There are only a handful of instances in the Ramayana where one might question Rama's actions. One such is the incident that happens after Rama wins the war with Ravana, and brings Sita back from Lanka.
On usual incognito rounds of His kingdom, he hears people talking about Sita. They doubt that any woman, even if it were Sita, would not have succumbed to a man, especially after she was under his control for months together.
(image courtest nirmukta.com)
What happens next is Sita undergoes an agni pariksha. If she walks through fire unscathed, she is considered to have been pure and chaste. If there was an iota of impurity in thoughts or actions, she would be burned. She does come out of the fire unscathed, and convinces her citizens.
A lot of issues at hand here, some political:
Firstly, I don't think that Sita should be viewed as the sort of helpless woman she is portrayed as normally. "She crossed the lakshman rekha herself", "she wanted a deer that attracted her", etc.
Focusing on the agni pariksha incident itself, I don't know if Valmiki goes into details on the Rama-Sita conversation after Rama learns about his citizens' doubts. I have a strong feeling that Sita herself suggested to Rama that the best course for him as the king, and her as queen, is to subject herself to agni pariksha. While the husband may have no doubts on his wife, one holding public office does need to take his citizens' views into account.
(image courtesy awara32.blogspot.com)
And, I hate that Sita is sometimes depicted as crying on hearing about the agni pariksha (remember Ramayan from the late 80s-early 90s?), whether hurt by Rama's decision or for any other reason. That women are the crying type is a stereotype that's not very accurate. I think the sorrow was felt most on the part of the citizens, to see their beloved queen subjected to a test only because some among them had doubts. (If I might mix a bit of theology in, Rama and Sita being the Lord and His consort herself cannot have experienced any sorrow anyway, they were merely playing their role.)
That said, I can't understand why Sita had to leave Rama. Having stayed with him through hardships a princess would not be accustomed to, being abducted, and so on, why did she have to leave him after the agni pariksha? Somehow a perfect marriage and couple seem slightly imperfect. She didn't seem to question any of his actions until then - not why he came late to reclaim her, not why they had to go to the forest in the first place. Why question his decision all of a sudden?
Curiously, I don't know that Janaka (the father of Sita) expressed any opinions on his daughter's situation - to Rama or in general. Not sure if Valmiki goes into the details, but I'd be interested in learning more. In today's world, any of what Sita had to undergo would be what the father-in-law might use as grounds to push for a divorce. Was Janaka silent because he knew that his son-in-law could do no wrong? Surely, seeing one's daughter undergo an agni pariksha in public to prove her chastity must have been unbearable? (Was he already dead by that time?)
Finally, Sita does not go back to Janakapuri (which by the way is in present day Nepal). Sita goes to Valmiki's ashrama instead, and ultimately raises her two sons there. Had she gone back to her father, that would have indicated that their marriage had failed which it hadn't. Anyway, overall Sita leaving Rama and moving to Valmiki's ashrama seems to me to have served no major purpose, other than punishing Ayodhya's citizens and depriving them of the presence of their queen and of their twin princes.
On usual incognito rounds of His kingdom, he hears people talking about Sita. They doubt that any woman, even if it were Sita, would not have succumbed to a man, especially after she was under his control for months together.
(image courtest nirmukta.com)
A lot of issues at hand here, some political:
Firstly, I don't think that Sita should be viewed as the sort of helpless woman she is portrayed as normally. "She crossed the lakshman rekha herself", "she wanted a deer that attracted her", etc.
Focusing on the agni pariksha incident itself, I don't know if Valmiki goes into details on the Rama-Sita conversation after Rama learns about his citizens' doubts. I have a strong feeling that Sita herself suggested to Rama that the best course for him as the king, and her as queen, is to subject herself to agni pariksha. While the husband may have no doubts on his wife, one holding public office does need to take his citizens' views into account.
(image courtesy awara32.blogspot.com)
That said, I can't understand why Sita had to leave Rama. Having stayed with him through hardships a princess would not be accustomed to, being abducted, and so on, why did she have to leave him after the agni pariksha? Somehow a perfect marriage and couple seem slightly imperfect. She didn't seem to question any of his actions until then - not why he came late to reclaim her, not why they had to go to the forest in the first place. Why question his decision all of a sudden?
Curiously, I don't know that Janaka (the father of Sita) expressed any opinions on his daughter's situation - to Rama or in general. Not sure if Valmiki goes into the details, but I'd be interested in learning more. In today's world, any of what Sita had to undergo would be what the father-in-law might use as grounds to push for a divorce. Was Janaka silent because he knew that his son-in-law could do no wrong? Surely, seeing one's daughter undergo an agni pariksha in public to prove her chastity must have been unbearable? (Was he already dead by that time?)
Finally, Sita does not go back to Janakapuri (which by the way is in present day Nepal). Sita goes to Valmiki's ashrama instead, and ultimately raises her two sons there. Had she gone back to her father, that would have indicated that their marriage had failed which it hadn't. Anyway, overall Sita leaving Rama and moving to Valmiki's ashrama seems to me to have served no major purpose, other than punishing Ayodhya's citizens and depriving them of the presence of their queen and of their twin princes.
