WENDY
DISTORTS RAMAYANA
Dr. Pramod Pathak
In the book “The Hindus: An Alternative History” Wendy
Doniger has devoted one complete chapter, chapter 9 to the great epic Ramayana.
The title is queer however. It reads “Women and Ogresses in Ramayana: 400 BCE
to 200 CE”.
One reads very little about ogresses in chapter and the only
woman discussed at length obviously is Sita.
According to Wendy, Ramayana story “weaves together the themes of
dangerous sexuality, the violation of Dharma, compassion towards animals,
attitude towards tribal peoples and the transmutation of animal passions into
human culture – all central to the concerns of this chapter” (Page 212). It
makes her stand clear. The epic which has been revered by the Hindus at large
for centuries, characters from which have been equivocally revered by them are
of no importance to her. She is searching for base instincts of sexuality and
animal passions in this great epic. Keeping aside the socio-cultural background
as she thinks of the era, 400BCE to 200 CE, her so called analysis of the
characters from Ramayana is laced with utter untruths and twisted conclusions
that more or less are directed at defiling the character of the hero of the
epic Rama and his wife Sita. While the Hindus have revered Rama as incarnation
of Lord Vishnu, an ideal for the human beings, Wendy is bent on showing him to
be a base character and utterly suspicious husband. Since she often quotes the
references from the Ramayana text, the present author too has referred to the
original Sanskrit text of Valmiki Ramayana. There are two editions of Ramayana,
namely the traditional text with what is known as “Tilak Tika text of Ramayana”
i.e. Ramayana text with Tilak commentary published in 1930. Another is the
critical edition of Ramayana published by the Oriental Institute, Baroda in
1965and onwards. While the critical edition has its own importance, the traditional
Tilak Tika text has been there for centuries and formed basis for popular
conceptions about the characters from the text. Wendy has given references
based on the critical edition. In the text below I have referred to critical
edition and wherever I have referred to Tilak Tika text of Ramayan, it is
mentioned as TTR. All the references from critical edition are to be found in
TTR with different numbering.
Appropriating the
stories from Buddhist and Jain texts
On page 223 Wendy deals at length with the stories from
Buddhist and Jain texts where Rama story appears with some variations. There
she states that the author of Ramayana, implying in general the ascending Hindu
ethos around that time, “appropriated other peoples stories” i.e. stole,
plagiarized the stories from these texts. Wendy is known for her in depth study
of the Vedic and the post Vedic literature. How come she has forgotten that
Rama’s ancestor Ikshavaku is mentioned in the Rig Veda text in RV 10.60.4. It
indicates that Rama’s family lineage dated back by several centuries. Ayodhya
is allegorically mentioned in the Atharva Veda text. Lord Buddha visited the
city Ayodhya twice, obviously because at that time, it was a pilgrimage centre
and there Lord Buddha could preach His doctrine. Why was it a sacred city? It
was because of its association with the Ramayana story. In the Buddhist and the
Jain texts it is referred to as Ayojza and Saket. Although Ramayana part text
was formalized in textual format in the post Buddha period, the story in its
entirety existed much before Buddha. Word “Rama” dates back to the Rig Vedic
times where it indicated blackness. Thus Rama’s appearance as a black hero can be
traced to the Rig Vedic lore. So there is no question of Hindus appropriating
the Buddhist or Jain story but it was suitably adopted (and not stolen) by both
these later dated texts.
Sita’s confinement in
Lanka: for years or months?
After dealing with the socio-cultural information from page
212 to 220, on page 220 Wendy narrates Ramayana story in short (P220-221). She commits
here a biggest gaffe. She states, “Ravana stole Sita and kept her captive on
the island of Lanka for many years” (P 221). She repeats the same statement on
P 224 and 232. In both the instances she does not clarify whether it is her own
perception. Because , anybody who has known the Ramayana story will recall that
Sita was confined in Lanka for a few months only. In fact Ravana had given her the
period of only six months to yield to his wishes. Nowhere in the text Wendy has
clarified as to why she has prolonged the period of a few months to few years.
It is unpardonable mistake for a scholar like Wendy, who has, in many of her
earlier papers exhibited precision and exactness.
In the same passage Wendy strangely states, “he (Rama)
forced her to submit to an ordeal by fire” (P221). Well, it is far from truth.
Rama only asserts that he had fulfilled his duty of freeing Sita, killing
Ravana and that she was free to go wherever she liked, not to be in bed as
Wendy implies, but to lead life in materially and spiritually safe environment.
It was Sita who opted for the ordeal by fire, without any prompting or hint
from Rama to perform any ordeal. Wendy
has negated herself when she quotes from the text, “ (Lakshmana) Build a pyre
for me; that is the medicine for this calamity. I cannot go on living, ruined
by false accusations” (P 224) . Why has Wendy twisted the narration? Because
she desired to show Rama, the most ideal personality for the Hindus, in bad
light as inconsiderate and suspicious husband.
That is the type of narration all through the chapter.
Kaikeyi’s blackmail
Wendy states that Dasharatha’s youngest queen Kaikeyi uses
sexual blackmail to force Dasharatha to put her son Bharat on the thrown and
send Rama into exile” (P223). It was not sexual blackmail. She takes help of
two boons the King had given her earlier. These were held back by her as rain cheques
(For American Wendy to understand in American slang) to be encashed later. When
she reminded about the boons, Dasharatha was left with no argument but to plead
her to withdraw. But Wendy sees here Kaikeyi’s sexual blackmail. All through
the chapter Wendy looks for sexuality and mistrust. For that she makes over
statements or writes outright lies.
Sita’s final abode
While proving her chastity for the second time, Sita offered
herself to the earth mother from where she had emerged. As per the Hindu belief
her ultimate abode is heaven as she is Laxmi incarnate. No Hindu may ever have thought
that Sita would have lived till eternity within the earth only. Even if that
question be asked to any Hindu he would answer that from the womb of mother
earth Sita must have ascended to heaven as Laxmi soon after. It goes without
saying. But for Wendy it is an anathema. According to Wendy, “Rama goes back to
heaven when he dies years later” (P230). Here too Wendy distorts narration and
is insensitive to the feeling of Hindus. According to the text, Rama along with
many citizens of Ayodhya opted for self-immersion in the river, jala Samadhi. He did not die per say. He
returned to his Vishnu status, along with Laxmi implied. But for Wendy Sita
remains eternally separated (P231). An average Hindu will laugh at this
conclusion. By her queer logic (?) she refers to the canto 7.100 which lists
the people who accompanied Lord Rama on His last journey. Obviously Sita was
not there, but that does not mean she did not attain back her Goddess status. Is
this Wendy’s understanding of the Hindu ethos?
Further Wendy makes a very laughable statement. Citing Sita’s
conversation with the Ravana’s ogresses in captivity Wendy quotes “A mortal
woman cannot become the wife of an ogre (5.22.3, 5.23.3) (a remark that could
also be read as a warning against intercaste marriage.)” (P 231). In fact such
types of marriages are prevalent in Ramayana text itself. Seer Rishyasringa,
who performed sacrifice for Dasharatha was married to Shanta who was daughter
of King Chitraratha. It was an intercaste marriage. Wendy has either not read
the original Ramayana text carefully when she wrote this chapter, or that she
is imposing the caste rigidity of the later period on the Ramayana text. It is
obviously not a true scholarship but cheap mongering after irrelevant ideas.
Perverted statements
As the people like Dina Nath Batra, who felt offended have
accused, Wendy appears to be really sex starved to the extent that she sees
seduction and sex everywhere in the Ramayana text. She makes a very outrageous
statement, “Ahalya, the archetypal adulteress, whose story Ramayana tells not
once but twice” (P 232). Anybody who has read the story knows that it was
Indra, who in the dark of night seduced Ahalya when her husband seer Gautama
had gone out to perform early morning chores. There were no electric lights
then or the latch and key doors with door bells. Indra stealthily entered the
bed in the guise of Gautama. If Ahalya were an archetypal adulteress, Wendy
should have cited relevant references not only from Ramayana but from any other
text. The story of Ahalya is mentioned in many Purana texts. To my knowledge
not even once she has been mentioned as an adulteress. For once and only once Ahalya succumbed to the
machinations of Indra, who by the time of Ramayana had been reduced to a fallen
god status. After performing penance, her sin was expatiated. And then Ahalya
gained the elevated status among the five pious ladies whose names are to be chanted
early morning. Calling Ahalya an archetypal adulteress should be seen as
deliberate attempt to denigrate pious female characters from the Hindu pantheon
by another fallen lady, Wendy.
Similarly Wendy tries to project Rama’s suspicion about Sita
citing from the text. While the twin brothers were singing Ramayana in the
court of Rama, “Yet Rama pointedly recognizes them as “Sita’s sons” but not necessarily
his own” (P227). Any Hindu who considers Rama as an ideal human being will get
upset with such a statement. Did Rama ever doubt Sita? The answer is firmly no.
Rama ascertains twice that all the while he knew that Sita was pious and did
not even think of any other man. In the first instance, when he accepted Sita
back from the lord of fire, Agni; and secondly in the presence of Valmiki when
Sita is brought in front of him in the presence of courtiers and his twin sons
during the horse sacrifice. He even begs pardon of sage Valmiki and ascertains
that the twin brothers were his own sons ( TTR 7.97-3-5). Even before he
recognizes, people of Ayodhya had recognized the twin brothers were as if
images of Rama, if they were not wearing the apparels of tree bark, they would
have been like Rama’s sons (TTR 7.94.13-15). On this background, to make such a
statement, “not necessarily his sons” is deliberate attempt at maligning Rama’s
image. Rama also knew that Sita was pregnant when he sent her in exile. He inquired
about Sita’s desire during her pregnancy and she explicitly said that she
desired to go back to the forest and enjoy the pious company of the seers there
(TTR 7.42.31-32)
Wendy’s brilliant (?)
analysis
Another gaffe of Wendy about Sita reads as; “Rama’s
nightmare is that Sita will be unchaste, and sexually voracious ogress that
lurks inside every Good Woman in the Ramayana
expresses that nightmare. …. In Valmiki’s text, however, Kaikeyi and Sita still
have their inner ogresses within them, expressed as the natural forces that
prevent women from realizing the ideal embodied in idealized Sita. …. They help
us to understand why women came to be repressed so virulently in subsequent
centuries: to keep those ogresses shackled” (P 232-233). She stretches her narration further. She
writes, “On the one hand, Sita is epitome of female chastity. On the other
hand, she is like Shurpanakha, a highly sexual woman, a quality that may
explain not only why Ravana desires her but also why he is able to carry her off”
(P 233). What a brilliant analysis by the great scholar! She has invented two
new reasons related to Sita’s abduction, a) as if she willingly went with
Ravana and b) for keeping women shackled. Look at the analogy she draws between
Sita and Shurpanakha as she writes, “Shurpanakha’s attempt to replace Sita in
Rama’s bed, which Rama and Lakshmana mock, expose deep resemblance between two
women and the deep ambiguity in the text’s attitude to Sita’s sexuality” (P233).
While trying to put on the same level of Shurpanakha and bringing bed of Rama
in discussion Wendy conveniently forgets that Rama and Sita were both following
the life of abstinence during exile. The birth control pills which Wendy herself
might have used to sleep with strangers were not available then to Sita. It was
with full consent of Sita that they both remained celibate for the period of
nearly fourteen years. That is the ideal that Mahatma Gandhi many a times
espoused in context of Ramaraajya. It is simply beyond Wendy’s peanut brain to
understand these high ideals of Hindus. As many secular writers, supporting
Wendy in their articles in newspapers have expressed, Wendy has done this type
of psychoanalysis of the characters from Ramayana. Firstly Wendy should have
quoted something authentic from Ramayana to show even a small streak of hyper-sexuality
of Sita and how it is that she can be equated with ogress. She has not. Women
were oppressed not only by Hindus but by all the mediaeval cultures including
Jewish, Christian and Islamic. Did all of them take clues from Ramayana about
the hidden ogress within every good woman? It is a clear indication of Wendy’s
intent to defile the pious characters from the Hindu culture by branding them
with hyper-sexuality, being adulteress and what not. Should a sensitive Hindu
not object to such utter nonsense? Can she play such nonsense with other
religions and cultures? She dare not. As her own co-author Sudhir Kakar
accepted their cowardice in The Times of India Dt 16th Feb where he
conceded that all these scholars are cowards and dare not tell the truth in the
face of adversaries.
Maligning Rama’s
character
The whole effort of Wendy in writing this chapter is aimed
at maligning the character of Rama, who has been epitome of virtues over
centuries for the Hindus. She does not appear to be bothered whether she is
misquoting or misinterpreting the original text. She writes, “On another
occasion, Rama says he would gladly give Sita to Bharata (2.16.33) Does he
assume that you get the queen when you get the thrown?” (P237). It is sheer
slander and twisting the original stanza. The original stanza is in the context
of Rama’s plea to Kaikeyi. He says that she need not have put Dasharatha in
between. She could have directly asked Rama to abdicate throne in favour of
Bharat and he would have gladly done so. Not only the throne but he would have
abandoned Sita, his own life, wealth, etc. for the sake of Bharata (2.16.33).
Further in the same canto he says, “If the great king, my father says, for your
happiness too I will follow the vow (i.e. word given to you by my father)’
(2.16.34). It is shear pervert attitude of Wendy that she writes such statements
abominable to any Hindu and that is why any Hindu would abhor this pervert
lady, Wendy. In her own words, really a sexually starving, sexually voracious
woman appears to be residing and lurking inside this lady scholar, Wendy, whom
years ago I considered in high esteem. She is imposing and projecting her own
intra-psychic problems on the characters from Ramayana. Rama without batting
his eyes agrees to abdicate throne in favour of his half-brother and this wicked
lady is making mockery of such noble act. When Rama meets Sita and tries to
persuade her not to accompany him, he clearly states that she has to spend time
undertaking religious vows and fasting (TTR 2.26.29) and take care of Bharata
and Shatughna like her own sons as they are dear to him even more than his own
life (TTR 2.26.33). Wendy desires to see Sita in Bharata’s bed? Utterly
pervert! However Rama cautions Sita not to praise him in front of Bharata, as a
person in power may not relish praise of other person (TTR 2.26.24-25). After
all, it is about human nature. Rama too
considers himself and all others in his company as human beings.
Another height of perversion by Wendy, “Valin also takes on
the displaced force of Rama’s suspicion of half brother, Lakshmana. The text
suggests that Rama might fear that Lakshmana might replace him in bed with
Sita; it keeps insisting that Laxmana will not
sleep with Sita” (P 237). In another instance Wendy equates Sita with a
seductress. “Sita inspires Ravana with both desire and anger. Indeed in terms
of the mythological paradigm, it is Sita, as celestial nymph (or, in
Vibhishana’s view, great hooded serpent) who defeats Ravana” (P 247). It is a shear
nonsense and deliberate attempt to malign Sita’s character. It was Shurpanakha
after being defiled by Lakshamana, that went back to Ravana and incited him to
abduct Sita. Shurpanakha and not Sita inspires Ravana with desire and anger.
Wendy has totally lost sight of these facts.
To counter her argument about Rama’s suspicion about
Lakshamana, one can refer to the original text. Rama in fact expresses his deep
gratitude to Lakshmana in the initial phase of the exile as he says, “O Lakshmana,
lion among humans, you have done a great job by accompanying me, else I would
have been required to take a person for her protection” (TTR 2.46.9). If ever
Rama had any doubt, he would have ordered for a companion when Bharat came to
meet him in exile. Lakshmana too stands on the morally high pedestal. He is
able to identify only the anklets worn on feet by Sita as he used to bow before
her often. He did not look at her face at all.
It is not a fable. Hindus have produced such great people of
high moral character even in the modern times. It is a recorded instance from
the life of the great freedom fighter and scholar of the Vedas, Lokamanya B.G.
Tilak. Once a lady came to seek legal opinion from him. While he talked to her
and offered her legal advice, his colleagues had noted that he had not looked
even once at her face. Afterwards they inquired as to how Tilak would recognize
the lady if she comes again, to that he said, he would recognize her from her
voice. There were such people around till the recent times. Mahatma Gandhi
never spoke untruth. His ideal was Rama. Well he was a great man but I too have
met a person, a socialist worker in 1970s, late Shri Aba Karmarkar, who stayed
in Mumbai suburb of Goregaon, who spoke only truth and was relied upon by all
those who knew him. Shivaji was such a person for whom a famous legend is
attributed. He returned daughter-in-law of a Muslim chieftain from Kalyan. In
the times when Mughals were ruthlessly attacking looting, raping women folk,
Shivaji had issued strict orders to his army men not to harm ladies even in the
enemy territory. All these high ideals are beyond comprehension of Wendy who
has been rightly accused of harbouring Judaeo-Christian bias and out to
denigrate Hindus.
In the passage quoted above, like a sex starved woman, Wendy
imposes and projects her wet dreams on Lakshmana, is the worst I can say. Although
it is hitting below the belt to a (scholarly?) woman, but it reminds me of Trataka
who had attacked young Rama. Guru Vishvamitra had to order Rama to kill a lady
which he was hesitating. I condemn Wendy for the slander in writing such passages.
Even though the book is withdrawn from the Indian market, it will be available to
the outside world. And all those who read it will develop strange and different
notions about Ramayana text. Penguins should widely publicise apology for
having published such a slander and abject lies in the garb of
scholarship.
Wendy’s understanding
of the Sanskit language
Wendy cannot read simple Sanskrit texts properly. She
writes, “So too five years after Dashaaratha has banished Rama, he suddenly
wakes Kaushalya up in the middle of night and tells her about this (Shravana’s
death at his hands) episode which he has only now remembered” (P240). This is
height of ignorance on part of Wendy. Everybody who knows Ramayana, will recall
that Dasharatha died on the day Sumant, the charioteer returned to Ayodhya after
he left Rama back in the woods. It was within a week. On the fifth day after
Rama left Ayodhya, Dasharatha remembered that episode. He clearly states that
the five days that have passed since Rama left for forest are like five years
for him. Dasharatha’s early death is further confirmed by Bharata as he rushes
back to Ayodhya when he has glimpses of his ancestors along with Dasharatha. As
per the text, Dasharatha did not live for five years, but that only shows
Wendy’s poor level of understanding of Sanskrit language. How can one expect
her to be a reliable author on the epics like Ramayana which are written in
simple Sanskrit language which Wendy cannot comprehend. She did not comprehend
the figure of speech when Dasharatha says five days seemed like five years to
him and she literally inteprets it to mean he lived for five years after Rama
was baninshed to the forest.
Ramayana :the great
epic
Next to the Vedas, Rmanayana is revered as the holy epic by
Hindus all over the world. Wherever the Hindus went or were forced to migrate
as indentured labourers, they took their Hindi version of Holy Ramayana, i. e.
Tulasi Ramayana, with them. Hindus find ideals and fulfilment of life in
Ramayana. The original Valmiki Ramayana story inspired many more poets from
almost all the Indian languages and even outside India to scribe their own
versions of Ramayana. Such is the influence of the Ramayana on the Hindu mind.
There have been additions to the original text and traditionally these to have
been recognized as inserted cantos i.e. prakshipta
sargas. In the modern times, when
the Indian scholars studied Ramayana, they too expressed divergent views about
the text. Ravana’s Lanka was located by the most celebrated archaeologist H. D.
Sankalia in today’s Chhattisgad state. It was also speculated that Ramayana is
based on Homar’s epics although the story can be traced to much earlier times.
Great socialist intellectual and politician Ram Manohar Lohiya in one of his
celebrated essays thought that Rama, Krishna and Shiva are thee great dreams of
idealized personalities of the mass Hindu psyche. Hindus accepted these
speculations with no fuss. Because we have tradition of willingly accepting dissent.
But Wendy’s is a pure slander. So it is not acceptable to us.
Ramayana is great epic for the emotional and linguistic
beauty and has been recognized so all over the world. Many Sanskrit couplets
including famous inserted couplet of “janani
janmabhumishcha” are the part of Indian cultural ethos. This great epic has
immensely contributed to build up cultural traditions of the Hindus such that
later day Buddhists and Jains too were tempted to adopt Rama in their stories. The
story is unique. There are many types of
personalities, the most ideal ones and the most crooked ones portrayed
in the epic. There are base instincts as well elevated minds portrayed. For a
modern reader, Ramayana offers nature’s love. There are several passages in
Ramayana portraying seasons then described in India. In fact Rama is portrayed
as true environmentalist. He loves nature. He and Sita spend years together
happily in the company of nature. It is pleasant rainy season that soothed him
after abduction of Sita. It is worth reading the way Bharata made arrangements
for the travel of Ayodhaya residents to meet Rama in exile; the way roads were
built, the number of facilities, including cobblers, provided along the way. It
is akin to modern High way management. Several books and treatises have been
written to eulogise Ramayana.
Punitive action
Obviously the people like Dina Nath Batra (The Indian
Express 13th Feb 2014) Or Balbir Punj (The Indian Express 21st
Feb 2014) felt offended because of Webdy’s writing such malicious matter. I too
felt offended. I can no longer hold Wendy Doniger in high esteem for her
scholaarship. We Hindus are justified in asking publishers to withdraw and pulp
the book. As stated earlier Penguins should publicise worldwide apology for
having published such a malicious book. Finally Penguins have shown a small
good gesture and made it known that large majority of people in India do not
agree with the views expressed by a pervert woman Wendy Doniger in her book,”The
Hindus: An Alternative History.” It is not a scholarly work. It is trash and
akin to yellow journalistic book.
(Author is a scholar of ancient Indian culture and has
written extensively on Ramayana.)
No comments:
Post a Comment