Lakshmana did not move. “Recalling (as he did) the command of his brother (not to leave her alone), Lakshmana however did not stir even though urged in the foregoing words,” says Valmiki. (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto XLV, Sloka 4) The realisation that he could not be moved from that place struck her wild. ‘Are you not moved by that pathetic call for help? Are you not going to rush to him? Have you been nursing ill will and malice towards him all these days? Is it not your duty to go to his aid at this critical time?’ she reminds him of his duty. Or that is what duty means to her, at that troubled moment.
Though Valmiki is silent about her persecution complex, Kamban records it beautifully.
‘pidiththu nalgu iv uzhai enap pEdhayEn mudiththanen vaazhvu,’ she wails as she heard the voice. ‘It was I who sent him behind the deer and brought this disaster into our lives.’ It is not unnatural for anyone who is in this kind of a troubled state of mind to utter words that are not really intended. “Getting upset thereby, Sita (daughter of Janaka) spoke to him on that occasion (as follows)” says Valmiki. She was upset.
‘saumitre mitra ruupeNa bhraatuH tvam asi shatruvat’. ‘You are an enemy in actuality in the shape of a friend, O Lakshmana’ she taunts. Let us listen to her words as given to us by
Valmiki:
“You are as it were an enemy of your brother in the guise of a friend O Lakshmana (son of Sumitra) in that you do not rush to the help of your brother (even in this predicament). For my sake, O Lakshmana, you wish Sri Rama to perish. Surely due to greed for me you do not follow Sri Rama (a scion of Raghu). I believe that your brother’s sad plight is dear to you and that there is no affection in your for him. That is why you stand unperturbed without seeing Sri Rama, who is possessed of extraordinary splendour. Indeed what purpose will be served by me, remaining (secure) here when he as your leader has fallen into danger?” (Ibid Sloka 8 and 9)
Commentators place the emphasis on her scorching remarks that question the very intention of Lakshmana about her. But I think it would be more appropriate to place the emphasis on 'kartavyam iha tiSThantyaa yat pradhaanaH tvam aagataH' What are you doing here, guarding me, when the person whom you accepted as your leader and for whose sake you came here, is in trouble? What is the purpose of my remaining safe when he is facing danger?
It pains me to see commentators attributing her stance - that too at an extremely excruciating moment - to womanhood in general. ‘This is the way of all women,’ they say. ‘They would not hesitate to indulge in slander and mudslinging if and when it suits them.’ They adduce the words of Lakshmana who was shocked by what hit him from the most unexpected quarter and uttered unkindly words in respect of women in general, in support of their ‘finding’. My god! What kind of an understanding! No. It is not proper to attribute such behaviour to women in general. None would attribute the harshest of words that Rama flung on her at the time of Agni Pravesa, on the lot of men! Nobody would dare say that it is the way with all men! If Rama did not represent men in general, at that moment, nor does Sita represent womanhood in general at this moment. It is not logical.
These are human feelings. Be it man or be it woman. These words of Sita and the answer of Lakshmana are to be seen, more appropriately as human feelings rather than finding an excuse to put women at a disadvantage.
Lakshmana did not move. “Recalling (as he did) the command of his brother (not to leave her alone), Lakshmana however did not stir even though urged in the foregoing words,” says Valmiki. (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto XLV, Sloka 4) The realisation that he could not be moved from that place struck her wild. ‘Are you not moved by that pathetic call for help? Are you not going to rush to him? Have you been nursing ill will and malice towards him all these days? Is it not your duty to go to his aid at this critical time?’ she reminds him of his duty. Or that is what duty means to her, at that troubled moment.
It pains me to see commentators attributing her stance - that too at an extremely excruciating moment - to womanhood in general. ‘This is the way of all women,’ they say. ‘They would not hesitate to indulge in slander and mudslinging if and when it suits them.’ They adduce the words of Lakshmana who was shocked by what hit him from the most unexpected quarter and uttered unkindly words in respect of women in general, in support of their ‘finding’. My god! What kind of an understanding! No. It is not proper to attribute such behaviour to women in general. None would attribute the harshest of words that Rama flung on her at the time of Agni Pravesa, on the lot of men! Nobody would dare say that it is the way with all men! If Rama did not represent men in general, at that moment, nor does Sita represent womanhood in general at this moment. It is not logical. 
