Growing up I heard (and watched) the version where even after the agni pariksha Sita is abandoned by Raam in the forest to preserve his honour. It never sat well with my 10-year old feminist self, and it doesn't sit well with me now.

The idea that a man abandons his wife because other people don't believe her makes no sense. If he was so noble, and if he did really believe her, wouldn't it have been so much more honourable for him to abandon his throne, and follow her into the forest to prove that HE believed her. By abandoning her, he justifies the peoples mistrust in her.

However, I don't think changing the story does anyone any good. If we sanitize what we tell children, we don't allow them to analyze the harshness of the world. I think political corectness should be used so that we are not insulting people by using derogatory terms. It shouldn't be used to alter harsh truths (the "truth" in this case being how the story was written). In this case, I'd advocate telling a child the different versions of the story.

Amardeep, thanks SO much for posting this, because I've always found the story of Sita fascinating.

Sita passes out, and is rescued by Valmiki, who takes her to his Ashram. There she gives birth to Rama's twin sons, Lava and Kusa. As the children grow up, Valmiki composes The Ramayana to tell the sons the story of their father's greatness. A number of years later, the sons recite the story to Rama, who recognizes it and reclaims them. Sita also returns finally, and is proven innocent through yet another divine test. This time, she asks the earth to swallow her up to prove her fidelity, and the earth opens and she disappears. And Rama's 10,000 year rule is without her. (A little sad, is it not?)

In the ACK version, he goes to the ashram where Sita is staying, but is still hesitant to take Sita back. Sita prays to the heavens to prove that she is pure, and the earth does swallow her up. However, it is implied that this is her way of finding peace and returning to her rightful place(if you look at the mythology around Sita's birth, there is a story that she was found by a farmer in the earth). All of this is from memory, so maybe someone who has read the ACK version more recently can chime in.

Very dark, in my opinion, but I have to say that it instilled in me, from a very young age, that being a woman can be rough stuff, even if you're married to a G-d. No disrespect intended.

Not being of Indian heritage, I only "discovered" the Ramayana recently. I am currently reading a 21st century rendition by Indian author Ashok K. Banker. The first 4 books are available through most online book stores. Well worth it!

I saw a movie in an Indian film based on the lives of Luv and Kush. I don't remember the details just high level stuff but I thought it was an interpretation I never saw before. The film starts with Rama abandoning Sita to the forest after bowing to public pressure. At Valmiki's ashram, Sita brings up the boys (Luv and Kush) who grow up to be great warriors like their fathers. One day there is some dispute in the forest and the guards from Rama's kingdom try to arrest Luv and Kush. Of course, they are prompty defeated by the boys (they are still children). Later on, Rama's brothers one by one - Shatrughna, Bharatha, Lakshamana come to teach the boys a lesson. Each one is humilated by the boys who tie them up and make fun of them. Finally Rama is intrigued and he comes over to free his brothers and deal with the boys. It is an even match and at the end Rama has to resort to the Brahmastra a weapon he has used to kill Ravana. He is stopped just in time by Valmiki who reveals that these boys are his sons. Of course, Rama is overjoyed and all go to meet Sita. Sita is very happy to see the boys united with their father. Rama asks for her forgiveness and beseeches her to come back to the kingdom. Of course, Sita refuses to come back saying her work is done and leaves Luv and Kush to Rama's care. The earth goddess who is her mother opens and takes in Sita. I remember the little boys crying for their mother as she is swallowed by the earth, Hanuman who is crying too, holds them tighthly. Rama is very devastated by the events. All in all, extremely sad stuff. It is a full circle for Sita who was found by Janaka while he was tilling the earth, now the earth opens up and takes her in. Some allegory about Sita and the produce from Earth, I don't know.

When Dasaratha banished Rama to the forest, Rama laments about how foolish his father is to listen to his wife and abandoing his son and daughter-in-law. Nevertheless he follows his father's wishes though he doesn't think it is a good idea.

Amardeep, the ACK comic I'm referring to is titled "Sons of Rama." And it is interesting that it diverges from ACK's "Ramayana" comic.

Amardeep, thanks for the post, it's very enlightening.

One thing which I never fully resolved - do the traditional versions of the Ramayana ascribe some guilt or weakness to Rama for being so suspicious and weak when it comes to his wife? I remember reading some version (probably ACK) which has scenes of Rama moping and regretting the consequences (with some amount of the "maybe I was a bit too hard on her"), but it seemed more like repentance for the consequences of his actions, rather than the actions themselves (cue tie-in to the Gita :)

One excuse I've heard for this latter part of the Ramayana is that Vishnu incarnated in Rama and his brothers for the goal of ridding the earth of Ravana and once this was accomplished, the _incarnation_ ended. So Rama was fully human in this episode, with all the faults that entails. FWIW.

Deepa, this is definitely part of the avatar lore that I have read as well. Not a whole lot of consolation, but Rama is supposed to be mortal and human at that point of the story.

Babloo, that's a really interesting version. It's interesting that it seems to end on a tragic/sacrificial note. In a way, this whole question is different if we frame The Ramayana as a tragedy rather than as the triumph of Ram.

(But a story in which a mother is sacrificed hardly seems like a story one would want to tell one's children...)

Kenyandesi,

Interesting points, but I'm not sure I quite see what you're saying. On the one hand, you say that there's no point in shielding children from the harshness of the world. And yet you also say you would choose one of the alternate versions of the story...

Those two approaches seem to contradict each other, slightly.

Amardeep: another insightful post!

Have you seen Paula Richman's Many Ramayanas? It's an excellent resource on the subject, documenting variances across many communities and social groups in South Asia. I found it fascinating that some oral versions among scheduled castes in India actually make Ravana out to be the hero!

Amardeep -- It's nice to see you taking this theme up. A quick comment: Sita Parityaga is part of the Valmiki Ramayana, so, it's part of the original text (dating back 200 BC or so as you have already pointed out).

Also I agree with kenyandesi that political correctness (or whatever the terminology is) shouldn't be used to alter harsh truths (the "truth" in this case being how the story was written).

Damn I was going to tell you about the Paula Richaman book also.Jay you beat me to it. A recent interview with the author:

http://www.hindu.com/fr/2005/03/04/stories/2005030400080200.htm

Jay,

No, I haven't checked it out (I will). It's odd, because I think I've met Paula Richman at some point.

Incidentally, Deepa, according to this site at Michigan State, it's the Tulsi Das version that introduces the reference to Rama as an incarnation of Vishnu.

But apparently in the same version, Sita is never actually kidnapped -- it's only a duplicate Sita. (I wonder what happens to the war with Ravana then...)

And yet you also say you would choose one of the alternate versions of the story...

I'd advocate telling a child the different versions of the story

Amardeep, I would tell them all the versions, not one.

See http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A//www.indiastar.com/Bhattacharya1.htm&ei=SW0DQ5WlOIKCYey-nZ8H

- a review of textual analysis of the Valmiki Ramayana. Basically there are 2 important points in this context:

i) The Uttara Kanda (describing the banishment and the Lav/Kush story) are not
part of the "ur-version".

ii) The additions are part of the general evolution of the Ramayana from a lyrical poem to a description of the "ethical ideal" that "purushottam" Rama became.

The purpose of the Uttara Kanda is to describe the ideal ruler, and the ideal rule - Ram Rajya. The banishment of Sita in that context is really the sacrifice that Rama makes to become a great king. Sita's suffering is unfair - but so is life.

Regarding the "political correctness" of
removing the banishment from retellings - its worth noting that Tulsidas himself did not see fit to tell that part of the story. And indeed, that was clearly the retelling that made Rama into the popular deity today - the most important Ramayana before Ramanand Sagar's :-).

There are two statements:

1. Rama, the son of Dasharatha, went into exile(with wife and brother) because of his father's orders. Wrong.
2. Rama, the husband, ordered his wife, Sita, into the forest because of society's views. Wrong.

There are four entities in play:

1. Rama, the son.
2. Rama, the husband.
3. Rama, the subject.
4. Rama, the King.

In those days, rightly or wrongly, the king had absolute power over his people. Hence, the people in turn had every right to ensure and demand that the king constantly prove himself worthy of the power.

Let me rephrase the two statements now....

1. Rama, the subject of Dasharatha, went into exile(with wife and brother) because of the king's orders. Right.
2. Rama, the king, ordered his wife, Sita, into the forest because of society's views. Right.

Dasharatha, the king, had made a promise. So, as a king, however much it hurt him, he had to send a subject into exile, even though the subject was dearest to him. Rama, the subject, had little choice in the matter. This has been discussed in detail here and here...

Similiarly, Rama the King, could not afford to have a relationship with any person whose character was suspect. His subjects had control over what friends he made, whom he slept with etc etc. So when they suspected Sita's fidelity, as a King, he had no choice but to comply.

It must be remembered that after sending her to the forest, he chose to live as a hermit, even though he was a king. He would sleep on the ground, eat only food available in the forest(roots and berries), do his daily chores(washing clothes etc) himself, refused medicines when sick etc etc. He went into the palace only to carry out his official duties. He refused anything that was unavailable to Sita in the forest.

In a time when it was customary for kings to have more than one wife, this was Godly.

M. Nam

The interpretation of the story that I am most familiar with is that after SIta's abandonment, Rama's kingdom ultimately feel into drought, poverty and disarray with Rama dying alone.

The societys fate a result of the injustice that was committed by society collectively to Sita.

I beleive that the basic story of Ramayana is real, although the ornate details in the story are probably due to Valmiki's rich imagination. I will play the devil's advocate here:
Assume for one moment that Sita was indeed defiled by Ravana while she lived in Ashoka Vana. Rama after bringing her back to Ayodhya learns the painful truth about the twins growing up inside her. He is torn between his love for her and his moral responsibility towards the country he is ruling. So he does what every husband with an inflated sense of self-rectitude faced with a similar situation 2000 years ago would have done: abandons his wife. Valmiki finds Sita, learns the truth but for the sake of the "country" alters the story just enough to make it palatable to the people. If I were to write a book (now that I think of it, I should) that would be my interpretation of Ramayana.

Interesting post as usual Amardeep. I've also known the Ramayana through both the ACK versions that Brimful mentions above. The way I understand it, the abandonment is a sort of P.S., an epilogue to the Ramayana. After Sita takes and passes the fire test, Ram tries to hold the kingdom together under his just reign but mutterings about Sita continue to threaten his authority. He instructs Lakshman to take her to the forest and abandon her...finds her years later through his sons as told in ACK, begs for forgiveness and offers to reinstate her as his queen but Sita refuses and asks the Earth to swallow her whole.

I would never take out either episode (trial by fire or abandonment) because they add color to the story! If anything, putting those in there highlights how unfairly Sita was treated by society (Ram never gleefully abandoned her and as I understood it, was deeply saddened by the sacrifice).

It's also worth considering that in India, the group is ALWAYS worshipped together. Ram is incomplete without Sita, Lakshman and Hanuman. In other words, the trial and abandonment have done little to separate Sita from Ram in popular imagination.

This is neither here nor there, but just Googling around I came across Nina Paley's animated version of Sita's side of the story, called Sita Sings the Blues. She animates parts of the story using songs by Annette Hanshaw, an old American blues singer from the 1920s.

Then I realized that Manish posted about it back in April.

Perhaps just another 'version' to consider.

Hari -- I think that's the original -- Valmiki Ramayana -- version.

Ramayana is not about any run off the mill love story between two individuals. The point of Ramayana was that, in Ram rajya, the king listens to his citizens even at the cost of his personal life. Citizens come before everything-- that's the primary duty of the ruler.
Just see the contrast among the current politicians.

As for their love life, whatever the versions of Ramayana, it's clear that Ram and Sita loved each other regardless of whatever happened. Constrast this to today where people get divorced at the drop of toilet seat.

The Amar Chitra Katha version can be read here

Ironically, a particular school of thought in India believes that the Uttara Khaanda was added by feminists.

You've hit on one reason I'm making an animated film based on the Ramayana. In fact, I really just wanted to do the Uttar Kanda, but because westerners are so unfamiliar with the Ramayana story, I'm telling that first for background and context.

When I first read the Ramayana, I thought it was misogynist propaganda. Now I consider it moving, brilliant and subversive. The Last Book, so often omitted in retellings because it is so difficult to reconcile Rama's behavior, is genius, in my opinion.

Manushi has a great article on why Sita's suffering is essential to her popularity as a goddess. Here's another Manushi article on the same theme.

Of all the episodes I'm telling in Sita Sings the Blues, I'm most looking forward to animating the bittersweet climax, wherein Sita proves her purity one last time by entering the Earth.

As for what to tell kids, there are zillions of versions of the Ramayana, including many with a happy ending. When kids get older they can easily find more challenging versions. I see the Ramayana as a living thing, still evolving through generations of new storytellers. Any myth is a reflection of the people who tell it, and any storyteller is entitled to tell it their own way.

As for their love life, whatever the versions of Ramayana, it's clear that Rama and Sita loved each other regardless of whatever happened. Constrast this to today where people get divorced at the drop of toilet seat.

It's fine to condone Rama's actions as a sacrifice for his kingdom, but I don't find it at all romantic or true to the role of a husband. I know your remark about divorce is meant to be somewhat flippant, but I would have advised Sita to seek a divorce under those circumstances, personally.

Nina, thanks for the Manushi links- those encapsulate a lot of my feelings regarding Sita lore much more articulately than I ever could!

Very interesting post, Amardeep.
From hearing the story from my grandmother and from watching it on TV, there were a couple parts of the story that I heard a little differently..
- The Sita that was kidnapped by Ravana was a duplicate Sita who had been "created" (?) when they all went into exile, for her protection. (By her divine mother, the earth? My memory is extremely hazy) The TV version of course goes on to show the trial by fire, but my grandmother said that "we" (by we, she meant Pranamis, I guess, which is our little sect of Hinduism) didn't really give that too much importance.
- The TV version actually shows Rama disguising himself as a peasant and eavesdropping on the townspeople's conversations after he regains the throne. It's not just that he doesn't like people trash talking, I thought it was more that he was losing credibility as a Hindu king who followed his dharma.

I'm going to check out that link to Paula Richman. I first heard about this when I was reading an English translation. The lengthy foreword included the suggestion that the Ramayana had been written as a version of the history of the Aryan invasion, with Hanuman and the monkey army representing some faction of the natives. (Obviously I need to go back and read this again.)

do the traditional versions of the Ramayana ascribe some guilt or weakness to Rama for being so suspicious and weak when it comes to his wife?

According to quite a few Swamis and purveyors of lore (mostly Vedantic scholars and austere grandmas), Valmiki's original Ramayana ends with the reinstatement and coronation of Rama. These people contend that Rama's rejection of Sita for having lived in Ravana's house is dookie and an add-on by threatened fundamentalists, and should be treated as such. Think about it - why would Rama have raised the whole racket to save Sita if she were "defiled" by the sheer act of being kidnapped and temporarily imprisoned by another man?

Think about it - why would Rama have raised the whole racket to save Sita if she were "defiled" by the sheer act of being kidnapped and temporarily imprisoned by another man?

Amardeep : As always, an articulate , entertaining, thought provoking posting. Thank you. More questions than answers.

1. What happened to Raam and his sons after Sita's death? How did Raam die?

2. On a related note, if I remember correctly, Nehru wrote of Raam in Discovery of India - not in the sense of Raam as a divine entity, but as a good man, a great king. Does any one know his version of the story? Could you please post..

3. I did a web search as a follow up to this posting. Pls take a look at an interesting discussion below. What do you think?
25. Was Ram the epitome of honour and nobility and Ramrajya the ideal society?

and please, shall we agree on the spelling for Rama? Phonetically it would be Raama, with a long A sound for the first vowel and a very short a sound for the second one. Let us stick to the standard Rama (maybe with a diacritical mark over the first a. :-))

It is definitely not Raam. That is a phonetic mauling done often by Punjabis and perpetuated to other parts of the north. [e.g. Shatughna becomes Shatrughan.] :-P

Think about it - why would Rama have raised the whole racket to save Sita if she were "defiled" by the sheer act of being kidnapped and temporarily imprisoned by another man?

That inconsistency is the whole point. The Ramayana story is wiser than any of its component characters.

In my favorite Valmiki Ramayana translation, the Penguin India version by Arshia Sattar, Rama says he vanquishes Ravana to defend his HONOR. And the gods set up the whole thing because Ravana needs to be killed, and no god or demon can do so because of a boon Ravana's been granted; that leaves it up to Rama, a human in spite of also being an avatar of Vishnu. So Sita's welfare isn't Rama's primary motivator; his honor is. Regardless of whether and how much Rama loves Sita, stealing a man's wife is a huge insult, one which Rama is duty-bound to redress.

Of course, in the same version, Rama really does seem to love, miss and care about Sita while she's missing. Only once he is reunited with Sita does Rama's genuine love seem to evaporate. I do like the interpretation that once Ravana is killed and Sita tested, Rama is no longer an avatar of Vishnu, just an ordinary, fallible human being. On the other hand, there's a poignant moment in the Valmiki version where the gods descend as Sita is carried from the fire by Agni. The gods explain to Rama that he is, in fact, Vishnu and Sita is, in fact, Laxmi, and he should shape up and act in a way more befitting to his divine nature. Unlike Krishna, Rama never knows he's divine except when the other gods bash him over the head with it. Which, I think, is a lesson about the difference between acting out of "godly" self-awareness, and acting out of insecurity, as Rama does when he later banishes Sita.

Whoops - forgot to "". Everything after the first line above is my own thoughts.

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR AAAAAAAAA MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
rrrrr A M M
rrr A M M
rrrrr A M M
r A MMMmmmmmmmM
r A M M
r a M
r A M
m
m
m

Note the diacritical mark

It is definitely not Raam. That is a phonetic mauling done often by Punjabis

ok... I was trying to do an ascii art to show the "hulunth" at the end of the m sound and be --precise---... not being weird or childish...

a joke - ok... just a joke... dont be getting testy now.

Thanks for the clarification, Maitri. The add-on theory sounds plausible (especially since the remaining story was only considered good enough for a sequel ACK :-), but I agree with others that Godfather style respect would've been a good enough reason for Rama to go after Ravana.

On a mostly unrelated note, a recent Hindi movie Paheli based on an ancient Rajasthani folk tale (repopularized by a modern author) is an interesting exploration of love and fidelity.

A newlywed, Lachi, is married to the money obsessed heir, Kishan, of a wealthy family. The bridal party stops at a village on the way back from the marriage, where a ghost sees the bride and instantly falls in love with her. The groom spends the wedding night doing accounts, and leaves the morning after on the bidding of his father to set up a trading outpost in some distant location. The ghost sees this, decides to impersonate Kishen, and fools the entire village, but his love for Lachi compels him to tell her the truth in the privacy of their bedroom. Lachi accepts the true love of the apparition over the imagined affection her real husband might have had, and they spend many joyous years together. He even fathers her baby (I guess this ghost is friendlier than Casper!), at which point the original Kishen returns, throwing the village into turmoil and forcing a resolution which I will leave you to find out by watching by movie.

There were several interesting elements to the story, but what amazed me most was the acceptance of the bride, who was pregnant by an impostor, by the entire village (although they do not know that she is complicit in the deception). This in an ancient folk tale! Interesting counterpoint to the Ramayana.

Nina, thanks so much for the Manushi links. The Madhu Kishwar article in particular is quite good. I was struck by this paragraph in the essay, about the TV version of the Ramayana that was a huge hit in India in the late 1980s:

Even in the rest of India, very few people endorse Ram's behaviour towards Sita. He has not been forgiven this injustice through all these centuries, despite his being a revered figure in most other ways. In this context, I am reminded of the time when Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan was being telecast over Doordarshan. As the story began approaching the point when Sita was supposed to undergo her agnipariksha the serial makers were flooded in advance with so many letters of protest against the depiction of Sita going through the fire ordeal that Sagar was forced to deviate from his text and show the agnipariksha to be a mock one. The TV Ram was made to clarify that he did not doubt Sita's chastity. Clearly, Ram's injustice to Sita has hung so heavily on the collective conscience of Indians that they are willing to demand that a sacred text be altered. In this new text, determined by contemporary devotees, maryada purushottam Ram was being ordered to behave better.

Interesting!

Also, Rahul, I also saw and liked Paheli. It seemed to be casting down this obsession with female 'fidelity' in favor of a woman's prerogative in 'romance' (i.e., it's ok to betray your husband for true love).

The ending was a bit of a cop-out though!

Amardeep: it's ok to betray your husband for true love

I would make the statement gender neutral: It's ok to betray your spouse for true love.

Unless of course, the spouse provides true love.

M. Nam

A lot of comments about various interpretations of the Ramayana. [Amardeep: Where did you pick the 200BC number, that would be more three hundred years after Buddha and Mahavira, quite unlikely.]. I wanted to comment on the semi-historical nature of Ramayana ("The way (vehicle) of Rama"). Couple of things from the semi-historical perspective that I have heard (so no links sorry), since everybody seems to have assigned ramayana a purely mythical status.

1. The move away from old school "vedic" religion to the newer "dharma" (or simplistically duty) based religion
2. The exploration of the Indian subcontinent from the Gangetic Plain down to Sri Lanka.

1. The ramayana can be seen as the codification of thoughts around the principle of Dharma which differs from the old vedic tradition of sacrifice. In the older religious practices sacrifice and singing hymns to gods was of great importance. With Dharma there is some attempt to lay out the principles of a good society. Fundamental to this is the concept that there is an underlying order in the universe and we are bound due our natures (and is our duty) to act in a certain ways. Whenever there is deviation from this duty chaos in the society emerges. So every member in the society has certain duties, they do the duties and a just and good society results. [I don't want to argue the merits of this, whether caste system or misogyny is a direct result of this, after all these theories are around 3000 years old]. Rama as a king has the dharma to behave in a certain manner since his responsibility is to his people more than his family. Sita is no damsel, but her duty as a 'model wife' is to agree with her husband. After all, Sita chooses Rama during the swayamwara and also trains her sons who despite being boys run circles around Rama and his men. In turn the gods are responsible for restoring the order whenever there is deviation. In bhagavad Gita, Krisha mentions that whenevers there is a problem (attack on the order, causing problems in dharma), he will re-incarnate to restore the order in the universe. So Rama's avataar is to restore the order in the universe. In this process, there is great suffering in the family of Rama however a golden age follows in Rama's rule.

2. The banishment of Rama to exile, the abduction of Sita, getting to Ravana and finally killing him, all these events really give Valmiki a chance to document the exploration of the Indian peninsula all the way from Saraswati down to Sri Lanka and zigzaging along the west and east, the various aborgines and races that he meets (ex. vanar sena) the various forms of worship (Shiva worship), trees, plants etc. In most versions of Ramayana, Ravana is seen as a scholar who strayed off his dharmic path. Hence Rama sets him straight - polygamy vs monogamy perhaps.

You could easily justify that Rama went to save Sita because the whole act of Ravana kidnapping Sita was an affront. She is a damsel in distress, regardless of whether she was defiled or not.

Hmmmm, Rama first saves Sita and then banishes her because it's all about his ego. This theory is plausible from a mythological-track-record-of-irrationality standpoint, but it just doesn't jibe with the overall feel of the Ramayana.

I'm going to have to do some chronological research on the writings to truly discover my own opinion on the matter. Thanks for the thought fodder.

Another question for readers: what other variants of the story have you heard?

An example of a story that does not appear in Indian texts and performance is that of the encounter between Hanuman, the monkey general, and Sovann Maccha, the mermaid, a favorite of Cambodian audiences. [Link]

Just finished reading the first 3 novels by A.K. Banker - wow! Can't wait to get my hands on the last 3. Seems that Rama would banish Sita even though he wouldn't want to, just like he went into exile for 14 years, even though he didn't want to. He does what is expected of him, no matter what (respectfully - I have very little experience with this history besides these books and an intro. to Hinduism course fr. University)
Great sight by the way!!

Interesting discussion, everyone. I have to second the endorsement of Paula Richman's books on the Ramayana. It's interesting to note that criticism of Rama's actions isn't just present in folk, vernacular culture: it can be found in high, Sanskritic culture as well. In one of Richman's books, there's an essay by David Shulman on a Sanskrit play by Bhavabhuti which deals with the latter part of the Ramayana. It's clear that the playwright didn't endorse Rama's actions, and Rama does some pretty serious penance throughout the course of the play.

I recommend Kamala Subramaniam's Ramayana rather highly. She has also published the Mahabharata and the Bhagvatham.

Philoshophical treatises in Dvaita, Advaita and other viewpoints on the Ramayana can be read as an adjunct to the work to understand the various schools of thought of Hinduism.

Last year, I saw a theatrical version of the Ramayana here in the Los Angeles area. I remember being very disappointed by the happy ending. The fact that Sita is rejected despite "passing" the trial by fire was a critical part of the story for me, reaching right into the core of the meaning of it all. It really makes Ram into a much more interesting character. I also learned that when Ram was looking for an heir, he set loose a horse so that anyone who caught the horse would become the heir. Of course, the horse was stopped by Luv and Khush, but when Ram realizes that their mother is Sita, she rejects him and says "Mother, take me back" and returns to the earth.

You all are missing the point here. Of course most desi parents want to tell their children the ending which has Rama reject Sita, even though she is pure.

They want to socialize their children into realizing that social propriety must ALWAYS trump individual love and happiness.

This has nothing to do with Sita at all. Even though she is pure and even an incarnation of Laxmi, and even though Ram is an avatar of Vishnu, even so ...

LOVE DOES NOT CONQUER ALL

Maintaining appearances for society is what counts most.

What various commentators want to tell their children is a different matter - you may be a more iconoclastic bunch than the average desi. But for most people, I don't think Rama's behavior undermines the worth of the story at all. Quite the contrary.

Are there differences in The Ramayana depending in the area is it told ie. North and South. And in the era of mass media (especially tv.

It's worth mentioning that the Ramayana spread to South East where was adapted locally and reworked as a national literay epics (beowulf rather old testanment) rather then an religious Even here there are difference versions.
Ramakien = Thailand
Loik Samoing Ram = Burma
Hikayat Seri Rama = Malaysia

It still retains it's original name in and is still performed in Muslim Indonesia. If you want to read it or hear it link below to the Northern Illinois University.

http://www.seasite.niu.edu/Indonesian/ramayana/ramafs.htm

The Ramayana has been mounted several times on the British stage including
The Ramayana new version
by Peter Oswald

Amardeep - try also to read the essay Three Hundred Ramayanas by A.K.Ramanajuan
from the collected essays of A.K.Ramanujan (OUP).

Paula Richman says in her interview that she heard AKR lecture on ancient Indian texts, notably Sangam poetry and switched to this field in grad school. She was a Lit major before.

There are Hindu, Buddhist and Jain versions of the Ramayana in India and then then the Thai Ramakien and the Malayan Hikayat Seri Ram too......

The treatment of Ahilya ( the cursed woman) also varies in the different versions.

Last year, I saw a theatrical version of the Ramayana here in the Los Angeles area. I remember being very disappointed by the happy ending. The fact that Sita is rejected despite "passing" the trial by fire was a critical part of the story for me, reaching right into the core of the meaning of it all. It really makes Ram into a much more interesting character. I also learned that when Ram was looking for an heir, he set loose a horse so that anyone who caught the horse would become the heir. Of course, the horse was stopped by Luv and Khush, but when Ram realizes that their mother is Sita, she rejects him and says "Mother, take me back" and returns to the earth.

Yes, at least from a purely theatrical/story-telling perspective, making Rama severly flawed opens up Ramayana for a much richer and alternate interpretations. It is interesting the horse story was incorporated into the play. It is also one of the more visible changes between the sacrificial old religion and the newer dharmic religion (circa 1000 BC). In the old religion, in one of the main yagnas (sacrifices) the Ashwamedha Yagna, an elaborate ritual would be conducted (incl. the king's queen simulating intercourse with the horse) and the horse would be sacrificed, roasted and eaten. In the newer versions the horse is not killed but is allowed to roam freely within the kingdom with the king's men. The land that is covered by the horse belongs to the king and anyone stopping the horse risks war with king. Now I recall, this was the dispute between Luva, Kusa and the king's men that I mention in comment #4 above. The horse and heir angle is a new one, haven't heard that before.

Very interesting...

Theo, I don't think that conservative, traditional desis are as unambiguously approving of Rama's actions as you make out. I remember reading articles by Madhu Kishwar and Ashish Nandy that suggest that North Indian Hindus are often sharply critical of Rama as a husband, even those he's considered an ideal man in other ways.

I see I was not clear, the whole Luv/Khush /Horse thing was not part of the play. That play ended with the fire trial. I was just trying to tell how I learned the end of the story.

Maitri,

According to quite a few Swamis and purveyors of lore (mostly Vedantic scholars and austere grandmas), Valmiki's original Ramayana ends with the reinstatement and coronation of Rama. These people contend that Rama's rejection of Sita for having lived in Ravana's house is dookie and an add-on by threatened fundamentalists, and should be treated as such. Think about it - why would Rama have raised the whole racket to save Sita if she were "defiled" by the sheer act of being kidnapped and temporarily imprisoned by another man?

Yes, I agree that it does seem somewhat odd that Rama would travel all the way to Lanka to rescue Sita only to abandon her for a somewhat trivial reason. I read some place that the Ramayana might be the conflation of three separate stories about three separate heroes - one about the ideal son, one about the ideal warrior, and one about the ideal king. I am not sure if it was claimed whether the conflation happened before the Ramayana was composed or whether it happened after. It might well be an interpolation that occurred later.

Whether the story of Sita's abandonment is consistently woven into the story or not, I think it is possible that the 'historical' story of the Sita's abandonment might have arisen in the context of a different hero, but ended up being assigned to the same Rama, as a result of the decision to conflate, or the decision to interpolate, that story into the story related to the conqueror of Ravana.

brimful,

In the ACK version, he goes to the ashram where Sita is staying, but is still hesitant to take Sita back. Sita prays to the heavens to prove that she is pure, and the earth does swallow her up. However, it is implied that this is her way of finding peace and returning to her rightful place(if you look at the mythology around Sita's birth, there is a story that she was found by a farmer in the earth). All of this is from memory, so maybe someone who has read the ACK version more recently can chime in.

The name Sita is, if I recall correctly, derived from the word for 'furrow'. This is related to the story regarding the birth of Sita wherein Janaka discovers Sita in a furrow. So, dust to dust, I suppose.

Nina,
You've hit on one reason I'm making an animated film based on the Ramayana. In fact, I really just wanted to do the Uttar Kanda, but because westerners are so unfamiliar with the Ramayana story, I'm telling that first for background and context.

I agree with Amardeep that if I were retelling this for a child, I would probably leave out these episodes from the Uttara Kanda.

It is hard not to think of the story related to Odyssey and Telemachus when thinking of Sita, Janaka, the field and the furrow when thinking of the story related to Sita. The first few books of the Odyssey, the Telemachy, are about the wanderings of Telemachus, and these wanderings in some sense expect and presage Odysseus' own wanderings. Thus, Telemachus is seen not only as himself, but as his father's son. The story Sita can be read not nescesarily as that of a long-suffering woman, the daughter of the long-suffering Bhoomidevi, the earth : it can also read as that of a strong woman who always insists on doing the right thing. Sita sticks to the straight and narrow in spite of the circumstances handed to her. Janaka is, of course, known for his discourses with Yajnavalkya, and is something of a philosopher-king. It would be an interesting reading of the Ramayana where Sita is not just her mother's daughter, but also her father's.

I don't see why Rama can't simply trust Sita when she says she rejected Ravana's advances.

Perhaps, it is that the way of God is mysterious and unknowable. The way of Rama is worth following all the way to Lanka. Perhaps the Ramayana dares you to follow it a step further.

The name Sita is, if I recall correctly, derived from the word for 'furrow'. This is related to the story regarding the birth of Sita wherein Janaka discovers Sita in a furrow. So, dust to dust, I suppose.

Wow, so many commentst o read, will have to read more. But to address Amardeep's more directly:
I can't quite remember when I first was told the Uttara-Kand story (5?6?) I'd still stick with the idea that it's not for small children.

Just to take a different tack, I'd like to point out that in my experience most Believers are as ardent Sita-bhaktas than they are Ram-bhaktas, and they hold the exile against Ram in much the same way Lakshman and Hanuman did--reproachfully, disagreeably, but fundamentally resepctfully. The respect is due to the office of the king and demands of that office. It's the toll that people take on Ram. And there is recognition that after Sita the person made most miserable by this is Ram. Anger is also directed at the citizens of Ayodhya. I've even heard one ardent Ram-bhakta claim that they--the citizens--didn't *deserve* to have a temple there b/c of how shoddily they treated Sita.

You could get into some complicated theology. Ravan and Khumbakarna are not simple Asuras, but the second births of Jai and Vijay, the doorkeepers. Some might say the separation between the Avatar and His Consort is a lesson is dealing with the pain of separation.
angry at having to participate in the exile, Lakshman insists on being born First next time--and is.

It's really complicated is all . ..

angry at having to participate in the exile, Lakshman insists on being born First next time--and is.

Ooh, I haven't heard the Laxman-reincarnation story. Tell me please!

Also, here's some wayyyy out-there musings I've had on Sita and Rama. Bear in mind I'm not a Christian, but:

Sita and Rama seem an awful lot like Jesus and Jehovah ("God") in some ways. Jehovah renounces Jesus and causes him all kinds of suffering, yet Jesus' love for Jehovah never wavers, just as Sita's love for Rama is steadfast through her exile. Christians love "god the father" in spite of his rough - one could say cruel- treatment of his son Jesus. Jehovah is popular because he is strong and all-powerful; Jesus because he is compassionate and understands our suffering, because he's suffered so much himself. I can't help but think Rama and Sita have similar attributes: Rama is strong and powerful, Sita is ever-suffering yet ever-loving. Both Sita and Jesus willingly and gracefully accept their martyrdom.

I don't mean to offend anyone with this comparison, it's just something I've thought about.

I don't think that's a far-out interpretation at all, Nina. I've seen scholars of Hinduism (Vasudha Narayanan and David Shulman) take a similar tack: Vishnu/Rama is the stern, masculine, authoritative side of divinity and Lakshmi/Sita is the gentle, feminine, compassionate side. There's also a weird tension when it comes to the roles of the goddess: on the one hand, she's the equal of her consort, yet in many Vaishnava traditions, she also a stand-in for the human soul in its relation to the divine. Maybe the way Sita's treated by Rama reflects that tension.

As for whether or not the Uttara-Kanda is for kids, that's not a question I can answer. It's important to remember that a lot of children's tales are rather dark, and kids may be capable of more sophisticated readings than adults give them credit for. The 'let's go back to Ayodhya and live happily ever after' ending may be a good way to inculcate piety, but the Uttara-Kanda strikes me as being a heck of a lot more interesting, on a narrative and philosophical level.

Here's a link to a book called Inside the Drama House by Stuart Blackburn, on the Tamil shadow puppet plays based on the Ramayana:

http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft5q2nb449/

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but it seems that the shadow plays (which are performed by low-caste individuals) explore those aspects of Rama's behaviour that call his righteousness into doubt.

...Jehovah renounces Jesus and causes him all kinds of suffering...

...Christians love "god the father" in spite of his rough - one could say cruel- treatment of his son Jesus. Jehovah is popular because he is strong and all-powerful...

I don't know where to begin...anyways.

Bear in mind I'm not a Christian

You don't say.

Hey Nina, I don't really feel like waxing religious on this forum right now, but if you're really interested you can email me at Saheli AT Gmail dot Com. I couldn't figure out your email address from your website.

panin:

"My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?"
--Matthew 27:46

"As deeply as all of these things must have grieved our Lord, the greatest sorrow has not yet been considered. It was not the physical pain which our Lord most dreaded. Neither was it the rejection of men, even those who were His most intimate friends. It was the separation from God which caused our Lord to shrink from the shadow of the cross (Luke 22:39-44)."

As I said, I didn't intend to offend, but I'm not inventing the story of Jesus.

That's an interesting take on the story Nina. In some accounts I have read, St Paul's Road to Damascus event can be seen as his great insight that combining the Jesus story, judaism, hellenistic and other old world myths can lead to a religion that is far more powerful and appealing to the masses (otherwise chrisitianity would be another sub-sect of Judaism). Hence it wouldn't be surprising that a lot of the existing hellenistic and other old world myths got subsumed into the Jesus story. Despite a lot of the myths and the Jesus story being cleaned up and 'standardized' (misogyny) during the various councils that followed starting 4th century, we can still see the faint traces of the old myths.

[repeating Nina's disclaimer not trying to offend, just speculating]

Thats a serious midreading.

If you would like a discussion, I'd rather take this offline. My email address is in the link.

MoorNam,

You seem to have a point. Rama, as a king (from the four entities you have mentioned) had to abandon Sita according to you. But as a king himself, didn't he see the Agni Pariksha that Sita had given to prove herself pure as before. Or as a king he was open to only what the people had to say? At some point I think (and as a human being I can only think and probably understand less) abandoing Sita was not a right thing to do at that point in time. A 'king' has to be and should be looking after what people feel and say, but going this way (abandoing Sita) cannot be digested, considering HE was a god in human form (of course, here a king's role would count and not god's) and should have set the right example of trust alongwith some logic to come through a particular crisis.

Srini

Hey Srini dude, I agree with you. That's in total.

I am an American woman interested in Hinduism. I have been happily absorbing every text I can find and enjoying the positive influence on my life and how I interact with others. However, I hit a major stumbling block in the Ramayana. It seems to me that Rama bansishing Sita was tantamount to lying, as he knew that she was pure. In effect, he lied to his people in this act of banishment by agreeing with them, this was the same as saying that their suspicions were true. He owed them the truth which he himself witnessed. By not telling it he lied. He also practically called Sita a harlot thereby besmirching her honor. Also, what kind of message does this send to women: if Sita was the perfect wife, then women who strive to be the best wife they can be stand no chance at all if the perfect wife was used as a tool of destiny and then cast aside like a used tissue, as if her purity and suffering were meaningless. Are the lives of women so unimportant and trivial that they can be so carelessly tossed about at the whims and wills of men, as if women aren't even human.
Please don't misunderstand my seemingly harsh words. I am trying to understand the sacred writings of mankind. I have many issues with the Jewish and Christian scriptures as well, and find myself more naturally drawn to Hinduism. I am heartened to hear that other people also find the tragedy of Sita as heartbreaking difficult as I do.

This is a response to Nina P:
I appreciated your speculation based on Christian scripture. As always it is a good thing to speculate and imagine various scenarios, it is an innocent method of trying to understand.
I had a similar idea: If we consider that God incarnates at various times and to benefit mankind, and that Rama and Krishna were incarnations,and Jesus the Christ was also an incarnation, (though much misunderstood in the west). Mother Mary was the perfect woman of her time, pure and chaste, a perfect channel to bring forth a divine incarnation. She was made to suffer. Her chastity was in question and she, by Jewish law could have been stoned to death. But Joseph decided to "put her away quietly", i.e. to banish her. He, however, was stopped by an angel who attested to her purity. The Talmud at one time contained a story that she prostituted herself to a Roman soldier. (The story has since been expunged). So, people did have difficulty understanding her chastity, but she bore their vile accusations with grace and dignity, As did poor Sita. Was Christ the Rama who stood by his noble mother, Mary, the reincarnated Sita, who for many millions of modern day Chrisians, is the Queen Heaven? A Goddess, as Sita is a Goddess. Possibly they are one in the same. I think the world merely uses different names to worship the same Divine.

The Ashok K. Banker "The Ramayana" series recently became available in the US. This was *apparently* after some conflict between the publisher (time warner, I believe) and the author - TW wanted him to remove all indian phrases from the novel, but AB refused. Fortunately, the books were published in tact. Just finished reading the first one, and I can't wait to get my hands on the rest.

Interesting topic initiated by amardeep. I think most of the Indians including devotees of Rama would agree that Seeta's banishment was wholly unjustified. Though some scholars sympathise with Rama's actions that he had to take the decision as a king subordinating his duties as a husband and lover, I am sure many ordinary people and scholars do not agree and those scholars who agree might agree with heavy heart since our devotion to the gods and tradition has been so much deeply ingrained into our blood and arteries. Rama being revered as god, these scholars can not question his acts strongly. Looking at this with a modern educated man and woman's psyche, when Rama asked Seeta to prove her chastity, she could have asked Rama in turn to prove the same, afterall, he roamed around the places without his ladylove for the same amount of time as Seeta was kept captive in Lanka! And yes, he could have banished himself from the kingdom to go with his love to teach his people a lesson! If he wanted to yield to voice of few people in his kingdom, he should have married again when the same people ask him to do so after Seeta's exile! Why did he choose not to bend to people's wishes at that time? Well because, though the author was brilliant, he could not think about all the permutations and combinations of questions people would ask in future about his characters in his great fiction! I tend to think that morals, dharma and ethics have a context, they are accepted in different shades in different eras by different people differently. We accuse this incident strongly and vocally today due to the changes brought in attitudes through thousands of years of evolution and the freedome we enjoy today. On this note, Valmiki could have imagined this great story of an ideal husband/son/king, ideal wife, ideal devotee,ideal brother etc. only to whet his appetite for such people and he imagined few characters which were above the ideals he himself wanted to imagine. He imagined all this whithin the confines of what were perceived to be greatest ideals in the age of deeply partiarhical society prevailing then, though he himself did not seem to accept Seeta's banishment as a virtue. He possibly did not imagine that the prevailing acceptance to this virtue of sacrifice-for-glory would be treated as a vice as we advance into computer age thousands of years hence! As some people have pointed in this discussion, it's possible that Valmiki himself did not write the Uttarakhanda but some die-hard fan of more-glory-for-more-sufferings would have added this. It's also possible that significant amount of details will be changed in future generations as more and more people challenge some of the virtues retold in Ramayana. All in all, I believe we should hats off to the great writer who brought life to characters in his imagination despite few of his blemishes like this which possibly were more accepted at the time of his writing thousands of years ago. By the way, I was awed and accepted Ramayan and Mahabharat as history (i.e. real) as a child but now at the age of 25+ with modern outlook, I think they were just master literary pieces requiring some changes to the idea of ideals so suit to today's environment.