Questioning the Ramayana with Feminism

Yesterday, while my dad was driving my sister and I back to Emory after Fall Break, we randomly broke into a conversation about the Ramayana. My sister, who is also taking a Hindu Traditions class, mentioned that she never knew about Sita's exile while pregnant, and we all talked about how appalled we were that Rama, someone of great moral character and supposedly an ideal husband, would just abandon his wife. My dad even said "I'm surprised your mom never told you that when you were young, seeing how she always jumps at the chance to put down a respected male figure." The unfortunate, yet obvious truth is that during the time of the Ramayana, the status of women was very low. I don't think India has made much progress compared to the west since then. My speculation is that until recently, people didn't feel like they could question Rama's actions, especially since he is the reincarnation of one of the most powerful and respected gods in the Hindu pantheon. That's probably why my mom never mentioned the last half of the story. Since the rise of the feminist movement, that attitude has changed, and now more people feel like they can ask questions about Rama's treatment of Sita and defend her. Sita Sings the Blues and "Bhavabhūti on Cruelty and Compassion" depict and break down the Ramayana through a feminist lens (I think it's important to note here that both were done by westerners, as opposed to Indian Hindus).

It's interesting to see how people's ideas of what someone's righteous duty can change through time, and in "Bhavabhūti on Cruelty and Compassion," David Shulman raises the question of what Rama's duty was. He says that "It is all to easy to say that Rāma, in so far as he is committed to his royal dharmic duty, is cruel--or that dharma itself, in this public context, belongs to the hardened, surface crust of existence." This could reflect the thoughts of Rama's defenders--Rama was doing the right thing by sacrificing his marriage and happiness for the good of the kingdom. The more modern attitude of people who sympathize with Sita, like in Sita Sings the Blues, might be that Rama's righteous duty was to stay with his family and help raise his boys. He could have easily abdicated the throne when he heard that he was losing respect among his subjects. Bharata was a righteous king while Rama and Sita were in exile, and he could have ruled again.