A Kantian perspective on the Ramayana
Part 4 of 5
SITA “AGNI-PARIKSHA“: THE MOST IMPEACHABLE DEED OF RAMA
In the Ramayana, by far the most outrageous of all Rama’s deeds that many people even today regard as being the most impeachable is the one in the episode of “sita agni pariksha” occurring at the near-end of the Yuddhakaandam.
With withering words Rama wounded and publicly humiliated his wife Sita who had been abducted and held hostage in Lanka by Ravana. And then he forced her to undergo a ritual ordeal through fire (agni-pravesam) to prove her chastity and innocence and that there had been no illicitness in the relationship between her and Ravana, as captor and hostage during the period of her incarceration
This incident for ages has shocked and outraged the moral sensibilities and troubled the conscience of countless generations of Ramayana readers, students and devotees. In this episode, Rama stands arraigned of inflicting a grievous injustice on Sita for which he stands eternally impeached.
Despite being impeached so harshly, in the Ramayana however, nowhere after the incident happened, do we see Rama expressing either regret, remorse or contrition for it. In fact, what appears to us an act of adding insult to Sita’s injury, later in the Uttara-kaandam, as we all know, Rama ordered her to undergo once again the very same ordeal to acquit herself of the very same salacious charge! Sita was sentenced to undergo the same punishment for the very same crime, on the mere suspicion that she had might have committed it! It was a classic case of “double jeopardy” which, by all norms in modern jurisprudence, is patently unjust and wholly untenable.
But in truth, it was clear that Rama felt no need to be remorseful about his deed on both occasions, since according to his own view of Dharma, he was merely pursuing what in Kantian terms of the “categorical imperative” was to him an act that is “rationally necessary and unconditional that must always be followed despite any natural desires or inclinations that one may have to the contrary”. To him Dharma brooks no kind of maudlin emotionalism; Dharma is rational, pure and simple. In other words, Rama was “acting as if the maxims of his actions would become through his will a universal law of nature”.
All that he spoke and did in the entire episode of the “agni-pravesam” was indeed consistent with deeds done and words spoken elsewhere in the Ramayana, notable instances of which have been already alluded to above.
To Rama, Dharma is really not so much about Justice as it is about Righteousness. If Dharma were to be only about serving the ends of Justice, it would have to be characterized as being a lower order of morality, i.e. the Kantian “hypothetical imperative“. But if Dharma were to be impelled by the perfect virtue of Righteousness, it would have to be classed as the pursuit of the higher “categorical imperative”.
For most of us students and devotees of the Ramayana, it is very difficult if not impossible to discern and appreciate the fine distinction between Justice and Righteousness in the metaphysical sense for pretty much the same reason why very often we allow our heart to overwhelm our reason. For most of us, it is Justice rather than Righteousness that should be the basis for good and “correct” human conduct. That is why so many of us, at least secretly within our hearts, often do entertain some degree of sympathy for acts of even “adharma” if it were seen to be supporting, even in some tenuous manner, the ends of what is either Good or Just. That is precisely why many of us tend to sympathize with Lakshmana when, in the Ramayana, he thought that Dasaratha, in depriving Rama of the crown, had done great injustice to him. Hence, by Lakshmana’s own standards of Dharma, he thought that it would have been perfectly moral for Rama to have asserted his right, used even violence to secure his ends, since, as one born into a royal “Kshatriya” fold, Rama would have only been pursuing his own “purushaartha” of Dharma (as a “hypothetical imperative“). To Lakshmana, clearly, that act of Rama would not have been “adharmic” at all.
Now, let’s turn to the “Sita agni-pariksha” incident.
Here, we all naturally tend to focus overly on the Injustice meted out to Sita through Rama’s deed but never do any of us pause for even a moment to ask ourselves if it was really Unrighteous of Rama to do what he did.
Dharma is multivalent indeed… and that is precisely what both Rishi Apasthamba and Immanuel Kant are both trying to teach us all. The idea of Justice being associated with Dharma is of course quite correct but then only from the viewpoint of the Hypothetical Imperative; it is at cross variance with Rama’s Categorical Imperative. The ideas of morality which humans are led to believe in are primarily fixated upon the notion of Justice i.e. whether an action, Dhaarmic or Adhaarmic, serves the ends of justice. But for Rama, Dharma is really not about so much righting the wrong as it is about exercising his (Kantian) will to act in a certain way that would make his deed in itself become a universal law of nature. It is only then that, in his own esteem, his deeds could render him worthy of happiness in the sense in which Vedanta conceives Dharma to be the very first cardinal “purushaartha“…. Or as Kant conceived his “categorical imperative” to be.
MISOGYNY, MARITAL ETHICS AND SOVEREIGN DUTY
Whenever students or devotees of the Ramayana get to discuss and debate about the episode of “sita agni-pariksha”, passions and tempers usually flare up…. with those defending Rama being outnumbered and outgunned by those defending Sita.
A lot of hot air and rhetoric then gets generated. Such vehement criticism of Rama’s many Dhaarmic deeds in the Ramayana has never been regarded in our Hindu culture to be even remotely close to religious blasphemy, serious heresy or borderline apostasy. That indeed is proof of the tolerance and catholicity of the Hindu peoples of India… of their broad philosophical outlook on life and their wise ways of life: Even as mere mortals, we Hindus grant to ourselves the right to sit in judgment and impeach God whereas in most other religions of the world, that would tantamount to blasphemy.
We do think the worst about Rama, and say many unkind and uncharitable things about Rama’s questionable deeds in the holy book of Srimadh Ramayana. If not openly on public forums, many of us do so privately amongst ourselves in conversations and discussions. Hypothetically speaking, if even half the things we say about Rama were to be similarly uttered by any faithful member about the God of certain other world religions — such as Islam or Christianity, for instance — one can only imagine the fate that might befall us. In such religions, excommunication or even execution is not out of the question for those who dare to slight god or prophet.
But Lord Rama of the Ramayana is not such a terrible God after all.
Rama is not intolerant of men holding him to account for his actions described in the book we all hold to be no less sacred than, say, the Bible or Koran, viz. our own Srimadh Valmiki Ramayana. Rama is a benign God of such extraordinary forbearance that he does not mind even impeachment proceedings brought against him by mere mortals.
Be that all as it may, while duly respecting the sentiment behind such outbursts of common people who are either for or against Rama’s conduct in the incident of “Sita agni-pravesam”, if one were to ignore or cut out all the heated emotionalism generated therein, and focus instead only on the underlying substantive issues agitating both sides, it can be seen that the grounds for impeaching Rama for misconduct in the episode emerge out of three major charges viz.:
- that he revealed extremely misogynist and misogamist tendencies
- that he abused marital ethics and decorum
- that he placed an unduly high premium on the duty of a sovereign to his subjects to the complete disregard, if not utter exclusion of every other dharma.
Let us examine each of the charges in seriatim through the lens of the Kantian “categorical imperative“:
- MISOGYNY/MISOGAMY
The “treta yuga” was an epoch where the injunctions of the Veda were held to be cardinal or “categorical imperatives” of Dharma. And Rama, the “mar-yaada purushottama“, abided in them as implicitly and wholly as much as Manu himself who said:
“vedo-akhilo dharma mulam smriti-sheeley cha tad-vidaam I
“aachaaraaschaiva saadhunaam aatmanastushtireva cha II
(Translation of Buehler): “The whole Veda is the first source of the sacred law; next is tradition, followed by the examples of virtuous conduct of those who know the Veda; furthermore, there is also the customs of holy men; and finally, there is the enlightened Self”
In the light of Rama’s own utmost and scrupulous faith in Vedic maxims being “universal laws of nature” or Dharma to guide his own conduct in life, he could hardly have ever been guilty, of all things on earth, of misogyny or misogamy.
What is Misogamy? It is a form of sexism used to keep women at a lower social status than men. Women who reject subordination are punished by misogyny. Examples of punishment are sexual harassment and violence against women which includes domestic violence, and in its most extreme forms, femicide and misogynist terrorism. Misogamy is hatred or contempt for marriage in general and specifically for one’s wife.
None of the defining elements of Misogyny or Misogamy described above can ever be said to be present in Rama’s conduct towards Sita. On the contrary, as husband to Sita, we may assume Rama always held himself bound by the “categorical imperatives” of Manu’s Laws which prevailed in the times of the “treta yuga” when the “raamaavataara” took place. The Vedas say this about the man-woman relationship (“vaajasaneyi-braahmana” commentary on Manu Smriti IX.45):
ardho ha esha aatmanah; tasmaaj-jaayaam na vindate, naitaavat prajaayate, asarvo hi taavad-bhavat.
athaa, yadaiva jaayaam vindate, atha prajaayate, tarhi sarvo bhavathi.
tattha cha, etad-vedavido vipra vadanti — “yo bhartaa saiva bhaarya smritaa”
“A man is only half his self. When he takes a wife, he is incomplete, and so not fully born. After he takes a wife only is he fully born and becomes complete. So, braahmnaas who are well versed in the Vedas declare: He who is known as the husband is also the wife”.
Regarding marriage itself, Manu stressed (shloka II.77) its inestimable value in life for a man as it enabled the due performance of religious rites and the status of the householder (“gruhat“) was ennobled only by his wife. Rishi Apasthambain his Sutra later echoed Manu when he wrote (II, 16-19) that “No division takes place between husband and wife. For, from the time of marriage, they are united in religious ceremonies; they acquire equal reward and spiritual merit therefrom; and in the acquisition of property too”.
Rama was one who lived and swore by Vedic codes above, how could he ever be a misogynist or misogamist?
Manu also then laid down another maxim relating to the indissolubility of marriage in the following shloka (IX. 101):
annyonyasya avyabhichaaro bhaved-aamaranaatikah: I
esha dharmah samaasena jneyah stri-pumsayoh parah II
i.e. “Let mutual fidelity continue between man and woman till death.”
Furthermore, according to the Vedic mores of Rama’s times, there could be no divorce (ironically, also known as “moksha“!) in “dharma-vivaaha” — a marriage solemnized under Vedic rite: “amoksho dharma-vivaavahanaam”.
Given all the above “categorical imperatives” of the institution of marriage in those times — i.e. value, indissolubility and solemnity — Misogyny and Misogamy as we know it exists today, could never have existed in the society in which the Rama lived. To impeach Rama on the charge of Misogyny or Misogamy is therefore untenable as both would have been wholly repugnant and abhorrent to his own personal code of “dharma-purushaartha” or to the “categorical imperative” that he had embraced in life.
- ABUSED MARITAL ETHICS AND DECORUM
Much of the outraged emotions the episode of “sita agni-pariksha” arouses in the mind of Ramayana students and devotees (I daresay, especially the womenfolk amongst them) are caused indeed by the harsh and indecorous language with which he accosted Sita when, at the end of the Lankan war, she was brought into his victorious presence in full view of the entire army of “vaanaaras” and “raakshaasa-s”. It was then that Rama in a paroxysm of fury vented his feelings about the suspected infidelity of his wife, and used extremely harsh and wounding language to humiliate her.
In both the Valmiki Ramayana’s Sanskrit and in the Tamizh language of the great poet, Kamban, there are long strings of verses conveying Rama’s inflammatory words which seem to suggest that there was indeed a dark, deep and malevolent side to his personality that had always been hidden from view in the rest of the Ramayana. And it is for the reason of possessing that very baleful, almost sinister element in his personality that Rama, the divine “avataara purusha”, is held to be clearly impeachable.
The following are a few select verses of Kamban (Cantos in “Retrieval (Reunion)” or மீட்சிப் படலம்) and Valmiki (cantos in “yuddhakaanda”) that are quoted by way of poignant examples:
‘அடைப்பர், ஐம் புலன்களை; ஒழுக்கம் ஆணியாச்
சடைப் பரம் புனைந்து, ஒளிர் தகையின் மா தவம்
படைப்பர்; வந்து இடை ஒரு பழி வந்தால், அது
துடைப்பர், தம் உயிரொடும் – குலத்தின் தோகைமார்.
High-born women of pure character would control their senses (when separated from their spouses); resolutely invoking virtue, they would let their tresses dry away and get matted; would undertake austerities like glowing ascetics; if, god forbid, a taint or stigma should ever occur to their reputation, they would erase it forthwith by giving up their lives.”
‘யாது யான் இயம்புவது? உணர்வை ஈடு அறச்
சேதியாநின்றது, உன் ஒழுக்கச் செய்தியால்;
சாதியால்; அன்று எனின், தக்கது ஓர் நெறி
போதியால்‘
“What more can I say now?! Your misconduct causes deep wounds to my spirit and senses. It is up to you to resolutely demonstrate your innocence. Or else, you must go your way, as you wish where your senses take you.”
तद्गच्छ त्वानुजानेऽद्य यथेष्टं जनकात्मजे |
एता दश दिशो भद्रे कार्यमस्ति न मे त्वया |
tadgachchha tvaanujaane.adya yatheShTaM janakaatmaje |
etaa dasha disho bhadre kaaryamasti na me tvayaa II
“O Sita! That is why, I am permitting you now. Go wherever you like. All these ten directions are open to you, my dear lady! There is no duty you owe me now anymore.”
कः पुमांस्तु कुले जातह् स्त्रियं परगृहोषिताम् |
तेजस्वी पुनरादद्यात् सुहृल्लेख्येन चेतसा |
kaH pumaaMstu kule jaatah striyaM paragR^ihoShitaam |
tejasvii punaraadadyaat suhR^illekhyena chetasaa
“Which noble man, born in an illustrious dynasty like me, will take back a woman who all the world knows lived in another’s abode, with no compunction?”
रावणाङ्कपरिक्लिष्टां दृष्टां दुष्टेन चक्षुषा |
कथं त्वां पुनरादद्यां कुलं व्यपदिशन् महत् ||
raavaNaaN^kaparikliShTaaM dR^iShTaaM duShTena chakShuShaa |
kathaM tvaaM punaraadadyaaM kulaM vyapadishan mahat
“Born in the illustrious lineage of my ancestors, how can I accept again, you who lay on Ravana’s lap (while being abducted) and who were the object of his lustful eyes?”
तदर्थं निर्जिता मे त्वं यशः प्रत्याहृतं मया |
नास्थ् मे त्वय्यभिष्वङ्गो यथेष्टं गम्यतामितः |
tadarthaM nirjitaa me tvaM yashaH pratyaahR^itaM mayaa |
naasth me tvayyabhiShvaN^go yatheShTaM gamyataamitaH
“You have now been won back by me. With that end my own lost honor has been restored fully. But that leaves no place in my heart for you. You may now go wherever you like from here”.
(End of Part 4 of 5 — to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi