While Krishna demonstrated that Dharma was subtle and context-specific, according to some scholars and philosophers, Rama showed that it was straight forward to the extent of being called formalistic and lacking human material. If we look at the Ramayana from a certain angle it may look to be so, especially when we read about episodes which deal with fulfillment of a formal duty or a promise – Dasaratha fulfulling his promise to Kaikeyi, Rama going to the forest simply to fulfil his duty as a son, and at a later stage abandoning his wife Sita to fulfill his formal duty as a ruler and so on.
But this formalism can be attributed to the times of Rama and his Kula and not to Rama personally. Rshi Jamadagnya or Parasurama killed his mother at his father’s orders since it was his dharma to obey his father. Similarly 1000 sons of King Sagara (of the same ikshvaku kula) met their end at the behest of their father. For the most part, it was this kuladharma that drove Rama to take many of his decisions.
Rama stated thus when trying to justify killing Vali-“tvam tu dharmam avijnava kevalam rosam ashtitah|vidusayasi mam dharme pitr-paitamahe sthitam”- “yet you – who knows nothing of dharma and simply following your passions, rebuke me for abiding by my sacred ancestral laws” emphasizing on his pitr-paitamahe dharma.
In another instance Rama states thus – “eko hy aham ayodhyam ca prthivim capi laksmana | tareyam isubhih kruddho nanu viryam akaranam| adharma-bhaya bhitas ca paralokasya canagha | tena laksmana nadyaham atmanam abhisecaye| – “Enraged, I can subdue with my arrows single handed not only Ayodhya but also the earth. But it is not a question of valor here. Oh, the sinless Lakshmana! I am terribly concerned of doing wrong and of ruining my prospects in the other world. Hence, I do not allow myself to be crowned”
Rama decided to go to the forest just to fulfil his formal duty as a son. But in the process he abandoned his rightful claim to the throne despite protests from the praja of his kingdom who did not want him to go. On another occasion, he had to abandon his wife Sita being fully aware of her innocence just to fulfil his formal duty as the king towards his citizens. Now if the citizens’ voice and opinion mattered that much, then he should have stayed in the kingdom in the first place thus fulfilling his praja’s wishes. We can observe that Dasaratha asked Rama to go to the forest prioritizing his personal dharma over dharma in the sense of wider good, his promise-keeping being his personal dharma and choosing the right king for his citizens being the dharma for the greater good. In a similar situation, Rama did the exact opposite. He asked Sita to take the test by fire, thus abandoning his personal dharma to uphold the greater dharma – of that of the King.
Contradictory actions like the ones stated above can only be standardized by understanding the underlying dharma that Rama was trying to uphold – as a king, son, husband, brother, friend and in the many other roles that he played. While some people may look at the Ramayana in this formalistic way, we can also view it from a broader perspective in a more positive way to see that dharma was practiced such that the practitioners placed the greater good higher than their personal interests.
More about that in the next post.