Kingship in Ancient India and Rama Exiling Sita

 

Let us assume the Uttara Kanda is legitimate for sake of argument. Now first we need to understand what was the ancient Indian political thought regarding the function of Kingsship.

In the Shanti Parva Bishma narrates the story of King Vena and Prthu and why the institution of Kingships existed [1]. 

"At first there was no sovereignty, no king, no chastisement, and no chastiser. All men used to protect one another righteously. As they thus lived, O Bharata, righteously protecting one another, they found the task (after some time) to be painful. Error then began to assail their hearts. Having become subject to error, the perceptions of men, O prince, came to be clouded, and thence their virtue began to decline. When their perceptions were dimmed and when men became subject to error, all of them became covetous. O chief of the Bharatas! And because men sought to obtain objects, which they did not possess, another passion called lust (of acquisition) got hold of them. When they became subject to lust, another passion, named anger, soon soiled them. Once subject to wrath, they lost all consideration of what should be done and what should not. Unrestrained sexual indulgence set in. Men began to utter what they chose. All distinctions between food that is clean and unclean and between virtue and vice disappeared. When this confusion set in amongst men, the Vedas disappeared. Upon the disappearance of the Vedas, Righteousness was lost. When both the Vedas and righteousness were lost, the gods were possessed by fear. Overcome with fear, O tiger among men, they sought the protection of Brahmana. Having gratified the divine Grandsire of the universe, the gods, afflicted with grief, said unto him, with joined hands, 'O god, the eternal Vedas have been afflicted in the world of men by covetousness and error. For this, we have been struck with fear. Through loss of the Vedas, O Supreme Lord, righteousness also has been lost. For this, O Lord of the three worlds, we are about to descend to the level of human beings. Men used to pour libations upwards while we used to pour rain downwards. 1 In consequence, however, of the cessation of all pious rites among men, great distress will be our lot. Do thou then, O Grandsire, think of that which would benefit us, so that the universe, created by thy power, may not meet with destruction.' Thus addressed, the Self-born and divine Lord said unto them, 'I shall think of what will do good to all. Ye foremost of gods, let your fears be  dispelled!' The Grandsire then composed by his own intelligence a treatise consisting of a hundred thousand chapters.......:

 

....'For the good of the world and for establishing the triple aggregate (viz., Virtue, Profit, and Pleasure), I have composed this science representing the very cheese of speech. Assisted by chastisement, this science will protect the world. Dealing rewards and punishments, this science will operate among men. And because men are led (to the acquisition of the objects of their existence) by chastisement, or, in other words, chastisement leads or governs everything, therefore will this science be known in the three worlds as Dandaniti (science of chastisement). 1 Containing the essence of all the attributes of the aggregate of six, this science will always be much regarded by all high-souled persons. Virtue, Profit, Pleasure, and Salvation have all been treated in it.' After this, the lord of Uma,--the divine and multiform Siva of large eyes, the Source of all blessings, first studied and mastered it. In view, however, of the gradual decrease of the period of life of human beings, the divine Siva abridged that science of grave import compiled by Brahman. .... His mind, O son of Pandu, inclined to a life of renunciation. Virajas had a son named Krittimat. He too renounced pleasure and enjoyment. 1 Krittimat had a son named Kardama. Kardama also practised severe austerities. The lord of creatures, Kardama, begot a son named Ananga....

 

....obtaining extensive empire after the demise of his sire, he became a slave of his passions. Mrityu, O king, had a daughter born of his mind, named Sunita and celebrated over the three worlds. She was married to Ativala and gave birth to a son named Vena. Vena, a slave of wrath and malice, became unrighteous in his conduct towards all creatures. The Rishis, those utterers of Brahma, slew him with Kusa blades (as their weapon) inspired with mantras. Uttering mantras the while, those Rishis pierced the right thigh of Vena. Thereupon, from that thigh, came out a short-limbed person on earth, resembling a charred brand, with blood-red eyes and black hair. Those utterers of Brahma said unto him, 'Nishida (sit) here!' From him have sprung the Nishadas, viz., those wicked tribes that have the hills and the forests for their abode, as also those hundreds and thousands of others called Mlechchhas, residing on the Vindhya mountains. The great Rishis then pierced the right arm of Vena. Thence sprang a person who was a second Indra in form. Clad in mail, armed with scimitars, bows, and arrows, and well-versed in the science of weapons, he was fully acquainted with the Vedas and their branches. All the ordinances of the science of chastisement, O king, (in their embodied forms) came to that best of men. The son of Vena then, with joined hands, said unto those great Rishis, 'I have attained an understanding that is very keen and that is observant of righteousness. Tell me in detail what I shall do with it. That useful task which you will be pleased to indicate, I shall accomplish without hesitation.' Thus addressed, the gods that were present there, as also the Rishis, said unto him. 'Do thou fearlessly accomplish all those tasks in which righteousness even resides".... 

....O son of Pandu, started into life as soon as Vena's son thought of them. At that time there was neither decrepitude, nor famine, nor calamity, nor disease (on earth). In consequence of the protection afforded by that king, nobody had any fear from reptiles and thieves or from any other source. When he proceeded to the sea, the waters used to be solidified. The mountains gave him way, and his standard was never obstructed anywhere. He drew from the earth, as a milcher from a cow, seven and ten kinds of crops for the food of Yakshas, and Rakshasas, and Nagas, and p. 128 other creatures. That high-souled king caused all creatures to regard righteousness as the foremost of all things; and because he gratified all the people, therefore, was he called Rajan (king). And because he also healed the wounds of Brahmanas, therefore, he earned the name of Kshatriya." [2]

From the above passage in the Mahabharata, we see it was believed the main function of a King was to not only protect and please the people, but also prevent society from goving into anarchy. The was King was supposed to stop society from going into anarchy was through Danda, or punishment. The word used by later thinkers for anarchy was Matsyanyaya or "law of the fish", where big fish cruelly eat little fish. The King essentially must prevent this outcome and ensure that the people are safe like a child in his father's house [1]. On this note, the King's function was summarised as threefld: protection of the people, maintanace of law and order, and safeguarding welfare [1].

A King was also said to be equivilant to the gods, but his divinity did not grant him immuntiies and privillage, in that it place him above the sacred law (Dharma). In fact, from the ancient texts, we can see that a King's divinity was metaphorical, and that it is the sacred law that is supreme, and even the King is subordinate to it. In the corrination ceremony, we see that a preist symbolically beats the King with a stick to illustrate his subordination to the sacred law[1].

The qualities looked for in a King by the ancient Indian texts were essentually, strength, valour, honesty, leadership, intelligence, wisdom, disciplined, righteous, etc. It was also believed that the people will emulate the King for example, if he is lazy, the people will also become lazy [1]. The King must always have the loyalty of the people. The Arthasashtra, for example,  warns that if he taxes the people to poverty, the people will become angry, which inturn willl cause the King to lose loyalty [1].

In the late Vedic age, the typical monarchial system was heriditary monarchy, namely one of primogeniture, where it is the eldest male that inherits. Daughters are on the last in line for inheritence. Curiously, when there is no heir whatso over for a King, the minsiters scramble to elect someone as a successor for a state could not remain kingless [1]. From the Arthasashtra, we also learn that the people will reject a strong king if he was not of royal blood, and for such reaons there was an emphasis on having legitamate sons over illigeitamate sons.  

What Rama did to Sita was technically wrong, even as per the Dharmasashtras. 

Refer to Manu 7.19:

"When meted out properly after due investigation, it makes all people happy; but when meted out without due investigation, it destroys all things.—(19)"

Refer to Manu 8.18:

"One quarter of the Injustice falls on the man who commits it, one quarter on the witness, one quarter on the members of the Court and one quarter on the king.—(18)"

If it wasn't for the fact that Rama is Vishnu, and thus he is immune to Karmic effects, he would technically have commited sin. Even here, we see that (even if it is a Leela) Rama does get some sort of Karma, such as him being depressed throughout the entire time Sita was gone, or when the Ashvamedha Yajna was not fruitful, or when Sita was taken by the Earth in the end, causing Rama to entirely lose her. All this is the Karmaphala for what Rama did to Sita. This entire scene goes to show that all embodied beings, even divine ones, are not flawless and are subject to the law of Karma in some shape or form.

Even scholars in the past criticized Rama for this. The Uttararamacarita of the 8th century shows the agony of Rama for exiling Sita, and one of the characters is a forest spirit named Vasanti, who rebukes Rama for abandoning Sita. Later Thyagaraja, an ardent devotee of Rama was critical of him. This sentiment of Rama can do no wrong what so ever is recent. Our ancestors were not so blind as to think what Rama did to Sita was moral. 

None of this is something for us to emulate, not only because most of us aren't Vedic age monarchs, but also because there is a Mimamsa tule that Smriti statements on Dharma based on wordly motives are not authoritative. Rama exiling Sita was based on saving his reputation, which is a wordly motive. As such, any Dharmic statement of "a King must foresake his innocent wife" is not authoritative. In other words, what Rama did has no bearing on Hinduism as a whole.    

But Rama is supposed to be a god, if he commited injustice, is he worthy to be called a god?

Our conception of divinity is different from other religons. Besides, this can be considered Vishnu's Leela, where he demonstrates that even the most idealest of humans have lapses of judgment and are bound to reap the fruits of their actions. 

 

Citations:

1) https://www.jstor.org/stable/42753703?seq=2 

2) https://sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12a058.htm