Dalit movement at the Cross Road

By V.B.Rawat

from Countercurrents.org

In June 2005, I saw a huge crowd of Madigas at the Nizam college ground sitting two days and demanding categorization of reservation meant for scheduled castes. There were rumors that the opposition Telugu Desham instigated this incident to divide the Dalit votes who have been supporting the Congress Party for long. Though, these charges may not be entirely ruled out yet those championing the cause of Dalits need to ponder over the situation as what has happened to the entire movement. Whether there was a Dalit movement or there were separate caste movement defending their own identities.


Dalit movement has a rich history of rationalism and humanism. In fact, the historical evolution took place with Buddha's revolt against Varnashram dharma. Buddha not only rejected supremacy of Brahmins but also of the Shastras. Sanskrit was the language of the Brahmins and knowledge their sole domain and Buddha not only demolished their knowledge base of Brahmins but also popularized among the masses by sermonizing in Prakrit.

And this tradition of revolt continued at the later stage also. All the indigenous reform movement and religions in India had inherently revolted against the Brahmanical value system, which gave divine sanction to untouchability and caste system. After Buddha, Mahavir Swami rejected the notion of caste and violence in the brahmanical structure. Even the birth of Sikhism is related to the caste prejudices rampant in varnashram dharma system. In the 15th century Kabir talked of rejection of caste system and talked of one God. He attacked rituals and Shastras and talked of a society based on equality.


Yet the brahmanical system continued by hook or by crook. The brahmanical literature degraded Dalits and talked very cleverly about the pre-birth theory. They promoted Gita which in return promoted not only violence but also caste system. The Brahmin intellectuals carefully planted their own people among Dalits to justify their position.

One is ashamed that even today we have gurus like Dronacharya who supported Varna Vywvastha and denied Eklavya, a Dalit to become the number one arch of his time. Accordingly, Dalits were not supposed to learn arms and only the Kshatriyas had a right to learn military training according to Varna Vyawastha. We could have accepted such norms in the primitive time and forgot about it but in the post independence India, the government followed it and formed not only Arjuna Award for best sports person but Dronacharya award for best coaches, indicating nothing has changed the mindset of our rulers. The result is that we have coaches like Dronacharya today who differentiate between their subjects and the condition is that our sports are in the worst shape.

While Mughal rule in India was a status quoits one, the emergence of British power made a lot of difference for the downtrodden people. They brought a sense of liberty for the marginalized communities. Jyoti Ba Phule belonged to Mali ( fishermen) community of Maharastra. Pune's Chitpawan Brahmin would not allow any Dalit and backward to join schools. Women and particularly of Dalit community could never dream of going to school. Phule realized that unless the community get educated they would not be able to emancipate themselves. So he started a massive work of education by starting various schools in and around Pune. The Brahmins opposed education movement among Dalits which they had denied for years. Phule exposed the brahamnical literature, wrote plays about the exploitation of the farmers and appreciated Christian missionaries for their noble work in school education.

Taking inspiration from Phule, Baba Saheb Dr Ambedkar also talked the importance of education. But education must be rationalists and reasonable. Education agitate our mind. It gives us thought about what, is good and what is bad. Hence Education is root of every movement. Agitation on certain thing is a uniting factor. It became the famous word of Ambedkar " Educate, agitate and organise'. Ambedkar was one of the tallest intellectuals of the country, a scholar who understood the crookedness of the Shastras. He was an iconoclast and questioned the very essence of Shastras. In his letters to Gandhi he says that we should amend Shastras because they talk of caste system. Gandhi said that we had to believe in Shastras if we want to call ourselves Hindu because if we challenge the very foundation of Hinduism, which is the Shastras, then we have no business in calling ourselves Hindu. In fact, this led to bitter dual between Ambedkar and Gandhi. Ambedkar not only said clearly that he was born as a Hindu but would not die as a Hindu.


Ambedkar read Gita and Ramayana and questioned the wisdom. He was among very few intellectuals of his time who never considered Rama and Krishna as idol for Indians. How can be a person who maltreat his wife, be considered an ideal man, he opined. Gita, he suggested, openly justify killing and Varnavyavastha. He cites example of Krishna's sermon to Arjuna when the latter refuses to attack his own brotherns and relatives, "Oh Arjuna, you are not killing them.. You are just killing their bodies, for soul is immortal, ever present. It cannot be burnt, neither could it be dried." Ambedkar wondered that if a person murder some one, if would be easier for his lawyer to make his presentation in the court saying my client has not killed any one. He just killed his body the soul is immortal. Are these arguments valid?

Ambedkar fought for the dignity of Dalits. The Hindu Varnavyavastha snatched the dignity from Dalits. It degraded labour. The person who works hard to earn his bred was considered lowest while the Brahmins with their narrow minded tainted vision became 'Bhoodevatas', gods on the earth. The bloodsucking Gods had inherently anti Dalit bias. So angry was Ambedkar with the Hindu law book, which he considered as the source of caste system and discrimination against Daltis in India that he launched a movement against it.


On December 25th, 1927, Ambedkar launched a Satygrah in Mahad town of Maharastra for the water rights of Dalits and against the Manu Smriti. He burnt Manu Smriti terming it a document of discrimination with a number of his supporters. It was an act of great courage to do so in the den of violent Chitpawan Brahmins in Maharastra.

It is interesting that Ambedkar fought for the rights of Dalits and had a broader vision forhis community. Unfortunately, when he started thinking of giving them a vision in 1955, he died. It was time when he embraced Buddhism and gave them an identity. Many people question Ambedkar's motivation to embrace Buddhism. Ambedkar has his own definition of Buddhism. He wanted his people to give an identity so that they get out of Varna System. Whatever we say, as long as we are a part of the Varna Vyawastha, whatever we do reflect our caste identities. Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar, all, wanted their followers to be provocative and proactive. Reject caste system and for that complete break up from the Hindu social order and embrace a better system.

Ambedkar wrote many thing over a period of 30 years. Some time he was living in deep anguish, elsewhere working with the government or framing constition and at the end as a Buddhist. And on each of these occasions he had different moods. There was a time when he became frustrated with the Varnavyavastha and he tore the Shastras. Then a time came when Ambedkar's main concern was to ensure fare participation of Dalits in political life of the country and he succeeded in getting separate electorate for them which he had to withdraw to 'save' the life of Gandhi, in 1932, known as Poona Pact. Then as a constitutionalist when he drafted constitution and later worked very hard to ensure fare deal for women in the Hindu Code Bill. In the last phase of his life when Baba Saheb embraced Buddhism, his main concern was providing a political alternative to Dalits.


It is also interesting to note that that Dr Ambedkar was a humanist to the core of his heart. Even when his so-called followers have converted him as a caste man or narrowly interpreted his ideologies and perception, Ambedkar could be termed an international humanist. A person who the persecuted all over the world today look to get inspiration. The narrow minded political fringes in the name of Dalit vision should think that Ambedkar first formed Indian Labour Party and later Republican Party of India and at no point of time he formed vision based on caste. Even on his 'thought on Pakistan' Ambedkar suggested that there should a party representing poor Hindus and poor Muslims, entirely secular, only that could save India. Muslim communalism only feed Hindu communalism.


Very unfortunately Dr Ambedkar's untimely death paralyzed the entire Dalit movement. His followers went to different streams. There are so many Republican Party of India that it is difficult who can we call as original party. The Ambedkarite movement (if it ever was), remained confined to 'Sarkari babu log', who will throng the parliament street in Delhi or Diksha bhoomi in Nagpur on December 6th and April 14th every year. It looked Ambedkar never spoke beyond reservation and varnya vyavastha. His writings of 30s were used more then the writings in the later stage perhaps to gain political leverages but that had hurt the movement.


While there is no denying fact that Ambedkar's popularity among the Dalits is not due to the 'Sarkari Babu Log' but the poor Dalits who consider him his emancipator. But hate campaign in the name of Ambedkar are uncalled for. There are many reasons for the same. Ambedkar is a uniting factor for Dalits. No doubt that he has become an icon from North to South from Hindi heartland to the southern Tamilnadu. To be frank, Ambedkar's reach to areas beyond his traditional domain is not just spreading of his ideology but using him as point of entry to gain a separate political status by the elite Dalit groups.


The worst fact is the Ambedkar is mainly known among the working class Dalits and enlightened and numerically powerful communities like Mahars in Maharastra, Chamars and Jatavs in the North India, Namshudras in West Bengal, Malas in Andhra and a few others in Tamilnadu. While Mahars hold sway in Maharastra and the Jatavs and Chamars outnumber any other community in the north contributed fairly to Ambedkarisation process. That helped people under the banner of
Bahujan Political Party which used it as a vehicle to spread its wing.


When Mayawati became the chief minister of Uttar-Pradesh, analyists mistook it as a great revolution in the Dalits of Uttar-Pradesh. The fact of the matter is while it may be proudly said that a Dalit woman
became chief minister of Uttar-Pradesh and that every Dalit felt proud of her being there at the chair yet the fact of Mayawati's ascendancy to Lucknow's thrown are different then what we perceive. They have very little to do with Ambedkar's movement and more to do with Mayawati's Chamar caste.


The Chamar consolidation behind Mayawati ensured that she has an important role to play in Uttar-Pradesh. While it gave Mayawati a substantial chunk of seats in Uttar-Pradesh and increased her bargaining capabilities, it made her vulnerable also. For the past two decade no government in UP got to work full terms of five years. Mayawati's on tally in the assembly could never reached beyond 25% of the total seats of the assembly. Mulayam Singh Yadav has the same status quo situation. Both have realized that their respective vote bank remain in their pocket and will not ditch them however both now think to go beyond their traditional vote banks and are now flirting with the Brahmins and Thakurs. So the narrow Dalit politicisation in UP has also resulted in increasing power of the Brahmins and Thakurs being wooed by both the SP and BSP. This is an unfortunate trend being followed everywhere. The reason for this is the politics of power in the villages.


BSP's over dependence on Chamars and a few other communities antagonized the other dalit communities, Mulyam Singh dependence on Yadavs and Thakurs also created problems for other backward communities and the need was to involve all the oppressed Dalits and backward together. This experiment of UP was sought to be taken elsewhere by disgruntled Ambedkarite who started crying foul on Periyar. Simply because the Dravidian parties are not taking them into consideration does not make a case to say that Periyar was anti Dalit.


This irony of the Dalits movement is that it has not resolved its own contradictions because Ambedkar is used as tool to hit at others and not resolve our own contradictions. Ambedkar's use is condemning
brahmanical literature and values is no doubt useful in bringing people together but his positive writing for an alternative vision need to reestablished. It is easier to unite the communities on agitational mode against some one but very difficult to manage it when you get power or share in power. Dalits are facing it now. The elite Dalit groups who enjoyed reservation and power now refuse to accept this reality that those living in villages, living as landless, powerless without participation in political life are to be catered. They have no emotion other then selling Ambedkar's portrait and their own self. Today, this growing chasm between different Dalit group is just not an upper caste ploy but their own contradiction. In politics every opponent is ready to hit you when you are weak. Dalit movement failed to resolved many issues important to it and now face flak from all over.


The politics of identity never helps. The Dalits vision is to fight against hegemonies but in this process of breaking hegemonies, if we create our own hegemonies then the movement will break. In our efforts to break brahmanical hegemonies we created hegemonies in our own self and therefore Valmikis ( Swachchkars), Madigas, Kuhmhars, Mangs and hundreds of other communities ask question for their fare representation. And a typical elite answer is that they have been allured by the upper castes. But the fact of the matter is that there is a wide gap between the numerically powerful communities in Dalits and the minorities.

The irony of the entire movement is that rather then working on the collective wisdom, the movement though claim to work for all communities, has by and large remain confined to a few individuals who used their community identity to gain the political clout. The Ambedkarite movement rarely talk of violence and violation of human rights. Their obsession with Manu Smriti and Hindu Gods to joke at took a perverted turn as one of the major problem that the Dalits face is to get acknowledgement from the caste Hindus. That a majority of Dalits despite all the facts, go the temples of the Brahmins and follow the same rituals. But these issues are seldom addressed in true sense. They are used as a rhetoric to lumpen the brahmanical system. The system will not go unless we want to get rid of it. The reason for not raising the issue of violence of Dalits is that many 'intellectual' feel 'uncomfortable' on this issue as they used their identity to get the entry into the media and would talk of 'philosophy'. Today, the same intellectuals have left all the work of the brahmanical system and now target the backward communities.


Why has the Dalit movement changed its track from anti brahmanical campaign to anti backward campaign? And as I mentioned earlier, it has nothing to do with social movement which we all need to secularise and democratize our societies. The entire campaign is a power game. In this power game no body want to leave anything for others. In these power games we don't talk of philosophy. No doubt the backwards have become radical Hindutva people and have physically hit the Dalits and there is a need to draw a line. Like a few Dalit powerful communities, there are few backward powerful communities. The fight between a powerful Dalit community and a powerful backward community cannot be allowed to create a permanent rift between two groups. It has to be seen that the categorization of castes into backwards and schedule castes had its own flaws. There are oppressed backward communities which should have been in the Scheduled castes.

The non ambedkarite groups, mainly the NGOs, self-styled civil society people don't talk of philosophy. They bring a bundle of individual cases and weep all the time that Dalits are beaten up. One should remember that no movement can succeed without a philosophy and there would be no takers for a philosophy unless it is popularized in the movements.


So issue of a broader secular democratic Dalit movement and atrocities on Dalits need to be worked at the same level. Narrowing Ambedkar's vision to a limited people and communities will damage the entire Dalit movement. Dalit movement is at the crossroad and need various answers.

I for all purposes, consider Ambedkar one of the tallest intellectual, a human rights defender and a humanist. For all his life he never accepted the finality of the religious text, questioned them and even burnt them. Secondly, he was a truly democrat, not a caste-ist and worked over time to talk about labour and women. Ambedkar has been misquoted by every interest groups. The upper castes, the Muslims, the Christians and the Sikhs every one has quoted Ambedkar for their own purposes. He embraced Buddhism on his own interpretations and noton the interpretations of any religious guru. He redefined it and probably would have given it the new meaning had he survived some more
years.


Ambedkar wonderfully exposed the religious myths attached to Dalits. He tore apart the fundamentals put forward by the Brahmins in their holy texts. But at the same point of time one need to understand Ambedkar fully when he decided to embrace Buddhism with millions of Dalits. Ambedkar's genuine anti Brahmin or anti varna sentiments got exploited by the religious groups for the purpose of prosiletisation. Embracing any tradition or religion is the fundamental right of an individual but the fact remain that where does it help Dalits as an institution. When we challenge the institutions of holy religious text, question their finality and even burnt them when we feel they go against humanity, is it possible that we have the same elsewhere? Dalits have every reason to believe and tear apart the Hindu verna vyavastha but should they keep quiet when the other faiths also become tormentors? Should they not support those who are victims of their own faiths? If I like ' Why I am not a Hindu', I am sure we should not forget the cry of legendary Bertrand Russell long ago who wrote " Why I am not a Christian' and a few years back another fellow came up with resounding ' why I am not a Muslim'. Faiths have always been like that. They thrive on miracles and mischief.


If Rama and his brothers were mocked by Ambedkar about how they were born, similar is the case of Christ. It is no point blaming one and keeping quiet on others. Today's favorite things are blame game. A progressive Dalit movement cannot stand on the selective criticism of a few religious texts and conspicuously keeping quiet on other. A movement cannot be build on superfluous philosophy of negativism. It has to provide its own alternative to the people. Dalits have their own distinct identity and culture and those claiming to provide them an alternative God really misquote Ambedkar and kill their revolutionary spirit as suggested by many Dalit activists.

The high voltage of political power among Dalits in Uttar-Pradesh is due to its politicization process while the religious conversion has made them apolitical. The tribals in India became the victim of this
apolitical process by NGOs and religious groups going there and taking over the leadership.


The result was the tribals remain isolated and exploited. Dalits on the other side remained politically mobile and hence their leadership took over and negotiated in their own terms and conditions. There is another fact that the number of so-called NGOs among Dalits in South is more then what we imagined in the north but the account of political power in the Dalits in the North is much higher then the South. And this is the process of turning them apolitical and more religious ultimately resulted in their exploitation. In the south the conversion process was higher then the North. The Chamars and Jatavs of Uttar Pradesh rarely converted. They always claimed to be Buddhists. In Maharastra, the Mahars became neo Buddhists and the awareness level among them was superb. Buddhism did not take away their politicization process initiated by Dr Ambedkar but the conversion to other faiths actually made them apolitical resulting in more exploitation.


Ambedkar's legacy is very rich and need to be protected by us all. Dalit movement itself is a revolt against the obnoxious brahmanical values but at the same point of time, should express solidarity with all oppressed masses of the world. The movement should build bridges with likeminded groups, secular and democratic organizations, and avoid becoming another cult group. It should broaden its ideas and perception and reach those masses where it has not reached. It should avoid becoming politically correct. Identity will never work and those who have harped thesis of ' I ' only speak for them and nobody else has a business to speak for or on behalf of Dalits should resist such things. Nobody speaks for others.


We all speak our own perception. We should avoid such hyperbole that I speak for my entire community. I speak for my philosophy and experience. Because if identities are our point of speaking then one should remember Dalits are not a homogeneous community. In fact no community in the world is homogeneous. They are as wide as any body else and hence these identities fits in there also. So if this theory of Dalit speak for Dalit is used, then the why should we accept western whites to speak for the Dalits. What prompts the Christians and Muslims to speak for the Dalits after all they have their own history of exploitation everywhere. Why should a Chamar speak for a Valmiki or Mala speak for Madiga ? And above all, why should a Dalit male speak for Dalit
female?


Tsunami discrimination against Dalits showed that how things take a dangerous if you make a community apolitical. Our political masters want them to be apolitical. But like them the agenda supported and furnished by the religious groups also end up in nothing. Dalits remained pitiable condition in Tamilnadu and Pondicherry. Their leaders were complaining outside India to the UN and to the Church while the ground level the higher ups among the backward communities ganging up against them. In fact the fishermen who happened to be Christians also refused to eat along with their fellow Christian Dalits. Why did the issue not become a hot issue accept a few headlines. We should have taken head on the prejudiced system. A religious community cannot fight a democratic battle. If we want to compare ourselves with the history of strong movements for civil rights by the blacks in the US, we will have to study the politicization process of the blacks, their fights for the right and broad spectrum of the movement. Moreover, the reach and ideological perspective of the movement were very clear. They revolve around more on the issues of human rights, civil liberties and attracted a very wide range of activists all over the US while the irony of the Dalit movement is that it remains more on the books, with the elite castes and with the organized sector and very little is done for the people sitting on the margin, in the villages.


These are dangerous and superficial ideas by those who have done little for their work. A movement based on negativism will never work. Identities have served the pocket of political masters and their 'intellectual' chums. They will not help the minorities among the marginalized. They are not based on democracy and participation. They are the collective ego of the powerful elite among them. A movement san respect for individual and without a corrective philosophy would not work. Dalits have their own cultural values and system, a system which need to explored and new values added to them. It is time for us to provide our own democratic secular progressive vision and rather then just work on an agitation mode forever.

We need to introspect and bring the last man into our mainstream, otherwise these contradiction are powerful enough to destroy the legacy of a powerful man, named as Ambedkar. If we consider ourselves grateful to his legacy, time has come to redefine the Dalit movement .

The Riddle Of Rama And Sita

Quoted from: Appendix No.1 of Part 3 of the book
Riddles of Hinduism 1995
By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar

Ravana was a Buddhist and considered by Dalits as a great hero. He did so much for Sita, who herself had praised Ravana. But the Hindu scriptures have called him a Rakshasa attributing all evils to him. Not only that. Every year during the Ram lila. Ravana is burnt. Dalits have tolerated all of this. They have also tolerated the Ramayana TV serial ridiculing their other tribal hero, Hanuman, as a monkey.
The Riddles in Hinduism is a scholarly work by the greatest intellectual of India, though an Untouchable. The text of his writings on Rama and Krishna are based on Hindu scriptures.

THE RIDDLE OF RAMA AND KRISHNA

Rama is the hero of the Ramayana whose author is Valmiki. The story of the Ramayana is a very short one. Besides it is simple and in itself there is nothing sensational about it.

Rama is the son of Dasharatha, the king of Ayodhya, the modern Banares. Dasharatha had three wives, Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra besides several hundred concubines. Kaikeyi had married Dasharatha on terms which were at the time of marriage unspecified and which Dasharatha was bound to fulfill whenever he was called upon by Kaikeyi to do so.

Dasharatha was childless for a long time. An heir to the throne was ardently desired by him. Seeing that he was unable to have a son with any of his three wives he decided to perform a Putreshti Yajna and called the sage Shrung at the sacrifice who prepared pandas and gave the three wives of Dasharatha to eat them. After they ate the pandas the three wives became pregnant and gave birth to sons. Kausalya gave birth to Rama, Kaikeyi gave birth to Bharatha and Sumitra gave birth to two sons, Laxman and Satrughana. In due course Rama was married to Sita.

When Rama came of age, Dasharatha thought of resigning the throne in favour of Rama and retiring from kingship. While this was being settled Kaikeyi raised the question of rendering her satisfaction of the terms on which she had married Dasharatha. On being asked to state her terms she demanded that her son Bharata should be installed on the throne in preference to Rama and that Rama should live in the forest for 12 years. Dasharatha, with great reluctance, agreed. Baharata became king of Ayodhya and Rama accompanied by his wife Sita and his step brother Laxman went to live in the forest.

Ravana, the king of Lanka, kidnapped Sita and took her away and kept her in his palace intending to make her one of his wives. Rama and Laxman than started search of Sita. On the way they meet Sugriva and Hanuman, two leading personages of the Vanara (monkey) race and formed friendship with them. With their help they marched on Lanka, defeated Ravana in the battle and rescued Sita. Rama returned with Laxman and Sita to Ayodhya. By the time twelve years had elapsed and the term prescribed by Kaikeyi was fulfilled, with the result that Bharata gave up the throne and in his place Rama became the king of Ayodhya.

Such is the brief outline of the story of the Ramayana as told by Valmiki.

There is nothing in this story to make Rama the object of worship. He is only a dutiful son. But Valmiki saw something extraordinary in Rama and that is why he undertook to compose the Ramayana. Valmiki asked Narada the following question:

Tell me Oh! Narada, who is the most accomplished man on earth at the present time?" And then he goes on to elaborate what he means by accomplished man. He defines his accomplished man as:

"Powerful, one who knows the secret of religion, one who knows gratitude, truthful, one who is ready to sacrifice his self interest even when in distress to fulfill a religious vow, virtuous in his conduct, eager to safeguard the interests of all, strong, pleasing in appearance with power of self-control, able to subdue anger, illustrious, with no jealousy for the prosperity of others, and in war able to strike terror in the hearts of Gods."

Narada then asks for time to consider and after mature deliberation tells him that the only person who can be said to possess these virtues is Rama, the son of Dasharatha.

It is because of his virtues that Rama has come to be defied. But is Rama a worthy personality of deification? Let those who accept him as an object of worship as a God consider the following facts:

Rama's birth is miraculous and it may be that the suggestion that he was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is an allegorical gloss to cover up the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung, although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife. In any case his birth, if not disreputable in its origin, is certainly unnatural.

There are other incidents connected with the birth of Rama the unsavory character of which it will be difficult to deny.

Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu, and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha. The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu be a complete success, arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him. There were none existing then.

The Gods agreed to carry out the command to Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against Apsaras who were prostitutes, not only against the unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras and produced the Vanaras who became the associates of Rama.

Rama's birth is thus accompanied by general debauchery if not in his case certainly in the case of his associates. His marriage to Sita is not above comment. According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha. The Ramayana of Valmiki does not agree with the relationship mentioned in Buddha Ramayana. According to Valmiki, Sita was the daughter of the king Janaka of Videha and therefore not a sister of Rama. This is not convincing for even according to Valmiki she is not the natural born daughter of Janaka but a child found by a farmer in his field while ploughing it and was presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janaka. It was therefore in a superficial sense that Sita could be said to be daughter of Janaka.

The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules of marriage. If the story is true, then Rama's marriage to Sita is no ideal to be copied.

In another sense Rama's marriage was not an ideal marriage which could be copied. One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common. For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers to the many wives of Rama. These were of course in addition to his many concubines. In this he was the true son of his nominal father Dasharatha who had not only the wives referred to above but many others.

Let us next consider his character as an individual and as a king.

In speaking of him as an individual, I will refer to only two incidents - one relating to his treatment of Vali and other relating to his treatment of his own wife Sita. First, let us consider the incident of Vali.

Vali and Sugriva were two brothers. They belonged to the Vanar race and came from a ruling family, which had its own kingdom the capital of which was Kishkindha. At the time when Sita was kidnapped by Ravana, Vali was reigning at Kishkindha. While Vali was on the throne he was engaged in a war with a Rakshasa by name Mayavi. In the personal combat between the two, Mayavi ran for his life. Both Vali and Sugriva pursued him. Mayavi entered into a deep cavity in the earth. Vali asked Sugriva to wait at the mouth of the cavity and he went inside. After sometime a flood of blood came from inside the cavity. Sugriva concluded that Vali must have been killed by Mayavi and came to Kishkindha and got himself declared king in place of Vali and made Hanuman his Prime Minister.

As a matter of fact, Vali was not killed. It was Mayavi who was killed by Vali. Vali came out of the cavity but did not find Sugriva there. He proceeded to Kishkindha and to his great surprise he found that Sugriva had proclaimed himself king. Vali naturally became enraged at this act of treachery on the part of his brother Sugriva and he had good ground to be. Sugriva should have ascertained, should not merely have assumed, that Vali was dead. Secondly, Vali had a son by name Angad whom Sugriva should have made the king as the ligitimate heir of Vali. He did neither of the two things. His was a clear case of usurpation. Vali drove out Sugriva and took back the throne. The two brothers became mortal enemies.

This occurred just after Ravana had kidnapped Sita. Rama and Laxman were wandering in search of her. Sugriva and Hanuman were wandering in search of friends who could help them regain the throne from Vali. The two parties met quite accidentally. After informing each other of their difficulties, a pact was arrived at between the two. It was agreed that Rama should help Sugriva to kill Vali and to establish him on the throne of Kishkinda. On the part of Sugriva and Hanuman it was agreed that they should help Rama to regain Sita. To enable Rama to fulfill his part of the pact it was planned that Sugriva should wear a garland around his neck as to be easily distinguishable to Rama from Vali and that while the duel was going on Rama should conceal himself behind a tree and then shoot an arrow at Vali and kill him. Accordingly a duel was arranged, Sugriva with a garland around his neck, while the duel was on, Rama, standing behind a tree, shot Vali with his arrow and opened the way for Surgiva to be the king of Kiskinda.

This murder of Vali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama. It was a crime which was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was a most cowardly act, for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.

Consider his treatment of his own wife Sita. With the army collected for him by Sugriva and Hanuman, Rama invades Lanka. There too he plays the same mean part as he did between the two brothers, Vali and Sugriva. He takes the help of Vibhishana, the brother of Ravana, promising him to kill Ravana and his son and place him on the vacant throne. Rama kills Ravana and his son Indrajit. The first thing Rama does after the fight was to give a descent burial to the dead body of Ravana. Thereafter he interested himself in the coronation of Vibhishana and it was after the coronation that he sends Hanuman to Sita to inform her that he, Laxman and Sugriva have killed Ravana.

Even when the coronation was over he did not go himself but he sent Hanuman. And what was the message he sent him with? He did not ask Hanuman to bring her. He asked him to inform her that he was hale and hearty. It was Sita who expressed to Hanuman her desire to see Rama. Rama did not go to see Sita, his own wife who was kidnapped and confined by Ravana for more than 10 months. Sita went to him and what did Rama say to Sita when he saw her? It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address his wife in such dire distress as Ram did to Sita when he met her at Lanka if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki. This is how Rama addressed het:

"I have got you as a prize in a war after conquering my enemy, your captor. I have recovered my honour and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military powers and I am glad my labours have been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonour. I did not take this trouble for your sake."

Could there be anything more cruel than this conduct of Rama towards Sita? He does not stop there. He proceeded to tell her:

"I suspect your conduct. You must have been spoiled by Ravana. Your very sight is revolting to me. Oh you daughter of Janaka! I allow you to go anywhere you like. I have nothing to do with you. I conquered you back and I am content for that was my object. I cannot think that Ravana would have failed to enjoy a woman as beautiful as you are."

Quite naturally Sita calls Rama low and mean and tells him quite plainly that she would have committed suicide and saved him all this trouble if when Hanuman first came he had sent her a message that he had abandoned her on the ground that she was kidnapped. To give him no excuse Sita undertakes to prove her purity. She enters the fire and comes out unscathed. The Gods satisfied with this evidence, proclaim that she is pure. It is then that Rama agrees to take her back to Ayodhya.

And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya? Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama. It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen, Sita conceived. Seeing that she was carrying some residents of evil disposition began to calumniate Sita suggesting that she was in Lanka and blaming Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife. This malicious gossip in the town was reported by Bhadra, the Court joker, to Rama. Rama evidently was stung by this calumny. He was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace. This is quite natural. What is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace. To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means - namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice - in a most treacherous manner. There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to ram on the spur of the moment. The genesis of the idea, the developing of it and the plan of executing are worth some detailed mention.

When Bhadra reports to him the gossip about Sita which had spread in the town, Rama calls his brothers and tells them of his feelings. He tells them Sita's purity and chastity was proved in Lanka, that Gods had vouched for it and that he absolutely believed in her innocence, purity and chastity. "All the same the public are calumniating Sita and are blaming me and putting me to shame. No one can tolerate such disgrace. Honour is a great asset; Gods as well as great men strive to maintain it. I cannot bear this dishonour and disgrace. To save myself from such dishonour and disgrace I shall be ready even to abandon you. Don't think I shall hesitate to abandon Sita."

This shows that he was making up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without considering whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame. He of course does not take the manly course of defending his wife and stopping the gossip, which as a king he could have done and which as a husband who was convinced of his wife's innocence he was supposed to do. He yielded to the public gossip and there are not wanting Hindus who use this as ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king when others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch. Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brother but not to Sita, the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action. Eventually the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Women who are carrying exhibit all sorts of cravings for all sorts of things. Rama knew of this. So one day he asked Sita if there was anything for which she was craving. She replied that she would like to live in the vicinity of the Ashrama of a sage on the bank of the river Ganges and live on fruits and roots at least for one night. Rama simply jumped at the suggestion of Sita and said, "Be easy my dear, I shall see that you are sent there tomorrow". Sita treats this as an honest promise. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying out his plan of abandoning Sita. Accordingly he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use this desire of Sita as the opportunity to carry out the plan of abandoning her. He tells his brothers not to intercede on behalf of Sita, and warns them that if they came in his way he would look upon them as his enemies. Then he tells Laxman to take Sita in a chariot next day to the Ashram in the jungle on the bank of the river Ganges and to abandon her there. Laxman did not know how he could muster courage to tell Sita what was decided by Rama. Sensing his difficulty Rama informs Laxman that Sita had already expressed her desire to spend some time in the vicinity of an Ashram on the bank of the river and eased the mind of Laxman. This confabulation took place at night. Next morning Laxman asked Sumanta to yoke the horses to the chariot. Sumanta informs Laxman of having already done so. Laxman then goes into the palace and meets Sita and reminds her of her having expressed the desire to pass some days in the vicinity of an Ashrama and Rama having promised to fulfill the same and tells her of his having been charged by Rama to do the needful in the matter. He points to her the chariot waiting there and says, "Let us go!" Sita jumps into the chariot with her heart full of gratitude to Rama. With Laxman as her companion and Sumanta as coachman, the chariot proceeds to its appointed place. At last, they were on the bank of the Ganges and were ferried across by the fishermen. Laxman fell at Sita's feet, and with hot tears flowing from his eyes he said, "Pardon me, O, blameless queen, for what I am doing. My orders are to abandon you here, for the people blame Rama for keeping you in his house".

Sita, abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle, went for shelter to the Ashrama of Valmiki, which was near about. Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time, Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava. The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule. Never once in those 12 years this 'model husband and loving father' cared to inquire what had happened to Sita - whether she was living or whether she was dead. Twelve years after Rama meets Sita in a strange manner. Rama decided to perform a Yagna and issued an invitation to all the Rishis to attend and take part. For reasons best known to Rama himself no invitation was issued to Valmiki although his Ashram was near to Ayodhya. But Valmiki came to the Yagna of his own accord accompanied by the two sons of Sita introducing them as his disciples. While the Yagna was going on the two boys were used to perform recitations of Ramayana in the presence of the Assembly. Rama was very pleased and made inquiries, and he was informed that they were the sons of Sita. It was then he remembered Sita and what does he do then? He does not send for Sita. He calls these innocent boys who knew nothing about their parents' sin, who were the only victims of a cruel destiny, to tell Valmiki that if Sita was pure and chaste she could present herself in the Assembly to take a vow and thereby remove the calumny cast against herself and himself. This is a thing she had once done in Lanka. This is a thing she could have been asked to do again before she was sent away. There was no promise that after this vindication of her character Rama was prepared to take her back. Valmiki brings her to the Assembly. When she was in front of Rama, Valmiki said, "O, son of Dashratha, here is Sita whom you abandoned in consequence of public disapprobation. She will now swear her purity if permitted by you. Here are your twin-born sons raised up by me in my hermitage". "I know", said Rama, "that Sita is pure and that these are my sons. She performed an ordeal in Lanka in proof of her purity and therefore I took her back. But people here have doubts still, and let Sita perform an ordeal here that all these Rashis and people may witness it".

With eyes cast down on the ground and with hands folded Sita swore "As I never thought out of anyone except Rama even in my mind, let mother Earth open and bury me. As I always loved Rama in words, in thoughts, and in deed, let mother Earth open and bury me!" As she uttered the oath, the earth verily opened and Sita was carried away inside seated on a golden simhasana (throne). Heavenly flowers fell on Sita's head while the audience looked on as in a trance.

That means that Sita preferred to die rather than return to Rama who had behaved no better than a brute.
Such is the tragedy of Sita and the crime of Rama the God.
Let me throw some search light on Rama the King.

Rama is held out as an ideal King. But can that conclusion be said to be found in fact?

As a matter of fact Rama never functions as a king. He was a normal King. The administration, as Valmiki, states, was entrusted to Bharata, his brother. He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and subjects.

Valmiki has very minutely described the daily life of Rama after he became King. According to that accounts, the day was divided into two parts, up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion. The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana. Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana. There Rama used to tale his meals. The food, according to Valmiki, consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a 'Prince among women's men'. This was not a day's affair. It was a regular course of his life.

As has already been said Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them. Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately the occasion turned out to be a tragic one. He took upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded.

The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka, the Shudra. It is said by Valmiki that in Rama's reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman's son died in a premature death. The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king's palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm, and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it; and finally threatened to end his life there by sitting on a dharana (hunger-strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life. Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis, and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law), for according to it, the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the "twice-born". Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy.

So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit. At last, in a wild region far away to the south he espied a man practicing rigorous austerity of a certain kind. He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by name Sambuka who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head. And lo and behold! At that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again. Here in the wilds the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform. They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed. Rama thence proceeded to the Ashrama, which was nearby, of the sage Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka, and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital.

Such is Rama.