The “agni-pravesam” of Sita, Rama’s “atrocious behavior” and “trial by media”

For the last year and half, I have been part of an online, email-based cyber-forum in Chennai of seventy-seven member-students of Kamba Ramayana, moderated by an extraordinary and elderly Tamizh scholar, Sri Srinivasa Parthasarathy based in Pondicherry. Every week on Friday, in the last several years, he has been, without fail, posting via email-instalments verses of the Kamba Ramayana, together with his erudite translations and comments for the reading pleasure of his Group of 77 Kamban-enthusiasts. So, far, he has posted nearly 300+ postings on the subject, delighting one and all.

Last week, Sri Parthasarathy’s posting was on the penultimate cantos of Kamban’s Yuddhakaandam in which the famous “Sita agni-pravesam” episode appears. A few extracts from his posting, carrying his very own English translation of the Kamban verses, is reproduced verbatim in the paragraphs below:

“அருந்ததி அனைய நங்கை அமர்க் களம் அணுகி, ஆடல்

பருந்தொடு கழுகும் பேயும் பசிப் பிணி தீருமாறு

விருந்திடு வில்லின் செல்வன் விழா அணி விரும்பி நோக்கி,

கருந் தடங் கண்ணும் நெஞ்சும் களித்திட, இனைய சொன்னாள்;“

“Sita, virtuous like Arundathi, arriving on the battlefield, looking with rejoice the carnage caused by Rama, the great archer, rendering the adversaries as feast for the foraging vultures, eagles and ghosts, said this with her eyes and heart immersed in joy”:

‘எச்சில், என் உடல்; உயிர் ஏகிற்றே; இனி

நச்சு இலை‘ என்பது ஓர் நவைஇலாள் எதிர்,

பச்சிலை வண்ணமும் பவள வாயும் ஆய்க்

கைச் சிலை ஏந்தி நின்றானைக் கண்ணுற்றாள்.

“Having given up on all desire to live, in life itself, regarding herself as dead even as she was brought in by Ravana to be incarcerated, Sita now saw Rama, the dark-green complexioned one with coral-red lips, holding his magnificent Kothandam.

பிறப்பினும் துணைவனை, பிறவிப் பேர் இடர்

துறப்பினும் துணைவனை, தொழுது, ‘நான் இனி

மறப்பினும் நன்று; இனி மாறு வேறு வீழ்ந்து

இறப்பினும் நன்று” என ஏக்கம் நீங்கினாள்.

As Sita descended and saw Rama there, she mused: This one is my companion through all my births, even if I am destined to defy birth and gain parama padham, he shall be with me. And now as I have seen him, it does not matter even if I lose my thoughts of him. It does not matter too if I should now be dead”.  

“கற்பினுக்கு அரசினை, பெண்மைக் காப்பினை,

பொற்பினுக்கு அழகினை, புகழின் வாழ்க்கையை

தற் பிரிந்து அருள் புரி தருமம் போலியை,

அற்பின் அத் தலைவனும் அமைய நோக்கினான்.

Rama looked at Sita – the queen of virtuosity, the repository of all feminine good, one who lent splendour to feminine beauty, one whose life would be a beacon for all womanhood for all times, the one who graces all beings with good things of life, but who had been separated from him”.

“சுணங்கு உறு துணை முலை முன்றில் தூங்கிய

அணங்கு உறு நெடுங் கணீர் ஆறு வார்வுற,

வணங்கு இயல் மயிலினை, கற்பின் வாழ்வினை,

பணம் கிளர் அரவு என எழுந்து, பார்ப்புறா.

Rama threw at Sita, the splendorous peacock-like Sita, a searing look – like a hooded cobra hissing angrily, even as Sita was doused in tears dripping down her breast”.

“ஊண் திறம் உவந்தனை; ஒழுக்கம் பாழ்பட,

மாண்டிலை, முறை திறம்பு அரக்கன் மா நகர்

ஆண்டு உறைந்து அடங்கினை; அச்சம் தீர்ந்து, இவண்

மீண்டது என் நினைவு? ”எனை விரும்பும்” என்பதோ?

“You reveled in indulging your palate, destroying your virtuosity. You did not (prefer to) die. You were a subject of a reckless, atrocious, wicked King  and his reign. As that fear, of Ravana, lifted, did you think of me now? Did you now entertain a desire for me?”

“உன்னை மீட்பான்பொருட்டு, உவரி தூர்த்து, ஒளிர்

மின்னை மீட்டுறு படை அரக்கர் வேர்அற,

பின்னை மீட்டு, உறு பகை கடந்திலேன்; பிழை

என்னை மீட்பான்பொருட்டு, இலங்கை எய்தினேன்.

“ It was not for retrieving you that I had the sea dammed, rooted out the Rakshasas- brilliant in warfare = and destroyed them. It was to redeem myself, my honour, to right my wrong, that I came to Lanka.” 

“Rama sneers Sita’s birth:

‘கலத்தினின் பிறந்த மா மணியின் காந்துறு

நலத்தின் நிற் பிறந்தன நடந்த; நன்மை சால்

குலத்தினில் பிறந்திலை; கோள் இல் கீடம்போல்

நிலத்தினில் பிறந்தமை நிரப்பினாய்அரோ.

“ All the virtuous attributes in you, like the brilliant gems that adorn jewels, have departed. You were not born in high birth. You have proved your pathetic birth, from the cultivable land like a worm, haven’t you?”

‘பெண்மையும், பெருமையும், பிறப்பும், கற்பு எனும்

திண்மையும், ஒழுக்கமும், தெளிவும், சீர்மையும்,

உண்மையும், நீ எனும் ஒருத்தி தோன்றலால்,

வண்மை இல் மன்னவன் புகழின், மாய்ந்தவால்.

 “Glorious womanhood, high birth, resolute feminine virtuosity, good conduct, lucid thought, lofty ideals and truth – all of them are dead, (for all the world) as you were born – like the fame of a king bereft of generosity and kindness.**”

(Kamban’s verses are compared with a few of Valmiki’s very own in the Sanskrit, for effect):

“कः पुमांस्तु कुले जातह् स्त्रियं परगृहोषिताम् |

तेजस्वी पुनरादद्यात् सुहृल्लेख्येन चेतसा |

kaH pumaaMstu kule jaatah striyaM paragR^ihoShitaam |

tejasvii punaraadadyaat suhR^illekhyena chetasaa

“Which noble man, born in an illustrious dynasty, will take back a woman who lived in another’s abode, with an eager mind?”

“तद्गच्छ त्वानुजानेऽद्य यथेष्टं जनकात्मजे |

एता दश दिशो भद्रे कार्यमस्ति न मे त्वया |

tadgachchha tvaanujaane.adya yatheShTaM janakaatmaje |

etaa dasha disho bhadre kaaryamasti na me tvayaa

“O Sita! That is why, I am permitting you now. Go wherever you like. All these ten directions are open to you, my dear lady! There is no duty you owe me.”

“रावणाङ्कपरिक्लिष्टां दृष्टां दुष्टेन चक्षुषा |

कथं त्वां पुनरादद्यां कुलं व्यपदिशन् महत् ||

raavaNaaN^kaparikliShTaaM dR^iShTaaM duShTena chakShuShaa |

kathaM tvaaM punaraadadyaaM kulaM vyapadishan mahat

While mentioning about my lineage, how can I accept again, you who were harassed on Ravana’s lap (while being borne away by him) and who were seen (by him) with evil looks?”

“तदर्थं निर्जिता मे त्वं यशः प्रत्याहृतं मया |

नास्थ् मे त्वय्यभिष्वङ्गो यथेष्टं गम्यतामितः |

tadarthaM nirjitaa me tvaM yashaH pratyaahR^itaM mayaa |

naasth me tvayyabhiShvaN^go yatheShTaM gamyataamitaH

“You were won by me with that end in view (viz. the retrieval of my lost honour). The honour has been restored by me. For me, there is no intense attachment to you. You may go wherever you like from here.”

“तदद्य व्याहृतं भद्रे मयैतत् कृतबुद्धिना |

लक्ष्मणे वाथ भरते कुरु बुद्धिं यथासुखम्

tadadya vyaahR^itaM bhadre mayaitat kR^itabuddhinaa |

lakShmaNe vaatha bharate kuru buddhiM yathaasukham ||

“O gracious lady! Therefore, this has been spoken by me today, with a resolute mind. Set your mind on Lakshmana or Bharata, as per your wish.”

“शत्रुघ्ने वाथ सुग्रीवे राक्षसे वा विभीषणे |

निवेशय मनः सीते यथा वा सुखमात्मनः

shatrughne vaatha sugriive raakShase vaa vibhiiShaNe |

niveshaya manaH siite yathaa vaa sukhamaatmanaH

O Sita! Otherwise, set your mind either on Shatrughna or on Sugreeva or on Vibhishana the Rakshasa King; or as your mind might dictate.”

Now, exactly at this point ended Sri Parthasarathy’s last Friday’s instalment on Kamba Ramayana sent via email to all of us 77 cyber-group members… and to be continued therefrom in the ensuring weeks.

************************************

However, after reading the above instalment on the Yuddhakaandam of Kamba Ramayana, one member, Sri B.S.Raghavan, immediately posted an interjectory email onto the group. Sri B S Raghavan is himself a great connoisseur of Tamizh, including Kamba Ramayanam. He is a nonagenarian, a retired but very well-known and high-ranking ex-Government of India official of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) whose own forebears were themselves formidable Ramayana scholars and commentators of repute. So agitated did Sri B S Raghavan become upon reading the latest email-instalment posting of Sri Parthasarathy, that he penned a rather indignant email and posted it on the group-mail. I reproduce his missive below:

“We are face to face with the most inexplicable and the most atrocious behavior of Rama with Sita after going to all the trouble in rescuing her and after frequently breaking down throughout the period following her abduction. At one time Rama had proclaimed: “Vaidehim vina kshanamapi nahi jeevaami bhutale“. That is the Sita who Rama is traducing in such vile terms — taking Valmiki’s and Kambans unreadable versions together. Why did he do it? If he wanted Sita’s pristine purity proved, he could have told her a gentle aside: “Look, there are mean cynics and slanderers who could come up with all sorts of things about your stay in Lanka.” (as indeed the dhobi did after the pattabhishekam) “Just let us demonstrate what a gem you are through the Agni preeksha. Agni is not the one who will harm you, as indeed he didn’t when you were in Ashoka Vanam and Hanuman set fire to everything.” Or, was it that he was play-acting, saying to everyone’s hearing what vile things might be said by cynics and slanderers and having Sita go through the Agni Pariksha as if in a natural response and knowing Agni will only confirm her purity without harming her? One might imagine him winking at Sita while saying all that he said to make her understand that it was all a play and Sita also understood the play and went along with it, though the world thinks it is all real! OK, my other puzzle is why did Kamban who took liberties with Valmiki Ramayana by omitting and adding whenever it suited his line of thinking, retain this episode in all its ugliness? (In fact just in this Selection, we see him make Mandodhari die along with Ravana though this was not in Valmiki’s version.) He could have very well left it out or modified it. Why didn’t he?

“My thesis on play-acting means in short that the Divya Dampathi knew what they were doing (as indeed I suspect everyone on the stage for they all had seen Rama’s wink) and they couldn’t care a damn what the world thought. Rama was a maryada purushottam (standard-setter par excellence) and he was setting them in this climax and to Hell with us earthlings (Profound apologies for my words!)

A bit of afterthought. Those who think the idea of Rama play-acting repellant might recall Rama’s throwing pebbles at Manthara (alienating her in the process) and Rama and Lakshmana teasing Surpanakha and leading her on by alternately play-acting with her which she poor thing took seriously.“

The above outburst of Sri B S Raghavan both amused and amazed me. He was genuinely agitated even upon merely reading an account of Kamban’s portrayal of the famous Sita’s “agni pariksha” incident! It also made me appreciate the power that Kamban’s (and Valmiki’s) poetic genius continues to wield over men’s minds and how his words can actually arouse one to very vehement passion even today after more 1000 years since the “kaavyam” was first written!

Sri B S Raghavan’s email response to Sri Parthasarathy’s posting triggered my own thoughts on the incident of Sita agni pravesam in the Ramayana! I too have written about the incident in my published book and also discussed it in the past, on many an occasion, with many an avid Ramayana-scholar or fellow-student. Having been thus aroused too, I was moved to write an email to Sri B S Raghavan and posted it on Sri Parthasarathy’s Group of 77 cyber-forum! I reproduce below the thoughts on Sita Agni pariksha which I ventured to share there:

******************************

“Reams of pages and volumes of books, treatises, dissertations and commentaries have been written and voluble discourses on it have been delivered about this one single incident in the Ramayana over several centuries in our land! It never ceases to arouse indignant passion and outrage in us every time one reads or narrates this sorry, even ugly saga in the epic Ramayana.

I think if one were to compile an exhaustive archive of all past “patti manram debates held in Tamizh Nadu ever since that unique art-form of talk-shows got first invented, the most frequently and hotly debated of all themes in the Ramayana would certainly be this single rather ghastly episode of “Sita agni pravesam” or “parikshai“. 

Reading it makes us all even physically uncomfortable; it makes us squirm in our seats; it makes us so morally queasy and, theologically speaking, it greatly troubles the belief-system that our minds have come to cherish.

Yet, after all the centuries that have rolled by in dissecting this Ramayana episode threadbare, there is none who can boldly assert or claim — whether it’s scholar, pandit, commentator, Rama-Bhakth, saint or philosopher, or, patti-manram exponent even  — that he or she has truly and finally fathomed the mind and motives behind Sri Rama’s reprehensible, morally repugnant and “atrocious behaviour” in this incident of the Yuddhakaandam. 

Sir, I too have on quite a few occasions engaged in literary jousting a la patti-manram style with more than one Valmiki Ramayana scholar . In my book “Unusual Essays of an Unknown Sri Vaishnava” there is a whole chapter (“WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION”) that reproduces one such spirited jousting I had with a very eminent Ramayana scholar. But every time such debates ended, I found that neither my opponent nor I had either succeeded in really clinching the issue, or else, made each other any the wiser than we were before we began crossing swords . And that, dear Sir, I believe is precisely the reason for which both Valmiki and Kamban deliberately conceived, constructed and weaved into the narrative tapestry of the Ramayana, this highly controversial episode: they wanted to outrage our conscience, to flummox our moral sense, to make us keep forever wringing our hearts out while agonizing over the painful ethical issues latent in the dramatic setting, and also so that we remain thrashing about in consternation and unable to arrive at any reasonable understanding of the motives of Rama’s bewildering conduct.

This scene in this epic was constructed, I believe, to deliberately keep us ordinary mortals, and our meek consciences, perennially befuddled about the lofty and finer concepts of Dharma and Dhaarmic behavior … just so that we realize that no matter how much, or how deeply we think we have fathomed the contours and dimensions of Dharma, it will, nonetheless, continue to elude us like eternal will o’ the wisp. 

Sir, I first heard the story of the Ramayana told to me at home as a mere boy from my dear departed mother almost 55 years ago. Since then, I have read quite a few standard commentaries and dissertations on the epic including the one that you yourself often refer to viz. Sri Srinivasa Sastri’s “Lectures on the Ramayana”. After reading them all, on many an occasion in life have I found myself re-enacting within my own mind the scene of the “agni-pravesam” and trying desperately to make sense of it. Alas, at the end , I confess I always remained as puzzled as I was when I first heard my mother narrate the incident to me as a mere boy. 

There is however only one reflection and one conclusion about Rama’s “atrocious behaviour” that I always carry with me now as my very own self-serving thesis or hypothesis … I have fashioned it myself after spending so many years trying to analyze (even “psychoanalyze”?) it all at times. And it is that personal thesis (or attempted hypothetical explanation) which I would like to share with you below:

1. Let us assume for a moment, Sir,  that Valmiki simply and completely never brought in the “agni-pravesam” incident at all into the Yuddhakaandam narrative. What would then have been the dramatic sequence of the Yuddhakaandam? There would have been, I for one believe, prolix descriptions of the great victory celebrations , a poignant account of Sita and Rama getting reunited and poetic accounts of how the vaanaraas and Devas from heaven showered their blessings and divine confetti on the couple … That then would have been the end of it. They would then all have boarded the pushpaka vimaana which would’ve flown them home to Ayodhya for the grand “pattabhishekam” . End of story, perhaps.

2. If that had indeed been the fairy-tale ending of the Yuddhakaandam, it would, in my opinion, have been morally insipid … for then it would teach us really no great lesson on Dharma or Dharma-sukshmam as the Ramayana is really intended to do… The Yuddhakaandam would’ve then been no more than an unending (and at times tiresomely boring) series of cantos detailing savagery, bloodletting, revenge and violence in war.

3. Without the “agni-pravesam” incident ever happening, if Rama and Sita had returned to Ayodhya without much ado at all, we should ask ourselves, would the people and subjects of Ayodhya, have welcomed the royal couple with any less joy and gusto, or accepted them as Emperor and Empress with any less acquiescence and approval,  as we know they did when they all indeed hailed the triumphant return of their hero after 14 long years? I doubt anyone, in that moment of great joyous welcome accorded to Rama and Sita,  would’ve have ever entertained even as much as a whiff of a suspicion, not even fleetingly, about Sita’s character and the probability of any liaison of any dubious sort she might have had with her captor in Lanka.

4. Nonetheless, human nature being utterly human in nature , it would not have been improbable, I believe, that in due course of time after Rama Pattabhishekam , and even  after Ram-Raajyam had prevailed over Ayodhya for quite some time , some mischievous and malicious tongues amongst the populace would’ve started wagging. Inevitably, perhaps would’ve begun, I believe, dark, silent, murmurs in Ayodhya’s public square and travellers’ taverns… i.e. an underground, conspiratorial “smear-campaign” (much like what we see today around us known as “trial by media”) or gossip-mongering amongst certain quarters in the citizenry of Ayodhya, about Sita. And the urge to indulge in that sort of “smear campaigning” precisely and undeniably, is what we must realize is raw and stark reality of one part of human nature … and of human society as a whole… which is so very deep-rooted within and endemic to our psyches.

5. Human tongues will wag , calumny will be spread within a community and character-assassination of the King or ruler — or Caesar’s wife, if not Caesar himself —  is perfectly par for the course in a large country, whether it happens to be a monarchy or a democracy. The tendency of the body politic to employ, what in Sanskrit is called, “apavaadam” against the ruler, is an ingrained and perverse trait amongst common citizenry of all states and nations. 

6. Sri Rama was an astute reader of human nature. And so was Sita too. It was because they both so well understood human nature, and its perversity too in this one particular regard, that the divya-dampathi-s tacitly undertook to enact the “agni-pravesam” in the way they exactly did and strictly as scripted by Valmiki and Kamban …. i.e. Rama with his most convincing portrayal of “atrocious behaviour” and Sita-piraatti playing the perfect foil to him as a meek, abject and martyr-like object simply accepting her fate with resignation. Throughout that brilliant stage-performance of theirs in that particular dramatic episode, they both most convincingly succeeded in both anticipating and mirroring the inherently perverse and malicious element present in the human psyche and its propensity to indulge in public slander and character defamation of the high and mighty of the land, to spread vicious calumny about them and then to begin believing in the very canard too as thought it were the truth. This too, if you reflect deeply upon it, is what essentially happens today in that social phenomenon we call “trial by media”.

7.  Let me try and respond to your poser now when you wrote above: “(When) Rama had (earlier) proclaimed: “Vaidehim vina kshanamapi nahi jeevaami bhutale“…. (why then does the same Rama then hurl upon) Sita ….such vile terms — (which we read while) taking Valmiki’s and Kambans unreadable versions together. Why did he do it?”

8. In the “agni-pravesam” episode, Valmiki, to my mind, was only skillfully using what is called the “shock and awe effect” in the art form of dramaturgy viz. building a narrative and delivering a rather unsavory, very uncomfortable and very bitter lesson about human nature to be understood by all. In this case, Valmiki and Kamban were both trying to heighten the dramatic tension in their narrative by delivering a stark, fundamental lesson in human psychology — that there is indeed a very dark, malevolent and pathological streak running strong and deep inside human minds which often finds, and then derives, some perverse pleasure (Schadenfreude) in heaping calumny and character-assassinating social and moral superiors. It is the tendency to encourage salacious public slander or “apavaadam”; and cause the downfall in public esteem of high public personages and then revel in watching them suffer. That is indeed a human urge working at some deep subliminal level from which the mind draws pure evil, silent and slimy glee.

9. That indeed is precisely the most valuable although very grim lesson to be learnt from the agni-pravesam episode in Valmiki Ramayana. And that lesson Valmiki, the poet sans pareil, perhaps had decided, had to be delivered in the most painful, most brutal, most outrageous and devastating script employing dramatic “shock and awe effect” while characterizing both Sri Rama and Sita piraatti … and portraying them, especially Sri Rama, in this agni-pariksha episode, in total contrast to how they are otherwise portrayed in the rest of the epic.

10. Valmiki thus makes both Rama and Sita suffer grievously in the poignant scene. He makes them utter the most unspeakable things to each other. He makes Rama behave totally out of character …. “atrociously”, in fact, as you say! But then, I venture to reckon, that it was the only credible and effective way in which Valmiki could convincingly reveal, to all humanity, the darkest aspects of human nature lurking inside every human spirit in this world. And therefore, to that very purpose which he intended to achieve … i.e. to “shock and awe” us all…. did Valmiki introduce into the Yuddhakaandam, a scene where Rama and Sita were two magnificent characters who were made to provide to us all (readers, students and devotees of the Ramayana) what in Greek drama is described as Catharsis….

11. The Cathartic moment in dramaturgy is one where what happens on the stage is so terrifyingly moving. It makes every member in the audience suddenly become aware, in a sudden blinding flash, as it were, of intense and electric self-discovery… It is a moment when man senses the dark, miasmic and hideously evil tendency lying hidden deep within himself. That awareness by itself then triggers a welter of emotions in the mind — i.e. the cathartic effect, indeed — and it is believed that such catharsis by itself completely purges the human mind of all evil and renders it pure again.

Dear, Sir, my explanation above for what you have called the “atrocious behavior” of Sri Rama, does provide me, more often than not, a lot of mental comfort. Like you, I know my mind too very often gets very perturbed while reflecting upon the “Agni pravesam” of Sita and the horrible words Sri Rama hurled at her.

Sir, but I am aware too that my explanation may not carry the same conviction for you as it does for me, nor for others too, even if they did patiently read and try to appreciate all that I have said on the matter. But then that won’t surprise me at all … Because, I tell myself while stretching my imagination a bit, that the great people of Ayodhya themselves, if even they had dwelled upon the true significance of Sita’s “agni-pariksha“, as Valmiki and Kamban have dealt with it, and they had thought similarly as I do about it… would they then have had the heart later, in the pages of the Uttarakhaandam of Srimadh Ramayana, to force Sri Rama, as we know they all did indeed, to put Sita-piraatti again through the cruel ordeal of yet another “Agni pravesam” ?

As in the Ramayana , so too in our modern times today , doesn’t it seem to you, Sir, that it’s the powerful might and influence of “trial by media”, which at the end of day, always shapes public perception, narrative and discourse ?

Yours respectfully, 
“Daasoham” 

Sudarshan Madabushi