Ravan – Concluding Part

So yesterday on the occasion of Dusherra, Ravan was burnt with all the fanfare and celebration that goes with the victory of good over evil. In my last couple of articles, we have seen that Ravan was quite a good King and his subjects were very happy under his rule. He was also religious, as he was ardent devotee of both Lord Brahma and Shiva. In his previous births, he was in service of Lord Vishnu.

Legend has it that when Ram had to conduct a puja before the war with Ravan, the rituals were presided over by none other than Ravan himself as there were no Brahmins in that area. Knowing well, that the rituals were to be conducted against his own self, he followed his duty of a Brahmin well. Ravan is supposed to have parted with his knowledge of administration to Ram before he breathed his last. Ram is supposed to have accepted Ravan as his guru for that brief moment and what we know as Ramrajya (rule of Lord Ram) is nothing but based on Ravan’s knowledge of administration. Finally, Ram had even to undergo penalty for killing Ravan, as killing Ravan was akin to brahma-hatya, killing of a Brahmin, a grave sin in those days.

Then why is Ravan still the villain of the epic? Why do we still burn his effigy every year, year after year with such joy and élan?

Ravan was the epitome of manhood but in the epic he has been shown as what a man should not be. Despite all the good qualities, the major error in his character was his hubris. He was a walking embodiment of pride and arrogance. In Hindu mythology, folklore, etc. pride and arrogance has been treated with a lot of contempt and has always been looked down upon, even amongst gods. Many a god has been humbled when pride sets in him. Why are we so averse to Pride? Pride and arrogance steals humility from man and when he loses his humility, he loses his ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

Ravan had lots of good qualities for which he was awarded with boons and recognition too. But all the virtues are what they are only when they are accompanied with humility and not arrogance. He is a stark contrast to the maryada-purshottam (man among men) Lord Ram.

With reference to the epic Ramayana, however vile be the act of Lakshaman in mutilating Surpanakha’s face, the same cannot be justified with kidnapping of another man’s wife, as an act of retribution. What the author of the epic might be trying to establish is the difference between the way of the civilised and the rule of the jungle. What Lakshaman did was not a civilised act, but then Ravan was a King and an extremely educated and well-versed one at that. Where did all the education and knowledge go when faced with a personal crisis of sorts? Was it fair for a King to endanger his entire kingdom for what was apparently a personal problem? A good King and an able administrator must distinguish between what is a threat to his persona as against his nation. It is not that he did not have good advisors – Mandodari, his wife did advise him to give up his claim on Sita and so did many others. But Ravan was consumed by his hubris and thus could not distinguish between what was wrong and what was not.

The long and short of it all is, that yes, Ravan was unparalleled in his stature, but such characters whose vision is impaired by pride and arrogance can be annihilated by even a mortal. No matter how virtuous one is, a single vice can be fatal and unpardonable. In Ravan, we see the fatal in abundance and thus all the boons and virtues are of no help during the final act.

The burning of Ravan’s effigy is not to be seen as burning of the character of Ravan, but burning of the evil in the character. When we burn Ravan, we burn all that’s evil in ourselves and around us. If we are not doing that, then we are simply following a ritual, and not participating in the act. There are a number of temples in India dedicated to Ravan, as a hero; I sincerely hope they are worshipping what was good in him and not doing so as an act of being anti-establishment or anti-Aryan!

With this I conclude my series on Ravan. I hope I have done justice to the character who had the capability of heroism in him, but due to a significant error in his character, ended up being an ant-hero in the epic Ramayana.

Vishnu’s Dashavatar & Charles Darwin – Part 2

Yesterday, we read about the similarities of the first five avatars of dashavatar with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Let us now go through the other five avatars to trace the cultural evolution of mankind.

The sixth avatar of Lord Vishnu was Parashuram, a rugged primitive warrior with a battle axe. This form could be a symbol of the cave-man stage of evolution and his usage of the axe could be seen as man’s evolution from the stone age to the iron age. Man had learnt the art of using tools and weapons and exploit the natural resources available to him.

The next avatar is that of Rama, a king who obeyed all the norms of the society as laid down, even at the cost of his personal discomfort. This form also displays a sense of altruism that was expected from a man amongst men – who was to set the ideals of living and even set an example of exemplary ethical standards. This also shows that society had started forming norms and rules and the life of savagery and might-is-right was over. Kings, government, rules and a distinct class system was beginning to fall in place.

This brings us to the next avatar of Lord Krishna, who was shown as a philosopher who taught the methods to deal with the contradictions of the society. He gave mankind the novel ways of handling ethics and evils both in an objective manner. Showing Lord Krishna’s childhood as a cowherd also depicts the fact that man had learnt the domestication of animals and had learnt to make use of the animal resources available to him and respect the same. Along with Krishna, is his brother Balarama, who is depicted with a plough, which goes on to show that man had also begun to depend on agriculture and had learnt to make use of land and earn from it. This also puts an end to the nomadic life style of the uncivilized man.

During the times of Rama and Krishna, there are a number of concepts introduced to man, which shows that man had begun to even think in a creative manner. The earlier avatars dealt with and depicted the baser instincts of man. But these two avatars had started giving wings to man’s thought process. Thus in Ramayana we find the mention of Pushpak Vimana (a flying machine), crossing of seas by Hanuman, sanjivani-buti (life saving drugs), etc. Similarly, in Mahabharata, which also deals with the life and times of Krishna, we see the evils of the society, games played by the people (chaupar), Sanjay relaying the battle from a distance through divya-drishti (divine-vision), mention and occasional usage of weapons of mass-destruction (brahmastra and divyastra), births which were not normal and which needed external help, all akin to modern methods of aided-reproduction, etc. (Please note that I am not saying that people had the ‘technology’ then; all I am saying is that man had evolved to a stage where he could allow his creative thoughts to think of such aspects of life – which too is a stage in the cultural evolution of mankind).

This brings us the ninth avatar of Lord Vishnu, i.e. Lord Buddha. The story of Buddha symbolizes the emergence of non-violence and human rights as viable doctrines. Till the stage of Rama and Krishna we have seen man thinking of rules and norms of living in a society. We have seen aspects of politics and forms of governing and the life of battles and its repercussions. Buddha gives man a meaning of existence. He gave man the ideals of a class-less society and that all were equal, irrespective of status. Buddha taught man to think beyond material comforts of life. He introduced the concept of Moksha and Nirvana, and made them the ultimate goals of life. We are supposedly still in this stage of evolution and each one of us are seeking our own ways of achieving individual Moksha, though we have not quite found the formula of world-peace!

This completed the entire evolution of man, which started from nothing, to an evolved evolution.

The tenth avatar of Lord Vishnu, i.e. Kalki, is an imaginary incarnation and is still awaited. Kalki depicts a warrior mounted on a flying horse with a sword who is ready to fight any extra terrestrial invader. The symbolism here is not very clear. Different scholars have opined different regarding this avatar, some say that this avatar will bring a complete destruction which will take us back to where we started, whereas some say that this could be the idea of a single leader who will unify the world under a single rule/ruler. (We will have to wait and watch and if something happens during my lifetime, please be ready to find it in this Blog!).

To conclude – it is important to understand that Lord Vishnu’s dashavatar came much before Darwin propounded his theory of evolution. However, this does not undermine Darwin’s efforts in any way, as his theory is more granular and with a lot of scientific evidence that our rational mind has got used to. On behalf of Charles Darwin, I would also like to mention that he had never read the Hindu scriptures and in no way did he use this to formulate his theory of evolution!

Vishnu’s dashavatar has definitely eliminated some stages of evolution, but one can’t overlook the beauty of presenting what today is scientifically an acceptable theory. Moreover, Darwin stopped at the evolution of man, but the dashavatar goes beyond the physical evolution of man, it traces man’s cultural and cerebral evolution too. Needless to say, that the theory has some overlaps, like Parashuram making an appearance during the times of Rama and Krishna, but if you leave such things to the theorists and as aspects of ‘creative indulgence’, then one can’t help but agree that this is definitely one of the best theories of evolution. 

Finally, my favourite statement, (at the cost of repetition) – all that we read in mythology is not without meaning and every aspect has more to it than what meets the eye!

Part 4 – Ramayana a Tribal version

(This is not from AK Ramanujan’s essay. I have taken this up from my study on Tribal Mythology, but is relevant to our present series on the different versions of the epic, Ramayana)

A Gond painting depicting Ramkatha

The Gonds are amongst the prominent tribes of Central India. One of their sub-tribe is the Baiga tribe. Both the tribes have a rich collection of folklores and stories, many of which have been collected and published by the likes of Verrier Elwin and Durga Bhagvat. The following folklore is from one of the stories collected by Durga Bhagvat as told to her by a Gond from Mandla in Madhya Pradesh, and is more commonly known as “The Lachhman Jati”.

Before we get into the synopsis of a long story, it must be understood that the prime deity of these tribes was Mahadeo, who is depicted in the form of Shiva – here Ram is not a prominent deity. Further, the hero of this version is Lakshaman, (referred to as Lachhaman) and not Ram, and Sita is not the chaste woman as is the case of all the versions of Ramayana known to us!

According to this folktale, Ram is playing dice with Mahadeo and on a particular day, he has forgotten his dice at home. Ram sends Lachhaman to his hut to go and bring the dice for him. When Lachhaman goes to get the dice, Sita is at home alone. Sita is enamoured with Lachhaman and is secretly in love with him. She asks Lachhaman to spend some time with her, but Lachhaman, a staunch celibate, does not agree to her evil designs. Sita is insulted and bolts the door trying to hold him in the room. But Lachhaman, breaks open the door and leaves.

Sita is angry at this denial and decides to avenge the insult. She tears up her saree, and breaks her necklace and sits disheveled waiting for Ram. When Ram comes home, he sees the broken door and the disheveled Sita. On asking, Sita tells him that Lachhaman tried to make love to her! Ram gets angry and beats up Lachhaman. When Lachhaman pleaded his innocence, he was asked to prove his innocence by jumping into boiling oil. Lachhaman, come out of the oil absolutely unscathed, but feels insulted at not being asked and given a chance to explain. He leaves the hut in penance. He goes on a long expedition and this takes him through a series of adventure where the story keeps taking its twists and turns, all to show his heroism and brave acts.

The story has a dramatic end. After Lachhaman leaves his brother and wife, they fall in hard times. Ram had to take up work with a potter and Sita had to collect fuel from the forest. When the heroic Lachhaman returns home he sees them in a sorry state and feels very bad. He changes everything and the old glory is brought back and in the end Lachhaman asks everybody that from then onwards, people should take the name of Ram with the same respect as Mahadeo!

The above is a very concise version of the story and a few notable differences here are as follows –

y    As mentioned earlier, Ram is not the hero, rather the characterization of both Ram and Sita is quite poor to the extent that towards the end Ram is even punished by having to work as a menial at the potters and Sita is made to collect sticks in the jungle.

y    Sita is quite contrary to what we have read till now and is shown here as scheming and has her sight on Lachhaman, her brother-in-law. It is important to mention here that in the tribes of Central India, illicit relationship between a woman and her brother-in-law (devar-bhabi) is quite common and there are a number of folk-songs which mention this relationship both overtly and covertly. This is also a common theme of many folk-stories across the belt. This could just have been taken up to show the relationship in bad light and condemn it – what many scholars term as the ‘process of sanskritisation’ whereby people try to follow the norms of the civilized society by giving up their uncivilized and unacceptable behaviour.

y    There is no mention of Ravana here, though during the course of Lachhaman’s adventure, some evil characters are mentioned, but bear no semblance to Ravana.

y    Hanuman is a minor character here with no major role to play, but has been mentioned nevertheless to bear some resemblance to the original. However there is a mention of Bhima (of Mahabharat epic) meeting Hanuman, which again is a reference to the Puranic myth.

y    Finally, the trial and tribulations that Lachhaman has to undergo is very common to the hardships that the tribals undergo on a regular basis. Their nomadic lifestyles, their need for land and the regular movement due to afforestation and famine are a constant test on their endurance. In the entire adventure of Lachhaman, he comes across one hardship after another, which he overcomes nonetheless. It is this aspect of the story which has been assimilated well by the tribals.

Please note that there are different versions of the aspect which led to Lachhaman leaving for his adventure, but I have mentioned only one. Some later versions have changed the seduction by Sita to that by Indrakamini, an apsara from Indrasabha – this could be again due to the acceptance of Ram and Sita in the present religious context.

Once again, a classic case of assimilation and adaptation as per ones cultural milieu. What is surprising here is the change of roles. In the original, it is Sita who has to prove her innocence, but here it is Lakshaman. In the original, it is Ram who is the hero, whereas, in this, it is Lakshaman who is the hero and Ram is a poor shadow of what he is known for. Also, Lakshaman is a tragic hero, who suffers in silence and during his adventure too he goes through lot of trouble, but endures it all. This is the main aspect of the assimilation where every tribal member in the audience empathises with the character based on their own condition.

Times have changed and there has been an improvement in the condition of the tribals – but the tale is recorded for the sake of posterity. It does not hurt sentiments, but gives way to debate. Such tales have been told and retold – this has not diminished the status of the epic or the central characters of the epic. Such adaptations only give us a window to the world of the particular culture – nothing beyond.

People who indulge in politics with such tales are sheer cultural-opportunists who have nothing to do with literature. They are insecure and in such protests, they actually undermine the strength of such works of literature. So many versions, have not diluted the effect of such epics and awful politicization of the epic has not enhanced the status either.

Discussions and debates are the hallmark of any progressive society. Unfortunately our illiterate political brethren are stone deaf to such discourses.

Part 2 – Ramayana from the Jain Texts

According to AK Ramanujan’s essay, the Jain texts disregard the fantastic elements of Valmiki’s version of Ramayana. Here the epic starts with the raising of doubts on the extravagant parts of the epic – how could monkeys vanquish a strong and intelligent Ravana, how could someone like Kumbhakarna sleep for six months, etc. The Jain version does not start with the introduction of Ram, but with Ravana.

It talks about Ravana and his greatness and the fact that he was a devotee of the Jain masters. During one of his great siege, he comes to know that he is destined to die because of a woman, by the name of Sita. Later he meets Sita, abducts her and tries in vain to win her favour, but does not and is killed in a battle that follows, as is the original version. In some other texts, Sita is Ravana’s daughter, but Ravana does not know about it and later she is responsible for his death.

Another important aspect of the Jain texts is that it is not Ram who kills Ravana, rather it is Lakshaman who kills Ravana. This is because Ram is an evolved soul and was in his last mortal birth and thus cannot commit any crime. It was thus left to Lakshaman to do so.

Another very important distinction of the Jain texts is that their version is devoid of the elements of fantasy. There are no miracles and no acts of disbelief and the reason is that the Jains consider themselves as rationalists and are not prone to such extravaganza which is unbelievable. Their heroes can be heroic, but not unbelievably so. Further, the idea of Ravana with ten heads has been explained differently, rather rationally. According to the Jain texts, when Ravana was born, his mother was given a necklace with nine gems, which she put on Ravana’s neck. When she did so, she could see his reflection in the nine gems and thus she named him “Dasamukha” – ten-faced. Further it also goes on to explain, that the monkeys were not really monkeys, but a clan of ‘celestials’ who had a monkey as their emblems on their flags.

Some versions say that Dasharatha had four wives as against Valmiki’s version of three wives. Further, some versions even say that Ram had four wives, Maithili (i.e. another name for Sita) being one of the wives. This aspect of Ram is contrary to any of the other versions across the world. Further, after Rama abandons Sita, she renounces the world and becomes a Jain ascetic, again a different ending for Sita, but something that the Jains can understand and relate with.

There are many more differences which are beyond the scope of such an article, so I have highlighted only a few of them. The idea is to impress upon the fact that the text has reached out to a wider audience only after it has been made understandable within a cultural or a social milieu. If not done, then the text would be that much more alien to a group of people as the life of Archies (from the famous Archies comics) to a group of youngsters from a remote village in the district of Bolangir, Orissa, about 30-40 years back.

Next we will read about the Thai version of Ramayana

Hunger-strikes - Mythical Allusions

Suddenly everybody seems to be fasting for a cause. First you had Anna Hazare and his team, then you had Baba Ramdev, and soon Anna again. The moment we speak about fast-unto-death, parallels are drawn with Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent weapon to bend the administration. Someone wrote recently that Gandhiji is supposed to have gone on hunger strike some 17 or 18 times and all have had successful outcomes. So was Gandhiji the one who introduced this weapon?

The answer is a No. This probably happens since the concept of non-violence is so closely attached to him that he seems to be connected with hunger-strikes too. But history bears testimony to the existence of hunger-strikes and so does mythology (can’t shake this one away!).

The pre-Christian Ireland had seen hunger-strikes as a means of protest from a very early stage. The patron saint of Ireland, St. Patrick is supposed to have gone on hunger-strikes against god! The Irish followed a code-of-conduct (so as to say) for fasting as a means of protest. This was done at the door-step of the offender. This was probably done since offering hospitality to someone at ones doorstep was a very important gesture in those days, and someone dying at ones doorstep for lack of food and nourishment could be seen as a great personal disfavor. There were a number of causes for such fasts, and not necessarily all public causes, they could be as personal as recovering ones debts too! Many other parts of the world have seen instances of hunger-strikes as a means to protest in the Western world like US, UK, etc. long before Gandhiji made in popular during the freedom struggle.

Fasting has been an integral part of nearly all the major religions, be it Hinduism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. The fundamental rationale for fasting is either some sort of a sacrifice by abstinence or a penance for some act/s. Needless to say that there were scientific connotations of cleansing the system but that is not the main aspect of the act of fasting. It remains an act of abstinence and in the long-run leading to a sense of control over ones senses and the selfish impulse of gorging on food. This was intended to be done for a better self-control and also to atone for sins committed both knowingly or unknowingly. I don’t intend to get pulled into merits of fasting as that is not my immediate focus. The focus is fasting as a sign of protest, or better known as a hunger strike.

One such reference of hunger-strike is found in Rmayan. When Bharat follows Ram to the forest to get him back to Ayodhya, and Ram would not budge from his decision, there is a reference of Bharat plucking some Dhruva grass and lying on it protesting to go on a hunger-strike if Ram did not join him back to Ayodhya. However, Ram manages to convince Bharat about the futility of the exercise and convinces him no to do so. Another reference is again from some South Indian version of Ramayan. According to this version (not verified however) during the rule of Ram, there were no instances of death due to premature birth. When one such instance happens to a Brahmin, he takes the dead body of his child and sits outside the doors of Ram’s palace protesting by resorting to fast-unto-death, if his son’s life is not restored back. Ram immediately calls his council of ministers along with Narada Muni to deliberate. After deliberations, it was concluded that something was happening which was against the rule of religion. Ram set out on his flying vehicle only to find that a low caste individual by the name of Sambuka was conducting some yagna to enter the heavens which was against the law. When he did not heed Ram’s orders to stop, he was killed and no sooner Sambuka lost his life, the child came back to life. This example, better known as ‘Sambuka the Shudra’ is not verified as this could to be a plant by the champions of the anti-Aryan movement who have planted many small bits to look down upon Ram for a larger political agenda. I have only used this example to show the aspect of hunger-strike as a means of protest without taking sides.

Greek mythology also has an instance but in an oblique reference. It is the myth of Demeter and Persephone (Please refer to the article dated 27/03/11 in the same blog). According to this myth, when Persephone was forcefully abducted to the underworld by Hades, the god of underworld, she resorted to a hunger-strike to protest against her kidnapping. However, she could not sustain the fasting for too long and had to break the fast by having some pomegranate seeds.

Both in history and mythology, such protests seem to have yielded results and we have seen or read about them. But in the 21^st century modern democratic world, is this a good weapon? Does fasting work as well as it did or has the weapon lost a bit of its edge?

Next time we will see how potent is this as a weapon in today’s world.

The Birth of Lord Ram

It is said that the Gods were fed up of Ravan and the demons who had made the life of Rishis and the gods miserable. It was time for Vishnu to take an avatar and Ram’s birth was imminent.

King Dasharath of Ayodhya was married to Queen Kaushalya, but they could not produce an heir. Dasharath married Kaikeyi, but the same and same with his third wife Sumitra too. After all the efforts, when the King did not have an heir, he was suggested to perform a Yagna and seek divine intervention.

During the Yagna, the Lord appeared from the flames and offered a bowl of divine potion for the Queens to consume. The King distributed the same equally amongst his three Queens. Some versions say, that both Kaushalya and Kaikeyi loved the youngest Sumitra so much that they decided to give some portion from their share to her and that is why Sumitra had two sons as compared to the other queens.

King Dasharath was soon blessed with four sons, Rama to Kaushalya, Bharat to Kaikeyi and the twins, Lakshaman and Shatrughna to Sumitra. The epic goes on to mention that Ram was born on the ninth day of Chaitra month (which is celebrated as Ramnavmi), Bharat early next day, i.e. on the tenth day of Chaitra and Lakshaman and Shatrughan were born during the latter part of the tenth day, thus establishing the seniority of Ram. Lakshaman and Shatrughan though mentioned as twins, the epic does not delve in the details of the same, w.r.t. them being identical twins or not.

Some version go on to complicate the distribution of the divine portion as half to Kaushalya, out of the balance half, Sumitra gets a significant portion, and as an afterthought, Dasharath again distributed the remaining between Kaikeyi and Sumitra. This amounted to Sumitra consuming the potion twice. During the times of mythology, twins was a known fact, except that there was no explanation for the same. Thus such instances were created by the authors to explain and justify the concept of twins. This was necessary, as mythologies world across is replete with examples of trouble after the birth of twins, due to a proper understanding of the concept! (This is a subject by itself which we will discuss sometime in future).

The birth of mythological heroes has always been ‘different’ which is a precursor to the events that follow. Be it divine intervention or through ‘yagnas’ (sacrifices) especially in Indian mythology, the birth of a hero has always been different. The same can be seen in other mythologies too.

Guardians of Gandhiji

A recent book on Mahatma Gandhi by Joseph Lelyeld has created a furor in India. To correct myself, it is a review of the said book which has created a furor as the book has not been read as yet. The error of understanding is on the part of the reviewer or the author, is yet to be ascertained, but the ‘guardians’ of Gandhi have taken upon themselves to ban the book already.  India has a rich tradition of banning books without reading them – a rare distinction in a democracy!

A person of Gandhi’s eminence who was a champion of democracy and a person who had opened his own life to scrutiny by writing his brutally frank autobiography – does he need modern day guardians to protect him or his legacy? Who has given our politicians the right to ban a book which they have not even seen, forget read? Is this being fair to Gandhi who would have called for a debate, rather than take such a derogatory step? Are the people who are turning into his guardians, even eligible to lay a claim on his name or is regional association a good enough cause for ‘owning’ Gandhi?

Having taken it on them to guard Gandhi, I want to ask, does someone like Gandhi, need mortal aid? Is his legacy so flippant, that he needs some botched hands to guard him? Can his contribution not overshadow a few grey shades of humanity in him? Has there been any human being who is not a combination of both good and not-so-good qualities? Can anybody identify absolute goodness in any individual? And if yes, who defines such goodness?

There are many references in mythology, where we have treated our heroes in a similar manner. Bhishma from the epic Mahabharata is known for his great sacrifice as well as his contribution to the Kuru family, but we don’t forget to accuse him of his silence during Draupadi’s disrobing. Ram in Ramayana, known for his selflessness, bravery and his ability to mobilize support, is also remembered for his single act of banning Sita in his later life. Same with Krishna, the orator of Gita, a treatise of righteous path and Dharma, is nonetheless referred to as a ‘politician’ for certain acts or decisions taken by him during the war of Kurukshetra in Mahabharata.

Despite the singular acts of omission or commission by such mythological heroes, their contributions have not overshadowed their personalities. I would think that the same is applicable to a personality like Gandhi. The overall contributions have been assimilated, but errors (a debatable term) are being gloated upon. When we look at today’s politicians promoting their children, we accuse them of nepotism. When we read about Gandhi not championing the cause of his son, we call him a bad-father (and we also call him the father of our nation!). If this is not our inherent double-standards, then what is this?

Finally, I am a staunch critic of banning books, no matter what it says. Besides giving the book an avoidable publicity, banning also demeans the personality or the religion it allegedly defames. Democracy demands debate and advocates choice. As a responsible citizen, I must be given a choice to decide what I read and what I don’t.

Illiterates should not take this decision for me.

Kaikeyi

On this Women's Day, let's know more about Kaikeyi, the most misunderstood woman of our Mythology.

Kaikeyi was one of the wives of King Dasharath and the mother of Bharata, in the epic Ramayana. She is considered to be one of the women whose actions led to the events of the epic. She is also considered to be the proverbial step-mother and is seen as the jealous wife and an over-zealous mother. We will keep the negative epithets aside for the time being and try to understand the character, without the tainted glasses that we have been made to wear for long. 

Kaikeyi was the daughter of the King of Kekaya. King Dasharath had married Kaikeyi only when his first queen, Kaushalya, was not able to conceive. Thus the marriage took place, under some unuttered assumptions. First, that Kaikeyi’s son would be the future king of Ayodhya and second, that she would be the Queen Mother. All this because Kaushalya’s bearing a child had been already ruled out. However, when she too could not conceive, Dasharath got married again. But Kaikeyi was no Kaushalya. She was brave, beautiful and ambitious.

It is said that once, she had accompanied Dasharath to a war against a demon. During the war, when Dasharath was supposed to have been injured, she drove his chariot out of the battleground, nursed him and got him back on his feet, fit to fight the war. Some other versions say that during the war, the axle of the chariot’s wheel broke and lest the chariot break down and bring Dasharath on the ground; she is supposed to have used her finger for the axle till the battle was over. King Dasharath was very impressed by her heroism, and granted her two boons, which she kept for a better day.

It is said that every action that one takes has a bearing on ones upbringing or some event of the past (especially childhood) which has moulded him/her the way s/he is as an adult. It was no different in the case of Kaikeyi too.

According to some versions, Kaikeyi’s father, Ashwapati had a rare gift of understanding the language of the birds. But it came with a rider. If he ever told anybody what he understood of the birds’ conversation, then he would lose his life. Once while he was strolling with his wife, he heard the conversation of two swans and had a hearty laugh. This got the queen curious, and she insisted that she be told the contents of the conversation, knowing well the implications of the King’s actions. This led the King to believe, that the Queen did not care for the life of the King and banished her out of the Kingdom. Kaikeyi grew without any maternal influence and always harboured a sense of insecurity from the male community, who she thought were fickle. What if Dasharath did not love her in his later life, as he had other wives too? What if her son, Bharata did not care for her at her old-age? All these thoughts and thanks to Manthara’s (her maid who had accompanied her from her father’s place) fuelling of latent ambitions, were the result of Kaikeyi, seeking two boon’s – one, Bharat to be appointed the King and second, Ram to be banished for fourteen years.

Some versions also say that she did all this under the instructions of Ram himself! According to this version, Ram once confessed to Kaikeyi, that he was Lord Vishnu on earth and he needed to go to the forests to eliminate many a demon and Ravana as part of his duty on earth. For this, could she do something to help him? He also warned her of the implications, and the stigma that would be associated to her name for ages. Kaikeyi could not have said a ‘No’ as she was an ardent devotee of Lord Vishnu and a stigma on her name was a relatively small sacrifice to be made, to get to serve the Lord himself. It is said that after her death, Kaikeyi found a place at Vaikuntha, the abode of Lord Vishnu.

Yet another version says that Kaikeyi’s father had overheard from some birds that the jungles would soon be full of demons that would hurt the Brahmins and ascetics, which would need a long-term helping hand of Rama. To ensure that Rama spent a lot of time in the jungles, and being aware of Manthara’s character, he ensured that she accompany Kaikeyi, after the wedding. He had full faith in her capabilities, and needless to say that she did live-up to the King’s expectations!

All the versions and many more, lead us to one conclusion. Ram’s exile was destined and pre-ordained. The quintessential step-mother was a figment of an authors imagination or at best just a catalyst, who has been bearing the brunt of it all, since ages!