Stop Torturing Rama

09.26.07 | 126 Comments | Filed Under Commentary, Indian Philosophy, Indian Politics, Media Watch, War on Communism

In an article that examines some of the recent happenings around the Sethusamudram project, Outlook fleshes out interesting findings worth exploring in detail. The focus of the article is on Karunanidhi’s angry articulations on Lord Rama. (Aside: I think it’s time the K in DMK is changed to Karunanidhi.)

It is understandable that, as the article says, the DMK right from "Periyar" hates Lord Rama–the hatred forms one of the prominent pillars of their political edifice. Ironically, "Periyar’s" real name has Rama in it. But let’s see how this article–seemingly neutral in tone–actually perpetuates that hatred using familiar methods: truth by repeated assertion of lies, quoting out of context, quoting questionable sources, etc. It says:

The Tamil Nadu countryside is exposed to folk forms that celebrate Ravana as a hero and Rama as the villain who treated women unfairly.

It is interesting to note that not one folk form is named. For example, Yakshagana/Vesha in Karnataka performs popular themes like Draupadi’s humiliation at the hands of the Kauravas, the story of Nala and Damayanti, Krishna’s childhood exploits, and so on. In an article that explores say, the conception of Nala in folk forms, I’d naturally mention Yakshagana/Vesha even if I didn’t mention any other folk form.

The article also quotes a certain Geetha to scout for examples that it says explains Karunanidhi’s dementia statements.

[Dravidian movement] felt the Ramayan exemplified all the ills of what they considered northern—Brahminical Aryan culture. The beheading of Tadaka, the killing of Shambuka, the banishing of Sita etc were considered instances of Aryan racism and barbarity."

So why doesn’t Outlook scout for examples from the other side and mention Rama’s devotion to his parents, his Kingly qualities, his role as a monogamous husband in an age where polygamy was the norm, etc. If Rama beheaded Shambuka only because he was a Shudra (sic), why don’t the Dravidian champs mention Guha or Shabari who hailed from lower castes?

More blunders follow.

But Geetha says that what should be borne in mind is that Rama is not such an emotive issue in the south. For instance, Ramlalla, the deity of the child Ram, which was smuggled in and installed at the disputed site in Ayodhya, does not strike a chord in these parts.

And on what basis does this Geetha-whoisshe–say this? Like most in the Indian media, the "South" begins and ends with Tamil Nadu. So what then explains the overwhelming throngs at Bhadrachalam hailed as the Ayodhya of the South? What explains the spiritual significance assigned to the surroundings of Hampi, which is believed to be a camping place of Rama in his quest to rescue Sita? What also explains the fact that most of Thyagaraja’s Krithis are in praise of Lord Rama? Geetha takes a selective instance of Ramlalla to slam her half-baked theory down our throats. Rama remains to be part of the collective consciousness of millions of Hindus all over India. Time and place have merely altered symbolic significance but Rama is worshipped and revered the same way transcending differences of time and place. Let’s go to Indonesia, which houses several depictions of Rama and Ramayana. Can we simply say that because Ramlalla is unknown there, Rama ceases to be significant or an "emotive issue" there?

And then the article indulges in a bit of obfuscation via word play.

In a historical sense, Rama has not been as important as some other gods in the Hindu pantheon. He has, for example, never been a guardian deity of dynasties.

So who defines this "historical sense?" And what are the other important Gods in the Hindu pantheon? All Hindus believe in the ten avatars of Lord Vishnu and there’s nothing like a "lesser" avatar. In fact, contrary to what this Outlook eminence says, the Ramayana has a tale where Rama defeats the Kshatriya-vanquishing Brahmin Parashurama, the sixth avatar. What’s interesting is that the article completely fails to mention that Ramanavami (to celebrate Rama’s birthday) is one of the major festivals in South India. Because he’s not a guardian deity of dynasties doesn’t automatically mean his importance is less. Every Hindu knows that specific Gods are invoked for specific purposes–Hanuman for strength, Durga/Kali for courage, and so on.

The questionable quoting continues

There are much fewer Ram temples than Shiva temples in TN, and even in Kerala.Rama’s rather unhappy tale is one reason for this, points out Dr A.R.Venkatachalapathy of the Madras Institute of Development Studies. "The popular belief is that worshipping Rama will bring grief—he was banished, his wife was abducted, his children were born in the forest."

So what are Venkatachalapathy’s credentials as a scholar on Rama? And where’s the evidence for the said "popular belief?" On the other hand, the popular belief is worshipping Rama inculcates ideals worth following–devotion to wife and family, constancy in truth, virtuousness, and fighting for a lady’s honour. Logically, the fact that there are few temples in Tamil Nadu doesn’t prove that Rama is not popular there. This article shows otherwise. What’s also amazing is this article fails to mention Karnataka and Andhra where you have an abundance of Rama temples. The amazement is understandable because it doesn’t fit into Outlook’s theory.

And more logical goof-ups.

In fact in Tamil Nadu, Diwali—or Deepavali—is celebrated in memory of Krishna’s victory over Narakasura.

Again, South India=Tamil Nadu. And Naraka Chaturdashi (one of the festivals during the 3-day long Deepavali) is celebrated in Karnataka as well. For Rama, we have Ramanavami.

The article now examines the "literary" side of the story. It cites the Kambam as saying that

Many Tamils who know the Ramayana know it through its Tamil version, the Kamba Ramayanam. In it, Ravana is highly venerated as a Vedic scholar, a connoisseur of music, a warrior—as an epitome of everything moral. In short, Ravana is a tragic hero, not villain.

Valmiki’s Ravana is more or less similar in character. Ravana is in fact described as one of the greatest devotees of Lord Shiva. The amazing Shiva Tandava stotra attributed to Ravana is a stellar work of rhyme and wordplay. However, that doesn’t make him "tragic hero" much less a moral person because he lusted after another man’s wife. Perhaps Outlook’s definition of morality excludes this. The selfsame Kamban

…who, again, is not a Brahmin and is a grand scholar of Sanskrit and an unabashed admirer of Valmiki,establishes that, for his bhaktas, Rama is the One who is the origin of all. This, it must be remembered, is a sure departure from Valmiki, for whom Rama was only a Maryada Purushottam.

The questionable quoting continues unabated.

Ravi Kumar, an MLA of the Dalit Panthers of India,…. "Tamil Nadu has no popular tradition of Ram worship. In villages, they worship local deities…only recently have Hanuman statues sprung up—along the highways. But they have no cultural roots," he says.

So we have a Ravi Kumar now, added to the galaxy of Rama scholars. Offered without comment.

But Outlook reserves the best for the last.

Interestingly, the average Brahmin Outlook contacted is not as affronted by Karunanidhi’s remarks as his brethren in the rest of the country. For him, his own spin ritualistic worship of Rama and the DMK’s atheist approach have coexisted—for decades together.

Outlook’s wretchedness is in full force here. So Rama is now reduced to being merely a "Brahmin" God. While we’re at it, Outlook can also give us a partial list of the "average" Brahmins it has contacted. What’s interesting is how Outlook spins the DMK’s naked hatred as "atheist approach." The Hindus haven’t really coexisted–they’ve been forced to accept state-backed bullying. Those who didn’t have migrated. And it is no coincidence that the overwhelming migrators have been Brahmins.

In the end, I can only be amazed at the tizzy over Rama/Ramayana in public discourse. Rama-haters claim that he was wicked, etc because he killed Shambuka, etc. In the same breath, they claim that Ramayana is fiction, Rama didn’t exist, etc. They used this to prove that Ayodhya as Rama’s birthplace holds no water. More currently, they’re using similar tactics to support the destruction of Ram Sethu. If Ramayana is plain fiction, why the fuss about why Ram killed Shambuka or people of "lower castes?" Why dig up non-existent "facts" about how the "Aryan" Rama conquered the "Dravidian" South?

It is a story after all.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

timeline

126 Comments