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.
