“Three Hundred Ramayanas” & “The Jewel of Medina”

Last week, responding to a petition to ban a history textbook, the Supreme Court asked Delhi University’s expert panel to consider the views of petitioners before submitting a final report to the Vice-Chancellor.

As some of you would know, the textbook – prescribed as part of the BA (Hons) second year syllabus at Delhi University – is said to include offensive references to Shri Hanuman and Sita Mataa such as “Lord Hanuman was a henchman of Lord Rama” and “the little monkey was a womaniser” etc…The book was the cause of a protest led by ABVP earlier this year during which Dr Jafri, the Head of History Deptt at DU was manhandled…

Curious to know more about the textbook, I spent some time researching on the internet this morning…Here is a link to Ramanujan’s essay that is included in the textbook…

After reading it, I felt that the ABVP over-reacted on this one… The “offensive” passages are not penned by Ramanujan but are part of folklore and stories around Ramayana in different cultures and regions. Furthermore, I found them more “entertaining” rather than “offensive”…As an example,

One day when Rama was sitting on his throne, his ring fell off. When it touched the earth, it made a hole in the ground and disappeared into it. It was gone. His trusty henchman, Hanuman, was at his feet. Rama said to Hanuman, “Look, my ring is lost. Find it for me.”

Note that the word “henchman” is not Ramanujan’s translation and possibly part of the original folk-story…What is the problem in that? In another version of Ramayana mentioned by Ramanujan, Sita is Ravana’s daughter…

I hope most of you would agree that there is space for divergent views in Hinduism…and a big attraction of this faith for me is that it allows – and respects – alternative interpretations, viewpoints and thoughts….Let us not dilute this core feature of Sanatan Dharma.

***

On Sunday in far-away London, the home of the publisher of a similarly controversial book (although this was not a textbook but a fictional novel) was fire-bombed, just “hours after police had warned the man that he could be a target for fanatics”.  The book, “The Jewel of Medina” is written by Sherry Jones and had already caused controversy in the US.  Martin Rynja (the publisher) had bought the UK publishing rights earlier this month.

From The Guardian:

The book was originally due to have been published in August by US giant Random House. But amid controversy the company halted publication, a move denounced by Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, as ‘censorship by fear’.

…One sex scene has been described as ‘softcore pornography’ by an American academic, Denise Spellberg, an influential professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas. Spellberg made the comments after Random House sent her the book hoping for a favourable comment to publish on its jacket. Instead, in an email that was leaked to the US press, Spellberg described the novel as a ‘very ugly, stupid piece of work’.

‘I don’t have a problem with historical fiction,’ Spellberg wrote. ‘I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history and turn it into softcore pornography.’

It appears Spellberg was instrumental in drawing attention to the book among segments of the Muslim community. In April, Shahed Amanullah, an editor of a popular Muslim website, claimed Spellberg had told him the book ‘made fun of Muslims and their history’.

The resulting furore prompted Random House to pull the book, a move that dismayed its author, who received a $100,000 advance…

My question to all of you is:

What do you make of Spellberg’s argument viz: “‘I don’t have a problem with historical fiction (but)…I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can’t play with a sacred history…”

  • Is “Ramayana” part of our sacred history?
  • Can the folk-variants of Ramayana be considered “deliberate mis-interpretation” of history?

Anyways, I will be watching the reaction of Indian government to this book whenever (if) it is released in India.

Suggested Reading: Academic Terrorists and The right to offend

Related Posts:

Leave Ashis Nandy alone

UPDATED: Is Taslima being treated differently from MF Husain?

Will Arundhati Roy pl. stand up for Francois Gautier?

P.S. Curiously, it appears that DU had not taken permission from OUP before reproducing Ramanujan’s essay in their textbook.

B Shantanu

Political Activist, Blogger, Advisor to start-ups, Seed investor. One time VC and ex-Diplomat. Failed mushroom farmer; ex Radio Jockey. Currently involved in Reclaiming India - One Step at a Time.

You may also like...

32 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    Boss

    Henchman is a translation…of Ramajunan himself

    Further, quite a lot of authorities on Hindu mythology have contended that many of these 300 versions don’t exist at all

  2. B Shantanu says:

    Anon: You are right….I was not thinking…The original could not have been in English!

    I should go back and check the source.

    Thanks for pointing this out to me.

  3. v.c.krishnan says:

    Dear Shantanu,
    Sanatana Dharma is what we are talking about. Rama was Dharma incarnate. 300 Ramayanas! Duplicity of history for a motive???
    Regards,
    vck

  4. Hemant says:

    All this really looks some hidden agenda. Some more examples are : changing kendriya vidyalaya logo, putting favorites (anti H!ndus) in NCERT, etc…

  5. Nanda says:

    It is obviously a translation by Ramanujam, as you also said ‘possibly part of the original folk-story’.
    One meaning of henchman is ‘true trusted subordinate’. So Ramanujan is principally correct in using this term, but unfortunately this term is used only for criminals which makes it improper to use this term for Lord Hanuman. Unfornately Ramanujam probably didn’t think in this angle.
    Hinduism has always allowed different interpretations, but only by great saints and bhaktas. It does not allow interpretations by athiests (including people from other religions), people without spiritual knowledge, people not bonafide by spiritual gurus, people who are not saints themselves.

    My opinion is Henchman is not the write translation and; NO, Hinduism does not encourage stupid interpretations by unqualified people whose intent is not to enjoy the literature and glory of god. Interpretations are allowed only to enjoy the God in a different way.

  6. Nanda says:

    And, Sita being daughter of Ravan is not an interpretation, it has the backing of literatures which cannot be interpretted differently. Valmiki does not cover this part of the history, so you cannot term this as an interpretation. Similarly, many pieces of the story are not covered by him but covered in other puranas.

  7. B Shantanu says:

    vck, Hemant and Nanda: Thanks for your comment…

    ***

    @ Nanda: You wrote, “Sita being daughter of Ravan is not an interpretation, it has the backing of literatures”.

    That is interesting…I was not aware of that…Can you share more details of this story?

    Thanks.

  8. Hemant says:

    All these things really look confusing. There is one site which refers to “Buddha Ramayana”…

    http://www.raceandhistory.com/worldhotspots/riddlerama.htm

    The Riddle Of Rama And Sita
    Quoted from: Appendix No.1 of Part 3 of the book
    Riddles of Hinduism 1995
    By Dr. Babasaheb B.R.Ambedkar

    At one point it is even mentioned:
    “According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha.”

    Also, “They included flesh and fruits and liquor. Rama was not a teetotaler. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts. From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts. Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Ram as a ‘Prince among women’s men’. This was not a day’s affair. It was a regular course of his life.”

    Really looks ‘strange’ to say the least…and even more if it indeed came from Babasaheb Ambedkar!

  9. v.c.krishnan says:

    Dear Sir,
    Lord Rama was a Kshatriya prince and not a “Brahmin”. Lord Buddha was also a Kshatriya prince. I do not talk of a Brahmin story of Buddha!
    Let us leave this alone. It will only lead to unneccessary arguments and throwing mud at each other.
    Please understand that Shri. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism after he rejected the “Hindu” as they did not accept him. I think the reliance on such versions of the Ramayana will be misplaced.
    When the shit hits the ceiling fan, all of us need a bath.
    Let us not bring in a new controversy when something like this does not exist.
    Let us live our lives. You like it enjoy it. Please do not throw the shit around. It will hurt everybody.
    Regards,
    vck

  10. tarique says:

    well said vck .i dont think so people should be discussing something so seriously that took place thousands of years ago.in india this is our biggest problem in every section of our society. ask anyone today the history of his great great grandfather and he will know nothing about it.yet they all want the world to believe their version of gods and goddesses.

  11. Hemant says:

    I don’t think we “want world to believe ‘our’ version”. All we are interested in finding the truth and preventing/identifying distorted history…

  12. B Shantanu says:

    Excerpts from Appraising ‘The Jewel of Medina’

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081015_appraising_jewel_medina

    By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

    ***

    “The Jewel of Medina,” a controversial work of historical fiction by American author Sherry Jones, was supposed to have gone on sale Oct. 15 in the United Kingdom. A series of events, however, have delayed its British release indefinitely. The book, which went on sale in the United States on Oct. 6, describes the life of Aisha, the young girl who became the Prophet Mohammed’s third — and according to many sources, favorite — wife.

    …While the author and publisher have argued that the book respectfully portrays Mohammed and his relationship with Aisha — in stark contrast to the Danish cartoons that have sparked so much protest and violence — the tone of the book is not the real issue. To many Muslims, not only is it offensive to ridicule Mohammed but it is forbidden and considered a dire insult to portray the prophet in any way outside the context of Islamic writings. This insult is magnified when Mohammed is depicted having intimate relations with his wife, a revered figure in Islam who is referred to in many Islamic writings as “Um ul Mumineen” (Arabic for “Mother of the Believers”). Because of this, in all probability many Muslims — not just a few radicals — will find the book offensive.

    …To better gauge the scope of potential threats and incidents that could result from distribution of “The Jewel of Medina,” it is useful to examine earlier incidents where large segments of Muslim society were angered by the publication of images or other portrayals of the Prophet Mohammed — and when that outrage caused radical Muslims to respond with violence.

    As mentioned above, the publication of satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed galvanized Muslims in many countries, and the cartoons sparked protests in a variety of locations. Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard drew the cartoons, and Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published them in September 2005. The cartoons’ initial release produced very little fallout. In fact, the majority of protest activity surrounding their publication did not begin until early 2006, when information about the cartoons was intentionally spread through Muslim communities worldwide by Muslim activists seeking to create an uproar over the cartoons and instigate violence. They even stacked the deck by adding some extremely inflammatory cartoons of the prophet not published in Jyllands-Posten.

    …Another recent example of Muslim wrath spurred by what many Westerners consider an exercise of free speech and artistic license was the November 2004 slaying by a militant Muslim of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Van Gogh had directed a short documentary called “Submission” that discussed the issue of violence committed against Muslim women. The movie was considered especially inflammatory because it contained depictions of Koranic verses interposed on nude female bodies.

    Van Gogh received several threats following the August 2004 release of “Submission,” but he seemed to disregard them and refused to accept protection. Van Gogh was attacked while riding his bicycle to work. His assassin, Mohammed Boyeri, shot van Gogh eight times and then attempted to behead him with a knife before leaving a threatening note pinned to van Gogh’s body with a second knife.

    The 1988 publication of Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses” also offers valuable insights about the potential reception of “The Jewel of Medina.” Many Muslims condemned Rushdie’s novel for depicting a false prophet named “Mahound” (a derogatory moniker for the Prophet Mohammed), creating characters that questioned the validity of Islam, and suggesting that Mahound might have received words in the Koran from the devil. Despite critical acclaim, the book was banned in more than 10 countries prior to publication. Another 11 countries banned the book after outbreaks of violence in the United Kingdom and the United States.

    …Though Khomeini’s fatwa has not led to Rushdie’s death, a number of other individuals associated with the book’s publication were attacked, and some were murdered. Ettore Capriolo, who translated the book into Italian, was beaten and stabbed in July 1991. Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator, was stabbed to death in an attack the same month. Turkish translator Aziz Nesin was attacked in October 1993 but survived critical injuries.

    A Long-Term Problem
    As seen in the examples noted above, “The Jewel of Medina” has the potential to cause problems for many years. Though this issue might fade quickly from public consciousness in the West, the subject matter of the book has the potential to inflame Muslim activists again in the future. In the case of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons, Pakistani religious leaders admitted that they intentionally stirred up emotions connected with the publication of Mohammed’s images after the initial furor died down. It is thus quite possible that “The Jewel of Medina” will be used in the same way. This time frame could span decades. In the case of “The Satanic Verses,” large-scale protests condemning the book and Rushdie occurred as recently as fall 2007, 19 years after the novel’s publication.

    …We are not necessarily predicting an immediate open season on Sherry Jones or the publishers of the book, but precautions should obviously be taken to prevent them from becoming the next Theo van Goghs. And as the ancillary attacks in the Rushdie case (among others) have shown, other people also can become victims, and violence can be channeled in unexpected ways and appear in unexpected places. When it comes to perceptions of blasphemy and other affronts that some see as warranting death, fatwas often are carried out with extreme brutality — and those targeted have not always been directly associated with the initial offense. Considering past examples and the probable emotions “The Jewel of Medina” will raise in the Islamic world, revenge for offended religious sensibilities might be brutal, and it might be a long time coming.

  13. B Shantanu says:

    As an aside, excerpts from ‘Ramayana most popular performing art in Bangladesh’ (Mar 17 ’09) by Madhusree Chatterjee

    In the green hinterland of Islamic Bangladesh, the Ramayana is the most popular performing art form, says a leading playwright of the country.


    “At least eight versions of the Ramayana, mostly folklore-based performances, are enacted in the countryside of Bangladesh. It is one of the most popular epics in the country, surpassing even the Mahabharata in its ratings,” Zakaria told IANS.

    In Agra to attend the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) Festival of Literature, Zakaria is an Islamic scholar who has written extensively about the Ramayana and the performances associated with it. He is attached to the Bangla Academy in Dhaka.

    “Ramayana in villages of Bangladesh is interpreted as a social comment exploring the model relationship between the husband, wife and the members of the family. References to Ramayana can often be found in local folklores that describe filial conduct codes and in domestic conservations,” Zakaria said.

    Sita’s “Agni Pariksha” (test by fire), for example, was usually interpreted as the tribulations of the average Bangladeshi woman, who was subjected to tests both at her father’s home, in-laws’ house and in the conservative Islamic social mosaics of the villages that still frowned upon gender equality and freedom, explained the playwright.

    Zakaria describes the different forms of “Ramayana” in Bangladesh in the context of the folk cultures of the districts and history of the country’s performing arts in his book, “Bangladesher Lok Natak (Popular Theatre of Bangladesh)”.

    One of the oldest and most widely-enacted folk performances of the epic is the “Kushtiya Ramayan Gaan”, which originates from Zakaria’s native district, Kushtia, home of the legendary “baul” poet Lalan Fakir.

    “It is an oral musical drama sung during Durga Puja and during funerals by the village bards. Kushtiya Gaan speaks of devotion, marital peace and inter-personal ties in the family and society,” Zakaria said.

    “Ram Kirtan” is common to Gopalganj in Kushtia. “It is a secular interpretation of the epic sung and enacted by one narrator known as the “dohar” or the “sutradhar” – who acts as the story-teller,” the playwright explained.

    The theatrical performance of “Ram Mangal”, the rural folk art form of Kishorganj, flourishes throughout the “bhakti” belt of Mymensingh district. “Ram Mangal is an invocation of Lord Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu, performed in the Bhakti (prayer songs) tradition,” Zakaria said.

    “Ram Jatra”, typical of Gopalganj, is essentially a variety of “uthaan (courtyard)” theatre, enacted in the courtyards of temples or in the homes of local landlords.

    In Lalmonirhaat district of northern Bangladesh and in Chorigram on the West Bengal-Bangladesh border near Malda, Hindu and Muslim minstrels perform “Ram Leela” – a traditional version of the epic sung by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu of Bengal – during funerary feasts and Shivratri.

    “Kushan Gaan”, the story of king Rama’s life, as narrated by his sons Luv and Kush, is enacted in villages of Korigram. “The script, full of music and dance, is a blend of the two versions of the epic written by seers Valmiki and Krittivas,” Zakaria explained.

    In the tea gardens of Sylhet, Kaliganj and Srimangal, migrant tea “deshwali” workers from Bihar, Chhotanagpur and Orissa enact the Bhojpuri Tulsidas Ramayan for a month during Dussehra.

    “Dhop Jatra”, another form of courtyard Ramayana, is also performed in the temples of Sylhet.

    “In most of these performances, men dress as women and use the local dialect to communicate effectively with the rural audience,” Zakaria said, explaining the nature of the plays.

    None of these performances has any documented script, says the chronicler. “The performers rely on the oral traditions handed down the generations.”

    Bangladesh also pays its tribute to Sita, the princess of Mithila and the queen of Ayodhya, through the “Chandravati Ramayan”, a 16th century version of the epic scripted by Bengal’s first known poetess, Chandravati.

    “Ram takes a back seat in this version of Ramayana and Sita is the leading light. Sita, in Chandravati Ramayan, is Ravana’s daughter who is cast off in childhood after an astrologer predicts that she will destroy her father,” Zakaria said.

    Chandravari Ramayana is sung by the women of Kishorganj as “geet gaan” during weddings.

  14. Indian says:

    Shantanu, go thorugh above link when you have time. It says almost in all part of the world one can find the traces of Ramayana.

    Thanks

  15. Krishnadas says:

    Hello, Hare Krishna. Good web site. Just browsing , Hinduism and stopped by clicked, saw truth will win, and here are my comments.

    Debates , arguements , is very much the Indian way of life, far vibrant to the monotony of the West.

    I am from a mix pool of European genes. Then I joined Hare Krishna about 23 yrs ago and I am a happy man now. Yes , during these 23 yrs ,I have had an opportunity to read Ramayana. Yes , there are many versions, but the first is always the best, which is Sage Valmiki’s. My background is not in the English language , but it is mix of Polish, French, and two or more languages. The trouble with the English words is that it has borrowed heavily from other languages. Even though the sun set on the empire, the empire took something like prasadam (Prasadams should be free, please do not commercialise this) of words from other languages and presented English as a language.
    Now let us see how the meaning of the word henchman has undergone evolution and one will understand the way , the meaning of the word keeps on changing, if the word is used as a tag to some other word, to be more precise contextual.
    First context

    (A)”The word henchman (Germanic irregular plural: henchmen) referred originally to one who attended on a horse, that is, a horse groom. Hence, like constable and marshal, also originally stable staff, (B)henchman became the title of a (subordinate) official in a royal court or noble household. (C)It is now used primarily to describe a stock character in many adventure stories: the villain’s lackey or trusted aide.

    This is from wikepaedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henchman

    Now see the three meanings (A) (B) (C) a horse groom , a subordinate official in a royal court, and then lo behold , this in the start of 20th century word , the villians lackey or aide. Can you apply this meaning to Hanuman. No reject all.

    Just read the etymology, popular culture, modern culture and others in wikeapeadia. The meanings just do not fit Hanuman’s personality.

    Now let us analyse AK Ramanujan.
    With due respects to his lterary ability as indicated in many web sites, one should admire him, but being an Indian and lived in India in the spiritual atmosphere of Mysore for his first 30 yrs ,he should not have been overtaken by the American popular culture words, where he spent latter part of his life as academic. He should have been careful. All web sites say he was proficient in Kannada and English. They add that he was good in Sanskrit and many other languages. Among all the languages in the world , it is not good enough to be good in Sanskrit , you have to be excellent atleast to be good in Sanskrit. His English may be excellent, but his Sanskrit is not thorough. Friends. I started learning Sanskrit late in life about 15 yrs ago. It is American popular culture words which caught the fancy of Ramanujan and Hanuman has become the victim caught between improper translation. The immortal Hanuman’s original Dvaitic bhakti has been lost in translation.

    It is Ram Navami time now. Hare Rame Hare Krishna.

  16. B Shantanu says:

    @ Indian: Thanks for the link…It is very interesting! I will definitely go back and dig deeper into some of the evidence/references in the article…Very appropriate link on this auspicious day of “Ram Navami”! Thanks.

    ***

    @ Krishnadas: Thanks for digging deeper into the meaning of “Henchman” – admirable fact-finding…and I am very impressed by your dedicattion to learn Sanskrit and to learn more about our ancient heritage and culture. Very inspiring…

    Happy “Ram Navami” to you. Hare Ram Hare Krishna!

  17. Indu Bali says:

    Three Hundred Ramayana Case V.C. Delhi University Summoned (Many Ramayana Article)
    Buzz up! ShareThisMar 24 2009 | Views 32 | Comments (0) Leave a Comment

    In Three Hundred Ramayana, Legal Case against V.C. Delhi University has been summoned to face trial for the alleged commission of an offense punishable under Section 153_A, 295_A. and 298 of IPC, for 22.4.2009. This is an order against the complaint filed by Anil Bali in Dera Bassi Court on 13.6.2008, in the SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DERA BASSI.

    The Case was filed through Advocates Sh. Mukesh Gandhi, Sh. Anmol Singh and Miss Indu Bali.

    The complainant was aggrieved and his conscience is hurt after going through the malicious, fictitious, mutilated comments added by altering the original contents of the religious book. It contains abusive and libelous language used for Divine Hindu deities. It contains false stories quoted under one pretext or oral and other without any authenticity. That it is a matter of concern that popular beliefs and prevailing traditions of Hindu Culture are projected in distorted manner. An attempt is made to create differences in communities. May visit blog for further details.

    anilbali49.sulekha.com

  18. Indu Bali says:

    Three Hundred Ramayanas Legal Notice to Oxford University Press, New Delhi by Anil Bali
    Buzz up! ShareThisMar 23 2009 | Views 34 | Comments (0) Leave a Comment

    “The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanjan” containing “Three hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation” at Chapter II – Essays on Classical Literature, with introduction by Vijay Dharwadhakar is published by published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi 110001, Which has injured my conscience and feel to fight the legal battle for Respect of Indian. It is not desired that the freedom of Expression is Misused by any one.

    I have given a notice through Mr. Mukesh Gandhi Advocate and Indu Bali Advocate , Dera Bassi.

    “What Happens When You Listen” just to humiliate e and hurt religious feelings by various comments. There is no writing decency & ethics of expression. The writer has given many detrimental examples and commented on Ramayana. It gave an example of Dog’s Urine to comment on Holy Ramayana. It say’s “a dog came that way and pissed into his mouth” and on return from Ram Lila he tells his wife about Ramayana that it was “Terrible. It was so salty” The article published by Oxford clarifies that “what happens when you really listen to a story, especially to Ramayana”. In another place the writer has compared Holy Ramayan with ‘Aristotle’s Jack Knife’ of a carpenter.

    checked the references quoted in the article from ‘Adhyatam Ramayana’ 1913 Allahabad print (Ch. IV-page 38-39), and has found it to be misquoted and its simple translation is changed to distort the culture and defame the Sitaji. The comments on Sitaji mentioned in your published book ‘The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan’ are not found in Adhyatam Ramayana 1913, by Rai Bahadur Lal Baij Nath, Allahabad Edition.

    I have been able to collected their written literature which is available from the years 1891 recorded by Rev Dr. Campell and Mr. Cecil Henry Bompas (1909), and checked various books compiled by various Santhal writers. I have not seen the names of Ram, Laxaman, Sita etc. in their literature. Because they have their own culture and are having their own Gods with their tribal names and worship Natural Gods. In that case where is the question of their comments on Sitaji as; ‘unfaithful’ and ‘she is seduced by both Ravana and by Laxamana” The writer has mischievously quoted Santhal Tribes without any authenticity, from a article might have been published in a unknown magzine. Moreover these comments are not the part of their culture or traditions, nor do they have ill will for others. This is done to defame Santhal tribes and create enmity against them.

    May see further details in the blog anilbali49.sulekha.com

  19. Vasu says:

    One key point is that the original Buddhist Ramayana that Ramanujam gloats about (part of Dasharatha Jataka) is just about two pages long. You can write the whole thing on two sides of an A-4 paper. Forget the fact that the Buddhist Ramayana holds Rama in high esteem as a dharmic ruler.How can this two page Ramayana be compared to the Valmiki’s magnum opus which is 25000+ verses long. With strict adherence to the lyrical ‘Anushtup’ sanskrit metre, there is no way a literary comparion can be made with any of the 300 Ramayanas with Valmiki. Most of the 300 are hearsay oral narratives and some like the Santhal version were falsified by Ramanujam in the essay and proved factually incorrect.
    The only ones which come close are the other epical Ramayanas by Kamban and Tulsi, which have come much much later and clearly indicate their indebtness to Valmiki. The ploy of the ‘eminents’ have been clearly exposed, there is a clear sinster reductionist design of playing down the indic classics.
    In the same vein why don’t the ’eminents’ protest about inclusion of
    viewing ‘Qayamat se Qayamath Tak’ and ‘Ek Du Je Ke Liye’ in shakesphere studies as they are just alternate versions of ‘Romeo and Juliet’. Shakesphere is not the only authentic guy you know.

  20. B Shantanu says:

    @Vasu: Good point about the brevity of “Buddhist Ramayana”. I was not aware of that…

  21. B Shantanu says:

    A brief excerpt from Ram’s denigration is a political project by Chandan Mitra:
    The question is: Why should 19 year old IInd year BA History students be compelled to study these bizarre, obscure versions of one of the world’s greatest epics? While such comparative texts can be dissected by mature post-graduate or doctoral students of ancient or Comparative Literature, why are young, impressionable minds being poisoned by tales of overt sexuality among Gods revered by Hindus? The salacious, if improbable story of Ahalya has little bearing on Ram; teaching students Indra’s transgressions, therefore, forms part of the Leftists’ political project to denigrate Hinduism and Hindu epics.

    Ramanujan does not narrate, for example, the Pabuji cult, which I came across in William Dalrymple’s “Nine Lives”. Worshipped in a small area of Rajasthan near Bikaner, Pabuji’s tale is narrated in a 600-year-old poem, which revolves around the “semi-divine warrior and incarnate god, Pabu, who died protecting a goddess’s magnificent herds against demonic rustlers”. These include the wicked villain Jindrav Khinchi while Pabuji also protects his women from a “barbaric, cow-mudering Muslim marauder Mirza Khan Pathan.” Then Pabuji proceeds to Lanka and scores a splendid victory over “Ravana, the ten-headed Demon-King of Lanka, from whom he steals a herd of camels as a wedding gift for his favourite niece.” Dalrymple refers to sociologist Komal Kothari who was fascinated by the fusion of a local hero’s tale with the epic Ramayana and concluded that the distinction between classic epics and folk epics often gets blurred.

    Left-wing scholars know well that over time, the Great Tradition tends to subsume the Little Tradition. In the case of Ramayana, Valmiki’s version, taken forward by Tulsidas’s Ram Charit Manas has emerged as the dominant interpretation of the Great Epic. Fishing out odd texts from local variations or taking recourse to folk and tribal versions to indoctrinate undergraduate students is a deliberate ploy to create confusion. At no stage can Valmiki Ramayana or Tulsidas’s Ramcharitmanas be compared in influence or importance to examples from the Little Tradition.

    Ramanujan’s essay was introduced in the Delhi University BA History syllabus with the sole purpose of turning young Hindus into agnostics or atheists so that they grow up to be cannon fodder for Marxist “warriors” against the robust civilisational values of India. Unless we recognise the hidden agenda of the diabolic Leftist intelligentsia, the fight to purge Indian academia of their bigoted objectives will not succeed.

  22. B Shantanu says:

    Somewhat related, courtesy Koenraad Elst:
    Vishal Agarwal replied (5-12):

    “Where Ramanujan got it wrong, driven by his ideological agendas, is to to place all the diverse renderings of Ramayana at par with the Valmiki Ramayana. Let us get one thing VERY CLEAR – All these different versions of Ramayana (Dasharatha Jataka included) have the Ramayana of Valmiki as their basis and draw their storyline to it. It is another matter that they adapt it to their own purposes. Even Ashvaghosha, the author of Buddhacharita, salutes Valmiki as the Adikavi. The Shakya lineage was derided for having descended from a brother sister union. The Buddhists therefore created the Jataka in which Rama and Sita married, and linked the Shakyas with the Ikshavakus. So, their agenda was obvious. To claim, despite this obvious explanation, that in the ‘most ancient version of the Ramayana, Rama and Sita are siblings’ is to distort stuff with the deliberate intent of deriding Hindu beliefs.

    “The claim that this puerile essay provides ‘alternative viewpoints’ is absurd. Alternative viewpoints must be based on the original epic, on the original story and not on fantasy. You can’t alter the original dramatically — like making Ravana Sita’s father — and then claim that it’s an ‘alternative viewpoint’. That’s distortion, not an alternative viewpoint. And 300 Ramayanas does precisely that — it legitimizes such distortions…

  23. K. Harapriya says:

    Within the Hindu tradition, there is a distinction between Ithihaasa and Kaavya. Ithihaasa is considered historical and accurate. Kaavya is poetry and considered as literature. There may be a million Ramayanas but only the Valmiki Ramayana is considered Ithihaasa by Hindus. Just because ignorant Hindus claim that there a any number of Ramayanas does not mean that each occupies the place of ithihaasa in Hindu tradition.

  24. S says:

    “Within the Hindu tradition, there is a distinction between Ithihaasa and Kaavya. Ithihaasa is considered historical and accurate. Kaavya is poetry and considered as literature. There may be a million Ramayanas but only the Valmiki Ramayana is considered Ithihaasa by Hindus. ”
    @harapriya
    100 % correct. Just remember ‘Shakunthala’ of MahaBharata Vs Shakunthala of Kalidasa.

  25. B Shantanu says:

    Harapriya (#25): Well said. Ithihaasa is considered historical and accurate. Kaavya is poetry and considered as literature. There may be a million Ramayanas but only the Valmiki Ramayana is considered Ithihaasa by Hindus

  26. B Shantanu says:

    Placing this here for the record: America’s most surprising banned books by Theunis Bates and Lauren Hansen | September 19, 2013:

    ..
    1. 1961: Tarzan series, Edgar Rice Burroughs
    2. 1969: The Dictionary
    3. 1977: Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, William Steig
    4. 1983: The Diary of a Young Girl, Anne Frank
    5. 1989: The Lorax, Dr. Seuss
    6. 1990: Little Red Riding Hood, Trina Schart Hyman
    7. 1992: Hansel and Gretel, The Brothers Grimm
    8. Mid-1990s: Where’s Waldo?, Martin Hanford
    9. 1996: Twelfth Night, William Shakespeare
    10. 2006: Charlotte’s Web, E.B. White
    11. 2007: Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling
    12. 2010: Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?, Bill Martin
    13. 2010: What’s Happening To My Body?, Lynda Madaras

  27. B Shantanu says:

    Amazing that so many of my well-read (and well-meaning) friends believe that Wendy Doniger’s book is now “banned” in India.
    Here are the facts:
    1. The book has not been banned. It has been “recalled” and withdrawn from circulation by the publisher. In theory, Ms Doniger can actually get her book published by another publisher and sell it in India again.
    2. The recall was the outcome of an out-of-court settlement.
    3. There was no government order banning the book.
    4. There was no physical intimidation of Ms Doniger.
    5. There was no threat to her life or a “fatwa” against her.
    6. Less than a month ago, another book was similarly “recalled” (“The Descent Of Air India” by Jitender Bhargava).
    Let me repeat: There is no ban. There are no threats. There is no physical intimidation (Now try and think Satanic Verses or Taslima Nasreen).
    “Share” if you “Like”. Good Night. Sleep safe (and keep a pepper spray handy, just in case). Jai Hind, Jai Bharat!

  28. B Shantanu says:

    Ramayana when it rains by Devdutt Pattanaik on the extraordinary tradition of Ramayana during the monsoons in Kerala and the Malayalam Ramayana..

  29. B Shantanu says:

    Excerpts from BEHIND THE MASK OF THE THREE HUNDRED RAMAYANAS by SHATAVADHANI GANESH, AUGUST 30, 2014

    …There has been widespread and intense debate over A.K. Ramanujan’s essay titled 300 Ramayanas in the media. These debates are nothing new for Ramayana scholars. The Shatakotipravistara—that is, the long, uncountable list of various Ramayanas have been subject to extensive discussions and debates in our Itihasas and Puranas over thousands of years.
    However, what was indisputably upheld was the fact that all Indian traditions traced their Ramayana retelling, studies, interpretations, and scholarship to Valmiki, and not to any other source.
    There is also the argument that Bauddha and Jaina Ramayanas are different and in some cases, older. However, this argument is irrelevant. It has been established that the Tripithakas in their current form were compiled during the third Sangeeti organized by Kanishka in the 1st century C.E. Equally, scholars also agree that the Jataka tales, which are not part of the Tripithakas were composed even later than Kanishka’s period.
    If one claims that the Dasharatha Jataka (which is one of the tales found in the aforementioned Jataka tales)forms the basis of Valmiki Ramayana, it is the equivalent of saying that Einstein’s research forms the basis of Newton’s research. The pioneer of the Jain Ramayana, Vimalasuri lived in the 3rd Century C.E. Therefore, if his Ramayana becomes the primary source for Valmiki, then it stands to reason that Kalidasa came much earlier than Valmiki.
    all Indian traditions traced their Ramayana retelling, studies, interpretations, and scholarship to Valmiki
    And now, if we examine the other claim that regional-language Ramayanas (both oral and written tellings) formed the inspiration for Valmiki, we find that none of these tellings have an antiquity prior to the 8th—9th Century C.E. What’s more, when we examine only the oral tellings of Ramayana in all regional languages, this is what we find: the linguistic and literary style does not date back beyond 500 years, and this after giving a wide berth in terms of using linguistic and literary yardsticks.
    ….

    A supremely gifted poet immortalized the story of a famous individual in the form of an epic poem. By that, he earned the honour of becoming the Adi Kavi (the First Poet) of the entire literary tradition of this country’s oldest language. Indeed, Kalidasa has used the word “kavi” as a synonym for “Valmiki.” Until recently, this fact was recognized, accepted and honoured by all regional language writers and poets. Drawn irresistibly by this immortal epic, they have in their own ways, for their own happiness (or profit) retold it, and in many cases, have enriched it in their own unique way. It might sound like a cheap analogy, but this is akin to remaking a super-hit movie into different languages—either a frame-to-frame remake or a remake with minor changes here and there.

  30. B Shantanu says:

    From my friend Sanjay:
    How deracination causes distortions of one’s heritage to be accepted, internalized, and worst of all, defended. Not a single “mainstream” reviewer of the book in India knew enough about their own epics to carry even a semi-literate critical review. They were busy demonstrating their anti-Hindutva credentials and, in parallel, showcasing their “unbiased” positions to aplomb.

    What happens when one’s stories are outsourced to others to tell and re-sell back to oneself! Reminded yet again of the George Orwell quote:

    “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

    ___________________________________________________________

    This is an absolute cracker of a review on Amazon.co.uk of Doniger’s book (reproduced verbatim):

    Where Exactly Is India, Ms. Doniger?
    ByAli Sheikhon 13 April 2014
    Format: Paperback
    Banned in Bangalore, the New York Times op-ed said. Why ban a book, no matter how offensive, the literati fumed. No one can truly ban a book in the Internet age, friends pointed out. The book in question is a 690-page nonfiction account of Hinduism titled “The Hindus: An Alternative History,” written by Ms. Wendy Doniger, a university professor with doctorates from Harvard and Oxford. Naturally, I bought a copy–and more to the point, read the book.

    Before we proceed, let me say that I do not support banning any book (or even legally requiring a book to be withdrawn from circulation, as was the case with this book in India). But I do hold that every banned book isn’t necessarily a well-written, scholarly work. Indeed, a ban of any kind instantly confers an aura of hyper-legitimacy on the banned work, regardless of its intrinsic merit, and I believe that’s what happened with Ms. Doniger’s book. I contend that her book is biased and sloppy, and that’s what this op-ed piece is all about.

    Let’s start with the big picture. A well-written alternative history of anything, let alone Hinduism, generally has the effect of making the reader pause and think twice about what he may have held all along as the truth. From someone of Ms. Doniger’s stature, I was hoping to hear a serious insight or two that would make me go, “Gosh, I’ve known that story all my life, but why didn’t I look at things that way before”?

    So, what major insights does the book offer? According to the author, the main aspects are diversity and pluralism in Hindu thought, treatment of women and lower castes, the erotic side of Hinduism, and the many tensions and conflicts within Hinduism.

    That’s where my disappointment started–those are not major insights, nor do they add up to an alternative history. Let’s go item by item. Diversity and Pluralism? Caste system? Anyone with a passing interest in India knows about it. Treatment of women? I am not trying to minimize the importance of women, but what’s new here? Were the other ancient cultures any better? Conflict and tension within? Hardly surprising for a country of a billion people. Eroticism in ancient India? Oh please, who hasn’t heard of that? Yes, yes, Ms. Doniger adds a ton of detail, but my point is that things don’t become groundbreaking by adding detail. It’s as if someone wrote a very detailed book about the Mississippi river and Southern cuisine and called it “The Americans: An Alternative History.”

    All the detail opens up an even bigger disappointment. It appears that Ms. Doniger frequently cherry-picked the facts to suit her views, and on occasion, even twisted them to suit her narrative. I realize these are harsh accusations and the burden of proof lies on me, so please allow me to present enough examples to make my case (within the space limitations of an opinion piece).

    Let’s begin with the epic Ramayana, with the king Dasharatha and his three wives. The youngest, the beautiful Kaikeyi, assists the king in a hard-fought battle. In return, the king grants her two wishes, to be claimed at any time of her choosing. Many years later, when the king is about to retire and Rama, his son from the eldest wife, is about to be crowned, Kaikeyi claims her two wishes: that her son Bharata be named king, and Rama be exiled to the forest for fourteen years. The king is torn between his promise to Kaikeyi and his obligation to name the eldest son as the next king, as convention dictated. When Rama hears of the king’s predicament, he abdicates his claim to the throne and leaves the city. This is a defining moment for Rama–the young man respects the king’s word (i.e., the law) enough to renounce his own claim to the throne and loves his father so much that he spares him the pain of having to enact the banishment. Indeed, this point in Rama’s life even foretells the rest of the story–that the young man would, in the years to come, make even bigger personal sacrifices for the sake of his ideals.

    That’s the mainstream narrative. Let’s hear Ms. Doniger’s alternative narrative, in her own words. “The youngest queen, Kaikeyi, uses sexual blackmail (among other things) to force Dasharatha to put her son, Bharata, on the throne instead and send Rama into exile.”

    Now, was Kaikeyi beautiful? Yes. Was the king deeply enamored with her? Yes. Did Kaikeyi lock herself in a room and create a scene? Absolutely. Was the king called a fool and other names by his own sons? You bet. But there is far more to Rama’s exile than sexual blackmail. Ms. Doniger covers this topic in excellent detail (page 223 onwards), but it’s interesting that she doesn’t bring up the king’s longstanding promise. Before we draw conclusions, let’s move on to a different story from the same epic.

    Ms. Doniger retells the story of the ogre Shurpanakha, who approaches Rama and professes her love for him. Rama tells her he is a married man and mocks her. In the end, Rama’s younger brother Lakshmana mutilates the ogre. To Ms. Doniger, this data point (to be fair, not the only data point) indicates Rama’s cruelty toward women. Ms. Doniger then contrasts this story with one from the Mahabharata, where an ogre named Hidimbi professes her love for Bheema and is accepted as his wife–again underscoring the author’s point about Rama’s cruelty. All of this might sound reasonable at first glance, but let’s look closer.

    This is how the story goes in the epic. Shurpanakha approaches Rama when he is sitting next to his wife, Sita. When Rama mocks her, the ogre gets angry and charges at Sita. Rama holds the ogre back to save Sita and then orders his younger brother to mutilate the ogre. Rama even says, “That ogre almost killed Sita.” One would think these details are pertinent to the discussion, but strangely enough, Ms. Doniger doesn’t bring them up. Also, Rama was a committed monogamist, whereas Bheema was (at that point in the story) a single man. Aren’t we comparing apples to oranges here? Isn’t this just the kind of nuance one would expect a researcher to pick up?

    To be fair to Ms. Doniger, there are many versions of the Ramayana (and sadly enough, some scholars have received a lot of undeserved flak for pointing this out). So, is it possible that she and I were reading different renditions of the same epic? I checked. Turns out we both got our details from the Valmiki Ramayana (also known as the original Sanskrit version). What’s going on here?

    Normally, one would expect an alternative narrative to add nuance–as if to say, “There is more to the story than what you lay people know.” But Ms. Doniger manages to do the opposite–she takes a nuanced, compelling moment in the epic and reduces it to sexual blackmail or cruelty or sexual urges, whatever her current talking point is. Speaking of sexual urges, indeed there are no sex scenes in her book. But it can justifiably be called a veritable catalog of all the phalluses and vaginas that ever existed in ancient India, and there is no dearth of detail in Doniger’s book when it comes to private parts. She even cares to tell you whether any given phallus is erect or flaccid. Details, people!

    But enough about men and women. Let’s move on to animals. In the Mahabharata, Arjuna burns up a large forest and many creatures die; the epic even describes the animals’ pain at some length. Somehow, Ms. Doniger finds this worthy of filing under the “Violence toward Animals” section. Was Arjuna supposed to first clear the forest of all the wild animals and only then set the forest on fire? Is that how other cultures cleared forests so they could grow crops and build cities? Has it occurred to Ms. Doniger the very fact that the narrator of the epic bothered to describe the animals’ pain (instead of just saying “Arjuna burned the forest”) indicates some sympathy toward animals in those times? Then the professor brings up–and this is a recurring talking point under the cruelty section–the line from Mahabharata that says, “fish eat fish.” Ms. Doniger calls it “Manu’s terror of piscine anarchy.” Oh, the humanity!

    Yet there is no mention of what Bheeshma says in the Mahabharata (Book 13), over pages and pages of discourse, on the virtues of vegetarianism and kindness toward all animal life. Bheeshma calls “abstention from cruelty” the highest religion, highest form of self-control, highest gift, highest penance and puissance, highest friend, highest happiness and the highest form of truth. One would think this passage merits a mention when discussing cruelty towards animals in the Mahabharata, but it doesn’t get one.

    Ms. Doniger uses the phrase “working with available light” when describing how she had approached her subject matter, which is very true when working with a complex topic such as Hinduism. But the problem is, she then proceeds to turn off many lights in the house and use a microscope to detail the bits she cares to see. She is of course free to do what she likes, but can someone please explain to me why the end result from such an approach qualifies as an “alternative” map of my home?

    Still on the topic of animals, let’s discuss dogs, a subject Ms. Doniger covers in great detail. Even lay readers of the Mahabharata remember that in the end, Yudhishtira declined his chance to go to heaven unless the stray dog that had been loyal to him was also allowed in, and many Mahabharata enthusiasts may recall a different dog at the beginning that was unjustly beaten up. Ms. Doniger’s book mentions many other dogs as well, and for good measure, she even shares a weird story from contemporary India, 150 words long, quoted verbatim from an Indian newspaper, about a man marrying a dog.

    What about Krishna’s words in the Bhagavad Gita, where he says wise people cast the same gaze on a learned Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog and someone who might cook a dog? Ms. Doniger does mention those lines, but with an interesting twist. She prefaces those 24 words with “though” and reverts to her chosen narrative without even waiting for that thought to finish: “though the Gita insists that wise people cast the same gaze on a learned Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog, or a dog cooker, the Mahabharata generally upholds the basic prejudice against dogs.” Has it occurred to Ms. Doniger that, while men were beating up dogs, God was professing a kinder, more egalitarian approach? The whole man vs. God angle escapes her, and in the end we are left with a world where “man marries dog” gets 150 words and God’s words of compassion are limited to 24, topped with a though.

    Ms. Doniger calls her book “a history, not the history, of the Hindus,” which is, of course, fine. Further, I do not hold the mainstream narrative to be beyond reproach, nor do I expect an alternative narrative to merely confirm the status quo. Alternative histories do very frequently upset the balance, and, frankly, that’s how progress is made. But my problem here is that Ms. Doniger seems to think the mainstream narrative is ipso facto a biased one, and that her alternative narrative is more compelling, never mind the facts and the counterevidence. She draws the graph first and then looks for data points. That’s a very interesting trend you’ve spotted there, Ms. Doniger, but what about all those big, ugly blots of truth that don’t fit your graph?

    So much for stories from ancient India. For the benefit of any kind souls from the Western world who have been patiently reading through all this, let me throw in an example from relatively recent times that involves America. No doubt you’ve heard what the physicist Robert Oppenheimer said while reflecting on the first nuclear blast he had helped spawn. He quoted a passage from the Bhagavad Gita, “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” Why would he quote Gita? The simplest explanation I can think of is that Oppenheimer was a well-read man, and he felt the passage was appropriate when describing the unprecedented firepower he had just witnessed. It’s not much different from Carl Sagan’s quoting Mahapurana in his book Cosmos, one would think. But no, there is more to it. Ms. Doniger’s take:

    “Perhaps Oppenheimer’s inability to face his own shock and guilt directly, the full realization and acknowledgment of what he had helped create, led him to distance the experience by viewing it in terms of someone else’s myth of doomsday, as if to say: `This is some weird Hindu sort of doomsday, nothing we Judeo-Christian types ever imagined.’ He switched to Hinduism when he saw how awful the bomb was and that it was going to be used on the Japanese, not on the Nazis, as had been intended. Perhaps he moved subconsciously to Orientalism when he realized that it was “Orientals” (Japanese) who were going to suffer.”

    There you have it. Weird Hindu doomsdays. Sex-crazed kings. Cruel gods. Men marrying dogs. Phalluses everywhere–some erect and some flaccid. Ladies and gentlemen, we finally have an alternative history of Hinduism. And yes, left uncontested, in all likelihood these are the “insights” a whole new generation of students and researchers might learn, internalize, and cite in future scholarly works.

    So much for an alternative history. Now, how about some mundane, regular history stuff? Let’s go back to the Mahabharata, an epic that Ms. Doniger brings up dozens of times in her book (she even calls the Mahabharata “100 times more interesting” than the Iliad and the Odyssey). Let’s ask two questions: When did the main events of Mahabharata occur? And exactly how long is the epic?

    Ms. Doniger mentions the years as: between 1000 BCE and 400 BCE, most likely 950 BCE, or around 3012 BCE, or maybe 1400 BCE. That narrows down the chronology quite a bit, doesn’t it? Really, there is more to writing history (particularly the alternative kind) than looking up the reference books and throwing in all the numbers one could find. But in Ms. Doniger’s defense, she is not a historian per se (and she clearly tells us so), so let’s let this one slide by. I’d even say she does deserve some credit here for at least bothering to look up things. On the next topic, she fails to do even that.

    Ms. Doniger says the Mahabharata is about 75,000 verses long. Then she helpfully adds, “sometimes said to be a hundred thousand, perhaps just to round it off a bit.” My goodness, 25,000 verses is some rounding error, don’t you think? Most sources put it between 75,000 and 125,000. It took me all of two hours to find a very detailed account (not on the Internet though), compiled in the 11th century, putting the total at 100,500–and I’m not a researcher, not by a long shot. And yes, the exact number of verses is secondary to the big picture. What bothers me is the offhandedness with which Ms. Doniger brushes off 25,000 verses as a rounding issue. Why this half-baked research?

    Oh well, maybe we expected too much from the bestselling book on Hinduism and it’s our fault. So, let’s try again, one last time. Where is India located?

    Ms. Doniger states, very clearly, without any ambiguity, on page 11 (footnote): “Most of India… is in the Northern Hemisphere.”

    I think I’ll stop here.