Secularising Ramayana and Mahabharata

Until the 19th century, no one in the world saw Buddha as a historical figure. This idea was introduced by Europeans, who sought to understand the past scientifically. History was separated from myth; the former was real, the latter false. And so, the historical Buddha was invented. Hagiography was accepted as fact, even by reputed historians. Only, it is not.

Every story of the Buddha was invented by his followers. There is no evidence, even of his birthplace. In fact, it follows the same template used to narrate the life of the Jain Tirthankaras: royal family, dreams leading to conception, fantastic birth, luxurious life, disillusionment, renunciation, rise to wisdom, preaching, popularity, opposition, and death.

The same is true of Jesus, Muhammad, Adi Shankara and Padmasambhava -- major religious leaders whose historicity and biography remains disputed, except amongst believers. Since history is ‘real’, Hindus wanted their gods to be real too, hence historical. Thus began the quest to prove Ramayana and Mahabharata to be 5000-year-old facts rather than tales of Vishnu on earth.

Both epics, of course, reached the final form only about 2,000 years ago, around the same time as Pali Nikaya texts, and Asvaghosha’s Buddha-charita, the earliest Sanskrit epic describing Buddha’s life. Ramayana and Mahabharata were written to counter Buddhism. While Buddhism valourised the wise hermit, the Vaishnava texts were valourising the wise householder, one from the elite classes and the other from the peasant classes.

The Hindutva movement wants these to be historical figures who lived in 7,000 BC and 5,000 BC. Like Biblical enthusiasts who believe Noah, David and Solomon were historical figures, even Hindutva folks fund a lot of archeological activities to find evidence to prove their claims. Hence the famous ‘Mahabharat chariots’ of Sanauli, despite the fact that they are dated to 1,800 BC, and there are no horse bones. Traditionally, Hindu temples are homes of the divine presence. But once a Hindu god is made historical, a Hindu temple becomes merely a secular memorial -- a commemorative museum, needing no rituals.

When we study Buddhist and Jain lore, we realise many stories there are quite similar to stories found in Ramayana and Mahabharata. For example, in the Jatakas, there is the story of a prince who suspects his faithful wife of infidelity and of a king who accidentally shoots a young man who is taking care of his blind parents, and of ten wrestler brothers who are destined to kill their uncle. These stories indicate that what the Hindus call itihasa is made up of plots and stories that were common even in non-Hindu circles.

A structural analysis of the two great Hindu epics reveals they are telling the same story as the plot structure is the same. First, palace intrigue. Then, forest exile. Then, negotiations before war. Then, war. Finally, the aftermath of war, the tragic consequences. Both epics begin with birth of the hero and end with the death of the hero. Both have plots which reveal why a king is needed: in Ramayana, the king of monkeys and demons treats his brothers unfairly; in Mahabharata, the servants of a king are abused by royal family members. This cannot be mere coincidence.

The common template followed by both epics is carefully designed and rather deliberate, meant to educate kings on the importance of kingship, one supported by Vedic lore. Both Ramayana and Mahabharata presuppose an earlier event -- the massacre of bad kings by Parashuram. Now Brahmins, well-versed in Vedic lore, have to find good leaders and create good kings who follow the Vedic way. What is the Vedic way? Theoretically, it is following dharma, which is reversing matsya nyaya (jungle law). But in Brahmin hands, dharma becomes about protecting Brahmins’ interests.

Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed when a large number of imperial dynasties were emerging in the post-Mauryan period, especially in Deccan, south of the Vindhyas. Determined to get a privileged position in these newly emerging polities, Brahmins told stories of a time long before Buddhism when kings thrived by supporting Brahmins, who alone could invoke the gods in the sky. This is why both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata stories describe the Ashvamedha Yagna, the Rajasuya Yagna, and the various gods being summoned from the sky to enable the pregnancy of queens.

Not surprisingly, both Ramayana and Mahabharata have plots related to property and succession disputes. Most importantly, the epics highlighted how kingship is not just about politics and economics. It is also about emotional maturity. Do we think about ourselves, or do we think about others?

Curiously, in both epics, Brahmins are not privileged. Ravana, the villain of Ramayana, is a Brahmin. And Drona, the Brahmin teacher of Pandavas, who sides with Kauravas, is beheaded. Few secular scholars comment about this rather subversive aspect of the ‘Brahmanical’ epics.