Rama - The story of a history
Rama the righteous
 “Was it a vision or a waking dream?” wondered John Keats in his Ode on a Nightingale. The story of Rama does fill us with a wonder not dissimilar to that of Keats in many respects. ‘Is it possible for a man, a mere human being to conduct himself in this way?’ we muse. ‘Is it at all possible for any single one of us to place righteousness above everyone, father, mother, guru, brother, wife and his own self? Is it possible for anyone of us to accept the crown this day and move on to the jungle the very next, for no fault of ours, just for the sake of upholding the promise that the father made to the step-mother in the distant past, which she utilises now to turn the tables on? That too when the father says, ‘You need not listen to me; you may fight and get your kingdom back,’ and the gurus subscribed to that view?
Quite unusual human traits grip us before we complete just the first two books of the great epic, Bala and Ayodhya Kanda. This man’s penchant for righteousness takes us not by surprise but by shock. He refutes his master Vasistha, turns his request down to come back and take the crown; chides the eminent sage Jabali when he proffers pure reason and logic that permit Rama to come back to Ayodhya to accept the crown. “Dasaratha was none to you,” he argues and says, “nor were you related in anyway to him. The king was not you, while you are not the king (Dasaratha); therefore do what is recommended (to you). The father is only an efficient cause of a creature; it is only the sperm and the ovum conjointly retained by a (prospective) mother during the nights favourable for conception that constitute the material cause of a human being in this world. The aforesaid king has departed to the destination where he was bound to go (viz., back to the five elements from which he had sprung up). Such is the natural way of created beings, while you are being harassed for no purpose.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Canto 108, Sloka 10-12)
‘Rama you need not be bound by what Dasaratha promised to Kaikeyi. It was not your promise; and Dasaratha was responsible along with your mother just for your birth and no more. The entire population of Ayodhya and we and Bharata desire that you are the one who should be installed on the throne of the country. Therefore, there is no reason why you should continue to remain in exile.’
 Any of our present-day statesmen would need no more than this argument to retain his seat of power. But not so for this man! He hits him back with an equally potent logic and wisdom and says, “The advice that you have tendered on this occasion in order to make available to me the pleasures of sense, which are agreeable (to all) is not (really) worth following, although appearing as such, and is unwholesome, though appearing as wholesome,” (Ibid, Canto 109, Sloka 2), cites the Vedas and other scriptures and questions, “Wherefore, then, shall I, who knows all this, not carry out the behest of my father which was based on truth and solemnised through swearing by truth, true to (my) promise as I am? Neither from greed (of sovereignty) nor even from infatuation nor again from ignorance shall I, overpowered by obtuseness of understanding, violate the sanctity of my father’s pledge (given to mother Kaikeyi) true to my promise, (as I am).” (Ibid, Sloka 16 and 17)
‘I stick to my promise and it is my word which is dearer to me more than my own life,’ he declares later to Sita in the forest when she tries to stop him from killing the ogres at the request of the Rishis there.
“apy aham jivitam jahyam tvam va site salaksmanam
na tu pratijnam samsrutya brahmanebhyo visesatah” he says. “For truth is always dear to me. I can even give up my life or you together with Lakshmana but not my plighted word given especially to the Brahmanas.” (Ibid, Aranya Kanda, Canto 10, Sloka 18) And remembers to add,
“mama snehac ca sauhardad idam uktam tvaya vacah paritusto 'smy aham site na hy anisto 'nusisyate sadrsam canurupam ca kulasya tava sobhane.” “O Sita! I am fully pleased. For a person is never advised unless he is dear. And it is becoming and proper not only for you but for your family too, O beautiful lady! You are dearer to me even than life, being my companion in Dharma.” (Ibid, Sloka 21)
 ‘I hold my life dear like everyone else, but you are dearer to me than my life. You are my companion in the performance of Dharma. Lakshmana is dearer to me too than my life. But if such a situation arises, I would rather stand for truth, than for my own life, or you or Lakshmana. I would give up everything, including my life and you both. But not truth.’
Unimaginable. A person who displays so many traits which are in the likeness of every common man, declares in no uncertain terms that the chief driving force in his life is Truth and nothing but Truth and lives for it. And, finally, when he had to give up Sita, it was for the sake of righteousness; when he had to give up Lakshmana, it was for the sake of this truth and when he gave up his own life in the river Sarayu, it was in part due to this very same penchant for truth that remained with him until the very last moment.
That is why even Western scholars like J L Brockington, who did extensive research on Valmiki Ramayana and are of the view that Valmiki did not portray his Rama as an avatar; and the Bala and Uttara Kandas are later additions by poets other than Valmiki, still choose to call Rama, the righteous. In fact, Brockington calls his book by the name ‘The Righteous Rama.’
|
