On Sita's chastity and Tara's....

I'd never been a big fan of Sita, nor have I really appreciated the idea of her being upheld as the epitome of chastity among Indian women. Disregarding her avatar status, to me, she had always come across as a somewhat timid woman, who chose to be known as Rama's wife, all her life. Her martyrdom on the altar of royalty-politics only annoyed me. In other words, I perceived her as a woman who did not stand up for herself.

And I was surely not alone in thinking so. Modern women are still unwilling to take Sita as their role model for obvious reasons. Fans of Nirbhaya would rather identify themselves with the fiery Draupadi.

This was until I came to know more about two other women characters from the Ramayana, namely Tara and Mandodari.

Both Tara, the wife of Vali, and Mandodari, the wife of Ravana are counted among the five panchakanyas - the eternal virgins - whose names when invoked is believed to cleanse one of all sins.

The curious thing common to these two beautiful and wise women (and to the other panchakanyas including Kunti, Draupadi and Ahalya as well) is that they have 'known' other men besides their own husbands.

Tara, who was married to Vali, became Sugriva’s consort after the death of her husband at the hands of Rama. According to some versions of the Ramayana, she was actually Sugriva’s wife who was appropriated by Vali over a matter of misunderstanding between the two brothers <<click link for the story>. She lived peacefully with Vali and even had a son through him, Angad, who was crowned the heir apparent of Kishkinda. After Vali’s death, Tara returned once again to live with Sugriva. Similarly, Mandodari married Vibhishana after the death of her husband, Ravana, on the advice of Rama and retained her status as the queen of Lanka.

Scholars believe that the marriage of these women to the newly crowned kings of Kishkinda and Lanka was one of convenience aimed at ensuring the stability of these kingdoms. Thus Tara and Mandodari, it appears, allowed themselves to be used as pawns in a larger political game.

Now, contrast these two women to Sita. While, Tara and Mandodari (and for that matter the other 'panchakanyas' as well) had more than one man forced upon them, Sita refused to take any man other than her own wedded partner. Her refusal to comply with the misplaced desires of a lusty man and her heightened sense of dignity and self-respect point to Sita's independent spirit – a rare privilege for women to have in those days when they were merely treated as property to be usurped and enjoyed as the spoils of war.

It may be argued that the accepted moralities of that era were different for different people and that among the vanaras, the multiple partners that Tara took may have been perfectly acceptable. In the case of Mandodari’s marriage to Vibhishana, scholars argue that Ravana’s line may have been matrilineal and only through his marriage to Mandodari could Vibhishana claim rights to the throne of Lanka.  Whatever the case may be, it appears that neither Tara nor Mandodari expressed their dissent or showed resentment to being played around with by the men. On the contrary, it appears that they simply reconciled themselves to the life choices others made for them.

And that’s where Sita differs from them. She had a mind of her own. She chose dignity over damnation by rejecting Ravana.

During the few months she spent at Ashokavana, she was repeatedly tortured by Ravana into submitting to his will. But she remained unmoved to his repeated cajoling and threats. Even in the direst of circumstances (when she is shown the beheaded head of Rama, created by Ravana’s magic) and in the absence of any information on her husband's whereabouts, she chose to put up a fight, refusing to budge to Ravana’s coercion. (Sarga 56 of the Aranya Kanda in the Valmiki Ramayana is dedicated to the arguments that Sita had with Ravana, while fending off his advances, which throws light on her character.)

Of course, it helped that Ravana had a curse on his head that would not let him touch any woman without her consent. But, nowhere does it appear that Sita was aware of Ravana’s curse. Thus, Sita could have easily gone the way of Tara, reconciling herself to a destiny with her abductor. Even if she had, she'd not have belied the expectations her society had of her.

But the fact remains that she did not.

By rejecting the powerful Ravana's advances, Sita proved that a woman was not all body but had a mind of her own too.

In this context, I also wonder if the Agnipariksha episode that is held against Ram by the feminists of today was actually meant to prove Sita’s superior character to the world where women were considered nothing but wealth to be garnered and enjoyed as 'bhogha'. By taking the fire ritual and coming out unscathed, Sita proved to the world that she was a cut above the rest...one who travelled her own path.

Viewed from this angle, Sita stands tall among the mythological figures, not for her chastity, but rather as a woman who fought to uphold her right to dignity, the right to choose her partner and the right to consensual sex.