Playing with fire

Your desire is like the desire to bundle up the blazing fire in a piece of cloth…

Well, it was Ravana’s way of looking at what comfort means, what pleasure is and how knowledge is to be applied to attain ‘the best of things.’ Attended upon by thousands of maids, adorned by gold and diamonds, remaining in the most spacious and luxurious palace et al. But Sita is above all this. Life in a palace was not something new for her. She is the daughter of an emperor and the daughter-in-law of another emperor. She indicates right at the beginning of her address to Ravana thus:

“A daughter of the high-souled Janaka, king of Mithila, Sita by name, I am the beloved consort of Sri Rama. May all be well with you! Having lived for twelve years in the palace of the kings of Ikswaku’s line and enjoying the luxuries available to humankind, I lived in the midst of an abundance of all (kinds of) enjoyments.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto XLVII, Sloka 2 – 4)

‘I lived in the palace of Ayodhya for twelve long years, enjoying the best of things that is available for humankind. And then, when my husband was asked to give up everything and go on exile, he did so gladly. I followed him.’ Ravana should have understood the heart of this woman at that very moment. If it was gold, diamonds and the luxuries of life in palace that were important to her, she would have very well stayed back in the palace of Ayodhya. She was not exiled after all, and her husband did not insist that she should accompany him! It was she who gave up everything so readily, willingly and followed him because ‘her heaven lies where he is.’ Could she be tempted with gold and diamonds! They were mere metal and stones for her. Could the promise of ‘loads and loads of metal and stones’ move her away from her Rama !

She is enraged by the desire of this ‘sage’ (who has not yet shed his camouflage and emerged in his original form). ‘I am devoted to my husband,’ she declares. Look at the love, admiration and devotion that drip through every epithet that she uses to describe Sri Rama.

“I have taken a vow to follow (the mind of) Sri Rama, my husband, who is unshakeable like a big mountain, who is a compeer of the mighty Indra, and who is imperturbable like the ocean. I have taken a vow to follow (the wishes of) the highly blessed Sri Rama, who is richly endowed with all auspicious bodily marks, who affords shelter to all like a banyan tree and who is true to his promise. I am devoted to the mighty-armed Sri Rama, a lion among men, who is distinguished by a broad chest, who walks with the proud gait of a lion and resembles a lion (in prowess). I follow the vows of the mighty armed Sri Rama, whose countenance resembles the full moon, who delights all, who is the foremost of kings, who has mastered his senses, and who is of wide renown. Nevertheless, you, a jackal, covet me, a lioness (so) hard to win here. I am incapable (even) of being touched by you as the glow of the sun.” (Ibid, Sloka 33-37)

I am like the glow of the sun, which can only be perceived, but could not be touched. Is it possible for anyone to pick up a handful of that immense light flooding the earth? And if you still try to do so, know this. ‘ அக்நிம் ப்ரஜ்வலிதம்  த்ருஷ்ட்வா  வஸ்த்ரேண  ஆஹர்த்தும்  இச்சஸி ’ Your desire is like the desire to bundle up the blazing fire in a piece of cloth, even after knowing that it is fire. Do not play with fire. I will burn you down.

Carrying her away

Ravana burned with rage on hearing the challenge. This is something that none has dared utter in his presence…

‘You say you are the younger half-brother of Kubera. I wonder how your mind goes astray even though you are born in such a noble family.’ “How after calling god Kubera (son of Visrava), who is hailed by all good, your (half-) brother, do you seek to perpetrate a foul deed?” (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto XLVII, Sloka 21) ‘Do not think that it is possible for you to survive, after, as you say, carrying me away. “”It may be possible to survive on abducting Saci, the consort of Indra (the lord of paradise); but none can remain in peace after carrying away me, the consort of Sri Rama. Having laid one’s hands on Saci, the consort of Indra (the wielder of the thunderbolt) of peerless beauty, one may survive long; but on treating with indignity a woman like me there is no escape (from death) for you even though you have quaffed the drink of immortality, O Ogre! (Ibid, Sloka 23 and 24)

Ravana burned with rage on hearing the challenge. This is something that none has dared utter in his presence, after the Vedavati incident. He clapped his mighty palms in mock appreciation of what she warned him against. The real Ravana burst forth from the sanyasi-exterior. He stood there with his ten heads and twenty mighty shoulders, his twenty eyes reddened, blood-shot and burning like pieces of coal. Not giving up his attempt at arguing his case even at that stage, he once again craftily tried to persuade Sita. Valmiki calls him ‘vaakya kovidaH’. A wordsmith. A master of expression.

Finding that neither the desire for gold and luxuries, nor power, nor the promise of a prosperous life nor even a threatening and menacing appearance shake her strong will, he decided to carry her away. “Having spoken as aforesaid to Sita (the princess of Mithila) who spoken kindly (to all) and deserved kind words from all), and approaching her, the ogre, Ravana, who was extremely vile of disposition and was infatuated with passion, caught hold of Sita (who was like a mother to him) as Budha (the deity presiding over plant Mercury and son of the moon-god) would seize Rohini) would seize Rohini (the principal consort of the moon-god and the deity presiding over a constellation of that name).” (Ibid, Canto XLIX, Sloka 13 – 16)

He caught her like Mercury seizes the constellation Rohini. Now, according to the legend Budha is the son of Moon and Rohini is the wife of Moon. Drawing a parallel, it is deduced from this simile that Ravana caught hold of Sita, who is to be held as his own mother.

“With his left hand he caught hold of the lotus-eyed Sita by her locks, while with his right hand he clasped her by her thighs.” (Ibid, Sloka 17)

The interpretations of this Sloka vary widely and wildly. Devotees are not able to digest the statement that she was physically touched by Ravana. We should, however, remember that these are the words of the Poet who envisioned this scene. Let us go into a few of the most popular interpretations of this Sloka.

Kamban’s version of this scene is entirely different. We have seen his version while studying Ravana. We will go into that as well, briefly.

Helpless I am

The Lord and His Consort are playing their human roles now and let us look at them from that perspective…

Just imagine a situation like this in our lives. I live with my husband for a long number of years; he loves me and I love him. Suddenly, it so happens that a stranger appears at my doorstep and declares that he would make a better husband and that I should discard my husband and live with him, that moment onwards. He is not willing to listen to reasons; he is not willing to think of what is right and what is not. To top it all, he is not prepared to reckon that I have an opinion of my own at all! Appearing from nowhere, all of a sudden, he is forcing his decision on me!

Let us for a while forget that Maithili is none other than Mahalakshmi herself. The Lord and His Consort are playing their human roles now and let us look at them from that perspective, for that is how they want us to see them, and derive strength from the example that they have set for us, to face the much smaller and petty ‘mountains’ that nag us every moment. The most excruciating moments they have encountered and passed through, going through every moment exactly as how we would, but emerging gloriously from them and remaining unscathed, by strength of character, patience, tolerance, chivalry and all that goes to elevate an ordinary soul into a Mahatma. These are the moments that are to be held in the right perspective, if at all we intend to benefit from the study of the epic.

வாமேந  ஸீதாம்  பத்மாக்ஷீம்  மூர்தஜேஷு கரேண  ஸ: |
ஊர்வோ:  து  தக்ஷிணேந  ஏவ   பரிஜக்ராஹ பாணிநா     ||

                                                                                  (ibid  49 / 17)

says the Poet. As we saw in our last post, the English rendition of the Sloka would be: “With his left hand he caught hold of the lotus-eyed Sita by her locks, while with his right hand he clasped her by her thighs.”

I have heard scholars, in a hushed voice, describing the impossible angles by which she would have been carried. Maheshvara Tiirtha says that Ravana, an expert in all sciences, caught her by the shadow of her hair and the shadow of her thighs. Rama Tilaka, who sees a devotee of Mahalakshmi in Ravana, feels that he caught her by her feet, as she was his personal deity. There is another theory that states that Sri Rama left a Maya Sita before he went after the golden deer. This Maya Sita was in the prison of Ravana until the end of the war and performed self-immolation and the real Sita emerged from the pyre. Far fetched theories! Valmiki did not intend that! The third theory, especially, the Maya Sita theory needs some more discussion and we will take it up presently.

The description is very simple. We should remember that she was in a helpless condition, semi-conscious, or nearly unconscious, with the ogre catching her by her tresses. She is falling down on the ground; but is held by her locks. Ravana held her by the nape of neck, and lifted her off the ground while she was falling semi-conscious, with his hand underneath her legs. She was carried across the chest as babies are carried. The picture is quite simple. ‘I was helpless at that time,’ says Sita, of this moment. She uses the word ‘ விவசா ’ helpless, thrice, referring to this moment, on three different occasions.

Was he a devotee?

If Ravana carried her off because he was her devotee, then we should find other suitable explanations for his behaviour; his attitude to her…

The uncanny ability of many a commentator to unearth unseen explanations, hidden meanings and often, esoteric interpretations has always baffled me. For example, I came across this interpretation of a Sloka that is a part of the speech of Ravana, when speaking to Sita, just moments before the abduction.

கை:     குணை:   அநுரக்தா      அஸி    மூடே   பண்டித மாநிநீ   ||

ய:  ஸ்த்ரியா  வசநாத் ராஜ்யம்  விஹாய  ஸஸுஹ்ருத்  ஜநம்|
அஸ்மிந்      வ்யால       அநுசரிதே       வநே    வஸதி    துர்மதி: ||
                                      (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto 49, Sloka 14 and 15 (Part)

A simple and direct translation of the Sloka reads as follows: What are the merits of that Rama that justify your passions for him? You are illiterate, but seem to consider yourself widely read. That mindless Rama gave up the kingdom and its kind-hearted people and is dwelling in this forest where predators are on the prowl.”

The commentator, of course an ancient commentator, who is enthusiastic about calling Ravana a devotee of Mahalakshmi, gives the following interpretation.

‘  மூடே பண்டித  மாநிநீ  மயி  பாவ  ப்ரணீயதாம் ’ Although I am an unread stupid, grace me too because I am your servant for a long time. Further, Rama is ‘ ராஜ்யாத்  ச்யுதம் ’ 'not fallen from kingship, but he has contempt for kingly pleasures, he thrusts these small things back with his foot...' why because  அ + ஸித்த  அர்த்தம் -  அஸ்ச அஸௌ ஸித்த  அர்த்த: ச  ' Vishnu is one with His purposes fulfilled... thus He does not care for a petty kingdom, when He is the King of Kings...'

The allegation that ‘you are illiterate’ is skilfully polished to mean ‘I am ignorant’. The commentator goes on: You are in passionate love with him because of his shiila indefinable, illimitable auspicious merits. ‘  அநுரக்தா  அஸி ’ you are impassioned for such a Vishnu, and I have no objection for that, but bless me too. ‘ துர்மதி: துஷ்டேஷு அபி மதி: - அநுக்ராஹிகா புத்தி ’ He is not a mindless person, but he has a mind for the mindless and bad-minded persons like me. So please come with me and let your husband follow you to Lanka and accord salvation, as planned by you all.

In short, Ravana is inviting Sita to his palace, so that Rama can follow and kill him as planned. The commentator cites the story in the Bhagavata Mahapurana that Ravana and Kumbakarna are originally Jaya and Vijaya, the doorkeepers of Lord Narayana, and therefore Ravana must naturally be called the devotee of Mahalakshmi. The arguments have their validity, of course, in their own way. That Jaya and Vijaya wanted to be liberated from their present birth and return to their original posts soon, sounds plausible in that the interpretation testifies to the ingenuity of the commentator to find what is unseen and support it with the Text. But such interpretations, clever, skilful and scholarly though they are, change the entire tone of the epic and make us lose sight of the very purpose of the avatar and help only to lead us astray, necessitating us to find far-fetched and rearranged explanations at every other step.

If Ravana carried her off because he was her devotee, then we should find other suitable explanations for his behaviour; his attitude to her and the lusty and lewd words that he uttered to her. That takes away the purpose behind the way in which the characters are structured. That makes the Text laboured besides coming between the Epic and what it stands for.

Let us now see the Maya Sita theory in brief.

Clever but not convincing

Either way, it is a clever invention. It serves to save Janaki from the ‘disrepute’ that clouds her. But that ‘disrepute’ is what the pundits have perceived…

The Maya Sita theory has a minimum of two versions. According to one version, it was Rama who made the real Sita disappear and placed an illusory Sita in the hermitage. It was this illusory Sita that was abducted by Ravana; remained imprisoned in the Asoka Vana and performed self-immolation in the Agni Pravesa scene and from the fire emerged the real Sita.

Right Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar narrates the story with a minor difference. ‘The real Sita entered Agni and disappeared when Ravana entered Janasthana,’ he says, quoting the other version of it. Therefore, it was Janaki herself who disappeared from the scene, to reappear from the pyre at the end of the scene of her repudiation and Rama had no role in it, as suggested by the other version.

Either way, it is a clever invention. It serves to save Janaki from the ‘disrepute’ that clouds her. But that ‘disrepute’ is what the pundits have perceived, what they believe has occurred to her since they look at the incidents of the great Epic through coloured glasses. It is not real and does not exist. And this theory serves to ‘protect’ (!) Rama from the hard-hearted image that he is projecting of himself. Because, it was an illusory Sita, after all, you see that he questioned and sent into the pyre. He needed some excuse to send this illusory Sita back and bring his darling out of the fire, did he not!

This Maya Sita theory, as we said, is clever no doubt; but is not convincing. It is another thing if the drama is changed and the events were developed with this as the base. That happens with every other version of the Epic. Every Poet or author had his own vision and narrated the epic – be it Ramayana or Mahabharata – in his own way. We are not questioning that. Every person endowed with creativity has a different vision. Only, the degree of excellence varies. But the Maya Sita theory is a mere concoction as it tries to interpret Valmiki Ramayana, on the basis of other works. Listen to Right Hon’ble Srinivasa Sastriyar:

“Let me at the outset dispose of two points raised by students entitled to reverence. One is somewhat extraordinary, not justified by Valmiki’s text at all but based on other works of lesser authority, claiming however to interpret the incidents of the Ramayana faithfully. The story according to them is that when Ravana appeared in Janasthana to carry away Sita, the real Sita disappeared entering Agni and the Sita who figures in the subsequent Kandas right up to the repudiation by Sri Rama and the ordeal by fire, was a Maya Sita. This has been vouched for by great authorities and there are large numbers of people among us who like to believe this story.”

As Sastriyar points out, this theory takes all the interest away from the Epic. If it was an illusory Sita that Rama placed in the hermitage – or who resided there, with the real Sita having disappeared herself – then why should Rama lament? Why should he go delirious with the pangs of separation? Why should he stop before every bird, tree, plant, river, mountain et al and ‘speak’ to them in sheer desolation? Was it for this ‘maya Sita’ that he entered into friendship with Sugriva, and then threatened him of dire consequences later, for being inactive! Was it for this mere ‘illusory woman’ that he constructed a bridge across the ocean and fought valiant battles to obliterate that which is not right? That makes all the other developments pointless.

As Sastriyar puts it, ‘why would people at all be interested in the agony of isolation and the strength of character that Janaki displays in the Asoka Vana, if they accept the ‘invention’ that it was an illusory substitute who suffered there! “I think it is extraordinary,” he says, “that any people should believe that the Sita of the greater part of the tragedy was a counterfeit Sita and should still interest themselves deeply in her fortunes, elated when she rejoices and grieved when she suffers. That, I think, is an impossible position. I therefore discard the Maya Sita story as entirely unfounded and calculated to take away our interest in the whole of this drama.”

This is what she has to say

If expert opinion differs and interprets this moment variedly, what has she to say?

If expert opinion differs and ranges anywhere from getting hold of her by her shadow, to a purported but not supported theory of her illusory form, what has she to say about the moment?

As Ravana caught hold of her, the sylvan deities fled from that spot, endowed as he was with sharp teeth and mighty arms and resembled Death himself – ‘ ம்ருத்யு ஸங்காசம் ’ – and suddenly there appeared the Pushpaka Vimana, drawn by mules. Ravana, uttering harsh words, picked her up, placed her in the aerial car. ‘She was unwilling and wriggling like the consort of King Cobra,’ says Valmiki. ‘ பந்நக  இந்த்ர  வதூம் இவ  விசேஷ்டமாநாம் ’ She was writhing, wriggling like the wife of the Lord of Serpents, obviously struggling and resisting from her being carried off. But her slender arms were no match to those mighty arms that shook Mount Kailas. Once again, let us confine her to her human role, without bringing her divine nature and confusing ourselves too much, for this is the way in which the Poet paints the picture. We are not, at least for the present, going into questions like ‘was she capable of handling the situation herself, and could she have stopped Ravana,’ et al. More over, speaking of strength, there are two different planes to be considered, namely, physical and mental. We will go into these questions one by one.

Let us now restructure what happened at this moment once again. He caught her by the plait and carried her away when she was falling down, as indicated by the description that ‘he held her by the locks (nape of neck) and thighs’. She was semi-conscious at that moment. Of this, there can be no doubt because that is what she says not once, but thrice, on three different occasions.

As the aerial car rose up into the skies, she wailed the name of Rama. The very next moment, she called the name of Lakshmana. ‘  ஹா  லக்ஷ்மண  மஹாபாஹோ  குரு சி்த்த  ப்ரஸாதக ’, ‘O Lakshmana of mighty arms, the delighter of the mind of elders (or, the delighter of Rama’s mind) you do not perceive me being carried away by an ogre who is able to assume any form at will.’ (Ibid, Sloka 24)

A rough elaboration of the Sloka would read as follows. ‘I am being carried away by this demon who assumes any form at will. I have seen that ability of his with my own eyes. He walked in the form of a Brahmin, old and withered, chanting the Vedas and now he walked out of our hermitage with the most terrifying of forms. What are you doing O mighty-armed Lakshmana, when he is carrying me away! Is it not your duty to protect me! Did you not see him carrying me away!’

That, once again, is a confirmation of what we have already seen, on what she really thought of Lakshmana and how he held him in her heart. (See: Here lies her heart) She wails to the river, birds, mountain, plants and trees, pleading with them to convey that she has been carried away. She asks them to mention to Rama the state in which she was carried off.

“Nay I offer salutations to (all) those deities who dwell in this forest, full of various trees, and pray to them: ‘(Kindly) speak to my husband of my having been borne away. I seek the protection of all the animals of different species, the herds of deer and the flocks of birds, which actually dwell in this forest and pray: ‘Kindly tell my husband of his beloved spouse, more valuable (to him) than his very life being borne away and add the following: ‘ விவசா  அபஹ்ருதா ஸீதா  ராவணேந இதி  சம்ஸத ’ Your Sita has been carried away by Ravana, helpless as she was.” (Ibid, Sloka 32 – 34)

Tell him that she has been carried away by an ogre and lay stress on the point that she was helpless. She was not in control.

This is what she would tell Hanuman and Rama himself, later.

This is what she has to say – Part II

This is one of the most beautiful and most moving scenes in the epic. It is not without reason that those in distress and destitution are advised to recite the Sundara Kanda…

She would tell Hanuman the same thing, later in the Sundara Kanda. After identifying her and consoling her, Hanuman offers to take her to Rama, on his back. “You will be united with Sri Rama as Rohini with the moon-god, the very moment as it were, you say that you wish to be so united. (Pray) climb up my back and reach beyond the vast sea through space precisely as I came here.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Sundara Kanda, Canto XXXVII, Sloka 27)

‘I will take you back as swiftly as I came here. You will be with Rama, even before you complete the expression of your wish that you want to be with him,’ he consoles her and assumes his viswa-rupa in order to inspire confidence in her. This is one of the most beautiful and most moving scenes in the epic. It is not without reason that those in distress and destitution are advised to recite the Sundara Kanda. This is the portion that describes the jewel among women, who was lonely, who was suffering, who was undergoing trauma of the extreme kind, was restored to her confidence, re-instilled and reinvested of her faith and came out of the cloud, blazing and shining, with the restoration of her dwindling strength. We will go into details later. Let us now come back to her answer to Hanuman.

‘The life of Rama is dependent on my survival,’ she tells him and very calmly gives out logical and convincing reasons to justify why she prefers not to go with him, seated on his back. Among the other reasons, which we would go into later, she cites one point to justify her preference to endure the sufferings for some more time to come, and be liberated by Rama and none else. “Keeping (as I do) devotion to my lord in the forefront, O monkey, I do not wish to touch of my own free will the body of anyone other than Sri Rama, O jewel among monkeys!” (Ibid, Sloka 62)

‘Eru sEvagan mEni allaal,’ says Kamban’s Sita. ‘But for Rama, the lion among warriors, ‘idai aaru aimpori ninnayum aaN enak kUrum,’ (the world would say that) you are a male, though I know that you are in absolute control of the five-senses and are above all that is petty ‘iv vuruth thINdal kUdumO?’ (and therefore) would I be able to touch you? Would I be able to remain seated on your back?’ But Kamban’s treatment is different because he moves away from Valmiki and depicts her abduction differently. We will see that presently.

Even as she utters these words, she is quick to see another point. ‘I am telling him that I won’t touch any male other than Rama. He might think that I was brought here by Ravana.’ Before Hanuman could even think on that line, she tells him,  ’அநீசா   கிம் கரிஷ்யாமி  விநாதா விவசா  ஸதீ  ’ (Ibid, Sloka 63). Notice the repetition of the word, vivasha. “That I was forced into contact with Ravana was because, being helpless, without protector and having lost control of myself, I could not do anything.”

And once again, when Rama alleges her at the end of the war, moments before the fire ordeal, she tells him, ‘  யதஹம் காத்ர  ஸம்ஸ்பர்சம்  கதாஸ்மி  விவசா  ப்ரபோ ’ (Ibid, Yuddha Kanda, Canto 116, Sloka 8). The same word vivasha occurs once again in her description of this moment. “I was helpless when I came into contact with the person of Ravana; I did not act of my own free will on that occasion. My adverse fate (alone) is to blame on that score, my lord.”

Of course, the discussion on this scene is for a later date. But the point is, she states consistently, whenever she recollects of this moment that she was, ‘helpless and semi-conscious.’ I was not under my control. Listen to her in the very next Sloka in the above scene. “That which is under my control, viz., my heart (ever) abides in you.” (Ibid, Sloka 9)

We will now take up what Kamban has to say.

Ore and Ornament

Draupadi was subjected to humiliation worse than this. She was brought to the hall where the royalty had assembled. She was pulled to the dais by her plait…

The debate over this point of Ravana holding her physically has been going on for a very long time. As we have seen, there have been numerous clever interpretations and inventions of Valmiki’s version to defend her against the ‘slur’ that has been caused by the act of Ravana. I don’t see that there is any need for going on the defensive on this particular point. A person is judged not just by actions, but by the intentions behind such actions.

Even if one goes by actions, what the Poet depicts is the action of Ravana and it is his action and his intention behind that action that needs to be weighed and is to be taken to testify his character. Janaki is not at fault. She remains like a solid rock. Why should she be defended? When there is no fault of intention, why should one think at all of going on the defensive?

Draupadi was subjected to humiliation worse than this. She was brought to the hall where the royalty had assembled. She was pulled to the dais by her plait and we know what else had happened to her that day. Do we hold her responsible for what had happened to her? Do we not judge her by intentions? If the onus for the action vests with Dhussasana in her case, the burden of responsibility lies on Ravana in this case. And not on her. She cannot be held in any other light.

We have been speaking about the interpretations of the incidents of Valmiki Ramayana. Valmiki had no difficulty in recording the drama as he envisioned. Going by what is recorded in the Uttara Kanda, this version none other than Rama himself listened to it and accepted it.

As we have been emphasising repeatedly, when Kamban retold the story, several thousands of years had flown in the majestic river of Time, with all eddies, tides, swirls, whirls and whirlpools. The general body of opinion had undergone tremendous change. The most important change being the elated state that the divine couple occupied in the minds of all. They were no longer the king and the queen with lofty ideals and loftier ways of living, when Kamban undertook to retell the epic. As a dramatist, he had the onerous responsibility of weaving the characters in a manner that did not give room even for the slightest shade of supposed darkness to cloud them. For him, Rama and Sita were not just a king and queen – of course a king and queen who are unparalleled.

In fact, when Valmiki began his epic, he started with the question on whom to write about. He just wanted to know who the best among men was. When Narada answered him, he simply mentioned that ikSvaaku vamsha prabhavo raamo naama janaiH shrutaH ‘One who is born in the family of Ikswakus and is known to people by the name Rama’ best suited the detailed description of the ‘most ideal man’ of that time, whose life deserves to be recorded. Narada even states ‘viSNunaa sadRisho viirye somavat priya darshanaH’ (Valmiki Ramayana Bala Kanda, Canto I, Sloka 18) ‘Rama is comparable with Vishnu, in valour.’ That does not reflect the idea that Rama was an avatar of Vishnu. He was just comparable to Vishnu. The idea that Rama is the reincarnation of Vishnu is absent here, at least for now. The idea of course, is then presented and emphasised by Valmiki in several later instances.

But it is not so for Kamban. For him, his Rama and his Sita were not just human beings. They were his worshipful Lord and His Consort, in human form. His treatment of the characters, his way of development of the drama, his portrayal of events et al, revolve of course round the theme that he is narrating the story of Rama the king; but always with the emphasis and reverence that it is an Avatar of his Lord that he is singing about. That is why, he does not fail to mention ‘ennai aaLudaya ayyan’ ‘the Lord who has me as His slave; His servant’ right in the beginning, in the Bala Kanda, when narrating the scene of Lord Vishnu makes it known that He would be born as Rama. This is a kind of expression that we are not able to listen from the mouth of Valmiki.

This basic difference in approach made it impossible for Kamban to follow the footsteps of Valmiki in this scene. For him Sita was none other than his own Mother. He could not portray the scene as it were in Valmiki. As Shri VVS Aiyar would put it, “In Valmiki what we find is gold, but gold in its native state of ore. But Kamban beautified this ore and presents it in an ornamental form.”

Ore and Ornament Part II

Kamban develops the drama convincingly and in consonance with the dramatis personae and the respective roles that they play…

We have discussed this scene in Kamban, in passing, when we were studying Ravana. Kamban goes in line with Valmiki to a great extent. Kamban’s Ravana, however, is more sober and wears a more convincing appearance of a sage. His opening speech does not put Janaki to embarrassment and shame. “He wants to conquer Sita’s heart and win her willing love,” observes VVS Aiyar. He says, “He does not desire to force her hand. There is indeed the story and Kamban speaks of it in more than one place, that there is a curse on him that, the moment he tries to unite with a woman against her will, his head would burst into a hundred fragments. But our poet depicts Ravana as if he genuinely, and not for fear of the curse, desire the willing affection of Sita. And so the words he addresses to Sita are always full of a rare delicacy, taking every circumstance into consideration.”

This was the reason why Kamban makes his Ravana to observe restraint in his speech. Once again, VVS Aiyar observes, “At the first meeting with Sita in the forest of Dandaka, Valmiki makes Ravana speak bluntly to her like a vulgar wooer of her beauty. …… His speech also lacks consistency with itself. For while very soon, without any further ado, he is going to announce himself as Ravana the words,

Leave lady, leave this lone retreat
In forest wilds for thee unmeet
Where giants fierce and strong assume
All shapes and wander in the gloom
What led thee to so dire a place?

are more calculated to injure than help his cause.”

That is why Ravana does not announce that he is Ravana, as he does in Valmiki Ramayana. He introduces himself as a sanyasi, living under the care of Ravana and uses the opportunity to pay rich encomiums to the demon king. He cleverly slips information on Ravana to entice her heart. (See: Cow in tiger’s skin II) Janaki is not able to digest this inconsistency. She, for the first time, hears a sanyasi speaking so very richly of a demon. She asks, ‘How can you, who have given up attachments of all kinds, who does not have attachment towards your very own frame and consider it an unnecessary burden and would shed it without hesitation at the right time, reside under the protection of an ogre?’

Ravana sanyasi realises that he has committed a mistake by praising him so openly. ‘vallOr iyarkayin nirpadhu allaal, iyatral aam neri en?’ he asks. ‘What can one do? One has to adapt oneself to circumstances. That is the way of the world. One has to conduct oneself in accordance with the nature of the demons, when one lives under their benevolence.’ This leads Sita to console the sanyasi saying that her husband has vowed to blot out all demonic forces from the face of the earth and therefore the ‘sanyasi’ need not be worried. The conversation moves with Ravana telling her that it is not possible for anyone to overpower Rakshasa might. When that being so the puny two-handed human creature that Rama would ‘fly off like the petals of a dainty flower when blown away by storm, beaten by the force of wind that those mighty twenty arms of Ravana would set off, when he moved about.’

Janaki, who is still under the impression that the sanyasi is mistaken about the prowess of her husband, reassures him, citing the Tataka, Viradha, Kara Dusana incidents. Ravana’s pride is slighted at that description and he bursts forth, with ten heads and twenty mighty shoulders, from the thin and emaciated sanyasi’s shell. We have narrated this scene and the essence of their conversation, earlier. (See: Dog desiring the divine)

Kamban develops the drama convincingly and in consonance with the dramatis personae and the respective roles that they play at this particular moment.

A count of shoulders

Your Ravana was imprisoned by Karthaviryarjuna. That Karthaviryarjuna was killed by Parasurama. Swamiji, you do not seem to know…

‘You must be joking,’ laughed Ravana. ‘If as you say it is possible for a human being to kill the mighty Rakshasa race, you should as well accept the surmise that ‘yaanayin inaththai ellaam iLa muyal kollum,’ a rabbit would wipe away the entire race of elephants; ‘kUn ugir madangal Etrin kuzhuvai, maan kollum’ a single deer would blot all the lions from the face of the earth. Janaki does not relent. She does not take notice of the fact that the ‘sanyasi’ is getting agitated by her speaking highly of her husband. She comes out with a lively repartee. She rearranges the allegory of Ravana Sanyasi.

‘You are right. A deer cannot of course kill lions. ‘vaaL ari vaLLal.’ ‘Do you know? Rama is the lion.’ ‘sonna maan kaNam nirudhar.’ ‘The demons are the deer that you mentioned.’ She is still under the impression that this ‘sage’ who had just now spoken highly of Ravana did so because he is afraid of the ways of Rakshasas. She tells him reassuringly, ‘annaar kELodu madiyumaarum, vaanavar kiLarumaarum, naaLayE kaaNdi.’ ‘Just wait until tomorrow. (Relax here. Rama and Lakshmana would be back soon. They will put your mind at rest.) Once they come back, they will immediately swing into action. You will see for yourself the death of the Rakshasa hordes with all their kith and kin, when Rama (and Lakshmana) the lions move into action.’

‘navai ilir,’ she addresses Ravana. O sinless one, O impeccable, ‘uNargilIrO?’ ‘Don’t you realise?’ Until this very last moment, she very sincerely and truly takes the sanyasi to be a real sage and feels that this sage needs to be pulled out of his fear for demons. ‘mILa arum dharumam thannai vellumO paavam endraaL.’ Have you ever heard that sin would emerge victorious against righteousness? Would vice be victorious, ever? You are a sage and you should have known this. Instead, you are expressing things in praise of Ravana; you seem to take delight in singing his glory just because you are afraid of him. Now, don’t worry. Rama and Lakshmana would obliterate the entire race of Rakshasas.

That hit him very hard. ‘uru kezhu maanam Undra,’ his pride was slighted. Those words sounded like a challenge to his self-respect. ‘maanidar valiyar ennum maatraththaal sItram vaiththaan.’ He was angered by the statement that humans are stronger (than demons). His voice picked up an edge and he said, ‘Rama would be blown off like a dainty flower by the mere wind set in motion by the twenty valiant shoulders.’

We do not find the slightest trace of fear even at this moment, in Janaki. ‘So what?’ she quips. ‘araN tharu thiraL thOL saala uLa enin aatral uNdO?’ Numbers do not matter Swamiji! What if Ravana has rows and rows of hands! In what way does it signify that he is powerful? You don’t seem to know his story. ‘karaNda nIr ilangai vEndhaich chirai vaiththa kazhar kaal vIran,’ That Ravana, whose land is surrounded by sea gulls, was imprisoned by a person (known as Karthaviryarjuna). ‘thiraNda thOL vanathai ellam,’ He had a forest of hands. He was endowed with a thousand hands. ‘siriyadhu Or paruvam thannil,’ And you know what happened? There was a slip of a boy (Parasurama). ‘iraNdu thOL oruvan andrO mazhuvinaal erindhaan?’ He slaughtered all those thousand shoulders (that imprisoned the mere twenty-shouldered Ravana you are speaking about). He (Parasurama) had only two hands. Not more than that!

Your Ravana was imprisoned by Karthaviryarjuna. That Karthaviryarjuna was killed by Parasurama. Swamiji, you do not seem to know that the pride of Parasurama was slighted by my husband, hardly a few days after our marriage.

Unlike the Janaki of Valmiki, she sounds very lively and exhibits all her skills with words. She is as fresh as a frolicking youngster. This is not to deny that thoughts of Rama were troubling her in the back of her mind. Kamban gives evidence for that too. But the moment she speaks about the valour of her husband, her mood changes entirely. She is teasing the sage with facts, without still realising that it is the demon that is standing before her.

Hari Krishnan