Ravana, the Caring Brother(?)

All Surpanakha wanted was to marry Rama or Lakshmana. Was it right of Rama to have her disfigured? Is that dharmic?

Wasn't Ravana a better character? When she petitioned him, he immediately stood up in her defense and took revenge.

Which is dharma - hurting a woman or supporting one? Who is the righteous one here?

This is an argument I have seen often on the Internet. Recently, I also saw this question being put to a Vedantic guru. His answer blew my mind. His aim was to make us see the true purpose of scriptures. He said, "Go beyond questions of your dharma, my dharma, his dharma. Ask who is the one wanting to know. That is what Hindu dharma is all about, to make you seek your self." I don't know if the journalist who asked this question understood the answer. 

But, let's go back to the story itself. Lakshmana disfigures Surpanakha not out of sport or malice. The two brothers did tease her, but that was because she was not able to take their no. At no point did either mislead her into believing they would accept her as their lover, wife, or companion. She refused to take no for an answer and persisted and they simply said, go to the other. It was only when she saw Sita, thought her responsible for the brothers refusing her and attacked her unprovoked did Lakshamana step in. He did not kill her because killing a woman was adharma. 

But now comes the interesting part. Surpanakha runs to Ravana. Did he really get angry that some men disfigured his sister? Why, did even Surpanakha tell him the true story?

Surpanakha knew Ravana wouldn't care. So, she did not narrate events as they happened. Instead, knowing his brother's appetite for pretty women, she roused his curiosity about Sita, describing her in detail. She pretended that she had been in the act of kidnapping the lady in question for her brother's sake when the two men attacked her.

Now, for a moment let's think what Ravana's response would have been had he really meant to avenge his sister, whatever the provocation. I think a man, a warrior with Ravana's reputation, angered by the disfiguration, would have flown directly, then and there, to confront Rama and Lakshmana and finish them off before they could say what. 

Ravana's actions run to the contrary. He goes out of his way to lure Rama and Lakshmana away before kidnapping Sita. He does not leave a calling card and it is only Sita's ingenuousness and Jatayu's timely intervention that help Rama know in which direction Sita was taken and who the culprit was. At no point does Ravana say Sita must suffer as did Surpanakha. In fact, I don't know if he even mentions his sister's name after she instigates him. It is all about his infatuation with Sita, his desire to marry her and his refusal to send her back to her husband, though advised to do so by most reasonable people around him. 

Ravana was by no means a caring brother. He was selfish and driven only by his senses. He may have overcome his half-brother Kubera and the devas to establish his power. But he was a weakling who got swayed by his desires and met his end for not being discerning.

Allegorically, it is a reminder to us too to not give in to our desires, even if they seem innocent or fulfilling. They extract a price - be it mental, physical, societal or environmental. 

But, without going into those questions, coming back to the original one - Was Ravana a caring brother? By no means. And this, Surpanakha knew too. So let's not attribute some noble sentiment to him where none existed.