Ramkrishna Bhattacharya
The concept of Ramarajya (literally, the kingdom of rama), the all-found-land, or the land of heart’s desire, is first projected at the end of Book 6 (Lankakanda, Book of War) of the Valmiki Ramayana [critical edition (Varoda: Oriental Institute) canto 116 verses 84-90, vulgate (Delhi: Parimal Publications edition) 128.99-106]. The passage runs as follows:
While
Rama was ruling the kingdom, there were no widows to lament, nor
there was any danger from wild animals, nor any fear born of
diseases. 99
Every
creature felt pleased. Every one was intent on virtue. Turning their
eyes towards Rāma alone, creatures did not kill one another. 101
While
Rama was ruling the kingdom, people survived for thousands of years,
with thousands of their progeny, all free of illness and grief. 102
While
Rama ruled the kingdom, the talks of the people centered round Rama,
Rama and Rama. The world became Rama’s world. 103
The
trees there were bearing flowers and fruits regularly, without any
injury by pests and insects. The clouds were raining in time and the
wind was delightful to the touch. 104
All
[Brahmins (the priest-class), Kshatriyas (the warrior-class), Vaisyas
(the class of merchants and agriculturists), and Sudras (the
servant-class)] were performing their own duties, satisfied with
their own work and bereft of any greed. While Rama was ruling, the
people were intent on virtue and lived without telling lies. 105
One
of these verses (103) is considered by scholars to be a later
addition. Hence it has been omitted in the critical edition, which
has seven instead of eight verses in this passage (canto 116
verses 84-90). Otherwise this description of
Ramarajya is encountered in all versions (with some minor verbal
variations) current both in North and South India, from Kashmir to
Kerala. This concept basically reflects the general will of the
common people: to live in peace and harmony, enjoy long life without
disease and sorrow, etc. Only one verse speaks of the desire for
status quo ante of all varnas
(castes), but does not glorify the Brahmins. Nor is there any
declaration that the varna
system and the division of labour it implies has been ordained by God
or the Vedas, although such an idea may very well be implicit in the
idea itself.
of these verses (103) is considered by scholars to be a later
addition. Hence it has been omitted in the critical edition, which
has seven instead of eight verses in this passage (canto 116
verses 84-90). Otherwise this description of
Ramarajya is encountered in all versions (with some minor verbal
variations) current both in North and South India, from Kashmir to
Kerala. This concept basically reflects the general will of the
common people: to live in peace and harmony, enjoy long life without
disease and sorrow, etc. Only one verse speaks of the desire for
status quo ante of all varnas
(castes), but does not glorify the Brahmins. Nor is there any
declaration that the varna
system and the division of labour it implies has been ordained by God
or the Vedas, although such an idea may very well be implicit in the
idea itself.
Strangely
enough, in his paraphrase of this passage of the Valmiki
Ramayana, Goswami Tulsidas (c. 1532
– 1623) differs from Valmiki by introducing the Vedas when he speaks
of the varna
duties. His description of Ramarajya is more elaborate and more
orthodox in terms of the social system of the ideal kingdom. He says:
enough, in his paraphrase of this passage of the Valmiki
Ramayana, Goswami Tulsidas (c. 1532
– 1623) differs from Valmiki by introducing the Vedas when he speaks
of the varna
duties. His description of Ramarajya is more elaborate and more
orthodox in terms of the social system of the ideal kingdom. He says:
Under the rule of
Rama there was none who suffered from affliction of any kind –
whether of the body, or proceeding from divine or supernatural
agencies or that caused by another living being. All men loved one
another: each followed one’s prescribed duty, conformably to the
precepts of the Vedas. Dharma with its four pillars (viz., truth,
purity–both external and internal, compassion and charity) reigned
everywhere throughout the world; no one even dreamt of sin. Men and
women alike were devoted to Sri Rama’s worship and all were
qualified for final beatitude. There was no premature death nor
suffering of any kind; everyone was comely and sound of body. No one
was destitute, afflicted or miserable; no one was stupid or devoid
of auspicious marks. All were unaffectedly good, pious and
virtuous; all were clever and accomplished–both men and women.
Everyone recognized the merits of others and was learned and wise;
nay, everyone acknowledged the services and benefits received from
others and there was no guileful prudence. (Ramcaritamanasa
Uttarakanda 20.1-4)
Listen, O king of
the birds, (continues Kakabhusundi,) during Sri Rama’s reign there
was not a creature in this world, animate or inanimate, that was
liable to any of the sufferings attributable to time, past conduct,
personal temperament and character. (Ramcaritamanasa Uttarakanda
21. Gorakhpur: Gita Press (often reprinted), pp.995-96)
Tulsidas
did not follow the Valmiki
Ramayana
in every detail. Instead of that he added much of his own to show
what he expected from an ideal, happy life. One plus point in
Tulsidas is the reference to both men and women. The latter is never
separately mentioned in the Valmiki
Ramayana passage. Tulsidas gives
concession to popular beliefs and superstitions, as evidenced in the
mention of bodily marks. Out of such beiefs a pseudo-science called
Samudrika was created in India. It delineated on which bodily mark
signifies good or bad fortune. This version of Indian physiognomy is
credited to a mythical sage called Samudra.
did not follow the Valmiki
Ramayana
in every detail. Instead of that he added much of his own to show
what he expected from an ideal, happy life. One plus point in
Tulsidas is the reference to both men and women. The latter is never
separately mentioned in the Valmiki
Ramayana passage. Tulsidas gives
concession to popular beliefs and superstitions, as evidenced in the
mention of bodily marks. Out of such beiefs a pseudo-science called
Samudrika was created in India. It delineated on which bodily mark
signifies good or bad fortune. This version of Indian physiognomy is
credited to a mythical sage called Samudra.
Why
does Tuilsidas bring in the Vedas which is not mentioned or even
hinted at in the Valmiki Ramayana
passage concerning Ramarajya? The introduction of Veda was by no
means a universal practice resorted to by all medieval poets who
paraphrased the Ramayana
in the Indian vernaculars. Krittibas Ojha (sixteenth, or more
probably, seventeenth century), who wrote a smaller version of
Ramayana
in Bangla, composed only eight lines (four couplets) at the last
section of the Lankakanda ( as it is there in the Valmiki
Ramayana and unlike Tulsidas who
introduced Ramarajya at the beginning of the Uttarakanda) to
describe the happy state of affairs. Krittibas says that the monkeys
who stayed in Ayodhya used to wear dhoti
(like fashionable Bengali Babus dressed in style). He does not speak
of either the varnas
following their vocations or of the Veda which assigns each varna
its own duties. On the other hand, he confined himself to the absence
of envy and sorrow in Rama’s kingdom (Kolikata: Deb Sahitya Kutir
(often reprinted), p.496). The very brief description of Ramarajya in
the Krittibasi Ramayana,
however, may be a later addition, for the passage seems to have been
interpolated in a section describing the fate of the vimana
or the celestial chariot with wings called Pushpaka).
does Tuilsidas bring in the Vedas which is not mentioned or even
hinted at in the Valmiki Ramayana
passage concerning Ramarajya? The introduction of Veda was by no
means a universal practice resorted to by all medieval poets who
paraphrased the Ramayana
in the Indian vernaculars. Krittibas Ojha (sixteenth, or more
probably, seventeenth century), who wrote a smaller version of
Ramayana
in Bangla, composed only eight lines (four couplets) at the last
section of the Lankakanda ( as it is there in the Valmiki
Ramayana and unlike Tulsidas who
introduced Ramarajya at the beginning of the Uttarakanda) to
describe the happy state of affairs. Krittibas says that the monkeys
who stayed in Ayodhya used to wear dhoti
(like fashionable Bengali Babus dressed in style). He does not speak
of either the varnas
following their vocations or of the Veda which assigns each varna
its own duties. On the other hand, he confined himself to the absence
of envy and sorrow in Rama’s kingdom (Kolikata: Deb Sahitya Kutir
(often reprinted), p.496). The very brief description of Ramarajya in
the Krittibasi Ramayana,
however, may be a later addition, for the passage seems to have been
interpolated in a section describing the fate of the vimana
or the celestial chariot with wings called Pushpaka).
In
all probability Tulsidas was trying to improve upon Valmiki by
injecting more piety in the description of the ideal kingdom than was
shown by ‘the first poet’ (adikavi),
as Asvaghosha (100 CE) called Valmiki in the Buddhacharita
(1.43). Valmiki could be content
with the members of each varna
performing its assigned duties, without bothering to state who has
assigned them, whether god himself or the Veda. In the Gita
Krishna declares, ‘According to the classification of action and
qualities (guna-karma-vibhaga)
the four castes are created by me’ (4.13). The Rigveda,
however, speaks of a Purusha having a thousand heads, a thousand
eyes, and a thousand feet, whose mouth is the Brahmana, of both his
arms was the Rajanya (Kshatriya) made, whose thighs became the Vaisya
and from his feet the Sudra was produced (10.90.1, 12). Tulsidas, a
learned man, brought in the Veda in order to emphasize the sanctity
of the varna system
as it is supported by the Veda itself. The position of the Veda,
which only the first three varnas
were eligible to study, was above all man-made laws and hence more
imposing than any other authority. Tulsidas, apart from his devotion
to Rama, proved himself to be a Veda-abiding person who would like to
impart his veneration for the Veda to his listeners/readers as well.
Krittibas Ojha was no less devoted to Rama, but he did not consider
it necessary to refer to the holiness of the varna
system, let alone the dignity of the Veda, at least in the context of
Ramarajya.
all probability Tulsidas was trying to improve upon Valmiki by
injecting more piety in the description of the ideal kingdom than was
shown by ‘the first poet’ (adikavi),
as Asvaghosha (100 CE) called Valmiki in the Buddhacharita
(1.43). Valmiki could be content
with the members of each varna
performing its assigned duties, without bothering to state who has
assigned them, whether god himself or the Veda. In the Gita
Krishna declares, ‘According to the classification of action and
qualities (guna-karma-vibhaga)
the four castes are created by me’ (4.13). The Rigveda,
however, speaks of a Purusha having a thousand heads, a thousand
eyes, and a thousand feet, whose mouth is the Brahmana, of both his
arms was the Rajanya (Kshatriya) made, whose thighs became the Vaisya
and from his feet the Sudra was produced (10.90.1, 12). Tulsidas, a
learned man, brought in the Veda in order to emphasize the sanctity
of the varna system
as it is supported by the Veda itself. The position of the Veda,
which only the first three varnas
were eligible to study, was above all man-made laws and hence more
imposing than any other authority. Tulsidas, apart from his devotion
to Rama, proved himself to be a Veda-abiding person who would like to
impart his veneration for the Veda to his listeners/readers as well.
Krittibas Ojha was no less devoted to Rama, but he did not consider
it necessary to refer to the holiness of the varna
system, let alone the dignity of the Veda, at least in the context of
Ramarajya.
Alternatively,
the difference between Tulsidas and Krittibas may lie in the
difference between the two regions they lived. The village Phulia
(district Nadia, now in the state of West Bengal, india), where
Krittibas was born and brought up, was far away from any dominance of
Vedic practice; cultivation of Veda and performance of Vedic rites
were largely unknown in Bengal. On the other hand, Tulsidas lived in
the heartland of Vedism. Bengal was long known to be a land ‘rejected
by the Pandavas (Pandava-varjita),’
meaning thereby that the so-called Aryan influence was less in Bengal
than in other parts of India. Unencumbered by both the paths of Karma
(performance of Vedic rituals) and Jnana (Knowledge), Krittibas could
think of Bhakti (devotion) alone and leave both the four-varna
system and the Veda out of his consideration.
the difference between Tulsidas and Krittibas may lie in the
difference between the two regions they lived. The village Phulia
(district Nadia, now in the state of West Bengal, india), where
Krittibas was born and brought up, was far away from any dominance of
Vedic practice; cultivation of Veda and performance of Vedic rites
were largely unknown in Bengal. On the other hand, Tulsidas lived in
the heartland of Vedism. Bengal was long known to be a land ‘rejected
by the Pandavas (Pandava-varjita),’
meaning thereby that the so-called Aryan influence was less in Bengal
than in other parts of India. Unencumbered by both the paths of Karma
(performance of Vedic rituals) and Jnana (Knowledge), Krittibas could
think of Bhakti (devotion) alone and leave both the four-varna
system and the Veda out of his consideration.
Acknowledgements:
Sourav Basak, Amitava Bhattacharyya, and Sunish Kumar Deb. The usual
disclaimers apply.
Sourav Basak, Amitava Bhattacharyya, and Sunish Kumar Deb. The usual
disclaimers apply.
Ramkrishna
Bhattacharya taught English at the University
of Calcutta, Kolkata and
was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now a Fellow
of PAVLOV Institute, Kolkata.
Bhattacharya taught English at the University
of Calcutta, Kolkata and
was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now a Fellow
of PAVLOV Institute, Kolkata.
Email
ID: ramkrishna.bhattacharya@gmail.com)
ID: ramkrishna.bhattacharya@gmail.com)
Leave a Reply