“Ramayana and Mahabharata are not only epics, they are history. This history is not only the description of some events … These are the meditation of India and her promises … Whether Rama’s character was high or low, whether I like Lakshmana or not, that is not sufficient. We have to stay quiet and judge how the whole of India assimilated these two great books.” – Rabindranath Tagore, in his foreword to Dinesh Chandra Sen’s Ramayani Katha.
It is held by pious Hindus that Rama was an ideal king who maintained justice and looked after his subjects well, in love and with extreme devotion.
Rama’s “uprightness” is demonstrated thus: he made his devoted wife Sita pass through fire to test her chastity after he defeated Ravana in Lanka. Sita passed the fire test. But Rama was not satisfied – he organized a public hearing, which pained Sita so much that she disappeared into the Earth. What does this show? (1) Rama’s mistrust of Sita and (2) his populist approach – his readiness to go to any lengths to stay in power. Rajshekhar Basu in his brilliant ‘introduction’ raised this question quite succinctly. He wrote: “The lakhs of people in India did not care to overlook the inconsistencies in the character of Rama and accepted whatever was narrated by the storyteller with devotion. But the Valmiki Ramayana is mainly a collection of poems. It is neither an ancient story nor a devotional text and for this reason we could not fully suppress our logic and rationality. This gave rise to a question in our minds. It was good that Valmiki wanted to depict Rama as very dutiful but was it necessary to harass Sita twice?” (Basu, 1946:3-4). [Translated by me from Bengali]
However, Basu rescued Valmiki by saying that the Uttara Kanda of Ramayana was later incorporated by other unnamed authors, so Valmiki should not be blamed for the punishment of Sita by Rama after the war.
Basu emphasized how difficult it was for him to judge from a modern and ‘neutral standpoint’ the various inconsistencies depicted in the Ramayana. Basu cited examples like the cowardly killing of Bali by Rama and later after the killing of Ravana the harsh language in which he refused to accept Sita and finally the killing of the Sudra saint Sambuka to protect and preserve the rules of the Varna hierarchical system in which the Sudras were not allowed to spend time in meditation. Another scholar of Ramayana Dr Dinesh Chandra Sen (1866-1939) in his Bengali book Ramayani Katha (1904) also questions the killing of Bali by Rama from his hideout while he was engaged in a fight with his younger brother Sugrib, who was also Rama’s ally. Sen wrote: “On his deathbed Bali said many harsh words to Rama. Bali told Rama: ‘You carry the flag of Dharma but you are not so … You are a cheat. You are not worthy of being the son of Dasratha.’”
Sen found the above comments by Bali to be justified and in keeping with his dharma (religion). So, it was unlikely that the great poet Valmiki personally agreed with the aforementioned deeds of Rama (Sen, 1904:73). Rama’s bias towards Sugrib was clear. Rama said to Bali that he was in alliance with Sugrib, so Sugrib’s enemy was also his enemy. Here, on page 74 of his book, Dinesh Chandra has added a very interesting footnote: “Rabindranath, after reading this portion, said: ‘One should give up all kinds of hesitation and clearly state that it was not right for Rama to do this bad thing. Why is Dineshbabu hesitant on this issue?’” (Sen, 1925: 74)
Satrughan emulated his elder brother Rama by flouting the ethics of fights and warfare to finish off enemies.
The killing of Labanasur
After the birth of Lava and Kusha, the two sons of Rama and Sita, in the ashrama (hermitage) of Valmiki, Satrughan, the younger brother of Rama, went to Chavana’s ashram. At night, Chavana narrated the story of Labanasur, a powerful Asur (portrayed as a demon). Labanasur possessed a very powerful weapon with which he killed King Mandhata and his whole army. So, Chavan advised Satrughan to kill Labanasur when the latter was unarmed. Accordingly, Satrughan met Labanasur and challenged him to a duel but did not give him a chance to get his deadly weapon. Satrughan thus unashamedly violated the basic rules of a duel. Undaunted, Labanasur began to throw big trees on Satrughan. With the blow of one of those trees, Satrughan fell unconscious, although on a better day he could have sliced those trees with his bow and arrow. Labanasur thought Satrughan was dead, so he didn’t feel the need for his weapon. Regaining consciousness and finding Labanasur still unarmed, Satrughan shot him with his powerful bow and arrow (Basu, 1946:450-451).
The story of Sambuka
The story of Sambuka appears in the Uttara Kanda of Ramayana. It goes like this. One day a Brahmin came to Rama carrying his dead son and told Rama that the king’s “sins” might have been the cause of the death of his son. The Brahmin threatened Rama that he and his wife would commit suicide if Rama did not bring their child back to life. Hearing the lament of the Brahmin, Rama consulted his Brahmin advisors like Basistha, Markandeya, Kasyap and Narada. Rama asked the Brahmin advisors about the possible reason for the death of the Brahamin’s son. Narada said: “In the Satya Yuga only the Brahmins were entitled to meditate (tapasya) and at that time there was no ‘premature death’. In the Treta Yuga, the Kshatriyas began to meditate and the distinction between the Brahmins and Kshtriyas became nonexistent and the Varna system with the four categories was established. After this, the Dwapar Yuga came and the Vaisyas too began to meditate but Sudras were still not entitled to meditate … Maharaja, some idiot Sudra may be meditating to achieve something and because of his sin, the child of this Brahmin died.” (Basu, 1946:453-454).
At this advice of Narada, Rama searched for a meditating Sudra and found a man in the south meditating near a large pond. Basu writes that the following dialogue ensued. Rama said, “I am son of the king Dasarath and I am asking you out of curiosity why you are taking all the pains to meditate? What is your objective? To which Varna do you belong, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Sudra? Tell me the truth.” Sambuka replied, “I want to become a Deva and I want to conquer the kingdom of the Devas. I will not lie. I am a Sudra and my name is Sambuka.” (My translation from Bengali)
Rajshekhar Basu then writes that on hearing the above words from Sambuka, Rama instantly unsheathed his big sword and beheaded Sambuka (Basu, 1946:454). Then Rama prayed to Indra, the king of the Devas, to bring the Brahmin’s son back to life. His prayer was answered and all the Devas blessed Rama with flowers. The death of the Sudra saint was needed to bring the Brahmin boy back to life! Rama was then presented with many valuable ornaments by the Devas (Basu, 1946:455). Anthropologist Surajit Sinha mentioned the killing of Sambuk by Rama in his 1st N.K. Bose Memorial Lecture at Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (IGNCA), Delhi, in 1993, which was published in 1997. Sinha mentioned that “there are textual records of how brahmanas very often put a stop to the progress of the subjugated people towards higher standards of ‘culture’. Bose observes: ‘In the Ramayana, we are told how Rama had to kill Sambuka, the Sudra who aspired to spiritual upliftment through exercises preserved for the twice-born Varnas.’” (Sinha, 1993:8)
The valiant Bharat
According to Dinesh Chandra Sen, the spotless character in Ramayana was Bharat, who ironically was the son of the mischievous personality Kaikeyi, one of the wives of King Dasaratha. In Valmiki Ramayana, Kaikeyi was instrumental in sending Rama, Sita and Lakshmana to live in the forest for 14 years, after which she put her own son Bharat on the throne with the consent of Dasaratha. During these 14 years, Bharat lived an ascetic life and successfully governed the kingdom of Ajodhya (Ayodhya) from a nearby village called Nandigram (Sen, 1925:121). Even at the start of the 14 years in exile, when Rama was on his way to the forest, along with Sita and Lakshmana, Bharat overtook them with his army and sought to take Rama back to Ajodhya. Lakshmana doubted Bharat’s intent and went to the extent of saying that he wanted to kill Bharat. Rama, however, was sure that Bharat would not betray him and he would be proven right, although Rama also expressed his displeasure for Bharat to Sita, when Sita praised Bharat (Sen, 1925:108). During his rule, the revenue of the government increased significantly, the kingdom prospered, and the people had no complaints. But no one except Guhak, the Sudra friend of Rama, praised Bharat in unequivocal terms: “You were willing to return your throne [to Rama], you are blessed, I could not find anyone like you” (Sen, 1925:122).
References
Basu, R. (1946). ‘Preface’, pp 1-7. Valmiki Ramayana. (Summarized and translated into Bengali by R. Bose). M.C.Sarkar & Sons. Calcutta.
Sen, D. (1925) Ramayani Katha. Bhattacharya & Sons:Kolkata.
Sinha, S. (1993). First Nirmal Kumar Bose Memorial Lecture, pp 1-26. Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts: New Delhi.
Tagore, R. (1907). ‘Ramayan’, pp 5-13, in Prachin Sahitya. Viswa Bharati.
Forward Press also publishes books on Bahujan issues. Forward Press Books sheds light on the widespread problems as well as the finer aspects of Bahujan (Dalit, OBC, Adivasi, Nomadic, Pasmanda) society, culture, literature and politics. Contact us for a list of FP Books’ titles and to order. Mobile: +917827427311, Email: info@forwardmagazine.in)
