The Ram of Valmiki, the Ram of Gandhiji and Modern Democratic India

This is the first chapter of Swami Vishwabhadrananda Sakthibodhi’s book “The Rama of Valmiki, the Rama of Gandhiji and Modern Democratic India” published by Progress Book House 

The devout mother and the teacher who realized the heart of Rama

The reason my previous name was Ramachandran was because I was the son of a Rama devotee. My mother was a Rama devotee like Sabari. Sabari’s life was so innocent and free that he could offer those fruits to Rama only after making sure that they tasted good. I often felt that the devotion of Sabari, a forest woman from Ramayana, entered into the psyche of my mother, who used to read the Ramayana daily. They used to wear garlands in the photograph of Sri Ramachandra’s coronation. The forest garland, which was tied with banana fibre and decorated with the leaves of vines growing on the fences, and occasionally some sage leaves and basil leaves, had a touch of the piety of Sabari. In the eyes of my mother King Ramachandra there were no flowers that were not taken for pooja. I have often felt that there is something wrong with my mother’s act of tying together all the trash and garbage she saw and making a necklace. Why does my mother make a garland with only leaves and flowers from her own hedge? If she walked ten feet more, she could pick a lot of Nantyar Vatta flower, Tulsi leaves, Chetthi from the neighbouring areas. 

This was my thought. When I grew up, I got the answer as to why my mother used to make a leaf garland. Neighbours go to the temple daily. The goddesses of the temple should only be worshiped with flowers that can be worshipped. Therefore, flowers like Nantyarvattam, Tulsi, Chethi, Chembarathi (Hibiscus) etc. are plucked and brought to the temple every day by the mothers of the neighbourhood. If a flower is plucked from it, sometimes temple devotees feel grief inside. It was the basic tenet of my mother’s devotion that one should not worship Rama by causing sadness to anyone. Therefore, she came to worship Rama by garlanding them with leaves of hedges, which even a goat is not ready to bite and because no one wants them, no one should feel unworthy.

I have never even heard my mother loudly chanting ‘Hare Rama Rama Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare’ because she has a commitment to perform Rama recitation (bhajan) without causing any trouble to anyone. It has been noticed that my mother mutters something whenever she is doing work. When I noticed my mother was muttering something I  thought that she had been affected by some madness, I realized that what her muttering was ‘Rama Rama Rama’. Until her death at the age of eighty-four, mother chanted the name of Rama without disturbing anyone even with her loud Rama recitation.

There are good reasons to begin this Rama Katha meditation by telling about my own beloved mother and her devotion to Rama in a somewhat autobiographical style. Sri Ramachandra is a godman whose life motto is “Janani Janmabhumishcha Svergadapi Gariyasi ” meaning birth mother and birth land is greater than heaven”. 

Therefore, when starting to write about Sri Rama, it seems reasonable to start with some remembrance about my birth mother. There is another reason behind the initiation of this work commemorating my mother who was a devotee of Rama. She taught me that chanting of Rama’s name should be done without disturbing others. This Rama recitation lesson taught by my mother is also a test whether it exists in today’s India. Even though my spiritual quest inspired me to live as a saffron monk, I was prevented from becoming a BJP member because the Hindu Rashtravadi Parivar movements under the RSS, which includes BJP members, chant Jai Sriram as a slogan to invigorate violent acts that make many people feel unfathomable. As a derisive slogan those who debased the name of Rama cannot have the Sushant Chaitanya (spirit of calmness) of Sri Ramachandran, whom my mother worshiped. Sangh Parivar built Rama temple after invading and demolishing another worshipping centre, a mosque. It means that I don’t see Lord Rama, whom my mother sings inwardly and praises. Instead the consecrated idol by Narendra Modi was placed after destroying Babri Masjid. The Prana Pratishtha in the priestly guise of Narendra Modi, the current Prime Minister of India, a regressive Hindu nationalist.

I am the son of a mother who was devoted to Rama who lived by chanting the name of Rama without disturbing anyone. It is a remarkable life of Maharshi poet Krishnakumar, who wrote the stanza poem ‘Ramahridayam’. He was the guru I depended on for philosophical knowledge and spiritual education. He was known as Pudukad Krishnakumar in the Malayalam literary world, but Sanskrit scholars called him Maharshi poet Krishnakumar in honour of his deep insight in his works. Shaktism, is a non-caste, non-religious, humanistic movement and ideology revived by him. Why should a poet be merciful and why did the first poet named Valmiki sing ‘Ma Nishada’ to his poetic life? Krishna Kumar learned that not only the Rama of devotees like my mother, but also the Rama of poets in today’s India will raise their voice pointing out the real message of Rama. The poet tries to defend the saffron-covered savagery that causes riots in the name of Rama by showing the Ram of Bharat and Bhakta Bharat by bowing down to his mother, who is a devotee of Rama and teacher who wrote the heart of Rama.

Devotion and Hatred

Will Lord Rama accept my mother if she makes a garland out of the leaves that came across her? If the Bhagavad Gita is true, if the Bhagavad Gita is a reliable book on which to speak about devotion, then it can be said that any garland offered with devotion will be accepted by the Lord. The reason is plainly stated in Bhagavad Gita:

patraṁ puṣhpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ

yo me bhaktyā prayachchhati

tadahaṁ bhaktyupahṛitam

aśhnāmi prayatātmanaḥ

Gita 9:26

This mantra of the Gita declares that ‘If one offers to Me with devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or even water, I delightfully partake of that item offered with love by My devotee in pure consciousness.’ According to this, if you ask whether the Lord will accept a bad garland, you can only answer that ‘If you offer it with devotion, it will be accepted’. But before this answer is finished, another question arises; that question is ‘What is piety (Bhakti)?’ The answer to this question is also given by the Lord in the twelfth chapter of Bhagavad Gita on ‘Bhaktiyoga’. Bhagwan defines Bhakta and thus Bhakti and says in Bhagavad Gita:

“adveṣhṭā sarva-bhūtānāṁ

maitraḥ karuṇa eva cha

nirmamo nirahankāraḥ

sama-duḥkha-sukhaḥ kṣhamī”

Gita 12: 13

The first word of this Gita-mantra defines who is a devotee and what is Bhakti. ‘Bhakta’ is one who has no enmity, hatred, or jealousy towards any material creature (demon) and ‘absence of hatred is Bhakti’. He who hates no creature, is friendly and compassionate to all, is free from attachment and egoism, is balanced in pleasure and pain, and is forgiving. The Gita says that Bhakti is a state of mind where devotees should keep aloof from hatred. According to this hymn, where there is hatred, there is no devotion; where there is no devotion, the blessing of God cannot happen. According to the Vedantic definition of this Bhakti that Bhagavad Gita promotes in India, wherever there is hatred, hatred and animosity on the basis of caste, language, land, skin colour, food, dress, gender or religion, it can be assured that there will be no Bhakti, Bhakta or God’s blessings. At this level, it can be safely said that there was no Bhakti, Bhakta or God’s blessings anywhere where the caste system and untouchability existed. Because there was no devotion, no devotees and no presence of God in a place where there was caste discrimination and untouchability, anyone who came to India with 10 or 40 horsemen could loot any temple. Even today there are women of Kovilakam (principal estate) who theorize that if women touch the plants while they are menstruating, they will wither and burn. It can only be assumed that the male patriarchs, who are the fathers of these people, must have maintained some kind of untouchability and hatred in the temples and around the temples.

 How can there be a presence of God who preached ‘adveshta sarvabhutanam’ (one who is not hateful to any creature) in a place where all such untouchable and hateful minds were ruling with lords and patriarchs? It is very clear that wherever there is untouchability, there is hatred. There is no Bhagavad Gita-based devotion if there is slight hatred in the mind.

We often hear the slogan ‘We Hindus are one’ from the Parivar sources. If we make the argument that there is no caste and caste based discrimination inside Sanghis, there is still a problem. Bhagavad Gita subscribes that true devotion should be characterized by ‘adveshta sarvabhutanam’ (hatred for none). Everybody knows that RSS and its Hindu nationalism is based on extreme religious hatred. It may be possible to find an individual RSS man somewhere who is free of caste hatred, but to find an RSS man free of Muslim-Christian hatred is as impossible as finding a living fish in a waterless place. The difference between hating people on the basis of caste and religion, is a difference between drinking local arrack and drinking foreign liquor. The Gita’s principle of devotion is that where there is hatred, there is no devotion. Therefore, there can be no devotion where there is not only caste hatred but also religious hatred. Where there is no Bhakti (piety) there can be no Bhakta (pious). According to this, in the stone temple of Ayodhya, where Muslim hatred has become the cornerstone, in the idol placed in the soul power of three religious Hindu nationalists, Mohan Bhagwat, Yogi Adityanath and Narendra Modi. These triads uphold the ideology of hatred of Muslims, Christians and Communists as internal enemies who must be exterminated. No respectable Indian, who believes in Bhagavat Gita, can say that the site consecrated by Modi is a real temple of Rama.

Dr. Shashi Tharoor, if he is a knowledgeable scholar, should have said since Lord Rama is not the child of the RSS, he cannot happily reside in the stone temple built at Ayodhya on the basis of anti-Muslim racism. The fact is that India does not know a Rama who was the foster child of the RSS. The Rama who knows India, the Rama who is worshiped by the Indians, is the Rama who has enshrined sages and poets like Valmiki in language temples; it is the Rama who admires devotees like Gandhiji. That Rama does not reign where there is hatred. Lord Rama, who reigns without any hatred towards any creature, becomes the Bhakvatsala (loving of the pious) indicated by the Bhagavad Gita. The Rama of those who hate Muslims, Christians, secularists, socialists, Dalits (Ambedkarites), feminists, etc., will not be the true devotees who are mentioned in Bhagavad Gita in Bhakti Yoga.

The idea that hatred cannot walk with true devotees is the essential message of Bhagavad Gita as well as the Bible and the Qur’an. When the Bible says, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ and ‘Love even your enemy’, the God of the Bible is not proclaiming that He reigns where there is hatred but rather He reigns where there is love. There is no Christ who reigns in hate; only that Christ reigns in love. Where there is love, there is no enmity. A Christian who loves his enemy will have no enmity. Let Christ rise in love without enmity; this is the true lesson the Bible teaches. Although this love text of the Bible is different in language and style, it is a view that is not different from the principle that ‘devotees are friendly and compassionate towards all creatures’ as stated in Bhaktiyoga (spiritual path) in Bhagavad Gita.

 There are similar glorious messages of non-hatred in the Qur’an also. Quoting from the Qur’an itself; “Had Allah not repelled the aggression of some people by means of others, destruction would have surely claimed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s Name is often mentioned. Allah will certainly help those who stand up for Him. Allah is truly All-Powerful, Almighty” (22:40). Allah is clarifying His policy through this verse. Allah’s policy is that He wants a world that is not broken by the attacks of Jews, Christians and Muslims or worshipping centres of different religious devotees. Anyone who lives according to that policy cannot think and say that he is with those who try to build a mosque by demolishing a temple, or demolishing a mosque to build a temple, or using force to convert a Christian church or synagogue into a mosque. Those ‘Abdullakkutty’ (BJP national vice president) who stand with those who demolished the mosque and built the temple for gaining political and pretended to be a man of God’s religion with his tongue is not Muslim, but merely a hypocrite. No Muslim who knows the previously quoted Qur’anic verse in his heart can celebrate victory with a government that demolishes a temple and builds a mosque, or with a government that demolishes a church and builds a temple. Where there is a real Muslim land, there will be devotion to God and no temple of any religion will be destroyed. In short, the message of Bhakti that the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible protects the places of worship.

There are also many legends that say that a person who has aversion to something in any way will not be seen as a true devotee by the Lord, regardless of his other qualities. For example, take the legend of a dispute between Bhakta Kavi (pious poet) Poonthanam and Melpathur Narayana Bhattathiri. Melpathoor was a great scholar in Sanskrit language and especially grammar and also singer of Guruvayur temple. But Poonthanam, though a devotee of Guruvayurappan, is neither a Sanskrit scholar nor a grammarian. Melpathur Bhattathiri, the great Sanskrit scholar, insulted Poonthanam. Legend has it that Lord Krishna appeared to Melpathur Bhattathiri in a dream and showed his reluctance to read Bhattathiri. The Lord does not approve of arrogance based on linguistic efficiency. The Lord showed that Poontanam’s vernacular language is more appreciable than the one based on linguistic arrogance; the Lord will not accept even linguistic hatred from any vantage point.

Therefore, those who have grasped the essence of Bhakti darshan (perception of piety) based on Bhagavad Gita will realize that neither devotion nor love of God can happen, even if the temple built in hatred is golden; they cannot see Bhakti (piety) in it. It is because the stone temple built in Ayodhya has monstrous demons of religious hatred that it is not possible for those who have proper devotion to Rama to experience the bliss of devotional darshan.

Shiva Pratishta (Siva temple Consecration) at Aruvipuram, Balarama Pratishta at Ayodhya and Democratic India

The only temple consecration in modern India that was done with no hatred or enmity towards any caste or any religion took place on the banks of a stream in Kerala. The great sage Sree Narayanaguru performed that great dedication. It can be said without any shred of doubt that the Shiva temple at Aruvipuram is the only temple that matches the dignity and essence of democratic India. Hate is the only emotion that cannot be allowed any freedom of expression in a democratic system. No one in a democratic system is free to express or propagate hatred of any religion in the name of religious freedom. Similarly, no one has any special right or authority in a democratic system to practice or spread hatred in the name of caste. Therefore, there is no expression of democratic values in the Rama Pratishta (consecration of Rama) done by Narendra Modi in Ayodhya. The Shiva pratishta (consecration of Shiva) done by Sree Naraya Naguru at Aruvipuram was without any caste or religious hatred. Therefore, it was imbibed in democratic values.

Religious hatred is the basis of Ram Pratishtha which occurred in Ayodhya. Balarama Pratishtha done by Narendra Modi in Ayodhya brought modern India closer to anti-democracy as religious hatred is not compatible with democratic values. This is as simple as that. Narayanaguru’s worship of Shiva in 1888 at Aruvipuram brought Kerala closer to the modern democratic value system. Therefore, no matter what Sivagiri swamis say, no matter what Vellappillai Natesan proclaim, ignoring the spirit of democratic humanity radiated by Shiva Chaitanya (spirit of Shiva) at Aruvipuram, Kerala, a true democrat will not bow down to Balarama, the soul child of the communal political leaderships in Ayodhya. That temple is built on the foundation of religious hatred and is also against democratic values. So the question before every Keralite including Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan is whom he favours; whether he favours the consecration occurred in Narayanaguru’s Aruvipuram or that of Narendra Modi’s Ayodhya. Vellappilli Natesan, Shashi Tharoor, Swami Chidanandapuri, Mata Amritanandamayi, K. Sudhakaran, K.Surendran and Sureshgopi will also have to confront this simple question. Not even a single Keralite gentleman with Indian citizenship who answers this question with ‘Aruvipuram’ can give consent to the politics led by Narendra Modi. So, let’s say that the Constitution prepared by Ambedkar, does not approve communal politics in Ayodhya. Narayanaguru’s vision is based on theistic humanism and is devoid of any hatred; it proclaimed the eternal message of human brotherhood.

Two political leaders from Gujarat and their conflicting conceptions of Rama

Not only Kerala, where Narayanaguru consecrated Shiva idol at Aruvipuram, but also Gujarat, which includes Porbandar, where Mahatma Gandhi was born, is an integral part of modern democratic India. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of democratic India, is a political leader from Gujarat. Narendra Modi is a self-serving member of Hindutva politics from the same state of Gujarat. The peculiarity of these two leaders from Gujarat is that both of them used the name Rama in politics. Therefore, when talking about Rama or Ramayana in modern India, it is impossible to do so without political comparision. When Gandhiji from Gujarat chanted the name of Ram and walked on the streets of Indian politics, conflicts were deliberately avoided and peace was restored. However, when Narendra Modi or his political guru Lalkrishna Advani went on a chariot procession in the streets of India chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’, the swords of religious hatred were unleashed, shedding blood and the embers of religious rivalry ignited across the lengths and breadth of the country. The current question in the Indian political arena is whether we want the Rama of Gandhiji’s prayers, who poured down like rainwater on India, which was scorched by the summer of religious communalism, or whether we want the communal Rama of Modiji who set the country on fire. No Indian citizen who respects Gandhiji as the father of the nation can say that India has enough of Modiji’s Ram and not Gandhiji’s Ram. It was when the Guajarati people abandoned Gandhiji’s Ram that the Hindutva Gujarat of genocides was born. The victims included the Congress leader, Ihsan Jafri, who was a member of the Lok Sabha. They were targeted just because Muslims. The Gujarat of Muslim Genocide is the Gujarat where the communal politics created by Advani, Narendra Modi and Amit Shah by chanting ‘Jai Shri Ram’ which was set ablaze by the train. The logic of those who say that ‘Jai Sri Ram’ of the Hindu nationalists who made the Gujarati of Muslim genocide and ‘Pathita Pavana Sitaram’ (He is the Sita Ram, who makes the sinner pure) of Gandhiji is the same Rama is the logic of those who say that all that glitters are gold. Such logic is inappropriately used by Dalit intellectuals like Sunny M. Kapikad against those who say ‘Gandhiji’s Ram and Modiji’s Ram are same. Will Sunny M. Kapikkad say that the ‘Allahu Akbar’ chanted by the ISIS terrorists is the same as the ‘Allahu Akbar’ chanted by the Panakkad Thangals? Kapikkad is not correctly discerning ideas. We can realize that Gandhiji’s Ram and Modiji’s Ram are diametrically opposite, if we apply common sense. Even though it can be heard and spelled in the same manner, the content and message is mutually contradictory.

There are Congressmen who are going to stall Narendra Modi’s Ram in Ayodhya saying that Gandhiji’s Ram should not be handed over to BJP. Mr. Kamal Nath to Mr. Shashi Tharoor, etc. are people who fall in this category. We also need to find an answer to the question of how much these Congressmen have opened their hearts for Gandhiji’s Ram. Gandhiji himself, clarifying this point wrote: “The Allah of Islam is the same as the God of Christians and Ishwara of Hindus. Even as there are numerous names of God in Hinduism, there are many names of God in Islam. The names do not indicate individuality but attributes; and little man has tried in his humble way to describe mighty God by giving Him attributes, though He is above all attributes, Indescribable, Immeasurable.” – Harijan, 12-8-1938. At another place he said: “Ram and the chanting of Ram are for Hindus. So, what does it matter to Muslims? I am laughing when I hear some people asking. A Muslim has one God, a Hindu has one God, a Christian has one God, and a Parsi has one God? No. There is only one God who is omnipotent and omnipresent. He has many names. We just worship Him using the names we are most familiar with” (Harijan 28-4-1946 on Hindu Dharma)

BJP will never be capable of capturing this Ram of Gandhiji. But just as the sunlight cannot be seen by those who have their eyes closed, those who do not open their eyes cannot experience and feel the all-pervading, all-pervading spirit of Gandhiji’s Rama. In short, those who did not live for Gandhiji’s Rama are going to Ayodhya by claiming that BJP has encroached on Gandhiji’s Rama just as Ravana cut off Rama’s Sita. The challenge faced by the sleepy Congress politics these days is that there is no Gandhian with Vinoba Bhave’s eminent saintly stature to tell the Congressmen that ‘You only need to open the mind to touch Gandhiji’s Ram.’ Shockingly, however, not even a single real Gandhian is seen anywhere!

I have already said that no one who sees Gandhiji as the father of India will not bow down to Modiji’s Ram. Doctor Ambedkar was Gandhiji’s most eloquent and fairest ideological critique. But even Ambedkar did not believe that Gandhi was not the father of India. Therefore, no one who is honest and loyal to Ambedkar will drive to Ayodhya to worship Modiji’s Ram. Those who do not see Gandhiji as the father of the nation are the Hindu nationalists such as the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS and their political party, the BJP. Pro RSS Swami Chidanandapuri is a Shankara Sanyasi (hermit), a saffron clad who is not ready to see Gandhiji as the father of the nation. Chidanandapuri sees Gandhiji as the son of India and not as his father; because the nation does not have any father. We are aware that this is not Chidanandapuri’s original argument. The RSS leader Golwalkar, who is known as ‘Guruji’ expressed the same opinion. Golwalkar says; “Some great People who say that we should build a new nation do not know our national life. This concept is still the same today. The greatest person will be the son of the nation that has existed since ancient times, he will be its son.” (Guruji Sahitya Sarvasvam; Vol. 2; p. 61.) The above citation is quoted from the texts of a certain secretly held ‘Chintan Baithaq’ (brainstorming meeting). Golwalkar argues that there is no need to create a new India here, as there is already an ancient nation and national life. But a democratic India where untouchability is a crime is definitely a new India. Gandhiji, the leader of those who made it, is also the father of modern India. A Hindu Rashtra, which was eternally eternal, may have stood for thousands of years. None of us say that its father is Gandhiji. We merely claim that it was Manu who is the father of that ancient nation which held untouchability as the eternal law. People who consider Manu as the father of that ancient nation, who have a Hindu nationalism, should take a train to Ayodhya to worship the Ram idol installed by Narendra Modi. Those people who held untouchability as a crime will consider Gandhiji as the father of the nation. The good citizens of democratic India will not take a train to Ayodhya to visit the Ram idol installed by Modi. This is not because the citizens of democratic India are of the opinion that temples should be shunned off as if they were untouchable. On the contrary, it is because they are democratic citizens of India who consider communalism and anti-Islamophobic racism is not compatible with the true devotion of God.

Gandhiji’s devotion to Rama and Vivekananda’s vision of piety

It was because of the concept of God held by Gandhiji in an all-pervasive divinity of Rama that he has had an indiscriminate respect for all religions. This is also why Gandhiji respected all scriptures, religions, prophets, and worship practices. It can be easily understood that the devotion radiated by the life of a firm Rama devotee like Gandhiji shows its wider possibility: broadness of the heart and mind that removes discrimination in personal and social life. Swami Vivekananda, the world-famous theologian, has also clarified the position of the spirit of true devotion to God: devotion should be spread and not casteism. Swami Vivekananda describes the manner of right devotion: “Then and then alone, is your Bhakti of Shiva complete, when you not only see Him in the Linga (male organ), but you see Him everywhere. He is the sage, he is the lover of Hari (God), who sees Hari in everything and in everyone. If you are a real lover of Shiva, you must see Him in everything and in everyone. You must see that every worship is given unto Him, whatever may be the name or the form; that all knees bending towards the Kaaba, or kneeling in a Christian church, or in a Buddhist temple are kneeling to Him, whether they know it or not, whether they are conscious of it or not; that in whatever name or form they are offered, all these flowers are laid at His feet; for He is the one Lord of all, the one Soul of all souls. ” (Vivekananda Sahitya Sarvasvam; Vol. 3; p. 12.) In the same book, Swami Vivekananda repeats the same broad vision of devotion in many places. Reiterating the breadth of Bhakti philosophy to combat the racism they create will be a good antidote to the society where the life of peace is in danger. Therefore, Vivekananda can be quoted again: “He who sees Shiva in the poor, in the weak, and in the diseased, really worships Shiva; and if he sees Shiva only in the image, his worship is but preliminary. He who has served and helped one poor man seeing Shiva in him, without thinking of his caste, or creed, or race, or anything, with him Shiva is more pleased than with the man who sees Him only in temples. ” (Page 36.) Vivekananda repeats the same idea in multiple ways in his work. No one embraces this Bhaktidarshan (perception of piety) which Swami Vivekananda has presented with a profound understanding of the depth, breadth and height of Indian spirituality. Only a person who deeply imbibes the real spirit of this piety of Rama can understand Vivekanada; he or she can only become a devotee of Rama like Gandhiji. He can never become a Hindu nationalist like Godse, who killed Gandhiji. A devotee of Ram like Gandhiji does not have the communal obsession to demolish a mosque and build a temple to enshrine Ram in it. As Swami Vivekananda aptly said, a person who has a broad devotional vision will not have a communal desire to demolish any mosque and build a Shiva temple. So the question before the Hindu of modern India is whether you are going to follow Gandhiji’s Rama Bhakti or the communal logic of Godse who killed the real Rama devotee. Those who understand Swami Vivekananda’s devotional vision cannot be terrorized by the saffron chanting ‘Jai Sri Ram’, taking on Godse’s communal logic.

Not even a BJP member can dispute the fact that Gandhiji was a devotee of Rama. Further, there is no dispute that the Godse who killed Gandhiji was a Hindu nationalist. There is no room for dispute that the RSS from Narendra Modi to Kummanam Rajasekharan are Hindu nationalists. On the basis of all these indisputable things, one question that we have to raise is how can even the spirit of Hanuman (Hanumal Chaitanya) be there even after Rama Chaitanya (Rama’s spirit) goes to the temple built by Hindu nationalists who kill Ram devotees. Hanuman in the epic Puranas is a pious man who claims to be the servant of Rama. Will the temple of the Hindu nationalists, who guard Godse, a Brahmin Hindu nationalist and the one who killed Gandhiji, was a real Rama devotee? These questions are being asked just to trigger your thoughts. Because real Rama devotees should not be fools who can be fooled by communalists in the name of Rama. Spiritual trade and casteism, regardless of religion, will bring destruction to the country and the world. No one can live a dignified life living in a degenerating world and country.

India under British rule and Mandir- Masjid politics

The British legal system and the railways, which had created their industrial heritage, inexorably united the fragmented nation into a glacial land. Indian people were speaking many languages and living with different customs and beliefs. The British rulers had a requirement that the people should not unite against suppression and exploitation of India, a land which was united by railway lines. The British rulers, who realized through previous experiences that religious sentiments have great emotional power to divide the people, made divide and rule as a political strategy. The British regime did not allow to grow religious fraternity among the Indians and instead it systematically tried to destroy its very fabric. The reason why Gandhiji was such a headache for the British was that Gandhiji was committed to working at the highest and lowest levels for Hindu- Muslim fraternity. By hating and destroying the Hindu-Muslim alliance, the two atheists, the followers of the British Raj, worked hard to bring things up to the partition of India and Pakistan. One of the two atheists who were British followers was VD Savarkar and the other was Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Godse, who was attracted to Savarkar’s Hinduism, killed the most powerful exponent and champion of the Hindu- Muslim fraternity; namely Mahatma Gandhi. Savarkar and Jinnah proved that one does not have to be faithful like Gandhi. We know that Gandhiji who wrote commentary on Bhagavad Gita and Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad who wrote commentary on the Qur’an became the undeniable leaders of nationalist politics. Hindu nationalist like LK. Advani did not hesitate to describe Muhammad Ali Jinnah, an atheist and the father of the religious nation of Pakistan, as a ‘secular advocate’. However, they are reluctant to call Panakkad Thangals as secularists despite their dedicated commitment to secularism. The facts have been brilliantly shown by Dr. Ambedkar in his work “Pakistan, or, The Partition of India.” To Dr. Ambedkar, Jinnah and Savarkar was mostly communalism rather than spirituality. The British ruled the country by dividing the minds of the people on the basis of religious sentiments so that the people’s power would not rise united against them. The result is the partition of India and Pakistan. Finally, the post-independence Indian versions of the British Raj’s anti-Hindu-Muslim politics, which grew into the Jan Sangh and the BJP, have degraded the Indian Prime Ministership into a priesthood that builds temples. The Hindu nationalists who politicized the Masjid- Mandir issue and carried out Karseva also proved that even though the British who ruled India had left India, their shadow regime had not left India. It cannot be said that the Hindu nationalist advocates, who are separating and mixing the citizens of the democratic secular India on the basis of religion, have left India without leaving India and the policy of the British has really not left India. India is behaving as if British Raj is still persisting. To Hindu nationalists, which has continued the British divide and rule strategy, it is quite natural to divide the people in the lines of religious emotions. As such we cannot say that the British actually left India. The British might have been physically left, but their policy is still persisting. The Ram of the believers is the Ram of Gandhiji and the Ram of the communalists is the Ram of Narendra Modi and Godse. This statement must be explicitly made by every Indian, regardless of gender difference, religious and caste affiliation. Only by raising slogans against Modi’s Ram by honouring Gandhiji’s Ram, the mission of secular democratic India will be fulfilled.

Secular democratic governance system, Indian government and Ram temple in Ayodhya

Secularism does not mean that citizens should not have religion or that religion should be the basis of citizenship. Secularism actually means that neither the Houses of Representatives nor the government have the power or authority to impose or suppress any religion or ideology. Just as any citizen has the right to praise any religion, any citizen has the right to criticize any religion. This vision of secularism was present in our constitutional debate era before Indira Gandhi added the word ‘secular’ in the preamble of our constitution. Explaining what the constitution means by secularism, Dr. Ambedkar in his speech in the Constituent Assembly said: “Secularism does not mean that the state shall not consider the religious sentiments of the people. A secular state means that the government should not have the power to impose any particular religion on the remaining people. That is the only limitation that the constitution recognises.” If we look at this explanation given by Dr.Ambedkar in Parliament in 1951 after participating in the discussion regarding the Hindu Code Bill, it will be understood that the action of the Prime Minister was terribly derailed. He is the prime minister of all the different believers and non-believers of India, as he took an oath to the Constitution of India. By becoming a priest of the idol in the temple built where the mosque was demolished is both anti-religious and anti-secular. This is because India is not a country of only those who call themselves Jai Shri Ram. But the Indian Prime Minister acting as the Prime Minister of only those who call themselves Jai Shri Ram, is sending a message that a particular religious tradition should be respected over everyone else. According to Ambedkar’s explanation, it can be said that giving such messages covertly or openly is anti-secular. Will Narendra Modi or his party be able to prove that Ambedkar’s explanation of constitutional secularism is wrong and that it is the duty of the Prime Minister under the secular democratic constitution to hold the priesthood of the temple? If possible, come forward boldly.

Of course an Indian citizen named Narendra Modi can officiate any temple deity if his faith allows him. Because citizenship is another aspect of his personality. But the Prime Minister of India is the representative of the entire Indian people. Therefore, the prime minister, who is responsible for representing the people of India, sitting in that constitutional position and doing a crime that makes a few temple worshipers happy, is an insult to the position. If Rama devotion was dearer to Narendra Modi than the seat of power, he should have given up the post of Prime Minister of India to perform the priestly duties of installing the stone idol of Rama in the Ayodhya temple. Modi didn’t give up power; he performed the role of the Hindu priesthood. This is a degradation of the position of the Indian Prime Minister from the representative of the people of India to become the sole representative of those called Jai Shri Ram. Don’t go unnoticed. The sovereign citizens of India, both Ram devotees and non-Rama devotees, should be ready to make Narendra Modi and his colleagues understand that the title of Prime Minister of India is not a decorative title to be used for priestly duties in the Ram temple.

If a person in the position of Prime Minister or Chief Minister and doing something for his own son or daughter with special interest is a corruption and crime of nepotism. In the position of Prime Minister, acting eagerly as a priest representative of his own religious faith and exciting his own religious sect is a bigger nepotism and crime. Narendra Modi’s temple consecration while he was the Prime Minister of India is a crime equal to nepotism. Cheating is a crime. Knowingly engaging in fraud is also a crime of aiding and abetting a crime. At this level, the Supreme Court of India has seen the demolition of the Babri Masjid as a crime; but building a temple on the land occupied by the demolition of the Babri Masjid is another crime that supports the crime. It is sad that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who went to bless the crime of building a temple on the grounds of Babri Masjid, has to be called a criminal in moral analysis because the Prime Minister of India is also my Prime Minister. How can I be happy when a Prime Minister is blessing a criminal act?

Narendra Modi, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Aditya Nath and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat argue that the need for a Ram temple in Ayodhya has been a spiritual need of Hindus for at least five hundred years. Organizations including the BJP repeat the words without understanding its actual implications just as a parrot does. Even if we admit, for the sake of argument, that it is true that the Hindus wanted a Ram Temple in Ayodhya, did the Hindus want the Babri Masjid to be demolished? It is a historical fact that it was the communal desire of the RSS that demolished the Babri Masjid and built the Ram Temple in its place. Because neither Goswami Tulsidasa who was a devotional poet and a resident of Ayodhya, nor Swami Vivekananda who travelled all over India with the mind of a pilgrim, it is recorded anywhere that these great devotees wanted to demolish the Babri Masjid and build in its place a Ram temple in Ayodhya. Eminent historians like R.S Sharma do not say that there is any scientific evidence that Rama was born in what we now call Ayodhya. R.S. Sharma writes: “Archaeological evidence has to be given more weight than the long genealogies given in the Puranas (epics). According to the ancient tradition, Rama’s time in Ayodhya can be dated closer to 2000 B.C. But neither excavations nor extensive investigations at Ayodhya show that there was any settlement near that time.” (‘Ancient India’, Page 41) Historians have said with evidence that Ayodhya, which is now said to be Ram Janmabhoomi, was not inhabited at the time when Rama is believed to have lived as per Purana. In Ayodhya, which cannot be proven to have been inhabited even 4000 years ago, there was not any temple that was thousands of years old and the Babri Masjid was not built by the governor of Emperor Babur by destroying any temple. After hearing and seeing all this, there are innocent channel commentators and neutral observers who justifies the criminal act by saying: ‘There is no crime to be blamed for the demolition of the temple and the construction of the temple, except the poetic justice of history.’ But they are being asked another question. Until about a hundred years ago, even in the land that we now call Kerala, many women of the Nair, Ezhava, Pulaya and Paraya groups were enslaved by the rulers of the land by force and using power. Can it be admissible to claim that lower caste people and Nairs have the right to take revenge upon upper caste Namboothiri ladies? Can it be taken as a historical poetic justice? It will be considered as absurdity at the peak. It is because of the conviction that in a modern state society, its political parties, rulers and administrative systems should not be guided by such thuggish logic. In the same way, modern democratic people have to wholeheartedly oppose the process of demolishing the Babri Masjid and building a temple in its place.

Of course, the justification of people from Narendra Modi to Chidananda Puri is that they tried to build a Ram temple on the same land where the Babri Masjid was demolished and replaced by the order of the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in democratic secular India. The court’s decision should be respected, they repeat. But there was a verdict of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court which made it possible for young women to enter Sabarimala. The Kerala government tried to implement it. In spite of realizing this, the entire streets rioted against the court ruling allowing women to enter Sabarimala to create a golden opportunity for political exploitation. From this, it is evident that the approach of the Sangh Parivar to the court judgments is that they will implement only the court judgments that are favourable to them and that they will not allow anyone to implement the unfavourable ones. This is merely hooliganism. Such people are deceiving the devotees by memorizing four Sanskrit verses and saying ‘think and think’. Therefore, in order not to be deceived by the name of Rama, we will end this Ramayana and Rama remembrance book by presenting some thoughts about Ramayana and Rama.

The word Rama means one who pleases or delights. The implication is that ‘Ramayati iti Rama’. In other words, Rama is the one who delights or makes one happy. The word Ayanam means journey. The word Ramayana, which is a combination of two words Rama and Ayanam, can mean the journey of Rama or the journey of the one who delights. According to Rama’s life story, which we have been introduced to through poetry, music, sculpture, drama, art and literature, Sri Rama’s life journey was full of very difficult moments. Maharshi poet Krishnakumar has summarized the hardships that Rama had to go through in his journey in four lines in the verse poem ‘Rama Hridayam’ (Heart of Rama). The lines are like this;

“Vipinantara vasam, utkadam

Viraham, Durghata Sethubandhanam

A successful meeting, finally,

It’s a sense of loss! This is my life”

Part 9. Verse 70

He lived with Sita in the forest. Both Rama and Sita were broken-hearted by Ravana’s abduction. Rama overcame the ordeal of losing his wings to the sea and went to Lanka, defeated Ravana in the battle and started living in the palace with Sita. After hearing the slander, Rama decided to abandon Sita into the forest, his life became miserable again. It can be said that the life of Rama is the story of distress and sorrow. How can we be happy when we read the Rama story, which is the nature of life, sadness and distress? Although the pains of pregnancy and childbirth are painful, the result is the joy of having a child. It is enough to see that the Ramayana poems that tell about Sri Rama’s life journey are sad stories. In short, literature is the art and science that can create happiness through distress. Rama in literature is Ananda Rama who entertains his friends with his sad life experiences. The United Nations Global Happiness Index tells us that when Narendra Modi rules the country, he will not be able to make Ananda Rama the national man in the narratives of literary geniuses ranging from Valmiki to Thunjath Ezhuthachan, Kumaranashan to Maharishi Krishnakumar. Because the position of Modi’s India is now 126 out of 143 in the global happiness index. India ruled by Modi is one among the ten nations with the unhappiest lives in the world. How can Ananda Rama (Happy India) become the national man of a nation where happiness is not good; it’s not possible!

Poet’s mercy and prohibitions of Manishada

Creating happiness from the stream of sadness is the art of literature in the words of C. Radhakrishnan, the litterateur. He said that literature is the art that creates ‘the ocean of fire and creates sweetness’. Valmiki was a sage and poet who knew this art very well. Shri Rama Chandran was first enshrined in the language temple built by Valmiki. If Lord Rama had not been enshrined in Valmiki literature temple as the soul of thoughts and feelings, there would have been no image of Rama in the mind of any human being. Anyone can be happy when he can join what he likes, sad when he can’t join what he likes. However, it is not enough to have a state of mind that can be happy and sad only for oneself. One should not cause sadness to other. It takes a compassionate heart to do anything for others. Only those with a heart full of compassion can become great poets. Great poets can raise their hands and say that no one should do any work, big or small, that destroys the happiness of others for his own personal happiness.

The Adishloka (original verse) of the Ramayana is a hymn that Valmiki, a great poet and sage with a heart full of compassion, unknowingly uttered in a special rhythm to the savage who shot the lustful bird with an arrow:

“Ma nishada pratistam tvamagamah saswatheesamah

Yat Kraunchamithunadekamavadhikamamohitham”

‘No wild man; May you not last long; Because you have killed one of the passionate loving mates’, the meaning of the first verse of Adikavi Valmiki can be summed up in these words. No species can survive without prey and mating. The poet does not forbid the savage trying to catch his prey; the poet merely expresses unhappiness when an arrow has shot down one of the birds, which was immersed in mating. The poet Valmiki criticised the barbarism that interferes with the existence of nature. Existence requires food and spouse or lustful desires. It can be said that lustful instinct is the basic instinct just as desire for food. Therefore, breaking the day, destroying married life, burning fields and houses, etc. are anti-existential activities and crimes that should be prohibited and resisted. Such people are called ‘athathayi’ (one who is committed to murder) in Sanskrit.

‘Athathayis’ are defined as;

“Agnido Garadaschaiva

Shastronmatto Dhanapahah

Temple Daraharashchaitan

Shadvidyadatainah:”

Shukra Neeti explains that six types of people are called “athathayis”: those who rob houses, those who poison drinking water or food, those who attack the weak with weapons, those who forcibly steal land including fields and women including wives of others (Chapter 8; Sloka 350.) The above six atrocities are crimes that should be condemned and punished in today’s democratic system. Therefore, they are brutal acts that destroy the existence of human identity. Poets with a sense of compassion will protest against it regardless of the time and land. If Valmiki was alive in 1948, he would have said ‘Ma Nishada’ (savage, don’t do that) against Godse who killed Gandhiji! If Valmiki had lived in 1992, he would have said ‘Ma Nishada’ looking at the karsevaks who forcibly invaded and destroyed the Babri Masjid! If Valmiki was alive in 2002, he would have said the same ‘Ma Nishada’ when witnessing that houses, shops and people were burnt, women were victimised of gang-rape and the police stood moot spectators of all evils. The government that invades the streets with armed police and army to beat up the farmers is a selfish government and poets should have the courage to say ‘Ma Nishada’ against it. If this courageousness is lost to the poet, his or her poetry will never be able to secrete the life energy from its udder: milk, the life elixir. 

Avatar critiques, the genius of Kalidasa and Bhagavad Gita

Even Rama, the lord of Ayodhya enshrined in Valmiki’s language temple, adorned with a better human being (Narothama), an epitome of Dharma (morality) is not beyond criticism. The mercy of the sage poet Valmiki is reflected in his courageousness to support the pregnant Sita, during her pregnancy and birthing months and further maintained the upbringing of the children (Lava and Kusha).

When the chastity of pregnant Sita was questioned by Sri Ramachandra out of fear of scandal, Valmiki’s mercy took care of Sita (the daughter of the earth). The creative power of that mercy is not afraid of any group power of the people and the sceptre of the government. Valmiki, who protected Sita against scandalising tongues of the people, had affirmed her chastity. Valmiki has proved that the poet’s duty is to protect oppressed ones even when the crowd and the administration cast them out. When Rama was willing to take Sita back, she did not want to sit on the throne and instead she split the earth and went into it. Sita’s intuition is also a declaration that she is not a cat which can be easily cast out, but a self-respecting dignified woman. Valmiki has shown the insight and responsibility to support a defenceless woman. Valmiki supported the self-respecting girl against a patriarchal male. No one has criticized Rama as much as Valmiki did. Kumaranasan’s verse poem ‘Chintavishthayaya Sita’ (Thinking Sita), a great poem in Malayalam, is a great attempt to reach the mind of Sita by following Valmiki. As mentioned earlier, the poem ‘Ramahridayam’ (heart of Rama) written by Pudukkad Krishnakumar is the great mission of sage poets to find Rama by entering into the mind of Rama. Rama is not beyond criticism. Whether it is in Kumaranasan’s ‘Chintavishtaya Sita’ or in Puthukad Krishna Kumar’s ‘Ramahridaya’ (heart of Rama), we can make critical analysis of Rama’s behaviour. That is why Putezhathu Raman Menon, even while a pro-RSS man, wrote the book ‘Ramayana Saparya’ (The Struggle of Ramayana), critically evaluating Rama’s character. He wrote thus: “Sri Krishna is independent, courageous, but does not respect modesty and tradition. But Sri Rama is a follower of tradition, obedient but fearful to accusation of the tongue.” (Ramayana Saparya; H & C Books, 2018, p. 50) Here Sri Rama is criticized as a traditionalist and a coward, who does anything out of fear of people’s opinions.

The intellectual drought of illiteracy and the fiery nature of its all-consuming destructiveness, which India’s RSS had since its founding 1925 is alarming. It is slowly becoming visible to Kerala’s RSS, from K. Surendran to Suresh Gopi, from Sasikala Teacher to Sobha Surendran. At this time, the RSS leadership in Kerala has completely lost the habit of reading and the friendship to enjoy literature. Remember that Puthezhath Raman Menon once wrote that “Raman is a traditionalist and coward”. What would pro-RSS social media retort to Puthezhathu Raman Menon? It might be “have you become a Muslim?” “go to Pakistan” etc.

Many poets both in Malayalam and local have critically examined the life of Rama. Poet Kalidasa called the epic poem ‘Raghuvamsa’ and not ‘Ramavamsa’ for the concise and appropriate epic poem written on the theme of the rise and fall of Suryavamsa kings. If Kalidasa was of the opinion that Rama was the greatest king of Suryavamsa, he would have named his poem Ramavamsam. Kalidasa had to make it clear that Rama was not a good king of Suryavamsa and as such he has not named like that. The trend is visible in the Malayalam language also. Not only Thunchath Ezhuttachchan’s ‘Adhyatma Ramayanam’ (Spiritual Ramayana) and Kumaranasan’s ‘Chintavishtaya Sita’ but lots of other writings have critiqued Rama. In this genre, Kumaranasan’s poetry is highly beautiful and rich in thought with the creativity of the criticism of Rama. Those who have read at least one article of Kuttikrishna Marar’s ‘Valmiki’s Rama’ will readily admit that even Sanskrit scholars like Kuttikrishna Marar were not ready to call it ‘Jai Sri Ram’ after ignoring the criticisms of Rama in Asan’s poetry. Sure enough, a recent book written by K.E.N has been titled ‘Sita Didn’t utter Jay Shri Ram’.

Those who make an utterance of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ should also note that Ramarajya was not an ideal nation as it didn’t allow a dignified life of an independent woman called Sita. Neither Vyasa nor Valmiki ever held the view of abstaining criticism of the descent of the 10 divine reincarnations of Vishnu. It is said that the all-pervading Lord Vishnu himself takes incarnations of Parasu Rama, who fights each other. As such, how can it be assumed that the sages had the position that avatars are holy personalities who should not be questioned? In the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, the Lord himself actually says, “Vimrisairitadase shena yathechchasi thatha kuru = ‘Thus, I have explained to you this knowledge that is more secret than all secrets. Ponder over it deeply, and then do as you wish.’ (Gita 18:63). This means that it is possible to criticize Rama or Krishna and then accept them. Any devotee will agree that there is a stance of taking the authority of the Bhagavad Gita verse rather than following RSS and its cultural hegemony.

The great poet Kalidasa, an Indian universal literary genius writes:

“Puranamityeva na sadhusarvam

Na Chapi Kavyam Nava Mitya Vadyam

Santah parikshanyatharad bhajante

Mudha Parapratyayanaya Buddhi’

Malavikagnimitram 1:2

In this couplet of the work Malavikagnimitram, Kalidasa says: ‘The really good people do not think something good, just because old people do so or consider something as bad just because it is new. Only fools can listen to what someone says and follow it.’ Any Indian who realizes through Kalidasa that our policy should not be to follow what the BJP people say and chant ‘Jai Shri Ram’. It will be a stupidity by bowing down to the BJP’s communal Ram, rather than critically examining Rama’s different behaviours in their merit.  

Peaceful life is a guarantee offered by fraternal Kerala against Modi’s politics of Rama

Literary geniuses from Valmiki onwards have influenced people’s lives throughout Asia and in India in particular. The stories of Rama and Ramayana have been enshrined in various languages. The person who researched those influences and recorded them closely and systematically was Father Camille Bulcke, a priest from Belgium and a member of the Church of Jesus. India has honoured Father Camille Bulke with Padma Bhushan in 1974. Remember that the best study book on ‘Rama story’ was prepared by a Christian Father Camille Bulcke. This should be stated in louder voice when the BJP political monstrosity called ‘Jai Sri Ram’ burnt a Christian missionary named Graham Stein and his family, when a Christian priest named Stan Swami was hacked to death and Christian churches were burnt in Manipur. Artistic and literary talents were also to be highlighted. A collection of thought-provoking essays on Rama and the Ramayana is said to have followed from the pen of another Christian Sanskrit scholar, I.C Chacko master. He wrote the book “In the World of Valmiki”. Can any RSS intellectual undertake such a brilliant treatise in the genre of I.C Chacko master? BJP leaders like Suresh Gopi, who is a rebirth advocate, should be prepared to think how many births even P. Parameshwar (an RSS ideologue) can take to equate such a gigantic task of I.C Chacko master? Understand that I.C Chako master was well versed in English, Greek, Latin, Syriac, French, German, Tamil, Malayalam as well as Sanskrit. Dr. Aziz Tharuvana has studied and written about the story of Rama which is popular even among the tribal people through the book ‘Wayanadan Ramayanam’. This work has also received the Ambedkar National Excellence Award. Former Chief Justice of Madras High Court, M.M Ismail, a native of Nagapatnam, is a researcher and scholar who has given hundreds of lectures on Kamba Ramayan. “Mappila Ramayan ” is popular among Malabar Muslims. This work is characterized by an ethnic rhythm. All this is mentioned here just to indicate that the Rama and Ramayana of the literary world are legacies of all Indians. Christians and Muslims have contributed to this great arena. Recently we saw RSS men making voices against Dr. M.M Basheer for his expression of opinion about Ramayana. The roaring was such that why a Muslim is attempting to write about Ramayana? Sanghis criticised him for publishing an article on Ramayana in Mathrubhumi newspaper.

Therefore, it can be said that there is a rival version of Rama in the literary world; between the depiction of Rama of poet Valmiki and that of Hindu nationalists. Unlike Hindutva politician like Narendra Modi, Ramayana is the asset of all people regardless of caste-religion-party-political barrier. In the literary world great luminaries such as Thunchath Ezhuthachan, Kumaranaasan, Vallathol, IC Chacko master, Kuttikrishna Marar, Dr. Sukumar Azhicode, Dr.M. Leelavathy, Dr.MM Basheer, professor KEN, Dr. Aziz Tharuvana are the guarantee given by democratic secular India. In short, it is the guarantee of fraternal Kerala that Rama of the literary temple can give peace to India a hundred times more than what Modi’s politics of temple can supply.

No god who is known to human is beyond criticism

So far, it has been said that Rama in the literary world is enjoyable for friends of all castes, religions, national languages; but don’t think that Rama is beyond criticism. If any sentiments and customs become uncritical, it will turn into obstinacy and brutality that destroys the peace of public life. God is generally thought of as an uncritical emotional-ideological force. Therefore, there have been a lot of murders, lootings and riots all over the world that occurred in the name of the gods, who are called by many names. The core argument is that the sentiments of the devotees and the religious sentiments have been hurt; it is happening on a regular basis. What we need to do to change this approach: we have to expose the priestly tactic by saying that God is not beyond criticism. Organizations like Arya Samaj and Jamaat- e-Islami can be taken as examples of the above type. But such organizations criticize the priesthood by maintaining their god as an uncritical holy entity. This method of criticism is reactionary in essence and pseudo-progressive in rhetoric. This is just like the method of criticizing only Brahmanical supremacy without criticizing the Chaturvarna system (hierarchical four-fold caste system). It is in this sense that we are arguing that soft Hindutva is not the answer of hard Hindutva. Just as you can’t kill a viper by petting a baby viper, you can’t beat soft religious nationalism by petting them. No one can criticize priestly regimes while maintaining god as an uncritical holy entity in any form. When we are free to criticize god, our criticism will result in progressive social developments. Fortunately, god has not been an uncritical entity in India. No scripture in India says not to criticize god. It is not found in the Vedic, Upanishadic, epic, and Puranic books of India that God should not be subjected to criticism. If God says to the devotee, ‘without me you will not exist’, the devotee can safely counter that ‘without me you will not have the glory of praises’ to god. Based on the mantra, beginning with ‘Brahmana Mukha Maseed’ in the Purusha Suka, which has been pointed out by many scholars as being an interpolation to the Rigveda, there were ‘Indam Thuruthy’ like lords in Kerala. Indam Thuruthy claimed not to question god and the god-ordained social system Chaturvarnya. Even if a person becomes Vivekananda, Gandhi, Narayanaguru, Ambedkar or Bhagat Singh, the Indam Thuruthi lords could only see them in mere low caste identity because they were not born in the Brahmin caste. In the Rigveda itself there is a Nasadiya Sukta which questions god. For those who have studied Nasadiya Sukta, there is a position that if there is an entity called god, then that entity is not beyond criticism. Eminent figures like Chattambi Swami, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rabindranath Tagore and Brahmananda Swami Shivayogi have also examined god in a critical way.

If the all-pervasive Lord is the essence of the perfect Supreme Being, then the man who has the time of birth and the time of death cannot express any opinion about it. Because the limited knowledge of man cannot know the Absolute. My own teacher poet sage Krishnakumar, the founder of Shakti Bodhi system, says this in plain language in his philosophical stanza called ‘Manushya Parinamam’ (Human Evolution):

“The mind will imagine and so will nature

Nothing but contribution

To conquer the universe is mortal

Don’t go by nature!

Perfect perfect perfect Ha!

There is no reason for this.”

Human Evolution (Saragam 4:10)

It means the absolute essence that can be known by man is always questionable. Anything that man can know or experience is limited. No human being in a life with two time limits, the day of birth and the day of death, can be in complete knowledge of the limitless. The God who knows human beings will also become a god with limits. Even if the limitless god comes to the worshiper, he will not be uncritical. No matter how adorable the sun is, don’t we make comments like ‘Oh why is it hot?’ At this level, the god known by humans with a finite life would also be finite and therefore subject to criticism.

Toddy or coconut water: fanaticism or spiritual enlightenment?

Because human knowledge, experience, emotions, and feelings are limited or incomplete, all religious and other forms of expression that have occurred throughout human history are manifestations of imperfection. Even the emotional features that humans are said to have had, such as self-realization in the spiritual realm, vision of god, and hearing of god’s message, are mere expressions of imperfection. Because of this, any sages and prophets who have attained the final knowledge and revelation, or know everything, or are able to say the last word about all worldly, supernatural, worldly and extra-terrestrial matters, cannot be affirmed.

If there is a limit to knowledge, emotions and enthusiasm, then it is possible for human beings who have feelings or thoughts to say that anything limited cannot be uncritical, and therefore any religious or secular theme that is subject to knowledge is subject to criticism. Non-human beings are called ‘cows’ in Sanskrit language because they do not have intelligence. Beings with only feelings, whether four-legged or two-legged, are cows at the level of consciousness. To degenerate the great majority of men with such heifers, the so-called religious sentiments which are often offended, have been produced by priests who, in the name of an uncritical divinity, call themselves beyond criticism as next to god. The modern democratic secular governance system and democratic civil society have a great responsibility to protect spirituality, gods, sages, prophets and scriptures from this madness, regardless of whether they are believers or non-believers. The better and faster this is done, the faster casteism will be rooted out of Indian life.

The coconut is called kalpa vriksha (tree of heaven) as there is nothing to reject from it. There are people who think that religions are like this. If you drink the toddy made from coconut, the consciousness of the drinker will be disturbed and he will try to walk on the street like a king with a turban and fall down like a snake on the road. On the other hand, if you drink coconut water, you will be refreshed. To live is to be cheerful, not frenzied by intoxication. If we think about the Vedas like this by imbibing wisdom, it will make us wise. At the same time, if we see the Vedas as a religious book and drink dogmatic feelings from it, it will make us mad. Those who make the people religiously insane in the name of Rama, Christ or Allah are just as evil as those who use the toddy to deceive the people and control their minds, bodies and property. Leaders of any religion who espouse communalism are evil or wicked.

For the protection of the pious, the followers of the virtuous path and for the destruction of the evil-doers, of the sinful ones; and also for establishing virtue fully; for that purpose, I manifest Myself

“Paritranaya sadhunam vinasaya chaduskritam

Sambhavami yuge yuge”

If the words of the Gita are true, then if the Lord comes in this age, he will destroy the evils that spread racism in the name of God.

The evil doer cannot be included Tyaga Rajaswamy, the great musician, Tulsidas, the pious poet who wrote Ram Charitamanasam, Kabir Das, who knew Ram and Rahim as one, purified his mind and made his place a place of pilgrimage. Neither it will include Thunchath Ezhuthachan who has enthralled with his depiction of spiritual Ramayana. Because when they called Rama, the result was the joy of peace and tranquillity. But when Ashok Singhal and Praveen Togadia, LK. Advani, Sadhvi Prachi, Uma Bharti, Narendra Modi, Maya Kotnani, Amit Shah, Meenakshi Lekhi, Kummanam Rajasekharan, Sasikala Teacher, Chenkotukonam Swami Satyananda Saraswati, Kolathur Swami Chidanandapuri, utter ‘Jai Shri Ram’ certain other people are terrorised. When ISIS called ‘Allahu Akbar’, there occurs terrorism. When they uttered ‘Jai Shri Ram’ could bring peace and happiness, India’s position in the United Nations Global Happiness Index would not have been 129. Ours is a country with the least happy people. This proves that there is a difference between cyanide and sugar; between the ‘Jai Sri Ram’ call of the RSS and the ‘Srirama Ramarama Sriramachandra Jaya’ of Thunchath Etzhutchachan. If we hear the sound of Ram and misunderstand that the Rama of Thunjath Ezhuthachan is the same Rama of RSS, our country will also become a burning ground where even devotees like Gandhi will be killed again by racism and casteism.

We cannot live without currency notes. It does not mean that we should stop counterfeiting or expose those who commit counterfeiting. Similarly, we need to resist religious fanaticism even while we cannot live without spirituality. We have to stand with the people who want to live with devotion to Ram and resist the racism or stupid bigotry that is called ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and the politics it fuels. As mentioned in the beginning Rama name means the giver of joy. Therefore, there should be bliss in the presence of Rama devotees who are chanting the name of Rama.

In today’s India, there are no Rama devotees like Gandhiji. The seat has been occupied by power hungry politicians using the emotions of religious frenzy and hatred by misusing the name of Rama. That’s why when ‘Jai Shri Ram’ is heard, the result is not joy but fear. Narayana Guru’s Kerala can provide exemplary guidance over Gandhiji’s birthplace, Gujarat. Kerala has the obligation to protect religion and devotion from communalists who use the name of Rama, Allah’s name and Jehovah’s name to spread fear. In short, an alternative to the powerful political Rama Pratishtha (consecration) in Ayodhya is the Shiva Pratishtha (shiva consecration) done by the sage Narayana Guru at Aruvipuram in Kerala. As a platform for the spiritual guidance of secular democratic India, Aruvipuram’s Shiva shrine and the message of Narayanaguru is more ideal. Narayanaguru proclaimed: ‘This is a model place where all people will co-exist as brothers and sisters regardless of caste and religion.’

About the author:

Swami Viswabhadrananda Shaktibodhi: Born on July 23, 1970 in Thrissur district of Kerala. Mother Sarojaniamma Father Raman Nair. Undergone Shakteya spiritual training and movement studies under Maharishi poet seer Krishnakumar. From 2008 to 2010, he was the co-abbot of the Siddhashram at Alathur founded by Brahmananda Swami Shivayogi and the editor of the ashram’s Saragrahi magazine. He has lectured on Bhagavad Gita for two months on Kairali People Channel. He has given more than 3500 speeches in Kerala, Mumbai, Bangalore, Chennai, Coimbatore. Over 3000 articles have come to light in the last two decades. He has published books such as An Introduction to Left Hinduism, Amritanandamayi and Mayilamma, Gita and the Qur’an and Lenin, Fundamentals of Maharshi Religion, A Hindu Sage Reads the Qur’an, Valmiki’s Rama, Gandhiji’s Rama and Modern Democratic India. [email protected]