17:24, 20 பெப்ரவரி 2010 இல் நிலவும் திருத்தம்

Here are your weapons

The Poet gives a ‘directorial touch’ here, when they prepare to leave, taking us very close to the heart of Rama.

We know the quality of Rama. He flows like the rivers that move with such force when they fall down from the hills, just at the utterance of the words ‘I take refuge in you.’ The persons that surround him now are sages, ascetics and pursuers of the Self. There could be only one answer that he would give in such circumstances and he gave them his word. Valmiki puts it in a very beautiful manner.

“You should not speak to me thus. I am at the command of the ascetics.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 22) This answer differs greatly from the way he gave abhaya to Vibishana or Sugriva. He speaks to them as their protector and his words come out with parental care. But when speaking to the sages, he adopts the tone of a son. ‘Do not say that you are speaking to me like petitioners. Order me. Command me. I am at your disposal.’

Vaidehi has her own opinion about this assurance given to the sages; but she does not speak to Rama about it there and then. She waits for the right moment to speak to him about it. The three then visit the hermitage of Sutiksana. They stay there for the night and leave for Dandaka the next morning. The Poet gives a ‘directorial touch’ here, when they prepare to leave, taking us very close to the heart of Rama. He must have sensed that Sita is not happy about the assurance that he gave to the ascetics to obliterate the demons from the face of the earth. But he doesn’t speak about it, until she opens the subject. It is most likely that he had read her mind.

The assurance to the ascetics was given in Canto 6. The stay at the hermitage and their departure to Dandaka are depicted in Canto 7 and 8 and Sita’s objections are detailed in Canto 9. When the brothers and Sita take leave of sage SutiikshNa, the Poet paints the following picture in Canto 8.

Rama, along with Lakshmana and Sita bow at the feet of the sage and take leave of him. The sage asks Rama to come back to the hermitage once again, when he returns from Dandaka.

ஏவம் உக்த: ததா இதி உக்த்வா காகுத்ஸ்த:  ஸஹலக்ஷ்மண : |

ப்ரதக்ஷிணம்    முநிம்     க்ருத்வா    ப்ரஸ்தாதும்     உபசக்ரமே ||      
                                                  (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto 8, Sloka 17)

“Thus addressed, Kakutstha together with Lakshmana said, ‘So be it!’ and going round the sage keeping him to the right, started on his journey.” He started on his journey. The Poet makes it very clear that their journey started. It can be seen from Sloka 19 that they had not left the hermitage as yet. This means, they prepared to go, but had not yet left the precincts of the hermitage. But strangely, Rama had not taken his bow! Or any other weapon for that matter! Where was his bow? Where were his arrows? It is not only Rama; it appears that Lakshmana has also left his weapons back! Observe the Sloka that follows:

தத:       சுபதரே           தூணீ      தநுஷீ    ச       ஆயதேக்ஷணா |

ததௌ ஸீதா  தயோ: ப்ராத்ரோ: கட்கௌ  ச  விமலௌ தத: ||

                                                                                 (Ibid, Sloka 18)

“Then Sita, possessed of large eyes, handed to those brothers very excellent quivers, bows and polished swords. Both of them Rama as well as Lakshmana, fastened the beautiful quivers, took with a twang the bows, and left the hermitage for proceeding on their journey.” (Sloka 19)

It was she who brought the weapons to them. “Here the Poet tells us something which he has not told us before,” observes Right Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar. “I myself suspect that there is some significance in doing it.”

There lies the clue to Rama’s mind and the way he understood his darling.

Up in arms?

There are moments when love mutes all logic between the two of them. But when the intellect is at work, mutual respect is the watchword. Sita does not miss this.

It was Janaki who brought their weapons. As Sastriyar observes this is the first – and just only one – occasion in which she is depicted as carrying the weapons. Obviously they had left them aside when prostrating before the sage. They moved out. But they did not pick their weapons up. It was she who brought them. They then fastened the sword, strung and twanged the bow. If we remember, Rama is so very meticulous about the way he carries his weapons and removed the string of the bow before entering into the hermitage, as we saw in canto I of Aranya Kanda. (See: Unstringing the bow). When this being so, one is not even able to imagine that he could have left them behind ‘by accident.’

If the Poet says that they twanged the bow, it is obvious that they are really at a respectable distance from the hermitage. He would not have done so if he were within earshot of the hermitage. That goes without saying. This again points to the fact that Sita has carried the weapons from the hermitage for some distance. And again, it becomes clear that both the brothers have walked bare-handed from the hermitage to that distance.

How is it possible that he could have forgotten such an important thing, without which he is not to be seen anywhere in the epic! It was not an umbrella, after all, to be left behind inadvertently. “It was left to Sita to bring the bows and arrows from the inside,” says Srinivasa Sastriyar, “and give them to the brothers who were to wear them. We are not told that it was her daily duty but she did it now.” It appears as though Rama has read her mind. He is able to see that she is clearly agitated about his assurance to the sages to kill clear the earth of demonic forces. It also appears like a deliberate move to make her bring him the weapons and hand them over to him, symbolic of her ‘approval’ to their wearing the weapons. The Poet does not directly say this. ‘This possibly must have been the reason,’ we conclude and smile to ourselves when Rama starts answering Sita in the next canto. But let us first see the objections of Sita.

As we mentioned earlier, any adult – adult conversation moves smoothly, only with the open recognition, acknowledgement and explicit expression of the other person’s attainments. It demands respect, no matter who utters what to whom. If you want to express what you don’t like, first make it clear what you like in him or her. This is the golden rule. This is not restricted to mere official and diplomatic relations. This applies even to the two who are bound for life to each other. Of course there are moments when love mutes all logic between the two of them. But when the intellect is at work, mutual respect is the watchword. Sita does not miss this. See how she opens her remarks and registers her objections and how beautifully she ends in a way that does not in any way affect the person’s self-respect.

“ ஹ்ருதயா ஸ்நிக்தயா வாசா ப்ராதரம் இதம் அப்ரவீத்” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 1). She spoke to him in a soft, friendly voice. ‘Even great men go astray Raghava! If a person is careful about eschewing the desires born of addiction, this can easily be overcome. There are just three things in this world that basically drive a man to err. Of these three, two can not even approach you. I am only worried about the third.’

It is the way of weaponry

‘I don’t like your going to Dandaka. I will tell you why. I don’t want you to indulge in unprovoked war and killing.’

‘Three are the major vices about which a person has to be extremely careful and eschew. ‘para daara abhigamanam’ Taking fascination for the wife of another man. You can never be found guilty of this. “O ruler of men, how can there spring up in you the desire for others’ wives, that destroys Dharma? You have not got it, nor was it ever with you. Rama, nowhere is it even in your mind. And you are always devoted to your own wife, O prince!” (Valmiki Ramayanam, Aranya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 5-6)

And then what every other person is found guilty of is ‘mithyaa vaakyam’ uttering falsehood. I cannot find you guilty on this count either. “A false statement you have never made nor will you ever make, O Raghava!” (Ibid, Sloka 4) ‘You are the very embodiment of Dharma. Dharma and Truth reside in you. You are true to your promise and are obedient to your father.’

The words sound so very sincere and come from the bottom of her heart and are not just a prelude to a criticism that she is going to make. If one has to make it a point to ‘praise before criticising,’ one has to remember that the praise should come from the heart. It should be genuine. It should be as genuine as the desire to criticise. It should not be just a lip-service that precedes a harsh statement, uttered only because the rule says so!

How proud would she have been when she uttered the words, ‘You cannot be found guilty of violating other women and you are devoted to your wife’! ‘What a compliment!’ exclaims Sastriyar. He says, “Some of our wives may be as confident of our conduct as Sita was, but they would hesitate to give the credit openly!” And imagine the delight and pride of a woman when she can claim, and say so to her husband, ‘My husband is clean. He has nothing that is repulsive in him!’ And it goes without saying that he was so. He deserved it.

‘But Raghava,’ she says, ‘there is a third quality that is to be eschewed. I am afraid you are led into that. ‘vinaa vairam ca raudrataa’. Unprovoked war. Killing for no reason. “O hero, you have undertaken a vow to kill the ogres on the battlefield for the protection of sages living in the Dandaka forest; and for this (very) purpose you have set out with arrows and a bow towards the forest well-known as Dandaka with your brother.” (Ibid, Sloka 10 and 11)

She refers to the assurance of Rama to the sages, when he said, ‘I came to the forest, accepting the order of my father. I came here on my own business. ‘bhavataam artha siddhyartham aagato.aham yadRicChayaa’ But it may perchance be for the reason that I am to protect you from the demons. May be this is the very reason why I came here.’

“Hence, seeing you on your way to the Dandaka, my mind is perturbed with anxiety, thinking of your behaviour and of your highest well-being and worldly interests. I do not like, O hero, your going towards the Dandaka. I shall tell you the reason for that; while I speak of it, please listen.” (Ibid, Sloka 12 and 13)

‘I don’t like your going to Dandaka. It is not without reason. I will tell you why. I don’t want you to indulge in unprovoked war and killing. But before that let me tell you one thing. You are acting impulsively because the trouble lies with these weapons that you are carrying. A person, who goes around with weapons, cannot restrain himself from using them quite often.’ We call this impulse ‘trigger-happiness’ these days. Just pump the trigger as often as you desire when you carry the rifle around. And the desire to do so would remain undying and uppermost in the mind, always, till that weapon is removed from one’s possession. Sita then narrates the anecdote of a sage in whose custody was deposited a sword.

Sword in the hands of a sage

Rama, you are a born Kshatriya. Weapons are a part of your life. But, do tell me, what part weapons play in the life a person who is supposed to lead his life in the forest?

‘Of what use these weapons are to a person who is supposed to lead the life of a sage, in the forest?’ is the central theme around which Sita’s anxious words revolve. ‘There is no difference between keeping fuel in the vicinity of fire and weapons close to a Kshatriya,’ she says. The fire would leap up higher and higher till the fuel lasts. The Kshatriya would be tempted to exhibit his prowess, till the weapons are with him. "Verily for Kshatriyas the bow, and for burning fire its fuel, if available nearby, the luminosity (of fire) and strength (of Kshatriyas) enhances immensely.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 15)

She then describes the mental state to which a person would be tempted and pushed into when he or she is in possession of it. A person, who possesses it, is always tempted to put it to use of one kind or the other. It is true even to this day that anybody, holding a knife in hand, is unable to restrain himself from at least drawing lines on furniture with the sharp edge. It tempts. When the opportunity offers itself, we tend to cut something or the other with it. The weapon occupies the mind completely. It nags the mind to put it to use in one form or another. It is not that only ordinary folk are pushed into such temptation. It is difficult for even sages, who are supposed to have conquered their minds, to stop themselves from putting the weapon to use, if he happens to possess one. She narrates this anecdote to Rama.

A very truthful and holy ascetic lived in a forest, practising austerities and pursuing his quest after the self. Indra, the lord of celestials, as is wont of him, wanted to distract this sage from his purpose. He came to the sage in the guise of a soldier and asked the sage to keep his sword in his custody for sometime and went away. The poor ascetic, who was until then spending all his time in performing austerities, had then to carry the sword with him always, whenever he moved about in the forest for collecting roots and fruits for his minimal requirements and fuel for the fire he tended for his penance. That became essential in order for him to guard the trust that was deposited in him.

The sword was of excellent craftsmanship. It shone in daylight. It shone in starlight. The majestic steel, the way it was tempered, polished and sharpened, the wonderful diamond studded handle, all combined together to instil an intense desire to look at it often, to hold it in hand, feel it with fingers, enjoy its sight and feel. The pleasure that it gave was something irresistible. The poor sage went through all this. He often held it in hand as soldiers would and admired the shining steel of murder. That feeling went into his head by and by. He was tempted to cut the roots and fruits that he needed, using the sword. And then that compelled his desire to put it to use quite often. He would cut branches of trees, plants etc. even when there was no need, the desire to put the weapon to use pushing him into wanton destruction. That soon led the sage to use it on small animals and that exercise hardened his heart enough to kill others around him, for no reason. And he went to hell. Just because the splendid and sparkling steel tempted him. Even a sage could not stop himself from yielding to that desire.

Rama, you are a born Kshatriya. Weapons are a part of your life. But, do tell me, what part weapons play in the life a person who is supposed to lead his life in the forest? Why should you kill ogres without reason? What did they do to you? “The function of the bow or self-restrained heroic Kshatriyas is only this much, viz., protection of those who are suffering. What connection is there between a weapon and forest-life? What affinity is there between the duty of a Kshatriya and asceticism? The two are contradictory. Let us respect the laws of the place.” (Ibid, Sloka 26 – 28)

Thought provoking indeed.

To be armed, or to be harmed?

Does the assurance that you gave to the sages to wipe out ogres not violate the main purpose for which you came to the forest? Are you doing the right thing?

Sita’s anecdote contains several thought provoking and introspective questions, that remain implied. She does not raise these questions openly. But what she wants to convey, though unexpressed, is crystal clear.

‘Just by the proximity of the sword, a thing he did not want at all, he did not own at all, but a thing that was merely deposited with him for safe-keeping, the sage lost sight of his own goal. If a weapon can tempt a sage to go away from his intended path, what can it not do when it is with you, a born Kshatriya, a warrior par excellence and the greatest of all archers? Was this the purpose for which you came to the jungle? Was this your intention when you accepted exile? Were you not asked to lead the life of a sage? Does the assurance that you gave to the sages to wipe out ogres not violate the main purpose for which you came to the forest? Are you doing the right thing?’

Right Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar expands this question beautifully and applies it to the arms race, to the cries of ‘last war in the name of everlasting peace,’ and the desire of power hungry nations that drag mankind into blood-bath, death and the effects of war that cross the barriers of time and afflict generations that follow, et al. “The whole thing is utterly unscientific, to divide nations into warlike and peace-loving,” he says. “Most nations that have come up and built some kind of prosperity for themselves have been warlike, and warlike with a vengeance. How long ago was Britain peace-loving, or Russia? All these countries have enormous forces at their disposal and cannot remain in peace. The very possession of theses forces will drive them into war.”

But a discussion on this question of armament would, as Sastriyar also says, take us far, far away from our main purpose in hand. As he says, “A discussion of that problem will take me far. But I want to tell you this, that this story of Sita is a pointer. Although we may safely build this proposition, that any nation that this armed to the teeth may be peace-loving for some time, for five years or ten years, or it may be for one generation, you cannot guarantee that the next generation or their children’s children will also remain peace-loving. Such a state of thins is foreign to human nature, foreign certainly to well-armed human nature.”

As Sastriyar rightly points out Sita’s poser to Rama does contain the seed of all arguments against armaments. Undoubtedly, it contains the call in it for disarmament. But it has also to be recognised that she is not absolutely against arms. As we have quoted earlier, she says, “kSatriyaaNaam tu viiraaNaam vaneSu niyataatmanaam dhanuSaa kaaryam etaavat aartaanaam abhirakSaNam” The function of self-restrained heroic Kshatriyas is only this much, viz., protection of those who are suffering.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 26)

‘To a warrior, who is self-restrained.’ Look at the qualification. ‘A warrior who owns a weapon must be in the first place self-restrained.’ And then, he should wield the weapon only for the protection of the oppressed, that is to say, only against those who perpetrate acts that disturb peace, the equanimity of existence. What she is questioning here is the relevance of weapons for life in forest. She is performing the duty of a wife, who is supposed to be the guardian of one’s actions, who is supposed to function as the inner-voice and who shares one’s life and who lends a helping hand in the pursuit of what one is supposed to follow.

This is another place where pundits quarrel. They depict Sita as a woman with all frailties who dared to teach Rama of dharma. They trouble themselves with questions of how having said this much, Sita herself was the cause of Rama having to take the bow in hand for destruction of demonic forces and how her question goes beyond the limits of a this and that. Nothing of that sort.

A matter of discussion

How many of us can take a piece of advice from the wife! How many of us can remain calm when she speaks in this manner!

Every single one of us has faced and is facing again and again, is situation in life. The situation appears to be simple but alas, in fact, in most cases it turns out to be not so simple. It is a matter of duty for a spouse to express his or her opinion on particular ideas and particular actions where one tends to look at a situation differently from the other. Not many of us can claim to be successful in administering this simple but vital potion.

There seems to be no place for discussion in several of our families. It is almost always an arrogant ‘it is my way and it is my right’ attitude that prevails. And even in such families where ‘discussion’ is given some elbowroom, we see people not playing their roles properly, and not receiving ideas opposed to his or hers the way they should be. We either underplay – in the name of what we understand to be ‘demands of love’ – or we take it rather too far, laying emphasis on what we think to be right. When we underplay, what we want to convey gets lost and does not evoke the kind of response one expects, leading to development of pressures and avoidable tensions. That ultimately turns into a personality clash between those two, who are supposed to be the ‘better half’ of the other.

We have a lot to learn from Rama and Sita. When an idea is presented – especially so when a spouse is subjected to criticism by the other – that idea or criticism should start with an open acknowledgement of one’s love and respect for the other. It is basic. Most of us fail here. ‘Don’t I have a right to say so? Do I have to express my love and respect every time? Does he or she not know that I have it in plenty?’ is what most of us tend to think. We miss one vital thing. When opinions differ, there would naturally be a lot of heat. A right beginning – and also the right finish – is nothing but the coolant that is applied to set off heat generated by friction. And it is very strange that we, who are neither afraid of nor are ashamed to express our anger to the spouse, tend to fight shy to express our love, affection and respect for each other!

Now, coming back to Janaki. We saw how she started this discussion, this expression of what she feels right, expression of the anxiety about a decision that she feels is not right for the way of life they have accepted. And now, let us take a look at the way she closes what she wanted to tell her husband, who is held so high as the ‘most ideal person’, not without reason.

“By use of arms, the mind becomes contaminated with sin as in the case of unworthy men. After returning to Ayodhya, you can again follow the duty of a warrior. It will bring endless joy to my mother-in-law and father-in-law if indeed after renouncing the kingdom you become a devoted sage. From Dharma follow wealth, from Dharma comes happiness, by recourse to Dharma one gets everything. This world has Dharma as its essence. The wise emaciate themselves with effort by imposing several restrictions on themselves and achieve Dharma. Dharma does not follow from merriment. With a pious mind, O gentle Rama, always practise righteousness in the forest suited for austerities.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 28 to 32)

How many of us can take a piece of advice from the wife! How many of us can remain calm when she speaks in this manner! How many of us can express ‘another opinion’ when she airs a genuine apprehension! And how many of us can end the expression of a view that sounds a little strong and tends to gain the appearance of – as some would call it – ‘acting superior’!

Let us see how she keeps the point open for discussion and deciding on what is right, rather than clinging to the idea just because it happens to be ‘my idea’. And let us also see how Rama takes her words

A matter of discussion – Part II

Sita says, ‘You need not accept my view simply because I tell you this. You know what is to be done. You know what is right…

The trouble with people in such situations is that they develop a strong attachment to the idea that they advocate at the moment. What starts as a quest for Truth, a desire for adoption of what is right, soon leads to heartburns just because one fails to understand that Truth can have another shade, another way of approach and that there might be another acceptable and valid point of view on the same question that is mooted.

Sita does not do that. She keeps the door open. She says, ‘This is what I feel. It is not that you don’t know what is right and what is not. But I feel this way.’ And then she adds,”snehaat ca bahumaanaat ca smaaraye tvaam na shikSaye” I am telling you all this out of my love for you; and with due respects to you. na shikSaye. (Of course, this reading differs as tu shikSaye in Gorakhpur and such other editions. Our intention is not to go into such intricacies.) I am not trying to teach you. Please do not think I am trying to do that. Let me quote from Srinivasa Sastriyar’s speech, on this Sloka, which is 24th in Canto 9 of Aranya Kanda.

“It is a famous passage and people constantly use it when they give advice to elders. ‘I am not teaching you anything. I only remind you of what you already know. Unfortunately in life some circumstances occur and drive fruitful thoughts away from the mind. They go to the corner, as it were, of your mind and it is necessary to bring them to the centre. I do that service. That is all I remind you, but not teach you.’ Sita winds up beautifully.”

That is what all of us do when placed in a similar situation of having to express a similar view to an elder, a senior colleague or someone superior. But strangely we lose sight of this when dealing with personal relations! What most of us tend to do, or say in similar situations? ‘I have a right to say this because I am the wife and listen to me if you love me. Your accepting my view is the (only!) way of your showing your love for me!’ or ‘I am the husband and you are supposed to obey me. Listen to me and do what I say. I am the master of our lives. It is my view that prevails here.’ Look at them. Look at Rama and Sita, I mean. How beautiful is their life!

It does not end there. Sita says, ‘You need not accept my view simply because I tell you this. You know what is to be done. You know what is right and what is not. Who can teach you, Rama! Still, discuss with Lakshmana and decide.’ “However, thinking over it by recourse to reason together with your younger brother, you may do whatever appeals to you. Let there be no delay.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 33)

Read in this context, Rama leaving behind his weapons in the hermitage of Sutiksana and Sita bringing them herself and handing them over to Rama and Lakshmana that was described in ‘Here are your weapons’ and ‘Up in arms?’ gains significance. Read them now and the beauty of the design of the Poet – I should say the design of Rama, to be more appropriate – would unfold itself.

You and your father

That Vaidehi played her part very well is only half the story. The beauty of the situation could be spoiled if the husband is rash and harsh and if he is impatient…

As we had reason to believe – as it appears from his response that we would see presently – it was not by accident that Rama walked out of the hermitage of Sutiksana without his weapons. He knew her. He had understood the thoughts running in her mind. He – anyone of us for that matter – could have guessed it from her countenance and facial expressions. Not only that he understood her feelings. He knew that despite her feelings, she would bring the weapons herself. And that was the symbolic approval – let’s say nod, if that sounds too strong  – that he wanted from her.

Our elders have attached so much importance to the views of the wife and this can be seen in most of the rituals a householder is to perform. Not a single ritual in our lives goes without homam and that can start only with her nod. It is she who brings fire for the homam, symbolically conveying, ‘Yes. I know what you are doing. I know that this rite is performed for our common good. I partake in it. Here. Let me start it and you continue.’

Well, when Vaidehi brought the weapons, she brought the fire for the homam to be performed by Rama, though she did not realise it at that moment. If this was not the reason, the only other valid reason that could be attributed to this incident is that Rama forgot to take them. Is there anyone who could buy that argument! Is there a single other instance in the entire epic when he left them back? As we mentioned earlier, it was not an umbrella after all, to be forgotten and left behind!

That Vaidehi played her part very well is only half the story. The beauty of the situation could be spoiled if the husband is rash and harsh and if he is impatient and considers himself too big for advices from this ‘little weakling.’ Rama is not so. He knows that her views are important and that he has a duty to convince her of his assurance given to the sages and the consequent decision to protect them, by way of killing the ogres who were a hindrance to their pursuit.

Just pause a while and think for a moment. How would most of us respond to the wife in such circumstances? Let us be honest. ‘See, this is my business. I know what has to be done. Let me mind my business and you…’ This would be the attitude, again, in most cases. The words that are employed to express that attitude may differ. But the attitude remains the same. That Rama differed from her view is another thing. But he did not take his next step without first making his position clear, without first giving out the reasons why he looked at it from a different standpoint, and without first reminding her how much he values Truth, how much importance he attaches to what he has avowed and how it becomes his duty to protect the poorest, lowliest and the lost. He did so firmly, but lovingly. Now, I cannot – and would not – postpone Rama’s response to a later day, to discuss this when we take him up for study. Listen to him.

“Having heard these words uttered by Vaidehi devoted to her husband, Rama, firmly adhering to Dharma, then replied to Janaki. O daughter of Janaka knower of Dharma, O queen, you being affectionate have given a wholesome advice, which is becoming of you, referring as it does to the duty of my race.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto X, Sloka 1)

“ ஹிதம் உக்தம் த்வயா தேவி ” he says. What you said is right my darling. And he refers to her with these epithets: (You told me so because) You know what Dharma is. And that is because you are the daughter of Janaka  - தர்மஜ்ஞே  ஜநக  ஆத்மஜே

‘You and your father!’ We do use this phrase in our conversations too, in such circumstances. But only, our usage of the phrase would be diametrically opposite to what Rama implied when he used it!

You said it!

It was you who uttered these words! Don’t you see that you have answered your questions with your own words!

It is not that Janaki was not aware of how the demons were tormenting helpless people and. She herself was witness to how Viradha pursued Rama and Lakshmana even as they entered Dandaka, taking leave of Sage Atri and his devoted wife, Anasuya. We will see the incident a little later, in detail. Therefore, Sita was aware of whom Rama had pledged to wipe out and what kind of panic could they be sending all around. It is to be seen that she did not stop Rama or Lakshmana from killing Viradha.

The reason why I mention this is that Pundits have strange notions. ‘She was against killing demons,’ they say and in the next breath add, ‘and she soon became the very cause for their killing,’ without realising that they cast strange and inappropriate, though unintended, aspersions on her. It was not that she was against killing of demons. Her question was different. ‘Why should you kill them unnecessarily, when they have not done any harm that directly affects you? Why should you start an unprovoked war?’ Let’s have a look at what she said once again.

“But the third terrible evil, viz., the taking of other’s lives, which is done without enmity due to ignorance, is facing you.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 9)

To put it in other words, ‘When there is no enmity between you and them, why should you kill them?’ is the essence of her arguments. ‘buddhiman, madhurabashi, purvabhashi, priyamvadah’ are some of the epithets that the Poet showers on Rama. A sharp intellect, one who speaks that which is sweet, one who utters his words (in an argument) in such a manner that he answers the questions of the other person, even before the questions (that branch out from the main question) are asked. ‘You know what Dharma is, because you are Janaka’s daughter,’ he said and in the next breath added: ‘ கிம்  நு வக்ஷ்யாமி அஹம் தேவி ?’ What shall I say my beloved! You have posed such a question. What is there for me to answer! ‘ த்வயா ஏவ உக்தம் இதம் வச:’ It was you who uttered these words! Don’t you see that you have answered your questions with your own words! “O queen, what shall I say? You yourself have stated that a bow is wielded by Kshatriyas so that there should be no cry of the sufferers.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto X, Sloka 3)

What Rama refers to is this portion of Sita’s arguments. “The function of the bow for self-restrained heroic Kshatriyas is only this much, viz., protection of those who are suffering.” (Ibid, Sloka 26) As you rightly said a Kshatriya wields the weapon not just for his protection. He has a duty to protect his subjects and those who seek his protection. I may not be the king now. But I have been approached by the sages who took refuge in me! You saw them yourself! Is it not my duty to rush to their help when they came to me and sought my protection?

Truth is dearer to me

‘People blame Sita in their ignorance,’ says Srinivasa Sastriyar and draws our attention to the way in which Rama took those words.

‘As wielder of the bow, it becomes my duty to protect those who are suffering,’ continued Rama. ‘The sages live in the forest pursuing their quest after the soul and they are pursued by the demons who kill them and eat their flesh. It is not that they are incapable of handling the ogres. They can curse them. But that would nullify the effect that they had gathered over a period of time, performing great penances, observing the strictest of austerities. It would result in the wasting of their efforts over the destruction of the evil forces, which really is the king’s duty.’

‘More over, you saw them coming to me of their own. “Indeed it is a great shame for me that I have been approached by such Brahmanas as are worthy of being approached.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto X, Sloka 9) I should have gone to them. They are such great souls that I hold them in such high esteem that I should have gone to them. But I am ashamed that it so happened that they came to me seeking my protection. I should have volunteered my assistance. I should have rushed to their help before they asked for it. I feel so bad that they had to come to me instead.

You heard what they said. “We have been greatly tormented in the Dandaka forest by many ogres assuming different forms according to their will. Rama, protect you us from them. When the time comes for pouring oblations into the sacred fire and also on holy occasions, the flesh-eating unassailable ogres attack us, O sinless one! You are the greatest asylum for us poor ascetics, who are seeking an asylum assailed as we are by the ogres. Although we are able to kill the night-wanderers by virtue of our austerities, we do not desire to waste the power accumulated by us for a long time. O Raghava, austerities are beset with many obstacles and are always difficult to be performed.” (Ibid, Sloka 10-14)

‘The promise that I made, the assurance I gave was because of the fact that great souls and innocent lives are being tormented; their pursuit is hindered and their penance harmed, apart from the fact that the ogres kill them with the intention of eating their flesh. Do tell me what a Kshatriya is supposed to do. You said it that weapons are to be wielded for the protection of the weak. Am I not doing just that?’

‘People blame Sita in their ignorance,’ says Srinivasa Sastriyar and draws our attention to the way in which Rama took those words. He says, “You have said this to me because you have a right to do so. It was done in good faith, out of an honest desire to put me on the right path. I am not offended. On the other hand, I praise you. I am pleased that you should have spoken like this and not kept it in your mind without my being able to discover it. Nobody will chide one whom he does not care for. You chide me because you are interested in me, because you love me, because you think I should do no wrong, incur no sin.”

‘But then, I have made a promise. I will not go back on my words.’ Rama then utters the famous Sloka  -

” ..............................................   ஸத்யம் இஷ்டம் ஹி மே ஸதா |

அபி அஹம் ஜீவிதம் ஜஹ்யாம் த்வாம் வா ஸீதே  ஸலக்ஷ்மணாம் ||”

Truth is dearer to me than my very own life, than you my beloved or than Lakshmana. I may give up my life, I may give you up my beloved, or I may give up Lakshmana. I would never ever give up Truth.

Hari Krishnan