Was Rama's putting Sita through 'agni pariksha' a 'misogynistic' act?

In contrast to Rama, Sita presents a picture of consistency, although she accepts the secondary role

Was Rama a misogynist? Was the king of Ayodhya unfair to his wife, Sita? These questions have surfaced once again in the light of recent comments made by an American professor, Audrey Truschke.

In one of her social media comments that went viral, Truschke, an assistant professor of South Asian History at Rutgers University, said: “During the agni pariksha, Sita basically tells Rama he’s a misogynist pig and uncouth. During the golden deer incident, Sita accuses Lakshmana of lusting after her and setting up Rama.”

Predictably, her comments triggered protests from different sections of society including scholars in India and abroad. Later, Truschke clarified that her words represented a loose translation or a non-literal rendering of the epic.

But the clarification made little difference to the tenor of the debate. Some challenged her knowledge of Valmiki’s Ramayana, while others tried to contextualise her statement or analyse where she might have gone wrong with her translation. While the debate generated much sound and fury over Rama’s relationship with Sita, little fresh light was shed on how Valmiki actually presented the relationship between the couple in his great epic.

Valmiki’s Ramayana has at least four major episodes involving Sita. Two of them figure before her abduction by Ravana and two after she is rescued by her husband. It is interesting to note that Rama’s attitude to Sita after her abduction and rescue sees a significant change. In contrast, Sita presents a picture of consistency, although she unquestioningly accepts the secondary role the Hindu patriarchal family system ordains for women. In all those incidents, Sita acts as a person who accepts her position in the hierarchy but does not shy away from doing things her own way or deciding her own destiny. But that should hardly change anyone’s opinion on how Rama treats his wife.

Raja Ravi Varma's Jatayu Vadh (1906)

In Ayodhya Kanda, where Rama is ordered by his father Dasaratha to spend 14 years in Dandakaranya, Sita appears crestfallen to hear that her husband has no intention of taking her along during the period of his exile. By then Rama has already told Kaikeyee, one of Dasaratha’s wives on whose provocation he was being exiled, that he would leave for the forest after bidding farewell to his mother and persuading Sita to stay. But Sita is adamant. Not only is she insistent that she would have no problem in staying in a forest with Rama, she makes it clear that her life would be meaningless without the company of her husband.

Bibek Debroy’s translation leaves nobody in doubt that Sita’s decision to join her husband is irrevocable. “Clinging to your feet, I will live in the forest, as if it is my father’s residence. Without any other thoughts, my mind is devoted to you. Without you it is certain that I will be dead. Do what is virtuous. Grant me my wish and take me with you. Because of me, there will be no burden on you,” Sita pleads with Rama.

A little later, Sita even threatens to commit suicide if she cannot accompany her husband. She says: “If you do not wish to take me to the forest, I will resort to poison, fire or water, and thereby cause my death.” It is at this point that Rama agrees to take Sita along with him. Rama may have been pragmatic in deciding against taking Sita with him, but Sita could persuade her husband to change his mind only after she threatens to end her life. Is this an instance of a husband who cares for his wife? Or of a wife being submissive and devoted to her husband?

In Aranya Kanda, Ravana abducts Sita. But, a little before that, Valmiki narrates two incidents. One pertains to Rama’s intense desire to please Sita by capturing the deer that she is enamoured of. He even ignores the advice of his brother Lakshmana, who fears that the deer is a trap laid for Rama. The second incident is a conversation between Lakshmana and Sita, where the latter asks her brother-in-law to go deep into the forest and help her husband, who might be in trouble. Lakshmana is disinclined to leave Sita alone. But Sita’s desire to secure the safety of her husband perhaps goads her to attribute motives to Lakshmana’s decision to stay put.

This is the context in which Truschke made her comment on Sita’s accusation against Lakshmana. Debroy’s translation of the Ramayana provides an interesting perspective on this. Sita is certainly angry with Lakshmana and says: “In the disguise of being a friend to your brother, you are his enemy. Even though your brother is in such a state, you are not going towards him. O Lakshmana! Because of me, you desire Rama’s destruction. I think you love the idea of his facing a difficulty. You have no affection for your brother. Therefore, you are not considering the immensely radiant one and remain here, nonchalant. ...How can it be your duty to remain here?”

Sita in Ashok Vatika by Raja Ravi Varma

While Truschke may be justified in drawing the conclusion that she does — and she is not the first scholar to do so; Wendy Doniger made similar suggestions —it is also reasonable to differently interpret the situation as a wife’s desperate attempt to somehow despatch help for a husband who she thinks is in trouble. It is the same Sita who had threatened to commit suicide just to ensure that she could be by her husband’s side even in a forest. It is not entirely unreasonable to expect a woman of that temperament to provoke Lakshmana to a point that he goes out to help Rama. Eventually, she succeeds and Lakshmana does leave in search of Rama, after which the abduction takes place.

The third episode pertains to the famous Agni Pariksha that Sita takes to prove her integrity and loyalty to her husband. What Rama tells Sita before the “fire test” needs to be recounted here. Watching Rama’s behaviour, Lakshmana, Sugriva and Hanuman are unhappy and feel that Rama is being unpleasant to his wife. In an open assembly, Rama tells Sita: “If a woman has resided in the house of another, which energetic man, who has been in a noble lineage, will take her back again, in a happy frame of mind? You were on Ravana’s lap… When I mention my great lineage, how can I take you back again? I won you back for a reason and I have got that fame back. I have no attachment for you. You can go wherever you desire. If it makes you happy, you can turn your mind towards Lakshmana or Bharata, Sugriva, Indra among apes, or Vibhishana, Indra among Rakshasas… When you were roaming around in his (Ravana’s) house for such a long time, he must have molested you.”

This is perhaps what Truschke had in mind when she described Rama as a “misogynist pig”. It may have been a loose translation, but there is little else that explains Rama’s conduct. But Sita’s behaviour is extraordinary. She still seems devoted to Rama and is keen on proving her loyalty to her husband. Note her wish before entering the fire: “If my heart has always been with Raghava and never wavered, let the fire, which is a witness to the world, save me in every possible way.” Remember that Sita wanted to end her life when Rama was not taking her to the forest. But here, in spite of the serious charges and calumnies heaped on her, she chooses to prove her loyalty to Rama and not end her life.

In the fourth episode, appearing in Uttara Kanda, Sita’s tone changes dramatically when she is asked by Rama to establish her purity yet again. Rama too appears to have sobered a bit, but not enough to change Sita’s intended course of action. Rama tells Valmiki, in whose hermitage Sita was living along with their two children, Lava and Kusha, that she is innocent: “However, scared because of the condemnation of the people, I abandoned Sita. You should pardon me. I know the twins who have been born, Lava and Kusha, are my sons. However, I will be delighted if Sita establishes her purity in the midst of the world.”

This was yet another Agni Pariksha that Sita was called upon to take. Truschke makes no reference to this incident in her long explanation subsequent to the debate, but her conclusion from this episode as well would have been no different.

Sita, however, has changed by now. She takes the test, but with a vow that she would end her life if she establishes herself as pure: “If I have not thought of anyone other than Raghava in my mind, then let the goddess earth open up a chasm for me.” That is how Sita ends her life — and on her own terms.

There is no likelihood of an early end to the debate over whether Rama was simply a misogynist or his behaviour towards Sita was a fallout of a patriarchal social order that accorded a secondary role to women and made them subservient to men. But Valmiki’s rendering of Rama and his relationship with Sita makes it amply clear that Sita was a victim of unfair treatment by her husband, who behaved more like a tyrant, often lacking in gratitude to his devoted wife and mostly devoid of feelings or a sense of equity.

The English text from the Ramayana quoted in this article appeared in Bibek Debroy’s The Valmiki Ramayana (Penguin, 2017)