To hell with relativism - a look at the Ramayana

Image courtesy: realchristianity.wordpress.com, cartoonstock.com

I have come to believe that relativism - moral or cultural - is dangerous. There are several reasons why I believe that.

In case you are not familiar with the terms moral relativism and cultural relativism, here are simple definitions in my own words:

Moral relativism holds that morals (standards) are relative and what one may hold as the right thing to do in a certain land is not necessarily the right thing to do in another. For example, the idea that if it is immoral for most of humanity to kill one another, a cannibalistic society can still do what it pleases.

Cultural relativism is similar. For example, the idea that while I may consider equal rights to men and women as sacred, I would tolerate cultures that do not hold the same standard. 

  

Today's attitudes in the liberal, democratic world are largely culturally relativistic (though may be not morally relativistic). Let's look at the Ramayana in the lens of cultural and moral relativism and see where that might lead us. 

I was talking with a friend about Rama a few years back. The conversation quickly came around to how he thought Rama was an aggressor because of the Ashwamedha Yagna. Contrast Rama's 'aggression' with, for example, Ashoka, who 'renounced' violence and became a peace loving king. This is an argument of a moral relativist. Peace is definitely the ideal to strive for, but for the kshatriya (the ruler, the politician, etc.), the duty is to protect his people. However, the duty of the kshatriya is also to protect people beyond his borders. Afterall, Indian culture talks of the principle of Vasudaiva Kutumbakam, that the entire world and its people is one family. So, while the Ashwamedha Yagna involved the king's (Rama) army going from kingdom to kingdom asking its ruler to accept the leadership of Rama, that ruler was still autonomous. The leadership of Rama meant that Rama Rajya would come to that kingdom as well, and Rama Rajya would not strip the ruler of his individuality, merely ensure that tresspasses from the right path, if any, would be prevented.

Here the relativist can of course ask: "What makes Rama Rajya superior to the other governments?", "Why should Rama be superior to others?", etc. This is a question born out of our experience from today's worldview where no form of government is without significant flaws. So, if the US asks extremist Islamist despots to give up their dictatorship and embrace 'democracy', the decision is not a no-brainer even for the people. Comparison with Rama's Ashwamedha Yagna is therefore not congruent.

With Rama Rajya, there was no doubt. We are talking about the ideal government, with all its people happy with the rule. For what it is worth, MK Gandhi did want to see Rama Rajya in India after independence (which most Indians conveniently ignore when they talk of Gandhism); although the ideal, how Rama Rajya would be achieved would have been up in the air (much like the Islamists' ideal of a 'just' Khilafa). During the Ramayana, people in other kingdoms will not have seen Rama as an aggressor, and only a tyrant or egoistic king would have seen the need to protest the leadership of Rama.

I know I will not have convinced the relativists, but it is important to see Dharma, the good of the people, truth, etc., as objective and non-relativistic concepts. Without that, there is no way to arrive at the correct answer to important questions, for example, Arjuna's question of whether he should fight his own relatives. Ashoka might have advised diplomacy or surrender.