AT THE FEET OF THE MOTHER

Why did Rama 🏹 not change the law if he was the king and why did he not change the law for the love of his wife? Can we not say that for him Sita did not mean much?

Even though Rama’s Rajdharma compels him to abandon Sita to keep intact his people together as well as to set an unprecedented example of public probity where a king is subject to the same laws that a commoner is. For such was the law at that time, a law no doubt harsh and even cruel by our modern standards, yet a law meant to curb the excess of  animal and rakshasic elements that still governed the human. Rama had come to humanise this subhuman layer of humanity but first he must himself come under the law to restore confidence in the people before changing it.

He does change the law. Until then kings generally married more than one woman. The king had to have his wife by his side for many kinds of ritualistic occasions. One of his duties was to have a progeny to continue the lineage. We can only imagine the pressure that Sri Rama must have had to face. But he remained unmarried after the separation from Sita. It is perhaps a singular example in history of a most powerful king who had only one wife and even through the separation remained faithful and loyal to her. And yet it was Sita, his love, his life whom he had to sacrifice to set an example of Rajdharma, of being at par with a commoner as far as the law of the times is concerned. That is why Rama is considered an Ideal Man, Purushottam, who lived by dharma as rigorously as one could imagine. In fact he raised the bar so high that it is not easy even to come near it. No wonder he has inspired and continues to inspire generations through the millennium. Rama remains unconquerable not only in outer war but also in the inner battlefield of life, a perfect example of the very best, noblest, srestha, the epitome of the Aryan Man.

Affectionately,

Alok Da

Share this…

Related Posts