Was Hindu God Rama A Cuck?

Was Hindu God Rama A Cuck?

By

Siddhartha Gautama

Hindu god Rama was cucked at least twice by his cheating wife Sita, once by his brother Lakshmana, and then by Ravana.

We are all accustomed to reading analysis of character of Ramayana, especially of Rama, whom modern society generally does not approve of. We have also read of Dravidian movement in South India extolling the virtues of Ravana. Sita is criticised for being too docile. But, Prof.Wendy Doniger's book "On Hinduism" gives a somewhat unorthodox analysis of the characters of Ramayana. She of course, considers many Ramayanas, not just Valmiki Ramayana.

The love of Rama and Sita is love; it is not marriage. If you have not read Valmiki Ramayana - the story of Rama - you must read it. Tulsi and many others have written versions of the Ramayana after Valmiki, but all those Ramayanas have lost the purity of Valmiki Ramayana. Valmiki narrates the Ramayana in the spirit of Rama himself. Tulsi, however, is too preoccupied with preserving Rama’s image, so that whatever he feels to be detrimental to Rama’s moral character he has left out. Tulsi has removed from the Ramayana every detail, however small, that might tarnish Rama's image. Tulsi is an idealist, Valmiki is a realist. You may find yourself troubled by many features of Valmiki's narrative because so many of the events surrounding Rama and Sita will defy your imagination. Rama comes to the city where Sita lives and, wandering in a garden, sees Sita and falls in love with her. This is inconceivable to us, this is the kind of thing that any vagrant boy might do - to set eyes on a girl and immediately fall in love with her. Is this any way for a Rama to behave? But so it was! Love happened to Rama before marriage. Marriage came afterwards just as a supplement to love. To Sita too, love happened the moment she saw this young man. Their two hearts met - the essential meeting had already happened - before they married, before society played the part of the formal witness. My understanding is that after what had happened between the two, if Sita had to marry someone else, that would have been merely a superficial marriage. The freshness, the virginity of the meeting of these two hearts would not have been there in any other marriage. It would have been only a business transaction, something just on the body level.

This is why, even if Ravana could have been able to marry Sita, he could not have had her; that event had already happened, her giving of herself had already happened. And likewise, had Rama married another woman, he would have missed the music of the meeting of two hearts; what was spontaneous and unplanned would not have been possible in any other marriage. Rama and Sita have never been studied in this dimension, because love is something we do not study - we want to avoid such things. Their falling in love with each other is the very first thing between Rama and Sita, and all that unfolds afterwards between them has to be understood in this light. If we ignore the fact that first and foremost they have fallen in love with each other, then many apparently meaningless issues arise in the lives of Rama and Sita, and to resolve these becomes very difficult. A scholar came to me, a devotee of Krishna and opponent of Rama. This is just the way scholars behave: if he is a devotee of Krishna he will be opposed to Rama, and if he is devoted to Rama he will oppose Krishna. The scholar is always for one party and against the other. They have no heart which can understand, otherwise they would see that Rama and Krishna are one. This scholar said to me, Everything in Rama's life seems fine to me, except for his expulsion of Sita to the jungle on the basis of gossip spread by a worthless washerman. On the strength of hearsay and rumor, Rama sent his pregnant wife away from their home. This is a very unworthy act on Rama's part - this shows that his love fell short. Rama may have been kingly and skillful in worldly matters, but he certainly is not a lover, because what kind of love is this?

One who reads Valmiki Ramayana, either in original or in translation (not abridgements), would realise that it has two distinct parts. Of the seven Kandas or parts, Ayodhya, Aranya, Kishkinda, Sundara and Yuddha Kandas form one group. Bala Kanda and Uttara Kanda form another group, both Kandas independent of the other. In fact, these five Kandas can be read together without any loss of story line or continuity. In the first group of five Kandas there is no reference to Rama being incarnation of Vishnu. At the very end of Yuddha Kanda, Rama asserts “Atmanam manusham manye, ramam dasharatatmajam”, “I consider myself as a human, the son of king Dasharatha” (6.120.11). He wants to know, where has he come from, who he is. Brahma, in response to Rama’s question tells him that he is an incarnation of Vishnu. It is in other two Kandas that one finds stories imparting divine characteristic to Rama. Bala Kanda and Uttara Kanda are more akin to Purana than to an epic. Uttara Kanda gives more flashbacks about Ravana than continue the narration Rama’s story. Uttara Kanda also frequently displays a distinct sense of humor!

Ordinarily, practising Hindus look up to Rama as seventh incarnation of Vishnu and worship him as an ideal for human conduct in the society. Prof.Wendy Doniger thinks that sometimes Rama forgets that he is an incarnation. However, the fact is that Rama never asserts anywhere that he is an incarnation. Thus, the question of Rama forgetting his Avatara-hood does not arise.

Prof.Doniger sees doubles of almost all the major characters in Ramayana. For instance, Lakshmana acts as an image of Rama. He says and does many things that Rama, as the idealistic character cannot say or do – such as criticizing his father, step mother, Bharata, offering to wage war on them and the like.

Next, Kaikeyi is considered as shadow of eldest and good queen Kausalya. Kaikeyi is everything that Kausalya is not – avaricious, manipulative, easily swayed by others’ opinions. And Kaikeyi herself has another darker replica of herself, Manthara the hunchback, who gives wicked ideas to kaikeyi, who was initially not wholly averse to Rama becoming the Prince of Ayodhya. When she first hears of this news from Manthara, she even rewards her, but is rebuffed by Manthara! All other characters who are angry, or Sita or Lakshmana, when unhappy or in danger curse Manthara. She is the shadow of a shadow.

Prof.Doniger sees similarities between Rama and Vali, even though we Hindus see similarity between Rama and Sugreeva because both had lost their kingdoms and respective wives to their antagonists. Here, I think, Prof.Doniger’s perception is more accurate. The throne of Kishkinda rightly belonged to Vali, the eldest son of Riksharajas. Sugreva, rightly or wrongly buried Vali in the cave, returned to palace, not only occupied the throne of Kishkinda, but also appropriated Tara, the wife of his eldest brother Vali. That Sugreeva was thrashed by the angry elder brother ands chased to the end of the world sans his wife, merely resulted in restoration of the throne of Kishkinda (and Tara, the wife of Vali) to the rightful heir (and husband) is not a patent injustice.

But, when it comes to relationship amongst Rama, Sita and Lakshmana, Prof.Wendy Doniger sees tensions, which we do not seem to notice. As usual, her suggestion boils down to sexual motive. Prof.Doniger thinks that due the practice of niyoga or Levirate, which allows a widow to conceive child from her dead husband’s brother (according to Manusmriti, from any other cognate relation too. Ch.8.61-64), Rama fears being cuckolded by Lakshmana! This sounds like an outlandish suggestion. In the entire text of Valmiki Ramayana, I have not come across any stanza or part of stanza which suggested that either Sita or Lakshmana coveted each other. In Aranya Kanda, when Lakshmana refuses to leave her side after Maricha imitates Rama’s voice and dies, it is Sita who accuses Lakshmana of coveting her. It is the screaming accusation by a hysterical woman who fears that her husband is dead and she would be left alone in the thick forest in the company of her brother-in-law. At least, Lakshmana had clear conscience in this matter. Later on, when Sugreeva shows the bundle of jewellery thrown down by Sita, Rama asks Lakshmana whether he recognizes any of them. Lakshmana says “Since I have seen only the feet of Sita, I can recognise only the anklet”. For the first time in Yuddha Kanda, when a fully bedecked Sita is brought to him, Rama, rather recklessly, tells Sita that he fought the battle not for her sake but for salvaging the good name of his clan (6.118.16). He tells Sita that she is free to go to any of the ten quarters, or choose any one of the persons around him, such as Sugreeva, Vibhishana, Lakshmana, or even Bharata (6.118.22-23).

Nevertheless, it doesn't stop Prof.Wendy Doniger from making a generalised statement that it is common in south Asian culture that the elder brother is cuckolded by the younger brother. But, we are not given any illustrations to prove this highly provocative statement.

The villains and antagonists are different in Rama’s and Sugriva’s stories. Rama lost throne due to his father’s weakness towards his youngest wife, Bharata ascended the throne, though not literally. Rama’s wife Sita is is abducted not by one of Rama’s brothers, but by Ravana, a rank outsider to Rama’s family. In the case of Sugreeva, Vali is the rightful heir to the throne. Sugreeva is the usurper. As far as Sugreeva is concerned his elder brother Vali has appropriated his wife, not some rank outsider like Ravana. There was enmity between Vali and Sugreeva, but no such enmity existed between Rama and Bharata. Thus, barring the superficial similarity, the dissimilarities between Rama and Sugreeva are more.

According to Prof.Wendy Doniger, the heinous manner in which Rama shot Vali when the latter was engaged in fighting his brother Sugreeva, was caused by the resentment Rama felt towards his own father and brother who cost him the throne of Ayodhya and comforts of urban life. In a way, Vali doubled as Rama’s father and brother. Rama’s unconscious mind took the revenge against father and brother, which his conscious mind would not have permitted. It is too well known to repeat that the justification Rama gives to Vali convinced none during the last two millennia.

Prof.Doniger sees similarities between Ravana and Dasharatha. Both are destructive fathers, who brought ruin and misery to their sons: Ravana gets Indrajit killed in war, just as Rama and lakshmana are exiled by Dasharatha. Both fathers were undone by their lust towards women – Ravana towards Sita and Dasharatha towards Kaikeyi. Prof.Dinoger thinks that even their names have striking similarity – Dashagriva “of ten necks” and Dasharatha – of ten chariots! The similarity in the names Dashagriva and Sugreeva, (“ten necks” and “good neck”) is also not lost on the professor.

Prof.Doniger gives psychoanalytical perspective on the roles of brothers. Ravana, Vibhishana and Kumbhakarna form a triad – Ravana being ego, full of passion and lust, Vibhishana as super ego, representing virtue and good conscience sermonising Ravana, and Kumbhakarna the Id, who represents instinctive behaviour, lives only to sleep and fight. Such similarity is not very evident when one compares Rama and his brothers. To any reader, Bharata seems more level headed and dispassionate than Rama, though instinctively, we Hindus believe that Rama is satvik. Rama’s anger towards his father, step mother and Bharata expressed in Ayodhya Kanda, his lamentations for the lost Sita in Kishkinda Kanda, and his harsh talk to Sita at the end of Yuddha Kanda. There can be no doubt that Lakshmana and Shatrughna together form one entity, representive of Rajas, or active, dynamic and passionate aspects of life. At times, Rama falls under this category than satvik category.

It is but difficult to agree with Prof. Wendy Doniger’s conclusion that Shurpanakha, is the double of Sita. Though Shurpanakha covets Rama and openly wants to take Sita’s place, there is no comparison between their characters. Hideous, passionate and violent Shurpanakha cannot be compared to beautiful and docile Sita. Prof.Doniger refers to Kamba Ramayana to point out that Shurpanakha wanted to hide away Sita, assume the form of Sita and live with Rama. There is also reference to the story of Maya Sita, from Adhyatma Ramayana wherein Rama advised Sita that Ravana would abduct her and she has put up her shadow outside the hut, and true Sita should herself go into the hut in live inside the fire, whence Rama would return and fetch her. Later, Brahmavaivarta Purana makes Agni a party to this conceit. Agni hides away Sita with Rama’s consent, prepares shadow of Sita identical in all respect in appearance and character. Rama alone knows this secret, and not even Lakshmana. It was this shadow Sita who was subjected to ordeal by fire, whence Agni returns true Sita to Rama. But, these versions make subsequent banishment of Sita to forest seem more irrational and cruel. Prof.Wendy Doniger attributes these developments to later bhakti cult which grew around Rama and Sita, wherein the devotees try to cover up for their beloved deities.

Prof.Wendy Doniger also falls into the same error that Dravidian movements in South India commit – treating Ravana as a Dravidian and Rama as northerner. According to her, North India demonised Dravidian Ravana and South, the Aryan Rama. But, actually, as per Uttara Kanda, Ravana’s origin is traceable to sage Vishravas, a son of Pulastya, one of the Saptarishis. He is acknowledged as learned in Vedas and other scriptures. He addressed his penances to Aryan deity such as Brahma. His brother Kubera is one of the guardian deities of Quarters. Incidentally, Sinhalese language itself belongs to Indo-Aryan group of languages and is not a Dravidian language. Some might say that the fact that Ravana was devoted to Shiva (a non-Aryan God) as a pointer to his being Dravidian. Barring this tenuous link, there is nothing to support the contention that Ravana could be construed as a Dravidian.

Prof.Doniger notices other dilemmas about treatment of women in Ramayana which is also closely linked to sexual exploits in Ramayana. Killing of Tataka, a women, though a killer, and mutilation of Shurpanakha are two such instances. Seduction of Ahalya (the one without flaws) appears in Ramayana twice: once in Bala Kanda and the other time in Uttar Kanda. In the first instance, Indra appears in the form of a sage. Valmiki Ramayana doesn’t say he assumed the form of Gautama. The text also states that she made up her mind to sleep with Indra out of curiosity about the Lord of deities (Matim chakaara durmedhaa, devaraaja kutahalaat. 1.48.19). In the other instance, he forces himself upon Ahalya (Valmiki Ramayana 7.30.32). In the second instance, according to Ahalya’s explanation (7.30.42), Indra assumed Gautama’s form and she fell for him out of ignorance. In either case, it was Indra who behaved demonically, unbecoming of Lord of three worlds. But, Ahalya also suffers the curse of sage Gautama. At least in the second instance, the victim is also treated as an offender.

Next, for someone who reads Ramayana for the first time, the obvious question that occurs would be why didn't Ravana force himself upon her after abducting her? He uses all threats, intimidations and coercions against her, but not rape. According to Prof.Doniger, for explaining this inexplicable, someone later on added the story of Divine concubine Rambha, who is raped by a lustful Ravana, consequent to which he is cursed by Rambha’s husband Nalakubara that if ever Ravana forced himself upon any other woman, he would die of his head splitting in to several pieces.

There are of course, other minor sexual exploits such as Vayu seducing Anjana the mother of Hanuman, Ravana trying to force himself upon Vedavati, who burns herself rather than surrender to evil Ravana, and of course the birth of Vali and Sugreeva, who are fathered by Indra and Surya, in Riksharajas, when he was in the form of female monkey. The story of gender change of Ila who marries Budha has already been referred to in earlier posts.

In the earlier readings on oral and written traditions of Hinduism, it has been stated that most of us learn of the great epics of Hinduism first from oral tradition. Only a few actually read Ramayana or Mahabharata, very few indeed, read the complete texts either in original or in translation. The oral tradition may gloss over many inconvenient issues raised by the conduct of various characters in the epics. We become aware of these more serious issues, only when we read the complete texts. There are no easy answers for the moral and dharmic questions which arise from these texts.