When Sumantra was about to depart to Ayodhyā, Sītā-devī had suddenly remarked harshly about Kaikeyī. Sumantra thought that that would please Kausalyā and began to [inform Kausalyā about that]. But he then thought that that would make the elderly couple Daśaratha and Kausalyā give up the desire to live. Sumantra considered that therefore it was not appropriate for him to recount that remark of Sītā-devī and desisted on the pretext of his inability to remember [the details]. The author sets this out in texts 14 and 15.

Sumantra wanted to describe an incident when Sītā-devī had suddenly remarked [something harsh] about Queen Kaikeyī. But then he said that he was unable to recollect it then. This was because he realized that he had forgotten to keep it confidential.

Sahasā upajalpitam indicates that Sītā’s remark about Kaikeyī was quick and out of context which is why Sumantra remembered it [in the first place]. But he then said that he was unable to recollect what she had said—before Queen Kausalyā could request Sumantra to [try to] recollect what Sītā had spoken. Idānīm (“now”) indicates that Sumantra was unable to recollect what Sītā had said at this time when he saw [Queen Kausalyā in] extreme sorrow.

In text 15, the poet Vālmīki restates the reason for Sumantra’s cancellation [of his earlier statement].¹ That the sūta spoke sweet words indicates that the earlier statement that he had wanted to convey [would have been] a cause of distress [to Queen Kausalyā].

What kind of statement did Sītā-devī make that was critical of Kaikeyī and yet distressing to Queen Kausalyā, and which had to be kept confidential? And what is the evidence for that?

The omniscient poet Vālmīki will later reveal this fact about Kaikeyī that Sumantra had mistakenly started talking about and then desisted, as it would have anguished the elderly couple Daśaratha and Kausalyā.

In Canto 6 (Yuddha-kāṇḍa), Sītā-devī will disclose her mind about Kaikeyī [when Rāvaṇa had produced an illusory head of Rāma to give Sītā-devī the impression of having killed Him]:

etaiḥ sarvair abhijñānair abhijñāya suduḥkhitā
vijagarhe ’tha kaikeyīṁ krośantī kurarī yathā

sakāmā bhava kaikeyi hato ’yaṁ kula-nandanaḥ
kulam utsāditaṁ sarvaṁ tvayā kalaha-śīlayā

“Recognizing [that the head was Rāma’s] by all these signs, Sītā-devī became extremely sorrowful. She then criticized Kaikeyī while crying like a kurarī bird: ‘Kaikeyī, you have now become successful. The beloved of our dynasty is now killed. You are quarrelsome by nature and you have destroyed our entire dynasty!’” (Rāmāyaṇa 6.32.3-4)

This was what was on Sītā-devī’s mind:

Kaikeyī would not have fulfilled her cherished desires merely by attaining the kingdom. Kaikeyī had a [particular] motive in requesting that Rāma be banished. She thought, “When Rāma is banished, Sītā would follow Him for she would not be able to tolerate even a moment’s separation from Him.² Sītā, being extraordinarily beautiful, would [certainly] be snatched by someone [in the forest] and hence Rāma would perish. Then the kingdom would be well established under my control. Otherwise, even if I get the kingdom, there is no use because everyone, attracted to Rāma’s qualities, will become His servant. So, to destroy Rāma, He has to be banished.”

In Canto 3 (Araṇya-kāṇḍa), Rāma will also speak out exactly what Sītā-devī had stated about Kaikeyī because people’s inner intentions are revealed when they are [speaking while] asleep, intoxicated or in extreme anger:

sītā-nimittaṁ saumitre mṛte mayi gate tvayi
kaccit sakāmā sukhitā kaikeyī sā bhaviṣyati

“Saumitri, when I am dead because of Sītā and You have gone back to Ayodhyā, won’t Kaikeyī become successful and happy?”³ (Rāmāyaṇa 3.58.7)

yad abhipretam asmāsu priyaṁ vara-vṛtaṁ ca yat
kaikeyyās tu susampannaṁ kṣipram adyaiva lakṣmaṇa

yā na tuṣyati rājyena putrārthe dīrgha-darśinī
yayāhaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ hitaḥ prasthāpito vanam
adyedānīṁ sakāmā sā yā mātā mama madhyamā

“Lakṣmaṇa, Kaikeyī’s desire about us and her dear boon that has been fulfilled has quickly fructified today. On this day and at this time, that middle mother of Mine has become successful. That foresighted lady was not satisfied with the kingdom for her son. She banished Me to the forest [though] I am engaged in the welfare of all creatures.”⁴ (Rāmāyaṇa 3.2.17-18)

Sumantra had indicated this very point in the previous chapter:

jānakī tu mahā-rāja niśvasantī manasvinī
bhūtopahata-citteva viṣṭhitā vismitā sthitā

adṛṣṭa-pūrva-vyasanā rāja-putrī yaśasvinī
tena duḥkhena rudatī naiva māṁ kiñcid abravīt

udvīkṣamāṇā bhartāraṁ mukhena pariśuṣyatā
mumoca sahasā bāṣpaṁ māṁ prayāntam udvīkṣya sā

“Mahārāja, Jānakī, on the other hand, sighing with gravity in thought, stood stunned as if in astonishment, like a woman whose mind is overcome by a ghost. As a daughter of a king, Sītā of good fame had never experienced a calamity in the past. She was crying in distress upon seeing her husband in distress. She didn’t tell me anything. Her face had dried up and she looked up at her husband. When she saw me going, she suddenly shed tears.” (Rāmāyaṇa 2.58.34-36)

Here we notice that Sītā-devī cried, became silent, looked at her husband with a dried up face and again looked at Sumantra and shed tears. She remembered the idea [of Kaikeyī] as stated above and therefore became stunned. She looked at her husband with the realization that it is unfit to be articulated [in words]. She shed tears and looked at the sūta and indicated that it was inappropriate for her to speak against her mother-in-law [Kaikeyī]. All of this indicated [in the above quoted verses].

NOTE. It must be remembered that Lord Rāma, Sītā-devī and their associates are eternally incapable of being killed and so forth, as we learn from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. These are the Lord’s humanlike pastimes.

Lord Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, clearly points out that one should not misunderstand His pastimes to be material in Bhagavad-gītā (9.11) thus:

avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣīṁ tanum āśritam
paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto mama bhūta-maheśvaram

“Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.”