~by Muhammad Fajr
I have seen people trying to hide the fact that sita was 6 during the Marriage. However there are no less than 3 proofs that sita was 6 during Marriage. Honestly saying this is not to malign a Religion. This is only to answer those who unnecessarily try to malign Islam just to earn Money. So Here are the 3 Proofs that Sita was not more than 6 during Marriage. I will also address the two types of rebuttals which they pose.
The first incident happens when Ravana comes in disguise to abduct sita. And Sita wrongfully though him to be a Brahman Priest.
Valmiki Ramayan ,Arankya Kand, sarga 47, shlokas 11a
रावणेन तु वैदेही तदा पृष्टा जिहीर्षुणा |
परिव्राजक रूपेण शशंस आत्मानम् आत्मना |1| ब्राह्मणः च अतिथिः च एष अनुक्तो हि शपेत माम् |
इति ध्यात्वा मुहूर्तम् तु सीता वचनम् अब्रवीत् |2| दुहिता जनकस्य अहम् मैथिलस्य महात्मनः |
सीता नाम्ना अस्मि भद्रम् ते रामस्य महिषी प्रिया |3| उषित्वा द्वा दश समाः इक्ष्वाकूणाम् निवेशने |
भुंजाना मानुषान् भोगान् सर्व काम समृद्धिनी |4| तत्र त्रयो दशे वर्षे राज अमंत्र्यत प्रभुः |
अभिषेचयितुम् रामम् समेतो राज मन्त्रिभिः |5| तस्मिन् संभ्रियमाणे तु राघवस्य अभिषेचने |
कैकेयी नाम भर्तारम् मम आर्या याचते वरम् |6| प्रतिगृह्य तु कैकेयी श्वशुरम् सुकृतेन मे |
मम प्रव्राजनम् भर्तुर् भरतस्य अभिषेचनम् |7| द्वौ अयाचत भर्तारम् सत्यसंधम् नृपोत्तमम् | न अद्य भोक्ष्ये न च स्वप्स्ये न पास्ये कदाचन |8| एष मे जीवितस्य अन्तो रामो यदि अभिषिच्यते |
इति ब्रुवाणाम् कैकेयीम् श्वशुरो मे स पार्थिवः |9| अयाचत अर्थैः अन्वर्थैः न च यांचाम् चकार सा | मम भर्ता महातेजा वयसा पंच विंशकः |10| अष्टा दश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते |11a
When Ravana whose intention is to abduct her has enquired thus, then on the basis of his Brahman friar’s mien Seetha informed about herself on her own. Thinking briefly that, ‘he is a Brahman and an untimely guest, he will indeed curse me if he is not replied,’ Seetha spoke this sentence. I am the daughter of noble-souled Janaka, the king of Mithila, by name I am Seetha, and the dear wife and queen of Rama, let safety betide you. On residing in the residence of Ikshvaku-s in Ayodhya for twelve years, I was in sumptuosity of all cherishes while relishing all humanly prosperities. In the thirteenth year the lordly king Dasharatha deliberated together with his imperial ministers to anoint Rama as Crown Prince of Ayodhya. When Raghava’s anointment was being organised my venerable mother-in-law known as Kaikeyi begged her husband Dasharatha for a boon. Restraining my veracious father-in-law by a good deed once done by her in his respect, Kaikeyi besought two boons from him, namely expatriation of my husband, and anointment of her son Bharata. If Rama is anointed now, come what may I will not eat, sleep, or drink, and my life ends this way,’ thus Kaikeyi was adamantine, and the king and my father-in-law entreated her who is nagging with meaningful riches, but she did not make good on that entreaty. My great-resplendent husband was of twenty-five years of age at that time, and to me eighteen years are reckoned up from my birth.
So What do we find out from the passage is that Sita says to Ravana that she lived in Ayodhya for 12 years with her husband. And Dasharath in the thirteenth year decided to appoint Rama as the Prince of Ayodhya. And then in Shloka 10 and half part of 11 represented as 11a She says Rama was 25 and she was 18. Going back in time 18-12=6 years. So sita was 6 in his own words.
A very same wording is used by Sita when she describes the incidents that had happened. This is What she says.
Valmiki Ramayan ,Sunadar kanda, sarga 33, Shlokas 17b to 19a
समा द्वादश तत्र अहम् राघवस्य निवेशने |17|
भुन्जाना मानुषान् भोगान् सर्व काम समृद्धिनी | ततः त्रयोदशे वर्षे राज्येन इक्ष्वाकु नन्दनम् |18|
अभिषेचयितुम् राजा स उपाध्यायः प्रचक्रमे |
I stayed in Rama’s house there for twelve years, enjoying the worldly pleasures belonging to human kind and fulfilling all my desires. Thereafter, in the thirteenth year, King Dasaratha along with his preceptors started to perform anointment of the kingdom to Rama, a celebrity of Ikshvaku dynasty.
In the previous narration we saw Rama was 25 and sita was 18. So again going back it comes 18-12=6 years.
This is nothing but an alternative which gives foundation to the above to points.
Valmiki Ramayan, Bal kanda, sarga 20, shloka 2
ऊन षोडश वर्षो मे रामो राजीव लोचनः |
न युद्ध योग्यताम् अस्य पश्यामि सह राक्षसैः ||
Less than sixteen years of age is my lotus-eyed Rama, and I see no warring aptitude to him with the demons.
By seeing this verse someone may ask why Less than 16 why not exact age. Well! He is being requisitioned for war and inspite of the fact that he is Kshatriya he cannot participate because he is less than 16 which is legal age for going into battle.
Then We see the narration of Mareecha where he warns Ravana and narrates the incident which happened at dandaka Forest. And he says
Valmiki Ramayan, Arankya Kanda, sarga 37, Shloka 6b and 7a
ऊन द्वादश वर्षो अयम् अकृत अस्त्रः च राघवः ||
कामम् तु मम यत् सैन्यम् मया सह गमिष्यति |
This boy Rama is less than twelve years in his age, unproficient in the use of weapons, and if need be, whatever army of mine is there it will march on along with me instead of Rama.
Now Mareecha further lessens the age. But We know that when Rama was in Dandaka forest he was already married. So if at that time he was less than 12 and from previous narration we found that the age difference is 25-18=7. Then 12-7=5 years. So We come to the conclusion that she was somewhere between 5 and 6 during the marriage.
Supported by Puranas
Puranas support my claim. Although some Hindus are ready to consider them authentic.
Skanda Purana Book, III, Section 2, Chapter 30, Verses 8-9
The bow of Isvara that was kept in the abode of Janaka, was broken. In his fifteenth year, O king, Rama married the six year old beautiful daughter of the king of Mithila, Sita who was not born of a womb. On getting Sita, Raghava became contented and happy.
So Now see the Rebuttals which they pose.
They say that the words द्वादश is not द्वादश but द्वा दश where दश stands for Dasharatha. Thus they explain proof 1 and 2 as follows:
3.47.4 & 3.47.5 : Sita told Ravana (before abduction) about the time she spent after marriage in Ayodhya
उषित्वा द्वा दश समा इक्ष्वाकुणां निवेशने। भुञ्जाना मानुषान्भोगान्सर्वकामसमृद्धिनी।।
She had been in Ikshwaku dynasty of King Dashratha for two years and got all the materialistic pleasure available for human kind.
ततस्त्रयोदशे वर्षे राजामन्त्रयत प्रभुः। अभिषेचयितुं रामं समेतो राजमन्त्रिभिः।।
Thereafter, in the third year, the king and lord Dasaratha consulted other kings and ministers to consecrate Rama.
NOTE: Here दश is not used for ten but for Dashratha.
3.47.10 : Sita told Ravana (before abduction) about her age at the time of Vanavas (Exile)
मम भर्तामहातेजा वयसा पञ्चविंशकः। अष्टादश हि वर्षाणि मम जन्मनि गण्यते।।
My husband who was very bold was twentyfive years and I had completed eighteen years since my birth.
So it is very clear that
Age of Sita at the time of marriage = Age of Sita at the time of exile – time spent in Ayodhya
18-2 = 16 years
This is the same way they describe proof two.
There are two points here, first is In none of the Manuscripts the word द्वादश is written as द्वा दश. Just for convenience.
The second point is that in verse 10 the word अष्टा दश appears if you take it be 8 years then it would mean that Sita was –4 years at the time of Marriage[which is not possible] or if you calculate again as you have calculated then it comes to 6.
This is not a rebuttal but merely a argument to escape. They say in Balkanda sarga 50 shloka 17 to 19 it says Rama was mature similarly at another place it says sita was Mature. So they were not 12 and 6 respectively.
We already know that previously people were Mature by as young as age 3. And that the age of Puberty changes so it is a legal marriage but still the age is 6 for sita and 12 for Rama.
It is evident from sources itself that Sita was 6 and Rama was 12 at the time of Marriage.