I’ve had trouble understanding the language of Ramcharitmanas, and somehow, my Nana came to know of this.
Now he has made it a point to explain to me all the “chaupai” he considers essential for a person to know.
I’m amazed at how well his memory still serves him, and he can always bring a new chaupai out of his hat for any suitable context or occasion. He talks about how he used to debate militant leftists when Maoist ideas were at their peak influence and beat them out of their wits.
Being a master of mathematics wasn’t the only reason why he was called “Masterji”. Ramcharitmanas has been his source of witty comebacks throughout his life, be it day to day dealings or intellectual conversations with those of the opposing camp.
One fine day I went to meet him, and soon enough, the discussions turned again to religion. He carefully brought the book out, meticulously spread a clean cloth first, put the book on it, prayed, and opened it.
He read and explained a few lines to me, and as he was going at it, I wanted to see how the book had dealt with the pressing issues of the current times.
I asked him about how some conservatives blame the victim of sexual assault.
What he had to say, despite being of what people may call the “conservative group”, is the reason why I still stress why religious texts must be read in depth-first, with a neutral viewpoint, and then be criticised, or taken as guiding texts.
He told me the story of “Ahilya uddhar” through the chaupai.
Long story short-
Ahilya was the most beautiful woman on the planet. Indra allegedly enchants/rapes her. Her husband comes back, and punishes both Indra and Ahilya, with the latter being turned to stone.
A lot of time passes by, and the Stone is touched by Rama, turning her back to normal.
Rama explains here that it wasn’t her fault, to begin with, and was wrongly punished. Rishi Gautama too had realised this, but it was too late, for the curse had already been uttered in a fit of rage, hence he gave a way to break the curse for this very reason.
And for Indra, he still isn’t a god of regular worship, yet is the king of gods, which is symbolic of the fact that no king ever is perfect and we must always question authority.
That the common people through their godly deeds are elevated to the ranks of a “Devta”, but just like people, they too are fallacious, and do not escape punishment for their wrong deeds.
Indra is a title, and job description, and one of the office-bearers tarnished the position. Think about the CJI, how about that for a reference?
The stance was simple, it does not matter how beautiful do you find the woman, how appealing her outfit is, how desperate you are for her, the moment you force your will upon her, or even trick her into it, you-become-the-criminal. It does not matter if you are the king of the gods himself.
The religion does not forgive it. The religion does not blame the victim.
I asked the next question, and this time it was on socialism.
The instant answer was the example of Ravan’s abandoned son, Narantak.
In his kingdom, the labours sat with the king, wore the attire of the king, looked like the king, and could be only differentiated by the works they did. A kingdom of mutual respect and responsibility for work, and economics based on goodwill.
A western idea appearing in a book from the Indian subcontinent that predates any socialist/communist literature by far, how about that?
Today, a quick quora search will show you how people defend Indra because they can not accept what he did, and call the story a “corruption”, who claim devas as singular entities and not as posts, despite Indra being told by Krishna when he lifted Govardhan that there were millions of Indras other than him and that he should not become too proud.
Victim blaming remains prevalent, any possibility of a new economic and social system is dealt with brute force because a new system of equity might hurt their pride.
A disappointment in the face of the greatness of what they are trying to defend.
or is it?
For all I can see is multiple versions and interpretations of the same stories each designed to fit a rhetorical construct, as needed.
Replace Ahilya’s “misfortune” with the word “misconduct”, and the story will fit someone else’s perspective, and make the men as the ones who “forgave” her, instead of being the one who corrected another’s mistake.
So what is the point that I am trying to establish here?
It is the fact that religious books are great tools of influence, and the only way to really fix a machine is learning to use the tool and not break it instead.
The books do have greatness but await great minds to interpret them, and free them from the shackles of fundamentalists.
oh and by the way, Ram did not make Sita go through the Agni pareeksha to test her “chastity” but it was to test if it really was Sita and not a demon disguised as her, as Sita still could have been hidden somewhere by a fanatic Ravan sympathiser. Chastity resides in the essence of a person’s soul and not their body, and Maryada Purushottam Ram was well aware of it.
I hope you got the point.
