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, people believed him to be the embodiment of Dharma and the incarnation of Vishnu, the Preserver. His rule was blameless, and people today hanker after Rama-Rajya, a government conducted like Lord Ram himself.
His endeavors were only to establish Dharma.
However, if Ram had done those deeds in today’s India, he could 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 the Indian Penal Code
When he was just 16 years old, Lord Ram 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 succor in escaping the comeuppance.
The 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 slew Vali by hiding behind a tree. These murders put him under section 302 of IPC and 307 of IPC that stands for murder and attempt to murder.
The 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 AMSARA 1958, if a person ruins a protected art craft, he shall be punishable with imprisonment, extending to two years, or with a fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or both.
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 would have had to think a while. Yes, section 9 of the wildlife act 1972 prohibits hunting wild animals, and section 51 can put him behind bars for three years or with a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees or both.
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 agonize over the Agni Pariksha to prove her sanctity. Despite all this, he banished pregnant Sita from Ayodhya to the forest. If it were now, under section 31 in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Ram would have to suffer the ramifications of his deeds.
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 slew innocent Sudra, Shambuka, as he was acting out penance for self-rejuvenation. It was against laws for Sudras to do penance in those days. But, our constitution provided a special emphasis on scheduled and backward classes. And according to sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, anyone is punishable if found doing atrocities against them.
Rama slaying Shambuka when ordered by his guru.
All the above are the deeds done in India. But can also be subjected to the laws of the Sri Lankan government. You don’t believe me, Right? The exile prince, Rama, led a secret mission in a foreign land, Sri Lanka. He entered it without a visa by constructing a bridge. Not only this, he waged war against the then Sri Lankan King, Ravana, and killed him. So the Sri Lankan government will have all the right to prosecute him if he had done all this in the present day’s setting.
About the Author
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
Very very false narrative. Partial knowledge. You have related apples to oranges.
Totally flawed.