Siya ke Ram Analysis

This is just a comparision not meant to hurt anybody

Rules don’t make ram
Both Ramayana and Mahabharata are about human society and about rules. In the Ramayana, Ram follows the rules but in the Mahabharata, Krishna breaks the rules. We are told both are righteous. Both uphold dharma. Both are forms of God. Both fight corruption. How can that be?
In the Ramayana, the villain breaks rules. Neither Surpanaka nor Ravan respect the laws of marriage. Surpanakha uses force to get rid of competition and get herself a desirable mate. Ravan uses cunning to steal another man’s only wife, despite having many of his own. In contrast, in the Mahabharata, the villain does not break a single rule. No one – neither Bhisma nor Drona nor Karna nor the Pandavas – cry foul when a woman is dragged and disrobed in public, as technically Duryodhan has not broken a single rule in the gambling hall. A rule-following Ram can combat a rule-breaking Ravan. But would he succeed against a rule-following villain like Duryodhan? That is why even God had to change his avatar, and become Krishna, who bends the laws of nature, and gets cloth to materialize to rescue Draupadi from her shame
Ram vs pandavas.

It is curious that the forest-exile is central to both Ramayana and Mahabharata, the twin epics of India. In the Ramayana, Ram goes into exile so that his father can keep his word to his step-mother, Kaikeyi. In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas go into exile following an agreement with their cousins, the Kauravas, when they lose their kingdom in a gambling match.
The reaction to the exile in both epics is starlingly different. In the Ramayana, Ram keeps saying that neither Kaikeyi nor his father should be blamed and the moment should be accepted as an act of destiny. In the Mahabharata, Pandavas keep blaming Kauravas and their uncle, Shakuni, for fraud and trickery.

Ram looks calm and peaceful, even though he is clearly the victim of palace politics. The Pandavas on the other hand are angry and furious, never once taking responsibility for the fact that they gambled away their kingdom.
The loss of kingdom and exile into the forest is a metaphor for misfortune. But the approach to it distinguishes Ram from the Pandavas and makes the former a king worthy of worshipThe former take responsibility for a situation, even if they are not to blame. The latter do not take responsibility for a situation, even if they are to blame.