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

Sati Savitri Naari (Woman)

Indian or Hindu Mythology is replete with examples of virtuous and devotional wives. Wives whose devotion was wholly and completely towards their husbands and their families and their entire existence was centered around the lives of their husbands. Wives who did not cater to their husband’s wishes or who expressed their individuality were generally depicted as negative characters. Let us begin with the good and virtuous.

Savitri

The first example that comes to my mind is the myth of Savitri-Satyavan, which also gave us the phrase ‘Sati-Savitri. In the entire myth, Satyavan is a dead-body, but his name still finds a mention in the myth. I won’t discuss the myth in details, but what is important here is the character of Savitri. The entire myth is seen as a woman’s devotion towards her husband and how she pursues the god of Death, Yama, to get her husband back from death. The fact that Savitri was an extremely intelligent woman and gets the better of the powerful, unmovable god of Death through sheer determination and the gift of gab, has been totally missed by one and all.

Sita's Agnipariksha

The second character that comes to my mind is that of Sita. Here too, she is seen as a devoted wife, who does not question any act of her husband or in-laws. She does not even protest the charges leveled against her of probable infidelity and that too in public and finally leaves the comfort of the palace to raise two children in the forest all by herself, without even a word of complaint. In spite of such virtuosity, the modern man does not forget to comment on her naari-hath (womanly-tantrum), a reference to her insistence on Ram fetching the golden deer for her! Nor does one forget to mention her using her own mind of crossing the Laxman-rekha, which is what supposedly led to the entire battle! Wasn’t the battle between Ram and Ravan pre-destined?

This takes us the third character, that of Sati Ahalya (the entire myth and its symbolism can be found in the link http://utkarshspeak.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html ). Sati Ahalya was cursed by her husband for having sex with Lord Indra, who had come in the disguise of her husband. The accusation was that a woman who did not distinguish between the touch of her husband and another man (irrespective of the guise) is no better than a stone! Modern-day feminists have written tons on this male-chauvinistic act, but that is it.

Besides the above, there are many women who have stood by their husbands, irrespective of their stand, be it Mandodari (Ravan’s wife) or Kaushalya (Dasharatha’s wife) or Urmila (Lakshman’s wife), all from Ramayana, like many other such women.

So what is behind these symbols of devotion and sacrifice? Was it a male conspiracy to send subtle (though some of them were hardly subtle!) messages to the women folk? Was this setting of social expectations from the women in terms of their roles and duties? Or was this again a statement that woman was just an aspect of man’s existence and everything around a woman was related to the man in her life, depending on the stage of her life, which was either a father, brother, husband or a son? A woman was what the man in her life expected her to be.

In spite of such qualities being ingrained in the modern woman, through rituals and katha’s, how much has such devotional aspects being imbibed?

The modern woman is no Savitri. Not that she would allow her husband to die, but if dead she would pick up the threads and move on in life, which is a sign of modern-day practicality. She is no Sita – in that she would not take a banishment lying down and nor would she stand wrong charges of infidelity and definitely not leave the husband and fend for herself. She would do all this, only after extracting a heavy price in the form of a legal suit, a probable out-of-court settlement and a fat alimony of course! Finally she is not an Ahalya too as she would not fall short of expressing herself sexually and would definitely press charges of impersonation and rape on Lord Indra and mental and marital torture on her husband. To take the myth of Ahalya further, she would even press charges of trespassing and ill-treatment on Lord Ram.

So which one is better, the archaic image of a devotional, suffering-in-silence woman or the woman with a mind of her own expressing every aspect of her individual self?

Your call!

Unsung Women of Ramayana

Though Ramayan is the story of Ram, the epic is also well knows for some of its female characterisations like that of Sita, Kaushalya and even Kaikeyi. But there have been some lesser known ladies who have not found much mention, even when characters like Manthara and Shabari find some mention and attention.



Let us discuss two of them here, Urmila, Lakshaman’s wife and Trijata. Did you say, Trijata who? Well then, let’s keep Trijata for later.

Lakshaman and Urmila from the
teleserial by Ramanand Sagar

Urmila is considered to be the most tragic characters in the epic. What might not be known to many is that Urmila was the daughter of King Janak and was thus the sister of Sita. Why this has not been mentioned often is not known. Urmila is tragic as she is supposed to have spent vanvaas (stay in the forests) without going to the van (forest)! When Ram, Sita and Lakshaman were leaving for the forest, she too wanted to accompany her husband like Sita. But Lakshaman is supposed to have said that he is going to serve his brother and sister-in-law and likewise she should stay back to serve his parents. Urmila stayed back to serve her father-in-law (who died soon) and three mother-in-laws. While all the brothers (Ram, Bharat and Shatrughan) had their wives with them, she was the only one who did not have her husband by her side for fourteen long years. Some versions mention that she did not step out of her room for fourteen years and some say, that she slept for fourteen long years. This seclusion is viewed by many as leading a life of extreme deprivation of worldly life in the absence of her husband.  A number of scholars have attributed small episodes to her, but they all depict her as a person whose existence was to follow instructions and not opine.  She probably lived like a nun, a life of servitude in solitude at the peak of her youth.

The famous Hindi poet, Maithili Sharan Gupta was so disappointed with Valmiki’s treatment of Urmila, that he wrote his own epic by the name of Saket, based it on Ramayana, whose heroine was not Sita, but Urmila! The Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore too is supposed to have lamented this treatment (or mistreatment) of Urmila by Valmiki. According to Tagore, Valmiki had shown Lakshaman as the ideal brother, but completely forgot Urmila who was left all alone in Ayodhya for fourteen long years. Truly an unsung heroine of the epic.

Sita and Trijata from the teleserial by
Ramanand Sagar

Trijata was one of the demoness who were guarding Sita after Ravan kidnapped her to Lanka. However, that is not Trijata’s only introduction. She was also Vibhishan’s daughter and thus Ravan’s niece and was blessed with the power of foresight. She was the only one who was sympathetic to Sita during her plight and while the others were coaxing Sita to give in to Ravan, she was the only one who kept consoling Sita about Ram’s definite visit to Lanka to save her. Her faith in Ram’s victory in the battle was reinforced after she had a dream where she sees Ravan on a donkey, his head shaved off and his face blackened heading southwards (the direction was associated with doom and/or death).  She was a good hearted demoness and would scold the others whenever the others harassed Sita. She is supposed to have warned even Ravan against the war as she could foresee that he would lose, but Ravan obviously did not listen to her. It is said, that she soon became a confidante and a shoulder to cry upon for Sita. During the battle between Ram and Ravan, with her powers, she used to relate the events of the battle to Sita (something similar to what Sanjay was supposed to have done for Dhritarashtra during the war of Kurukshetra in Mahabharata).

Popular depiction of Trijata is an ugly ogress; however, Vibhishan is not shown as a demon. This is probably because not many are even aware of this relationship. Also, as mentioned earlier the depiction of rakshasa and rakshashi was always dark, red-eyes, disheveled hair, horns, et al. The same depiction has stayed on with Trijata too, though Vibhishana is never shown as one. Again this can be attributed    to popular perceptions.

Finally, why were characters like Urmila and even Mandodari (Ravan’s wife) not given their due attention? Many a times it has been seen that at the beginning of the plot, a number of characters are drawn which gives it a feel of an epic. Like in all epics, besides the main plot, there are sub-plots and many side-plots. This is like the tributaries of a main river, all converging into the main river. Though the author sets these characters with a set of ideas, in due course, ends up focusing only on the main characters or future characters and leaves a few by the side. This leads to some well-begun but half-baked characterisations in due course of time. Urmila was definitely one of them.

Another reason could be that these epics belonged to an oral tradition, where the stories were related orally over generations. As it happens many a times, the narrator ends up focusing on some and at times neglecting some characters, till they end up being part of the cast with no major contribution in the epic. The narrators perceptions take precedence.

However, Urmila’s contribution in terms of her ‘sacrifice’ (a virtue in Indian culture) is of epic-proportion and thus warranted a discussion. As far as Trijata is concerned, she is mentioned for her strong characterization (remember she warned Ravan about the impending disaster) and her staunch belief that Ram would come to save his wife and her interpretation of her dreams. She was also a strong support-system to Sita during her most trying times in the epic.

Mother’s Day

Today is Mother’s Day. But why only today, isn’t everyday some mother’s day, if not every mother’s day? Everyday someone (or ‘somemany’) becomes a mother and the ones already mothers, continue to be one. So why celebrate only today? Well without going too much into it, this is the day the Greeting Cards and Gift shop companies, besides the childcare product manufacturers and many others formed a cartel to fleece all children! Now, now let’s not be such a cynic! What are a few thousand rupees for the woman who gave you more than her life, besides the blood sweat and copious tears for you? Apologies to the entire mother-dom!!

World over people celebrate this one day and make it a point to call their mothers or send them flowers and chocolates, if not some token gift. We do have Father’s day too, but the heavy emotion is missing in that. Have you wondered why? Do fathers contribute any less in the child’s well-being? Before some women hurls a stiletto at me let me clarify that this is not a mothers vs. father’s debate! It was one innocent question which came to my child-like mind. Mommy!!

Nargis in Mother India

Our culture is extremely sympathetic towards mothers and is considered to be an act of sacrilege if one faults a mother. That is exactly how we still remember the depiction of yesteryear actress Nargis in Mother India, one who toils, strives and sacrifices, all for the sake of her children. We remember the stoic Nirupa Roy and the homelySulochana of the celluloid world. That image might have undergone a sea change now, but the imagery is nothing short of legendary.

The situation was no different in our Mythology too. Mothers in our mythology too were the sacrificing sufferers who lived first for their husbands and then for their children and nothing beyond. Except for an occasional brush with fame, their roles were always tragic. Kunti from the epic Mahabaharata is one such mother who epitomizes this image. First she was given a boon of having children whenever she wanted, which itself was out of place. Why would someone give such a boon to an unmarried underage girl? Even if we allow it to pass for poetic justice, she gets married to a person who could not procreate. She ‘gives birth’ to three sons and is soon a widow, with five sons! She goes through the ordeal that her sons go through along with a secret of begetting a son out of a wedlock, which hits her when she least wants it. A mute spectator and a sufferer in all the wrongs heaped by section of the society against who she could not say a word, but suffer in silence. Her moment of glory was never to come. A life of nothing but tragedy.

Similar characters abound in the same epic. Be it Satyavati, Gandhari or Uttara, Abhimanyu’s wife whose only role was to deliver her dead husbands son, the only heir after the war of Kurukshetra. Elsewhere, also we find mothers who have only to shed copious tears for their sons or husbands.

Ramayana too has similar characters. Sita is a symbol of a woman wronged by one and all. Sita is a shadow of her husband who won her as a trophy in a contest, victim of palace intrigue, gets kidnapped for the actions of her husband and brother-in-law and then becomes the cause of a war. Later her chastity is questioned by first her husband and then the subjects of Ayodhya and again banished to give birth and take care of her children all alone. When the children are old enough, the father takes them away and her contribution over. At the end, Sita is left with no choice, but self-burial!

Why has there been so much of stereotyping of mothers in our culture? The celluloid image of mothers has been inherited from our mythology and perpetuated by poems and songs over the years, in all the regions and languages of our country. Does this reflect the inherent second citizenship of the women folk in our milieu? Is referring to all goddesses as Mother just an act of lip-service or an act of minority-appeasement, (to use a contemporary jargon)? The trials and tribulations of mother is raised to an altar of ‘motherhood’ and then sung praises of this singular honour bestowed by nature on women. The women of today need not be the Mother Earth of yesterday. She does not have to go thru the rigours of the earth to beget new life. Let motherhood truly be a cherished moment for each woman in our country in the truest sense of the word, and not just as a single act of fulfillment in her life

On this Mother’s day, besides doing our little bit (calls, visits, gifts, whatever) let us resolve and spread the word, to allow all would-be mothers to retain their would-be child, whatever it be. Let the mother decide! This might be the best gift to all the Mothers of our country, and probably the only solution to female-infanticide!

Lakshman Rekha

During the exile in the epic, Ramayan, Ram rushed away chasing a golden deer for Sita. When Ram seemed to be in trouble, Sita urged Lakshman to go and see if he was in trouble. Lakshman was not sure if it was right to leave Sita alone in the forest, but on Sita’s insistence decided to go and see. But before leaving he drew a line, with instructions that under any circumstances, she should not cross the line. This line came to be referred to as Lakshman Rekha (i.e. the line drawn by Lakshman). The story goes on that Ravan comes in the guise of an ascetic asking for alms, but is not able to cross the line, till Sita herself decided to cross it to give alms to Ravana, and in the process gets abducted.

So what was this line drawn by Lakshman? Was it some sort of a magical line which no outsider could cross or did it have some other implication? As I have always said, that nothing exists in Mythology for the sake of existence. It always has a meaning which needs to be explored and most important – in context, and that too in context of its times and milieu. In modern parlance, the phrase means that it is the limit (moral, ethical or even physical) which if breached could lead to dire consequences.

Lakshman Rekha is also sometimes referred to as Maryada rekha (limiting line). Many scholars refer this line to be a line which sets limits for women. It sets a boundary of the feminine existence and their influence. This is something akin to the threshold of the house. A woman’s influence and her limits were within the threshold and her stepping out of that zone was a strict no-no.

Many see the line as a cultural divide. Inside the line was the cultured household of a family, and outside was the zone of a jungle which had no rules and no civil norms of behaviour. To be within the confines of the line was to be safe under the umbrella of one’s husband or the patriarch, but once outside, one loses the comfort of respect and support. Outside the line, a woman could not command the same status and could thus be susceptible to the vagaries of the laws of the jungle, which was different from that of a civil society.

It was both the prerogative as well as the responsibility of the men-folk to save their women from this jungle-raaj and in this context the line could both be either a limiting-line or a safety-zone. The liberal would see this as a forceful curbing of feminine power and a chauvinistic expression of the male dominated society. The others would see this as a form of protecting the weaker sex and taking charge of their duties, albeit in a rigid fashion, which probable curbs more than aids the personality of the ones within the line.

For want of a better outlook and definitely in the absence of the modern western-influence and its impact, this was probably the best that people then could think of. In the process, there is a possibility of curbing a few flowers from blooming differently, but then was this a smaller price to be paid or was it a gargantuan error on the part of a society – again in the larger context of societal norms?

To conclude, nothing is out of context, and also from the angle of the eye-sight. You get to see the seven colours distinctly, only if you are in the right side of the prism, not otherwise!