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

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00068 May 2004

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


ram anbil ji,
somehow i am not able to post on the group. the mail comes back.
is it possible you could post this reply on the gorup, and see why i am not
able to post, while i am getting all the mails on the group :-((

shashi joshi


> 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?"   
> 
> 
>                  **********
> 
> 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. 

sudarshan ji,
literal democracy is a very dangerous thing, and is never implemented
anywhere without disaster. it would mean that 51 ignorants can
override 49 experts!!

in case of rAma, he leaves ayodhyA ignoring the pleas of his
citizens. but that was the first instance.

lakshmaNa tells him, as soon as they are ware of the events of
exile, that he will fight anyone who dares deny rAma his rigt.
dasharatha has gone senile, anamored by a woman, making decisions
that are not good for the kingdom or the son or the people! (ayodhyA
kAnDa chapter 23)

kaushalyA also asks rAma to stay or to take her with him.

even dasharatha aks rAma to put him in prison and take the kingdom!!

doing all these would have been an ordinary man's thinking, driven
by greed for the kingdom. if it be, why did dasharath himself deny
to kaikeyi and put her in prison or get her killed, without telling
anything to anyone? that would have solved all problems? but he
didn't do this, since he had a little love for truth left in him.
even if it was all in private between him and kaikeyi, he honoured
it and made it public.  rAma honored that and didn't want people
to think that he ignored his father's wishes over his greed for
kingdom, a bad example to set for any future king!


people reacted by what they thought was good for them. but as yama
tells nachiketA, "there are two ways, the good and the dear, shreya
and priya" rAma chose the shreya path, that which was right, people
wanted the dear path, the one which would give them less pain (of
separation from a good king rAma). the mass can rarely decide
anything right (in a literal sense, when they are amassed physically
in a mob)!


> 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 is same as before. if he didn't stay over the first time, why
should he go back later? this would be like doing something and
not finishing it even 10%!! the perils of exile had not changed!

and in a way, this was what caused the demise of rAvaNa ultimately.
it is said that the most crucial character in rAmAyaNa is mantharA.
without her, rAmAyaNa wouldn't have been what it is today!! a
touching, inspiring story of human endeavor!


> 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 Council, with the notable exception of Hanuman,
> unanimously advises against accepting Vibheeshana into
> 
> 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

here again, think of it as a presidential rule, where the president
can veto the suggestions given by the council. the ministers always
counseled the king, they give their counsel, advice, then the king
decides. there is no question of democracy by majority! the king
is not an "emcee" or a compere to orchestrate the meeting only. he
is the final decision maker.

and hanuman had proved himself wiser, mightier, and better judge
of character thatn anyone else. his devotion to rAma was unconditional
and without reason. dasharatha wanted tobe with his son, sItA with
her husband, lakshmaNa wanted to be with his lifelong friend and
elder brother, sugriva wanted to defeat vAlI, but what did hanumAna
want? he was with rAma out of his own true love! his statements
mattered more! one has to give weitage to each voice. 5000 farmers
are nothing against one army general when it comes to war advice!


> 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.

it is suggested by indian and non-indian scholars that uttar kAnDa is not
part of the original rAmAyaNa by vAlmIki. that is one thing to keep in mind
when judging events of this kAnDa.

secondly, the first agni-parIkshA was given in rAma's own words, 'to prove
to these masses about your innocence. i know you are untouched'

now in ayodhyA, the people had not witnessed this. and if the secret
service brings in news that people talk has reached a stage where they are
saying, if our wives stay out, we will also be expected to keep up with
them'. then as a king he is setting a very bad example in front of them.
rAma has always been a person of action than words, unlike kRiShNa. he
talked much less, but made a decision and let his actions talk. so rather
than ignore the people, or to give a big lecture to them (after all the
people knew about the agni-parIkshA), he chose to set it straight.

here you see a king who would sacrifice anything (even his own kingdom in
the first place!) to keep a good image among the masses. why? was it
because they would overthrow him if he kept sItA home? no!!! after all he
was a king, he could have forced his will any time!

but the common men follows what the great men do! so the great men
(leaders) have extra responsibility to act as examples. this would be the
right time to put clinton on this test! he would rather have the entire
press and nation puking over the scandal but not budge from the seat of
power!


> 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

he was none. he was a king who acted in the highest standards to set
examples of good conduct, create unwavering devotion in him among his
people, never chose pleasures over duty! a master warrior and planner and a
man of determination and steel! none of the shastras say that a king should
simply agree to a decision because 51% said so!


> 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

which despot ever gave up the very kingdom for truth!!!
using such words for rAma is indeed sad and ignorance!

> 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!

not necessarily! rAmAyaNa for one is a wonderful epic that is to be
discussed, mulled over, emulated if possible, thought over. just one
caution, - not to jump to conclusions :)
it is there for the very enlightenment of mortal minds!

-- 
Thank You,

Shashi Joshi, Chief Editor, TARANG
440-725-2973
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|  "TARANG - the wave", Cultural, Bilingual, Family, Magazine       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  HINDU PRAYER BOOK - 130+ mantras; 15+ aratis with translations   |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                   http://GreatIndiaOnline.com                     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|



 
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