The narrative of Sita,
as etched in the original Valmiki Ramayana, is a masterpiece of character
development, presenting a woman of profound strength, fierce intellect, and
unyielding agency. Far from the meek and submissive figure often portrayed in
later retellings, Valmiki's Sita is a dynamic heroine who challenges authority,
critiques moral failings, and fearlessly asserts her own will. Her character
stands as a testament to the progressive ideals of its time, offering a nuanced
and powerful portrayal that was subsequently "watered down" in more
devotional, and arguably patriarchal, versions like Tulsidas's Ramcharitmanas. To truly understand the
progressive spirit of Valmiki's epic, it is crucial to delve into the specific
instances where Sita's voice, her critiques of her husband, and her defiance of
societal norms shine brightest. It is this authentic, progressive Sita whose
story we must share with the girls and young women of today.
From the moment of
Rama's exile, Sita’s agency is on full display. When the news of his banishment
reaches her, she is not a passive recipient of fate but an active participant
in their shared destiny. Her husband, in a well-intentioned but patriarchal gesture,
attempts to dissuade her from accompanying him, painting a picture of the
dangers and hardships of forest life. He frames her role as being to serve his
parents in Ayodhya and wait for his return. Sita’s response is a landmark
moment in the epic. She delivers a powerful and eloquent monologue that is a
masterclass in challenging patriarchal assumptions. She argues that the
hardships he speaks of are trivial compared to the agony of separation.
"What joy can I have in palaces and luxuries when you are not there?"
she asks. She goes further, chastising Rama for speaking "like a common
man" who fails to understand the true essence of marriage.1 A wife, she argues, is not a possession to be left behind, but
an intrinsic part of her husband's being. She asserts her fundamental right to
share in his life, both in fortune and in misfortune, declaring, "A wife's
devotion is her greatest strength, and my place is by your side." Her
powerful, logical, and emotionally charged arguments leave Rama with no choice
but to concede. This scene is a profound statement of her self-worth and her
refusal to have her life dictated by others, even her beloved husband.
Sita’s intellectual and
moral authority is most vividly highlighted in her critical questioning of
Rama's actions. In the Aranya Kanda, after the couple has settled in the
forest, they are approached by sages who beg for Rama's protection against the rakshasas (demons) who are disrupting
their sacred rituals. Rama, ever the righteous prince, readily agrees to use
his divine bow to eliminate the threats. Sita, however, does not silently
approve of this. Instead, she initiates a philosophical debate with Rama,
raising a series of profound questions that challenge the very nature of his
duty. She meticulously lays out her concerns, arguing that a hermit, living a
life of self-restraint and non-violence, should not be wielding a weapon. Her
logic is unassailable: "A king's duty is to protect, but a hermit's is to
live without harming. You are in exile, living as a hermit, not a king. Is it
proper to carry arms when you are meant to live in peace?" This is a
breathtaking display of her moral fortitude; she is unafraid to hold her
husband accountable to a higher ethical standard.
She then advances a more
dangerous and psychologically astute argument. She warns Rama about the
corrupting influence of violence itself. "The very sight of a weapon can
incite a desire to use it," she says. She feared that the act of killing, even
if justified, could harden his heart and turn him into the very thing he was
fighting against. She even questions whether killing beings who had not
personally wronged them was an act of true righteousness. She feared that by
becoming a killer, even of demons, Rama would lose his own moral purity. This
line of questioning—“how are you any different from them?”—is an astonishingly
prescient and modern-sounding critique of the moral compromises of war. This is
not a conversation between a man and a submissive wife, but a debate between
two equals on a matter of profound philosophical importance.
The stark contrast
between Valmiki's Sita and the Sita of later retellings is nowhere more evident
than in the absence of the Lakshman
Rekha in the original epic. This widely popular motif, which blames Sita's
abduction on her transgression of a boundary drawn by Lakshman, is a later
addition, most prominently featured in the Ramcharitmanas.
In Valmiki's version, Sita is abducted through pure deceit. Ravana, disguised
as a mendicant, tricks her into a moment of vulnerability, but her downfall is
not a result of her own disobedience. She is driven by the virtue of offering
alms, an act of compassion. By introducing the Lakshman Rekha, Tulsidas’s narrative subtly but significantly
shifts the blame onto Sita, implying that her misfortune was a direct
consequence of her own failure to adhere to a man's command. This narrative
change serves to water down her agency and promote a regressive idea that a
woman’s security is contingent on her submission to male authority, a message
that stands in direct opposition to the fearless, strong-willed Sita of
Valmiki.
Sita's unyielding
strength is further showcased in her defiant refusal to be a trembling victim
in Ravana's palace. She is not a passive captive; she is a defiant woman who
consistently and eloquently rejects Ravana's advances. She scoffs at his power,
mocks his arrogance, and tells him to his face that his doom is sealed by her
husband's hand. When he threatens to eat her, she is not terrified but
composed, declaring that she would rather die than be his wife. Her refusal to
be intimidated and her unflinching loyalty to Rama are a profound display of
her mental fortitude and self-respect.
The tragic climax of her
story, the Agni Pariksha, is often
misconstrued as a moment of submission. In Valmiki’s hands, it is anything but.
When Rama coldly declares that he cannot accept her back immediately, citing
the need for public proof of her purity, Sita’s response is a torrent of
heart-wrenching anger and righteous indignation. She tells him that his words
have pierced her heart like a lance. She asks him why he is judging her based
on rumor rather than on his intimate knowledge of her character. She then
voluntarily enters the fire, not as a submissive wife proving her innocence to
a suspicious husband, but as a woman making a final, tragic assertion of her
honor and dignity. Her act is an ultimatum, a powerful statement that if her
purity is questioned, she has no place in a world that would dishonor her.
This spirit of defiant
self-respect culminates in the final act of the epic. After a second, unjust
exile, Sita is living with her sons in the hermitage of Valmiki. When Rama,
upon discovering his sons, invites her back, she delivers her final, unwavering
refusal. She declares that she has endured enough humiliation and public
scrutiny. Instead of returning to a life where her virtue will forever be
questioned, she gives one last, poignant speech and asks her mother, Mother
Earth, to take her back. Her final act is not a suicide, but a profound and
ultimate assertion of her agency. She chooses her own end, refusing to be a
victim of circumstance or public opinion any longer.
Valmiki's Sita is a
feminist icon before the term existed. She is intelligent, outspoken, fiercely
loyal, and unafraid to challenge the men in her life on matters of ethics and
duty. Her character provides a powerful model for young women today, teaching
them that strength is not about physical prowess but about moral clarity,
intellectual independence, and the courage to demand respect. Her story is a
timeless lesson that a woman's voice should never be silenced, her choices
should be her own, and her dignity should be inviolable. To reclaim and spread
the story of Valmiki's progressive Sita is to honor a narrative that has been a
beacon of female strength for millennia and to empower a new generation of
girls to find their own strong, unflinching voices.
However in the end we
should also appreciate that Tulsidas's portrayal of a less "strong"
Sita was not a mistake but a deliberate and calculated choice driven by his
theological, socio-political, and literary goals. He had to create a version of
the epic that was accessible to the masses, centered on a divine and infallible
Rama, and that reinforced the devotional and social ideals of his time. It has
to be noted that Tulsidasji wrote his version in 16th Century where
Mughuls were ruling it. The concept of Laxman Rekha to keep Site in “Maryada”
was a social necessity. The addition of the Lakshman Rekha in Tulsidas's
version is a prime example of his didactic and moralizing approach. It serves
as a simple and powerful metaphor for the dangers of crossing boundaries—both
physical and social. For a society grappling with instability, this narrative
provided a clear, cautionary tale about the importance of order and adherence
to norms. The blame for the abduction is subtly shifted from pure evil (Ravana)
to Sita's momentary lapse in judgment, which reinforces a social message about
obedience and the consequences of straying from prescribed behavior. The times
(of 16th Century) required re-shaping Sita from Valmiki's complex,
questioning heroine into a submissive but spiritually powerful consort, whose
strength lay in her unwavering and unconditional devotion to her divine
husband.
