Myth,
History And Politics
By K.N.Panikkar
28 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
Ever
since Ayodhya became a disputed territory, Rama has been at the centre
stage of the political mobilisation by Hindu communal forces. The incidents
associated with the Rama Katha were invoked one after the other to appeal
to the religious sentiments of Hindus. It began with a claim to the
birthplace of Rama at Ayodhya, around which Hindu religious sentiments
were so aroused as to lead to the destruction of the Babri Masjid. In
the movement culminating in this vandalism, several symbols linked with
Rama such as Rama Jyoti, Rama Paduka and Rama Shila were floated.
Yet, over the years, the
political appeal of Rama has waned despite his strong presence in the
religious life of believers. The temple issue was indeed kept alive
through occasional religious assemblies and demonstrations. Nevertheless,
Rama ceased to be of much emotional value that would provide political
advantage to Hindu communal forces. In the elections of 2004, the Ram
temple did not figure as an issue at all. This can be taken as an indication
that believers were inclined to abandon the Sangh Parivar’s aggressive
Rama and return to worshipping his benign image, looking upon Rama Katha,
as they had for centuries, as an “allegory of the life of the
spirit as it journeyed through the world”.
Rama was almost lost to the
political Hindu and was being resurrected to his rightful place in the
religious life of believers. It is in this context that the Ram Sethu
project has come in handy for the Sangh Parivar, to revive the appeal
of Rama in order to breathe some life into its sagging fortunes. Once
again the Parivar is bracing up to claim Rama for the communal cause.
In the process it is attempting to turn myth into history, blurring
the distinction between the two, in order to gain legitimacy for its
political project.
The question of whether the
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) should have filed an affidavit
in the Supreme Court denying the historical existence of Rama has led
to differences of opinion. The government has hastened to disclaim the
affidavit and withdraw it, obviously fearing a Hindu backlash. Unlike
the Ayodhya issue, even the secular voice has been rather muted. However,
implicit in the affidavit is an important question regarding our approach
to the past: Is there a distinction between myth and history?
Mythic Character
The ASI, it appeared, was
conscious of this distinction in projecting the mythological character
of Rama. The distinction does not imply a counterposition of myth and
history as false and true. Myth is a way in which the human mind comes
to grips with reality, and therefore, it can be said that it refers
to reality. Yet, myth in itself is not reality. What the ASI has tried
to state is that Rama was not a historical figure but a mythic character.
Similarly, the Ramayana being
a literary piece, which was not originally a religious text but only
sacralised later, contains many events and incidents that are products
of imagination. It would therefore be futile to try to correlate them
with historical fact and establish their authenticity. Such a view is
not in any way a denigration of Rama or a critical reflection on the
Ramayana. The Ramayana’s literary quality, whether in the original
Sanskrit or in regional languages, is well known. So are the ethical
and moral values it foregrounds, which exercise considerable influence
over the life of believers.
However, devotion to Rama
and the influence of the epic have nothing to do with the historical
veracity of Rama Katha. Devotees consider Rama an incarnation and do
not test his deeds by the yardstick of historical truth. They are moved
by their devotion and hardly approach the epic from a rational viewpoint
or try to locate it historically. Whether the Ramayana is historically
true or not is not a factor in their devotion. The Sangh Parivar has
been trying for long to impute to incidents in the epic a historical
quality to legitimise popular belief, under a false notion that belief
would be reinforced by historical truth.
The panic reaction of the
government in withdrawing the affidavit in effect endorses the Sangh
Parivar’s attempt to equate myth with history. Like the Sangh
Parivar, the government seems to subscribe to the view that ascribing
mythic character to Rama and the Ramayana is to undermine their importance
and to injure the sentiments of believers. It overlooks the fact that
believers consider Rama an incarnation. Traditional religious sources
represent him so. The Matsya Purana, for instance, gives the following
account: “There is also the account of the pastimes of Lord Rama,
spoken by Valmiki – an account originally related by Brahma in
one billion verses. That Ramayana was later summarised by Narada and
related by Valmiki, who then presented it to mankind.” What accounts
for the devotion to Rama and the veneration of the Ramayana are not
their historical veracity but their divinity.
Many Ramayanas
In an attempt to attribute
historical authenticity to the epic and its protagonist, the Sangh Parivar
has been striving to privilege one single version of the Ramayana. But
the Ramayana has several versions. It is difficult to ascertain the
exact number as all of them are not written but are orally transmitted,
both in India as well as in other Asian countries. A.K. Ramanujan has
argued that these different “tellings” – a term he
prefers to versions or variants as these imply an invariant or original
text – differ from one another. They are not mere divergences
from Valmiki’s rendering but entirely different tellings.
Highlighting the multivocal
existence of Rama Katha, Paula Richman has drawn attention to the many
Ramayanas, of which Valmiki’s composition is one, Tulsi’s
another, Kamban’s another, the Buddhist Jataka yet another and
the Jaina tradition yet another. Along with them, there are also innumerable
folk narratives, extant not only in India but also in almost all the
countries of Asia. They were not Valmiki’s Ramayana adapted to
local conditions but substantially different from one another, both
in form and content. In the Buddhist version, Rama and Sita are originally
brother and sister, a fact that once aroused the ire of the Sangh Parivar.
Women’s folksongs from
Andhra Pradesh challenge the accepted values of a male-dominated society
by questioning the integrity of Rama and foregrounding the theme of
the suffering that husbandly neglect causes a wife. Thus, the Rama Katha
prevalent in different communities is vastly different and defies any
attempt to identify a universally applicable text. All of them draw
upon locally specific cultural traits, which impart to them a distinct
character. Recent studies on different Rama Katha traditions demonstrate
the different tellings of Rama’s story that vary with regional
literary tradition, social location, gender, religious affiliation,
colonial context, intended audience, and so on.
K.R. Srinivasa Iyengar’s
edited work highlights the Asian variations of the Ramayana, and the
essays in the volume edited by Avadesh Kumar Singh focus on the way
the epic has found expression in regional languages. The many Ramayanas
connote that the events and incidents in the different versions of the
epic are not historical facts but mythical representations or literary
imaginations. The debate on whether the Ramayana is a true story or
whether Rama is a historical figure is, therefore, off the mark.
The issue of Ram Sethu requires
to be situated in the general context of the mythological character
of the Ramayana. The Sethu Bandhan encapsulates within it several qualities
of Rama and the character of the epic. Sethu Bandhan was a humanly impossible
task that was made possible only by the divine powers of Rama. The description
of Sethu Bandhan in one version of the Ramayana is as follows: “During
the first day of construction, monkeys laid a hundred and twenty miles
of rocks, which floated upon the ocean. They worked very swiftly, and
were happy to see the bridge take shape. The second day, they set down
a hundred and sixty miles of rocks; the third day, a hundred and sixty-eight
miles; and the fourth day, their strength increasing, they completed
a hundred and seventy-six miles. On the fifth and final day, the monkeys
constructed a hundred and eighty-four miles of bridge, up to Mount Suvala
on the northern shore of Lanka. Thus when the bridge was finished, it
was eighty miles wide and eight hundred miles long.”
Obviously, a vanar sena would
not have achieved this feat. The question, however, is not its possibility
or impossibility but how it enriches the mythical and divine quality
of Rama. Obviously Sethu Bandhan is a myth.
But then, when myths become
part of the belief system, they can be put to use for different purposes.
Nobody in India has understood this better than the Sangh Parivar as
is evident from the manner in which they have manipulated the myth and
history of Ayodhya. Ram Sethu is an opportunity they are unlikely to
let go of easily.
The distinction between history
and myth is well recognised. Myths are in a way the opposite of historical
facts, in the sense that, unlike historical facts, what constitutes
a myth is not verifiable. Despite this, myths and history cannot be
counterpoised as true and false.
In fact, myths also represent
reality but represent it symbolically and metaphorically. Yet, myth
masks reality. Therefore, myths are illusory representations of man
and his world. Given their illusory nature, myths may not help to unravel
the historicity of an event. Most myths are in a way timeless. Nevertheless,
myths being a reflection of reality constitute a source of historical
reconstruction and a means to understanding reality. Given this overlap,
myths are used for a variety of purposes. They often serve as an agency
of legitimisation, as in the case of Parasurama reclaiming land from
the sea. They may also be employed for explaining a natural phenomenon,
as in the case of Helios’ chariot in Greek mythology.
The use of myths has been
integral to the politics of the Sangh Parivar. Beginning with the movement
for the construction of the temple at Ayodhya, the Sangh Parivar has
been engaged in providing authenticity to various myths surrounding
the life of Rama. The central issue of the Ayodhya movement was the
identification of the exact birthplace of Rama, which was difficult
to ascertain owing to the lack of evidence. Local tradition identifies
Ayodhya through a popular myth, which runs as follows: “After
Treta Yuga when Ram was supposed to have been born Ayodhya could not
be located. While Vikramaditya was looking for Ayodhya, a saint told
him to leave a calf loose and the place at which the calf secreted milk
would be the place where Ayodhya was located. Vikramaditya did as he
was told, and where the calf secreted milk he located Ayodhya.”
This mythical story became the basis for the identification of Ayodhya
as well as the birthplace of Rama.
In the accounts given by
leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), the place of birth becomes
an indisputable fact of history. Following this identification, the
VHP accorded historical status to a series of myths. These include the
existence of the Ram temple at the site of the Babri Masjid and the
attempts by Hindus to reclaim the temple through 77 battles against
the Muslims in which 300,000 sacrificed their lives. These myths have
now become authentic histories; not only are they paraded as historical
facts, they have found place in textbooks as authentic history. Over
a period of time, many of these facts could become part of popular history
also.
The politics of the Sangh
Parivar is essentially irrational. The attempt to turn myth into history
and to use it for political advantage is rooted in irrationality. Now
that Ayodhya is no more a potent force, Ram Sethu has emerged as a possible
alternative. The Sangh Parivar is gearing up to exploit it. Would the
ruling establishment take a rational and scientific stand and not succumb
to the fear of the irrational?
K.N. Panikkar,
a former professor of history at Jawaharlal Nehru University and a former
vice-chancellor of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, is currently
the chairman of the Kerala Council for Historical Research.
Copyright © 2007, Frontline.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.