What is “Raja Dharma”?

 

What is “Raja Dharma”?

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

I know this will seem to some people as if I am stalking or trolling Jijith Nadumuri Ravi. Let me start out by pointing out that this is not so. This is just a follow-up to my article yesterday about his location of the Lanka of the Ramayana in Gujarat of all places. But it pertains to a totally different issue, but equally important in a different sense: the issue of changes and interpolations in the Ramayana completely perverted in the name of “Raja Dharma”.

Someone sent me this tweet by him in reply to someone else’s comment to his earlier tweet:

“No. Core history has no change!

Rama goes to forest to keep word of father. Bharata reject kingdom offered wrongly to him. Sita abducted by Ravana and Rama regains her. Abandons her later for Raja Dharma. Valmiki saw all of this. Dharma & core philosophy is attached to this core history and not on the poetics which are like special effects in a movie.

Not even all locations changed. Only three locations stretched from Central India to South India. Panchavati, Kishkindha and Lanka.

The only other additions are poetic exaggerations - the special effects. A normal horse chariot rendered as flying Vimāna. A normal swimming expedition by Hanuman to Lanka as an ape flying above the sky. Tribes beyond Ganga plains depicted as monkeys, birds etc And so on.”

6:25 PM · Aug 14 2026

 

Again, unbelievable from a person who is supposed to be a scientist and in fact (at least for his work in Space Science or whatever) actually been presented an award at the hands of one of India’s most revered Presidents, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam!

To pursue his “everything-originally-located-on-the-Sarasvati-in-Haryana-to-Gujarat” agenda, Jijith shows an absolute willingness to completely reject the traditionally accepted geographical locations of three core Ramayana sites, going so far as to assert that Lanka was located in Gujarat and not in the present-day Sri Lanka.

No scholar to this day has proposed such a weird location for Ravana’s Lanka. However, his “scientific” temper which makes him freely reject traditional understanding of the geography of the Ramayana (whenever convenient for him to do so) seems to go into a coma when he wants to indulge in misogynistic interpretations or glorify misogynistic traditional beliefs: Jijith claims that Rāma’s alleged “abandonment” of Sita is “Core history [which] has no change”, even when most serious scholars who have studied the Ramayana from the point of view of “original” versus “interpolated” parts have outright declared the entire Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana (which contains this misogynistic episode) to be late and interpolated. And he calls it “Raja Dharma”!

I have written on this subject before. But there it was buried under a mass of other issues. Here let me deal only with this story:

What is “Raja Dharma”? Is a king following “Raja Dharma” when he:

1. Punishes a person for a “crime” even when:

a) No evidence has been produced proving that the accused committed the “crime”, and furthermore

b) He has earlier actually received full proof of the “innocence” of the accused in respect of the particular “crime”?

Note that the “crime” committed in this case is supposed to be that Sita has become “impure” after remaining in the captivity of Ravana for many months. Any person making this accusation is not shown as producing any evidence to show that Sita is “impure”. Furthermore, as per an earlier episode in the same text, Sita has “proved” to Rama that she is “pure”, by undergoing an “agni-pariksha”, so it is clear that the king already has proof that she is “innocent” rather than that she is “guilty”

2. Punishes the alleged victim of a crime rather than the actual perpetrator of the crime.

Here no-one has accused Sita of having kidnapped Ravana and made him “impure”. The accusation is that Sita was kidnapped by Ravana and made “impure” by him. So she is here the victim rather than the perpetrator of this crime. Please, readers, don’t go off at a tangent at this point by telling me that Rama has already punished the perpetrator of this crime by killing him!

3. What does this entire episode show about Rama as a decent human being?

When Rama is sent into the forest for 14 years, Sita leaves all the luxuries of the palace and accompanies him into the forest and shares all his privations. In return, when Rama feels (on the basis of any kind of twisted, misogynistic, sadistic and perverted “logic” or sense of “justice”) that Sita has to be sent into the forest, he does not decide to leave his palace and accompany her. He sends her alone into the deep forest (even Jijith uses the word “abandons”), even when she is in an advanced stage of pregnancy.

For those who would (just out of a sense of perversion) want to argue that he remained in the palace because he felt that the people of Ayodhya required to be ruled by him for their own good, it may be pointed out that the people of Ayodhya are not reported in the text to have suffered unhappily under an oppressive regime for the 14 years when they are supposed to have been ruled by Bharata in the name of Rama during the period of Rama’s exile in the forest. Rama could very well have placed the kingdom in the able hands of Bharata or Lakshmana, and accompanied Sita into the forest, if he were a decent human being. Clearly Rama’s character (as depicted in this story) did not involve respect for. or gratitude towards, his brothers any more than for and towards his wife.

 

Moreover, everyone has read and seen the sanitized versions of this “Raja Dharma” episode in books, films, serials and discourses. Here is what the actual Valmiki Ramayana says (about the “agni-pariksha” in the Yuddha Kanda as well as the “abandonment” of Sita in the Uttara Kanda). The English translations are by Hari Prasad Shastri, but skeptical readers can check other translations or the Sanskrit original:

Yuddha Kanda, Chapter 117:

“Rama repudiates Sita

Beholding Maithili standing humbly beside him, Rama gave expression to the feelings he had concealed in his heart, saying:

“O Illustrious Princess, I have re-won thee and mine enemy has been defeated on the battlefield; I have accomplished all that fortitude could do; my wrath is appeased; the insult and the one who offered it have both been obliterated by me. To-day my prowess has been manifested, to-day mine exertions have been crowned with success, to-day I have fulfilled my vow and am free. As ordained by destiny the stain of thy separation and thine abduction by that fickle-minded titan has been expunged by me, a mortal. Of what use is great strength to the vacillating, who do not with resolution avenge the insult offered to them?

"To-day Hanuman is plucking the fruit of his glorious exploits, and Sugriva, who is valiant in war and wise in counsel, with his army is reaping the harvest of his exertions! Bibishana too is cutting the fruits of his labours, he who cast off a brother, who was devoid of virtue, to come to me."

When Sita heard Rama speak in this wise, her large doe-like eyes filled with tears and, beholding the beloved of his heart standing close to him, Rama, who was apprehensive of public rumour, was torn within himself. Then, in the presence of the  monkeys and the titans, he said to Sita, whose eyes were as large as lotus petals, her dark hair plaited, and who was endowed with faultless limbs:

"What a man should do in order to wipe out an insult, I have done by slaying Ravana for I guard mine honour jealously! Thou wert re-won as the southern region, inaccessible to man, was re-gained by the pure-souled Agastya through his austerities. Be happy and let it be known that this arduous campaign, so gloriously terminated through the support of my friends, was

not undertaken wholly for thy sake. I was careful to wipe out the affront paid to me completely and to avenge the insult offered to mine illustrious House. "A suspicion has arisen, however, with regard to thy conduct, and thy presence is as painful to me as a lamp to one whose eye is diseased! Henceforth go where it best pleaseth thee, I give thee leave, O Daughter of Janaka. O Lovely One, the ten regions are at thy disposal; I can have nothing more to do with thee! What man of honour would give rein to his passion so far as to permit himself to take back a woman who has dwelt in the house of another? Thou hast been taken into Ravana's lap and he has cast lustful glances on thee; how can I reclaim thee, I who boast of belonging to an illustrious House? The end which I sought in re-conquering thee has been gained; I no longer have any attachment for thee; go where thou desirest! This is the outcome of my reflections, O Lovely One! Turn to Lakshmana or Bharata, Shatrughna, Sugriva or the Titan Bibishana, make thy choice, O Sita, as pleases thee best. Assuredly Ravana, beholding thy ravishing and celestial beauty, will not have respected thy person during the time that thou didst dwell in his abode."

On this, that noble lady, worthy of being addressed in sweet words, hearing that harsh speech from her beloved lord, who for long had surrounded her with every homage, wept bitterly, and she resembled a creeper that has been torn away by the trunk of a great elephant.

 

Uttara Kanda, Chapters 43-45:

Chapter 43:

Rama informs himself concerning current Rumours from his Friends

Having entered there, the King was surrounded by entertaining companions accustomed to the exchange of humorous experiences, Vijaya, Madhumatta, Kashyapa, Mangala, Kula, Suraji, Kaliya, Bhadra, Dantavakra and Sumagadha, and they beguiled the magnanimous Raghava with amusing tales of every kind amidst great merriment.

Raghava, however, during some narrative, enquired of Bhadra, saying:

“O Bhadra, what do they say of me in the town and country ? What do they say of Sita, Bharata and Lakshmana? What do they say of Shatrughna and Kaikeyi our mother? Kings are always the subject of criticism whether they are in the forest or on the throne."

On hearing Rama's enquiry, Bhadra, with joined palms, answered:

“Amongst the inhabitants of the city, nought but what is good is spoken of thee, O King, above all they tell of thy victory over Dashagriva, whom thou didst slay, O Dear Prince!"

At these words of Bhadra, Raghava said:

“Tell me all truthfully without reserve, what reports, good or ill, do the people of the city circulate regarding me? When I learn of them, I shall endeavour to do what is meet in the future and eschew what is evil. Tell me all in full confidence without fear. Laying aside every scruple, relate all the rumours current about me in the kingdom!"

Thus exhorted by Raghava, Bhadra, with joined palms, in profound reverence, addressed that mighty hero in measured tones, saying:

“Hear, O King, what the people are saying, be it good or ill, in the highways, markets, streets, woods and parks- Rama has achieved the impossible by throwing a bridge over the sea which to our knowledge was never done by his predecessors nor even by the Gods and Danavas together. With his foot-soldiers and cavalry, he has destroyed the invincible Ravana and has made the

monkeys, bears and Rakshasas subject to him. Having slain Ravana in the fight and recovered Sita, Raghava, having mastered his anger, has taken his spouse into his house again. What pleasure can his heart experience in possessing Sita, whom Ravana formerly held in his lap, having borne her away by force? How is it that Rama was not filled with aversion for her after she had been taken to Lanka and conducted to the Ashoka Grove, where she was left to the mercy of the titans? We shall now have to countenance the same state of affairs regarding our own wives, since what a king does, his subjects follow!

"These are the sayings current everywhere among the people of town and country, O King."

At these words, Raghava, stricken with grief, asked, “Is it thus that they speak of me?"

Then all, bowing to the ground in reverence, answered the unfortunate Raghava and said :-

"It is true, O Lord of the Earth!"

Having heard their unanimous testimony, Kakutstha, the Scourge of His Foes, dismissed his companions.

CHAPTER 44

Rama summons his Brothers

Having dismissed his companions, Raghava began to ponder within himself and thereafter said to the doorkeeper who stood near:

"Go speedily and seek out the son of Sumitra, Lakshmana of auspicious marks and the fortunate Bharata and the invincible Shatrughna."

At Rama's command, the janitor paid obeisance with joined palms and went to Lakshmana's abode which he entered unchallenged and there, having saluted the magnanimous prince, he said:

“The King desires to see thee, do thou go to him without delay!"

“It is well!" answered Saumitri and, in obedience to Raghava's command, he ascended a chariot and hastened to the palace. When he had departed, the doorkeeper approached Bharata and, saluting him in a like manner, said:

“The king respectfully requests thy presence!"

Hearing these instructions issued by Rama, Bharata, rising swiftly from his seat, started out hurriedly on foot. Beholding the virtuous Bharata going away, the messenger speedily approached Shatrughna's abode and, with joined palms, addressed him, saying:

“Go quickly, O Prince of the Raghus, the king wishes to see thee; Lakshmana has already preceded thee as also the renowned Bharata."

At these words, Shatrughna descended from his throne and, bowing to the ground, went to rejoin Raghava.

Meantime the messenger having returned, paid obeisance to Rama and made it known to him that his brothers had come.

Learning of the youthful princes' arrival, Rama, who was deeply troubled, with a downcast mien, sad at heart, said to the door-keeper:

“Make haste and usher them into my presence! Mine existence depends on them, they are my very life's breath!"

At this command from that Indra of Men, the princes, attired in white, bowed with joined palms and entered respectfully. On beholding Rama, who resembled the moon in eclipse or the sun that the dusk robs of its splendour, whose eyes were filled with tears and who looked like a lotus bereft of its brilliance, they placed their heads at his feet and then stood silent. Thereupon

the mighty Rama, shedding tears, having raised them up, clasped them in his arms and said to them:-

“Be seated ! You are my whole wealth, you are my very life ! It is with your assistance that I attained a kingdom and now rule, O Princes ! "

Thus spoke Kakutstha and all, attentive and deeply moved, wondered what words he might be about to address to them.

 

CHAPTER 45

Rama commands Lakshmana to take Sita to the Hermitage

All having taken their places full of sadness, Kakutstha, his features stricken, said to them:

"Hear me all of you, may good betide you! Do not let your attention wander! This is what people are saying about me concerning Sita! The inhabitants of the city as also those of the country censure me severely and their criticism pierces my heart! I am born in the Race of the illustrious Ikshvakus and Sita belongs to the family of the great-souled Janaka. My Dear Lakshmana, thou knowest how, in the lonely forest, Ravana bore Sita away and that I destroyed him. It was then that the thought came to me regarding the daughter of Janaka, ‘How can I bring Sita back to Ayodhya from this place?' Thereupon, in order to re-assure me, Sita entered the fire in my presence and that of the Gods, O Saumitri! Agni, the Bearer of sacrificial offerings, witnessed to Maithili's innocence and Vayu also, who was then journeying through space, and Chandra and Aditya proclaimed it formerly before the Gods and all the Rishis, that the daughter of Janaka was without fault. The Gods and Gandharvas testified to her pure conduct in Lanka, where Mahendra placed the proofs in my hand, further I knew from my own inner being that the illustrious Sita was innocent. It was then that I took her back and returned to Ayodhya. Since then a great sadness, on bearing the censure of the people of

town and country, has filled my bean. Whoever it may be, if his ill fame be current in the world, he falls to a lower state, so long as the defamatory rumours exist. Dishonour is condemned by the Gods; honour is revered in the world and, it is on account of fair repute, that great souls act. As for me, so gready do I fear dishonour that I would renounce my life and you yourselves

on its account, O Bulls among Men, how much more therefore is it incumbent on me to separate myself from the daughter of Janaka. See therefore in what an ocean of grief I have fallen! There is no misfortune greater than this! To-morrow, at dawn, o Saumitri, take my chariot with Sumantra as thy charioteer and, causing Sita to ascend it, leave her beyond the confines of the kingdom.

On the further side of the Ganges, the magnanimous Valmiki has his hermitage of celestial aspect situated by the Tamasa; it is in a solitary spot that thou shouldst leave her, O Thou who art the Joy of the House of Raghu. Go quickly, O Saumitri, and carry out my behest. Do not discuss it in any way; go therefore, O Saumitri, it is not the time for observations. Any resistence on thy part will cause me extreme displeasure. Yea, I swear to thee by my two feet, by my life, that those who seek to make me alter my resolve in any way or oppose my desire, I shall deem to be mine enemies. If you are subject to me and hold me in reverence, then obey me and take Sita away from here this very day. Formerly she appealed to me saying, ‘I wish to visit the sacred retreats of the banks of the Ganges’. Let her wish be fulfilled ! "

Having spoken thus, the virtuous Kakutstha, his eyes filled with tears, reentered his apartments escorted by his brothers, his heart riven with grief, sighing like an elephant.”

 

Is this “Raja Dharma”?

It would be understandable if an extremely illiterate or ultra-orthodox person − in short the kind of person who has no ability to think rationally, honestly and in terms of ethics, morality, justice or truth – were to glorify the act of Rāma abandoning Sita in the forest as in the above episode. That a person supposed to be a scientist, and who writes tomes in which he rejects traditional beliefs with a heavy hand (for example transposing Lanka from the traditionally accepted location in present-day Sri Lanka to some obscure and unknown site in Gujarat) and reduces the “core history” in the Valmiki Ramayana to a short paragraph of four lines, feels no compunction in treating a misogynistic story which most serious scholars (Indian and western) have recognized as an interpolation as true, and concluding that Rāma did indeed “abandon” Sita, and calls this “Raja Dharma” is unbelievable. I agree there may be millions of Hindus who feel like him. But with Hindus of this kind all around us, does Hinduism really require external enemies?

APPENDIX ADDED 23 AUGUST 2026:

A comment by a reader, and my reply to it deserves to be included within the main article:

The Comment:

Abhi 22 Aug 2026

No one denies that what happened to Sita was an injustice. It was not that sending Sita away was not wrong, but rather it would have been seen as a lesser evil than potential anarchy. You need to understand the whole of Raja Dharma. You need to understand how ancient Indians thought of government.

In ancient Indian political thought, the function of a king was to prevent anarchy and to do that he must maintain the trust between the people and monarchy. Anarchy was a pathological fear in India. And not only anarchy? Other kingdoms might invade on pretext of Rama not being a honorable ruler. By sending Sita away (not an actual abandonment, as he arranged a stay with sages), he is regaining the trust of the people in the monarchy. That maintenance of trust is the Raja Dharma.

Is this an “ends justify the means” scenario? Yes. But there was a sense of pragmatism in ancient Indian political thought. Could that have also set a bad precedent for women? Not necessarily, the concept of precedent in law is an Anglican thing. The short term benefit was seen as favourable than the long term consequences.

 

My Reply (corrected and expanded):

I find it disgusting that people calling themselves Hindus don't mind treating a fake interpolated story as true, believing that Rama was capable of such an evil act, and then showing their Hinduness by defending or glorifying an indefensible act while patting themselves on the back that they are showing respect for Rama and for Hinduism! Which is why I wrote that with such "Hindus" all around us, Hinduism does not require external enemies!

Would you like to be living in a country where the ruler dispensed "justice" in this manner just to protect his "reputation'"? I wish you did live in such a country and got the full brunt of this kind of justice dispensation. But I wouldn't like to live in such an unsafe country ruled by a cold-blooded megalomaniac.

I have seen half-witted Hindus defending this and saying it was for "lokaranjan", whatever that means. Perhaps the kind of "lokaranjan" that the Roman elites provided when slaves and captives were made to fight each other to the death in arenas, or thrown to lions, with crowds of "lok" cheering to express their "ranjan"? Or that Hitler provided to Jew-haters by throwing Jews into concentration camps?

Does one "maintain the trust between the people and monarchy" by showing people that they can be punished on false accusations or even on being the victims rather than the perpetrators of "crimes"?

And it didn't set a precedent, is it? When people tend to blame rape-victims at least as much as the rapists themselves, and shun them as "soiled", are they not following Rama's alleged precedent?

And, as I pointed out in another article, it is not as if sending "soiled" wives into the forest as punishment was a regular practice in ancient India being followed by Rama. Please give more examples of this if you can find them! On the one hand, misogynistic Hindus claim Rama was an ideal king, and then glorify an incident where he is shown as doing something evil which no other king had done before him. Was he great because he followed all the rules, or because he invented new ones?

And as I wrote in the article: "When Rama is sent into the forest for 14 years, Sita leaves all the luxuries of the palace and accompanies him into the forest and shares all his privations. In return, when Rama feels (on the basis of any kind of twisted, misogynistic, sadistic and perverted “logic” or sense of “justice”) that Sita has to be sent into the forest, he does not decide to leave his palace and accompany her. He sends her alone into the deep forest (even Jijith uses the word “abandons”), even when she is in an advanced stage of pregnancy."

 

Also, which “end” justified the “means” in this episode?