Saturday, April 10, 2010

Morality of Rama

In Ramayan, after defeating Ravan, Rama takes Sita to Ayodhya. But rumors start spreading that Sita is "impure", having been enjoyed by Ravan. Bowing to pressure from the public, Rama abandons Sita.

Today, Ramayan is considered as an authority on moral behavior. So what is the moral that we gain from the abandonment of Sita? Let us assume that the Ayodhya public were correct and Ravan did rape Sita. So how does the public want a rape victim to be treated? Throw her into the forest. She doesn't deserve compassion and understanding of her fellow humans. Rama, a God gives into mob demands. So a mob is more mighty than God (Is that why mob violence is so common in India?).

How can Ramayan teach such depraved moral lessons? How can God stoop to the level of a narrow minded commoner? Why didn't he fight the stupid masses and set an example on how to combat idiocy? The answer will be obvious if Rama was not a God, but a human being. Mobs always have their way. You can fight them and die or you can give into their demands and live to see another day. Rama was just protecting himself, just like most humans would do. If there is any lesson to be learnt from Ramayan, it is to make sure that we never have Ramarajya (Kingdom of Rama). We don't want misogynists running amok on the streets.


A Stoic said...

But the Ramayana is only a Novel.

vinsin328 said...

Ramcharitya manas is consider as authority on moral behaviour by some hindus. Ramayan was never considered as book on moral authority.

Nations are always greater than individual including your family.

Ramayana doesnt say whether what Rama did, was right or wrong.

Rama never declared himself a God, Gita did.

It was not his Dharma to fight with stupid masses, it was the Duty of Brahmans.

Ramarajya doesnt mean abandoning your family as your claim.

There is no clarity on what a Ramrajya means? It is a mythological construct of a perfect state.