Let us analyse the much talked about essay of Ramanujan for those who have read it and also for those who would like to read it. Unlike Ramanujan, whose essay uses an academic syringe to inject his prescribed perceptions into the unaware reader’s mind I will try to place my arguments in a transparent manner by quoting him as liberally as possible to prove my points. Let me start from where Ramanujan concludes his discussion on the five examples of Ramayana. This would hint at the reasons for which the essay must have had been written. He starts his concluding remarks with “Now is there a common core to the Rama stories, except the most skeletal set of relations like that of Rama, his brother, his wife and the antagonist Ravana who abducts her?” He did not stop at this and compared Rama’s story with that of the Jack-knife of a carpenter who claimed before Aristotle that “Oh I’ve had it for thirty years. I’ve changed the blade a few times and the handle a few times, but it’s the same knife”. He further ensures that no one is left with any doubt and finishes with another sweeping comment “Some shadow of a relational structure claims the name of Ramayana for all these telling, but on a closer look one is not necessarily all that like another. Like a collection of people with the same proper name, they make a class in name alone.” I will like to dedicate these non-ignorable comments of ‘Ramanujan alone’ to all those who are fighting for inclusion of this essay into the reading list of undergraduate courses on academic ground but interestingly keep on misrepresenting that Ramnujan has not given any views and has ‘simply compiled’ a few Ramayanas. Now let us discuss as to how he arrived at these conclusions.
Confusion through the terms 'Tellings' and 'Versions'
The effort of confusing the readers starts from the first line itself “How many Ramayanas? Three hundred? Three thousand?” and then without wasting any time he pours out a story (not bothering to mention its source and presenting it as a “story usually told” in his essay) before the readers to convince them that there are not only many Ramayanas but also many Ramas and even Hanuman got to know this fact at the netherworld when he was presented with thousands of rings belonging to different Ramas. After this he places a strange argument to impress upon the readers that since there is no ‘original’ Ramayana (as, according to him, Valmiki’s Ramayana is merely the earliest and most prestigious among all) hence all Ramayanas are mere ‘tellings’ and not ‘versions’. Strangely, he has extracted this inference from the fact that since Valmiki’s Ramayana has not been carried over in different languages in exact details therefore it cannot be considered as ‘original’. And thus with a single stroke he tries to place all the Ramayanas at par with each other.
Creating confusion in the name of many Ramayanas
Not that we do not know that there are many Ramayanas as we are familiar with an old saying “sabki apni ek ram-kahani hoti hai”. But I will like the readers to exercise utmost caution before considering all Ramayanas as stories ‘simply told’. We all know that there are always some reasons to write. As Ramanujan wrote the essay with some ‘intention’ that I am ‘intending’ to reveal here, even different Ramayanas must have been written in some contexts and with some intentions. It is here that Ramanujan cleverly puts even Jaina Ramayana, the Thai Ramayana and Santal Ramayana at par with all others while he himself states at different points in his essay that in these texts Rama is not projected as an iconic hero. Are these Ramayanas just the story retold? In the essay itself Ramanujan has written about his understanding of the relation between the Jains and Hindus where in his words “Furthermore, since the Jains consider themselves rationalists – unlike Hindus, who, according to them, are given to exorbitant and often bloodthirsty fancies and rituals – they systematically avoid episodes involving miraculous births (Rama and his brothers are born in the normal way), blood sacrifices, and the like.” Mark these words of Ramanujan who at this point exposes his understanding of the relation between Jains and Hindus before the readers but at other places uses their Ramayana to arrive at his ill-desired conclusions. He has also used the Thai and Santal Ramayana liberally throughout his essay to prove his point. As Thai and Santals are known to be also influenced by non-Hindu religious thinkers, nobody should expect them to be honest in retelling of the Ramayana. Those who have a fair knowledge of the religious demography of these regions will not be shocked to know that Ravana is depicted as grey/white in the Thai Ramayana or Sita is shown as a loose character lady in the Santal’s version.
The real Ramayans
My contention is that all those stories in which Rama is at least not a hero cannot qualify to be called as Ramayanas. Just because the names appear to be the same cannot make it a ‘Ramayana’ unless it is written to infuse faith and devotion for Rama’s character. It is here that Ramanujan has taken an academic acrobatic approach to betray his intellectual dishonesty by committing this blunder and then he goes on using only a few of such ‘tellings’ to suit his sinister design of defaming Rama and hurting the sensibilities of the majority community. I would like to emphasize at this point that if you reject all those ‘tellings’ in which Rama is not projected as heroes then all other Ram-kathas would look same in feel, touch, texture, faith, intentions and most important of all they will all be conveying similar messages.
An impression is created as if Hindus and Rama-believers themselves believe in such diverse Ram-kathas that are so different from each other that they are never sure of any story. However in reality 'other' Ramayanas are not even considered as much 'theirs' as Hindus considers the Ramayanas as their own in which Rama is a hero. In fact some of them like Jains are also known to believe in the Ramayanas in which Rama is depicted as an iconic character. Strangely most popular of all the Ramayanas that is Tulsi’s Ramcharitmanas did not find an adequate mention in his essay. I must mention here that the treatment of the Ahilya episode itself in Tulsi’s version could have thrown enough light on the fact that why this Ramayana is so popular with the average-Indian thinking. It is only because in the Ahilya episode seduction aspect is nearly missing in Ramcharitmanas. Ramanand Sagar’s honest attempt was also accepted by one and all even though it did not match in details but only since it only attempted to enhance and never tried to dampen the spirit of devotion. The fact that Tulsi’s Ramcharitmanas is almost ignored is obviously not a chance exclusion in Ramanujan’s essay as Romilla Thapar’s comments on the Ramanand Sagar’s serial ‘Ramayana’ that is quoted by Paul Richman (complaining that Ramanand Sagar's television serial on the Ramayana 'possessed a dangerous and unprecedented authority’) in the book puts these confusions to rest.
Highlighting Seduction aspect of the Ahilya episode instead of her Redemption
I was also at first taken aback by his choice of the paragraphs that he selects to cite from the Valmiki’s and Kampan’s Ramayana in order to differentiate between the two approaches. Whereas he could have taken many instances where the difference is more than obvious he has chosen the Ahilya episode where the difference hardly exists. To me, both the texts try to establish that mating with other’s wife is a completely unpardonable act and must be severely punished. Both the texts betray extreme forms of punishment for both Indra and Ahilya as both are shown to have gone for the forbidden joy knowingly that it is wrong. The difference is only in details outlined by the two writers and is bound to happen whenever a story is retold. The difference can also be discounted for the fact that it was to be narrated in a poem where details could be compromised to retain its flow. Ramanujan’s observation that Valmiki’s Ahilya did not realise that she is doing wrong cannot be accepted as in Ramanujan’s translation itself she is quoted as saying “Go quickly from here” obviously knowing that she has done wrong. Not that Ramanujan did not understand this logic as he himself agrees at an ignorable corner of his essay that “Thus the Ahilya episode is essentially the same, but the weave, the texture, the colours are very different.” But then why did he take this as an example to prove a difference? The answer lies in the realisation that if one leaves aside the moral message conveyed in the episode then it is left with only sensuous shades. Picking up this narration sans of all morality and faith can only invoke undesirable attentions. For non-believers and semi-believers (found in abundance among Hindus) the intention is thus to create an impression that Ramayana is full of similar episodes. Moreover this also must have helped him in convincing a few perverted minds to put this essay in the reading list of the undergraduate class so that they are able to dramatise its seduction content while ignoring its ‘outdated’ moral message. The essay must have been asking a history teacher to put the otherwise ignorable seduction aspect (instead of the redemption of Ahilya) of the episode at the centre of a classroom discussion..
Presenting 'Exceptions' as 'Examples'
After placing a few exceptions of the Ramayanas (that are not Rama's story from Rama's point of view) as examples the writer then tries to ensure that nowhere even a trace of devotion is left in the reader’s mind by ending his essay with his three thoughts on the translations. He has tactfully used a proverb where a dim-witted person is asked “After hearing the Ramayana all night you are asking how Rama is related to Sita” to create an impression that even the relation between Rama and Sita is not so obvious. Without mentioning the source he narrates another story that is intermixed with reality and imagination to put his viewpoint home that in Ramayana nothing is real and hence nothing is invariant. A listener who was listening to Ram-katha in an enclosure suddenly decides to help Hanuman and jumped into the ocean to get back the Rama’s ring for him. The writer thus ensures that the readers end the essay not only with a confusion as to which Ramayana should be read but more importantly with a question that why should it be read at all?
Exposing the intention
Ramanujan’s exercise in his essay is similar to that of trying to understand the character of Paighamber Mohammad and origin of Jesus in the texts of each other’s literatures and treating them at par with their respective religious versions where they have been considered as messengers of God. Obviously this exercise itself will expose the intentions of the finder and it is exactly this that I want to expose in the Ramanujan infamous essay.
