Swami replied: You have used two words: kindness and justice, which can’t go together like water and fire. The human incarnation of Rama was purely for Pravrutti of the humanity. He left even His dearest wife, Sita for the sake of justice in the administration of a ruler. A ruler should take care of the comments of every citizen in his kingdom. Even though the comments were passed on Sita by a washer man in the state of over drink of wine, Rama cared for it because the truth hidden in the sub-conscious state comes out after drinking wine! This means that Rama cared even the sub-conscious state of public in His rule! Rama can never do injustice since Rama is praised as the materialised form of justice (Ramo vigrahavaan dharmah). We get doubts by misunderstanding the truth. If you know the truth of the action of Ramadas and Rama, such remarks will not come out. Let us examine the facts in reality, not basing on the distorted facts of the cinema on Ramadas, which is seen by all leading to such misunderstandings.
Ramadas was appointed as Tahasildar of Golkonda District by the Muslim ruler called as Taanisha ruling the kingdom of Hyderabad. Akkanna and Maadanna were the two ministers of Taanisha. Both these ministers are Hindus and Taanisha was a Muslim. At the outset, you must appreciate Taanisha for his broad mind beyond the conservative path of religion. Both these ministers were uncles of Ramadas. Due to the recommendation of both these ministers, Ramadas got the appointment. Ramadas was the greatest devotee of Lord Rama and there is no doubt in this. Ramadas built a temple for Lord Rama in Bhadrachalam using the public tax, which has to be transferred to king Taanisha as per the basic fundamental duty of any Government employee. This is the basic justice. You should not support Ramadas as far as the failure of his basic duties are concerned. You should not bring the issue of religion in this case saying that Taanisha is a Muslim and Ramadas is a Hindu devotee constructing Hindu temple. Even if Ramadas built a Mosque instead of Temple, Taanisha should have punished him because the case is not regarding religion and devotion to God, but, it is regarding the failure of fundamental duty of an employee in the Government. Devotion shall never contradict justice in Pravrutti. You may bring the concept that in the climax of devotion or Nivrutti, even justice should be sacrificed as told in the Gita (Sarvadharmaan...). I can accept this point if the devotion is fair. In the case of Ramadas, his devotion is totally false due to his ignorance in the analysis. Had Ramadas built the temple spending savings of his personal salary or at least spending his ancestral property, the devotion could have been fair. The devotion is false because the sacrifice of fruit of work (karmaphalatyaga) of Ramadas was not correct since the temple was neither built by his personal salary nor built by spending his ancestral property. Devotion means sacrifice of the fruit of one’s own hard work and not sacrificing the money of Government secretly for the sake of God! God will never relish such false money, which is totally and fundamentally sinful. This can be realised if you analyze the real devotion, which is the basis of real sacrifice of fruit of work. Ramadas never did any true sacrifice to Lord Rama and his devotion is false because not a single rupee spent for temple belongs to the savings of salary or to his ancestral property. He felt that the sacrificed money for temple is his money and posed as if he is the real devotee of Rama spending his own money for the temple!
Money of King Not Be Spent for Any Purpose Including Divine Service Without PermissionThree sins were committed by Ramadas due to ignorance: 1) His theoretical devotion is greatest and at the same time totally false since the money sacrificed to God is not his earned property or ancestral property. Even if the money sacrificed to God is unlawful earning like earning through corruption, it can be justified to a small extent by saying that it is his earned property. The earned property might be sinful due to ignorance, but, on realisation sin was recognized and hence sacrifice of sinful money was done to God, who alone can digest it! There is a way to support the sinner in this possibility. 2) Ramadas diverted the tax to be passed on to the Government for the construction of the temple, which cannot be supported in any way. He should have at least taken the prior permission from the king to spend for such purpose. Without taking the permission and without the knowledge of the king, the money of king should not be spent for any purpose including divine service. He should have spent his own earned savings for the divine work and even a small room with just four stones is sufficient to become a temple. Rama never asked Ramadas to build a temple by spending the collected public tax. Rama was the greatest ruler and His strict administration brought Him the eternal name as ‘kingdom of Rama’ (Rama raajyam). 3) When he was severely punished for his failure of fundamental duty, he sang several beautiful songs on Lord Rama scolding Him for the delay in protecting him! These songs give picture as if he has sacrificed his own money (earning or ancestral property) to the temple of Rama and as if Rama was very cruel delaying his justified protection. He sings in one song “I presented golden jewels to You, Lakshmana and Sita by spending so much amount. You are enjoying the decoration by these jewels thinking as if it is the property of your father!” On one side sin was done and the same sin was projected as if it is his good sacrifice and on the other side he is scolding Rama as if Rama asked him for those jewels! Are these jewels the property of Ramadas or the property of his father? I am putting these questions to him as representative of Rama.
In cinema on Ramadas, facts were distorted to save the personality of Ramadas. It is presented as if he collected the public donations for the temple. The fact is that he diverted the tax to the temple and this is clearly proved since Rama returned that money to Taanisha but not to public. Rama kept silent on the punishments since his sin was multi-faced. Ramadas asks Rama in one song “O Sitaa Raamaswami! What are the mistakes done by me?” This means that he has not realised his fundamental mistake and this is the reason for the silence of Rama. Punishment is given by God Rama and Taanisha was only a doll medium. Punishment is for reformation of the soul and not for vengeance. Rama is actually kind in continuing the punishment till the reformation of the soul is reached and this is not the cruel attitude of Rama. The creation of hell to punish the sinners severely shows only the kindness of God to at least reform the souls temporarily so that less number of sins are only done by them. Without realising this inner love of God, Ramadas approached Sita to influence Rama for his protection as clear from his song. Sita represents the creation or a devoted soul and easily melts like mother without understanding the ultimate goal of the father in reforming the issue. Then, Rama has to act due to this back door approach influencing the home department! Rama appeared before Taanisha paying all the tax diverted by Ramadas. You must appreciate the administration of Rama: 1) He gave His personal vision to Taanisha and not to Ramadas because the money spent for Him belongs to Taanisha and not to Ramadas. 2) He rectified the fundamental mistake of Ramadas for diverting the public tax to His temple by paying the total amount along with interest (since the gold coin in the kingdom of Rama is several times higher than the coin of Taanisha). By this, Rama clearly proved that the money belongs to Taanisha only and not to Ramadas in anyway. The fruit of the sacrifice of fruit (money) was given by God to Taanisha only by appearing before him.
Response of Rama Through His Practical ActionsRama clearly answered all the questions of Ramadas put in his songs through His practical action. Ramadas is in the line of ‘Vaishaya bhakti’, which means practical fruit from God for practical sacrifice of devotee. This line is certainly better than ‘Veshyaa bhakti’, which is aspiring practical fruit from God for theoretical devotion of devotee. No doubt, Ramadas spent money for God. But, this first line of devotion is cracked in the foundation itself since it is the money of the king and not his money, which is the first crime. The second crime is posing himself as a devotee of the first line as if he has spent his own money. The third crime is to scold the Lord for not maintaining the fundamental justice of first line. The actual highest concept is to donate your own hard earned money to God or at least money from your ancestral property or at the worst money earned by you through sinful ways like corruption. None of these three ways can apply to the case of Ramadas, who donated others’ money to God without getting their prior permission! In this highest concept, you should not aspire any fruit from God in return for your practical sacrifice, which is the real proof of your real love to God (Nivrutti). Ramadas does not touch this Nivrutti-line at any point. In the Pravrutti-line, one can aspire fruit from God in return following God’s policy, which is theoretical fruit for theoretical devotion and practical fruit for practical devotion (ye yathaa maam... Gita). He aspired practical fruit from God, which is His protection for His theoretical devotion by singing songs! Such protection is also from the punishment of a fundamental sin done to divert the tax for his own desire without taking permission from the owner of the tax. Therefore, you can’t justify Ramadas in anyway, who is questioning Rama that He appeared before a Muslim but not a strong Hindu like him. God is above any religion and Taanisha and his succeeding dynasty worshipped Rama by sending pearls to the function of marriage of Rama on every Shri Rama Navami day conducted in the temple. In fact, Rama went out of the way and gave practical protection for his theoretical devotion due to recommendation from Sita (Shakti).This clearly proves that God Rama is always kind hearted and the protector of justice in the entire world irrespective of caste, creed and religion.
Hence, the case of Ramadas is disposed with no costs.
At the lotus feet of Shri Datta Swami