Is upholding tradition or the law of the land the same as dharma?

Keep your word even if it costs you your life, that is the law of the Raghu clan," says Dashrath in Rama Charita Manas, Tulsidas' great work on Ramayan, which is one of the most sacred documents in the Hindi speaking belts of India.

Dashrath therefore has to keep his word — fulfill two of his wife Kaikeyi's wishes which unfortunately include asking his eldest son, Kaikeyi's step - son, Ram to go to the forest for fourteen years.

There is something noble about keeping one's word. It speaks volumes about commitment and integrity. But this commitment and integrity has its roots in the “law of the Raghu clan”, which is riti or tradition. Is that the same as dharma? Why does Ram agree to go to the forest? Is it because he feels it is the right thing to do (dharma), or is it because that is what is expected of him as the eldest of the next generation of the Raghu clan (riti)? Or is he simply upholding the law of the land (niti), which says sons must obey their father?

Later in the epic, “Raghukula riti” resurfaces. The law, it is implied, states that the queen shall be pure of mind, body and reputation. Sita, Ram's queen, is pure of mind and body, but her reputation is stained. She was forced to spend several nights in the house of a man who is neither her husband nor her father nor her brother. It was the house of the man who had abducted her and kept her captive until Ram killed him; a man known for his attractiveness, charm and brute force.

Street gossip reached Ram's ears: How can such a woman be queen of Ayodhya? She may have proven her chastity by a trial of fire, but her contact with another man still remained a matter of public shame. To undo the damage to the royal reputation, Ram had a pregnant Sita exiled — sent to the forest to fend for herself. How had Ram functioned? As king who upheld the law of his royal clan or as an untrusting husband? Was his action motivated by dharma or niti or riti?

There is no reason why Ram could not have remarried; his father after all had three wives indicating that polygamy was very much permitted in the family. But Ram refuses to remarry. Only Ram stands out in the mythological space as ekam – patni - vratasta, one who was eternally faithful and devoted to a single wife. One feels then that the poet is trying to say that it was Ram, the king, who exiled Sita, not Ram, the husband. Does this difference matter?

Somewhere, it seems the epic is trying to distinguish dharma from riti and niti. Dharma is loosely translated as "righteous conduct." We often assume family values must be right. Or family tradition must be right. Or the law of the land must be right. But is it so?

The same riti or niti that demands that "a man keep his word" also demands "reputation at all cost." What seems noble at the start of the epic (a royal father and son keeping a word) seems not so noble at the end of the epic (a king renouncing his queen of stained reputation). One wonders if the epic is trying to inform us of the dangers of rigid laws and codes of conduct.

Why do laws exist? To discipline our desires, so that the animal in us is tamed, allowing even the meek to have a share of resources. In the jungle where there are no laws, the meek are at the mercy of the mighty, when it comes to resources. That is what distinguishes society from the jungle. In society, we think about others. We try to satisfy everyone's need through sharing and sacrifice. That difference between “civilised conduct” and “jungle” is dharma. And dharma is all about empathy.

In Ramayan, the killing of Ravan represents dharma because Ravan has behaved as a beast — laying claim to the wife of another by force. But is the exile of Ram, or Sita, a result of dharma? Is it motivated by empathy?

The story clearly warns kings not to freely give their word. "Whatever you wish will be yours," is something that only God can state, not king. Still Dashrath, grateful that Kaikeyi saved his life in battle, says so and lives to regret the day. The story also warns of the danger of following family values blindly without looking at any decision with the dharma lens. In allowing Ram to be exiled, Dashrath was jeopardizing the well - being of his entire kingdom to satisfy the ambition of his queen. In allowing Sita to be exiled, Ram was giving more value to gossip and reputation, to riti and niti, than empathy.

Sita's exile shakes the foundation of dharma. Perhaps that is why, after the exile of Sita, Ram suffers his only defeat: at the hands of his children who claim his royal horse. By being able to defeat Ram's army, the children of Sita prove that righteousness is on their mother's side. Rules of the royal clan may have been upheld, but the spirit of dharma was lost.

Ramayan thus very cleverly, without being preachy, brings out the complex conflict of human ideas and social reality. It tells us that dharma is all about overpowering the beast in us that seeks domination and fulfillment of desire. This is most commonly done through family laws and social rules. But we have to be wary of these rules and laws. Behind these laws, one must have an intention soaked in empathy.

Dr. Devdutt Pattanaik
Author, Speaker, Illustrator, Mythologist
Courtesy: Star of Mysore