[A TRUE READING]
1. INTRODUCTION
Ramayana and Baradham are the foremost imaginary epics of the manifold romances manipulated by the Aryans. They are designed to lure the Dravidas into their snare, to wipe off their sense of self-respect, to blunt their discretionary faculty and to destroy their humanity.
The respective heroes of these two stories are Rama and Krishna belonging to the Aryas and who were after all, men of a very ordinary type.
These stories again were foisted that the heroes, their relations and their helpers should be regarded as Gods and superhuman beings and venerated by the people as worthy of being worshipped.
A careful and analytical study of the original legends would reveal that the happenings and the events alleged to have taken place are most uncivilised and barbarous. It is also noticeable that there is nothing useful for the people, especially for the Tamils to learn and act up to. It is devoid of morals or laudable philosophy. Evidently these myths are deceitfully written so that Brahmins may look great in the eyes of others, that the women folk be subdued and subordinate, that their (Brahmin’s) dogmas and the code of Manu, that are derogatory to the Tamil enforced into usage and their existence-unwanted existence-eternized.
The originals of these stories were written in Sanskrit. This enables those Aryans to put their interpretations really imaginary differently at different times to suit the occasions and according to the intellectual capacity of the people in the midst of whom they preached. They call these stories Vedas and the marvels of the Saviours that descended from heavens to redeem the world; they are divine rightenous dogmas (dharma shastras) that inculcate how people should live. They call these stories the essence of Vedas, the 5th
Veda and so on and so forth. By such white lies they are augmenting the self styled importance they do not really possess. Not stopping there, they thrust them into religion and call them the pillars on which religion rests. Not only the masses but also the so-called educated are deceived. The stories have been widely diffused as very valuable and sacred ones and imbued with the blood of the people from their very school career.
Ninety per cent of the Tamils are illiterate and of the rest ten who profess to be literate, most of the people are superstitious scarcely using their discretionary power. They believe in the other worlds of the Aryans’
illusionism and enslaved by this belief they acknowledge the commands of the Aryans and act up to their dictates. To put it briefly all Tamils except the Muslims and Christians are the devout followers of Ramayana.
That the Tamilian may have a clear perspective, that this foolishness and fraudulent beliefs may be wiped off, that he may develop his sense of self-respect, that he may liberate himself from the Aryan yoke of domination, it is peremptory that the vicious motives and nature of the legends and mythologies (puranas) should be disclosed.
With this end in view that much of the readers’ time must not be occupied in reading them but read with undiminishing zeal the chapters of the Ramayana are abridged, picking up all the facts that are important, and published in the book “Valmiki Ramayana Conversation” containing 140
pages in dialogue form.
We do not give credence to the events that are alleged to have taken place. They could not have really taken place at all. Why then so much toil in exploring this episode? It is all because it is my longing to place before the public especially our own men that as the Aryans preach and propagate and hence credited by our men, the original Ramayana contains nothing appreciable, nothing divine, nothing moral to be learned and followed and nothing that would stand to reason, and that our men should open their eyes and see for themselves the fair pretences and hollowness of the Aryan stories which are helpful to call themselves (the Aryans) superior elements by birth and regarded so by others.
We shall here examine the anthropomorphic manifestations of the Devas (Brahmins supposed to be in heaven), the Rishis (sages), Indra (the Head of Brahmins in Heaven) and other so called saints and their qualities.
The Aryans, when they invaded the ancient land of the Dravidas, maltreated and dishonored the latter and had written a false and coloured history wholly fallacious. It is this they call Ramayana wherein Rama and his accomplices are styled as Aryas, Ravana as Rakshasa (Dravidian) and Hanuman, Sugriva, Vali and others as monkeys. This is the conclusion which the great research scholars have come to.
It is the theme of this book to mirror to the Tamils what ascendancy is given to the Aryan and how disgracefully the other communities are deprecated and how oblivious of the sense of self-respect the communities thus debased adore the Aryan characters of the Ramayana and the treacherous and disloyal Dravida betrayers of their own men as Alwars and deities, venerable.
One feature which is the most important of all is that the Tamils, chiefly the educated Tamils when they speak of Ramayana, mean the Kamba Ramayana. The Tamil Pandits to earn their bread and to make a display of their proficiency in literature take themselves up to learning and teaching the Kamba Ramayana and making public speeches on it. The masses should be educated to see how the truth and trend of the Valmiki Ramayana are screened by the affected nicety of the villainous Kamban in drawing a deflected picture of the story swallowing up the real matters. It is regrettable that the Tamil scholars at the cost of their honour and dignity appear before the public to preach of the greatness and sacredness of Kamban’s work.
If the readers of this book while going through it with an unbiased mind come upon any points unheard of, strange and whimsical they will kindly refer to the Tamil translation from Sanskrit works by Mr. Anandachariar made in 1877 and also to the translations lately by Pandit Natesa Shastriar, Messrs. C.R. Srinivasa Iyengar, Narasimachariar, Govinda Rajar, Annangachariar and other Brahmins. The readers are also desired to peruse the translation by Pandit Mammathanath Thathar, a great Sanskrit and
Bengali scholar. The English translation by Mr. Wilson and the true translation works of others may also be cited for reference.
2. THEME OF THE STORY
The details and events of Ramayana run very much like those of the Arabian Nights, Shakespeare, Madanakama Rajan, Panchatantram and other fables. They are beyond human skill and conception. It may therefore be asserted that Ramayana is not a real story. One may say that only by odd facts the divinity and the divine powers of Gods can be impressed. But one will clearly see that the facts stated there are baseless, needless and senseless and besides on occasions where the noble qualities, forethought, geniality and good-will should be exercised, the attitude taken falls far below the level of an average man.
While it is stressed that Rama, the hero of the story, should be valued as God descended from heaven in human form, Valmiki, the author, depicts that Rama was wicked in thought and deed, was an embodiment of lies, treachery, artifice and cunningness, hard-heartedness, greediness, murder, drunkenness, flesh eating, arrowing at the innocent covertly, wicked associations, unmanliness and what not. It will be seen clearly that there is nothing divine in Rama or the story about him and that the qualities are far below the average level and there is nothing educative to Tamils and worthy of being followed.
3. THE ORIGIN OF THE STORY
The story is neither religious nor rational. The Devas (Brahmins supposed to be in heaven) complained to the four-faced Brahma that the Rakshasas (slanderous attribution to Dravidians) despoiled the sacrifices performed by them. Brahma approached his father Vishnu. Vishnu resolved to descend to the earth and took birth as Rama and killed Ravana, the king of the Rakshasas (Balakandam 15th Chapter). This is the origin of the story.
Having come down to the earth, Vishnu experienced many troubles and tribulations and the reason therefore as adduced by the sacred puranas
(mythologies) of the Aryans is that Vishnu (previously Thirumal) perpetrated many immoral and infamous acts and hence punishments were imposed on him as a retaliatory measure by the curses of the Munis (Saints) and Rishis (Sages) whom he had wronged. Why cursed? He (Thirumal) committed the sin of killing a woman, the wife of Biruhu Muni. He (Thirumal) resorted to illegal and deceptive means to impair the chasity of Jalandrasuran’s wife. He (Thirumal) intercoursed with his wife (Thirumagal) in broad day-light in an open space, perhaps to be spectacular!
Many such nonsensical stories are found in the puranas. Leave them as they are. It would behove every right-thinking man to inquire who Devas and Asuras are, who are Rakshasas, what sacrifice means, how Vishnu being a God became a slave to passions like lewdness, theft, murder and all nefarious deeds. Do the perpetrators of such vulgar acts deserve to be adored as Gods?
When and where were these things done? In the subtle upper worlds or in this physical world? Where did the Devas reside? Why should they come to this physical world to perform the Yagams i.e. sacrifices in Fire? Is killing the poor animals by tortuous means and gulping the flesh along with intoxicants and uttering mantras, the definition of Yagam? With these things can it be said, God is pleased and he offers to Devas and other performers and organisers of Yagam higher status and perhaps emoluments too? It is unjust to prevent such cruelty being done to the dumb creatures? Is it fair on the part of God to consider these merciless butchers as Devas, and the sympathetic preventers as Rakshasas and monsters? All these are to be seriously considered by the learned.
In these days, cruelty to animals and indulging in intoxicating drink are considered by the people as well as the Government as crimes punishable with fine and imprisonment. Would it not have been just and fair in the days of “Ravana” also to prevent these crimes? Ravana was a devotee of Siva and as would befit a devotee would it not have been his (Ravana’s) duty to enjoin by laws and order that his state should be dry and that Yagams which involved cruelty to animals should not be performed. Is it fair that a god should incarnate and annihilate such a king, his dynasty, his country and his people merely because he prevented such inhuman acts, done in the name of Yagam in his own kingdom? If we ponder over these points we will find that
Ramayana is full of absurdities.
4. THE SACRIFICE
In Balakandam, the first chapter of Ramayana, it is said that Dasaratha, the King of Ayodhi, was making preparations to perform a Yagam (Fire igniting) for begetting a son. In that Yagam many creatures like sheep, cattle, horses, birds and snakes-generally all creatures viviparous and oviparous, were kept ready to be sacrificed. Horrible that so many lives should be slaughtered for the benefit of an individual expecting fatherhood! Is it sustainable to say that god was pleased to bless one with a son after the lives of innumerable creatures were offered to him at the sacrificial fire? Could the Devas take delight in such slaughterings? These Devas are said to have a King. He is called Devendra. His cruel, detestable and unconscionable acts as are narrated in the stories about him speak of the cunning and cruel Aryan culture and civilization.
What about the Yagam (Fire sacrifice)? Kausalya, one of the wives of Dasaratha, at one stroke moved down the neck of the horse consecrated for the Yagam and lay a whole night embracing the carcass (Balakandam, 14th Chap.). We cannot conceive of their human nature if such is their godly nature. It does not stop there. It cannot but be detestable and shock one’s mind and body if one should be take oneself to know what Yagam is according to Yaga Shastras. The loathsome description of it can be found in the book “Gnana Suriyan” published in the “Kudi Arasu” press. At day-dawn Dasaratha made a present rather as fees for the performance of the Yagam, his first wife, Kausalya along with his other two wives, Sumatirai and Kaikeyi, to three Brahmin priests. These priests having done full justice to their animal passion delivered the ladies back to the king who made no bones about it (Balakandam, 14th Chap.). It was after this, that the ladies became pregnant. Manmathanath Dathar, in his English transation, writes that three priests, named Hotha, Advaryu and Yukdha were pawned upon to enjoy these women.
Why then a Yagam for begetting children by this means? If our best thought is bestowed on this it would be crystal clear that the process of the
Yagam and the happenings there in accordance with their Yaga Shastras and their puranas could not have caused the birth of children but it was by the priests that the royal wives conceived. To corroborate this, Dasaratha was at the time the Yagam was performed sixty thousand years old and he had sixty thousand wives. This is according to Kamban; but according to Valmiki he had three hundred and fifty wives. From this it is apparent that Dasaratha was a decrepit old man and was a lascivious mass of flesh. It is not uncommon that an old man weak and unfirm should have mere craziness for women without the required virility to produce children and should beguile his time in the company of women.
It is a matter for reflection whether these three wives, who were, as it were, barren since long, could have conceived on the day following the Yagam by the effort of an old, infirm and impotent totterer in the evening of his age.
The three ladies were delivered to three prohits (Brahmin Priests) one to each, who, having used them to the full as they chose and as long as they desired, returned them back to the king and received wages for the work turned out by them. Who can say that Dasaratha was the cause of their conception? Even if Rama, Lakshmana, Baratha and Sathrukana were born in reality to the prohits and not to Dasaratha, it is not condemned by the Arya Dharma.
It is laid down in their Shastras that if a Brahmin woman is childless she may beget children by other men subject to certain conditions. In support of this, it may be seen in Baratham, another Aryan story, that even without the pretense of Yagam many widows had become mothers by illicit connection with their family Guru (Teacher), Viyasa. Thirutharashtra and Pandu were products of this kind. There are many such births in Baratham. Take Sita’s birth: Sita’s mother by the aid of some unknown husband for the time being begot Sita and threw the child away in a forest. Sita herself confessed that her marriage had been delayed because of her unknown parentage. It is strange to see in the (Aryan) Puranas that in many cases pregnancy had been caused not by men but by lower animals. From these facts it is apparent that Yagam has nothing to do with child birth but it is only a festivity intended to drink and
eat flesh and amuse themselves in revelry.
Now let us consider the Ramayana characters as we see them in the Ramayana.
5. DASARATHA
Next to the Yagam the coronation of Rama by Dasaratha must be peered into. In the chapters dealing with this are explained the moral and mental depravities of Dasaratha, his sons, wives, ministers, Gurus (Teachers), etc..
1. Dasaratha made a promise to Kaikeyi while marrying her that the son that would be born through her would be crowned as King of Ayothi. Some stories in this connection also say that the kingdom was in essence surrendered to her at the time of the marriage and Dasaratha ruled it only as her representative.
2. In the story in original this fact is confirmed and Dr. Somasundara Barathiar, M.A.,B.L., in his book “Kaikeyi’s Chastity and Dasaratha’s Turpitude” disclosed it.
3. Rama and his mother Kausalya were not unaware of his proposal made by Dasaratha. The old king openly opined to Rama that the departure of Baratha (son of Kaikeyi) to his uncle’s house was an auspicious indication for the celebration of his (Rama’s) coronation (Ayothia Kandam, 4th Chap.) Dasaratha kept Baratha in his grand-father’s house for the ten years solely with the sinister object of dispossessing him of his right to the country.
There was no exigency calling for his stay at his grandfather’s house for ten long years continuously without turning up to Ayothi. Valmiki putting it in the character of Mandarai says in the 7th and 8th Chapters “Dasaratha, with a preplanned motive to make Rama the King, sent away Baratha to his uncle’s house. The immediate presence of Baratha in the capital city would enable him to win the sympathy of the citizens and his exile (in his uncle’s house) would make him lose contact with the people. This was also the intention of Dasaratha.”
4. Suddenly with a sophistic announcement to the people on a previous day Dasaratha made preparations for the coronation of Rama the following day. (Ayothia Kandam, 1st Chapter).
5. The ministers, Vasishta and other Gurus, and also Rama had known fully well that Baratha was the heir to the throne and yet they were insidious enough to give their assent to enthroning Rama.
6. Kausalya (Rama’s mother) also was always praying that Rama should ascend the throne.
7. Without prior notice or invitation to Baratha, Sathrukana, Kaikeyi, and King of Kaikeyam for such an important coronation (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter I) arrangements were made by Dasaratha in a great hurry.
8. Dasaratha in his private conversation with Rama said that “even if necessity arose for Baratha to stop the coronation yet he would accept it calmly without making any protest if it had taken place in his absence, before his arrival. Because Baratha was gentle, good-natured and would accept what has already happened as a noble man (Ayothia Kandam, 12th Chapter.) 10. He said to Kaikeyi: “You have spoiled all the elaborate arrangements already made.” He did not tell her even a single word that Rama was the first born son and was therefore entitled to be the king of the land. After all his efforts to bring her around failed, he called Rama to his side and whispered to him, “Rama! I had agreed to crown Baratha when I was not quite myself.
This is not therefore binding on you. You may become the ruler of the land expelling me from the throne.”
11. All his efforts having proved ineffectual he ordered Sumandra to despatch along with Rama all the money in the treasury, the grains in the granary, all the subjects including the merchants and harlots to the forest (Ayothia Kandam, 36th Chapter.)
12. Kaikeyi having objected to this also, Dasaratha twisted the issue by arguing “You wanted only the country and not all that it contained” (Ayothia Kandam, 36th Chapter.)
13. Then he handed over all the ornaments in the treasury to Sita (Ayothia Kandam, 36th Chapter.)
14. Dasaratha, being disconcerted, heaped abuses on Kaikeyi for sending Rama and Sita to the forest but he was not for a while perturbed over his another son Lakshmana following Rama to the forest. There is no reference about the wife of Lakshmana also.
In his translation of Valmiki Ramayana from Sanskrit into Tamil published in 1925 (Second Edition) the late Mr. C.R. Sreenivasa Iyengar, Professor of the Sanskrit College, Madras observed under the caption, ‘Notes on Ayothia Kandam’ that Dasaratha was a killer of conscience and made charges twenty in number against Dasaratha. He endorsed the action of Kaikeyi and Sumitharai. The charges are:-
1. Dasaratha forgot the two boons he had granted to Kaikeyi thoughtlessly. According to the boons she might demand whatever she choose.
2. He forgot the word which he had given her at her marriage that he would give his kingdom to the son that would be born through her.
3. Even after having lived so long as sixty thousand years he was enslaved by his animal passion and consequently did not treat his first two wives (Kausalya and Sumitharai) fairly as they deserved.
4. His promise made foolishly to Kaikeyi to soothe her.
5. His declaration in the presence of his subjects of handing over the kingdom to his son Rama. This is a breach of the promise made to Kaikeyi and her father.
6. As a sequel to his grant of the boons asked for by Kaikeyi, Rama was sent away to the woods and this frustrated his subsequent declaration of enthroning Rama.
7. These iniquities rendered it impossible for Baratha to get the State
8. The advice given by Vasishta was that according to the tradition in the lineage of Elakkukvagu the eldest son of the family should get the kingdom.
But Dasaratha spurned it aside overcome by lust for Kaikeyi.
9. He must pay for his own stupidity; but he cursed Kaikeyi instead and begged her to recede from pressing her boons.
10. He forgot who he was and what his status was as a king but fell at her feet.
11. Sumandra and Vasishta who were in the know of Dasaratha’s promises could have pointed out to Dasaratha the promises made by him to Kaikeyi, warned him and dissuaded him from crowning Rama; but they too did not.
12. Vasishta who could read the future fixed the time auspicious to celebrate the function though he knew very well that the plan (Rama’s coronation) would end in smoke.
13. Siddharta, Sumandra and Vasishta endeavoured to dissuade Kaikeyi who demanded her legitimate claim and that failing they rebuked her.
14. Dasaratha who had sought the consent of the people and the Rishis for the ablution of Rama sent him to the woods of his own accord i.e. without consulting his ministers, great Rishis and people. This is arroganace and disregard for the wishes of others.
15. The subjects and the Rishis who were thus disregarded did not remonstrate with him and stop Rama from proceeding to the woods.
16. Rama ought to have known of his own birth and also of the promise made by Dasaratha while marrying Kaikeyi that her son alone should succeed the throne (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 107); yet he was mute and quiet without bringing it home to his father and was willing to be crowned.
17. “It is likely that several impediments may upset our arrangement” said Dasaratha to Rama. He further added that Baratha was generous and liberal minded and spiritually evolved. It was long time since he had gone to his uncle’s house. Even such men as were gifted with a firm and strong will might, by extraneous forces, change their minds. It would therefore be desirable that the function was finished before the return of Baratha (Ayothia Kandam-4). Thus Dasaratha tried to betray Baratha (denying his legitimate claim) and decided to enthrone Rama tacitly. Rama too agreed to this conspiracy meekly.
18. Janaka was not invited for. If perchance Baratha was crowned he (Janaka) might resent it, as it was but right to put only Rama in the throne.
19. The King of Kaykeyam was not invited because he would resent if Rama was crowned ignoring the promise already made in favour of Baratha.
20. The other kings were not invited because of the intricacies. There are sufficient reasons and arguments available for the right and just action of Kaikeyi and Mandarai. Without taking all these into consideration it is unreasonable and irrelevant to abuse them and level innumerable charges against them.
6. RAMA
Let us now consider Rama and study his character:-
1. Rama was quite aware that the kingdom was virtually handed over to Kaikeyi at the time of her marriage. He himself told this to Baratha (Ayothia Kandam, 107th Chapter).
2. His amiable conduct towards the people, his father and Kaikeyi was only motivated by his desire to usurp the throne. (He was all along a snake under the grass).
3. He acquiesced himself in all the devices which his father was making to crown him in the absence of Baratha.
4. Fearing that Lakshmana might envy at his lot and do him any harm, Rama cajoled him saying, “Lakshmana! Only on your behalf I am going to be crowned. Really you are going to rule the country” (Ayothia Kandam, 4th Chapter). In the end Lakshmana had no concern over the affairs of the state.
5. All through he had been feeling diffident within himself whether the function would end in success or in fiasco.
6. He lamented secretly when Dasaratha pronounced, “The Kingdom is not for you. You must go to the forest” (Ayothia Kandam, 19th Chapter).
7. He mournfully revealed to his mother: “It has been ordained that I have to lose the kingdom, forego the princely comforts and the tasteful meat-dishes and to go to the forest to eat the vegetables and fruits.” (Ayothia Kandam, 20th Chapter.)
8. With a heavy heart he said to his wife and mother: “The Kingdom that has been about to become mine has slipped out of my hands (Ayothia Kandam, 20, 26, 94th Chapters) and also I have been ordained to go to the forest”.
9. He approached Lakshmana and characterised his father (Dasaratha) as a criminal and said, “Will any fool agree to send away to the forest a person who has all through been carrying out his will? (Ayothia Kandam, 53rd Chapter).
10. Rama married many wives. This is found in the translation of Valmiki Ramayana published by Mr. C.R. Sreenivasa Iyengar in the year 1925
(Second Edition - Ayothia Kandam, 8th Chapter, Page 28). He (Mr. C.R.S.
Iyengar) says, “Though Rama had married Sita to be the queen he married many other wives for sexual pleasure in accordance with the royal custom.
Manmatha Nath Dather says, “Rama’s wives were used to take pleasure in company with their servant women. In the same way your (Kaikeyi’s) daughter-in-law (Baratha’s wife) would plunge herself in sorrow.” (His translation published in 1892-Ayothia Kandam, page 202, 8th Chapter) The term “Rama’s wives” has been used in many places in Ramayana.
11. Though Kaikeyi’s affection towards Rama was beyond doubt, Rama was all along insincere and artful to her.
12. Rama had been pretending to be honest and affectionate towards Kaikeyi and in the end he accused her that “Kaikeyi was a wicked woman”
(Chapters 31 and 53, Ayothia Kandam).
13. Though Kaikeyi was devoid of ill feelings yet Rama charged her that
“Kaikeyi would ill-treat my mother”. (Ayothia Kandam, 31 and 53rd Chapters).
14. “She may murder my father.” Thus Rama charged Kaikeyi insolently.
(Chapter 53, Ayothia Kandam).
15. In the forest whenever Rama encountered occasions which made him feel that danger was imminent, many a time he exclaimed that “Kaikeyi’s desire is fulfilled; Kaikeyi will be satisfied”.
16. In the forest he told Lakshmana, “As our father has grown old and infirm and as we have also come to the forest, Baratha with his wife will be ruling over Ayothia joyfully without any opposition.” (Ayothia Kandam, 53rd Chapter). This brings to light his innate baseness, ambition to capture the throne and jealousy.
17. When Kaikeyi said to him, “Rama! The king desired me to convey to you that Baratha should be crowned King of Ayothi and you should go to the forest,” he replied “the king has never told me that he would give the kingdom to Baratha”. (Ayothia Kandam, 19th Chapter).
18. He called his father “a fool, an idiot.” (Ayothia Kandam, 53rd Chapter).
19. He appeals to his father “to continue rulling the country and let none ascend the throne until he has returned from the forest.” Thus he put a spoke in the wheel to check Baratha’s ascendancy to the throne (Ayothia Kandam, 34th Chapter).
20. “If I am enraged I can myself crush all my enemies and become the king. But I desist from taking this course for the fear that I will be scorned at, by the people at large” thus Rama showed his disregard for justice and truthfulness (Ayothia Kandam, 53rd Chapter).
21. He told his wife, Sita: “You cater to the taste of Baratha without earning his ill-feeling. This will yield much benefit to us later.” (Chapter 26, Ayothia Kandam).
22. Baratha hearing the news of Rama’s banishment went to the forest to take him back to the country. On seeing Baratha, Rama questioned him. “O
Bharatha, are you chased away by the citizens? Have you come here out of your unwillingness to help our father?” (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 100).
23. “Now your mother’s desires are accomplished, is she happy?”
(Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 100), thus Rama further asked Baratha.
24. Baratha assured to Rama that he gave up his claim to the throne. Then only Rama disclosed to Baratha the secret that Dasaratha had already handed over the kingdom to his (Baratha’s) mother, Kaikeyi. (Chapter 107, Ayothia Kandam).
25. Baratha having made over his kingdom to Rama, returned to Ayothi with the shoes of Rama. He placed them on throne and led an ascetic life for fourteen years. He pined that Rama did not return on the fixed day; so he was making preparations to throw himself into fire. Such an upright and noble person was suspected by Rama. When Rama reached the outskirts of Ayothi, he sent Hanuman to Baratha to inform him, “I have come with a great force and also with Vibishana and Sugriva. Then observe the impressions in his face and also the steps he hurries up to take soon on hearing this, because it is hard for any one to relinquish the pleasures and the luxuries of ruling which Ayothi abounds with.” (Chapter 127, Uttara Kandam).
26. Rama was ever suspicious of Sita’s character and asked her to plunge herself into the fire and come out to prove her chasity. Even though Sita had undergone this trial prescribed by Rama, yet Rama found out Sita’s pregnancy. The doubt about the chastity of Sita was then a subject matter in
the lips of everyone. Drawing the attention of Sita to this opinion of the people about her chastity and at the same time without revealing to Sita his own finding, Rama caused Sita being taken to the forest and left there when she was pregnant.
27. When Valmiki asserted the chastity of Sita, yet Rama did not believe it and so she had to die, getting down into the hollow of the earth.
28. He made friends with Sugriva and Vibishana knowing that they were knaves and that they approached him with the treacherous intention to kill their brothers and usurp the throne.
29. He stealthily killed Vali who had done him no harm, from behind, for the sake of Vali’s disloyal brother. This Rama who had not dared himself to fight face to face with Vali is hailed as a hero by the ignorant and greatly praised by the Brahmins by adding greater emphasis.
30. Even, while accepting the surrender of Vibishana, Rama unknowingly revealed his own evil mindedness and treachery. Rama admired Baratha that none on earth except Bharatha could embrace the Dharma of loyalty and obedience to his elder brother however vicious he (elder brother) might be.
He wondered whether there was any other brother (born of the same father and mother) who would be of Baratha’s type. (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 17) Thus Rama in a way accepted that he was wicked.
31. While killing Vali, Rama justified his action by explaining to him (Vali) that the rule of “Dharma need not be adhered to in the case of beasts”
and yet Rama killed Vali on the ground that Vali had not conducted himself as a rational being ought to. Without making any attempt to get the explanation of Vali for charges levelled against him, Rama killed Vali relying wholly on the word of the selfish Sugriva.
32. Rama disfigured and mutilated many women by cutting off their noses, breasts, ears, etc. and tortured them (Soorpanagai, Ayomuki).
33. Rama killed many women (Thadagai).
34. Rama on several occasions uttered lies to women.
35. Rama insulted women, thus - “Women should not be trusted,” and
“Secrets should not be confided to wife” (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 100) 36. Rama had always an undue lust for sexual pleasure.
37. Rama killed and ate many lives unnecessarily.
38. Rama said that he had been to the forest only to kill the Rakshasas (Dravidians) and that he had also been to the forest to keep up the word given to somebody else that he would destroy the Rakshasas (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 10).
39. Determined to drag the Rakshasas into a war, Rama entered Ravana’s territory despite the protest of Sita (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 9 and 10).
40. While fighting with Karan, Rama said: “I have been sent to the forest charged with the only mission to slay Rakshasas” (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 29).
41. With a selfish motive Rama surrendered himself to Sugriva, who was worthless and treacherous, saying, “Accept me,” “Show mercy on me.”
42. Having known that Vibishana had betrayed his own brother (Ravana), Rama took him to his side (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 17).
43. Having already assured the kingdom of Lanka to Vibishana (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 18) Rama sent messenger, Angatha, to Ravana with a message that he would disown Lanka if Sita was returned to him (Rama).
“Tell Ravana that I would leave Lanka to him if Sita is released” (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 40). This proves that Ravana was free from any other slur and that Rama was an untrustworthy man.
44. Baratha, Kaikeyi, the citizens and the Guru all went to the forest and implored Rama to return to the country. They even resorted to “Satyagraha”
before Rama. But Rama was obdurate and replied, “I am determined to carry
out my father’s word and not to pay heed to anyone else.” Thus he refused to return. This same Rama agreed to accept the throne disregarding the word of father (Dasaratha’s promise to Kaikeyi that he would hand over the kingdom to her son (Baratha) (Yuddha Kandam, Chapter 130).
45. Not only did he consent to ascend the throne but from the time Rama was desired to go to the forest by his father till he returned to Ayothi and go himself enthroned, he was nurturing nothing else but his ambition, care and hope for the throne. Rama revealed this on many occasions through his own utterances.
46. Sambuka was slain (by Rama) because he was making penance which was forbidden to him by Vedas as he was a “Sudra” if Dravidian Race (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 76).
47. After throwing Lakshmana into a river (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 106) Rama like an ordinary man fell down into a river and died. Then Rama was reborn as Vice-Indra (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 110).
48. Looking at his hand Rama said the Sanskrit slogan “O right hand, you kill this Asche Sudra unhesitatingly as killing this Sudra is the only way to get back the life of the deceased Brahmin boy. Are you not one of the limbs of Rama?” (Valmiki Ramayana).
NOTE: This Rama who mercilessly took away the life of Sambuka for no other fault than that he was making penance is held to be the Avatar (Incarnation) of Vishnu! If there were kings like Rama now! Alas! What would be the plight of those who are called “Sudras” the meaning of which is
‘Sons of prostitutes’?
49. The bow that was broken by Rama was Siva’s. This bow was already a broken one. (Refer ‘Abidhana Chintamani’ Written by Mr. Singaravelu Mudaliar - Pages 157, 331, 571, 663, 894, 1151, 1173 and 1494).
50. This is supported by various Ramayanas and the story of Parasuram.
Look at Rama’s age when he broke the bow. When Rama broke this bow, according to his mother, he was then 5 years old; according to his father, he
was about 10. According to his wife (Sita) his age was 12. Whatever it might be that it was already a broken bow is true according to the story.
The views of Navalar Dr. Somasundara Bharathiar: Rama according to the Valmiki Ramayana, was not an upright man. He had a hand in many acts of perfidy.
Rama was quite cognizant of the fact that he had no just claim over the country and that Baratha was the legal heir.
Rama’s father, Dasaratha at the time of the marriage of Baratha’s mother,
“Kaikeyi” had given word to the father of Kaikeyi, that “the son born of Kaikeyi would be the King of Ayothi”. Only on this condition Kaikeyi was given in the marriage to Dasaratha.
Rama knew this fact and that he himself confessed this truth.
Rama himself pointed out this to Baratha and also implored him not to blame his mother Kaikeyi.
This was known to Rama’s mother, Kausalya, to Vashishta and to other Rishis (Sages) and ministers. To be brief Rama’s mother, Rishis, Gurus and ministers were the accomplices of Dasaratha in the conspiracy hatched by him to deprive Baratha of the throne treacherously and to bring Rama as the King of Ayothi.
RAMAYANA BY AN AMERICAN
(OBEI MENON) Published in Russian Paper:
The American interpretation makes Rama something in the nature of a Chicago gangster and SITA a light minded girl rather pleased at being kidnapped by the demon Ravana”. (See “News and views from the Soviet Union” dated November 20th 1954, Volume XIII. No. 263, Page 2).
7. SITA
Let us examine the character of Sita. In the whole story of Ramayana there is scarcely a word of praise about Sita:-
1. Her birth is doubtful and questionable (Ayothia Kandam-Chapter 66).
She was older than Rama.
2. She says, “I was found out from the dust and by that fact my parentage not being known, none did come forward to woo me for many years even after I attained maturity”.
3. She was discarded within a few days after her marriage by Baratha.
4. This was also endorsed by Rama when he told Sita:-
“You do not deserve the praise of Baratha.” (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 26).
5. This was also admitted by Sita herself when she told Rama, “I do not like to live with Baratha who despises me.”
6. She called her husband a “simpleton”.
7. “You are only in appearance a man but really you lack in manliness”.
8. “You lack in potence, manners and charm.”
9. “You are no better than a woman monger who lets his wife for hire and makes his livelihood. You want to be profited by my prostitution.”
10. Sita having scented that Rama was always suspicious of her conduct exclaimed “Rama! You are my saviour! In none but your-self I repose my love; this many a time I swear by you; yet you do not believe me!”
11. Rama said “I tested you”. (6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11-Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 30).
12. Rama having in mind her pompousness and frailty of mind directed her that she should strip off all her ornaments if she were to accompany him
to the forest. (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 30).
13. Sita did accordingly but again she put on some other jewels unknowingly (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 30).
14. Kausalya who was noticing this, advised Sita “to behave like a noble and virtuous lady. Do not disregard your husband’s worth.” Sita insolently replied to her mother-in-law, “I know all this”. Yet she did not strip off her jewels. (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 37).
15. When Rama and Lakshmana were clad in the barks of trees, Sita declined to wear such barks. (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 37).
16. The other ladies who perceived Sita’s unwillingness pitied her and begged of Rama to leave her behind. Yet Rama pressed Sita to wear bark-clothes and took her to the forest as Kaikeyi did not agree to desire of other ladies. (Ayothia Kandam, Chapters 37 and 38).
17. Still Sita did not pay heed to all the advice given to her. She wore her fine dress and jewels. It is therefore clear that Baratha’s dislike towards Sita and Kaikeyi’s refusal to permit Sita to remain in the country are the main reasons for Sita being taken to the forest.
18. Sita prayed to the river while crossing it:- “Oh! River - If I return safely to Ayothia I will offer you a thousand cows and a thousand pots of toddy”. (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 52).
19. Whenever Sita feared that some danger was imminent in the forest she would say to herself. “Our distress will delight and satisfy Kaikeyi”. Thus Sita revealed her hostility towards Kaikeyi.
20. Whenever Rama was languishing in the disappearance of Sita, Lakshmana casually remarked. “Why do you bother yourself for an ordinary woman”. (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 66).
21. Lakshmana expressed that Sita was a woman of questionable character. (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 18).
22. Rama had gone out in the search of the deer. Sita was persuading Lakshmana to go to the help of Rama. Seeing that Lakshmana was hesitating to go out leaving Sita alone, Sita made scathing remarks on Lakshmana as,
“Is it to seduce me that you are lingering here with indifference to save the life of Rama? Is it for this purpose you followed us to the forest like an honest fellow? You are a knave. You are bent upon killing Rama out of your lust for me. Is it for this purpose that Baratha sent you along with us to the forest? I will never yield to your wishes of Baratha’s.”
23. When Lakshmana with all respects due to a mother replied to Sita that it would not befit her to talk so indecently, Sita said, “You are cunning; you betray your lust for me and you are gaining time for gazing at me. (These two points can be seen in Chapter 45, Ayothia Kandam).
24. Ravana visited Sita’s abode with an intention to carry her away. On seeing her he was captivated by her beauty. Ravana fell in love and advanced towards her. He began to describe highly about Sita’s breast and bewitching limbs. To all these what were Sita’s reactions? Did she spurn him? Did she rebuke him? No, not at all. He was given a warm reception. She spoke in his presence of her high reputation and of her youthful form without revealing her real age (Aranya Kandam, Chapters 46 and 47).
25. Sita began to dislike him (Ravana) only after he had said that he was Ravana, the chief of Rakshasas.
26. While Ravana was carrying her away seated in is lap she was half naked, herself denuding the upper half. (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 54).
27. As soon as Sita stepped into Ravana’s palace, her love towards Ravana grew more (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 54).
28. There Ravana said to Sita, “Come, let us enjoy together” But Sita closing her eyes, sobbed. (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 55).
29. Ravana said, “Ah! Sita, our company is chanced by the divine will.
This is agreeable to the Rishis. (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 55).
30. Sita replied, “You are free to embrace this body of mine as you will. I need not protect it. I should not be moan that I have blundered.” (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 59). It may be inferred here that Sita did not give her consent to Ravana to cohabit her.
31. Rama said, “Sita! How could Ravana have left you without being seduced?” To this charge by Rama, Sita gave the following reply which confirms the above inference.
32. Sita replied, “True! But what could I do? I am only a weaker sex. My body was in his possession. I did not do anything wrong willingly. However mentally I was with you. It was only a divine will. She said only so much.
But she did not assert herself that Ravana has not seduced me” (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 118).
33. Seeing her pregnancy, Rama’s doubt increased. He took shelter under the charge made by the citizens and ordered his brother Lakshmana to take Sita to the forest and leave her there. There Sita showing her abdomen to Lakshmana said, “See! I am pregnant”. (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 48).
34. In the forest she gave birth to two children (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 66).
35. When at length Rama asked Sita to swear she declined and died (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 97).
36. “Ravana most respectfully with bowed head and without touching her person made Sita follow him. This means “Ravana has not used any violence and Sita of her own accord ran after him willingly.” Sita ought to have followed Ravana voluntarily. Ravana could not have touched Sita when she was unwilling. Why? Because, It was ordained by a curse that his head would burst into pieces if Ravana touched any woman without her consent. There was also Brahma’s curse that Ravana’s body would be burnt if he dared touch any lady who was not amenable to him. Therefore Ravana would not and could not touch any woman without her consent.
37. Reclaiming Sita as his wife after she was recovered from Ravana,
Rama was ruling the country. One day her sister-in-law, Kukuvavathy approached Rama and said to him, “O! Elder!
How you love Sita more than you love yourself! Come with me and see what really is in your lovely wife’s heart. Still she could not forget that fellow Ravana. Drawing a picture of Ravana on a hand-fan and pressing it closely to her bosom she is lying on your bed with eyes closed meditating on and rejoicing at his (Ravana’s) glories.”
At this juncture Durmuha, the chief of Rama’s spies, came to Rama and acquainted him with the news that the reclamation of Sita from Ravana (by Rama) and accepting her as his wife was a subject of ridicule and scandal among citizens. As he heard this, Rama flared up. The disgrace and sorrow he felt within himself was reflected on his face. He sighed and went out with his sister Kukuvavathy to Sita’s apartment. She was found sleeping pressing to her breast the hand-fan in which Ravana’s picture was drawn. This is found in pages 199, 200 of the book entitled as “Bengali Ramayana,” written by Mrs. Chandravathi.
A close study of the events reveals that by the time Rama detected Sita’s pregnancy, the approximate time during which her pregnancy could have taken place should be within a period of one month shortly after Rama’s return to Ayothia on reclaiming Sita from Ravana.
38. Sita was caught red handed by Rama that she had drawn the picture of Ravana (“Notes on Ramayana” by Mr. C.R. Srinivasa Iyengar).
39. It is according to Ramayana, we say, that Rama is an unworthy man and Sita an unchaste woman.
One of the several common instances to prove this is that Rama caused his wife Sita who was pregnant to be left alone in the forest. This is a very dreadful cruelty.
As regards Sita I say she was not morally pure because of her illicit intimacy with Ravana. If Rama’s action is accepted as justifiable it should also be accepted by all that Sita’s pregnancy must have been caused by
If defended that Sita did not commit any wrong and that her pregnancy was by Rama himself, then, it should be accepted by all that Rama’s action in having sent innocent Sita to the forest when she was pregnant is vile and inhuman. Rama discovered Sita’s pregnancy and then sent her away to the forest the very next morning.
In these circumstances any attempt to explain it away that neither Sita was adulterous nor Rama a scamp would mean that adultery and rascality are above reproach.
How then will it be fair to say that Rama came to the earth to teach virtuousness to men and Sita to teach chastity to women?
If it should be viewed in concord with the preaching of the Brahmin that what both (Rama and Sita) did was right would it not amount to misleading the poor and ignorant masses? How can the reformers tolerate such absurd notions? For these reasons we say on authority that both Rama and Sita are characterless “characters”.
SITA’S PREGNANCY
From a close study of “Ramayana by Valmiki,” it is clear that Sita’s pregnancy was not by Rama.
After killing Ravana, Rama returned to Ayothia with Sita and began to rule the country after coronation. Then he sent away Vibhishana, Sugriva and others to their places. Lastly, the “Pushpaga Vimanam” was also sent back.
Soon after the departure of the “Pushpaga Vimanam,” Baratha with folded hands said to Rama, “O! Revered! You are a divine power! Within a month of commencement of your reign all in the kingdom began to enjoy pleasure and contentment!”
It is said that after ten thousand years of reign by Rama, one day Rama and Sita were sitting together in the palace garden when he found out that
Sita was pregnant. This verse about “after the lapse of ten thousand years in according to Mr. Srinivasa Iyengar who translated “Ramayana by Valmiki,” a subsequent insertion and not written by Valmiki himself-vide Mr. C.R.
Srinivasa Iyengar’s translation of “Ramayana by Valmiki”, Uttara Kandam, 42nd verse, page 163. He says under his editorial notes, “it seems that this verse ‘ten thousand years of reign’ was not made by Valmiki.”
According to “Ramayana by Valmiki” first verse in Bala Kandam, Chapter 2, “Rama, after sending Sita to the forest reigned the country for ten thousand years. He also made many Aswametha Yagams-vide Uttara Kandam, Chapter 99. It is stated that this verse was interpolated to keep Sita beyond suspicion. Thus Sita’s pregnancy was found out within a month and thereafter she was taken to the forest by Lakshmana. While in the forest Sita showed Lakshmana the formation of her pregnancy and added that it was four months old. She said to Lakshmana “See my stomach! My pregnancy is four months old.” Thus she bade him good bye. If such being the case, how can it be held that a month’s pregnancy would become four months old, and how can it be said that pregnancy would have been caused by Rama?
8. LAKSHMANA
As regards Lakshmana we do not see anything highly remarkable in his character. Mention about Lakshmana is made in many places in Ramayana for the only reason that he was always with Rama. It is nowhere found that he was above an average man. It is a wonder how he was dubbed with the title
“Elaya Alwar” (Young Avatar).
1. He had a hand in the plot to deprive Baratha of his Kingship.
2. Rama suspecting Lakshmana’s loyalty allured him thus: “Lakshmana!
Even though the coronation is for me, you are going to rule the country actually.” Lakshmana on hearing this threw himself body and soul to do anything and everything to get Rama crowned. Sumitrai’s sons Lakshmana and Sathurukana sided Rama and Baratha respectively - perhaps they knew that they were not in any way entitled to the throne.
3. Lakshmana heaped abuses on his father Dasaratha. He called Dasaratha a “Knave”.
4. He proposed that his father “be put into jail.”
5. He expressed that his “father should be killed.”
6. He even said that “to kill the father is a Dharma (Righteous deed) according to Manu.”
7. He said that “I would exterminate Baratha and his associates completely” (Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 above, vide Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 21).
8. “It was god’s will that I was not able to get the throne”, thus Rama was sighing. Seeing this, Lakshmana criticised Rama that “only cowards and fools would talk about God’s will”.
9. “Kaikeyi and Dasaratha having made a prearrangement between themselves now pretend to hold difference of opinion in respect of crowning you only with a view to deceive you”, Lakshmana said thus.
10. He challenged, I can drive away Dasaratha and Kaikeyi to the forest and put you in the throne.”
11. “If you are not disposed to have the coronation for yourself, I will myself seize the kingdom and rule over it”, he said. (Items 8, 9 and 11 above vide Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 23).
12. While leaving the country for the forest he said “he who rules Ayothia decorated with prostitutes is the blessed man.” (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 51).
13. He sighed, “Would we return safely to Ayothia.” (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 51).
14. Lakshmana seeing Baratha who came to Rama and entreated him in most respectful and supplicatory terms to return to the country to be crowned,
growled at him and said, “I am going to kill him now.” (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 96).
15. When he saw Viradan in the forest he said, “I am going to wreak my vengence, which I am having to Baratha who has usurped the throne, on this fellow!” (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 2).
16. To Soorpanaka he said, “Sita is a characterless woman. Her breast (paps) has grown old.” (Aranya Kandam, Chapter 18).
17. His behaviour towards Sita was such that made her suspect that he had a love towards her and that he wanted to enjoy her.
18. “Let anybody carry away Sita! Let her die! What does it matter! Are we to suffer for a mean woman?” Thus he spoke to his elder brother about his (brother’s) own wife with indifference and irresponsibility.
19. Ladies like Tadagai, Soorpanaka and Ayomuki were tortured and their features, ears, noses and breasts were maimed by Lakshmana.
20. “Rama having lost himself in grief has himslef come to surrender to you. Show mercy on him.” Thus Lakshmana surrendered himself before Sugriva.
21. Sometime hence Lakshmana sought the permission of Rama “to say this same Sugriva”.
22. At the instance of Rama he, spoke lies to Sita and took her deceitfully to the forest and left her there when she was pregnant.
23. Rama and Bharatha were both elder (brothers) to Lakshmana.
Lakshmana was subserreient to Rama and inimical towards Baratha.
Similarly Lakshmana behaved amicably towards Kausalya and detestably towards Kaikeyi. What was this due to? Could it be other than his ambition for the throne?
Let us have a brief study of the following persons:-
Baratha, Kaikeyi, Sugriva, Sathrukana, Sumanthara, Angatha, Kausalya, Vasishta, Vibishana, Sumithrai, Hanuman, Ravana and Vali.
9. BARATHA
In him we do not find any merits to be rated high.
1. He stayed in his grandfather’s palace for ten long years as a playful boy.
2. He returned to Ayothia only after he was sent for. He had not the anxiety to see his father and mother and visit his home.
3. When, on his return from his grandfather’s palace, he heard of Rama’s exile to the forest, he enquired if he (Rama) had raped any woman (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 72).
4. He heaped abuses on his mother and called her names “A virago, devil, a harlot, a wicked and a mischievous woman, you better die. You run away from the country. I am sorry to call myself your son.” In such vile and harsh terms, he foolishly rebuked his mother who with great difficulty won for him the kingdom which was lawfully due to him. He had not attempted to know the facts and properly understand his mother.
5. He called his father a tyrant. (Items 4 and 5 above-vide Chapter 73 and 74, Ayothia Kandam).
6. While conversing with Rama in the forest he requested him, “Come to the country and be crowned in the midst of merry-making royal ladies”
(Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 105).
7. Baratha also had many wives.
10. SATHRUKANA
A worst dunce.
1. He abused his step-mother, Kaikeyi.
2. He knocked down Mantharai, beat her and broke her arms for she had known the secrets from the beginning and was faithful and dutiful to her mistress, Kaikeyi, to establish justice.
NOTE: It is notable contrast that Baratha and Sathrukana who abused their father and mother and disregarded them, showed devotion towards their elder brother Rama.
11. KAUSALYA
She conducted herself as the polygamist’s wives of a second rate family do.
1. An unbounded ambition for crowning her son by any means was always in her mind.
2. She was jealous of Kaikeyi and hostile to her.
3. “I have become old and all the charm in my (physical) body has disappeared.” Thus she was feeling sorry (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 20).
4. She had spoken ill of her husband without the least regard for him.
12. SUMITHRAI
She was a non-descript.
1. Knowing that her son would not be made king she was eager that Rama should become king.
2. “Rama after the lapse of fourteen years would come back in a moment’s time, would throw away Baratha and seize the throne. Don’t feel sorry now.” Thus she consoled Kausalya. This clearly shows that both were propensed against Baratha.
1. She was brave and beautiful. She was the accredited queen.
2. One or two occasions she saved her husband’s life.
3. The kingdom was hers because she had saved her husband’s life and he, Dasaratha, had made over his country to her while marrying her.
4. Whenever Baratha told Kaikeyi, “I shall hand over (kingdom) to Rama-I have handed (it) over,” she had not raised any objection.
5. She strove hard to establish her right to the throne. She did not harbour any wicked throughts or perpetrate anything ignoble.
14. SUMANTHARA
Though he was a minister he was not honest and upright.
1. He intrigued with Dasaratha and had continuously been his evil adviser.
2. He had spoken most derisively of Kaikeyi, the King’s wife (Ayothia Kandam, Chapter 35).
3. He also uttered lies.
15. VASISHTA
Guru Vasishta behaved no better than an ordinary prohit (Brahmin Priest).
1. Having known already that the country was Baratha’s he contrived to crown Rama.
2. In a hurry he fixed the day for the coronation to suit the conspiracy.
3. The day he fixed (as auspicious) for the coronation of Rama ultimately
turned to be the day for his (Rama’s) banishment to the forest.
16. HANUMAN
He was an ordinary person. He had not played any intelligent part. The fame and the name he had won, it is said, is all due to his many marvellous deeds, which would not stand to reason.
1. He unjustly set fire to Lanka at dead of right and killed many innocent and helpless people and thus caused damage.
2. He spoke to Sita in most obscene and slang terms on subjects (even about penis) (Sundara Kandam, Chapter 35) not to be discussed with women.
17. VALI
Vali was in no way culpable.
1. He did not intend to kill his brother.
2. Sugriva picked up a quarrel with Vali unnecessarily.
3. Vali was by nature harmless and hence there was nothing wrong in him.
4. Having made a promise to his wife that he would not kill his brother, he entered into a fight.
5. He was a very patient and strong man.
6. He was a very upright and just man.
7. Nobody could dare to defeat him in an open and straight fight.
8. He was a beloved friend of many great men.
9. He mistook Rama for a honest man.
10. At Vali’s death Sugriva spoke of his (Vali’s) nobel qualities and said,
“I am not going to live after losing such a noble brother. I am going to fall into fire and die.”
As a justification for killing such a noble man (Vali) Rama said, “the laws of Dharma need not be observed in killing beasts.” Was he (Vali) a beast?
18. SUGRIVA
He betrayed his brother.
He became a slave to Rama only to kill his brother.
19. ANGADHA
He was a man with no sense of honour and made friends with Rama who had unjustly killed his father Vali.
1. He had no real love or goodwill towards his uncle (father’s brother) Sugriva.
2. He behaved, like an unconditional slave having no opinion for himself.
20. VIBISHANA
1. Actuated by avariciousness to become the king of Lanka, by causing the death of his brother Ravana, he surrendered himself to his family-enemy (Rama).
2. When Rama and Lakshmana having been defeated by Indrajith fell down, Vibishana lamented saying. “Relying on the might of Rama and Lakshmana I came to them to shape my future. All my hopes have been shattered. I am left in the lurch, having lost the kingdom. My enemy, Ravana, is rejoicing at the fulfilment of his vow.” Thus he openly brought out his covetousness for kingship. (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 49).
3. This was pointed out to Rama by Hanuman and Sugriva and others,
4. Rama who was also in the know of this, said, “We want only such scoundrels.” (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 17).
5. He was crowned by Rama while Ravana was alive and he accepted it most jubilantly. (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 18).
6. Subsequently he (Vibishana) disclosed many secrets to Rama.
7. He gave himself up to Rama and betrayed his brother under the pretext that his brother Ravana had carried away Sita. The real cause that impelled him was his desire to rule Lanka and not that he should be fair and just.
How?
8. He took no notice of Rama stepping into Ravana’s forest unjustly and hunting the animals there in.
9. His blood did not boil when his sister and other women related to him were maimed and dishonoured by cutting their noses, ears, breast and hair.
Some were even killed. He was not perturbed over all this.
10. To commend a wrong doer of many horrible blunders as an honest, just and brave man and to despise his own brother (Ravana) who treated Sita while in his custody honourably, as a naughty man-all these were not without ulterior motive of defrauding his brother Ravana and taking possession of Lanka. What can all these be but selfishness and mean mindedness?
21. RAVANA
1. He was:-
(1) A great learned man.
(2) A great saint.
(3) A master of scriptures (Sashtras and Vedas).
(4) A merciful protector of his subjects and relatives.
(5) A brave man.
(6) A very strong man.
(7) A chivalrous soldier.
(8) A very pious man.
(9) A beloved son of god and
(10) A recipient of many boons.
Valmiki himself made mention of the above ten merits and praised Ravana on several occasion.
2. This Villainous Vibishana, envious of the sovereignty of his brother, Ravana, betrayed him and brought about his death. Immediately after Ravana died, Vibishana, however, overwhelmed with fraternal feelings, fell on the corpse and wept, paying glowing tributes to Ravana and describing his noble qualities. Vibishana said, “You never failed to do justice: You respected the greatmen” (Uttara Kandam, Chapter 111).
3. Being unable to put up with the provocation on account of the insult, cruelty and brutality done to his sister, Ravana carried away Sita to Lanka as a retaliatory measure and not out of love towards Sita, nor with any motive to seduce another man’s wife.
4. Hanuman himself described in his own words about Ravana’s refinement in love affairs. “All the women in Ravana’s palace offered themselves voluntarily of their own free will to be his (Ravana’s) wives. He had not touched any women without her consent i.e. by force (Sundara Kandam, Chapter 9).
5. Ravana hated Devas and Rishis. Why? They in the name of Yagam, i.e.
offering sacrifices to the sacred fire, committed the most heinous crime of
killing the poor dumb animals in a tortuous manner. For no other reasons he hated them.
Valmiki himself said, “Ravana was a good man. He was magnanimous and handsome. But he (Ravana) chastised Brahmins whenever he saw them performing Yagams and drinking Soma juice (liquor).
6. Even at the gravest provocation, even in a fit of ungovernable rage, and even at the most irrepressible incitement Ravana, said Valmiki, had not even thought of mutilating the ears, the breast and the nose of Sita as a revenge for what had been done to Soorpanagai by Rama and Lakshmana.
7. It was for a set purpose that Sita was left alone in the forest to make it easy for Ravana to carry her away. And Sita too was expecting that Ravana should carry her away and was making preparations accordingly. This view is manifest in the interpretations made by many of the translators on this matter.
8. The meetings he held with his Ministers and the debates which are said to have ensued there from, are the examples of his benign rule.
NOTE: The above observations about the conduct and the worthiness of the characters in Ramayana are made wholly based on Ramayana by Valmiki and the translation works in Tamil by Brahmins themselves. From this, our readers will realise that the opinion they have been hitherto holding of them (chapters in Ramayana) is totally incorrect. To make it clear briefly the straight forward and right thinking men in Ramayana are degraded as unworthy persons while the dishonest and perfidious scamps, are elavated as most honest, godly and venerable elements. The object of this book is to thrash out such misconceptions and impress in the minds of the credulous that the cowl does not make the monk.
BENGALI RAMAYANA
In the Bengali book “Lankavathara Sutra” it is written that Ravana was a Dravidian King who embraced Buddhism and he was a philosopher of the type of Plato and Aristotle. Because it was spoken so high of Ravana in the
Buddhist literature, the Brahmins and pandits characterised Ravana in such vile terms in the Ramayana written by them. Keerthavasa in his works on Ramayana says that Ravana ruled the land with love and grace.
Ravana while dying in the battle field called Rama to his side and whispered into his ears about the doctrine of kindness and that the battle he (Rama) had fought was only through deceit and fraud. Thus we find in the Keerthavasa Ramayana that Ravana preached truthfulness and uprightness (Page 124).
LIQUOR VARIETIES DURING THE DAYS OF RAMAYANA (Article by Dr. S.N. Viyas under the caption “Drinks in Ramayana” -
published in the CARAVAN, Delhi, dated 15-8-1954).
1. Kithai Sura: This name is given to alcohol prepared by boiling process.
2. Miraeya: Prepared out of spices. This is also called a liquor.
3. Madya: Intoxicating drink.
4. Mandha: This is a liquor devoid of excess intoxication in the ordinary alcohol. This is also called Pitha Mandha. All like to drink this as there is no toxication in this.
5. Surabanam: This differes from Kithai Sura. Kithai Sura is prepared by artificial ways. Sura is a natural alcohol. This is prepared by natural decantation process. This is the drink of the common people. Much was said only about this in puranas (Mythologies).
6. Sidhu: This is prepared from the residue of jaggery liquid.
7. Sowvecraka: A low rate drink.
8. Varuni: Among the liquors used in those days this was the strongest (concentrated) one (rich in intoxication). This made one stagger immediately it was drunk.
RAMA AND SITA - CHARACTERISATION
(Compiled from the lectures delivered by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy.
Reflections based on Ramayana written by Valmiki).
All the Brahmin authorities including the press are hostile to us in our endeavour to expose the fallacies and the stench in the Ramayana. They will publish in their papers abruptly that “Ramasamy Naicker called Rama a cad and Sita a harlot,” tearing off a sentence or a word or two from my full speech without giving the context and the reasons I advanced. What does this mean? Their object is to set the people against me with such mutilated news.
Ramayana is only a fable and not a story of God as is held today by the masses. This is a fact accepted by many. Mr. Gandhi himself exclaimed: “My Rama is not that Rama of the Ramayana”.
Mr. T.K. Chidambaranatha Mudaliar nicknamed as “Kaliyuga Kamba”
has pronounced that Ramayana is not a divine story; it is only a literature.
The members of the “Baratha-Itihasa Samidhi” in Bombay with the help of several learned men and with the financial aid of rich men like Birla have written in their book on “Vedic Age” that none of the puranas (Hindu Mythologies) have historic foundation nor are capable of teaching justice-morals to the people and that they are mere fictions. Even Mr. C.
Rajagopalachari has declared that Rama is not a God; but he is a hero.
AN INCARNATION OF GOD?
Several other research scholars and learned men are of similar opinions and they do not call Rama an incarnation of god and Ramayana, the life history of such a godly person. Besides, Valmiki, the author of the original Ramayana too does not anywhere in his work give any attribute to Rama as would qualify him to be looked upon as god incarnate.
First of all, the origin from which the story proceeds is nonsensical. Here it is said that Vishnu once killed the wife of Biruhu Rishi and hence this sage (Munee) cursed him that he should be born as a man and should lose his wife
and grieve sorely. Thus one story goes. In another story it is said that the same Vishnu enticed by the beauty of Birundhai, wife of Jalandrasura, succeeded in killing her husband (Jalandrasura) deceptively and impaired her chastity, disguising himself as Jalandra. Birundhai, who discovered in the intercourse how she had been duped, cursed Vishnu that “a similar fate should befall your own wife”. It was by this curse that he was reborn on earth.
In another place it is said that Thirumal i.e. Vishnu was in sexual indulgence with his wife, known by the name of Thirumagal, in broad day light when a Chief of the Slave Clan (Sivaganam) came there. Thirumal did not mind the intruder and continued his intercourse with his wife. Enraged at this affront he ran to Nandhi and reported how he had been disregarded.
There-upon Nandhi cursed him: “Let Thirumal be reborn on earth and let him suffer losing his wife”. Hence Thirumal was reborn on earth.
How absurd are the reasons for the rebirth! Now about the family in which he was born. Rama’s father, Dasaratha, besides his royal wives, had 60,000 other wives. It is to such an “ideal” father that Rama was born as a son. It is said that Rama, Lakshmana and others were or on account of the performance of a yagam i.e. sacrifice. Now let us look into the singularities of the yagam. Several kinds of birds, beasts, insects, worms and all creatures were killed and all such dead creatures were fried in the fire (said to be sacred) and eated by Brahmins. Then the wives of Dasaratha were handed over to the prohits Brahmin priests (who performed the yagam) who made them pregnant. Pandit Manmathanath Thathar, a Bengali translator of Ramayana, writes on this point:-
“Kausalya mowed down a horse in three cuts with such alacrity. She spent a whole night with the dead horse without compunction. Hotha, Adaryu, Uktha and other Brahmin priests (Rikvika) had sexual intercourse with the royal ladies.” Such is the birth of the son of Dasaratha!
Should such be the process of incarnation? Should the story be so awkwardly written?
If we then look into the attempts made to crown Rama and the arrangements planned therefor, the abject mindedness of the family of the Kosala country and the moral turpitude of Dasaratha will come to light.
Baratha was sent away to his grandfather’s house and was not called back for nearly 10 years lest his presence should hinder the coronation of Rama.
Arrangements for the coronation of Rama were made in a great hurry. No invitation for the coronation was sent to the King of Kaikeyam. Baratha too was not informed of the celebration. Dasaratha, in his private conversation with Rama said.
“Baratha’s absence in his grandfather’s palace is best suited for your coronation. It should be finished before his return. The next morning it is to be done. Your friends should safeguard you so that nothing untoward would happen to-night.”
All the members of the royal family as well as the people were joyous over the function; but Kaikeyi alone who looked upon both Rama and Baratha alike was kept in the dark by Dasaratha. She herself however, having come to know of Dasaratha’s intrigue demanded more persistently that her son Baratha should be crowned and that Rama be banished to the forest.
Dasaratha did not give any explanation or justification for having concealed the affair without informing her but fell down at her feet and begged of her shamelessly to refrain from demanding her boons. He accused her that she spoiled all the arrangements made for the function.
He told Rama secretly that it was not really his intention to send him to the forest but it was only to show that he was true to his word to Kaikeyi.
Further Dasaratha persuaded Rama to disregard his (Dasaratha’s) orders and take possession of the kingdom. He desired all the State’s treasures, the army and the prostitutes to follow Rama to the forest.
At the time of marrying Kaikeyi, Dasaratha had made a promise that the son born to her would be the heir apparent to the throne. In violation of this solemn declaration he made arrangements to enthrone Rama. And Rama, the
“honest man” agreed to it knowing fully well that the country belonged to Baratha! Dasaratha’s ministers, the Guru (Religious Teacher), Sumandirar and Vasishta lent their support to this nefarious act. On the pronouncement made by his father (Dasaratha) that Rama should go to the forest, Lakshmana howled that he would kill his father. Kausalya advised her son Rama to ignore his father’s command and stay in the country.
FAR BELOW AN AVERAGE MAN
Thus Rama and his associates are described in Ramayana in several places as men of a very low order.
As to the “virtues” of Rama it has to be said that he killed outrageously the innocent persons. Thadagai under the pretext that she had not permitted the Brahmin priests who, having entered into her domain unlawfully, performed yagams in contravention of of law of her country.
When he was to go to the forest he grieved sorely and told his mother and wife that the country which was about to come to his hand slipped off and that he was also ordered to go to the forest.
He said to Lakshmana while in the forest, “Will any fool send to the forest a dutiful and obedient son?” Thus filled with grief for not having got the throne he spoke disparagingly of his father.
In the forest he caused Soorpanagai to be maimed because she loved him.
He entered into war wilfully, saying that, with the determination of slaying the Rakshasas (Dravidians), he had come to the forest. For the sake of Sugriva he covertly and cowardly killed Vali who had done him no harm. He readily accepted Vibishana knowing fully well that he was a knave and a traitor and that he had come to him (Rama) with the treacherous intention of securing the crown of Lanka for himself, after killing his brother Ravana. He also crowned Vibishana as the king of Lanka, while Ravana himself was ruling over Lanka.
PERFIDIOUS THOUGHTS
It will be seen throughout the Ramayana that Rama was hyprocritical and knavish. He was up to anything. He was prepared to do anything or to descend to any level to achieve his end.
When Sita was to accompany him to the forest he desired her to stay back in the palace and act up to the sweet will of Baratha and by that he said they could stand to gain much. At this Sita flew into a rage and cried out:
“You are an impotent man! Not knowing that you are a woman in male’s attire (eunuch), my father has given me in marriage to you. You talk like one who earns his livelihood by lending his wife to others.”
On hearing this he executed a somersault saying. “I wanted only to test your mental attitude.”
Then he took her to the forest. Whenever he felt that danger was imminent he would decry Kaikeyi most unbecomingly that she would delight in his (Rama’s) distress. He would grumble that as he had gone to the forest and his father had become old, Baratha would be the absolute monarch and none could question him. Then again what did he do? He killed Sambugan because he, being a Sudra, had performed a penance.
How can such an unworthy and meanminded knave as he, be called a god incarnate? The cunning Brahmins, having made such a dishonest, impotent, unworthy and characterless fellow as god, ask us to adore him and worship him. Should it not be incumbent on us to closely scrutinise all these fallacies using our discretion?
There are the characteristics of Rama. Now let us turn to Sita. She is spoken of throughout the Ramayana as only an ordinary woman, no, even a virago, with no good qualities that are the requisites of a well-bred, modest and chaste woman. Her parentage itself is doubtful. To whom she was born is not known. It is said that Janaka while ploughing his field found her from under the soil. To save her from ignominy it is said that Sita was not even born through “goddess Mahalakshmi” but she herself appeared on earth as a child.
She remained as a spinster for a long time after maturity because of her doubtful parentage. She herself expressed while in the forest most sorrowfully that her marriage was delayed on account of her unknown birth for a long time after maturity and she remained as an aged spinster. Baseless and ludicrous is the birth of “Mahalakshmi” also. Even after this, there is nothing commendable in her character throughout the story.
SITA’S VANITY
When it was decided that Rama should go to the forest, Sita said that it was already predicted in her case also by the astrologers that she would have to live in the forest and in fulfillment of that she added that she also wished to accompany her husband to the forest. Rama and Lashmana wore the barks of the trees; but Sita did not prefer such dress. Thereupon Dasaratha ordered that necessary clothes and jewels as would be sufficient for her for fourteen years should be sent to the forest along with her for her use. She put them on with great joy and dressed herself beautifully. The husband in bark clothes! His dear and beloved wife in royal dress! Thus they departed to the forest.
While leaving for the forest Vasishta, Sumanthira and others protested against sending Sita to the forest and not Sita. But to this Kaikeyi did not agree and Sita was therefore obliged to follow her husband. The so-called ideal, chaste women-Sita’s activities did not stop with this.
Rama’s mother-Sita’s mother-in-law, seeing Sita’s great desire for jewels and costumes admonished her saying: “Be worthy of your husband’s love and not be silly”. To this she replied to her mother-in-law, “I know everything.
There is nothing for me to learn from you”. When Rama desired Sita to live with Baratha saying, “You stay with Baratha” – she retorted that she could not live with Baratha who despised her.
While in the forest whenever they encountered hardships or there was the likelihood of troubles befalling them she would scold Kaikey harshly.
EVEN A VIRAGO WOULD SHUDDER
When Rama pursued the deer and when it cried in the agony of death,
“Sita! Lakshmana! Sita entreated.” Lakshmana was asked Sita to run to the aid of Rama. Lakshmana replied to her “No danger could befall on my brother”. At this she burst out and accused Lakshmana, saying: “Is it your desire to seduce me in the event of Rama’s demise? Have you come to the forest only with that motive? I know you and Baratha have conspired to seduce me”.
Lakshmana shuddered at this and humbly with folded hands said: “Oh!
Mother! I have never looked at any other thing except your feet; please do not talk like this”. How did Sita react to this? She queried him: “By talking like this do you intend to gain time to feast your eyes on me?”.
Look at the words that came out of the mouth of a goddess i.e.
incarnate,” the mother of the universe-the mother of the world!! Even a virago would shudder to talk like this. Yet Sita spoke thus. Such a virago is held to be the better half of the all-pervading-omniscient being. She is said to have incarnated on earth to teach precepts and morals to the people to live an exemplary life. The ‘greatness’ of Sita’s life does not end with this!! There are still something more.
RAVANA DESCRIBES SITA’S BEAUTY PART BY PART!!
Sita served food too to Ravana:- Enraged at her frivolity Lakshmana departed, calling her a wretch with no modesty or dignity. Immediately as if pre-arranged, appeared Ravana in the scene in the disguise of a “Sanyasi”.
Sita warmly welcomed him. In his turn Ravana began to describe the beauty of sita’s eyes, her teeth, her face, her thighs and compared her breasts to the palmyrah fruit.
“As I look and look at these parts of your body my passion becomes uncontrollable. Your beauty corrodes my heart as the current of a river corrodes the bank.”
Thus he went on describing Sita’s body, part by part. If Sita was really a chaste woman, possessing an exemplary character that should be emulated by
one and all, what should she have done? Can any fellow accost our women in such a vile manner? Even if he does, can he hope to escape? Will he not be rewarded with whatever one lays one’s hands upon? But what did Sita do?
Enraptured at his description she served him food!!
SITA UTTERS HER FALSE AGE – SHE SAYS SHE IS AN
ADOLESCENT
After feeding him, she went on narrating to Ravana that she was the daughter of Janaka, and wife of Rama and so on and so forth. She gave him her false age-less than the actual. It was 13 years since she had come to the forest at the time when she was talking to Ravana. She said then that she had been staying in Ayothi for 12 years after her marriage. Again she said that she was 18 years old when she came to the forest. How is this consistent? She was for 12 years in Ayothi after her marriage. According to her she had been for a very long time in her father’s house after attaining maturity as an unmarried girl. But according to the account she gave in the presence of Ravana she should have been married in her 6th year. Could she have attained maturity in her 6th year? Granting that, could she have remained for very many years in her father’s house after attaining maturity so early? Why did she babble like this? It is only to conceal from him the appearance of her old age. She should have ordinarily been above 45 then. As she remained married for very many years after maturity she should have been at least 20 at the time of her marriage. (12 years in Ayothi and 13 years in the forest and 20
(age) at the time of marriage and hence 45).
This is confirmed by Lakshmana. He said that Sita was an aged lady with over-lapping belly. When did he say? Soorpanagai loved Rama and wanted to wed him. Rama said that he had already a wife and that she might go to Lakshmana a bachelor. She accordingly went to him. But Lakshmana refused to marry her on the ground that he was a slave and again redirected her to Rama saying that his (Rama’s) wife was old having an overlapping belly.
Anyhow, as the story goes, Sita was pretty old when Ravana met her. Being actually old why should she have concealed her real age even when Ravana described her, part by part in a jovial mood?
Just think over this! Is this the story of a so called chaste and godly woman? What happened then? He revealed to her that he was Ravana and urged her to start with him to Lanka. She refused. Presently, with one hand he seized her by the hair and with his other hand on her thigh he lifted her up and placed her on his thigh and carried her away. She cried. Thus runs the story.
“MY PHYSICAL BODY SOMEWHERE,
BUT MY MIND WITH YOU”
Another noteworthy thing in this story is thus. Ravana had two curses; one was that his body would be ablaze, should he touch any woman without her consent and the other was that his head would be shattered into a thousand pieces. Bearing this in mind, the Tamil poet Kamban writes that Ravana carried away Sita along with that portion of the earth on which she stood without touching her by his hands. To conform to these curses, another version runs that Ravana carried not the real Sita; but only the illusionary image of hers and a third version is that he carried away only her shadow.
But in the original text by Valmiki, it is clearly stated that Ravana touched her person and pressing her in his lap, carried her way.
If in the teeth of such curses there had been any physical contact while carrying her, his head and body should have been reduced to dust. But nothing did happen to him. He arrived in Lanka safely and took her round his palace. Even there nothing amiss happened to him. What then does it mean?
Rao Sahib Dinesh Chandra Sen B.A., a reputed Bengali history research scholar and a member of the Calcutta University, writes on this thus:- “It is my conclusion that there is no material to establish that Ravana carried away Sita by force. At this conclusion of mine, the orthodox may burst into a rage; but I am not going to change my view. If you tear off the curtain of literary beauty, a mere skeleton will be visible therein.”
Ravana while with her in Lanka said, “Oh Sita! Don’t be ashamed. This union of us is a divine arrangement. This is welcomed also by all the sages (Rishis)” Sita replied, “You may use my body as you choose. I don’t care
about my body.” Rama while returning with Sita after Ravana was slain, said to her: “You were so long in the custody of Ravana. Could he have left you untouched and cohabit.” She replied, “What can I do? I was all alone and more over a woman! He is strong. Nothing happened on my free will. My mind was, is and will ever be with you.” She did not answer to the point. She was beating about the bush. “I have no control over my body; but I can assure you of purity of my mind”. In such qualified terms she had replied.
In the end after returning home when Rama asked her to swear as to her purity, she did not do it; but she sank herself down into the earth and disappeared. In other words, she committed suicide.
INGLORIOUS ARE THE SATELLITES OF RAMA!
As to her husband Rama, he was hypocritical, perfidious, effeminate and dishonest. Her brother-in-law, Lakshmana was a tyrant who ventured to kill his father. He was a rake who would not hesitate to do anything for the sake of gaining the kingdom. Rama’s father even after 60,000 years of age was a lewd profligate. He, without looking upon all his children alike, favoured one and hated another. Rama’s mother had not cared about her husband. So also Sumitarai. Dasaratha was dead. Kosalai and Sumitarai who were lying close to him were fast asleep. They were roused from slumber by the mournings of others who were around him. This indicates how indifferent their attitude towards their husband was.
Sugriva and Vibishana whose friendship Rama contracted were treacherous lubbers who had betrayed their brothers to win thereby their respective kingdoms for themselves. The whole company was a gang of rabbles. And yet they are deified! But the enemies of these so-called celestial beings are applauded, according to the story, as the most honest and civilised men.
THE GREATNESS OF RAVANA
Ravana’s chivalry was almost everywhere praised. The grandeur and
the beauty of his palace was admired by Hanuman himself. He compared Ravana, whom he found sleeping in the Zenana in the midst of most beautiful ladies in sleep, to the full moon shining amidst a galaxy of stars. He said that all those ladies, enticed of his beauty, intellect and valour, came to him of their own accord and no one of them was brought by force. He (Hanuman) is also said to have mused within himself that if Sita had been brought to Lanka before her marriage it would have been by far commendable.
Valmiki while speaking of Ravana in several places extols him to the skies, that he was a great scholar, had performed severest penances, an adept in Vedas, a benefactor of his subjects and relatives, a brave soldier, very strong and robust, very chivalrous, a sincere devotee, a recipient of god’s grace and several boons. Nowhere is Ravana belittled as Rama is (as an intriguer and as perfidious and impotent). As Rama maimed the limbs of Soorpanagai, Ravana could have done the same to Sita; but he never even thought of doing so in return. Sita was kept in the Asokavanam (Garden of Asoka trees) in charge of his niece (brother’s daughter). He was very good and noble. Valmiki says that he despised Brahmins whenever he found them performing yagams and drinking Somarasam.
Such good-natured Ravana and his men were called cruel Rakshasas simply because they were the enemies of Brahmins.
RAMAYANA AS DEPICTED BY VALMIKI
The Ramayana could not have been a true story. The same opinion has been expressed by persons like Sankaracharias, many intellectuals and religious Heads.
Secondly Valmiki himself has stated that Rama is neither a god nor had any divine power in him.
In this state Hindus consider the Ramayana as a sacred story and also revere the important persons mentioned therein.
Why? This is due to the capable propaganda by Brahmins and want on
intelligence and self-respect on the part of the non-Brahmins. Whatever it may be one should scrutinize the following in the Ramayana: 1. Is Rama a divine person or is he above ordinary human beings?
2. Is Rama a honest person?
3. Is he a hero?
4. Is Rama an intelligent man? Is he above caste prejudice?
5. Is Sita a chaste woman?
6. Does she possess at least the common virtues of an ordinary woman? Is Ravana a rogue?
7. Did he carry away Sita?
8. Did he seduce and spoil Sita?
Among the Avatars of Vishnu mentioned in Bagawatha, which is intended for Vaishnavites, Rama’s is one intended for the purpose of slaying
“Rakshasa” Ravana.
Informations (Avatars) of Vishnu: (1) Macha Avathar (2) Tortoise Avathar (3) Pig Avathar (4) Ganga Avathar (5) Vamana Avathar (8) Krishna Avathar (9) Balarama Avathar.
It is stated that all these nine Avathars (incarnations) are meant on behalf of Brahmins (Devas) to kill their inimical Dravida Kings (Rakshasas). In the nine Avathars, Brahmins based their fictitious story of Ramayana on the Rama Avathar. This Ramayana story is similar to Periyapuranam based on Nambiandar Nambi and other Saivite saints.
This Periyapuranam was created by saivites for piety similar to
“Leelamrutham” containing the story of Vaishnavite saints which was already in existence.
But the story “Ramayana” has been adopted from Kanda Purana of Saivities, the difference being only in names and Ramayana has been built up with a view to create more hatred against Dravidas (Rakshasas) than the hatred exhibited in Kanda Purana.
The birth of Kanda Purana is much earlier than that of Ramayana, and so it was written by only one person.
Since Ramayana has been written at a much later period and that too at different times by many men, it is contradicting at many places in the story itself. According to the description given in Ramayana about the principal persons, Rama and Sita have been depicted as very low characters.
The life history of Rama begins with the killing of “Thadaka” by Rama as a boy of 5 hiding himself some where and his marriage at the age of six.
For the above two incidents, Rama need not at all have been brought in to the picture. When Rama was aged 18, his father Dasaratha conspired together with Rama for the purpose of celebrating the coronation ceremony of Rama as king of Ayothia, even though they knew well, that the kingdom of Ayothya belonged only to Kaikeyi and her son Baratha who was the heir-apparent according to the promise, already made by Dasaratha to Kaikeyi.
We are not concerned with the intrigues of Dasaratha, because Dasaratha is not considered either as a high personage or was a well-principled man.
But what concerns us is that Rama is considered as a man of flawless character, a person who can be followed by all as a man of truth and as a great warrior. But this problem has not been explained satisfactorily by anybody so far, including religious heads, and Rama and Ramayana devotees (Bakthas).
Even Mr. C. Rajagopalachariar, the author of the book “Emperor’s son”
has not satisfactorily explained for the above defects.
Let us now go to Sita: Sita’s birth itself is questionable. That is, her parentage is unknown and she was found in the forest. Regarding this there are many versions.
Valmiki has written that Sita herself has said: “As soon as I was born, I was thrown in the forest amongst dust. King Janaka found me and reared me up. After I attained my puberty no prince was willing to marry me on account of the dishonour attached to my birth”. King Janaka finding himself unable to secure a suitable husband for Sita approached his friend Viswamitra to help him in getting a suitable bridegroom for Sita. Sage Viswamitra brought this five-years old Rama and got him married to Sita who was aged not less than 25 years and she did not even murmur for this unequal match.
In another Ramayana (not Valmiki) it is said that king Janaka’s wife came to the wedding place before the wedding and has shouted towards the audience assembled there: “Gentlemen, you are assembled here. How is it that you are all calmy witnessing this atrocious function”. No sooner the bridal party reached Ayothia than Sita was disliked by Baratha. Valmiki has said that this has been expressed by Sita herself.
When Rama before starting to the forest advised Sita to stay in Ayothia and to conduct herself pleasingly to Baratha for which Sita replied Rama disrespectfully and very humiliatingly. “What am I to do? Baratha does not like me. How could I stay with him”! Besides these expressions by Sita, Valmiki expresses through Sita herself: “O Rama! You are not a hero; You are impotent; you want me to commit adultery with Baratha as if I am a prostitute so that you may have the benefit of becoming the King of Ayothia”. At that time Rama was aged seventeen years.
The following version has been expressed by Valmiki through the mouth of Kosalai:- That is, when Rama went to his mother Kosalai to take leave of her before he went to forest, Kosalai says “O, Rama! I have been ill-treated by your father and my husband Dasaratha as well as my co-wife Kaikeyi. I have suffered a great deal all these seventeen years. But for you, I would have died.” From this we have to infer that Rama was aged seventeen years at that time.
When Viswamitra requested Dasaratha to send his eldest son Rama with him to kill Thadaka, Dasaratha replies as follows: “O Sage! Rama is a child sitting on my lap. The ceremony of removal of the hair from the head, for the
first time has not yet been performed. How can I send such an young child to warefare?” From this also it is evident that Rama was aged only five years at the time of marriage.
So, it is clear that the young woman Sita who was in full bloom at the time of marriage consented to wed such an young boy as Rama aged five years. That is why she treated her husband Rama so disrespectfully.
Further, when Rama before going to forest asked Sita, to remove her jewels and costly dress and to wear the cloth which he gave her. But Sita refused to do so. Then her mother-in-law Kaikeyi, seeing that Rama was wearing a hermit’s dress compelled her daughter-in-law Sita also to wear the hermit’s dress over the jewels and the costly dress, which she was already wearing.
When Rama chased the bogus deer and killed it, it shouted as, “O
Lakshmana”. Sita on hearing this, addressed Lakshmana: “I apprehend some danger to Rama. Proceed at once and see what has happened,” to which Lakshmana replied, “O Madam, that is the voice of the bogus deer! Don’t be afraid, nobody can injure Rama; he is a very powerful man; he might have killed that deer and the deer might have shouted like that; so you need not worry.” But Sita refused to be satisfied with this explanation of Lakshmana even though Lakshmana explained to Sita to the best of his ability. Then Sita said, “O rogue! Do you think that you can enjoy me if Rama is dead? Did Baratha send you with a view, that yourself and Baratha can enjoy me.” On hearing this Lakshmana sped away.
When we are revealing the news concerning Sita, we are doing so not with an intention of degrading her. Readers should bear this in mind. I stress this.
We never believe in the very existence of Sita especially as described in Ramayana, the alleged existence of Sita imaginary. Even that imagination is based on utter foolishness. Further, it is nowhere to be found in Ramayana that the author has not at all taken any pain to show Sita as a chaste woman or a heroine, or a sensible woman, or at least a woman anxious to preserve her
mentality. On the other hand, it has been deliberately described that she is a woman of no-character. Apart from this, not only Ramayana is a fictitious story, but also, it is based on imaginary and impossible circumstances.
Sita has been described in Ramayana only as an ordinary human being.
According to Ramayana, since her birth, as a child found out from the forest by Janaka till her death, by suicide by entering into the split up earth, we find in her only ordinary human qualities and we do not find any divinity or anything superhuman. So Ramayana Sita is only an ordinary human being. It may appear as superhuman, to hear that she entered the fire-field, but really it is no wonder because we see even today, even prostitutes treading the fire-fields during temple festivals. Not only prostitutes do so, but also rogues and scoundrels are walking over the fire-field even to-day.
If we carefully go through the Valmiki Ramayana we find that Sita was pregnant at that time, and the pregnancy was of three months. We shall now explain how Sita was three months old pregnant. As soon as the fire-testing ceremony of Sita was over, Rama took Sita to Ayothi and ruled there. After one month of the commencement of his reign one day, Rama and Sita were seated in a flower garden and spending their time pleasantly as lovers, when Rama happened to observe Sita’s belly which was bulging out. Immediately Rama asked Sita, why her belly was bulging out to which Sita replied that she was 4 or 5 months old pregnant.
On hearing this Rama immediately left the place with great anxiety and sorrow and intended to send Sita to the forest. He was found to be sitting in the front yard of the palace, down hearted, when the palace clowns observed this and tried to change the mood of Rama, by expressing jovial words. In spite of that Rama continued in the same state, and this was observed by his brothers who began to enquire Rama the cause for his down-heartedness.
Rama questioned his brothers in reply, as to how the people in this State view about Sita. His brothers replied that the people were saying that it was degrading for Rama to live with Sita. At once Rama sent for his brother Lakshmana and instructed him to take Sita to the forest next morning and to abandon her there.
Accordingly, Lakshmana took Sita, the next morning and left her there, when he criticized his brother Rama for sending Sita to the forest, simply to avoid the scandalous talk in the country. But sita replied that it was not justifiable to criticise Rama because she was five months old pregnant and that it was her Karma. She showed also her belly to Lakshmana.
So we cannot presume that all the women who walk over fire are either chaste or have divine power. So Sita, is only an ordinary human being.
Therefore, an ordinary human-being like Sita can live for 100 years or at the most 10 or 20 years more, if she is hale and healthy. But when we go through Ramayana, it is said that Sita lived for thousands of years. Let us consider afterwards about the story, that Rama has lived for ten-thousand years. But we could not understand how such a Sita too could live or such a long time with Rama. By whom, this boon of long life was granted to Sita? How she was able to live for such a long time? For these questions, we could not find suitable answers in Ramayana.
Leaving these things, we shall now go to the portion where Sita and Ravana are concerned. There we find that Sita has absolutely no qualities of a chaste woman.
If we entrust the entire matter for investigation with a C.I.D. officer for exploring the truth in the allged complaint against Ravana that he seduced Sita and the investigation report is placed before an impartial judge for decision and if the case is conducted on behalf of Rama as complaint and Ravana as the accused, we are quite confident that the judge will decide in favour of Ravana by pronouncing that he is an innocent man and that he has been unnecessarily blackmailed.
Further, if a hunter sets a cage in a forest placing a fatty deer inside, to tempt it as a prey for a lion and when the lion gets inside the cage and if the cage is closed it can be made to show that the lion entered of its own accord into the cage. The above-mentioned C.I.D. report would be similar.
MR. NEHRU’S VIEWS OF THE EPICS
(Extract from “The Mail” dated 15-12-1954 New Delhi Dec. 14) The Prime Minister Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru referred to the staging of parodies of Ramayana in Tamil Nadu and said these movements in the South should be attributed to a sense of fear of oppression from the people of the North India, not merely in the field of language but in other spheres as well.
It was a sentiment which had to be properly understood and champions of Hindi who ignored it would not be helping the cause of Hindi, or the nation at large.
“If we take any wrong steps,” Mr. Nehru said “our difficulties will increase. Sentiment has a powerful effect, and when a sentiment of fear of oppression is aroused, it has bad repercussions.”
Sri Nehru referred to dramatic parodies of Ramayana in Tamil Nadu, and said: “We should find out what is at the back graud of these developments.
Such a parody of Ramayana, for instance, is intended to tell the audience that the people of the North Indiahave suppressed them not only today but they have done so for thousands of years and that if they get an opportunity, they will do so again.”
MAHABARATHA STORY
What he saw in Orissa grieved Nehru.Continuing, Sri Nehru said: “Two days ago, I was in Orissa. There I saw a farce about ‘Ekalaiva’. This is a Mahabaratha story: a poor peasant sought the help of Dhrona, the great teacher of archery of Kshatriyas, to learn the use of the bow and arrow.
Dhrona refused to teach him because he was not a Kshatriya, but the peasant boy made a statue of Dhrona to serve as a teacher and began to practice archery until he became a famous archer. When Dhrona heard that he had become more famous than his own pupil, Arjuna, he asked him for his fee,
“Guru Dakshina” because he had learnt the art from his image, and the fee he asked was the thumb of his right hand, and gave it to Dhrona. Ekalaiva’s story is one of the most poignant episodes of the Mahabaratha.
“I had not given thought to this incident, but from that day, it has grieved
me. I was told these tribal people in Orissa were making it an example to show how they had been oppressed. We should be conscious of such reactions. The fact is that the history that has been written in the past has been one-sided. People today accordingly write their own version of events. We should not think that it is engendered by others. When I think of this story my anger is roused at the way people behaved to prevent others competing with them.”
VIEWS OF THE HISTORIANS
“Vishnu, popularly, was a deified hero, a great Kshatriya teacher, reincarnated from time to time to instruct the Aryan race and led them to victory”.
- Havell in ‘Aryan Rule in India’, (Page 32)
“The Dravidians were firmly settled in different parts of Northern and Southern India more than four thousand years ago, when fair-complexioned aryans gradually advanced from the north-west across the Hindu-Kush mountans, and entered India through Afghanistan. The Dravidians naturally resisted the newcomers with all their might and a fierce and protracted struggle ensued. It was not merely a struggle between two nationalities, but a conflict between two types of civilisation.
The Dravidians had to fight for their very existence, and there are several passages in the Rigveda which indicate the severity of the struggle”
- Ramesh Chandra Majumdar M.A., Ph.D., in “Outline of AncientIndian History and Civilisation” (Page 21 & 22)
“The Ramayana and the Mahabaratha deal with the days of Indo-Aryans, their conquests and civil wars.
I do not think I ever attached very much importance of these stories as factually true and I even criticized the magical and supernatural element in them. But they were imaginatively true enough for me just as were the stories
from the Arabian Nights or the Panchathantra.”
- Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in “Discovery of India” (page 75 & 76)
“The coming of the Aryans into India raised new problems-racial and political. The conquered race, the Dravidians, had a long background of civilization behind them, but there is little doubt that the Aryans considered themselves vastly superior to them and a wide gulf seperated the two.”
- Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in “Discovery of India” (page 62)
“The Ramayana story is one of Aryan expansion to the South”.
- Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru in “Discovery of India” (page 82)
“On the contrary, the Aryans had to learn the languages peculiar of those races and to adopt a portion at least of their civilization”.
- Collected works of Sir R.G. Bhandarkar, (Vol. III at Page 10)
“The followers and worshippers of Indra and other deities were called the Devas and the opponents of Indra worship and sacrifice were called the Asuras (Dravidians), and these became the hateful terms to one party of the other.”
- A.C. Dass, M.A., B.L., in “Rig Vedic India” at Page 151.
“The Ramayana distinguishes the Surs (Brahmins), who indulged themselves in these liquors from Asurs, who abstaned from them”.
- The Historians History of World (Vol. II at Page 521)
*~~*~~*
