Ramanujan’s essay on 300 Ramayanas: My take

(published in Governancenow and can be visited via the link http://governancenow.com/views/columns/why-ramanujans-essay-un-indian )

At the outset I must admit that I have found the intent of the Ramanujan’s essay patently un-Indian not only because of the tone set by the Romilla Thapar’s undesirable comments quoted by Paul but also because it seems that there is a sinister design to place few exceptions and rare extremes in such a manner that they just appear to be as five simple examples and thoughts on the 300 Ramayana. After a fair reading of the essay anyone who has come across only a single Ramayana will extrapolate that if five of the examples are so diverse then reading other 300 will make no sense of any story. It would appear that anybody can be called anybody’s wife or anybody’s daughter in these Ramayanas as the author concludes with his effort in making the readers believe that there is nothing to read about in these texts since there is no distinction between reality and imagination.

At this point let me burst out some facts even if a few of them have a potential to make some of us uncomfortable since I will like to place here the reasons as to why I love my country and what I think about Indianness from the perspective of Hinduism that I am proud of. I must also admit here that I have inherited all these by understanding many discourses based on many religious Hindu-texts including Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagwat-Gita etc.

I love India not because Indians ‘tolerate’ or ‘accommodate’ other faiths, views and religions but because we genuinely ‘respect’ them all. I love India because I inherit an enviable attitude of bowing down to a place of any faith and also feel a great sense of proud and satisfaction in doing this. I love India because we Indians never hesitate in promoting changes and modifications in our thoughts if it is hurting the interest of this land. I love India because nobody can think of getting any support even from diehard 'Ram-bhakts' if one deserts his wife when she is pregnant for any reason citing that even Rama did this. I love India as I can never even imagine someone garnering any support from even staunch believers of Hinduism for keeping many wives by citing any number of examples from Ramayana and Mahabharata. I love India as we Indians, instead of reciting a religious-book to classify an act as right or wrong, follow our hearts and law of the land to know the difference between right and wrong. That is why when Mahatma Gandhi conceptualised ‘Ramrajya’ in India everybody knew that he did not intend to put other religions, Harijan and women out of the canvas. I love India and Indianness as we are always ready to apologise and also ready to appreciate all gestures of apologies extended by anybody for unintentionally hurting the sensibilities of other faiths/religions.

For me it was un-Indian to prefer leaving India and accept another citizenship instead of feeling sorry for hurting sensibilities of other faith (even if it was done unintentionally) and owning those hate-paintings. Here a ‘Narender Modi’ cannot think of getting any support by saying that yes he allowed the riots to happen and instead has the support of his state only because he has convinced them that he was unable to control it. I also believe that instead of offering not to slaughter caws for at least some days in a year to express that as a token of their concerns for others’ sensibilities, it is un-Indian that some of us feel unapologetic about this. To me hurting sensibilities of any faith is patently un-Indian. And therefore for me it is difficult to find Indianness in the name of diversity that is always directed to hurt Hindus only.

Advani could get support because he could convince us that some fringe element in our society was trying to provoke a certain section of our society by using the word ‘Masjid’ when a structure built by a king was targeted as it was he who was consciously avoiding this term in order to take everybody along. I hate those who were involved in demolishing a structure before making everybody feel that it was necessary and that is why I admire all those who genuinely feel that demolition of the structure can never be celebrated.

If you cannot accept to put Godse’s views on Gandhi and his last speech in the reading list just because it can hurt sensibilities, and will also like to avoid putting Taslima Nasrin’s views on Islam into it then you have no right to fight for inclusion of the Ramanujan’s essay in the compulsory reading list for undergraduate students. Don’t ban the essay (as it will be un-Indian) but don’t force those innocent students to read those views. I did not find the attitude of Romilla Thapar as Indian when the growing popularity of Ramayana serial was termed as 'dangerous' and also found Ramanujan’s essay un-Indian as the essay intends to hurt Hindu-believers. I can never call it Indian to put the terrorists’ definition of Jihad even in the name of an essay named as Many meanings of Jihad: few examples and thoughts and start an agitation to put it into the curriculum of the ‘mature’ Kashmiri students! Although we know that we can find more than many uncomfortable meanings of ‘Jihad’ and ‘Kafir’ in different ‘tellings’ ( Ramanujan has tried to distinguish between ‘tellings’ and ‘versions’ to put forward his view that nothing is original in Ramayana) those can be found in several avoidable contexts that we can never promote.

Before some of us start twisting my words I will like to place here that all the characteristics that I have pointed out as Indian are synonym not only to Hinduism but also to other religions but remarkably this shade is noticeable only in their Indian versions. Some of the religions that started in India itself out of some genuine grudges felt by a section of the Hindu-society have ultimately ended up in developing a mutual respect for each others’ faiths as Hinduism tried accommodating and respecting their concerns by going beyond their own religious texts/beliefs.

On the Non-Academic essay of the non-historian Ramanujan

It was not for nothing that Iqbal wrote “Kuchh Baat Hai Ke Hasti Mit-ti Nahin Hamaari; Sadion Raha Hai Dushman Daur-e-Zamaan Hamaara”, however it is surprising that our leftist-historians still believe otherwise. I can only express my sympathies to these frustrated historians who now exist only in the ever-contracting, self-created pseudo-academic space in India despite their efforts to expand it by blatantly misusing their freedom of expression and by agitating unnecessarily for an already existing more than adequate academic space in our Indian society.

Even if we accept that Ram-Kahani is only a part of our mythology we all know that this ‘Kahani is not merely a story but a well-drafted drama that has undisputedly taught us our traditional moral values and has also helped us Indians, in inculcating respect for elders as well as in developing love for younger. Innumerable texts based on this story have successfully inspired all of us to inherit the theory of plurality in our thoughts. Undoubtedly there are more than many versions of Ramayana in our ancient texts but it is also a foregone conclusion that if you leave aside a few Ramayana that Mr. Ramanujan chose to highlight, then all others without exception have been written primarily to establish moral, family values that India is known for. And in this context Ramayana still possesses an unprecedented power to unite this part of the world.

Unfortunately forces that have no faith in the institution of marriage, and see faults in the family system, advocates individual’s freedom bereft of all duties of maintaining order in the society and bothers least about the tradition and other great Indian values have never understood any of the 300 Ramayanas that they themselves talk about. In early eighties these leftists had started believing that they were succeeding in their efforts of destroying the basic tenets and principles of this arguably one of the oldest society. However true to the words of Iqbal as quoted in the beginning, their world came crashing down as they witnessed vacant streets in this part of the world (including Pakistan and Bangladesh) when Ramanand Sagar’s ‘Ramayana’ started airing through Delhi Doordarshan in the late eighties. To have a genuine understanding of the context of the essay one has to read the introduction to the Many Ramayanas by Paula Richman where Ramanujan's essay appears. In the introduction of the book Paula Richman quotes Romila Thapar as saying that Ramanand Sagar's television serial on the Ramayana 'possessed a dangerous and unprecedented authority.'

Let me tell you that they are least concerned about any one of the 300 Ramayanas that they want us to believe that they want to teach, albeit what they want to teach us is the inappropriate, blasphemous and malicious essay written by a propagandist non-historian Ramanujan who penned his ‘singular’ (not plural!) views towards these invaluable texts. Let me challenge these historians to put all more than three hundred Ramayanas on the reading list of the undergraduate curricula and ask them not to shy away from teaching these stories to the students in the name of teaching history. For then at least the students will be appropriately exposed to the less than handful of Ramayanas that were written in some another context similar to those in which Ramanujan himself wrote his infamous essay. I would also like to add to their discomfort by making them realize that even in those few of the ignorable Ramayanas that the left-historians love to blow out of proportion, no progressive approach has been extended in order to paint Sita, Laxman and Hanuman grey. Much to their dismay ‘villains and vamps’ in these stray texts are extracted out of the ‘otherwise’ heroes by establishing that they too did not observe the same great Indian (alias ‘Hindu’) values.

Make no mistake as these historians would like us to celebrate Ram-vadha instead of Ravan-vadha since they believe that Rama has infused all wrong values in us Indians. Don’t reject this as my exaggeration as only recently JNU (known to be the den of these pseudo-historians) observed ‘Mahishasur day’ by honouring Mahishasur in the campus (read the October 25 issue of Times of India in case you have problem in believing this). And nobody needs to be educated that despite their prolonged and systematic efforts to link the Hindu majority with some community outside this country through their disputed and rotten Aryan-invasion theory they have patently failed in getting the Hindus feel detached from this piece of land, an aberration that is arguably witnessed in some other Indian community.


The ever-evolving Indian community where the evolution is primarily driven by the plurality of the religion observed by the majority (undoubtedly Hindus) has proved that what we as a nation stand for is not a singular religion but the high moral, social, cultural and great family values preached through the ‘hymns’ of Valmiki Ramayana and ‘couplets’ of Tulsi Ramcharitmanas. These handful of historians must understand that it is the teaching of Ramayana that drives nobody to argue for banning the Ramanujan’s essay in India but at least let us not allow the innocent undergraduate students to fall prey to the conspiratorial designs of these non-academic ‘historians?’ who want to force them to read the essay as part of their curricula. India must be the only country in the world where we are used to encountering an unprecedented count of mismatches in our popular perceptions/beliefs and that of the history that we are taught in the classrooms. But despite everything they must realize that we as a nation believe in marriage as a necessary institution, we believe in family system, we understand our responsibility towards our society and nation and through this we would like to make this universe as enjoyable and livable as possible.