Just because we don't understand a 'Leela' of God, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened in the first place.
Since long there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not Uttar Ramayan took place or not. Those who say it didn't happen, half of them haven't read the Ramayan only, same thing with the other side also.
But as someone who has read the critical edition and has taken time to understand the history of Shri Ram and his deeds, I can confidently claim that Uttar Ramayan took place and the deeds of Shri Ram there are completely justified.
But today we shall not dive into his deeds, but answer the scholarly points raised by those who believe Uttar Ramayan didn't happen, and I must say that some of the points are valid questions.
Bowing to Siya Ram, let's begin -
1) Uttar Ramayan is not mentioned in sankshipt Ramayan.
The Ramayan starts from a conversation between Valmiki ji and Narad Muni, where the former asks the latter if there is a man on earth who possesses all ideal 16 qualities.
From Vadodara CE of Ramayan.
Now in this conversation, Narad Muni briefly tells the lifestory of Shri Ram to Valmiki ji. This part is called 'Sankshipt Ramayan.'
Now opponents of this debate, claim that here the exile of Mata Sita is not mentioned, nor is Shambuka vadh, hence Uttar Ramayan didn't happen.
But but but.... You need to understand the chronology of Ramayan.
Narad Muni tells the story of Shri Ram, till the point when they were talking. Now what particular point is that ?
Chapter 1 of Bala Kand, Vadodara CE
When Shri Ram had just regained his kingdom, it was then this conversation between Valmiki ji and Narad Muni takes place. The exile of Mata Sita happens after some years later and Shambuk Vadh happens 12 years after Mata Sita's exile.
Also the line 'including the sections dealing with the future and final events' that section is Uttar Ramayan.
Valmiki ji doesn't write Ramayan after hearing 'Sanskhipt Ramayan', he starts writing when by Brahmadev's grace, he is able to see the life of Shri Ram, past, present and future events, public and private information, in detail.
Chapter 1, Sarga 2, Bala Kand of Vadodara CE.
It takes him years to finish writing Ramayan. Also in Ch-1 Sarga 3 of Bala Kand, it is briefly mentioned what Valmiki ji has written -
And it is clearly written that Valmiki ji wrote Shri Ram 'sending away Vaidehi' and also the things that had not yet taken place, which is Uttar Ramayan.
Also in 'Sanskhipt Ramayan' in Sarga 1, Narad Muni describes Ram Rajya -
This description of Ram Rajya is in detail in Uttar Ramayan only, and not in Yudh kand which ends with coronation.
2) Uttar Ramayan isn't there in Mahabharat.
Another valid point. But the thing is, when Rishi Markandeya recites Ramayan to Yudhishthir, he gives a back story of Ravan. That backstory is not in the 6 kands of Ramayan but in the 7th Kand, Uttar, as told by Rishi Agastya to Shri Ram.
Mahabharat BORI CE -
Uttar Kaand, Vadodara CE -
The back story of Ravan's birth, penance, taking Lanka from Kuber, etc is not mentioned in any kands of Ramayan except Uttar Kaand. And both of these events find mention in Mahabharat in Rishi Markandeya's retelling.
Also, in chapter 572(275) of BORI CE -
The mention of 'ten horse sacrifices' is in Uttar kand only.
Sarga 89 of Uttar Kaand, Vadodara CE -
3) Mentions in other texts -
The Shrishti Khanda, Patala khanda and Uttara khanda of Padma Puran has references from Ramayan. Almost 75 chapters of Padma Puran in total talk about Ramayan.
The first 68 adhyaye of Patala khand describes Uttar Ramayan in detail. And in Shrishti Khanda adhyaye 33 to 37, has detailed references from Uttar Ramayan.
The longest of 18 mahapurans, the Skand puran in its 'Vaishnava khanda' chapter, there is a section called 'Ayodhya Mahatmya', which has many incidents from Ramayan, including that of Uttar Kand in detail. The Ayodhya Mahatmya was used for the Ram Janmabhoomi case as well.
4) The concluding point -
Bala Kand, Sarga 4, Shlok no. 2 -
चतुर्विंशत्सहस्राणि श्लोकानामुक्तवानृषिः ।
तथा सर्गशतान्पञ्च षट्काण्डानि तथोत्तरम् ।।
Meaning - Rishi Valmiki composed Ramayan in 24000 shlokas, in 500 sargas divided into 6 Kands, and followed by an Uttar Kand.
Well I could've put the shlok in the beginning only and end the debate... But the points put forward by opponents were so good that needed to countered and answered. That's the beauty of an intellectual debate.
Anyway, Uttar kand is a very important part of Ramayan. Because the stories like Ravan raping Rambha and Punjiksthala, molestation of Vedvati, his curses, him picking Kailash, backstory of Hanuman ji, etc which find only a reference in first 6 kands, are described in detail in Uttar Kaand.
Infact the large part of Uttar Ramayan deals with the backstory of Ravan, his conquests and defeats, his abuse to women and orgins of Rakshasas as wells.
So you must understand that Uttar Ramayan in its entirety is not controversial. Only two parts of it are. First is Mata Sita's exile and second is Shambuk vadh.
But it is only controversial to those who haven't read Valmiki Ramayan. Those who have read, and taken time to understand it, neither of these should be controversial.
Shri Ram and Shri Krishna were gods, who had come on earth as humans to set an example for us to live by and follow. They will never do something which is not right. And that is what you need to understand.
So the best tip is - Ek baar khud se Critical editions padho, chaahe Ramayan ho ya Mahabharat. Satya samajh aa jayega.
Jai Siya Ram 🙏
Jai Hanuman 🙏
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
A/N
If you want I can do a separate chapter on explaining Shambuk Vadh.