Lord Rama: Democrat or Despot ?

May 17, 2004

Dear friends,

The great Indian elections'04 are over. The din and

dust has settled. The victors have been announced and

the vanquished have been banished. In a few days from

now the new rulers will take over the reins of power.

For ordinary folks like us there is nothing more left

to do now but quietly return to business as usual and

carry on again with our humdrum lives. Actually, it's

nice to welcome some semblance of normality back once

again into daily living. It's been a tiresome

experience indeed following the Indian elections these

past few weeks -- reading editorials, browsing

web-sites, watching TV-talk shows, analyzing

opinion/exit polls and holding hot coffee-shop debates

with friends in the evenings (and convincing none but

our own arm-chairs!)... I'm glad it's all finally

over!

Last evening after the curtains came down on

Vote-2004, I wanted to refresh myself a little. The

week-long and feverish election-watch had really

drained my energies. So, I went back, as I usually do

under the circumstances, to an activity that for me

has been an unfailing and immense source of relaxation

viz. reading the 'Valmiki Ramayana'. And yet, so badly

afflicted was I with electoral hangover that no sooner

had I turned a few pages of the Ayodhya "kAnda" than I

stopped in the middle of a passage, utterly taken by

surprise by a rather strange question that popped

suddenly out of my head:

"Was Rama a democrat or a despot?"

It was an intriguing question indeed and I hence

immediately proceeded to delve into the Valmiki

Ramayana to try and cull out an answer for myself.

The history of mankind, if one looks at it from a

certain angle, is really nothing but a series of

periods of despotism and democracy succeeding one

another. Sometimes democrats have ruled, at other

times despots have ruled. Democratic despots and

despotic democrats have ruled too. History remembers

them today as either "benevolent dictators" or

democrats who ruled with their "iron fist inside

velvet gloves"...

Now, what about Lord Rama of the Valmiki Ramayana? Was

he a benevolent, democratic despot? Or was he a

despotic democrat? The answer can be found, if at all,

only in the pages of the Ramayana. Many are the scenes

in the Valmiki Ramayana where we come across the will

of the people directly clashing with the will of Lord

Rama belying thereby the age-old dictum of "vox

populi, vox Dei" (the voice of the people is the voice

of God) which democracies all over the world today

have come to regard as sacred cow.

**********

The first instance of conflict between Rama and the

popular will we can find in the Ayodhya "kAnda". Rama

leaves Ayodhya to go into exile in deference to his

father, King Dasaratha's will. But the people of

Ayodhya at large are very much against the idea. Rama

however is firm in his resolve and takes leave of them

and rides away in a chariot driven by the courtier

Sumantara.

But the people of Ayodhya will not give up so easily.

They follow Rama's chariot all the way out of Ayodhya

and beyond the city's outskirts even. They keep

trailing Sumanthara's chariot, and entreating Rama not

to leave the kingdom... We see that they simply would

not let their Prince go...

So persistent thus was the general populace of Ayodhya

that the Ramayana records they kept following Rama's

chariot in a long procession the whole day until dusk

finally fell. There were a number of Brahmanas even of

great sanctity following him obstinately. They went as

far as the River Tamasa, where Rama and Sumantara

crossed over to the other bank and ostensibly set up

camp. The people watched Rama from a distance, on the

other side, as he pretended to retire for the night.

After a while the people, tired after the long journey

of the day, they too lay down and went to sleep on the

other bank of the river. As they were asleep, Rama

said to Sumantara: "Now you had better quietly take

this chariot and drive northward as if you were trying

to return to Ayodhya. And when the people are off

their guard as it were, come back from that side by

another way. I'll come and join you and then we can

steal away in the night without their knowing

anything".

Sumantara did as he was told and that was exactly how

Rama, by stealth and ruse, threw the people of Ayodhya

off his trail -- the people whom it was truly

difficult to shake off since, in their loyalty and

adoration, they were determined to follow him until he

yielded to their request to return to their kingdom.

************

The second instance in the Valmiki Ramayana in which

Rama chose to go against the express wishes of the

larger public is again later in the Ayodhya "kAnda".

This time it is when the whole population of Ayodhya

goes along with Bharatha to the forest-abode of

Chitrakoota where Rama has set up camp. The people

meet Rama there and along with Bharatha entreat him to

return to the throne at Ayodhya and take up his duty

as King now that the old king Dasaratha is dead.

Bharata tells Rama, "How can I take up the burden of

governance when you are here in exile? What will the

people say? I have brought everyone and everything

from the capital. I have brought here all the women of

the land; I have brought all the gurus; Vasishta is

here; I have brought all the 'sasmagris' necessary for

your anointment as king; the army is here; ministers

are here; musicians are here. It is my intention, and

the intention of all assembled here now that you must

be crowned! Let us proceed, O Rama!" (II.106.22-34)

"rakshitUm sumaha-drAjya-aham-ekastu nOth-sahE I

powra-jAnapadAms-chApi rakthAn ranjayitUm tathA II

"tvAmEva hi pratIshantE parjanyamiva karshakAh:"I

(II.112.12)

"Brother, I cannot go and govern Ayodhya! Who will

obey me? All the people say, "We want Rama, we want

Rama!" What can I do? I cannot govern. I have no

capacity. What shall I do?" laments Bharatha to Rama.

"As in a dry season when the rains are late, the

peasants lift uo their hands and ask Indra to shower

rain upon them, so are all the people, our relations,

friends, poor subjects, ministers and all -- they all

want you and you alone to be king."

In spite of all the entreaties and lamentations of the

people of Ayodhya that day, Rama remained firm in his

resolve not to return to Ayodhya. Once again the will

of the people was defeated by the Will of God.

***********

The third instance in the Valmiki Ramayana appears in

the "yuddha-kAnda" where we see that Rama's action

directly conflicted with democratic norms such as

"rule by majority", "collective responsibility" and

"governance by consensus".

The scene in the "yuddha-kAnda" is from the 18th

'sarga'. Visbheeshana has come to Rama seeking asylum

and protection. He surrenders to Rama. Rama then

orders Vibheeshana to wait and immediately thereafter

convenes a Council of War. The Council of War includes

Sugriva, Jambavan, Angada, Hanuman and all other

important generals and chieftains in Rama's camp. Rama

then puts forth the case of Visbheeshana's asylum to

the Council members and asks for their advice.

The Council, with the notable exception of Hanuman,

unanimously advises against accepting Vibheeshana into

their camp. The chief objection is put forth by

Sugriva himself:

"Idrisham vyasanam prAptam BrAtaram yah parityajEth I

kO nAma sa bhavEthasya yamEsha na parityajEth II"

(VI.18.5-6)

"A brother who deserts his brother's side in the midst

of such calamity and crisis, as Visbheeshana has done

-- who may hope to find faith in him? Whom indeed will

he not traitorously forsake?"

The Council of War thus gave its unequivocal verdict.

It was the general consensus. In having convened the

Council to decide on the matter, Rama did act in the

highest traditions of democratic conduct. But what was

the final outcome? Did he abide by the decision of the

Council?

Despite the Council's verdict, Rama took exactly the

opposite course of action. He decided to grant asylum

to Vibheeshana under the 'minority' advice given by

Hanuman who said, "O Rama, Vibheeshana has seen how

able you are and how effectively you helped Sugriva

get rid off his evil brother, Vali. Sugriva too

similarly desires to be king of Lanka and knows he can

do it with your help. It is a natural ambition of the

younger brother to over-throw an evil elder brother.

This is why he has come here to you. I think it is

therfore advisable to have him on our side in this

war".

That was Hanuman's minority and dissenting view which

Rama adopted and thereby ignored completely the

majority view of the Council of War. This is another

instance in the Ramayana where we learn an important

lesson: God may choose to observe democratic norms and

niceties but may not always feel obliged to adhere

wholly to them. In other words, God does not always

"walk the talk".

************

The only instance in the Valmiki Ramayana where we do

see Rama bowing fully to the dictates of democratic

will, when he did bow to the so-called 'Will of the

People', was alas, the time when it also had the most

disastrous outcome. That scene is in the

"uttara-kAndam", the 7th and final Book of the

Ramayana.

After the Lanka War, Rama returned to rule Ayodhya. He

lived happily with Sita for many years. But one day,

Rama's state intelligence agency came to him and

faithfully reported that the common people of Ayodhya

were beginning to say downright slanderous things

about his queen:

"yathA hi kurutE rAjA prajA tamanuvartatE" II

(VII.43.19)

"Evam bahuvidhA vAchO vadanti puravAsinah:" I

nagarEshu cha sarvEshu rAjanjana-padEshu cha II

(VII.43.20)

"Whether you go into the streets of the city or

whether you walk into the rural parts, the people

everywhere are saying slanderous things about Queen

Sita and you, Your majesty", said the agents.

"The common people's tongues are wagging -- they say,

"What sort of happiness can our King Rama be having

sleeping with that woman who has lived for a time in

Ravana's house? How can he enjoy? How does our King

not shrink away from such a woman who has been taken

to Lanka by a rakshasa?"

Valmiki further adds a cruel twist to the tale here.

The people on the streets, he writes, were also

wondering aloud:

"asmAkamapi dArEshu sahaneeyam bhavishyati" I

(VII.43.18)

"Tomorrow or the day after, when our own women in the

household misbehave, we must also like our King put up

with it, is it not?".

In this scene of the "uttara-kAnda", we hear the real

voice of the common man of Ayodhya -- not for a moment

hesitating to stoop to casting a heinous, disgraceful

slur on the fair name of Queen Sita! Sita! The same

lady who everyone knew had come through pure and

unsullied from the test of the "agni-pravEsa! 'Vox

Populi' had spoken... and spoken loudly and most

cruelly...

This was the moment when Rama, deciding to bow to the

Will of the People, and in the larger interest of the

state of Ayodhya, chose to carry out the most tragic,

the most painful act of his life -- he banished the

beautiful, pure and innocent Sita from Ayodhya…forever

to the forests...

In this one instance in the Ramayana, we see how the

Almighty Will of God chose to let the petty will of

common humanity prevail.

*********

Having examined all the above instances from the

Ramayana what are we to make of Rama's character? Was

he by temperament and outlook a democratic

(benevolent) despot or a despotic democrat (with

velvet-gloved iron fists)? It is a very baffling

question indeed. In the first two instances in the

Ayodhya "kAnda", when it would have really behooved

Rama to act in accordance with the will of the people

i.e. in a democratic way, we see that he chose to act

like a self-willed despot and went against their

wishes. In the other two incidents, however, where

none could have faulted Rama if he had acted indeed

like a dictatorial despot, he however went on to act

in the true spirit of a democrat. IN the

"yuddha-kAnda", Rama was Commander-in-Chief waging a

great war. There is no place and no need whatsoever

for democratic niceties in War and yet Rama chose to

observe the courtesy of democracy in the Vibheeshana

episode. And again in the "uttara-kAnda", Rama would

have indeed been within his rights to have acted like

a stubborn despot unmindful of what people said about

the character of Queen Sita. "As far as I am

concerned", he could have easily said, "as far as I am

concerned she has been long ago acquitted and

vindicated by the verdict of the "agni-pravEsam". To

hell with the people's stance on this matter". No one

could have faulted Rama if he had taken a stand such

as this in the true mould of a despotic ruler. And yet

Rama chose to act the other way -- in the highest syle

of a true democrat…

So the question still remains to perplex us: Was Rama

a Despot or a Democrat?

What can I say except this: It is better we leave the

question unanswered. He who claims to know the answer

can only do so if he can claim too to know the Will of

God, the designs and workings of the Divine Mind. And

who in the world can ever dare make such a claim? None

indeed, not the greatest of Dictators, nor the

greatest of Democrats of all the three worlds!

************

Rgds,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

May 18, 2004

> had I turned a few pages of the Ayodhya "kAnda" than I

> stopped in the middle of a passage, utterly taken by

> surprise by a rather strange question that popped

> suddenly out of my head:

>

> "Was Rama a democrat or a despot?"

>

> **********

>

> The first instance of conflict between Rama and the

> popular will we can find in the Ayodhya "kAnda". Rama

> leaves Ayodhya to go into exile in deference to his

> father, King Dasaratha's will. But the people of

> Ayodhya at large are very much against the idea. Rama

> however is firm in his resolve and takes leave of them

> and rides away in a chariot driven by the courtier

> Sumantara.

sudarshan ji,

literal democracy is a very dangerous thing, and is never implemented

anywhere without disaster. it would mean that 51 ignorants can

override 49 experts!!

in case of rAma, he leaves ayodhyA ignoring the pleas of his

citizens. but that was the first instance.

lakshmaNa tells him, as soon as they are ware of the events of

exile, that he will fight anyone who dares deny rAma his rigt.

dasharatha has gone senile, anamored by a woman, making decisions

that are not good for the kingdom or the son or the people! (ayodhyA

kAnDa chapter 23)

kaushalyA also asks rAma to stay or to take her with him.

even dasharatha aks rAma to put him in prison and take the kingdom!!

doing all these would have been an ordinary man's thinking, driven

by greed for the kingdom. if it be, why did dasharath himself deny

to kaikeyi and put her in prison or get her killed, without telling

anything to anyone? that would have solved all problems? but he

didn't do this, since he had a little love for truth left in him.

even if it was all in private between him and kaikeyi, he honoured

it and made it public. rAma honored that and didn't want people

to think that he ignored his father's wishes over his greed for

kingdom, a bad example to set for any future king!

people reacted by what they thought was good for them. but as yama

tells nachiketA, "there are two ways, the good and the dear, shreya

and priya" rAma chose the shreya path, that which was right, people

wanted the dear path, the one which would give them less pain (of

separation from a good king rAma). the mass can rarely decide

anything right (in a literal sense, when they are amassed physically

in a mob)!

> The second instance in the Valmiki Ramayana in which

> Rama chose to go against the express wishes of the

> larger public is again later in the Ayodhya "kAnda".

this is same as before. if he didn't stay over the first time, why

should he go back later? this would be like doing something and

not finishing it even 10%!! the perils of exile had not changed!

and in a way, this was what caused the demise of rAvaNa ultimately.

it is said that the most crucial character in rAmAyaNa is mantharA.

without her, rAmAyaNa wouldn't have been what it is today!! a

touching, inspiring story of human endeavor!

> The third instance in the Valmiki Ramayana appears in

> the "yuddha-kAnda" where we see that Rama's action

> directly conflicted with democratic norms such as

> "rule by majority", "collective responsibility" and

> "governance by consensus".

>

> The Council, with the notable exception of Hanuman,

> unanimously advises against accepting Vibheeshana into

>

> The Council of War thus gave its unequivocal verdict.

> It was the general consensus. In having convened the

> Council to decide on the matter, Rama did act in the

> highest traditions of democratic conduct. But what was

> the final outcome? Did he abide by the decision of the

> Council?

>

> Despite the Council's verdict, Rama took exactly the

> opposite course of action. He decided to grant asylum

> to Vibheeshana under the 'minority' advice given by

here again, think of it as a presidential rule, where the president

can veto the suggestions given by the council. the ministers always

counseled the king, they give their counsel, advice, then the king

decides. there is no question of democracy by majority! the king

is not an "emcee" or a compere to orchestrate the meeting only. he

is the final decision maker.

and hanuman had proved himself wiser, mightier, and better judge

of character thatn anyone else. his devotion to rAma was unconditional

and without reason. dasharatha wanted tobe with his son, sItA with

her husband, lakshmaNa wanted to be with his lifelong friend and

elder brother, sugriva wanted to defeat vAlI, but what did hanumAna

want? he was with rAma out of his own true love! his statements

mattered more! one has to give weitage to each voice. 5000 farmers

are nothing against one army general when it comes to war advice!

> The only instance in the Valmiki Ramayana where we do

> see Rama bowing fully to the dictates of democratic

> will, when he did bow to the so-called 'Will of the

> People', was alas, the time when it also had the most

> disastrous outcome. That scene is in the

> "uttara-kAndam", the 7th and final Book of the

> Ramayana.

it is suggested by indian and non-indian scholars that uttar kAnDa is not

part of the original rAmAyaNa by vAlmIki. that is one thing to keep in mind

when judging events of this kAnDa.

secondly, the first agni-parIkshA was given in rAma's own words, 'to prove

to these masses about your innocence. i know you are untouched'

now in ayodhyA, the people had not witnessed this. and if the secret

service brings in news that people talk has reached a stage where they are

saying, if our wives stay out, we will also be expected to keep up with

them'. then as a king he is setting a very bad example in front of them.

rAma has always been a person of action than words, unlike kRiShNa. he

talked much less, but made a decision and let his actions talk. so rather

than ignore the people, or to give a big lecture to them (after all the

people knew about the agni-parIkshA), he chose to set it straight.

here you see a king who would sacrifice anything (even his own kingdom in

the first place!) to keep a good image among the masses. why? was it

because they would overthrow him if he kept sItA home? no!!! after all he

was a king, he could have forced his will any time!

but the common men follows what the great men do! so the great men

(leaders) have extra responsibility to act as examples. this would be the

right time to put clinton on this test! he would rather have the entire

press and nation puking over the scandal but not budge from the seat of

power!

> Having examined all the above instances from the

> Ramayana what are we to make of Rama's character? Was

> he by temperament and outlook a democratic

> (benevolent) despot or a despotic democrat (with

> velvet-gloved iron fists)? It is a very baffling

he was none. he was a king who acted in the highest standards to set

examples of good conduct, create unwavering devotion in him among his

people, never chose pleasures over duty! a master warrior and planner and a

man of determination and steel! none of the shastras say that a king should

simply agree to a decision because 51% said so!

> question indeed. In the first two instances in the

> Ayodhya "kAnda", when it would have really behooved

> Rama to act in accordance with the will of the people

> i.e. in a democratic way, we see that he chose to act

> like a self-willed despot and went against their

which despot ever gave up the very kingdom for truth!!!

using such words for rAma is indeed sad and ignorance!

> So the question still remains to perplex us: Was Rama

> a Despot or a Democrat?

>

> What can I say except this: It is better we leave the

> question unanswered. He who claims to know the answer

> can only do so if he can claim too to know the Will of

> God, the designs and workings of the Divine Mind. And

> who in the world can ever dare make such a claim? None

> indeed, not the greatest of Dictators, nor the

> greatest of Democrats of all the three worlds!

not necessarily! rAmAyaNa for one is a wonderful epic that is to be

discussed, mulled over, emulated if possible, thought over. just one

caution, - not to jump to conclusions

it is there for the very enlightenment of mortal minds!

--

Thank You,

Shashi Joshi, Chief Editor, TARANG

440-725-2973

---

| "TARANG - the wave", Cultural, Bilingual, Family, Magazine |

|-|

| HINDU PRAYER BOOK - 130+ mantras; 15+ aratis with translations |

---

| http://GreatIndiaOnline.com |

|-|

May 20, 2004

ram anbil ji,

somehow i am not able to post on the group. the mail comes back.

is it possible you could post this reply on the gorup, and see why i am not

able to post, while i am getting all the mails on the group :-((

shashi joshi