Fighting for the soul of Rama
By Editor on July 20, 2009 4:41 pm
The Hindu nationalist insistence on a single, authoritative version of the Ramayana contravenes the central tenet of Hinduism. In this edited extract from his new book, Offence: the Hindu Case (Seagull Press: Calcutta/London/New York, 2009), Salil Tripathi argues the historical and political case for defending the plurality of Hinduism.
“The curious fact is that as we move into the 21st century, historians have become central to politics. We historians are the monopoly suppliers of the past. The only way to modify the past that does not sooner or later go through historians is by destroying the past. Mythology is taking over from knowledge.”
—Eric Hobsbawm in ‘Politics, Memory and the Revisions of History in the Twenty-first Century’, lecture delivered at Columbia University, 2003
IF HISTORY REPRESENTS collective memory, and if it is to be objective and not written by victors, it becomes important to guard its sanctity. After artists like Maqbul Fida Husain, the Hindu nationalists’ prime target is Indian history. In late February 2008, a group of Hindus stormed into the history department of the University of Delhi, breaking windows and causing general mayhem. They belonged to the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (All India Students’ Council), the student wing of the BJP. They were angry because the professors had directed students to read an essay on the Ramayana that they considered ‘blasphemous.’
The essay, “Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation,” by the distinguished poet A. K. Ramanujan, a Macarthur Genius Fellow who died in 1993 in the US where he taught at the University of Chicago, marvels at the sheer diversity and range of the epic Ramayana, and recounts many of the unusual and alternate renderings of the myth, pointing out the vibrant plurality in religion and literature. The head of the history department, a quiet academic called Saiyid Zaheer Hussain Jafri, is, as his name suggests, a Muslim. The professor who reportedly assigned the essay is Upinder Singh, who happens to be Sikh and the daughter of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. This particular combination gave the nationalists further ammunition.
The conventional Ramayana narrative is complicated enough. Most interpretations tell a story with which many Indians, Hindu or not, are familiar. But as you travel through the length and breadth of the vast Indian nation, the stories change, sometimes subtly, sometimes quite drastically, and no one singular view prevails. Ramanujan’s essay irritated Hindu activists precisely because it showed that there is no one, unique rendering or interpretation of the Ramayana. Not surprisingly, the student activists called it “malicious, capricious, fallacious, and offensive to the beliefs of millions of Hindus.”
But to silence a voice that says that there are many versions of Ramayana is not only an act of crude censorship and an attack on Hindu intellect, it also goes against the central tenet of Hinduism. The doyen of Indian history, Romila Thapar, herself a target of vicious attacks by Hindu nationalists, has shown how the Ramayana’s many versions embed stories reflecting social aspirations and ideological concerns of each group that propounded a different version. The Hindu nationalists’ challenge to the diversity of voices is more a political proposition than a religious assertion.
And how diverse those narratives are—not only across India, but as far away as Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia and Laos where they vary even more widely than in India. These multiple narratives interfere with the master version of a strong, virile, masculine and martial lord/warrior-king—like the image now reinforced by Virgin Comics in India which casts him as a muscular, Superman-like hero in Ramayana 3392 AD—that the BJP wants to project in India.
There is political purpose behind depicting Rama as a soldier, and not as maryada purushottam (the ideal man who knows his own and society’s limits, and who will sacrifice his interests for others). And that is to inject militancy into the Hindus, who, the BJP believes, have been made to feel like second-class citizens in their own country.
Feminist scholars are indeed appalled by the Ramayana’s overt masculinity. But they have also found in Sita a cliché-ridden representation of femininity, a docile woman willing to be led wherever her husband takes her and unquestioningly accepting her fate, including cruel punishments and chastity tests. Gauri Parimoo Krishnan notes: “Valmiki’s Ramayana has been wrongly ascribed canonical status, giving rise to a sort of patriarchal, literate, pan-Indian elitism which in recent times has been scorned.” In the Indian feminist magazine, Manushi, Nabaneeta Dev Sen and Madhu Kishwar have written powerful critiques of the masculine interpretation of the Ramayana.
A survey of Hindu epics may suggest that Hindu gods don’t claim to be morally perfect; they do practise subterfuge and trickery. In an uncertain universe, we often have to act in ways that seem morally impure in order to achieve a higher end. That, indeed, is the message of the Mahabharata. On the other hand, the Ramayana aims to show how it is possible to lead a morally pure life. Rama’s heroism is not simply based on his battlefield skills but also on his ability to place the interests of others—and his own sense of obligation—above his own.
Such sacrificial acts are passé; the BJP wants to project Rama as a superman. However, elevating him over other gods makes Hinduism seem monotheistic, a bit less like itself and a bit more like Islam or Christianity. The late Morarji Desai, a former prime minister, astutely noted this point in a conversation with me in the late-1980s, when the BJP was still only beginning to embark on what then seemed like a quixotic campaign—to reclaim the site of the Babri Masjid. “They are playing a dangerous game,” he told me. “They want to create a cult of Rama. They are converting Hinduism into Islam—they are making Hinduism a religion with one book (Ramayana), one place of worship (Ayodhya) and one God (Rama). That is not Hinduism. Hinduism is about plurality.”
Edited extract reproduced with permission from Seagull Books. Offence: The Hindu Case will be available in bookstores from August, 2009. It is published by Seagull Books (Calcutta/London/New York) and distributed worldwide by the University of Chicago Press. The book is available for pre-order from Amazon in the UK and US.
Salil Tripathi is a writer based in London. He has written frequently for a range of publications, including Wall Street Journal, International Herald Tribune, Guardian, Index on Censorship, Washington Post and Salon. He is also a columnist for Mint and a writer-at-large for Tehelka. Salil serves on the board of English PEN, and has been a senior visiting fellow at the Kennedy School, Harvard University.
Email Salil at salil61@hotmail.com and visit his blog at http://saliltripathi.wordpress.com/
Your Thoughts (2 Comments)
August 2nd, 2009 1:00 pm by Anil Bali
September 9th, 2009 1:25 am by karigar
Dear Salil,
This work of AK Ramanujan is an output of Western Academy, in the Western ‘critical’ tradition’.
Regarding the adoption of this output as a somewhat authoritative material to be studied by Indians, i.e. people of the same culture which has been the object of the study- the inherent ironies aside - one does at least have to have a grasp of the difference involved in the culture for which this material was written, and the culture where it is sought to be introduced.
That means, basically, that one should be very careful before saying ” Here’s material which describes an aspect of your, or the lives of of your neighbouring people. And oh by the way, this is not them telling you about themselves, but a Western Scholar telling other Westerners about you/your neighbors.”
I read the paper to fulfill my own scholarly appetites, and appreciate it for what it is, keeping in mind the limitations I just sketched out above. I flatter myself that I’m upto the task of reading without undue prejudice matter not originally meant for a person of my kind of cultural background. This is for two reasons.
The first is because I’ve been, like many other Indians who were educated in English medium missionary style schools, acculturated to reading stuff meant for Westerners from a very early age. The second is that I’ve, at least to my satisfaction, made attempts over the past few years, to understand the structure of knowledge production in the world, which is primarily based on Western thought and categories.
But I would speculate that papers of this sort, when read by young people & others, who do not have both these above inputs in place, will work explicitly or implicitly, in ways big & small, as a vehicle to supplant the cultural values that they have already imbibed in their personal non-academic lives. The reason is that old cliché about the subject matter, i.e. that the Ramayana informs the thought & behaviour, and gives models & archetypes of behavior for major parts of Southern & Eastern Asia.
One could argue “So what’s wrong in questioning existing values? If they can’t stand the test of today’s society, perhaps they should be supplanted for the good of society.” On the face of it, this seems a reasonable argument. There is one thing that seems to be forgotten though, and this is a pre-supposition that the intelligentsia in India seems to appear blind to, in these discussions. This presupposition is that of ‘fair’ competition between the existing value system, and the value system being promoted by the educational system.
Without going too deep into specifics, one can simply state that there is a lot of authority invested in what the Educational system terms a knowledge, and what the outside culture values as cultural knowledge. The Educational system, in it’s choice of subjects & curricula, is basically in the unrivalled position of setting the agenda for what dominates the thinking of future citizens.
The implicit values held by traditions, society, etc come a distant second in this ‘battle for mind-share’ of citizens. Students have been, and are increasingly being funneled into treating the Educational/Academic system as the monopoly provider of knowledge regarding pretty much all spheres of life.
It is in this context that one would analyze the suitability of this ‘…hundred Ramayanas..” Essay for a University syllabus. The students have questionable preparation to be able to see that this is ‘objective knowledge’ only to those to whom it is entirely fresh, and from a culture different from their own. The students will not be given an opportunity, or the tools, within the education system to assess this scholarship versus their traditional notions about the Ramayana’s place in their thought & life.
So the onus is on the Educational authorities to show why a critical presentation on there being ‘no authoritative and governing’ interpretation of the Ramayana should be given as authoritative knowledge to students, many of whom have been cultured into giving the Valmiki, Tulsi, Kamban, etc version the status of a Divine text, an Itihaasa if you will.
The author, A K Ramanujan, himself strongly held that ‘context matters’ especially when it comes to Indic & other societies. Wonder what he would say about this context free “re-appropriation” of his essays.
Submit Comment
Dear Sir,
The bigest fault of Hindus is that they are tolrant and it is biggest gift to Humanity that they comment on Hinduism. I like and well come the comments and criticism, but do not distort the origional text of Holy Hindu litrature. As for as the article “Three Hundred Ramayanas; Five thoughts and Three Thoughts on Translation” is concerned it is all distorted and with no authentic data. I have writter few lines with few pages from the origional text of Adhyatama Ramayana quoted in the article iitself, there is nothing which is quoted in the article. Few Details are available at
anilbali49.sulekha.com
I am not against expressions of views, but the use of proper language and truthful data should form its pillars. In the ocean of literary wisdom logical comments, quotes, criticism and example are like traveling on a boat and enjoying splendorous scenic sights, where as the researches are like diving in its infinite depth to collect precious pearls. Here we do not find the spirit of discussion expected by any litrary writers.
The article may impress the persons who are unaware of Ram or Ramayana, but fact is there is nothing in the article as variation of Ramayana any where. It is good if without distoration the comments are passed.
For instance Hanumana in ladies dress mentioned in said article: It is known to every one and in any temple of Hanuman that Hanuman was stopped by gate keeper when he wanted to meet Shri Ram. After few mininute Mata Sita came and she was not stopped. Hanuman asked why she is not stopped, the gate keeper told : Because she is having SANDOOR on her fore head so she is the wife of Ram. Hanuman went and rubbed the SANDOOR on his entire body and came back. In the mean time Shri Ram came to know about it and from that date Hanuman if worshiped with SANDOOR OF LADIES ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Some comments on Babri and Godra:
World must know what is Hinduism if they mention Babri or Godra. Every one is aware of Mahabharata and Ramayana. Its war and distruction of entire kingdom with their entire faimily. In both the cases only one man was the central man, it was Arjun and Ram. Both were persons of principles. The cause was Drupdi and Sita i.e. only one woman in both cases.
Let us not repeat or supress the fible voice of justice, and let not Humanity cry for justice against humilations by so called intellectual, by deforming culture and presenting in distorted way.
Let the entire Humanity should be guided by the goods of all the cultures of the world and brutality be condemen and discarded.
With best regards
Anil Bali