Age of Rama and Sita

There has been accusations that Rama married Sita when she was 6. Now keep in mind that Rama was 13, so it is a 7 year age gap and both were minors. Now yes 7 years is a huge age gap amogst children and teenagers, but this was the ancient period where medical knowldge was not advanced and they probably thought in that such an age gap will thin out in the long run. Of course all this is assuming that those were the ages Rama and Sita were, but as we shall prove, Rama and Sita could NOT have been those ages when they got married. 

Now I am going to admit that child marraige was a rampant practice in histocial India, which admittedly did take British intervention to stop, but child marraige has no basis in the Vedas and indologists agree that there was no child marraige in the Vedic age. Of course, in this blog I am supposed to not use indology and western scholarship to defend Hinduism, meaning I must accept that the Vedas are authorless, eternal, and that the Smriits are to be taken seriously (though I have shown in aprevious blog post that they are not authoratative in the strict sense). 

I will also make a future blog post on child marraiges and showing that it is not intrinsic to Hinduism as a whole, so save your criticisms. Since child marraige affects girls, I will focus more on establishing the fact that Sita was not a child as opposed to focusing more on Rama. For this, let us assume that Rama and Sita lived in a time where child marraige was practiced the same way it was till 100 years ago. Now, someone had made a PDF refuting claims against Hinduism, and the age of Rama and Sita was one of them [4], and while their attempt was good, it didn't seem too convincing, but I shall refer to it from tiem to time. 

Child Marraige Practices

To understand how child marriage worked in India, let us do a but of research. Now indeed it is true that in pre-independance India, girls were married at ages younger than twelve, but as on shcolar notes, "the case of child marriages, the parties do not begin to cohabit immediately after the marriage ceremony. Conjugal relations are generally preceded by a second ceremony, called gauna or vida. Between the time of her marriage and the gauna ceremony (which is roughly the period between puberty and

the institutionalized recognition of her potential motherhood), the bride lives with her parents" [1]

Similarly, a later scholar notes "A particularly interesting feature of traditional marriage customs is the prevalence of childhood marriage, that is, the marriage of a girl before she reaches puberty.Such a marriage is always "arranged" by the girl's parents and does not signal the beginning of cohabitation or sexual relations. stead, childhood marriage is better

thought of as a contract that is closely akin to the Western concept of betrothal. A

childhood marriage is only consummated after the bride reaches menarche, and

often not until a substantial period of time after menarche." [2]

This is something you will note, that while girls are married before puberty (<12), they stay with their parents and have no contact with their husbands till after puberty. During that time, she learns how to maintain the household. it is after her puberty, when she is fit to bear children, does she go to her husbands house. This technically doesn't make it pedophilia, though it is still a bad practice. 

That cohabitation and consumation have to take place after puberty is evident from Manu 3.45:

"One should observe the rule of approaching (one’s wife) during the period of her season,—ever attached to his own wife. In consideration of her he may approach her with a desire for sexual intercourse, except on the sacred days"

 And here is what Medhatithi has to say under it:

"One should not have recourse to his wife immediately after marriage, on the same day; he should wait for her puberty. In fact, the authors of Gṛhyasūtras have declared that ‘after marriage, for three days or twelve days, or tor a year, the pair should take food without salt, observing continence and lying down upon the ground.’ (Āśvalayana, 1. 8. 10-12.) Hence, if puberty appears in course of the year, there should be no intercourse; similarly, even after the said time, there is to be no intercourse before puberty. In this manner, there is to inconsistency between the present text and the rule laid down by Aśvalāyana. As for the mention of the option of ‘three days,’ etc., what is meant is that, if the pair happen to be very passionate, they might adopt the lesser periods, but others should observe continence (for the full period of twelve months).

‘Season’ is that period of time during which the bodily condition of woman is marked by a flow of blood and indicates her capacity for conception. The actual sight of blood being merely an indication, even after the actual flow has ceased, the time that follows—up to the limit to be described below—is also called the ‘season.’ "

Usually as per ancient Indian medical text, a girl is fit for having children at age 16. 

 

The vedic medical texts Sushruta Samhita outlines the following:

" An intelligent physician should regard the organism of a man of twenty-five or of a woman of sixteen years of age, as fully developed in respect of the maturity of the seven fundamental principles of the body such as, serum, blood, etc "

The Ashtangasarirasthana 1.3 says:

" The man twenty-five years of age should (wed and) approach the young woman of sixteen years of age with a view to make progeny "

However, I won't be surprised if consumationit occured as young as age 14. Worst case senario is age 12, but whatever is the case, she has to be post-pubecent making her not a child in the strict sense. Rememeber that many cultures in the ancient world considered a woman as an adult when she got her first period. This isn't their fault as medical knowldge is no where near as advanced as it is  today.  

Now another thing to note, is that a girl can choose her own husband 3 years after her first period. Now refer to Manu 9.92

”alaṅkāraṃ nādadīta pitryaṃ kanyā svayaṃvarā | mātṛkaṃ bhrātṛdattaṃ vā stenā syād yadi taṃ haret || 92 ||

 

When the girl chooses her own husband, she should not take away any ornaments given to her either by her father, or mother or brother; if she did take them, she would be a thief.—(92)” 

The adjective used to refer to a girl who can choose her own husband is "svayaṃvarā ", which is related to the famous Svayamvara ceremony where a princess chooses her husband from a set of suitors who compete for her hand in marraige. 

Now under Manu 8.373, Medhatithi writes this this:

“...Thus then, if the term ‘vrātyā’ is to be taken in a figurative sense, it is to be understood to stand for ‘the woman born of a vrātyā woman.’ If on the other hand, the term is used in its primary sense, then it must mean ‘she who is fit for a vrāta or crowd,’—The ‘unmarried woman’ on the other hand does not come in either as the primary or the figurative meaning. Further, there is no time fixed for the marriage of women, by transgressing which they would become vrātyā (in the sense in which the man transgressing the time-limit for Upanayana becomes known as vrātya). 

As for the rule that girls should be married before puberty,—its transgression also is permitted by the sanctioning of the custom of ‘Svayaṃvara,’ ‘self-choice,’ which can be done only when a woman is of a sufficiently advanced age, and hence has attained puberty. And further, if no girl were to be married after puberty, several girls would have to remain in their father’s house till death.—(373).”

In any case, we can conclude some criteria in seeing if Sita was a child when she got married. If Sita stayed at her fathers house without consumating with Rama, she was a child. However, if Sita went to Rama's place immediately after marraige and consumated the marriage immediately after, then Sita was not a child and atleast an adolscent. If Sita had a Swayamvara ceremony, then it means she had attained puberty, and that too at a sufficently advanced age. (maybe 16?). 

Janaka Arranges Sita's Marraige

In the Ramayana Ayodhya Kanda, Chapter 118, Sita tells Anasuya about how Janaka adopted her and how he arranged her marraige ceremony. 

“The king rejoiced in my possession and since my birth his prosperity has increased. That sovereign, constant in the performance of sacrifice, gave me into the care of his chief queen, she nourishing me with maternal affection. When I came to maturity, my father grew anxious, like an indigent man who is bereft of all he possesses.

“The father of a daughter, be he equal to Indra, must defer to his son-in-law, whether in status he be his peer or his inferior. My father was willing to submit to this eventuality and was consumed with anxiety, as one desirous of crossing a river, who finds himself without the means of transport.

“After much seeking, he was unable to find a suitable bridegroom and was beset with fears. On profound reflection, he resolved to convene a meeting of princes, that I might elect a husband." 

Now let us look at the Sanskrit sholkas behind the underlined portions. 

The first is regarding Sita attaining maturity. Now some scholars translate this as "marraigable age" and conclude that it could be as young as 6 or 7. But this is not right. Here is the Sholka which I retranslated. 

पति-सम्योग-सुलभम् वयो दृष्ट्वा तु मे पिता | चिन्ताम् अभ्यगमद् दीनो वित्त नाशाद् इव अधनः 

(pati-samyoga-sulabham vayas dRSTvA tu me pitA, cintAm abhyAgamad dIno vittanAshAd iva adhanaH)

“But my father having seen the age suitable of union with a husband, the poor man arrived to worrying like an unrich man from the destruction of possessions” (2.118.34)

The Union with a husband (पति-सम्योग) is exactly what it may seem to suggest. This can NEVER be used for a 6 year old. Only for those AFTER puberty, i.e. 12. 

The Kataka Tika says this:

 पतिसंयोगं विना स्थातुमशक्ययौवनावस्थावदित्यर्थः

"With out union with the husband, (she is) as if not being able to stay in her youthfulness is thus the meaning"  [3]

 

Now one other commentator says that it meant "fit for marraige", which admittedly doesn;t help our cause, but the former commentator's opinion still stands. 

But if you find it still ambigous, let us look at the Shloka of the next underlined text.

तस्य बुद्धिर् इयम् जाता चिन्तयानस्य सम्ततम् | स्वयम् वरम् तनूजायाः करिष्यामि इति धीमतः (2.118.38)

“This mindset occurred to him, and after constantly contemplating, the wise one (said) ‘I will make my daughter’s Svayamvara’ ”

So it seems like Sita did indeed have a Svayamvara just as tradition has it. And as established before, the Swayamvara ceremony is to ber performed when the girl is at an age after puberty, probably around age 16, when she is suitable of union with a husband (पति-सम्योग).

And one thing to note is that Janaka was very worried about Sita not being married. how can this be said for a 6 year old girl? Usually it is the onset of puberty that would make a father in deep agony. 

In the Mahabharata, we have a similar senario with King Ashwapati and his daughter Savitri:

“ And having reverenced the feet of her father and offering him the flowers she had brought, that maiden of exceeding grace, with joined hands, stood at the side of the king. And seeing his own daughter resembling a celestial damsel arrived at puberty, and unsought by people, the king became sad. 

And the king said, 'Daughter, the time for bestowing thee is come! Yet none asketh thee. Do thou (therefore) thyself seek for a husband equal to thee in qualities! That person who may be desired by thee should be notified to me. Do thou choose for thy husband as thou listest. I shall bestow thee with deliberation. Do thou, O auspicious one, listen to me as I tell thee the words which I heard recited by the twice-born ones. 

The father that doth not bestow his daughter cometh by disgrace. And the husband that knoweth not his wife in her season meeteth with disgrace. And the son that doth not protect his mother when her husband is dead, also suffereth disgrace. Hearing these words of mine, do thou engage thyself in search of a husband. Do thou act in such a way that we may not be censured by the gods”

Here we see Ashvapati going through similar emotions as Janaka because the girl wasn’t married in time, and this passage from the Mahabharata that it is after puberty that a father becomes in agony. .

Besides, 6 is way too early fot a father to get worried, even per the child marraige customs at the time. I am aware that the Smritis place a great emphasis on marrying a girl off before puberty, but the age they suggest is usually around 8 or 9, maybe 7. Only when the child reaches double digits would a father may get worried. Prabhupada mentioned how his father said he would commit suicide because he couldn't marry off his daughter as she was about to turn 12 (standard age of puberty amongst Hindus). 

And it must be noted that the above scene happened a long time before Rama married Sita, so let us asume that sita was 5. Again, even as per the child marraige customs, where 8-9 are peak time to get married, age 5-6 is too early to be worried. 

Wedding Ceremony of Rama and Sita

If you read Chapters 73 to 77 of the Bala Kanda, you see that there is no mention of Sita and her sisters (married on the same day with Rama's brothers) going back to Janaka's palace to say for a few years until they attain puberty. On the contrary it is implied that Sita and her sisters went with Rama and his brothers back to Ayodhya (Rama's place) immediately after the marraige ceremony, though Rama had a brief encounter with Parashurama.  

In chpater 77, after the encounter with Parashurama, here is what happened after:

King Dasaratha, hearing Rama’s words, embraced him and reflected that his son was born to him a second time. Then summoning his army to advance, he in a chariot, adorned with banners, to the fanfare of trumpets proclaiming victory, entered Ayodhya.

The streets of the city sprinkled with water and flowers, appeared beautiful, and the citizens rejoicing at the return of their sovereign, greeted him with shouts of welcome.

Met by the brahmins inhabiting the city, the king with his friends and relatives, followed by the princes and their brides, entered the royal palace which was white as snow.

There, the kindred of the king welcomed him with garlands and sandalwood. The Queens Kaushalya, Sumitra and Kaikeyi received the brides and conducted the fortunate Sita, the illustrious Urmila, and the two daughters of Kushadvaj [Kushadvaja] to their palace, with auspicious rites. Arrayed in sumptuous silken robes, and borne to the temple to worship the holy images, the brides then offered respectful salutations to their mother-in-laws, and others worthy of honour. Thereafter, each began to live with her lord in her own palace.

 

So to reiterate, Sita went to Rama's place immedietly after the marraige ceremony. There is no indication of her staying home or having a gauna ceremony, meaning she is not a child, but a young adult, and at the very leats an adolescent. 

In fac tin the 13th Shloka of the same chapter it is said:

अभिवाद्याभिवाद्यांश्च सर्वा राजसुतास्तदा || १-७७-१३ 

रेमिरे मुदिताः सर्वा भर्तृभिः सहिता रहः 

(abhivAdya-abhivAdyAms ca sarvA rAjasutAs tadA remire muditAH sarvA bhartRbhiH sahitA rahaH)

           "After saluting those fit to be salutedd, all the gladdened princesses then delighted with their husbands in privacy" 

The word "remire" is from the Sanskrit root "ram" meaning "to delight", and the word "rahas" means "in secret", or "secluded", and also during conjugal union. These words indicate that Rama and Sita consumated their marraige shortly after their wedding ceremony, indicating that Sita was not a child, and perhaps around 16 (though maybe 14, worst case 12). 

Source of the Age Misconception

In the Aranya Khanda, Chapter 47, Sita peaks to the disguised Ravana about her history. 

In the 2nd Shloka, Sita reveals how long she stayed with Rama after her marraige:

"उषित्वा द्वा दश समाः इक्ष्वाकूणाम् निवेशने | भुंजाना मानुषान् भोगान् सर्व काम समृद्धिनी

“uSitvA dvA dasha samAH ikSvAkUNAm niveshane, bhunAnA mAnuSAn bhogAn sarvakAmasamRddhinI” 

“Having lived for 2 plus 10 (years) in the residence of the Ikshvakus, I was with affluence of all desires enjoying the enjoyments of people”."

In the the 10th Shloka she reveals her and Rama's ages when they left for the forest:

मम भर्ता महातेजा वयसा पंच विंशकः || अष्टा दश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते

(mama bhartA mahAjtejA vayasA pancavimshaka. aSTAdasha hi varSANi mama janmani gaNyate) 

“My great splendored husband is by age of 25 years. Indeed 18 years are calculated in (from) my birth”

   

  

When doing the math, 18-12 is 6 for Sita and 25-12 is 13 for Rama. This is the source of their ages, but I have shown that Sita could not have been 6 years old when she has her Svayamvara when she was fit to unite with her husband, which it seems like she did immediately after marraige. 

Besides, there seems to a bit of a problem, because in Ayodhya Kanda; Chapter 20; Verse 45, Kaushalya says to Rama who was about to leave the forest, 

दश सप्त च वर्षाणि तव जातस्य राघव | असितानि प्रकान्क्षन्त्या मया दुह्खपरिक्षयम् 

(dasha sapta ca varSANi tava jAtasya rAghava. asitAni prakAnkSantyA mayA duhkha parikSayam) “ 

"Oh,Raghava! I have been waiting for seventeen years after your second birth of thread ceremony, with the hope that my troubles will disappear at one time or the other."

So is Rama 25 or 17? Now the Tattvadipika and other commentators explain that this “birth” refers to his second birth, or when he underwent the Sacred Thread ceremony. For Kshatriyas this is at age 11, so Rama was 28. However, 28 contradicts with 25, unless if Sita sayign Rama was 25 was just an estimate. The Shivasahasya trys to use Sanskrit grammar to force an interpratation of 28 [5]. 

Difference in Editions

It turns out that the Ramayana that critics of Hinduism quote from is the Vulgate Edition, which is one amongt several and most definitely not the critical edition.

For example, in the Northeastern and Northern Recensions, Kaushalya says thatRama was 18 years after his (second) birth, not 17 [4].

But let us discuss Rama's age later, and focus on Sita. In the Aranya Kanda, Sita says that she stayed with Rama for 12 years. Well, it turns out that in the critical edition, Sita says she stayed with Rama for ONE year [6]. 

"I lived for a year in the dwelling of Raghava, I was with affluence of all desiresenjoying the humanly enjoyments"

 The Bangala Purvottara Samskarana reading has a similar verse [4]:

So if as per the Critical Edition, which Sita is, 18-1, 17 years old when she got married, in line with being fit for uniting with a husband, which again it seems like she did (rahas). However, there is a problem, the Critical Edition lacks the shloka that says Sita was 18 [7]. 

   "My husband by age is 25. That one possessed of qualities who is pure in truthful speech is bound in this realm as "Rama". That large eyed great armed delights in the favour of all beings".

So we don't know how old Sita is. But let us pretend she was 18 when she left with Rama and got married to him at 17 just to get an esitmateof the age gap between Rama and Sita.  

Age of Rama

Assuming Sita was 17, then how old was Rama when he married? If we go even by the critical edition, Rama was 24. The commentator Nagesha Batta think the number 25 is symbolic and not his literal age, while again someone else reanalysed the word "Panchavimshaka" to some how mean 28 [5].  

The Bala Kanda Chapter 20, Verse 2 has this:

ऊनषोडशवर्षो मे रामो राजीवलोचनः | न युद्धयोग्यतामस्य पश्यामि सह राक्षसैः || १-२०-२

 (UnaSoDashavarSo me rAmo rAjIvalocanaH, na yuddhayogyatAm asya pashyAmi saha rAkSasaiH )

        "My lotus eyed Rama is less than 16 years, I don't see his fitness for war with the Rakshasas" 

Commentators are divided on this, some say this means that Rama was 12 and other say Rama was 15. It diesn;t matter because what matters is the age Rama married Sita, and there could easily have been a few years gap between this scene and Rama's wedding. 

Bala Kanda Chapter 50 Verse 18 says:

            

                                    अश्विनाविव रूपेण समुपस्थितयौवनौ

                                  (ashvinav iva rUpena samupasthitayuvanau)

                         "These two who just attained youth are like the two Ashvinas by form"

Now normally, the word "youth" could refer to any young man, be it 16 or 25. But the text says that they just attained youth.   

Here is the Raghunighantu [4]: 

So Rama would have been just 16 by the time of marraige. But this is being to literal in the reading of "just attained youth" (samupasthitayuvana). 24, while 8 years from 16 is not too well into youth, so Rama could have easily been 24 when he got married. 

Conclusion:

I have shown with great effort that Sita was NOT a child when she was married and that she would have to be atleast 12 when she got married. But that is worst case senario and Sita was more likely 16 or older when she got married. It should be noted that even if Sita was 12 when Janaka spoke to her, Rama arrived after a long time, so Sita could be 13 when she got married, which is literally early teens, which for the ancient times was not bad, and again this is a worst case senario. 

So Sita was likely atleast 16, and Rama was somewhere between 16-24. This is a 0-8 year age gap, which again for their time was acceptable. Thus Rama and Sita's wedding is not an example of child marraige.       

Citations:

1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2731762?searchText=&searchUri=&ab_segments=&searchKey=&refreqid=fastly-default%3A8cad84f7926c49a44f028a5af6fe18fb&seq=1 

2) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2061348?seq=3

3)https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/content?language=dv&field_kanda_tid=2&field_sarga_value=118&field_sloka_value=34&sckt=1&scnb=1&scss=1&etak=1&etgr=1&etty=1&etaa=1&etmt=1&etnb=1&etss=1

4) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-1j7faRaX0FExMJhSDb20hwkIiAQhEDo/view 

5) https://www.valmiki.iitk.ac.in/content?language=dv&field_kanda_tid=3&field_sarga_value=47&field_sloka_value=4&etak=1&etgr=1&etty=1&etaa=1&etmt=1&etnb=1&etss=1&choose=1 

6) https://archive.org/details/RmyaaCriticalEdition3EDPCDivanji1963/page/n311/mode/2up?view=theater 

7) https://archive.org/details/RmyaaCriticalEdition3EDPCDivanji1963/page/n313/mode/2up?view=theater