I'd like to come up with two answers.
The main villains are Kekai and Lakshman.
Why Kekai
The majority of the wrong-doings occurred due to her plot.
That was an evil thing to do; to not have any consideration/care for someone who was like her own son.
She let greed take over her and did something horrible.
Why Lakshman
We're always taught in our religions etc. to control our emotions, be it positive or negative.
I believe Lakshman had no reason to take such a drastic step of cutting Surpnakha's nose. He could've taken a more diplomatic/calm approach and talked to her instead.
Imagine if he had done so, then none of the future events would've occurred and 14 years would've passed peacefully.
Why Not Dasrath
Granted hunting's bad, but if we keep that opinion aside, then it was an honest mistake on his part of killing Sravan. Any sane person would guess that.
Why Not Sravan's Parents
This maybe a bit controversial, but a loss suffered by parents of their child must be one of the most painful experiences, that too due to a silly mistake of someone. For this reason, I'd say they were justified in expressing their anger through a curse.
Since Dasrath made a mistake, it was his turn to make up for the same through a 'sacrifice'.
Great summary of Ramayana buddy!
Had fun in coming up with the answers. :)
WoW a well-written answer, which I was looking for ✌
A Hindu Answer in short, it feels your answer is influenced by your family teachings. Keep it Up
Stay Happy Stay Blessed Always
Haha, these are solely my opinions. Family teachings may have been an indirect influence on it. ;)
Blessings back at ya~Thanks again @sillentkiller!
All the characters in the stories are supposed to be human and human sometimes does partiality and sometimes let the emotions gets the best of them. :D@Yesaye, That is a good answer. But is arguable.
There is nothing wrong with Kekai wanting her son to be the king and there is nothing wrong with Lakshamn expressing his anger.
There are other version where the surpnakha attacked Sita and Lakshman retaliate in defense.
Now the story seems different. isn't It?
Agreed. I did realize that I'd have to overlook the fact that humans are partial if I had to write my opinion in this case. So what I did was, I selected the most partial among all.
I'd still say that Kekai did wrong, as, if she was only looking to make her son the king, then she could've done so in a lot more merciful manner. Why 14 years, when 14 days could've done it.
I will have to change my opinion on Lakshman if we consider the alternative version of his story so yep, the story becomes different in that case.
PS: My entry's up in MS-PACC! ;)