The old suspect, A.K. Ramanujan emerges out of the woodwork on Outlook’s pages. The magazine’s leader to this article says:
…in a pocket of the Delhi University, right-wing student activists have taken exception to this essay by the celebrated scholar A.K. Ramanujan, on the many Ramayanas living across languages and narrative genres, each different but no less legitimate than Valmiki’s epic.
Given that right-wingers are always at fault, let’s see what this inebriated celebrated essay says. The Outlook essay is a condensed form of the complete version found here. Where relevant, this post quotes from both sources.
Ramanujan dwells on why he has used the word tellings of the Ramayana instead of versions or variants.
I have come to prefer the word tellings to the usual terms versions or variants because the latter terms can and typically do imply that there is an invariant, an original or Ur-text—usually Valmiki’s Sanskrit Ramayana, the earliest and most prestigious of them all. But it is not always Valmiki’s narrative that is carried from one language to another. We have a variety of Rama tales told by others, with radical differences among them.
Granted. But there’s a more insidious reason that has entirely to do with Ramanujan. That insidious reason is unrelated to the tellings/variants/versions by themselves. Fundamentally, it serves as a foundation to build Ramanujan’s case upon.
For starters, Ramanujan says it is not always Valmiki’s Ramayana that’s carried to other languages. That begs asking this question: were these Ramayanas pulled from thin air? Assuming they were, why were all of these called Ramayana and containing the same characters? Ramanujan lists out some of these tellings complete with the radical differences.
Valmiki focuses on Rama and his history in his opening sections; Vimalasuri’s Jain Ramayana and the Thai epic focus not on Rama but on the genealogy and adventures of Ravana; the Kannada village telling focuses on Sita, her birth, her wedding, her trials. The Santhals, a tribe known for their extensive oral traditions, even conceive of Sita as unfaithful—to the shock and horror of any Hindu bred on Valmiki or Kampan, she is seduced both by Ravana and by Laksmana. In Southeast Asian texts, Hanuman is not the celibate devotee with a monkey face but a ladies’ man who figures in many love episodes. In Kampan and Tulsi, Rama is a god; in the Jain texts, he is only an evolved Jain man who is in his last birth and so does not even kill Ravana. In the latter, Ravana is a noble hero fated by his karma to fall for Sita and bring death upon himself, while he is in other texts an overweening demon.
These extreme variations are understandable and if anything, they actually emphasize the epic’s overwhelming and sustained influence, and its role in shaping entire cultures. To the extent that a specific variation is perceived with “shock and horror” by Hindus, the answer is relatively easy to find. It can be found in the culture of the borrorwer. When an epic like Ramayana finds its way to a far-off land like Malaysia or Indonesia, it is not farfetched to conclude that they will paste to it aspects and interpretations derived from their native culture.
But Ramanujan is on a different note. He quotes from these different sources to prove that the original Ramayana, more so, that Rama is not the hallow person he is held to be.
When we enter the world of Jains tellings, the Rama story no longer carries Hindu values. Indeed the Jaina texts express the feeling that the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, have maligned Ravana, made him into a villain. Here is a set of questions that a Jaina text begins by asking: “How can monkeys vanquish the powerful raksasa warriors like Ravana? How can noble men and Jaina worthies like Ravana eat flesh and drink blood? How can Kumbhakarna sleep through six months of the year, and never wake up even though boiling oil was poured into his cars, elephants were made to trample over him, and war trumpets and conches blow around him? They also say that Ravana captured Indra and dragged him handcuffed into Lanka. Who can do that to Indra? All this looks a bit fantastic and extreme. They are lies and contrary to reason.”
Ramanujan, one of the forerunners of progressive/secular literary movement, treads on familiar ground: spanking the baby and consoling it when it cries. To his credit, he had scholarship unlike the anti-Ram Mandir drumbeaters. These drumbeaters term Ramayana a work of fiction. If that’s true, why examine the Ramayana inch-by-inch and poke real and imagined holes? Ramanujan’s essay fits this mold. If a large number of people believe it is real, what gives you the authority to tamper with their beliefs?
We now come to the point of what Ramanujan is trying to prove here.
We read the scholarly modern English translation largely to gain a sense of the original Valmiki, and we consider it successful to the extent that it resembles the original. We read Kampan to read Kampan, and we judge him on his own terms—not by his resemblance to Valmiki but, if anything, by the extent that he differs from Valmiki. In the one, we rejoice in the similarity; in the other, we cherish and savor the differences .
A question for Ramanujan: why do we value the original Mona Lisa so much despite having thousands of honourable imitations? If Kamban differs from the original, it is a different work. If Kamban has captured the essence of the original, we rightfully celebrate that. But Ramanujan is not content. He strikes the final blow with a finesse that makes our head bow.
…a folk legend says that Hanuman wrote the original Ramayana on a mountaintop, after the great war, and scattered the manuscript; it was many times larger than what we have now. Valmiki is said to have captured only a fragment of it. In this sense, no text is original, yet no telling is a mere retelling…
Ramanujan mixes legend and fact and heresay so cleverly that it is hard to refute his assertion. Hard, not impossible. The universally-accepted story behind Ramayana’s composition is found in a verse that begins with Maa Nishaada… When he saw a hunter mercilessly killing two birds making love, that verse spontaneously emitted from the depths of his sorrow. Or when “shoka became sloka.” The version of Ramayana I have narrates how Lord Brahma himself commissioned the thief-turned-sage Valmiki to compose the Ramayana. But Ramanujan wants to prove that the original itself doesn’t exist. In other words, there’s nothing like an “original” Ramayana. Let’s extend that: there’s no original play called Hamlet, the one written by Shakespeare. Paradise Lost in the form written by Milton is really not Milton’s.
But that shouldn’t surprise us. A.K. Ramanujan is after all a reteller himself. He translated Anantha Murthy’s pseudo-classic, Samskara into English.
17 Comments
Ask Nina Paley. She’d love it.
Excellent post. Let me be the first to comment on these sundry and persistent allegations hoisted by the secular eminents.
These secularist clowns are quite fond of saying that Hindus are reducing the diversity of Indian traditions or are ashamed of multiple narratives in Hindu traditions. This is a very convoluted form of psy-ops against Hindus. No Hindu is saying that there is only one Ramayana tradition. What Hindus are saying is that there is no history of cultural conflict between these various traditions as the secularists deem; these traditions simply reflect natural cultural diversity. Ravana does not hold the position of a theological Shaitan for the Hindus. Hindus readily acknowledge that Ravana was a great Shiva Bhakta and Jnani. Even Rama told Lakshamana to learn from Ravana. There is no history of cultural conflict on the basis of these traditions, even from the now familiar secular petard of a supposed north-south angle.
The secularists are attempting to start a firestorm of cultural war among the hindus. These type of conflicts have been the routine for the christians, muslims, and western-style rationalist idiots.
“….the Hindus, especially the Brahmins, have maligned Ravana, made him into a villain”
Isn’t that amazing? because Ravana was a Brahmin after all.
The so-called 300 / 3000 Ramayanas: The Dravidian propaganda
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1805/18051130.htm
some info, not related to this topic
Isnt he dead , or am I thinking of someone else ?
If you think about it for a minute, what is it about such poets that bothers us ? What lies at the root of the issue ?
In A.K.Ramanujans original home state of TN, people who are deemed by the state to be the “affected” parties in the Ramayana have first claim on resources. This is a rigid classification based on birth. For example, you cant start a anti-Ramayan blog and hope to curry favours. Even Mayawati’s dalit party has brahmin ministers, but the DMK does not even have a low level brahmin party functionary. This could explain why A.K.Ramanujan and Company despite their historic contributions to atheism, anti-hinduism, and scholarship over Tamil will not be accepted to the other side. This is why you see the spectacle of Tamil Brahmins in places as remote as Kolkata, Ahmedabad, even Seattle and LA making a general ass of themselves. It is lost on them that the Tamil narrative necessarily excludes them. If Ramayana is just a comic book, then obviously all their speeches against Aryan Kshatriya Ram were just malicious propaganda based on a comic book, right ? This obvious contradiction is the cornerstone of the Dravidian movement. If you question the rationality of the rationalism movement, you have already lost the battle. It is not about rationalism, it is about adhoc-ism. The powers in control of this political movement decide who is the affected party. If your group falls foul of this movement, you risk being thrown to the other side - you wont have any rational basis to protest. This partly explains the vice like grip of the movement. It is about life stories usurping fundamental rights to both equality and social justice.
DU students are upset because people on the other side (i.e. other religions) will seek to enhance their benefits, read religious quotas by using such essays as textbook material. How ? More such essays in official college texts = more signals that the government is officially prone to ridicule a particular religion = more signals that in order to get benefits it does not hurt to be on the other side for securing benefits.
It is all about who gets to keep their fundamental rights to equality and who is coerced to give it up.
If we have a benefits system which was automatically checked and balanced by publicly available data, then no one would get worked up over the excellent work of a Tamil caste exile.
This ‘data’ thing is going to kill this country (or) the judicial system, whichever comes first.
Extremely enlightening one. i had been waiting for this from U Sandeep, since this controversy broke out. Shall follow the debate,studiously.
PI.
Very well written piece, Sandeeep, congratulations. Great u have managed to “see through” this scholarly ploy of Ramanujan.
Coming to the main argument, it finally boils down to this: the only “original,” “received”, “divine” scriptures are the semitic ones, Hindu scriptures are “myths”, a “collection of tales & legends”, in short “anthropomorphic slush.”
Regarding the Jaina version of the Ramayana it must be kept in mind that Jaini writers / monks etc. have always been in opposition to what can be called mainstream Hinduism or (forgive me for using this term) “anti-Brahamanical.” (That’s the reason why these sects or religions came about in the first place.) Hence the attempt to downplay Rama or make Ravana into some kind of a hero. Cleary Mr. Ramanujan & his ilk are not doing anything new. The Jains & the Buddhists predate them.
And one more thing, Hindus have never maligned Ravana. Valmiki, Tulsi etc. are quite clear that he was a Very great man who went wrong in life. Rama, as Valmiki writes, was wonderstruck when he first saw Ravana in the battlefield. And while Ravana was a Brahmin, Valmiki was not (at least he was not born one).
RC,
>>Isnt he dead , or am I thinking of someone else ?
He is dead. The Outlook article was an excerpt from his collected essays, now available as a book. The point of my post was to highlight the deception that was and is being perpetuated.
Regarding the Jaina version of the Ramayana it must be kept in mind that Jaini writers / monks etc. have always been in opposition to what can be called mainstream Hinduism or (forgive me for using this term) “anti-Brahamanical.” (That’s the reason why these sects or religions came about in the first place.)
Raman,
Please allow me a minor nitpick.
I’m not familiar with Jainism, and while what Jainism or Buddhism espouses can be considered as opposition to mainstream Hinduism and anti-Brahminical (though I’d disagree - something that is different is not necessarily in opposition), I’m not sure that there’s any proof that this opposition was the reason these two religions came about in the first place.
There is no mention of Siddharth Gautam being anti-Brahminical or being mistreated under caste system, and as a result, going on his quest and getting enlightened. He was well-versed in all the spiritual practices that were popular during those times in Hinduism, explored them and found them insufficient for what he was looking for, and went a step further.
Kaafir (with apologies to Sandeep for this digression): But that is absolutely true. Jain and Buddhist clergy have always been anti-Brahamanical. They, for instance, do not attach any importance to the Vedas. Take any Jaina or Buddhist version of a Hindu myth or story, it will always differ from the mainstream version. The Jaina Ramayana is the best example, it’s the same story but the focus is different (Rama is not so great as in Valmiki’s version; Ravana is a Jaina, etc.) Read Hiuen Tsang’s accounts of his travels in India. He talks proudly of worsting Brahmins in some assembly or the other. And this finds repeated mention in numerous Buddhist works.
In turn mainstream Hindus always looked upon Jainas and Buddhists with suspicion (nastikas, i.e., do not believe in God). Read the Srimad Bhagvata. In quite a few places there are critical references to both these religions. This schism, although never violent, was always their.
What u say is no doubt correct. Gautam Buddha was a spiritual seeker not somebody with a definite anti-Brahmin agenda and that goes for Mahavira too. But the religions, which developed from them, definitely set themselves apart from Hinduism, especially Buddhism.
Good work Sandeep!
Dear sandeep,
i think you are barking up the wrong tree.AK Ramanujan was a superb scholar,a polymath.He was a pioneer in the translation of ancient sangam poetry and alwar bhakti poems.”Hymns of the Diving” translations of nammazhvar.He also translates basava’s vachanas from kannada to english.His translations from tamil were beautiful works of art.He was a pioneer indo-anglian poetry and scholar.
Being a kannada iyengar he was extremely sensitive to the rich traditions in non-sanskrit languages.He brought scholarly attention to tamil and kannada.
I cannot believe an iyengar can ever be didrespectful to Ramayana.No tradition has exalted the Valmiki Ramayana as the Srivaishnava tradition from the alwars(particularly kulasekhara alwar) to Ramanuja to periavacchan pillai.The Srivaishnavas appreciate the Valmiki Ramayana for its literary beauty as well as theology.(”Saranagathi Sasthra”).
AK Ramanujan who explored his roots-Mysore Iyengar as few can ever do did not utter anything disrespectful.This one essay where he noted multiple interpretations of Ramayana cannot be held against him.
It seems natural for a brilliant indvidual who was exploring language and cultural issues and becoming aware of critical analysis to note that there are multiple interpretations other than the orthodox srivaishnava narrative.This must have struck AK Ramanujan quite naturally .
‘Hymns of the Drowning’-Anthology of Nammazhwars poems from Tiruvoimozhi
Dear xyz,
In general, this struck me:
>>It seems natural for a brilliant indvidual who was exploring language and cultural issues and becoming aware of critical analysis to note that there are multiple interpretations other than the orthodox srivaishnava narrative.
I’m all for multiple interpretations as long as they’re done without altering the basic framework/plot/whatchamacallit of Ramayana. Every single example AKR quotes shows how far each one is from the original. Besides, the orthodox Srivaishnava tradition says Ravana didn’t touch Sita when he abducted her. The original Valmiki epic says he carried her on his shoulders. However, it doesn’t alter the basic story of the Ramayana.
As I’ve shown, AKR is up to mischief because he tries to show that there’s nothing like even a Valmiki Ramayana.
AK Ramanujam is a much hyped scholar. He understood neither the Indian intellectual tradition nor the current Western tradition. To study the literature of India without any reference to aesthetics, poetics, grammar, and philosophy is to study biology by simply collecting specimens. There was a time when I read his xlations of Tamizh poetry. But I have moved on since then to deeper and profound questions. AKR’s impact on Indian scholarship is minimal and he is a lightweight.
Dear sandeep,
I do feel that Ramanujan went a little overboard in this article.It does seem that he was irreverent and was confusing the issues involved.In my enthusiasm to defend AKR,i had missed this essential thread running through.
I do not know about the Santhal tradition,so i cannot comment.But the Jain version seems consistent with the philosophy of its writers.
The Ramayana was appropriated by Jain and Buddhist writers,because of its popularity among the people.They brought up their own versions.The secular junta have gone so far as to assert that Ramayana was originally a Buddhist tale appropriated by the Hindus.SAHMAT(a pseuso secular organisation) organised a painting exhibition in Ayodhya featuring Buddhist Jataka tales where Rama and Sita were portrayed as siblings who married each other.Buddhists were not above such tactics in ancient times.The secular crowd get perverse pleasure in drawing attention to such narratives.Anything that is taboo always attracts curiosity,particularly among those who have made it their life’s mission to spread anarchy.
But the Hindu tradition is unique in accepting such tendencies are a part of this samsara.Even orthodoxy is part of this Maya.But orthodox tradition does not countenance deviant behaviour.
The Buddhist and Jain traditions tried to appropriate the Rama katha.It is not a part of their living traditions,it is a forgotten chapter in their history.But trying to equate the significance of Ramayana in mainstream Sanatana Dharma with obscure tales in other traditions is a gross error tantamount to obfuscation and even mischief.AKR has unwittingly given in to impulses of titillation and cheap theorising.Most human beings are guilty of such sins.
But I would still insist that AKRs work on Tamil poetry(both Sangam and Bhakti) and kannada poetry(Basavas vachanas) as pathbreaking.I also respect his moral courage in exploring his roots.
As one who is passionate about TN-karnataka relations based on mutual respect,harmony and understanding ,he was a pioneer to me.The fact that he translated secular tamil sangam poetry,medieval vaishnava tamil poetry,medieval kannada saiva poetry is an indication of his integrity,intellectual breadth and depth apart from his creative ability.