons, who do not treat their wives like equal partners. They can do without any further reinforcement of the social conditioning that treats women with such sad disrespect.
I consider Ramayan a work of fiction and stop right there. Its like reading a novel for me and moving on.For me, it is someone’s imagination, a very vivid one at that! Not to offend anybody here but the tenets taught by this story do not agree with me from start to end.
@ IHM/Sands - yes, I think one way to look at it is simply as a myth/story; what I like though is that one doesn’t really need to have an “authoritative”/ “only” version of these stories. Practically every community in India has its own version and now we have modern versions like Ashok Banker’s too, which may be more in sync with present day society, And of course, if you choose to reject it, that too is alright - thankfully, Hinduism doesn’t force one to accept any particular book…
Are you aware of this book?
I am not into reading and believing epics..but I first realized this fact when I saw Lajja….where the AGNIPARIKSHA by Sita came into the picture and a true male dominant society got reflected……
The irony is that despite of a stature,as high as a “Devi”, a woman has been fighting for her self-respect from times immemorial….
All other facts and figures are just the adjustments to hide the truth of the society…a male dominant society
This is the film I was talking about Apu.
@apuI think there’s a lot to learn from Hindu myths as long as you acknowledge that they are myths. Just as we learn from great novels or childhood stories, you know?
I’ve always found the Greeks’ and Romans’ relationship with their gods to be fascinating. They didn’t hold their gods to any standards of perfection; the gods had only created humans in order to become immortal through the power of human beings’ prayers. This meant their gods were pretty much the same as humans - petty jealousies and angers and lots of lying and conniving - but like politicians they had to keep people happy enough to keep praying to them. Our gods are very similar, but these days we don’t seem to acknowledge that. The reason I think we used to hold our gods to lower standards in days gone by is because our mythological stories so frequently show our gods as fallible and not perfect at all, just like in Greek and Roman legends.
Perhaps you can find a way to separate Rama the God from Rama the hero of Ramayana if you like your gods to remain worship-worthy…
Praveen - thanks for re-visiting; I will go through that link.
Nandini - True - I love the myths actually; but the problem is that for many of us, we can’t just relegate them to the same level as novels or stories. In the old days, I don’t think it was so much that people held the Gods to lower standards - it was simply “this is the way they are and don’t question it” - for the most part. Profound thinkers etc may have questioned them (after all, Hinduism does have a tradition of questioning, but not ordinary mortals).
I am taking a mythology English class and this story is one we have been analyzing for the last couple of assignments. I really liked your your post Apu, because I responded the same kind of way in one of my analysis last week. How could Rama banish this beautiful, trusting, faithful woman who did nothing but stand by him time and time again. Perhaps if he would have stood by her then he could have taught his people a great lesson and showed himself to be a man worthy of her. I did like the part at the end when he asks her to rejoin him and then she request mother earth to take her back if she had been truly faithful. To me it was like I am done with all of this and when you are ready to rejoin me in heaven, I will see you then!
Thanks for you blog
Nice post. This banishing of Sita is a very disturbing event in the ramayana to me as a practising hindu(exactly same situation as yours). I have been contemplating on this for a long time. As far as i can tell you, the uttara khandam is by valmiki only as is testified from balakhandam too. Some people say both bala and uttara khanda are later additions but I dont accept that. If you know that every 1000th verse in valmiki ramayana begins with a letter of the gayatri mantra then you will recognise the 24000 verses as a set and uttara khandam also falls into this. SO, Sita’s banishment was a real happening written by valmiki himself.
I somehow end up feeling that Rama could have definitely done something else on the issue, as someone said….may be put his sandals on the throne and walked away saying he will not return until his useless people do not accept Sita. He could have very well told them that if they are not ready to believe that agnipariksha happened, then they are unfit to say that Sita was a captive too. Either accept both or reject both.
I have one question to ask Rama here. If it was not Sita and someone else on whom people just spread rumours then what justice would Rama had given to that case. If false allegations of some worthless public becomes the standard for awarding punishments to individuals, then anyone can be punished for anything. This thought just keeps nagging me all the time in this issue.
This does not deter me to respect Rama because in several places in Valmiki ramayana it is extremely clear that Rama did not suspect Sita’s conduct(even during agni pariksha or exile later on). So, there was some compulsion in the form of societal norms of that age(which is ofcourse unpalatable to us now because we know that women were not respected much in olden days) that had led him to do so.(Bhrigu’s curse comes in here but that does not justify this situation)
Wow, thanks Anand for that detailed and thought out comment. I can totally relate to it. My conclusion too is somewhat similiar - that Rama did succumb to societal norms (a more ‘human’ take?) although he could have been firmer and reasoned it out with his people.