Ramayana: The Alternate Perspective
And with this, I do not want to offend anyone's religious sentiments or sensibilities. I duly apologise in advance because this post is aimed at asking a few logical questions and if you still want to feel offended- Please be my guest!
So, we have been raised in a way that for most of us the most visual encounter of Ramayana has been courtesy Ramanand Sagar. We have grown up thinking of Ravan as that demonic figure with that exaggerated laughter who was the idle embodiment of evil.
Soorpanakha was the evil sister who tried to seduce Lakshman and got her nose and ears cut in response.
Vibheeshan was Ravan's brother who ditched him to be with truth and went and told secrets to Lord Rama,
Lord Rama, the quintessential avatar of Lord Vishnu was the epitome of veracity and everything sane.
So, the bone of contention was that Ravan abducted Sita Maa (Lord Ram's wife) and kept her at his place. Though a few television serials have shown that Ravan tried to desecrate the sanctity of Sita Maa, as such no literary evidence is available for that (Confident because I have read Ramayana).
Enough for the backdrop, now the questions:
So, we have been raised in a way that for most of us the most visual encounter of Ramayana has been courtesy Ramanand Sagar. We have grown up thinking of Ravan as that demonic figure with that exaggerated laughter who was the idle embodiment of evil.
Soorpanakha was the evil sister who tried to seduce Lakshman and got her nose and ears cut in response.
Vibheeshan was Ravan's brother who ditched him to be with truth and went and told secrets to Lord Rama,
Lord Rama, the quintessential avatar of Lord Vishnu was the epitome of veracity and everything sane.
So, the bone of contention was that Ravan abducted Sita Maa (Lord Ram's wife) and kept her at his place. Though a few television serials have shown that Ravan tried to desecrate the sanctity of Sita Maa, as such no literary evidence is available for that (Confident because I have read Ramayana).
Enough for the backdrop, now the questions:
- Soorpanakha was Ravan's sister, so if somebody cuts the nose of their sister, how do you want the person to react? Do you want him to sit quietly and pray to lord or since that time there were no court of laws as such but separate kingdoms, how should Ravan have reacted?
- Don't you think that cutting somebody's nose because they tried to "seduce" (and not force themselves upon you) a justified act of retaliation? The reaction could have been way diluted
- Vibheeshan, such a traitor he was that he went and opened up against Ravan to Lord Ram. Like it is usually said that he was a righteous person, maybe he was just too scared and wanted to save his life!
- How could Lord Ram trust Vibheeshan and crown him the king later? If someone could not belong to his brother how credible can that person be?
- Now, just because someone in his kingdom said something against Sita Maa, was it justified on Lord Ram's part to ask her to undergo an Agnee Pareeksha ? Couldn't he have trusted her and acted in a more mature manner by reasoning out with the said person? Being the "maryada purushottam" that he was, shouldn't he have worried about Sita Maa's "maryada" once!
Now there are a few corollaries to some of the aforementioned points:
- Maybe Soorpanakha was just too embarrassed on being rejected and hence created all the propaganda! Ravan, no matter what, should have at least once confirmed what had transpired. Simply abducting someone because of your vindictive feeling is not justified at all.
- The great Vibheeshan, I feel that he is the only one whose effigy needs to be burnt! Even if (like it is usually projected in the serials with no mention in the text) he had been a tormented kid, first it gets hard to believe that he was tormented so much and still given adequate luxuries for living; anyway, even if he had been so tormented and his life was beginning to improve, he was easily the most opportunistic character because he realised where the power was going to shift and hence did the deed!
(Confused Genius feels that things have been portrayed out of proportion in the television serials, The text still offers a lot of unanswered questions and maybe it is high time that we do not just believe what is being shown to us till we are fully convinced of it.
Remember: There is always an alternative perspective)
Awesome. :)
ReplyDeleteAn Alternate Perspective is nothing but a theory test for those who seek logic and not otherwise. Were the actions justifiable? Was there a parallel theory? Was there need of extreme force? What ought to have been done? etc. All these questions are debatable.
ReplyDeleteThat being said I am willing to unearth more than I do know now. Pls take no offense if my views suggest otherwise than u.
1. Shoorpnakha was Ravan's Sister. but nowhere would one find mention that the entire Episode of Sita Haran was to avenge Shoorpnakha. I would like to remind you that Sita rejected Ravan once(during the swayamber episode), to which Ravan felt insulted and swore to revenge. Had it been revenge for Lakshman's act, Ravan would have hurt him than kidnapping Sita.
2. Shooprnakha played victim in order to hide her disgraceful act of seduction (yes it was considered disgraceful during the time, for the unmarried). so far as Lakhman's act is to be adjudged. I remind you, that it is an act of self defence. Yes, you read it right, SELF DEFENCE. As a matter of fact, Shoorpnaka was a Rakshasi and she transformed herself into a gorgeous woman to seduce Lakshman. He repeatedly asked her not to seduce him, as he had devoted his life for Shri Ram, to which Shoorpnakha re-transformed to her true form and said he doesn't know as to whom he is rejecting and showed her might in the name of Ravan among other things. to this Laskshman exercised self defence and said I dont care. It was only then what happened, happened.
3. Vibhishan- Traitor??? Yes, I agree. He could be the worst thing that could happen to a family, that is why you will never come across someone named Vibhishan (I haven't). Scared- I don't agree. He was safe in Lanka if he only stood by with Ravan. Lord Ram may would have never be victorious if it wasn't for Vibhishan. He spilled the beans. Vibhishan was on the path of righteousness and honour. From day 1 of Sita haran, he time and again reminded Ravan of the deed he did and asked to undo it. Alas, Ravan paid no heed, for he was too occupied with pride and power.
4. Vibhishan- the king??
As we know for a fact that most of the invasions during the time, were a show of power and yes to expand one's kingdom. The relevant question to that effect would be- Did Lord Ram invade Lanka for expansion of his Kingdom? The answer is obvious.
What compelled him to make Vibhishan as the Ruler of Lanka- was it some reward for being traitor? No. During the reign, only the legacy of a King shall inherit the throne was the Law. Technically, Ravan's son was to inherit his father's throne. Was he there? We all know. Vibhishan was the only male left of the family. Hence, it was nothing extraordinary but procedural.
5. Agni Pariksha- It didn't happen because Lord Ram heard something. That's a different story altogether. It was conversation that struck between Lord Ram and Sita ji. Lord Ram asked if Ravan made any forcible advances upon Sita ji, to which she replied that she was as pure as she was with Lord Ram, as the fire that lit beside her. For which she offered to be tested with prayer to the gods, that if she's lying or that her modesty had been encroached upon any way, the fire shall gulp her. Needless to say, she was right.
Maryada purushotam- Lord Ram's regarded as Maryada Purushotam because he was the first King to swear to never to marry another girl during his lifetime. At the time when Kings used to have 'N' numbers of wives, he vowed never to marry again.
Hello Dheeraj! Thanks for your words. Actually all the things that you mentioned, I tried to question exactly those. Maybe the entire story telling on TV which has usually been our source of information is skewed. The inferences that I have tried to draw are from my understanding of the book Ramayan and hence I feel that the way most of us have ended justifying Ram and Lakshman's action and loathed Ravana, maybe there is a truth far greater than that.
DeleteThe point is, what we have not seen by our eyes and heard by out own ears, something that has been just told to us by a third person, we should use our logic before blindly accepting that as truth.
I hope my reply could answer some of your concerns.
Thanks for writing.
Why the 'i' in your blog's name is not in capital font?
ReplyDelete