The following article is an attempt to gain a more thorough understanding of the multifaceted Shri Rama, his many virtues and placing his seemingly controversial actions in the correct context. Much of my understanding of the latter has been shaped by reading the author Ami Ganatra’s book ‘Ramayana Unravelled’ wherein she shares her interpretation of events along with the events as they were.

Trying to grasp divine figures with their complex layers of personality is a hopeless task for us limited human beings. Yet do it we must, for there are many traits we must emulate in our attempts to elevate and grow closer to our Daivik nature and away from our Manushya and Pashu nature. This is my humble attempt at understanding a divine figure who is much revered across all corners of Bharat Varsha.

A character sketch: 

A. His sense of generosity and commitment to the welfare of his subjects: Before leaving for exile, Rama’s generous streak truly comes to the fore. This isn’t often highlighted when it comes to discussing his virtues so I couldn’t help including it here. He gives away much of his possessions which he felt would be of little use to him since he was heading for Vanavaasa. These included the donation of ornaments, mattresses and other household belongings. He ensured that all employees under his service had their salaries (for the 14 years of Vanavaasa) paid for in advance! He distributed the remainder of his wealth amongst the needy and also generously patronised those in the service of his mother Kaushalya. There is also an occasion towards the conclusion when the newly coronated Vibhishan wants to shower him with gifts and riches. The ever-conscientious Rama prefers that they instead be directed to the Vanaras and their family members who had all faithfully and valiantly done what they could to ensure Rama’s victory. This is such a thoughtful gesture which is quite a contrast from certain wealthy misers of today.

B. Astutely aware of human failings and human nature: Something that has not always received attention is Rama’s astuteness and acuity when it comes to knowing human nature. Particularly the shortcomings and hidden desires as well as behavioural tendencies associated with being human. This is clear across many instances in the source text. He accurately diagnoses his father as being besotted by Kaikeyi to the point where he is willing to adhere to all her whims and fancies. His understanding is not coloured by biases. Notwithstanding those dynamics, he continues to offer his respect and reverence to them as any dutiful or obedient son would do.
Other examples include:
When deliberating with the Vanara allies as to whether Vibhishana’s assistance should be accepted or not, he astutely comments that one of his motivations could be wanting to be the subsequent ruler of Lanka. These were in addition to the valid reasons, such as Ravana humiliating him in public, his poor track record of continually engaging in Adharma and Vibhishana’s wanting to adhere to Dharmic dictates at all points in his life.
Another time, he sends Hanuman as a messenger to Bharata before their entourage returns to Ayodhya. He wishes for Hanuman to quietly observe the latter’s facial expressions, manner and behaviour upon being informed of Rama’s return. If he traced the slightest bit of resistance to abdicating from the throne, he was willing to forego his claim. He knew the workings of human nature! When a human being gets used to being in a position of power, stepping away from that is not so easy. Although Bharata had promised only to serve as his proxy/regent, one never knows when the human desire for more power arises. To gauge his responses, Rama wisely sends Hanuman ahead first; for he trusts the latter’s ability to read people well.

C. Someone who underwent the entire gamut of human emotions including anger: He has always been revered in the popular imagination as ever smiling, always placid and patient. Rishi Valmiki’s source text however makes it clear that this is not always the case. Although he rarely got angry and lost his temper, when he did become enraged, it is said that even the Devas were scared to face him. One such occasion where he grew angry was after the slaying of Vali. Rama and Lakshmana are awaiting the passing of seasons in Kishkindhanagar. Sugreeva is not putting in as much effort as he ought to regarding dispatching messengers or a search party to seek out Sita. Rama sends a veiled threat to him through Lakshmana by stating that the road that Vali had been dispatched on (death) was not yet closed and that if Sugreeva reneged on his promise to assist in the search, he too would find himself treading that same path. While Lakshmana was visibly angry with Sugreeva, Shri Rama too was no less. Thankfully, the tact of Sugreeva’s wife assuages his fury and rapidly sets things right.
It wasn’t just anger though. It’s interesting to read of a more ‘humane’ version of Rama where he does give in to bouts of despondency. He is depicted as being vulnerable to sorrow, angst and worry like all human beings are prone to. This was a massive surprise to me. Those acquainted with him in popular depiction (and particularly those familiar with the RamCharitaManas) know him to be ever stoic, never prone to sorrow and capable of superhuman levels of endurance akin to the Devata he is. This is still true to a certain extent in Valmiki’s Ramayana where he remains resilient during many a crisis but he simultaneously seems more human. It is clear that despite being an Avatar, he too had to undergo Dharma Sankat as well as the limitations of human embodiment. Not just Krishna, but as Rishi Valmiki’s depiction makes clear, Rama too. In that sense sections of the texts are ‘relatable’ and meant to make us further reflect on how we can equip ourselves to make better life decisions even in times of great sorrow and distress.
While he remains unperturbed outwardly, his true emotions do infrequently come to the fore when in the presence of Lakshmana and Sita. In some sense they could be described as his pillars of support. More so in the case of the former. There is one scene when Rama laments his destiny at having been exiled in Lakshmana’s company in the forest. His tears flow freely. Some of it was on account of the abrupt and unjust pronouncement of exile right before he was about to be coronated. He did feel bad, and rightly so, given his unblemished track record and being the ever obedient son. But there was more to it. He felt much guilt and sorrow for being separated from his aged mother. She who had cared for him since infancy would now be devoid of him when in her age of infirmity and helplessness. He regretted not being able to do his duty to her to the extent he felt he ought to. Moreover, there were valid concerns as to how she would be treated at Ayodhya given that Kaikeyi was now the presiding queen as the mother of the ruler. He even goes so far as to suggest Lakshmana should return to Ayodhya, only in the interests of looking after both their mothers who may not be adequately protected from Kaikeyi’s (possible) subsequent shenanigans and schemes.
Seeing him in this state of uncharacteristic sorrow, Lakshmana is inwardly alarmed. Although he himself had expressed his indignation and displeasure over the exile right till the last moment of parting, he had never known the depth or extent of Rama’s own feelings in the matter. He earnestly appeals to him not to lament so, as it causes great pain to both Sita and him. He also, once again assures him that his place is at Rama’s side i.e. serving him faithfully as he wishes to do and cannot dream of leaving him for Ayodhya. Satisfied and reassured, Rama recovers his spirits and never again brings up the subject of Lakshmana leaving them. Mind you, he accepted the conditions of exile when it was first disclosed to him by Kaikeyi with perfect equanimity. He also never flinched when he had to tell his dear mother Kaushalya about the ensuing Vanavaasa. On all other occasions, he remains steadfast about his decision to endure the entire ordeal. It was only Sita and Lakshmana who saw him during his moments of weakness. In fact, unlike the previous two occasions, there were visible beads of sweat before he had to break the news to Sita. He needn’t have worried though. She showed little traces of shock and sorrow and only wanted to accompany him wherever he went. There are other occasions too when his more vulnerable side comes to the fore.
When Sita is abducted by a Rakshasa, Viradh (this is before Ravana’s eventual kidnapping), Rama is overcome with anguish. He impulsively finds himself blaming Kaikeyi for Sita’s disappearance since she was the root cause of the exile in the first place. Much later when the misery and sorrow of separation from Sita are simply too much for him, he goes as far as to question the immobile plants around him if they had seen Sita.
The above is quite different from the stoic portrayal most of us are familiar with. However, it makes sense why his portrayal in Valmiki’s Ramayana is different from that of the RamCharitamanas by his ardent Bhakta, Goswami Tulsidas Ji. Given the context and circumstances during which the latter was composed i.e. that of Islamic atrocities when sacred temples were being demolished and people were persecuted for their Hindu faith, there was a need for texts to inspire hope and motivate people to keep living. Naturally, a more stoic, resilient and placid Rama who was not vulnerable to human frailties and emotions (sorrow, despair, angst) was the need of the hour. These differences must be understood in that context. There is no need for the versions to be in conflict with one another. The devotional retelling will continue to be revered by many as it has been for years from the Adhyatmik and Bhakti standpoint. It is when the need to understand events from the Itihasik perspective arises, that the source inspiration and text i.e. Valmiki’s Ramayana must be prioritised over other renditions.

The book also touches on the more romantic side of Rama as well as the interpersonal dynamics between him and Sita. There are multiple occasions across the text when Rama happily confesses to Sita that he preferred her company to Swarga itself! He also says that he is ready to forsake Ayodhya as long as he can remain here in the forest with Sita and Lakshmana at his side. These and other events made me smile and it was nice to see such a formidable and forthright warrior showcase a soft side to his personality. The tender dynamics between the two lovers as well as the sorrow that ensues on their subsequent separation are well depicted across the source text.

Although he experienced the entire gamut of human emotions, he never lost his sense of discernment and absolute detachment. Sorrow, misery, anger, disappointment, longing – he underwent what many undergo in their lives to varying degrees. What sets him apart from regular humans is the clarity when making decisions which remains untouched despite all the emotional fluctuations. This above trait is admirable and one worth emulating for us all.

Trying to better understand some of Shri Rama’s more contentious actions:

Given Shri Rama’s long list of virtues and impeccable track record, some of his actions genuinely bewilder and upset even his most ardent Bhaktas. These include the slaying of Vali and Shambukha, his provocation of Sita to commit Agni Pareeksha and sending her to live in the Ashram when she was heavily pregnant. The author has included an excellent essay on how to better understand beloved figures from our Itihaasa and how to approach the Itihaasa itself when some actions seem incomprehensible to us. Relevant extracts have been listed below.

“The first step to that would be to ask the right questions about the motivations for the decisions made, the contexts in which they were made and the scope of responsibility of the person making the decisions in relation to the society he or she was a part of.
The next step would be to understand what alternatives were available to the individual and the possible implications of not making the decision that was taken. Such an approach is more likely to help us form a more balanced and objective view of the events.
Even then, we may not get a binary right or wrong answer because we play multiple roles in our lives and being true to one role may often mean compromising on another. Such is the nature of dharma sankat.”

Vali Vadh:  Many find it difficult to reconcile that Shri Rama who is the Maryada Purushottam should resort to deception and underhand killing by hiding behind Vali when the latter is engaged in combating Sugreeva. Popular stories abound as to the reasons, that Vali had a Siddhi by which half the strength of his adversary, in face-to-face combat would flow to him. That seemed a plausible enough reason to keep him distracted on the front while Rama did what was required from the back. Yet, the author dispels this notion by pointing out that no such story exists in Valmiki’s Ramayana! What then could the reason be? There is an encounter and conversation between Shri Rama and a dying Vali wherein he himself narrates why the latter was slain. Although there was no enmity between them, Shri Rama points out that Vali’s dominion, Kishkindha still fell under Bharata’s jurisdiction (who was Rama’s proxy during the period of Vanavaasa ). By that rationale, Shri Rama had the right to administer justice. He must continue to adhere to his Raja Dharma during Vanavaasa and that includes vanquishing those who fail to adhere to their Dharma. Vali clearly fell under this category. As a ruler, he had his own Raja Dharma to adhere to like Rama and he had failed on crucial accounts. He had forcibly violated Ruma, the wife of his brother, Sugreeva. As an elder brother, he was akin to a paternal figure to Sugreeva. By that logic, Ruma amounted to his daughter-in-law. Yet, this did not deter him from giving into his lustful tendencies. The punishment prescribed for such an act is nothing short of death. In this case, it is Shri Rama who takes up the role of administering justice and holding him accountable for his misdeeds. It wasn’t merely expedience on Shri Rama’s part as some may try to claim, i.e. because he wanted Sugreev’s help in locating Sita, he chose to impulsively make a promise to help him in retrieving his kingdom by slaying Vali. Not at all! If all he wanted was help, then he could just as easily have approached Vali instead who was far more powerful and had access to a vaster network of spies and messengers. He sided with Sugreeva for he genuinely believed the latter had a rightful claim to the throne also taking into account that Vali’s Adharma made him ineligible. Hence Shri Rama stepped in despite Vali claiming it was not his battle and that they shared no previous animosity.

But that still leaves me confused on other matters. Why resort to deception and hiding behind a bush? That is beneath the straightforward image we tend to associate with him as Maryada Purushottam. He could have easily challenged him to an open duel and directly slain him. As mentioned earlier, Vali’s supposed Siddhi of overpowering opponents by receiving half their strength is not mentioned in Valmiki’s Ramayana. Was it a strategic decision taking into account Vali’s military prowess i.e. he is even said to have humbled Ravana in battle once and is the only one of the two warriors who had done so? Perhaps, but then I recalled that this harked back to the crucial advice imparted to Shri Rama by Vishwamitra during his adolescent years.

“You must harbour neither disgust nor doubt about killing a woman like Tätaka. Being a prince, you must do what is in the interest of all your subjects. For a king, the protection and welfare of his citizens must be paramount. For the sake of his people, a king should be willing to undertake any kind of action, be it harsh or gentle, virtuous or apparently sinful. This is indeed the dharma ordained for all those entrusted with the responsibility of ruling kingdoms. So, hesitate not. Eliminate adharma by killing this rakshasi. There is not an iota of dharma in her.”

He took this advice to heart when slaying Tadaka (a woman/Rakshasi ) and it continued to influence his decisions throughout his life. Even if others viewed it as unjust, he needed to do what was required in the interests of the subject’s welfare. In this case, it was the citizens of Kishkindha. No fear of censure or being branded as a perpetrator of supposedly sinful acts must deter him from meting out justice and maintaining Dharma. If that entailed the use of subterfuge and deception to give Vali what he deserved, then so be it.

Shambukha Vadh: Shri Rama has been unfairly branded a casteist simply on account of his slaying of Shambukha. The latter happens to belong to the Shudra varna. The more pertinent question to ask is on what grounds was he slain, and would his actions have been exactly the same had the person been from another Varna?

The story unfolds as follows:
Shambukha had been engaged in intense Tapasya with the sole aim of entering Swarga and attaining deityhood within his existing body. This clearly violated nature’s laws as no one was permitted to attain deity status when in human form. Neither someone from the supposedly lower varnas or any other for that matter. Another individual, Trishanku had also tried to aspire towards such a state. He approached Rishi Vashishta and his sons to assist him in fulfilling his desire. Unfortunately, his requests were refused, and he was strongly rebuked by both parties. There was no leniency or differential standards even though he was a ruler and from a higher varna. Moreover, there were some critical consequences to Shambukha’s acts. One person was even said to have died of unnatural causes and Narada opined that it was due to the transgression of nature’s laws i.e. someone doing something they ought not to.
Therefore, as someone committed to his Raja Dharma and ever devoted to the welfare of his citizens, Rama had no choice but to put an end to this aberration. When he comes across Shambukha and inquires as to the cause of this arduous Tapasya, he realises he has found the cause of the unnatural death. To prevent any further deaths, he is instantly slain. Miraculously, the previously slain individual comes to life. When viewed through the lens of the transgression of nature’s laws and not through that of identity, the entire episode doesn’t seem particularly controversial or even negative. It is simply justice being administered to a transgressor. Moreover, other members of the Shudra varna who had also engaged in Tapasya have not been meted out the same treatment. These include Shabari and Shravan, who are respectfully referred to. This episode has been wrongly misconstrued as a crime committed due to varna-based bias when ideally the question of identity politics does not even arise.

Addressing the myth of Shri Rama being a misogynist: Let us temporarily put aside the AgniPariksha and Sita’s parityaaga which have both been comprehensively addressed and analysed by the author in the book’s epilogue. Is there anything else in his track record to suggest that he treated women poorly or was ‘anti-woman’? Hardly. Didn’t he always revere his mother, Kaushalya and stepmother Kaikeyi too? Despite the ridiculous conditions of exile the latter had subjected him to, he never used vile language or did anything to retaliate against her that could be construed as misogyny. Moreover, his life had largely been shaped by women. These range from Kaikeyi’s demands, to Shoorpanakha unleashing Ravana on him and even Sita to a certain extent, who spurred Lakshmana to leave her unprotected which allowed Ravana to abduct her. The latter two events set off a chain of events that led to much war and carnage.
Moreover, he loved Sita throughout the entire ordeal and his anguish and sorrow at their separation are genuine. In an  era when polygamy was the norm, particularly for rulers, he chose monogamy. He never took another wife. Not during their initial separation, during Vanavaasa nor their final separation later on when she had been forsaken to live in an Ashram. The latter is a heartbreaking event, and no one can remain unmoved by Sita’s plight. The question we must ask, instead of labelling him, is why would her beloved Shri Rama do this to her?
Agni Pariksha:
The infamous Agni Pariksha was a test that Sita voluntarily undertook to prove her chastity. It must be recalled that she had been provoked by Rama into carrying it out. One can’t help but wonder why Rama did not rush to embrace her soon after news of his victory was delivered to Sita. Even upon meeting her, he was rather cold. He who had gone to great lengths to save her, finds himself heartlessly telling her stay wherever and do as she likes. It seems unthinkable that he would cast aspersions on her chastity and character and yet he did.
Under great distress and pain, she steps into the flames of the lit pyre while invoking Agni Deva. As expected, she came out unscathed as Agni Deva himself attested to her chastity. Now no one could doubt her conduct and pure intentions. Most who were present knew the truth even prior to Agni Deva saying so, including Shri Rama, of course. Why then did he provoke her so? Only because he knew the disgusting way people talk and gossip. There were sure to be malicious gossip mongers, who would cast aspersions on her character in the future. To prevent any such untoward talk, he behaved as such. But was that the only reason? Why undergo such lengths to quieten those who will always talk ill of you? Unfortunately, there were more serious considerations to bear in mind as well. It would be pertinent at this juncture to recall Rishi Vishwamitra‘s advice to Rama on Raja Dharma. It is through this lens that his seemingly unexplainable actions become understandable.

Sita was a queen, and Shri Rama was a king. Those positions came with certain responsibilities and standards of behaviour. They both had to have blemish-free reputations and no stigma attached to their names. For this reason, he desired her to publicly prove her character & thereby ensure that no one could doubt her conduct in the future. Rama had already thought things through and although it pained him terribly, he knew he would have to put up a facade regardless of how hurtful it was to Sita. He did apologise to her at the end of it and confess that he knew the truth. He was looking out for her reputation and thus insisted on this charade. Interestingly, she didn’t mind and voiced no further objection despite her initial dismay, disappointment and anguish. Perhaps she too knew that it was all a test.

It is important to recall that the concern for her reputation was one mirrored by her caring greatly for his honour as well. I’m referring to the episode when she refused to return with Hanuman when the latter had located her in Lanka. It would have saved much carnage and would have also necessitated less suffering on Sita’s part rather than remaining there any longer. She mentions her reasons to Hanuman, there certainly were some practical reasons – given the speed at which Hanuman was flying, she may easily have fallen off his back during the journey. Moreover, she could also have either toppled into the sea or been caught again by Ravana’s warriors who would then hold her captive in some other untraceable location. However, the more pertinent reason was her wanting to ensure that Shri Rama’s reputation as a formidable warrior (one of BharatVarsha’s best in fact!) remains untouched. If she had returned, then people would have questioned her husband’s ability to protect her and punish the wrongdoers. First, his absence is the reason for her abduction and then he relies on another man to rescue her? She feels it would be better to suffer this present ordeal for a little longer and wait for him to save her than have his reputation be slandered like that. It is touching to see how both were willing to go to great lengths to safeguard the other’s reputations and honour. In the case of Rama, his Kshaatra honour and for Sita, her sanctity and chastity. We rightfully appreciate and sympathise with her for having to spend more time under the throes of the Adharmic Ravana when she could escape. But we rarely appreciate Rama’s pain when he had to put up a facade before the Agni Pariksha. He knew the truth and yet he had to pretend. Rather than warmly embrace her immediately, he has her undergo preparation and bathing and even behaves coldly and distantly, after pining away for her for months on end. That must have been excruciatingly painful for him when instead he just wanted to hug her. They eventually reunite of course with Rama even asking her to sit on his lap when they fly back to Ayodhya in the Pushpak Vimaan. She shyly but joyously accepts and there is no further reproach or bitterness in her heart against him for this episode.
Forsaking Seeta:
This was another undeniably painful episode to read through. One wants to ask: ‘Oh Shri Rama why did you forsake her so? You who loved her more than your own life, were willing to undergo so many tribulations to retrieve her and she who was your SahaDharmacharini in all your endeavours?’ We recall that she was heavily pregnant during the final separation and yet, she was forsaken?
Perhaps my questions are not complete and I’m looking at it from the incorrect perspective. Let us try to put ourselves in his shoes and understand the real intentions and motivations behind this action. The question we must pose is, was there a conflict between his Raja Dharma and Pati Dharma? The answer to that is a resounding yes!

In modern parlance, we’d say that there were conflicting responsibilities towards his ‘professional’ duties and ‘family’ responsibilities. Was it just a mere washerman’s allegations that spurred him on? No. His informants tell him what is being said of Sita and him. Some even went so far as to say that if their ruler, Rama was being tolerant of adultery and marital discretions then they would have to do the same with their wives by emulating their ruler. Rama was shocked to hear this. Again, it is important to recall that they were more stringent standards for rulers to abide by. Would subjects pay heed to a king and queen of questionable morals and shaky reputations? Perhaps not. Modern-day readers may find his agitation and rigid insistence on reputation to be unwarranted but these were the values of a different era. This must be understood before we harshly judge figures from the vantage point of today’s values. Barely overcoming his shock, he hurriedly consulted the others present and found that such rumours were not confined to just a few circles. He knew then that he had to take some kind of action to alter things soon.

What were his options as a ruler?

1. Ignore it and let the status quo continue. Unfortunately, that would lead to no change, and it is quite possible that people would follow his supposed example. Sita was chaste and he knew it but what was he to do in the face of such public opinion? Some people perceived it otherwise and he couldn’t be seen as an unworthy king who tolerated adultery. He may have been construed to be emulating his father by being so besotted with his wife that he was willing to overlook ‘supposed indiscretions’.
2. He could round up the offenders and inflict punishment on them for spouting spiteful lies and spreading untruths. But how would that be perceived by the people? An unjust king trying to cover up his faults by retaliating against his subjects?
3. Some modern-day commentators suggest that he should have behaved like a more recent figure, Edward the Eighth, the English king, who chose his lover Wallis Simpson over duty. Rama too could have abandoned the throne for Sita and left to live a life of seclusion with her. But who would take charge of the kingdom and look after the people? Unlike earlier when he had confessed to Sita that he would willingly forfeit Ayodhya if he could remain in the forest with Lakshmana and her by his side, he no longer had that option. To relinquish his claim to the throne worked when Bharat was his regent. But that option was gone as we have no mention of whether Bharat would rule again. As per the norm, and being the eldest heir, he had the moral obligation to continue ruling. Moreover, would any of us modern-day citizens ever expect our ministers to shrink their governing duties and instead prioritise their loved ones? No. We want rulers who choose to serve their people as their highest priority. It was no different in Shri Rama’s case as well. The expectations of those subjects are similar to ours today.
4. Could the same set of wandering storytellers who initially conveyed the rumours to him be encouraged to re-narrate the story of Sita’s Agni Pareeksha to the masses? No, that would be ineffective. Everyone already knew that and yet some insisted on questioning her character.

Clearly, there seemed to be no favourable outcomes. One comes to the bitter conclusion that such is the nature of Dharma Sankat (ethical dilemmas) as the author so eloquently describes it to us. Sometimes all possible outcomes in life are unsatisfactory. When placed in such an unenviable situation, what was Shri Rama to do? A tough call for he was truly caught between a rock and a hard place. No outcome would ensure freedom from censure as someone would criticise him either way. There was no ‘perfect’ solution in sight and yet, he had to make a choice even if he didn’t like the outcome and its potential consequences.
He sacrificed his personal life for the larger interest of his subjects. In failing to adhere to his Pati Dharma, one must ask the following:
Were there, not karmic repercussions to be borne for abandoning a woman who was soon to bear a child? What of the responsibility towards the unborn child? Wouldn’t they too want to be with their father? The only conclusion one can come to is that there must have been consequences and he had to bravely bear them. As on previous occasions (with the slaying of Tadaka and Vali and the events leading up to Agni Pariksha) he chose to remain consistent by choosing Raja Dharma. One can and should sympathise with Sita but also not forget that these were highly unusual circumstances that Rama had been placed in.

But what of Sita’s say in the matter? Are people correct when they brand her as voiceless and not expressing her will in any way? Let us try to better understand her difficulties and motivations. On both of the previous occasions, Sita had not objected to the behaviour of Rama i.e. Agni Pareeksha and the separation whilst she was pregnant. She understood he was behaving in his capacity as a ruler and had to adhere to his Raja Dharma. Moreover, as a Rani, she too had to maintain a blemish-free reputation in the interests of the subjects who looked up to their rulers as akin to Devatas. In no way does this seek to diminish her great anguish though! Of course, she was hurt, upset beyond measure and one can’t help but sympathise with her for such seemingly heartless treatment. But despite her great pain, she never blamed Rama for acting in the interests of his people on those two occasions.

It is only on the next occasion wherein he insisted once more that she prove herself that she put her foot down.
It was as follows:
Sita’s sons, Lav and Kush had been recognised as his progeny and both Valmiki and Sita had been summoned to court. Valmiki had just publicly testified to Sita’s loyalty and chastity. Rama was satisfied and declared, like on previous occasions that he had never doubted it. However, in the interests of the public, he requests to declare it yet again like she had done so during the Agni Pareeksha and then return to him. Although Sita was ever committed to carrying out her duty, she felt a line had been crossed. She could not continually be disrespected like this. Yet, she couldn’t refuse his request in her capacity as erstwhile queen and more so, since he was also her husband and ruler of the dominion. She reaches a compromise that fulfils the demands of her role but also prevents any further loss of respect. She does declare her chastity but also states that if she is above doubt then the earth must accept her by taking her back into her folds. Bhoomi Devi, her mother from whom she is said to be borne, does exactly that when the earth below her feet ruptures and swallows her forever.

In such a manner, Sita made her resolve known. She proved herself as had been requested of her but made it clear that returning to Rama was not an option. She had her dignity as a woman to consider and going beyond what she had already done (not to forget Valmiki Ji’s prior) was not acceptable. She may not have used words, but her actions spoke loud and clear. This will leave generations praising her commitment to duty but always sympathising with her plight and anguish.