Prabhu Shri Ram is considered the most ideal incarnation of the Supreme Divine, a “Maryada Purushottam”. He forms the backbone of India’s culture and heritage. The great sage Valmiki wrote about Shri Ram in the Sanskrit epic Ramayan. This epic is considered “ItiHaas”, a Sanskrit word that means “As it happened”. It is a historical text depicting the life and times of His era. However, India’s history books commonly depict this epic as mythology or folklore. Shri Ram’s actions are regularly vilified by anti-Hindu elements of the society who point out events that contradict His ideal image, and paint Him as an unfair male chauvinist! What led to this current state of targeting Shri Ram with tacit support from Hindus themselves?
Today, we know Ramayana to be composed of seven sections or “khanda”, with the last khanda – “Uttara Khanda” – consisting of the most controversial actions that anti-Indian elements like to portray against Lord Rama. It talks about events such as Shri Ram making Mata Sita go through fire (Agni Pariksha) to prove her purity, based on blames from a common washerman. Not only this, in spite of successfully passing the Agni Pariksha, Uttara Khand mentions that Shri Ram still made Mata Sita leave the palace and stay in the forest with her young sons, just to protect the image of the dynasty. This does not make sense at all and does not align with the past actions of Prabhu Shri Ram as mentioned in the first six khandas. However, these two events alone provide a lot of fodder to the woke Twitterati of today and feminists of the last two decades, to point fingers at the patriarchal and misogynistic basis of Hindu historical figures. Let’s try to understand whether these events are true or myths.
1) In Kishkindha Khanda (section 4 of Valmiki Ramayana), Shri Ram helped Sugriva get his rightful place by fighting with the proud King Vali. Shri Ram killed Vaali and restored Sugriva as the king of Kishkindha. Shri Ram also revived the dignity and honor of Vali’s widow, Queen Tara, by encouraging her marriage to Sugriva, as well as, giving political asylum to her son from Vali, Angad. This shows how progressive Shri Ram was in thoughts and actions, and what His true attitude was towards women. Can feminists try to find out how such a person could do the exact opposite to His own wife?
2) Various texts also mention the salvation of Ahilya Devi (Ahilya Uddhaar) by Shri Ram. Ahilya was cursed by her husband Rishi Gautama when he suspected her illicit relationship with Indra. She turned into a stone in penance for her actions, and only Shri Ram could restore her purity. She turned back into her original form when Prabhu Shri Ram touched her stone form. Prabhu Shri Ram forgave and restored the honor of even a woman accused of adultery. Can feminists scratch their heads, on why He would make His own beloved wife go through Agni Pariksha on a mere suspicion from a layman?
3) Apart from the obvious deviations from the original character of Shri Ram in Uttar Khanda, it has several loopholes of its own:
a) Every ancient text or scripture ends with something called “Fal Shruti”, which is a list of rewards that are bestowed upon a person who completes reading or listening to the text. In Valmiki Ramayana, this Fal Shruti appears at the end of the sixth section (Yuddha Khanda). Sage Valmiki never intended to extend the epic beyond Shri Ram’s coronation. He ended Ramayana saying King Ram ruled his kingdom for hundreds of years with the help of his brothers and sons. This shows that the Uttara Khanda is an addendum to the original epic, and may be written much much later, perhaps in the last millennium or so.
b) In Sundar Khanda (fifth section), Hanuman got captured by Ravan when he went to find out the whereabouts of Mata Sita. Ravana was about to order to execute Hanuman but was prevented by his younger righteous brother Bibhishan. Bibhishan reasoned that a messenger has never been executed before in the kingdom of Lanka and so they should not set this precedence. However, Uttara Khanda, mentions an event where Ravan had executed a messenger from Kuber a long time ago. This directly contradicts the dialogue in Sundar Khanda. It also indicates that Uttar Khanda strays from the tenets of the original Ramayana on several things, and seems like a spicy addition to a pure and healthy original.
c) In the epic Mahabharat, Sage Markandeya is shown to have read the entire Ramayana to Yudhishtheer. However, it only mentions the first six khandas, until Yuddha Khanda. This shows that the Uttar khanda was not in the original epic, even during the Mahabharat era, considered to be around 3000 years after Ramayan.
These and several other discrepancies noted by prominent bloggers and YouTubers, all indicate that Uttar Khand’s main purpose was to defame the ideal man – Prabhu Shri Ram, so that followers of Sanatan Dharma would start questioning their own legacy. It could be the works of the Mughals or the British, but whoever did this, sadly succeeded in their objective. Today’s Hindus are more “woke” than the liberal left, and take pride in questioning the judgment of Shri Ram, an avatar of God Himself! Hindus should do some due diligence and do some fact-finding of their own, or better yet, actually read the epics instead of believing every propaganda thrown their way. If Hindus don’t save their dharma, nobody else will! “Dharmo rakshati rakshitah!”
Jay Shri Ram! Jay Mata Sita! Jay Hanuman!
