Dear uneducated liberals, stop demonizing Sri Ram

Dear pseudo feminists and manginas from the far far left,

Around this time of year, you lot start ranting about how Bhagwan Ram was a crazy misogynist who set his wife on fire, and how you have sworn against Ram Navami, Dusshera or the chant of “Jai Shree Ram”. The pseudo intellectuals from Bengal added their tadka of “Ram is of the North” to it.

Honestly, as a proud Hindu, I am sinfully tempted to say, “Go F**K yourself with that half-baked knowledge, no one gives a tiny rat’s slimy @$$ about your BS”. But, let me embrace that “sisterhood” badge you ladies flaunt with pride and educate you a little.

1.) The ‘misogynistic’ Ram gave up his kingdom so a selfish wish of a WOMAN (Kaikai) could be entertained.

2.) The ‘misogynistic’ Ram helped a WOMAN (Ahalya) in breaking out of a curse that had turned her into a rock.

3.) The ‘misogynistic’ Ram chose to visit a destitute old WOMAN (Sabari), and accept her half-bitten berries, turning down the sumptuous meals prepared by hundreds of other yogis.

4.) After Ravana’s death, much like the culture your celebrated foreign Emperors perpetuated – taking the loser’s wife as a sex slave, Ram could have taken Mandodari into his Harem. But Ram had no Harem. He had a heart; he assured that Mandodari would remain the almighty queen of Lanka. He also encouraged her to marry a second time (mind it, we are talking about vidhwa-vivah i.e. widow remarriage, whereas you lot think the practice of sati was the norm in Hindu society). Again, read the words – he encouraged, not forced, her towards remarriage and to claim her position as the empress.

Coming to your real problem with Ram, his equation with Sita –

1.) In a time when polygamy was the custom, Ram agreed to Sita’s demand of being the only wife he’d ever have. Our dude was the most eligible bachelor in town and women would throw themselves on him. He didn’t HAVE TO marry Sita, but he honored her condition anyway.

2.) When Sita was out in the woods and Ram needed a better-half to perform the Ashwamedha Yagna, he could have been like, “Eff that promise, I am marrying again”. Instead he placed a golden statue of Sita next to him.

3.) Let’s not discount all those years of abstinence he endured, being a man, being an Emperor. All Sita had asked of him was to not have another wife, and we very well know that Kings didn’t really need a “wife” to gain some lady companionship. But Ram remained true to his wife.

4.) Now the Maha Episode (which is not even included in the original Ramayana) – the Agni Pariksha. Sita, though not a pseudo feminist like yourself, was a woman of unmatched might – physical and mental. Her decisions never sought her husband’s permission. To enter the fire (sorry to burst your little bubble) was Sita’s decision, not Ram’s order. And so was her final decision to return to the womb of Mother Earth. Now wouldn’t you feminists lose it if a man (Ram) tried to dissuade a woman (Sita) from her decision and freewill? You know that, #MyBodyMyChoice thing?

If you rubbish these details as fiction, that much debated “Agnipariksha” you keep selling to the anti-Ram morcha reduces to fiction automatically. Now, whether or not you like it, Sri Ram will remain revered till the end of time. Your vilification will last as long as you do. The painful irony is, when you check out from this world, the only chant that shall accompany you is “Ram Naam Satya Hai”.

Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.



Sign up to receive HinduPost content in your inbox

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.