Understanding Dharma: Why Rama agreed to go into exile
In India, we grow up listening to the Ramayana, and relate to it in many ways— as an inspiring story, as a religious text, as an expression of our glorious heritage. Some even doubt its historical authenticity, calling it a myth. However, regardless of one's opinion, the ongoing relevance of the Ramayana lies in its portrayal of dharma. In the opening verses of the epic, Valmiki makes his purpose clear – to compose a work about a man who is the epitome of dharmic action.
को न्वस्मिन् साम्प्रतं लोके गुणवान् कश्च वीर्यवान् |
धर्मज्ञश्च कृतज्ञश्च सत्यवाक्यो दृढव्रतः || १-१-२
Is there someone who lives amongst us presently—saampratam loke, who is gunavan—full of virtue, veeryavan—courageous, dharmagnya—understands dharma, kritagya—ever grateful, satyavakyo—truthful, and dhridavratah—resolute in action?
The key term here is dharmagnya – someone who understands dharma. The word "dharma" is notoriously hard to translate into English and is often misunderstood as meaning duty. While duty is certainly one aspect of dharma, it does not capture its full meaning.
Dharma is not about blindly following morality. It is about critical thinking that enables making intelligent choices and performing unselfish actions, always with the good of the many in mind. Rama was a knower of dharma who understood the subtleties of righteous action. This meant that in a dharmasankat—dilemma about what action is truly righteous—he knew which dharma to uphold and which to let go. It is easy to follow preset rules of conduct, but much more challenging to be dharmic.
As a man of dharma, Rama never did anything against the public good, even at how own personal cost. It is commonly believed that Rama went into exile because he obeyed his father unquestioningly; however, this perspective is not supported by the text. At no point does Dasharatha command Rama to leave. It is just the opposite; he asks him to stay!
अहम् राघव कैकेय्या वर दानेन मोहितः |
अयोध्यायाः त्वम् एव अद्य भव राजा निगृह्य माम् || २-३४-२६
I was deluded by Kaikeyi through the boon I granted her. Imprison me and be the king of Ayodhya.
If Rama were to merely follow his father’s commands, he should have listened to him and not gone away. His father told him to disregard the promise he had given Kaikeyi, but Rama did not agree because it was not dharma. He went to the forest because he felt it was the right thing to do in the circumstances. The circumstances were: 1. His father would accrue bad karma for the adharma of breaking his promise. 2. Bharata was a virtuous and capable replacement.
Therefore, he tells Kaikeyi
अनुक्तः अपि अत्रभवता भवत्या वचनात् अहम् |
वने वत्स्यामि विजने वर्षाणि इह चतुर् दश || २-१९-२
Even though not ordered by my father, I will honor your request and spend fourteen years in the forest.
Rama in effect disobeys Dasharatha by leaving. He says:
भवान् वर्ष सहस्राय पृथिव्या नृपते पतिः |
अहम् तु अरण्ये वत्स्यामि न मे कार्यम् त्वया अनृतम् || २-३४-२८
O King! You are the ruler of the earth for a thousand years, but I must go live in the forest because you must not do what is improper for my sake.
Still Dasharatha objects:
न चैतन्मे प्रियम् पुत्र शपे सत्येन राघव |
छन्नया छलितस्त्वस्नु स्त्रुया छन्नाग्निकल्पया || २-३४-३६
Son, I find your decision to leave unacceptable. I was cheated by Kaikeyi, who was deceptive about her intentions.
The following verse explains why Rama believed that his leaving Ayodhya would not harm the kingdom or its people. He voices his confidence in Bharata’s ability to rule. This was an essential consideration in his decision to leave and uphold the dharma of keeping a promise:
मया निसृष्टाम् भरतः महीम् इमाम् |
सशैल खण्डाम् सपुराम् सकाननाम् |
शिवाम् सुसीमाम् अनुशास्तु केवलम् |
त्वया यद् उक्तम् नृपते यथा अस्तु तत् || २-३४-५६
Bharata will justly govern this land of mountains, gardens, and cities. Let the promise you have made be kept.
Therefore, we should understand that if Bharata were not capable of ruling, it would not have been dharma for Rama to go to the forest. Dharma is situational. What is dharma in one circumstance may not be dharma in another. This is what adds complexity to deciding on what constitutes dharmic action. It takes someone exceptional to navigate the nuances of dharma, and Rama is the most fitting example of such a person.