in

Prosecuting The Embodiment Of Dharma – Lord Rama

Prosecuting The Embodiment Of Dharma - Lord Rama 7

Article 14 of The Indian Constitution provides equality before law according to which everyone is equal before law.

Guys let me make it crystal clear, it is just a fictional work, don’t take it to heart. My effort is to prosecute past actions with the present-day laws.

So, coming back to our beloved King Rama, he was believed to be the embodiment of Dharma and the incarnation of Vishnu, the Preserver. His rule was blameless that people today hanker after Rama-Rajya, a government conducted like that of Lord Ram himself. His endeavors were only to establish Dharma.

However, if Ram had done those deeds in today’s India, he can be booked under many sections according to our Indian Penal Code and other laws. I am not kidding, you guys. Lord Ram can be booked under the subsequent sections for the deeds he has done.

  • Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
    Lord Ram, when he was just 16 years old shot Tataka and Subhahu to death as instructed by Sage Vishwamitra. He was a juvenile then, so the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 will give him succour to escape the comeuppance.

    Prosecuting The Embodiment Of Dharma - Lord Rama 8
    Killing of Tataka (Left), Subhahu (Right)

    In the later years, his brother Laxmana injured Surpanaka that could have led to her death with Ram’s prompt. Not only this, Rama slayed Vali by hiding behind a tree. These murders put him under section 302 of IPC and 307 of IPC that stands for offence of murder and attempt to murder.

Slaying of Vali (Left), Humilation of Surpanak (Right)
Slaying of Vali (Left), Humilation of Surpanak (Right)
  • Section 30 of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 (AMASRA 1958)
    Lord Ram, in the bridegroom selection ceremony of Sita destroyed the bygone, Bow of Shiva. Nevertheless this was a fortuitous deed, but conferring to section 30 of the AMASRA 1958, if a person ruins a protected artecraft he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.
Ram destroys Shiv Dhanush
Ram destroys Shiv Dhanush
  • Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
    When Sita asked Rama to bring the golden Deer, Ram sprinted with his bow and arrow to hunt it down. But if that had happened today, Ram had to think a while. Yes, section 9 of the wild life act 1972 prohibits hunting of wild animals and section 51 can put him behind bars for three years or with a fine of twenty five thousand rupees or with both.
Killing the Golden Deer
Killing the Golden Deer
  • Section 31 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
    Ram questioned the purity of Sita in public on the shores of Lanka. He let her go agonise over the Agni Pariksha to prove her sanctity. Despite all this, he banished pregnant Sita from Ayodhya to forest. If it was now, under section 31 in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Ram will have to suffer the ramifications of his deeds.
Sita taking Agni Pariksha (Left), Sita leaving into Mother earth (Right)
Sita taking Agni Pariksha (Left), Sita leaving into Mother earth (Right)
  • Section 3(1) and 3(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
    King Rama slayed innocent Sudra, Shambuka as he was doing penance for self-rejuvenation. It was against laws for sudras to do penance in those days. But, our constitution provided special emphasis of scheduled and backward classes. And according to section 3(1) and 3(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, any one is punishable if found doing atrocities against them.
Rama slaying Shambuka when ordered by his guru
Rama slaying Shambuka when ordered by his guru

All the above are the deeds done in India. But he can also be subjected laws of Sri Lankan government. You don’t believe me, Right? The exile prince, Rama led a secret mission in the foreign land, Sri Lanka. He entered it without a visa by constructing a bridge. Not only this he waged a war again the then Sri Lankan King, Ravana and killed him. So the Sri Lankan government will have all rights to prosecute him, if he had done all this in present day’s setting.

About the Author

Sahul_N_Shekar

Sahul, a newbie with creative thoughts, novel ideas & fecund imagination. His hobbies include drawing, editing photographs and writing poetry. Apart from this, he loves reading and finds pleasure in friendship. His attitude towards life is “Preach what you Practise.”

What do you think?

Written by Sahul 'N' Shekar

A newbie with creative thinking, novel ideas and fecund imagination.

Comments

Leave a Reply
  1. Lol. Did you even bother to read the Mahabharata?
    Lord Ram did not ask Maa Sita to give Agni Pariksha nor did he banish her. Both of them were her choices. There go your arguments.

    Killing of the Rakshasas and Surpanaka were both acts of self defence. Surpanaka had lunged to kill Maa Sita and Lord Lakshman intercepted her and cut off her nose for such a cowardly act.

    Sambhooka? He was violating the law of the land. Lord Ram was the King and hence, he was the judge and the jury and the executioner. He was in no way, innocent. Your claims are false. It was allowed to everyone. However, moving the next phase of life was not allowed to anyone. Shambhooka was trying that and hence Lord Rama killed him for breaking the law. Please read up.

    I can disprove each and every claim made here. This answer and this website can become laughing stock for people. I ask the owner or the administrator to kindly remove this article or this article will be named and shamed to be Hinduphobic.

    A suggestion if you have the guts, make one of this on Prophet Mohammad. If you have the guts that is.

  2. Lol. Did you even bother to read the Mahabharata?
    Lord Ram did not ask Maa Sita to give Agni Pariksha nor did he banish her. Both of them were her choices. There go your arguments.

    Killing of the Rakshasas and Surpanaka were both acts of self defence. Surpanaka had lunged to kill Maa Sita and Lord Lakshman intercepted her and cut off her nose for such a cowardly act.

    Sambhooka? He was violating the law of the land. Lord Ram was the King and hence, he was the judge and the jury and the executioner. He was in no way, innocent. Your claims are false. It was allowed to everyone. However, moving the next phase of life was not allowed to anyone. Shambhooka was trying that and hence Lord Rama killed him for breaking the law. Please read up.

    I can disprove each and every claim made here. This answer and this website can become laughing stock for people. Please take this down.

    A suggestion if you have the guts, make one of this on Prophet Mohammad. If you have the guts that is.

  3. This article is a lie. All these things can be disproved. Criticism is one thing and blatantly lieing is other.
    This article is selling half-baked lies and I can clearly make out that the author has not read Ramaya.
    How was this article allowed to publish is beyond me.

  4. Why is article so bad?
    Each and every story of Lord Rama told here is a lie or one side of the story. Each and every claim of his can be refuted.
    Why did you not read the Ramayana before writing this answer? And why was it not fact checked?
    Shame.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Loading…

0
The Types of People You Meet If You are an Atheist 13

The Types of People You Meet If You are an Atheist

Top 10 Feminist TV Characters 14

Top 10 Feminist TV Characters