Hey Nandini Dean!

The Dean seems to be entirely confused thoroughly throughout her sermonising article (Hey Ramayana! Hindustan Times issue dated 11.11.2011 http://www.hindustantimes.com/ViewsEditorialSectionPage/ColumnsOthers/Hey-Ramayana/Article1-767465.aspx#.TrwCegXCRjw.facebook ).

She ends with her argument “true, teachers often betray their profession, a fact which their unions must address. Absenteeism and nepotism are major problems. Quotas are required because left to themselves, few people actively implement affirmative action.” But surprisingly concludes with an entirely opposite proposition “yet, the solution is not more discipline, but more autonomy.” Is it just because she has an idea that a particular department can think ‘logically’ in this case? I found it difficult to comprehend that at one place she places her understanding of the Academic Council (that has only teachers/professors/academicians as members) with her comments “everyone claims to be an expert of social sciences, even if they have no idea of the craft that goes into the simplest looking text” but at the same time she wants us to entrust the exercise of framing syllabus on a smaller set of these teachers that constitutes a department. Now if teachers are such a lot who behave so illogically (according to her only) when they are present in a larger number in the Academic Council then I have all reasons for questioning her intelligence as she wants to trust either a smaller set of these academicians in a particular department or the even smaller four member expert-committee formed by still lesser number of teachers! Her political agenda is left unveiled since she hints only at the “clear political agenda behind the removal of this particular text” but conveniently ignores the obvious political agenda behind initially inserting it into the syllabus. Yes, in her words, the public pays a university not to encourage narrow thinking of a few individuals who decide to hurt sensibilities in the name of academic freedom but to make young people sensible to others’ sensibilities.

A complete analysis of Ramanujan’s essay

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.

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.