Emulate whom - Rama or Krishna?

A short post on the eve of Krishna JanmAshtami.

Of the two iconic characters of India, both incarnations of the Lord, which one should we try to emulate?

In answering this question, it is important to consider the context - the yugas during which the Lord incarnated.

During the Rama avatara, the Krita Yuga was still largely dhaarmic. Rama explicitly did the right things (we, even today, have no doubt that his actions we the right things to do), except perhaps the episodes of seemingly doubting Sita and of eliminating Vaali from a hidden perch. So, it is easy for Indian parents to push their son to be like Rama, devoted to his father and mother, to his kingdom and his people, to dharma, etc (and daughters to be like Sita, too!).

On the other hand, during the Krishna avatara, the Dwapara Yuga was still mostly dhaarmic but there were injustices against individuals and the people, the rule of tyrants and the like. In this context, Krishna's actions reflect the need to act street smart for the cause of the people and of upholding dharma. There are several episodes where Krishna finds loopholes to outwit the tyrants, especially during the 18-day Mahabharata war.

Given that Kali Yuga is worse off than Dwapara in dharma, Krishna should be the right model for us to emulate. Emulate Rama, whenever possible, of course!

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.

Rama in the subcontinent and beyond

Happy to be writing a post on Rama on Rama Navami, Nandana Samvatsara...this is less about the Ramayana itself than it is about cultural impact and political issues today.

Rama was born to king Dasharatha of Kosala (capital: Ayodhya) in the Treta Yuga, the third avatar of Vishnu in that yuga - after Vamana and Parashurama. Interestingly, this is the first yuga where Vishnu incarnates as normal humans, the Satya yuga having included Matsya, Koorma, Varaha and Narasimha.

Rama breaking the bow to win Sita. Nobody else
was able to even lift the bow. Raja Ravi Varma.

The story of Rama, by and large, is familiar to most of us from India, and the reason is probably because the Ramayana is such an important part of our culture that the story is familiar to everyone cutting across faiths and subcontinent cultures. In fact, not so long ago many a village in the subcontinent would have a local legend about Rama having passed through on way to Lanka, or Sita having dropped some jewels when being flown by Ravana to Lanka, etc. Whether these were true or not in each case, the pride in being somehow related to Rama can be infectious. Rama is still the benchmark for a man, and comparative references to Rama's eka patni vratha are common even in contemporary conversations. 

There are various estimates for the time period of the Ramayana, ranging from 20,000 years ago to much earlier. Dating events in the previous yugas becomes tricky due to several reasons, including the ages of people and other frames of references being very different. I read some accounts of Rama rajya having run for a period of 11,000 years. Again, I'm unsure of whether this is a time period comparable to 11,000 years in kali yuga. Another aspect to consider is that some schools of thought propose yuga sandhis between different yugas, periods of dormant metamorphosis of the earth where changes in environment, species, continents, etc. take place. Going by this theory, the age of the ramayana would have to account for 2 yuga sandhis.

Javanese Ramayana play. Courtesy hinduyuva.org

What amazes me is the spread of the legend of Rama beyond the seas, to countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and Cambodia. In fact, the Indonesians do plays to this day depicting the Ramayana. 

The Javanese (Indonesia) version of the Ramayana may not mirror the mainstream Indian versions exactly. Still, that this is still a part of their culture is inspiring.

Rama has become a major flashpoint in India in recent times. The Babri demolition and subsequent riots are an example. The issue however is not as recent as the 1990s, but appears to have been simmering for at least 2-3 centuries, during the Mughal and then British rule of India. I will not go into this issue here, but a more recent 'academic' controversy is worth noting. Delhi University decided to include (and subsequently revoked, after protests) an essay by AK Ramanujam describing several different versions of Ramayana. There do exist perverted versions of the Ramayana that depict Rama and Sita as siblings, for example, but I don't believe that these versions were at all part of the culture of the land. The differences in the credible versions are much more subtle. I haven't read Ramanjuam's essay, but going by media accounts, what he attempted was likely just a collection of the different versions. When in no way reflective of the culture or beliefs of the people, it would have been wise on the part of the history department to leave this essay out, or present it in the right light to students.

Allama Iqbal.
Courtesy: opinion-maker.org

I was surprised to see a post floating around on Facebook a few weeks ago, about poet Mohammad 'Allama' Iqbal having written a poem on Rama. Iqbal was initially an Indian nationalist, and a secular person (much like Jinnah, but they of course ended up supporting the two nation theory eventually). Iqbal of course wrote the famous Sare Jahaan Se Acha Hindustan Hamara before he took a u-turn. Still, I am happy that when he was saner, he saw Rama through the prism of culture and nationhood, and not via religion or faith. On the other side of the political spectrum (of the 1940s), MK Gandhi was also a famous proponent of Rama rajya. I am not entirely sure what he meant when he used the term, but I'm certain it had no particular religious connotation.

Like many others, I wait for the day that a temple for Rama will stand tall again in Ayodhya, where he administered Rama rajya from.

Indra - good, bad, and ugly

Indra plays several characters in the two epics. He appears as Indra himself several times, and as distinct characters/avatars.

The most famous avatar of Indra of course is Arjuna in the Mahabharata. And we all know Arjuna was 'good'. But are there darker shades to Indra, the head of the devas? There are many!

The puranas and the epics build an image of Indra that is playboy-ish. While he does lead the devas, is a key member of the pantheon of Gods, etc., he still has dark shades to his character that no other God has.

The first story where Indra is clearly a villain is that of Ahalya from the Ramayana. Very interesting story, with a lot of takeaways for us in the modern world.

(image courtesy columbia.edu -
Raja Ravi Verma)

Ahalya is described in the puranas as being created specially by Brahma. He creates her to best Urvashi in Indra's court in beauty. She is sent to rishi Gautama's ashrama to be raised, and when she is presented back to Brahma, he is pleased with Gautama's restraint. An open competition is held for all to contest for her hand. Indra, having taken a fancy to Ahalya (and by some accounts, she to him) contests. The first to complete a circle of the world is to be considered the winner.

Gautama does a 'Ganesha' and quickly circles his cow that is giving birth. According to the shastras, a cow that is giving birth is considered equivalent to the entire world, and hence Gautama is declared winner.

After marriage, when Gautama is away from his ashrama, Indra appears in the form of Gautama and seduces Ahalya, leading her to be cursed by Gautama. She would remain unseen to the outside world, as a rock, until Rama brushes his feet on the rock, 60000 years later, to redeem her. Some accounts in the puranas lay part of the blame on Ahalya, but Indra ia accepted universally as having seduced her. And don't worry that he wasn't punished for his act. Gautama curses him that half the blame for any 'rape' of anybody in the world in the future would belong to Indra. Quite a reputation indeed, gained during Satya Yuga (when the influence of Kali is nil). There's more to the curses heaped on him, but the different puranic versions are too many to recount.

The story of Ahalya is a very sensitive issue even today, with women's movements picking it up as a key example of how women are targeted for the faults of others, etc. Some others blame Ahalya for being easy prey. I'll leave Ahalya alone, I'm content to pick on Indra!

(image courtesy gangesindia.com)

During the Ramayana itself, Indra incarnates as Vali, Sugriva's brother. Vali abducts his brother's wife, and Sugriva seeks Rama's help in return for his vaanara forces' help in invading Lanka.

Rama shoots Vali down without facing him in battle, something critics of Rama say he should not have done. Where did yuddha dharma go, whoever the opponent might be?

I however would say that yuddha dharma does not apply in all cases. Just like speaking the truth all the time isn't a virtue (there are cases when speaking a lie can be the dharma).

Given that Vali has abducted his brother's wife, he is not entitled to a fair battle. He deserved to be shot down by whatever means. It does not reflect on Rama's character in any way, just on Vali's (Indra) action.

Here again, a clearly bad character, keeping Indra's reputation up.

(image courtesy wikipedia)

Even in the Mahabharata, where Indra plays a mostly clean Arjuna and some other characters, there are dark shades to be seen.

Indra does play some bit roles, including that of an ascetic who goes to Karna during his surya pooja. Knowing that Karna would give away anything that was asked after surya pooja, he asks for his kavacha (the armour he was born with). Karna realizes that this must be Indra incognito (to help Arjuna his archrival), but goes ahead and cuts his armour off. Nothing much bad about Indra's role here, but it does appear to be trickery at first glance, even if it were to Karna, a not so good character inspite of his virtues.


(image courtesy augadha.com)

As Arjuna, while Indra does not commit too many mistakes, there are many episodes that indicate doubt on his abilities or character.

First, Dronacharya protects him in the face of challengers, to keep him the best archer of his times. Ekalavya's thumb is taken, making him incapable of rivaling Arjuna's prowess. Karna is insulted because he isn't a kshatriya, and while he may have displayed skills better than Arjuna, he is insulted by many, including Drona. Even Draupadi, when it seems like Karna might win the swayamvara, tells him that he is ineligible to participate because he was not kshatriya. All these make Arjuna look less grand, almost as if he had godfathers everywhere who would do anything to protect him.

The episode of Abhimanyu dying inside the chakravyuha is heartbreaking. Nonetheless, Arjuna's reaction leaves a lot to be desired. First, Arjuna, in one episode in the Mahabharata is seeing advising a man not to cry at his son's funeral because the son was merely departing his present body, etc. Second, Arjuna hears the whole geeta upadesha from Krishna at the start of the war. He even confirms that he has understood the impermanence of life, and the need for dharma. Within 18 days of hearing the geeta, he cries when Abhimanyu is dead. Krishna then tells Arjuna that he might have as well done geeta upadesha to more deserving people like Bhima. More on Bhima later!

So, there. Indra's good, bad, and the ugly.

Rama doubts Sita?

There are only a handful of instances in the Ramayana where one might question Rama's actions. One such is the incident that happens after Rama wins the war with Ravana, and brings Sita back from Lanka.

On usual incognito rounds of His kingdom, he hears people talking about Sita. They doubt that any woman, even if it were Sita, would not have succumbed to a man, especially after she was under his control for months together.

(image courtest nirmukta.com)

What happens next is Sita undergoes an agni pariksha. If she walks through fire unscathed, she is considered to have been pure and chaste. If there was an iota of impurity in thoughts or actions, she would be burned. She does come out of the fire unscathed, and convinces her citizens.

A lot of issues at hand here, some political:


Firstly, I don't think that Sita should be viewed as the sort of helpless woman she is portrayed as normally. "She crossed the lakshman rekha herself", "she wanted a deer that attracted her", etc. 


Focusing on the agni pariksha incident itself, I don't know if Valmiki goes into details on the Rama-Sita conversation after Rama learns about his citizens' doubts. I have a strong feeling that Sita herself suggested to Rama that the best course for him as the king, and her as queen, is to subject herself to agni pariksha. While the husband may have no doubts on his wife, one holding public office does need to take his citizens' views into account. 


(image courtesy awara32.blogspot.com)

And, I hate that Sita is sometimes depicted as crying on hearing about the agni pariksha (remember Ramayan from the late 80s-early 90s?), whether hurt by Rama's decision or for any other reason. That women are the crying type is a stereotype that's not very accurate. I think the sorrow was felt most on the part of the citizens, to see their beloved queen subjected to a test only because some among them had doubts. (If I might mix a bit of theology in, Rama and Sita being the Lord and His consort herself cannot have experienced any sorrow anyway, they were merely playing their role.) 


That said, I can't understand why Sita had to leave Rama. Having stayed with him through hardships a princess would not be accustomed to, being abducted, and so on, why did she have to leave him after the agni pariksha? Somehow a perfect marriage and couple seem slightly imperfect. She didn't seem to question any of his actions until then - not why he came late to reclaim her, not why they had to go to the forest in the first place. Why question his decision all of a sudden?


Curiously, I don't know that Janaka (the father of Sita) expressed any opinions on his daughter's situation - to Rama or in general. Not sure if Valmiki goes into the details, but I'd be interested in learning more. In today's world, any of what Sita had to undergo would be what the father-in-law might use as grounds to push for a divorce. Was Janaka silent because he knew that his son-in-law could do no wrong? Surely, seeing one's daughter undergo an agni pariksha in public to prove her chastity must have been unbearable? (Was he already dead by that time?)


Finally, Sita does not go back to Janakapuri (which by the way is in present day Nepal). Sita goes to Valmiki's ashrama instead, and ultimately raises her two sons there. Had she gone back to her father, that would have indicated that their marriage had failed which it hadn't. Anyway, overall Sita leaving Rama and moving to Valmiki's ashrama seems to me to have served no major purpose, other than punishing Ayodhya's citizens and depriving them of the presence of their queen and of their twin princes.