Predictably Unpredictable II

What happens to that reputation now! He is at the feet of someone who really hates him. Only a perverted hysteric can be this unpredictable…

‘Accept me as your slave, have mercy on me!’ so saying Ravana did the most unexpected thing. The mammoth egotist who stood there moments ago vanished into thin air. His pride shrunk to thinner than the thinnest of threads. He fell at the feet of Sita.

‘kudimai mUndru ulagum seym kotraththu en adimai kOdi,’ Here, accept me, who has established my kingdom in all the three worlds, as your slave. ‘aruLudhiyaal.’ Have mercy on me. ‘mudiyin meedhu mugizhththu uyar kaiyinnan,’ His hands went over his heads, so saying. ‘padiyin mEl vizhundhanan,’ He fell on the ground (at the feet of Sita) ‘pazhi paarkkalaan.’ (There is no wonder he did so for) he was not mindful of the disgrace that his act would bring to him.

Shocking! Is that not so? One has to place oneself in the position of Sita to understand the extent of harassment and suffering that this act would have caused in her mind. Our custom is to bless the person who falls at our feet. We observe this as a matter of tradition. The younger generation that falls at the feet expresses its respect and the elders whose hearts melt at this, happily bless them. What would Sita do now? What was she, far, far younger to Ravana to do now!

But for Ravana, that was simply nothing. It was not disgrace for him. It was just another strategy. He must have anticipated all this even as he reached the Asoka Vana. And that must be the reason why the celestial maidens who, accompanied him till they reached the spot where Sita was imprisoned, withdrew and moved away. ‘aayidai arakkan arambayar kuzhuvum allavum vEru agala, mEyinan…’ Ravana reached there while the maidens and other withdrew… That obviously was an instruction. They cannot take a step either closer or far away without the nod of their master, Ravana!

Emotional blackmailing. That’s what we call such an act now. Just think over and recall the style of his opening words! And compare that with what he is doing now! Who could have anticipated such a turn! Valmiki gives us a similar portrayal in the first interview, moments after his arrival in Lanka.

“These tender soles (of yours) are being lovingly pressed with my heads. Show (your) grace to me at once; I am your obedient servant. Let not these words uttered by me pining from love fall flat (on your ears). It is well-known that Ravana salutes any woman whatsoever with his head bent low.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto LV, Sloka 35-36)

The golden-knot of Kamban is untied here. Right on the first scene when Ravana is introduced in Aranya Kanda, he makes one point. ‘maadhar valiya nedum pulaviyilum vaNangaadha maguda nirai’ is the attribute by which he presents Ravana to us for the first time. Our society, as evidenced by all classic and devotional literature, has accepted this ‘falling at the feet’ in a most personal circumstance, namely to please her during the ‘mock resentment’ when in wooing. Ravana is said to be so hard-hearted as not to stoop even at such a time. And what happens to that reputation now! He is at the feet of someone who really hates him. He is begging for her love. And he has fallen at her feet. Only a perverted hysteric can be this unpredictable.

Mountain Slighted by a Flower

When she retaliates, she does so very beautifully. “Interposing a blade of grass between herself and Ravana when spoken to as aforesaid…

A person who does not hesitate to stoop to the level of falling at someone’s feet should be expected to have done it either out of respect or out of love, as discussed in our last posting. It was neither out of respect nor out of love that Ravana did this. It was more out of impulse and running short of any other options to bring Sita to his way that he adopted this emotional blackmailing. Sita was not moved at all. ‘kalodum thodarndha nenjam kaRpin mEl kaNdadhu uNdO?’ she retorted. My will is as strong as the stone. And for me there is nothing stronger than my faultless chastity (to hold on to).

When she retaliates, she does so very beautifully. “Interposing a blade of grass between herself and Ravana when spoken to as aforesaid, Sita (a princess of Videha territory) for her part, emaciated as she was through grief, fearlessly replied…” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto LVI, Sloka 1)

She took a blade of grass, threw it before her and addressed it instead of looking at Ravana and speaking to him. She conveys to him by this act that she would not look at him because he is not worth even a glance; she also ensures that he understands that she equates him with a worthless piece of a blade of grass, that too, plucked from the ground and whose life has thus been ended; and above all, she very clearly communicates her determination not to look at him even for answering. Addressing a blade of grass clearly shows that she avoided looking at him not out of fear but out of contempt.

‘sol idhu theriyak kEtti thurumbu! enak kanandru sonnaaL’ Listen to my word you nitwit, you worthless scum, she retorted in anger. Her detailed answer, taking the words of Ravana point by point and breaking them, proving them wrong brings out not only the strength of her intellect but the strength of her character as well. ‘You blabber that you plucked the Mount Kailash from its very roots and boast that you overpowered the elephants that guard the cardinal points. ‘silai eduththu iLayavan nirkka, sErndhilai.’ But then if you are so very strong, you did not arrive till Lakshmana left the hermitage. You waited for him to leave my presence. That so very amply shows the material that you are made of! Is that insult not sufficient for you? ‘thalai eduththu innamum magalir thaazhdhiyO?’ As if that is not sufficient you are falling at the feet of women!

‘Falling at the feet of women,’ hits out at the motive behind Ravana’s act of doing so and not at the action. This has to be understood carefully, for otherwise it may lead to interpretations from many other angles. The answer of Sita would more appropriately be dealt with and studied later when we see Sita. The person who went to the extent of effacing his own personality and placing his head at the feet of Sita proves that he is volatile once again. His total personality changes once again. He is infuriated. The real Ravana comes out now. He is ashamed that Sita hit him so very hard. The mountain slighted by a flower!

‘piLandhu thinbEn endru udanranan’ In his anger he cried ‘I will slice her down and gobble her.’ ‘peyarndhanan peyaraan.’ He took a step towards Sita with that end in mind. But he retraced his step. ‘kiLarndha seetramum kaadhalum edhir edhir kidaippa.’ He was pulled in opposite directions by his anger and the lust (I would prefer this word here, instead of love) that engulfed him.

Pride or prejudice?

Was his love for Sita so very intense? Or was his desire for her grew like forest fire that consumed him in the end, just because he was not able to accept the fact…

This kind of an impulsive act became a routine for Ravana. He could not but place his head at the feet of Mythili, every time. It must have been gossiped about among the lower rungs. In the war council that Ravana convenes after Lanka is set fire by Hanuman and rebuilt, Ravana, as is wont of him tries to whip up passions. He sees the act of Hanuman as a challenge to the Rakshasa pride; as a shame on the entire race. A mere monkey could walk into their highly guarded country, converse with someone who is imprisoned, kill their kith and kin in large numbers, burn their country with the tail that was set ablaze, which was meant as a punishment, thus throwing the punishment back on their race and escape the best of rakshasa guards.

Kumbakarna was clearly against what Ravana was doing. He did not like Janaki being held in prison in Lanka. And he was the only one in the entire war council – apart from Vibishana, who speaks only later – who could voice his opinion, strongly against Ravana. ‘You say that Rakshasa pride has been slighted by the daring act of a monkey. ‘nannagar azhindhadhu ena naaNinai nayaththaal.’ You were very eloquent about the shame that fell on our lot by the destruction of the country. ‘un uyir enath thagaya dhEviyargaL un mEl in nagai tharath thara,’ Even as your beloved wives, who must be considered as your very soul, desire your company and look up at you smilingly (when they love you so much that they are prepared to forget all the ills that you perpetrated by the imprisonment of Sita and when they yearn for your love) ‘oruththan manai utraaL pon adi thozhath thozha’ you prefer to fall at the feet of a woman who is the wife of another man begging for her love. ‘maruththal pugazh pOlaam.’ And she keeps on rejecting you. Refusing what you are begging for. She slights you. She hits back at you. And, do you, my brother consider these as feathers on your cap? Does this act of yours add to the repute of the race?

It can thus be seen that Ravana did not confine his act of falling at the feet of Sita to one instance. No other phrase can better describe his act. One cannot call his act as ‘touching her feet’, ‘going down on his knees’ etc. When he falls down, he falls flat on the ground with the row of his heads touching her feet. Was his love for Sita so very intense? Or was his desire for her grew like forest fire that consumed him in the end, just because he was not able to accept the fact that there could be a situation when the great Ravana, the mighty Ravana, the Ravana who was the terror of the worlds could be refused? Did he persist in his attempts and tried to persuade her to his side by adopting whatever that was possible and also whatever that was not possible, just because he could not bear the thought of denial?

If at all Ravana desired to have something, to own anything, he did not have to stand for permission. He was used to just walking into whichever territory it is and violate anyone for anything. This was the first time that he could not fulfil what he desired. Was it that he went into this pursuit blindly because he was impelled by his pride that was humbled by a woman? Or was it that he persisted in trying to win her hand because he was in love with that woman?

Before answering the question, let us now go into the interview between Ravana and Hanuman that clearly establishes the volatile nature of Ravana and that brings out different shades of Ravana.

Interview with Hanuman – a prelude

What started as a scuffle by his destruction of a major portion of the Asoka Vana, soon turned into a skirmish, which led to a combat…

The capturing of Hanuman, whom the rakshasas and Ravana took very lightly, turned out to be a long drawn out process, instilling fear in the minds of all. Actually that was what Hanuman intended. He was not ready to go back silently after the successful completion of his mission, as a mere errand boy. He wanted to make it very clear to the Rakshasa race and more importantly to Ravana, that there are others in this world who could counter them effectively, who could kill them, destroy their kith and kin and destroy their very country under their watchful eyes notwithstanding.

What started as a scuffle by his destruction of a major portion of the Asoka Vana, soon turned into a skirmish with the arrival of the kinkaras of Ravana, which led to a combat with a higher level of warriors – the five commandants – and took the shape of a battle with the necessity to press a stronger leader of a higher order, namely, Aksha the youngest son of Ravana and with his gruesome killing it assumed the proportions of a mini war when Indrajit had to come in and use his divine weapons. Just against a single Vanara. One man army. Or should we call it ‘one monkey army!’

Of course none could have expected that a monkey could be so very powerful. But with the killing of the five commandants Ravana should have woken up and responded to the reality. What went with the five commandants was a very large army which was minced down to mere meat and bones in a matter of less than an hour. (Remember? The entire time span of events in the Sundara Kanda is only ONE day.) He should have obtained the right intelligence reports. He should have examined the situation and gauged it properly. But he preferred to listen to those toad-eating sycophants that surrounded him and kept on insisting that he should not worry about a mere monkey.

A king who does not listen to good advice and reacts very strongly to it begets only sycophants! Naturally so. If the king punishes the messenger who brings bitter news, if the king kills the person who brings the news of the defeat of his detachment somewhere, what else would grow around him except brazen and unabashed flattery? Who would at all come forward to update him with facts as they are? Who would think of speaking about what is good and what is not, in his presence?

If at all there were voices of revolt in Lanka, they came from three persons. Kumbakarna, Indrajit and Vibishana. Ravana remained silent when the first two rebelled and rioted in his presence and even chided him. There was a reason behind this. He depended on their strength. It was their strength that added to his own, which combined together, had produced the wonderful success that Lanka was. As for Vibishana, he was never given to speaking harshly, until the day of the war council. Ravana respected his voice and even his advice, as long as it was suffused with flattery.

He did not recognise the gravity of the situation even after Aksha, his dear son, was killed by Hanuman. Hanuman did so very elaborately. A genius in warfare strategy and tactics he knew how to plant the quick growing tree, ‘fear’ in the minds of the enemy.

Interview with Hanuman

He knew what change the name ‘Vali’ would bring about in Ravana. But he spoke as if he did not know anything…

Before Aksha breathed his last, even while he was alive and half-conscious, Hanuman held him by his head by one hand and the feet by another hand and as though he was holding the pestle and rubbed him hard against the ground until he was reduced to nothing more than a meatball and a skeleton and the earth was soaked with his blood. Indrajit turned particularly furious on this gruesome and the most insulting manner in which Aksha was killed.

After the killing of Aksha, we see how the tongue of Indrajit could become a sting. And how he could express his feelings without the fear that others had for their king. ‘ondru nee urudhi ooraai’ he says. You don’t seem to realise what is good and what is right and proper. ‘utru irundhu uLaya kitri.’ You suffer afterwards (failing to take a proper grip of the situation). ‘van thiral kuranging aatral marabu uLi uNarndhum,’ Even after knowing the ability of the monkey by what had already occurred, ‘sendru neer porudhir endru thirath thiram seluththi,’ you sent our forces in small detachments, (of a very convenient size that the enemy could kill) asking them to go in war against this monkey. ‘thEyak kondranai neeyE andro?’ It was you who killed our forces. It was you who killed my brother Aksha. It was your fallacy that killed our race.

Recognise the gravity of the situation and respond appropriately. That precisely was what Ravana did not do. This quality once again is brought out and spoken against by Kumbakarna much later.

By the time Hanuman was brought to the court of Ravana, the spell of Brahmastra was already waning especially due to the fact that Hanuman was bound by ropes even when the divine astra had its effect on him. Ravana boiled on seeing him. ‘Who are you? Why did you come here? Who sent you?’ he rolled hundreds of questions at Hanuman. Kamban beautifully paints the picture. On the one hand we have Ravana with his eyes spitting fire at the humiliation that he and his race suffered at the hands of Hanuman. On the other hand, we see Hanuman, full of confidence, smiling to himself, keeping his calm and allowing Ravana to expend his anger through his words. He knew when exactly to bowl his googly.

After a short introduction about Rama and the reason why he came to Lanka, Hanuman gave a pregnant pause. And finally he slipped the vital name in passing. ‘annavarrkku adimai seyvEn.’ I am a servant of Rama. ‘naamamum anuman enbEn.’ And my name is Hanuman. ‘nannudhal thannai naadi naar perum thisayum pOndha mannaril,’ Out of the commanders who went in all the four directions in search of Sita, ‘then paal vandha thaanaikku mannan vaali than magan’ the commander of the contingent that came southwards is led by the son of Vali. ‘avan than thoodhan vandhnen thamiyen’ I came here as his emissary, all alone. I am the only one who has come here.

Hanuman uttered these words in a voice of matter-of-factness. He knew what change the name ‘Vali’ would bring about in Ravana. But he spoke as if he did not know anything, underplaying his delivery. At least his eyes must have twinkled. He was very prepared to see the change in Ravana. And Ravana changed quickly. His face reddened with anger softened. ‘eyitru inam ezhili naapaaN min thrindhu enna nakku,’ Ravana smiled with his teeth flashing like lightning on the dark clouds. His total personality changed instantaneously. It was not out of memories of friendship. Obviously! How could he forget the tail of Vali! ‘Ah I see. Are you the emissary of the son of Vali?’ ‘van thiral aay vaali valiyan kol?’ Is Vali of unmatched prowess well? ‘arasin vaazhkkai nandru kol?’ Does his sovereignty continue to be inviolable?

The sudden change of posture, the sudden change of tone and the change in the attitude amused Maruti. ‘naaygan thoodhan nakkaan.’ Hanuman out laughed loudly. He knew what effect the name of Vali would bring about and it happened as precisely as he expected!

Pearls before swine

These words should have been uttered by the ministers surrounding Ravana. By a strange development of events, here is an emissary who is tendering the words of caution.

That clever name-dropping by Hanuman had the expected result. This is one of those places where Ravana’s mind shows through his face, despite himself. Ravana is a clever actor who very convincingly plays his part even while speaking utter falsehood. There are several occasions where Ravana does so. But this was a situation that he did not quite expect. The name of Vali caught him unawares. He who was seething like a volcano suddenly managed to wear an embarrassed smile. Hanuman did not fail to notice this. He laughed at Ravana.

‘anjalai arakka,’ he chuckled. ‘Fear not O Ravana, fear not. ‘paar vittu andharam adaindhaan andrE.’ Vali has left this earth for his heavenly abode. ‘venjina vaali meeLaan.’ He has died after all. And for sure, he won’t come back. ‘vaalum pOi viLindhadhu andrE.’ Peace unto you! His tail also died with him! It won’t come back either!

After teasing Ravana to his heart’s content, Hanuman slipped another information. That it was Rama who killed Vali. The message, though couched in humour and mockery, conveys the real purpose of it very clearly. ‘If he can kill Vali, who overpowered you, you are simply nothing for him. Therefore, surrender unto him. Send Sita back. ‘Do not keep bandying empty words about. Realise what is happening around you. Your repute and your prestige are getting corroded everyday.

‘indru veendhadhu.’ The glory, the repute and the respect that you had earned – at least a portion of that – has been wasted already. Another portion of it was destroyed (by me) today. ‘naaLai irai siridhu nindru veendhahu.’ Whatever remains would be wiped out either tomorrow or the day after. It would take a little more time. That is all. Realise what is happening to you. Wake up to the reality.

These words should have been uttered by the ministers surrounding Ravana. By a strange development of events, here is an emissary – self-announced emissary at that – from one whom Ravana does not respect at all, who is tendering the words of caution. He does not stop with that. Here, listen to Hanuman.

‘veruppu uNdaaya oruththyai vENdinaal,’ If you keep persisting on attaining a woman who does not love you, ‘maruppu uNdaayapin,’ even after she rejects you ‘vaazhgindra vaazhvinin,’ (assuming that you are able to get her somehow) of what avail is the life that you would be leading thereafter? ‘uruppu uNdaai nadu Ongiya naasiyai aruppuNdaal,’ it is like cutting your nose to ‘adhu azhagu enal aamE’ to beautify your face.

Hanuman quotes extensively from all holy books, cites examples – warnings – from history. He does not hesitate to recognise the great deeds of Ravana. ‘thErinaar palar kaamikkum sevviyOi’ is one of the epithets by which he addresses Ravana. ‘You who has achieved many a thing that even the wisest of the wise would desire to attain.’ The words of wisdom, given out in the most sincere manner just helped to fuel his anger and nothing more!

Vibishana is moved

Vibishana wanted to set Hanuman free. But he had no more valid reasons to speak for. Ravana had finally put the question to Hanuman…

Now Ravana has no answer. He is not able to accept what Hanuman says, openly acknowledging his greatness. “It is not right for you to forfeit this (vast) fortune, which is an outcome of virtue (alone) or the capacity to preserve your life (for an inordinately long period of time), both of which have been acquired by you through the practice of austerities. The aforesaid extraordinary virtue (alone) is responsible even for your immunity, which you perceive, from death at the hands of gods including demons, occasioned by austerities.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LI, Sloka 25 an 26)

‘Be warned,’ adds Hanuman. “Sugriva or Sri Rama is neither god nor a Yaksa nor an ogre. Sri Rama is a human being; while Sugriva O King, is the lord of monkeys. How (then) will you be able to preserve your life against the latter?” (Ibid, Sloka 27) You are protected by your boons against Devas, Yaksas and all of them. But you are not protected against men and monkeys. Remember that. This is your weak spot. You better wake up to the reality. Save yourself. Return Sita. Surrender unto Rama and be happy.

But that was something incomprehensible for Ravana. Rt. Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar observes. “Now Rama was a mere man, it is true, but early enough in his life he had given great proofs of his superhuman qualities. He had made his mark upon earth, and the entire inhabited part of the earth must have been aware of his greatness, his marvellous skill as a rival, his power even over nature, and his ability to stand strong and unruffled against the embattled world. Still, although there were many who thought Rama even at that time to be an avatara and spoke of him habitually in that way, it is curious that throughout the poem Ravana never once recognised anything more than a mere man, and that even among men, he was anything very considerable. Proof after proof came to him; still he would not be convinced that there was anything out of the common in this Rama.”

A superpower with ten pairs of eyes! And yet blinded by rage; blinded by ahamkara; blinded by lust and blinded by what not! But there was one soul in the court that was deeply moved by what Hanuman said. The praise that he sang of Rama fell on at least one pair of ears. The extensive reasons that he quoted from holy books moved at least one mind in that Court. Vibishana. Vibishana wanted to set Hanuman free. But he had no more valid reasons to speak for. Ravana had finally put the question to Hanuman: ‘kurakku vaarththayum maanidar kotramum irukka.’ Let the words of Sugriva (that you have carried over here to send Sita back) and the chivalry of human beings remain on one side. ‘nee en kol ada irum puraththinuL tharum thUdhu pugundha pin arakkaraik kondradhu?’ You say that you have come here as an emissary. Then you should have come here straight to me and spoken to me. Instead you killed my men in their thousands. I charge you with murder. Thoughtless and vain murder of my men.

‘I did so because that is the only way to see you. Your city is well guarded and none was prepared to show me to you and I resorted to killing just because I desired a meeting with you,’ said Hanuman half-jocularly and half- seriously. Ravana pronounced the death sentence on Hanuman. Vibishana wanted to secure his freedom. He had exhausted all other ways. There was only one way open to him now. He had to speak the language of Ravana. That was the only language that Ravana could understand.

Setting Hanuman free I

‘He is a messenger and he should not be killed,’ is the argument of Vibishana. But this argument has been answered even before it was advanced.

No doubt Ravana had goodness in him. Not a single character is shown as devoid as goodness for that matter, be it Ramayana or be it Mahabharata. The characters in the epics closely resemble the characters that live with us even this day. Nobody is a one-hundred-percent hero nor is anyone a villain, out and out. When Ravana ordered for the killing of Hanuman, Vibishana intervened. “Be propitiated, O lord of Lanka, O ruler of ogres! (Pray) listen to my appeal embodying the essence of righteousness and worldly fortune. Messengers, O king, are undeserving of death at all times and at all places; so declare the virtuous.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LII, Sloka 13)

‘vEdham utru iyangu vaippin vEru vEru idaththu vEndhar,’ (There are) kings of various countries who follow the Holy Books, ‘maadharaik kolai seidhaargaL uLar,’ who have killed even women (for the sake of Dharma) ‘ena varinum’ given that, even then, ‘vandha thoodharaik kolai seidhaargaL yaavarE thollai nallOr?’ tell me, can you point out a single king, who has come of a good and reputed lineage, who killed a messenger that came with the message of someone. Killing is a messenger is such a dreaded sin, than killing a woman.

‘He is a messenger and he should not be killed,’ is the argument of Vibishana. But this argument has been answered even before it was advanced. ‘If you are a messenger, you should have come here. Instead you perpetrated destruction and killed my men in their thousands,’ was what Ravana had alleged. Vibishana softens that.

“Undoubtedly this monkey is a formidable adversary. Indeed incalculable harm has been done by him. (Nevertheless), the wise do not sanction the killing of a messenger; for numerous (other) punishments are found recommended (in the scriptures) with regard to a messenger. Mutilation of any of his limbs, flogging, shaving of the head and branding: indeed the wise recommend (any of) these punishments with regard to a messenger; the killing of a messenger has, however, never been heard of by us.” (Ibid, Sloka 14 and 15)

Vibishana knew that this argument is not sufficient for Ravana to be prevented from withdrawing his order to kill Hanuman. He tries flattery. “And indeed how can one like you, whose mind has penetrated into the realms of righteousness and worldly prosperity and who has determined his duty by discriminating between what is noble and what is ignoble, remain swayed by anger? For the powerful never give way to anger.” (Ibid, Sloka 16) Ravana’s ‘ability’ to get caught by instant fire of anger is very well-known; Vibishana knows that.

“No one is your equal in discussing virtue, nor in observing the worldly usage, nor even in grasping the import of scriptures by means of your intellect, O hero! Indeed you are the foremost of the gods and the demons.” (Ibid, Sloka 17) The virtue of falling head over heels in unworthy love with the wife of another man need not be discussed. It is also well known. Vibishana knows that. There should have been instances when he must have objected this, though there is no direct evidence in the Book of Vibishana expressing his unhappiness over Ravana’s act. The culmination of his vexatiousness that found expression in his quitting Ravana could not for certain have been the one and only instance when Vibishana asked Ravana to send Sita back.

The words of Hanuman, the way he presented his case, the way he argued and persuaded Ravana to tread the path of rectitude had really struck a chord somewhere deep in his heart. He even mentions this openly when he meets Rama and seeks refuge in him. ‘I was impressed by what Hanuman did and said,’ he says ‘and that is one of the reasons why I decided to come to you.’

Vibishana knows that his arguments would not convince Ravana. And he knows that the flattery that he adopted might serve to pacify him a little. He brings Ravana to a state in which he might be believed to be in a mood to listen. And then, when Ravana’s mind is properly prepared, he puts forth his final argument.

Setting Hanuman free II

It can be seen that this is a skilful interpretation. When Lakshmana severed Surpanakha’s limbs, his first intention was to stop her from carrying Sita away.

‘It is essential to see that a messenger goes back to his side. If at all he commits harm, punish him by all means. But do not kill him,’ Vibishana continues. “Nor do I perceive any good whatsoever in taking the life of this monkey. Let this punishment (in the form of death) descend on them by whom this monkey has been sent. Whether he is good or bad, he has been sent by our enemies. Advocating others’ interests, dependent as he is on them, an envoy does not merit death.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LII, Sloka 20 and 21)

‘That is not the only reason for my pressing for his being sent back, alive. Consider this. If you kill him here, then who can go there and inform them of our superiority of might, preparedness and how difficult it is to penetrate this country?’ “Moreover, once this monkey is killed, O king, I see no other sky-ranger who can come once more to the opposite shore of the vast sea on this side. Therefore, O conqueror of hostile citadels, no attempt should be made to take the life of this monkey.” (Ibid, Sloka 22) There cannot be any other monkey who is endowed with such ability to cross the ocean. I therefore do not think any further intrusions from their side into our country.

‘He has seen all the fortifications that we have. He has for himself seen at least a part of our vast army. Whoever that had sent him must be acquainted with this information. It is particularly for this reason that Hanuman should be sent back alive.’

‘You must also consider this. We would not have come to know of their strength, however little it might be, had Surpanakha not come back to us alive. Just think of what they did. ‘ilayavaL thannaik kollaadhu,’ They did not kill our younger sister. ‘iru sevi mUkOdu iirndhu,’ They simply severed her earlobes and nose. ‘viLaivu urai endru vittaar,’ and they sent her back to us so that we be cautioned about their strength. ‘kaLaidhiyEl, aavi’ if you kill him now, ‘nam paal ivan vandhu kaNNin kaNda aLavu uraiyaamal seydhi’ you will prevent the information of your greatness that this monkey has collected here from reaching them.

It can be seen that this is a skilful interpretation. When Lakshmana severed Surpanakha’s limbs, his first intention was to stop her from carrying Sita away. He used minimum violence against Surpanakha simply because she was a woman. It was not his or Rama’s intention to ‘send’ her back with severed limbs as a matter of warning or to announce who they are and what they are capable of. Vibishana knows this. It is not possible to infer that he was not aware of what had actually happened because he was the minister of Ravana and was aware of every small development.

But his immediate purpose is to set Hanuman free. He wants Hanuman to go back to Rama and Lakshmana. It cannot however be said that his loyalty to Ravana has taken a back seat now. However, he has clearly seen what Rama and Lakshmana represent, what they stand for and the seed for his thought process on the futility of remaining with Ravana is most obviously sown at this moment.

Ravana was more than pleased with Vibishana. ‘nalladhu uraithaai nambi,’ he applauded. What you said is correct. ‘ivan navayE seydhaan aanaalum,’ Though this monkey has caused untold harm to us, ‘kollal pazuhdhE’ it is not right to kill him. And then he turned to Hanuman and said, ‘avaraik kUrik koNardhi kadidhu,’ you go back, inform them of what you saw and heard here and bring them here, quickly.

Ravana listened to Vibishana and agreed to set Hanuman free with what he considered as ‘minimum punishment,’ just because Vibishana was careful to prepare his mind adequately with flattery. This very same incident is seen in a different light in the war council, when Vibishana draws the attention of Ravana to the harsh realities and admonishes him.

The good, bad and the ugly

Ravana speaks on values and on the three kinds of persons and how they are judged…

The opening speech of Ravana at the War Council, in Valmiki Ramayana, is quite impressive. Ravana crystallises all his erudition into excellent words. But erudition is one thing and wisdom is quite another thing. Learning endows a person with all the resources needed for conducting his life; and in the case of a king or leader, conducting the destiny of the land. Wisdom is that which is distilled from what has been learnt by one’s own desire and determination to stand for that which is good, sieved through good counsel, the ability to weigh and judge what is right and what is not, and the humility to accept such good counsel.

Ravana’s opening speech in Valmiki starts with the painful remarks of a humbled giant of a leader, whose pride about his impregnable defence system has been slighted by a monkey. His country could be penetrated unnoticed; his prisoner could be spoken to even when guarded by the most terror striking of ogresses and finally a punishment that he ordered could be thrown back on him and his country. If he sets fire to the tail of the monkey, the monkey sets fire to his country.

‘Tell me, what I am supposed to do now!’ he implores his counsellors. “May good betide you, what shall I do (next)? What appeals to you as advisable to do next? (Please) suggest what is equal to what, and us if attempted, will be well executed? The wise declare victory as dependent on good counsel. I, therefore, prefer to take your counsel with regard to Rama, O ogres of extraordinary might!” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 4 and 5)

Ravana then talks about three kinds of men. ‘There are three kinds of men the good, bad and the mediocre,’ he says. He goes on to define who is a good person. “The wise declare him to be the foremost of men, whose counsel is actually endowed with the following three characteristics, who prosecutes his undertakings after deliberation with his friends who are capable of deciding a point at issue or with relations having common interests or even with his superiors and exerts himself, depending on Providence.” (Ibid, Sloka 7 and 8)

A person should first consult with his friends, well-wishers, superiors and relatives who are capable of giving him good advice and should pursue the appropriate course of action, setting his mind on action alone and leaving the result to Providence. If he does so, he is known as a good person.

“They call him mediocre, who ponders his interests by himself, sets his mind on virtue all by himself and executes his designs single-handed.” (Ibid, Sloka 9) The mediocre person, though his mind is set on virtues, does not seek the counsel or guidance of others; he does not seek the help and assistance of others and does not believe in teamwork. He thinks for himself, decides for himself and acts on his own, all by himself.

“Failing to ascertain the advantages and the disadvantages of a scheme (nay) renouncing his dependence on Providence and (merely) saying ‘I shall do it’, he who neglects his duty is the vilest of men.” (Ibid, Sloka 10)

The detestable, the loathsome creature, does not understand anything. He does not see what is good and what is not. He is unable to spot either the advantages or the disadvantages of a scheme. He does not trust Providence as well. He simply states that he would do such-and-such a thing. This person is the stoutest fool of all.

I therefore seek your advice. Please tell me what I should do. And as if that is not enough, Ravana goes on to define what kind of counsel is really good, bad and mediocre!

A good beginning indeed. Well begun is half-done. But a lot depends on how the second half is done!

Words, words, words…I know not what they mean!

What kind of a sagacious mind should have spelt such an idea out! Ravana must have been a very good king. His words are suffused with wisdom!

Anyone who reads these lines uttered by Ravana in Valmiki Ramayana would naturally form a very high opinion of him. At the very beginning of his opening address in the War Council, he gave a definition of who is a good person, a bad person and who is mediocre. Now he goes on to define what is a good decision, a bad decision and what is mediocre.

“(Even) as the aforementioned people are ever (either) good, bad, or mediocre, so the conclusion arrived at (by them) is also good, bad or mediocre. The wise declare that conclusion to be excellent, in which the counsellors feel specially interested after reaching an agreement based on a point of view supported by the scripture.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 11 and 12)

A wise person is one who seeks the advice of his friends, like-minded relatives and superiors – Guru – is what has already been defined by Ravana in his opening part of the speech. He now defines what a good decision is; what the wise men consider to be really good and acceptable decision. The counsellors should have debated the question in hand that requires the decision; they should have gone into it thoroughly and examined it threadbare. After such a detailed and extensive decision, they all should come to an agreement of what is to be done. Most important. What they agree upon should have the sanction of the scriptures. What they concluded at the end of their scholastic exercise must be based on scriptures. They should recommend only such decision – a well discussed and debated decision – that is based on what the scriptures lay down.

Then there is the mediocre decision. Listen to Ravana. “That conclusion is declared to be mediocre, in arriving at which the judgement of the counsellors with regard to the point at issue reaches unanimity only after meeting with different angles of vision.” (Ibid, Sloka 13)

In the case of the ‘excellent’ conclusion that is offered for decision-making, the scholars debate, no doubt. But they do not have any difference of opinion on any aspect of the question in hand. In the second case, they are not very clear. They express widely varying views and after a long discussion, they see light at the end of the tunnel. And now, there is a third variety.

“That conclusion (again) is declared to be third-rate, in arriving at which, speeches and counter-speeches are made upholding different points of view and from which good fortune does not follow even in the event of unanimity being arrived at (anyhow).” (Ibid, Sloka 14)

This is a kind of a situation where the counsellors hold different points of view about what is to be done and do not come to agreement at all, each one holding his own view as the best of panaceas for the malaise that is impending. They do not agree at all on anyone’s point of view. The discussion does not produce anything worthwhile. And even if it does, even if all of them arrive at a conclusion, the decision that is recommended does not lead to the desired object or even to the direction in which one should move to reach the object that is desirable.

Ahaha! What kind of a sagacious mind should have spelt such an idea out! Ravana must have been a very good king. His words are suffused with wisdom! He seeks the good counsel of his ministers and tells them that a person in his position – if he is to be a good king – should first consult his ministers on any important (?) issue. And he also suggests that they, the ministers, should examine the issue in hand in a very detailed manner and tell him what is to be done. And such recommendation should have the sanction of the Holy Books as well!

These words sound heroic indeed. But, whatever be the word, it is the action, the conduct of the person who utters it, turns it either into tinsel or a treasure house of gold. Let us see what happens in the council.

Advice made to order

That one is remarkable, Ravana! All along you have been maintaining that these two were ‘puny’ creatures that have joined hands with ‘monkeys’…

‘I have described to you the different types of men and also the different kinds of conclusions that counsellors advance for decision-making. Having heard that, it is now for you to guide me,’ said Ravana.

“Therefore, determine you, who are foremost in point of intelligence, a course of conduct which is well-deliberated and (therefore) right. This (alone) is reckoned by me as worth adopting.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto VI, Sloka 15)

‘Tell me what is the right thing to do. I consider your well-thought out words as invaluable indeed. I will follow your advice. Please therefore do not hesitate to show me the right path to tread.’ A noble appeal indeed! At the end of his speech, Ravana adds a few words that sound rather strange to anyone who knows his character. He speaks in a completely different language.

“Surrounded by thousands of heroic monkeys, Rama is actually advancing towards the city of Lanka in order to besiege us. Clearly enough, by virtue of his might, which is worth of him, Rama (a scion of Raghu) will cross the sea with ease along with his younger brother as well as with his force and entourage. He will (either) dry up the sea by dint of his prowess or do something else (to bridge the sea). The aforesaid work of invading Lanka having commenced in this way and antagonism with the monkeys having been set on foot advice may be tendered to me on whatever is good for the city and the army.” (Ibid, Sloka 15-18)

That one is remarkable, Ravana! All along you have been maintaining that these two were ‘puny’ creatures that have joined hands with ‘monkeys’ and that the defence of Lanka is impregnable. This kind of topsy-turviness in your tone does not gel with your real self that seeks to masquerade itself behind a spotlessly white curtain and tries to project a ‘glorious’ image! If you are convinced that Rama would march on Lanka, if you are convinced he is so powerful as either to dry up the sea or to build a bridge over it, if you are really convinced that the monkeys – going by what Hanuman had perpetrated on your land – are really powerful indeed, then why would you need the counsel of your ministers at all!

Those last lines are added very deftly to evoke a kind of response that Ravana desires. You know, when the school-going kid of yours is in tears and says that he or she is afraid of his or her teacher because the homework has not been completed, you know that the kid is really seeking your support and is not really afraid of the teacher. Was he or she really afraid of the teacher, the homework would have been completed in time! What is expected, as you know, is a sort of conditioned-response. ‘Don’t worry. I will give you a letter of excuse. Or I will speak to your school authorities. Or I will accompany you to your school and speak to your teacher.’

Ravana is that schoolboy now. We – as do his ministers – know that Ravana is not really afraid of Rama and the monkeys crossing the ocean. He needs the unconditional support that is stated overtly in the council. That’s what actually happens. Not a single minister speaks about sending Sita back. Their attention is diverted beautifully to the one and only question of their country being invaded by Rama and Lakshmana.

Right Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar very beautifully captures the result of a three-canto long discussion in a few lines. He says, “Ravana tells his ministers how he got hold of Sita and also how he got cursed over other women. ‘Tell me,’ he says, ‘what I am to do, but do not say that I should yield up Sita. I have not put myself to all this trouble, disgraced all my character and lost my reputation, in order to give her back. Advise me so that I may retain her.’ That is the advice he wanted, an advice subject to that very hard condition.”

Who is the real enemy?

And if a leader is surrounded by advisors who prefer to play it according to his or her likes and dislikes, he does not need enemies to destroy him…

The opening speech of Ravana in the war council in Kamba Ramayana does not vary much, excepting that Kamban drops this particular portion where Ravana is depicted as seeking good advice from his ministers and exhorting them to give out what is right and what has the sanction of scriptures. We have studied this portion earlier and even compared the way Sri Rama and Dasaratha conducted their meetings. It may be recollected that how Sri Rama seeks the opinion of his team with a simple two line address, not expressing his opinion at all, so that he can listen to what his followers actually think. (See: Of councils and counsels – there are five instalments on this.)

Ravana’s opening speech is so very eloquent. He expresses his shame, the way their race has been slighted et al. Ravana sounds very genuine in his feelings. It cannot be denied. But any leader who wants to bring out what really resides in the minds of his advisors will prefer to postpone the expression of his feelings till he listens to their opinion. If he does so, he would for sure colour their opinion showing his own true colours and would only be sending a silent message to them as to what would please him.

And if a leader is surrounded by advisors who prefer to play it according to his or her likes and dislikes, he does not need enemies to destroy him, says Valluvar.

‘idippaarai illaadha Emaraa mannan
keduppar ilaanum kedum.’ (Kural 448)

“The king, who is without the guard of men who can rebuke him, will perish, even though there be not one to destroy him.” (Tr. by Rev. Drew and John Lazarus) Why should he need an enemy! What can be the poison worse than flattery! Who can be more cursed than that king or leader whose counsellors that carefully select only such words and ideas that would please him or her! And yet, if such a situation exists, it is the leader who is to take the blame for such a situation for it is his or her failure to show a genuine interest in genuine counselling.

And here was our Ravana who sought advice that had the sanction of scriptures. But we see a long list of his advisors speaking endlessly about the supremacy of their race and the prowess of their leader and the needlessness of thinking of any other course of action excepting to reach the other side of the ocean and kill Rama and Lakshmana in their own territory. It is really a long list with Nikumbha, the son of Kumbakarna, Rabhasa, Suryasatru, Suptaghna and Yajnakopa, Mahaparswa, Mahodara, Vajaradamstra, to name a few. Ravana is pleased with what his advisors express.

Vibishana intervenes here and stops all of them. He has heard his brother for the first time seeking their advice, that too ‘that which has the sanction of the scriptures and that which is really for the good of the country and its people.’ He has had innumerable occasions of his advice being turned down. But this was a rare opportunity for him. He happily feels that he can do something now to turn Ravana to the path of rectitude, as he feels that he is in a receptive frame of mind.

There is a minor difference between Kamban and Valmiki here. The speech of Kumbakarna precedes that of Vibishana – as Kamban worked the character of Kumbakarna laying stress on his nobler side.

Let’s now listen to what Vibishana has to say and how Ravana reacts to it. This is the first speech depicted in Valmiki and not the one that pushed Ravana into kicking Vibishana away from his court.

A brother protests

The entire tone of argument takes a diagonally opposite direction! This was not the Vibishana that we saw in that earlier instance! He speaks very firmly now!

On a previous occasion we have heard Vibishana speaking very high of the prowess of Ravana. He was motivated by his sincere desire to see Hanuman out of danger at that time. ‘Leave this poor monkey. He cannot be blamed. He is the messenger of someone after all! What you have to do now is to think of ways of vanquishing that person who had sent him. Direct your energies to achieve that purpose and devote your attention to what has actually to be done,’ Vibishana advised at that time. ‘Who can think of scoring a victory against you!’ was what Vibishana told Ravana at that time.

“If this monkey is put to death, I do not really perceive any other created being who can incite those two insolent human princes, who are hostile to you, to wage war against you O bellicose king! For you who are difficult to conquer even for high-minded gods and demons endowed with prowess and martial ardour, O delight of ogres, it is not meet to crush the ardour of those ogres (the progeny of Nirrti) for war.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto LII, Sloka 24 and 25)

‘If you kill this monkey, who would go there and tell those two human beings of what was seen here? And if that message is not conveyed to them, how do you expect them to come in war against you? And if they come, would it be difficult for you to defeat them, for you have defeated even the gods when they are nothing other than humans.’ That Vibishana did not really mean what he said the other day and his sole intention was to free Hanuman from the death-sentence that Ravana pronounced on him is apparent when one compares these lines with what he sincerely advises his brother in the war council. (Whether execution of death-sentence on Maruti would have been possible is another question.) Listen to him now.

“How do you seek to overcome the celebrated Rama, who is on the contrary, watchful, is keen to conquer, is supported by divine power, has subdued anger, and is difficult to overpower? Who in the world can know or even conceive the speed of Hanuman, who for his part came over to Lanka, leaping across the sea, the formidable lord of rivers and streams? Inestimable are the troops at the disposal of Rama and so is his power, O ranger of the night! Underestimation should not be precipitately made in any case in respect of enemies.” (Ibid, Yuddha Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 10-12)

There is at last someone in the court of Ravana who can speak for what is right. Vibishana very skilfully breaks the earlier claim of Ravana, justifying his capturing of Sita. ‘I captured her in Janasthana, an area that comes under our jurisdiction. That area is my outpost. My brothers ruled that place. I brought her here to avenge for the wanton death of my brothers at the hands of Rama and Lakshmana.’ Listen to Vibishana.

“Moreover, what offence was given to the ruler of ogres y the illustrious Rama, whose consort the former bore away from Janasthana? (If it is urged in reply that Ravana abducted Rama’s wife because Rama had killed Khara, our half-brother, my rejoinder is that) Khara was made short work of by Rama in an encounter because the former had for his part gone beyond his limits in that he had attacked Rama in the latter’s own hermitage. Life needs must be protected by living beings according to their might.” (Ibid, Sloka 13 and 14)

The entire tone of argument takes a diagonally opposite direction! This was not the Vibishana that we saw in that earlier instance! He speaks very firmly now. He does not seem to be afraid of the consequences. Perhaps that was the reason why he did not say anything all these long ten months against his brother!

Accolades for sin

‘You asked us to give you the right advice. You wanted us to you what is right in the circumstances. What I am doing is precisely that.’

‘You say your brothers were killed,’ Vibishana continued. ‘But why are you not able to see what your brothers did? He marched in on Rama and challenged him in his own territory. And with a vast army! A terrifying army against a single man! You know what happened in the end. Anyone would retaliate! He has to protect himself and his wife after all! What living being would not do that! Rama is therefore justified in what he did. It is for us to understand that it is not possible to make him bend before insolent might.’

‘Now you will say that bearing Sita away was a matter of settling scores with Rama. I would say that she should be sent back. She would bring great harm to us and to our race. Be forewarned. Send her back.’ I quote that portion of Vibishana’s speech from Valmiki. Notice how within a matter of five Slokas the idea is emphasised again and again.

“If Sita (a princess of the Videha territory) was borne away because of this (grudge), she deserves to be yielded up inasmuch as she may prove to be a peril to us. What on earth will be gained if anything is done which has strife for its object? It is not at all desirable to make enmity without any purpose with that powerful prince, who follows the moral code. Sita (a princess of Mithila) may (therefore) be restored to him. Let Sita (a princess of Mithila) be made over to him before he tears asunder with his arrows Lanka, full of many precious stones, with its elephants and horses. Let Sita be given back (to Rama) before the huge army of monkeys, which is most formidable and difficult to overpower, besieges Lanka. If the beloved consort of Rama is not restored of your own accord, the city of Lanka as well as all the heroic ogres will surely perish. I seek to propitiate you because of your being my relation; (pray) follow my counsel. I suggest only that which is true and conducive to your good; let Sita (a princess of Mithila be surrendered (to Rama). (Valmiki Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda, Canto IX, Sloka 16-20)

We have already pointed out that the tone of Vibishana is totally different from the one that he adopted when he attempted to set Hanuman free from the death penalty. ‘You asked us to give you the right advice that has the sanction of the Vedas. You wanted us to deliberate deeply and suggest to you what is right in the circumstances and what is good for the country and the race as a whole. What I am telling you is precisely that. Send Sita back. Her retention any further would bring us untold harm.’

The speech of Vibishana follows that of Kumbakarna, in Kamba Ramayana. Kumbakarna expresses his dissatisfaction over what Ravana had done. ‘You have been telling again and again that the Rakshasa pride is slighted by the act of the monkey that burnt the entire country down. It was not that the Rakshasa pride was slighted now. It has been humiliated the day when you brought Sita here,’ says Kumbakarna. This is how he chides Ravana.

‘endru oruvan il urai thavaththiyai,’ (it was on that) day when you brought a woman (who is immersed deep in the penance of chastity) belonging to another house ‘irangaai,’ without any sympathy ‘van thozhilinaai,’ by a violent act, ‘marai thurandhu’ violating all the codes of conduct specified in the Vedas, ‘sirai vaithaahi’ (brought here and) kept her in prison, ‘andru ozhivadhu aayina arakkar pugazh ayaa!’ it was on that day that the reputation of the race was brought down to the dust (by you), Sire! ‘pun thozhilinaal isai poruththal pulamaithO?’ Are we not seeking to win accolades (by committing an offence first in coveting Sita and now by planning to kill her husband, instead of restoring her to him) by acts of sin? Are we wise?

Hari Krishnan