Hats off to Aditi Rao Hydari and Sonakshi Sinha
"You don't have a spine". Fan slams Katrina & closes her 70k fan page
🏏India tour of Zimbabwe 2026: 1st T20I, Harare Sports Club, Harare🏏
Divorce - Karanvir Bohra Teejay Sidhu
Salman Khan speaks out !
Alia Bhatt On Students Protest
Man with a spine!! Naseeruddin Shah speaks on student protests
Bingo Blitz: Battle Reignited (Sign Up Open)
Coming - Official Trailer - Ramayana
Kal
Reason I do not believe the age of 6 marriage is that when Janak is narrating his family history to Dasharath, he narrates the story of King Sudhanva, who demanded both Shiva's bow, and Sita's hand in marriage, which is why Seedhadwaj killed him and installed his brother Kushadhwaj (father of Mandavi & Shrutakirti) on the throne. In that description, Sudhanva is said to have told Janak 'This lovely lotus-eyed virgin Sita shall be given to me, along with the bow...'
Now, this took place at least a year or 2 before Sita got married. Now, if she was 6 when she married Rama, then she would have had to be 5 or 4 when Sudhanva gave Janak a proposal. In which case, it's impossible to imagine an adult describing a toddler as a virgin. Sure, child marriage was common at that time, but this would be bordering on baby marriage.
Another thing worth factoring in. Urmila was born a year after Sita was found, and presumably, Mandavi and Shrutakirti were around that age. Let's say we assumed Sita's age to be 6, then Urmila would have had to be 5, Mandavi anywhere around 5, and Shrutakirti something like 1-2 years younger than Mandavi, meaning 4 or 3. These are all the things we have to assume, while at the same time, RLBS were 13.
I used to assume that Sita bloated her stay in Ayodhya to 12 years, but when I read about your NE and Critical edition, on analysis, they sound more accurate to me. Had they lived in Ayodhya 12 years, it also begs the question of why wouldn't they have had their kids then. But if they lived in Ayodhya for only 1 year, it makes sense, since they probably decided to have their kids only after returning.
Note that Sita's age can only be 6 if the assumption is that she and Rama lived in Ayodhya for 12 years, rather than 1. But if they lived for just 1 year, then Sita would have been 17, and Rama probably 18. Note that I don't buy the '12<15' argument of yours in the deleted portion of your analysis - I simply thing that Dasharath is more likely to have Rama's age pinned down. Besides, if Rama was 12, why not tell Vishwamitra that he's not even 13, to make a even stronger case against sending him (if age was the criteria)?
Note: All sarga and sloka numbers used here are from the Critical Edition.