By Ram Puniyani
04 November, 2011
Countercurrents.org
Countercurrents.org
Recently Delhi
University Academic Council (Oct 2011) decided to drop the scholarly
essay “Three Hundred Ramayanas” of A.K.Ramanujan, on different telling
of Ram’s story from the syllabus of ‘Culture in India’ for BA Honors
students. Of the four experts on the committee, one of them, whose
opinion was finally accepted, said that undergraduate students will not
be able to tolerate the portrayal of divine characters in the different
versions given in the essay. In response to the ban while Akhil Bhartiya
Vidyarthi Parishad, which is an affiliate of RSS, and company
celebrated, the staff and many students protested against this ban. Just
to recall earlier in 2008 ABVP activists had protested against the
introduction of this essay, and indulged in vandalism on the issue.
This essay by the much acclaimed scholar,
A.K.Ramanujan is part of his "The Collected Essays of A.K.Ramanujan
(Oxford 1999). Earlier in the aftermath of Babri demolition, a Sahmat
exhibition on different versions of Ramayana was attacked by RSS
combine's goons in Pune in 1993. This was done on the pretext that one
of the panels based on Jataka (Buddhist version) showed Ram and Sita as
brother and sister, and it is an insult to their faith. Ramanujan's
essay talks of different versions and presents five of them as an
example.
It is known that there are hundreds of versions of
Ramayana, Buddhist, Jain, Valmiki etc. Paula Richman in her book Many
Ramayana's (Oxford) describes several of these. And again there are
different interpretations of the prevalent Valmiki Ramayana, many of
which are not to the liking of those who are indulging in politics in
the name of their faith. Surprisingly all this intolerance is shown by
those who assert that Hinduism is tolerant and other religions are
intolerant.
It is a fascinating exercise to go through various
tellings and interpretations of Ramayana. Even the other renderings
acceptable to this intolerant but currently dominant political force are
not uniform. Valmiki, Tulsidas and later the one adopted by Ramanand
Sagar for his serial Ramayana have their own subtle nuances, which are
very different from each other.
Ramayana has been rendered in many languages of Asia
in particular. Ramanujan points out that the tellings of Ram story has
been part of Balinese, Bengali, Kashmiri, Thai, Sinhala, Santhali Tamil,
Tibetan and Pali amongst others. There are innumerable versions in
Western languages also. The narrative in these is not matching. Those
opposing this essay take Valmiki as the standard and others as
diversions which are not acceptable to them for political reasons. The
version of Ramayana, the communalists want to impose has the caste and
gender equations of pre-modern times so it is hung up upon only that
version as the only one acceptable to it.
Interestingly one can see the correlation between
the class-caste aspirations of the narration-interpretation. In Buddhist
Dasharath Jataka, Sita is projected both as sister and wife of Ram. As
per this version Dashrath is King not of Ayodhya but of Varanasi. The
marriage of sister and brother is part of the tradition of glorious
Kshtriya clans who wanted to maintain their caste and clan purity. This
Jataka tale shows Ram to be the follower of Buddha. Similarly Jain
versions of Ramayana project Ram as the propagator of Jain values,
especially as a follower of non-violence. What do both Buddhist and Jain
versions have in common is that in these Ravan is not shown as a
villain but a great spiritual soul dedicated to quest of knowledge,
endowed with majestic commands over passions, a sage and a responsible
ruler. Popular and prevalent "Women's Ramayana Songs" of Telugu Brahmin
Women, put together by Rangnayakamma, keep the women's concern as the
central theme. These songs present Sita as finally victorious over Ram
and in these, Surpanakha succeeds in taking revenge over Ram.
In Thai Ramkirti, or Ramkin (Ram's story), there is a
twist in the tale and Shurpanakh's daughter decides to take revenge
attributing her mother’s mutilation primarily because of Sita. More
interestingly here the focus is on Hanuman, who in this telling is
neither devout nor celibate but quite a ladies’ man, looking into the
bedrooms of Lanka. In Valmiki, Kampan and Tamil tellings Hanuman regards
seeing another man’s sleeping wife as a sin, but not in this Thai
version. Incidentally he is a very popular Thai hero even today. Also
like Jain Ramayana this Thai telling focuses on genealogy and adventures
of Ravana and not of Ram.
In recent times Jotiba Phule who stood more with the
interests of Dalits and women, was amongst the first to interpret this
mythological tale from the perspective of those subjugated by
caste-varna-gender hierarchy. Phule points out that upper castes were
descendents of conquering Indo-Europeans who overturned the original
egalitarian society and forbade the conquered from studying texts. His
mythology is woven around King Bali, who could invoke the image of
peasant community. Needless to say his murder by Lord Ram from behind is
condemned and is seen as an act of subjugation of lower castes by the
upper castes. And Ram is seen as an avatar of Vishnu out to conquer the
land from the Rakshasas (those protecting their crops) for establishing
the hegemony of upper caste values of caste and gender hierarchy.
Dr. Ambedkar and Periyar's commentaries are more an
alternative reading of the Valmiki's text rather than a separate
version. There is a good deal of overlap in the interpretation of both.
Dr. Ambedkar focuses his attention on the issues pertaining to Ram's
killing of Shambuk for violating the prevalent norm where a low caste
has no right to do penance, tapasya. Like Phule he also castigates Lord
Ram for murdering the popular folk king Bali. He questions Ram's act of
taking Sita's agnipariksha, trial by fire, and his patriarchal attitude
towards her. After defeating Ravan he tells Sita that he had done all
this battle not to get her released for her own sake but to restore his
honor, and his banishing her in response to the rumors about her
chastity when she was pregnant comes for severest criticism from
Ambedkar.
Periyar is basically taking the same line but in his
interpretation the North Indian upper caste onslaught-South Indian
resistance becomes the central theme. Periyar the initiator of ‘Self
Respect Movement’ was the pioneer of caste and gender equality in
Tamilnadu. In one of the movements, which is very less known, on the
lines of Dr. Ambedkar burning Manusmriti, he planned to burn the photo
of Ram, as for him Ram symbolized the imposition of upper caste norms in
South India. This was a part of his campaign against caste Hinduism.
Periyar also upheld Tamil identity. According to him the Ramayana story
was a thinly disguised historical account of how caste ridden,
Sanskritic, Upper caste North Indians led by Ram subjugated South
Indians. He identifies Ravan as the monarch of ancient Dravidians, who
abducted Sita, primarily to take revenge against the mutilation and
insult of his sister Surpanakha. In his interpretation Ravana is
practitioner of Bhakti, and is a virtuous man.
It seems the dropping of the essay from syllabus is
under indirect political pressure of communal forces. RSS and affiliates
who have reaped rich benefit from the campaign around Lord Ram are also
giving the political message of caste and gender hierarchy, through the
version upheld by them, the one of Valmiki and presented in current
times by Ramanand Sagar’s tele serial Ramayana. And the politics
claiming to be tolerant is intolerant about scholarly renderings of
‘Many Rams: Many Ramayanas’ prevalent World over!