Ramayan as I read it...

Heard the Ramayan stories from my mother as a child. The name Ayodhya got etched on my mind, for the river Sharayu, than that of birth place of Lord Ram. Because Sharayu aunty, our neighbour, was one of my favourite aunts then! 

As per the all very typical Marathi middle class Brahman families, my mother had taught me the "Raamraksha",  which was supposed to be recited every evening, when mom would light a diya in her "deoghar". The Raamraksha is a long verse in Sanskrit, praising Lord Ram, his looks, his knowledge, his strength, him being the best king... basically all the goods that can be showered upon a man.  Later came the beautiful rendition of "Geet Ramayan" by Sudhir Phadke and Ga. Di. Madgulkar. This had some hummable music, all about Ram and Ramayan.

But every time when I heard the story, I would stumble to call Ram "Maryada Purushottam"; the ideal man! I would feel bad... very bad for Shurpanakha, who was brutally punished for no such big reason. Later I would feel bad for Sita... of course, but would also be annoyed with her for being such a subservient lady. Very soon I stopped my evening recitation of the Raamraksha and the evening prayers to the utter angst from relatives, surprisingly not from my Mom.

I had pestered her a lot during my child hood with my most childlike queries. "How come Ram & Lakshman are always clean shaven even in their "wanwaas" in the jungles? What would they eat aai? They could not grow vegetables, so how did they become strong to fight Ravan?" My mom always ignored such questions by giving the typical answers, that they were Gods, so they could do anything etcetra. 

Various phases of Lord Ram's life depicted at the Hazar Ram temple in Hampi

Growing up and reading made me ask more questions, this time during some conversations with relatives. 
Me: "Why did Sita want Ram to kill the Golden Deer?" 
Relative 01: " to make a blouse from the hide, don't you know?"
Me: " but weren't they in banishment and supposed to live an ascetic life?"
Relative 02: " That was mainly for Ram, Sita was not supposed to be banished, but she followed her husband."
Me.: " Ok so she was allowed to have desires! But isn't it very cruel to kill the animal only for its hide? 
Relative 02: That was the way of life during those days, you see.
Me: Or do you think, it was for the meat as well, that they wanted to kill the animal. Two in one you see! 
Relative 03: What nonsense! Ram wouldn't kill an animal for his meat!
Me: But you just said, that was the way of life then, how else do you think they would survive for 14 years in the jungles? they had to eat animals!
Relative 01: What have you taught your daughters? No "sanskar" at all.
And my Mom would pull me out.

Today, when I see the effigies of Ravan, Kumbhakarn & Meghnad, being burnt on Dushera festival, I get perturbed. Why do we have to be so cruel? We have been burning these effigies year after year and generations after generations? We are told, it symbolizes the win of good over evil. Well... who decides who is good and who is evil? If Ravan abducted Sita, it was as a vengeance for abusing his sister by Ram and Lakshman. And actually, Ravan, as I read, was a great human being. 

A scholar, a capable ruler and master of many arts, Ravan was also a great devotee of Lord Shiva. His home, Lanka, was known as Golden Lanka, which meant prosperous Lanka. He is shown with 10 heads, which actually is manifestation depicting his command over the 6 shastras and the 4 vedas. 

The Ten headed "Lankapati" Ravan.

On the other hand, was the prince of Ayodhya, actually an equal to him? Probably not. Ravan was assassinated deceitfully, else, he would never been killed. All these years one question persistently crops its head... why did Ram choose the southern part of India for his banishment? Why not the north or the east? It seems this was a pre-planned banishment. The southern part of India, which was rich with flora and fauna was vast region. Ruled by Ravan. As per the culture then, there were many matriarchal tribes down south which was against the values of the Suryavanshi clan which Lord Ram belonged to.

Was it done deliberately, to abolish this trend and establish the Aryan culture down south also? Shabri, Anjani were leaders of their own tribes. Tara could re-marry after her husband's demise. Did this equal status for women in these parts disturb the Aryans? The Dravidians, lived with nature. The monkey king, the vulture king, all seem to be clans or tribes worshiping the animal or calling the animal as their mentor. The Aryans definitely found it to be un-civilized. Definition of civilization as per them was "power" "authority" and "dominance". A civilized society was the one which, over powered everything which came it's way. 

What else can explain the agony Sita had to suffer throughout her life? Ramayan speaks highly of Lakshman and his brotherly love, what about Urmila, his wife, whom he left behind for 14 years? Neither the Raamraksha nor the various versions of Ramyan, ever answered any of these questions. The so called religious and "sanskaari" relatives ignored these questions. The unconditional love of Sita for Ram was great, but my words stumble, again, to say Ram loved and respected Sita equally! He might have been a fine ruler, but definitely not the "ideal man"! 

Suvarna


PS: After a few feed backs received, i would like to clarify, in my perception Ram and Ravan, both are human beings and nothing to do with "Dev and Danav"