A Critical Analysis of the Valmiki Ramayan:
Beyond the Myth of Maryada Purushottam
The Kingdom of Ayodhya and King Dasharath
Sita's Wedding
The Exile and Life in the Forest
The Alliance with Sugreev and the Killing of Vali
Hanuman's Journey
The War in Lanka
Events After the War
The Banishment of Sita and Later Events
Societal Critiques and Thematic Issues
My Conclusion and Final Critique of Ram
I have based my analysis on the Valmiki Ramayan, leaving out other versions. I suggest relying only on the Valmiki Ramayan, which is considered the original story of Ram. For this, I used the physically printed edition from Geeta Press Gorakhpur and an online Valmiki Ramayan. The content in both versions is mostly the same, though translations sometimes differ. I noticed some mis-translations in both versions, seemingly done intentionally to hide controversial aspects. My knowledge of Sanskrit from school and online dictionaries helped in understanding the text.
There are many stories commonly associated with the Ramayan that are surprisingly absent from the Valmiki Ramayan. These include:
Ram eating the pre-tasted berries of Shabri, a low-caste woman. In the Valmiki Ramayan, the story of Shabri appears in
Aranya Kand/74 Vali having a boon that drained half the power of his opponents.
Angad being sent to Ravan's court as a messenger.
A washerman (Dhobi) speaking ill of Sita, which led to her banishment by Ram.
The story of the "Laxman Rekha," which may have been added later to imply it was Sita's mistake that she was abducted.
These elements were likely added later to the Ram-Katha and may be present in Tulsidas's Ram Charit Manas.
Regarding the authenticity of the text, many consider the Uttar Kand to be a later addition, but there is evidence against this. Glimpses of the Uttar Kand are already described briefly in
Valmiki also appears to be a confused writer, not conscious of the exactness of time. In one instance, he states Ram ruled for 11,000 years, while elsewhere he says 10,000 years, and then again 11,000 years.
Luv and Kush, taught by Valmiki, sing that King Dasharath ruled the Earth. They describe him as a generous king, avowed to truthfulness, who ruled the Earth with a renown that spread across the three worlds. They claim he had no superior or equal, had many friends, subdued provincial kings, and ruled the world like Indra in Heaven.
However, this claim is contradicted when Dasharath himself admits his inadequacy against Ravan. When Sage Vishvamitra asks for Ram to fight the demons Mareecha and Subaahu, who are instigated by Ravan, Dasharath says, "I myself am not capable of standing against that evil minded Ravana, in truth, where is the question of deputing my young Rama to confront him?". He adds that even gods, demons, and celestial beings cannot bear the brunt of Ravan in a fight, let alone humans, and that he is inadequate to grapple with Ravan even with his entire forces or all his sons.
A central point of the story is the Raghukul tradition of keeping one's word. However, Ram himself tells Bharat, "Our father promised your grand father that he would give kingdom to you only". Ram acknowledged this fact. This raises the question of why Dasharath prepared to coronate Ram instead of Bharat, and why Ram got ready for the coronation.
Sita's marriage to Ram is often called a self-choice marriage (Swayamvar), but this is questionable. Her father, Janak, set a condition that whoever could handle a special bow would marry Sita. Many kings tried and failed before Ram succeeded and married her. Sita never saw Ram before the marriage.
Upon being exiled, Ram promises his mother that for fourteen years he will live in a solitary forest like a sage, "leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and honey". This promise appears to be broken.
Ayodhya Kand/52/102 Ayodhya Kand/55/33 Ayodhya Kand/96/1,2
Hanuman later tells Sita in Ashok Vatika that "Rama is not eating meat, nor indulging even in spirituous liquor". These words seem to confirm that Ram used to consume wine as well. Ram and Sita are also said to have drunk wine and eaten meat, as per Valmiki Ramayan,
The Shurpnakha Episode: During the exile, Shurpnakha approaches Ram. Although Valmiki describes her as ugly, Ram says to her, "you are with a most enthralling personality". I accuse Ram of making fun of her desire to marry him and using her as a "shuttlecock" between himself and Lakshman. When she gets annoyed, Ram tells Lakshman it is not good to joke with an "Anarya". Ultimately, she is overpowered, insulted, and defaced.
Lakshman's Comments on Women: During an exchange with Sita in the forest, Lakshman makes general comments against women. He tells Sita:
"Such unworthy words from women are not surprising. Such a nature is seen among women".
"Women are whimsical, inconsistent, sharp tongued and are capable of breaking word".
He tells her that her words are like "red hot darts" to his ears.
He accuses her of exhibiting a "woman's natural callous nature" and says, "fie upon you".
Ram's killing of Vali is presented as an act of selfishness. When the dying Vali questions Ram, Ram justifies his action by saying Vali had kept his younger brother's wife. However, the text suggests Ram never asked Vali why he did so. The reason was that Sugreev had committed the same "sin" first by keeping Vali's wife, Tara.
According to Sugreev's own account to Ram, when Vali entered a cave to fight a demon, he stationed Sugreev at the entrance. After a year, when Vali did not emerge and Sugreev saw blood, he concluded his brother was killed. Sugreev then blocked the cave with a boulder and returned to Kishkindha, where he took the kingdom and Vali's wives, Ruma and Tara, and was living peaceably. Angad also tells Hanuman that Sugreev arrogated his elder brother's wife while he was still alive, a woman who was morally like a mother to him. Angad calls Sugreev "despicable" and "nefarious" for this and for closing the cave entrance, and questions how he could be seen as morally upright.
Ram never killed Sugreev after learning this, suggesting that the killing of Vali was not for a virtuous reason but because Ram needed Sugreev's help to fight Ravan. I accuse Ram of injustice against Vali and Angad, having killed Vali and handing the kingdom to Sugreev instead of Angad.
Further contradictions are pointed out:
Ram tells the dying Vali that an elder brother is one of three fatherly figures. Yet, after Vali's death, Ram allows Sugreev to marry Tara, the wife of his "father figure".
While it is said a widow can marry her deceased husband's brother, in this case, the elder brother was killed, and his widow married his younger brother-in-law, who was an accomplice in the murder.
Ram ultimately tells Vali, 'Besides you are only a monkey, you know, after all, and as such I have every right to kill you how, when, and where I like'.
While classifying servants, Ram tells Hanuman that a superior servant performs a difficult task with zeal, a mediocre one does only what is asked, and the least of men does not carry out instructions despite being able. The text notes that Ram talks about categories of servants but not about the remuneration masters ought to give, implying masters are always considered the best.
Hanuman is also presented as a liar. After burning Lanka, he tells the Vanars that Sita said she would die after "TWO" months if not rescued (
During the war against Ravan, Ram and his Vanar allies are said to have killed civilians, burning children and their parents alive. This action is cited as proof that Ram was not worried about public opinion. I draw a parallel between the logic used to motivate soldiers in the Ramayan and that used for modern terrorists. Angad is quoted telling the Vanars that if they die in battle, they will reach the realm of Brahma and attain glory or enjoy heaven, a logic I compare to what was told to the Mumbai attackers.
After killing Ravan and rescuing Sita, Ram did not keep her with him. He asked her in the midst of Vanars and others to go with Lakshman, Sugreev, Bharat, Shatrughna, or anyone else, anywhere.
When Hanuman delivers the news of Ram's return to Bharat, Bharat offers him gifts: one hundred thousand cows, one hundred villages, and "for wives, sixteen golden complexioned virgin girls of a good conduct". This offering of "16 Virgin Girls for Hanuman" is mentioned multiple times, suggesting Hanuman was not a celibate and that the king had innumerable slave girls to give away.
The preparations for Ram's return to Ayodhya are described in a way that is compared to modern-day politics. Bharata commands Shatrughna to:
Have deities worshipped with flowers and music.
Gather bards, panegyrists, musicians, prostitutes, queen-mothers, ministers, and citizens to see Ram.
Level the cavities on the road from Nandigrama to Ayodhya.
Sprinkle the ground with water and strew it with grains and flowers.
Line the streets with flags and decorate the dwellings.
I argue that Ram had no compulsion to banish Sita. He had helped Sugreev get his wife back, who had lived with his brother Vali, and helped Sage Gautam reunite with Ahalya, who had willingly indulged in sex with Indra. Both Sugreev and Gautam accepted their wives. Yet, Ram could not keep Sita even after a public fire test. He had other options, like renouncing the kingdom or arranging another public trial, but he chose not to.
He only calls for such a trial after banishing her, when Valmiki testifies to her purity. At this point, Sita chooses to embrace death rather than Ram. It is also noted that Ram did not listen to the testimony of Valmiki about Sita's sanctity and still asked for her examination.
Ram also banished his brother Lakshman, who had served him his entire life. Following this, Lakshman committed suicide. Ram himself later committed suicide along with many allies and people of Ayodhya.
On Caste and Shudras: The Ramayan contains several anti-Shudra comments.
Narad declares that Shudras are not meant to do penance (तपस्या) but only to serve others, and if a Shudra does so, it is dangerous for society and the king. Following this advice, Ram kills Shambook, a Shudra, for indulging in penance.
When Shravan Kumar is dying, he tells Dasharath not to worry about the sin of killing a Brahmana, because he was born of a Vaisya father and a Shudra mother, implying that killing a non-Brahman was not a big deal.
Sita is quoted as saying that only Brahmans have the right to education (
Sunder Kand/Sarg 21/17 The origin of the caste system is described with Brahmans emerging from the face, Kshatriyas from the chest, Vaisyas from the thighs, and Shudras from the feet.
On Meat and Wine Consumption: The text provides evidence of meat and wine consumption by various characters, including Brahmans.
Rishi Bhardwaj offers wine and fresh meats to Bharat and his companions.
A story is recounted of the demons Vaataapi and Ilvala, who would trick Brahmans by feeding them the meat of a ram that was actually the disguised Vaataapi, proving that Brahmans were meat-eaters.
On Male Domination and Women: The text is critiqued for male domination.
In the story of Ahalya and Indra, Sage Gautam curses both for adultery. However, there is no story of Indra's wife cursing Indra or Ahalya, suggesting the right of cursing was held by males only. A wife could be cursed for cheating, but not a husband.
The meeting between Bharat and Ram after 14 years is magnanimous, but there is no mention of a similar emotional meeting between Lakshman and his wife Urmila.
Mahrishi Agastya tells Ram that from the beginning of creation, women devote themselves to men in good fortune but leave them in ill fortune.
Ram advises Bharat not to believe the words of women or tell them secrets.
On Yagyas (Sacrifices): The Yagyas performed by Rishis and protected by Ram involved not only the sacrifice of animals but sometimes humans. The story of Shunshepa, a boy sold as a sacrifice animal and rescued by Vishwamitra, is cited as an example. Edible items were also burnt in these Yagyas to please "imaginary Gods," and those who tried to stop this were labeled Rakshasas.
On Buddha and Atheists: The text includes a verse where Ram considers Buddha a thief. The verse from
On Sati: The practice of Sati is mentioned in the Ramayan. In
I conclude by rejecting Ram as God, an avatar, or Maryada Purushottam (the best among men), viewing him instead as a "killer, tormentor of women, a bad husband, a bad father and a bad king". I list several actions to support this claim:
Killing Tataka and Vali for no clear fault.
Defacing Shurpnakha for proposing marriage.
Killing civilians in Lanka.
Killing Shambook for being a Shudra doing penance.
Banishing his pregnant wife and his brother Lakshman.
I question the lessons to be learned from Ram's life, asking if we should blindly obey parents, kill people on hearsay, mock those who propose marriage, kill civilians of a defeated country, or abandon a faultless wife. I argue that Ram's deeds tell a "horrible story," not sermon-like lessons.
I state that the Ramayan's impact on society is a present truth, with Ram Leelas played and Ram worshipped in temples. Books like the Ramayan are called "dangerous tools to keep the humans under slavery".
Finally, I argue that the Ramayan should not be listened to for several reasons, based on the phal-shruti (benefits of listening) described in the text itself:
It promises that listening to the epic gives listeners "SUPERIOR WOMEN" and that menstruating women will give birth to "excellent SONS". I argue this creates a social imbalance and should be avoided.
It promises benefits equivalent to cow and even man sacrifices.
I assert that progress comes from "scientificality, not mindlessly reading any kinda texts".
Based on these interpretations, I call for Ram, the Ramayan, and everything associated with him to be "bade Good Bye". All my inferences are based on the Valmiki Ramayan.
