One of the stories in the Ramayana never made sense to me as a kid when I first came across it on television. It still doesn't. I may not have all the details right but the broad strokes of it is: Sita, Lord Rama's wife, is kidnapped by the demon Ravana. After much warring and what not, Sita is rescued from the demon. However, when it comes time for Sita to return to her king and kingdom, Rama banishes her to the forest. He listens to rumours from his subjects doubting the purity of his wife. To uphold his duty to the throne, he decides to not bring Sita back.

I find the whole thing difficult to digest because Rama is supposed to be a morally upright character. In this case I suppose he is deemed to show his uprightness by in a way sacrificing his own happiness for the good of the kingdom. What bothers me is that 'good' here is equated to submitting to the opinions or gossip of random people (even if subjects), to maintaining a fragile notion of reputation, to keeping up appearances instead of siding with truth, to hurting someone who loved and was loyal to him, and so on. I think what I felt then as I do now is that moral strength or goodness must be about doing what is good despite what other people might feel, say, or think. It must be internally calibrated. If it follows the direction of people sentiment, what good is it?