You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - May 2004

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00046 May 2004

 
May 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear friends,

The great Indian elections'04 are over. The din and
dust has settled. The victors have been announced and
the vanquished have been banished. In a few days from
now the new rulers will take over the reins of power. 

For ordinary folks like us there is nothing more left 
to do now but quietly return to business as usual and
carry on again with our humdrum lives. Actually, it's
nice to welcome some semblance of normality back once
again into daily living. It's been a tiresome
experience indeed following the Indian elections these
past few weeks -- reading editorials, browsing
web-sites, watching TV-talk shows, analyzing
opinion/exit polls and holding hot coffee-shop debates
with friends in the evenings (and convincing none but
our own arm-chairs!)... I'm glad it's all finally
over!

Last evening after the curtains came down on
Vote-2004, I wanted to refresh myself a little. The
week-long and feverish election-watch had really
drained my energies. So, I went back, as I usually do
under the circumstances, to an activity that for me
has been an unfailing and immense source of relaxation
viz. reading the 'Valmiki Ramayana'. And yet, so badly
afflicted was I with electoral hangover that no sooner
had I turned a few pages of the Ayodhya "kAnda" than I
stopped in the middle of a passage, utterly taken by
surprise by a rather strange question that popped
suddenly out of my head:

       "Was Rama a democrat or a despot?"   

It was an intriguing question indeed and I hence
immediately proceeded to delve into the Valmiki
Ramayana to try and cull out an answer for myself.

The history of mankind, if one looks at it from a
certain angle, is really nothing but a series of
periods of despotism and democracy succeeding one
another. Sometimes democrats have ruled, at other
times despots have ruled. Democratic despots and
despotic democrats have ruled too. History remembers
them today as either "benevolent dictators" or
democrats who ruled with their "iron fist inside
velvet gloves"...   

Now, what about Lord Rama of the Valmiki Ramayana? Was
he a benevolent, democratic despot? Or was he a
despotic democrat? The answer can be found, if at all,
only in the pages of the Ramayana. Many are the scenes
in the Valmiki Ramayana where we come across the will
of the people directly clashing with the will of Lord
Rama belying thereby the age-old dictum of "vox
populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice
of God) which democracies all over the world today
have come to regard as sacred cow.

                 **********

The first instance of conflict between Rama and the
popular will we can find in the Ayodhya "kAnda". Rama
leaves Ayodhya to go into exile in deference to his
father, King Dasaratha's will. But the people of
Ayodhya at large are very much against the idea. Rama
however is firm in his resolve and takes leave of them
and rides away in a chariot driven by the courtier
Sumantara. 

But the people of Ayodhya will not give up so easily.
They follow Rama's chariot all the way out of Ayodhya
and beyond the city's outskirts even. They keep
trailing Sumanthara's chariot, and entreating Rama not
to leave the kingdom... We see that they simply would
not let their Prince go...

So persistent thus was the general populace of Ayodhya
that the Ramayana records they kept following Rama's
chariot in a long procession the whole day until dusk
finally fell. There were a number of Brahmanas even of
great sanctity following him obstinately. They went as
far as the River Tamasa, where Rama and Sumantara
crossed over to the other bank and ostensibly set up
camp. The people watched Rama from a distance, on the
other side, as he pretended to retire for the night.

After a while the people, tired after the long journey
of the day, they too lay down and went to sleep on the
other bank of the river. As they were asleep, Rama
said to Sumantara: "Now you had better quietly take
this chariot and drive northward as if you were trying
to return to Ayodhya. And when the people are off
their guard as it were, come back from that side by
another way. I'll come and join you and then we can
steal away in the night without their knowing
anything". 

Sumantara did as he was told and that was exactly how
Rama, by stealth and ruse, threw the people of Ayodhya
off his trail -- the people whom it was truly
difficult to shake off since, in their loyalty and
adoration, they were determined to follow him until he
yielded to their request to return to their kingdom.  

                 ************

The second instance in the Valmiki Ramayana in which
Rama chose to go against the express wishes of the
larger public is again later in the Ayodhya "kAnda".
This time it is when the whole population of Ayodhya
goes along with Bharatha to the forest-abode of
Chitrakoota where Rama has set up camp. The people
meet Rama there and along with Bharatha entreat him to
return to the throne at Ayodhya and take up his duty
as King now that the old king Dasaratha is dead.

Bharata tells Rama, "How can I take up the burden of
governance when you are here in exile? What will the
people say? I have brought everyone and everything
from the capital. I have brought here all the women of
the land; I have brought all the gurus; Vasishta is
here; I have brought all the 'sasmagris' necessary for
your anointment as king; the army is here; ministers
are here; musicians are here. It is my intention, and
the intention of all assembled here now that you must
be crowned! Let us proceed, O Rama!" (II.106.22-34)

"rakshitUm sumaha-drAjya-aham-ekastu nOth-sahE I
 powra-jAnapadAms-chApi rakthAn ranjayitUm tathA II

"tvAmEva hi pratIshantE parjanyamiva karshakAh:"I     
 (II.112.12)

"Brother, I cannot go and govern Ayodhya! Who will
obey me? All the people say, "We want Rama, we want
Rama!" What can I do? I cannot govern. I have no
capacity. What shall I do?" laments Bharatha to Rama.
"As in a dry season when the rains are late, the
peasants lift uo their hands and ask Indra to shower
rain upon them, so are all the people, our relations,
friends, poor subjects, ministers and all -- they all
want you and you alone to be king."

In spite of all the entreaties and lamentations of the
people of Ayodhya that day, Rama remained firm in his
resolve not to return to Ayodhya. Once again the will
of the people was defeated by the Will of God.

                ***********

The third instance in the Valmiki Ramayana appears in
the "yuddha-kAnda" where we see that Rama's action
directly conflicted with democratic norms such as
"rule by majority", "collective responsibility" and
"governance by consensus".

The scene in the "yuddha-kAnda" is from the 18th
'sarga'. Visbheeshana has come to Rama seeking asylum
and protection. He surrenders to Rama. Rama then
orders Vibheeshana to wait and immediately thereafter
convenes a Council of War. The Council of War includes
Sugriva, Jambavan, Angada, Hanuman and all other
important generals and chieftains in Rama's camp. Rama
then puts forth the case of Visbheeshana's asylum to
the Council members and asks for their advice.

The Council, with the notable exception of Hanuman,
unanimously advises against accepting Vibheeshana into
their camp. The chief objection is put forth by
Sugriva himself:

"Idrisham vyasanam prAptam BrAtaram yah parityajEth I
kO nAma sa bhavEthasya yamEsha na parityajEth II"    
(VI.18.5-6)

"A brother who deserts his brother's side in the midst
of such calamity and crisis, as Visbheeshana has done
-- who may hope to find faith in him? Whom indeed will
he not traitorously forsake?"

The Council of War thus gave its unequivocal verdict.
It was the general consensus. In having convened the
Council to decide on the matter, Rama did act in the
highest traditions of democratic conduct. But what was
the final outcome? Did he abide by the decision of the
Council? 

Despite the Council's verdict, Rama took exactly the
opposite course of action.  He decided to grant asylum
to Vibheeshana under the 'minority' advice given by
Hanuman who said, "O Rama, Vibheeshana has seen how
able you are and how effectively you helped Sugriva
get rid off his evil brother, Vali. Sugriva too
similarly desires to be king of Lanka and knows he can
do it with your help. It is a natural ambition of the
younger brother to over-throw an evil elder brother.
This is why he has come here to you. I think it is
therfore advisable to have him on our side in this
war".

That was Hanuman's minority and dissenting view which
Rama adopted and thereby ignored completely the
majority view of the Council of War. This is another
instance in the Ramayana where we learn an important
lesson: God may choose to observe democratic norms and
niceties but may not always feel obliged to adhere
wholly to them. In other words, God does not always
"walk the talk".

                ************

The only instance in the Valmiki Ramayana where we do
see Rama bowing fully to the dictates of democratic
will, when he did bow to the so-called 'Will of the
People', was alas, the time when it also had the most
disastrous outcome. That scene is in the
"uttara-kAndam", the 7th and final Book of the
Ramayana.

After the Lanka War, Rama returned to rule Ayodhya. He
lived happily with Sita for many years. But one day,
Rama's state intelligence agency came to him and
faithfully reported that the common people of Ayodhya
were beginning to say downright slanderous things
about his queen:

"yathA hi kurutE rAjA prajA tamanuvartatE" II  
(VII.43.19)

"Evam bahuvidhA vAchO vadanti puravAsinah:" I
nagarEshu cha sarvEshu rAjanjana-padEshu cha II  
(VII.43.20)

"Whether you go into the streets of the city or
whether you walk into the rural parts, the people
everywhere are saying slanderous things about Queen
Sita and you, Your majesty", said the agents.

"The common people's tongues are wagging -- they say,
"What sort of happiness can our King Rama be having
sleeping with that woman who has lived for a time in
Ravana's house? How can he enjoy? How does our King
not shrink away from such a woman who has been taken
to Lanka by a rakshasa?"

Valmiki further adds a cruel twist to the tale here.
The people on the streets, he writes, were also
wondering aloud:

"asmAkamapi dArEshu sahaneeyam bhavishyati" I   
(VII.43.18)

"Tomorrow or the day after, when our own women in the
household misbehave, we must also like our King put up
with it, is it not?".
        
In this scene of the "uttara-kAnda", we hear the real
voice of the common man of Ayodhya -- not for a moment
hesitating to stoop to casting a heinous, disgraceful
slur on the fair name of Queen Sita! Sita! The same
lady who everyone knew had come through pure and
unsullied from the test of the "agni-pravEsa! 'Vox
Populi' had spoken... and spoken loudly and most
cruelly...

This was the moment when Rama, deciding to bow to the
Will of the People, and in the larger interest of the
state of Ayodhya, chose to carry out the most tragic,
the most painful act of his life -- he banished the
beautiful, pure and innocent Sita from Ayodhya?forever
to the forests...

In this one instance in the Ramayana, we see how the
Almighty Will of God chose to let the petty will of
common humanity prevail. 
                                                
                *********

Having examined all the above instances from the
Ramayana what are we to make of Rama's character? Was
he by temperament and outlook a democratic
(benevolent) despot or a despotic democrat (with
velvet-gloved iron fists)? It is a very baffling
question indeed. In the first two instances in the
Ayodhya "kAnda", when it would have really behooved
Rama to act in accordance with the will of the people
i.e. in a democratic way, we see that he chose to act
like a self-willed despot and went against their
wishes. In the other two incidents, however, where
none could have faulted Rama if he had acted indeed
like a dictatorial despot, he however went on to act
in the true spirit of a democrat. IN the
"yuddha-kAnda", Rama was Commander-in-Chief waging a
great war. There is no place and no need whatsoever
for democratic niceties in War and yet Rama chose to
observe the courtesy of democracy in the Vibheeshana
episode. And again in the "uttara-kAnda", Rama would
have indeed been within his rights to have acted like
a stubborn despot unmindful of what people said about
the character of Queen Sita. "As far as I am
concerned", he could have easily said, "as far as I am
concerned she has been long ago acquitted and
vindicated by the verdict of the "agni-pravEsam". To
hell with the people's stance on this matter". No one
could have faulted Rama if he had taken a stand such
as this in the true mould of a despotic ruler. And yet
Rama chose to act the other way -- in the highest syle
of a true democrat?   

So the question still remains to perplex us: Was Rama
a Despot or a Democrat? 

What can I say except this: It is better we leave the
question unanswered. He who claims to know the answer
can only do so if he can claim too to know the Will of
God, the designs and workings of the Divine Mind. And
who in the world can ever dare make such a claim? None
indeed, not the greatest of Dictators, nor the
greatest of Democrats of all the three worlds!

                ************

Rgds,
dAsan,
Sudarshan





________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. 
http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SriRangaSri/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     SriRangaSri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list