The Eye-sore of Ayodhya

[Guest guest]

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

 

 

The Eye-sore of Ayodhya

 

 

Sri Valmiki tells us that there was none in Ayodhya who was not beautiful, none

who was not well dressed, none who was unadorned with scents and perfumes. The

city and its natives had everything good going for them, with everyone attired

in the best of clothes and ornaments. Everyone was strikingly good-looking and

there was none who was even remotely otherwise.

 

It was a beautiful city, with beautiful and handsome inhabitants. Their beauty

was not merely skin deep-all citizens of Ayodhya were of impeccable conduct and

character, pure as Maharshis. There was none who coveted others' wealth, because

each had enough and more. Everyone adhered to the righteous path scrupulously.

There were no thieves in Ayodhya, because there was no need for anyone to take

others' property. There were no atheists in Ayodhya, no agnostics nor anyone who

did not discharge in full measure the duties enjoined upon him or her, as per

varNa and Ashrama. Even if you were to search the entire city, you wouldn't find

a fool or an unlettered individual-not merely were the citizens literate, every

one of them was a scholar, says Sri Valmiki. There were no weaklings in Ayodhya,

physically and psychologically; everyone lived to their full lives, were blessed

with happy families, with children, grand children and great-grand children

abounding. In short, Ayodhya was an ideal city, with responsible, beautiful and

righteous citizens who were paragons of virtue. This, however, is no wonder,

because in the reign of the fair and faultless IkshvAku Emperors, things

couldn't have been otherwise. To put it in a nutshell, the denizens of Ayodhya

were living examples of the maxim " yathA RAjA tathA prajA: " (As the King, so the

subjects). The Adikavi is so impressed with the attainments of the citizens of

the capital city of KOsala dEsam, that he devotes an entire chapter to a

rapturous recounting of the merits of AyOdhyA vAsIs.

 

 

 

However, all these positive features in the citizenry of Ayodhya were brought to

nought in a second and their collective will thwarted, all through the medium of

a pitifully insignificant inhabitant of the city, of whom none normally took any

notice. It was because of this person that Ayodhya, which was one big, happy

family, was transformed within seconds to a city drowning in a bottomless pit of

sorrow, the gay sounds of song and dance replaced by those of wailing, weeping

and breast-beating. A perfect Prince was turned into a nomad, His lovely wife

and devoted brother driven from the palace to the jungle, and an Emperor, who

would have lived on happily for a thousand more years, died immediately due to

unbearable sorrow. The teeming city of happy inhabitants was transformed

overnight into almost a ghost town, shorn of its carnival atmosphere, with even

non-sentient objects like trees in full bloom withering away suddenly, unable to

bear separation from their youthful idol. This person was powerful enough, or

could wield such power by proxy, that the Coronation of the Paramapurusha

Himself , fixed with the consent of all concerned including the Rajaguru

Vasishtta, courtiers, and, above all, the discerning citizens of Ayodhya, was

cancelled at the last moment, with His having to endure a jungle sojourn of 14

years, instead of reigning in splendour on the throne of Ayodhya.

 

 

 

Readers would have guessed by now that the subject of this piece is none other

than the notorious Manthara, the hunchback.

 

 

 

When we hear her name, the figure that springs to our mind is that of the

grotesquely bent form of an old woman, with a crotchety face and irascible

temperament. She had a deformed back, which gave her a skewed perception of life

and people, which in turn was reflected in her attitude towards others. Despite

her looks or character, it must definitely be admitted that it was she who

brought about a crucial turn in the epic, but for which events would have taken

quite a different and rather uninteresting course, with Sri Rama duly being

anointed Crown Prince and every one living happily ever after-that is, every one

except the long-suffering dEvAs and Rishis, who would have continued to be

tormented by Ravana and his minions. The contribution of Mantara is thus

extremely significant, though her motives might not have been the best.

 

 

 

Do we find a contradiction in Valmiki's description of Ayodhya's residents?

While he portrays all of them as being beautiful of body and mind, does he not

take cognisance of Mantara, who was anything but beautiful? When the Adikavi

tells us that the citizens of the great city had nothing but laudable virtues,

has he overlooked the hunchback, who was a scheming specimen of jealous

humanity?

 

 

 

We must remember, however, that whatever Sri Valmiki has laid down is the gospel

truth ( " yasya vAk anrutA kAvyE kAchit atra bhavishyati " ). Commentators tell us

that what Sri Valmiki said is indeed true and he was talking about the citizens

of Ayodhya, born and brought up there under the benign influence of the IkshvAku

Emperors. Mantara, on the other hand, was an expatriate of KEkaya, the homeland

of KaikEyi. The hunchback came to Ayodhya along with her mistress KaikEyi, when

Dasarata brought the latter to his capital city, as his newly wed bride. Thus

Mantara was part of the " streedhanam " or dowry KaikEyi brought with her to

Ayodhya, it being the practice in days of yore for princesses to bring with them

their own maids. And even in KEkaya, Mantara appears to have been an

insignificant part of the royal household, no one knowing where she was born and

to whom- " gyAti dAsi yatOjAtA KaikEyyAstu sahOshitA " . Thus, by all accounts,

Mantara did not belong to Ayodhya and hence the worthy citizens of Ayodhya could

not be faulted for having such a one in their midst.

 

 

 

All of us know that Mantara was instrumental in asking KaikEyi to seek Sri

Rama's banishment to the forests. But why? What harm did Raghunandana do her

that she worked through her mistress to ensure His extradition to the cruel

jungle?

 

 

 

We do not have an answer for this in Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam. The Adikavi

doesn't devote much attention to Sri Rama's childhood and mentions it just in

passing, apparently in a hurry to chronicle the momentous events that await

detailed recording. We are just told that Rama and Lakshmana were inseparable

and whenever the former went hunting, the latter accompanied Him and neither

took food or water without the other being fed. This is all Sri Valmiki has to

tell us about the Prince's infancy. It is indeed Sri Rama's misfortune that no

Azhwar sought to rectify the Adikavi's omission and record for posterity the

Prince of Ayodhya's bAla leelAs, as was done by Sri Periazhwar for Sri Krishna.

 

 

 

However, we do have glimpses of Sri Rama's childhood from other sources. For

instance, Sri Nammazhwar paints a rare picture of the Prince wielding a catapult

( " uNdai vil " ). It must be indeed difficult for us to picturise the sober and

sedate Chakravartthi Tirumagan with a catapult in His hand, but He did use one,

avers Sri Nammazhwar-and if anybody should know, Azhwar should, having been

blessed with unblemished wisdom by Emperuman. In the fifth decad of the first

hundred of Tiruvaimozhi, Azhwar tells us that Sri Rama straightened the hunch of

Mantara with a single shot from His unerring catapult- " koonE chidaya uNdai vil

niratthil teritthAi GOvindA! " . Going by this account, we deduce that Mantara's

must have been one of the first occasions when the Lord displayed His glorious

marksmanship, hitting the target right on the head.

 

 

 

Sri Nampillai, in his beautiful commentary on the aforesaid line, tells us that

as in His other endeavours, PerumAL was prompted solely by compassion for the

hunchback and, by a well-placed shot on the hump, straightened the poor

creature's back, destroying the deformity. And He did this without the least

harm to any other part of her physique- " ivaLudaya allAda avayavangaLukku oru

vAttam vArAdapadi nimirttha " . Hence, even in sport, we find that unlike the

inconsiderate Krishna, Sri Rama was always compassionate and merciful even to

the most insignificant of men and women.

 

 

 

While we don't disbelieve Azhwar, we are assailed by a genuine doubt. Azhwar

says, " koonE chidaya uNdai vil niratthil teritthAi GOvindA! " , very obviously

referring to Krishna and not to Rama. How then can the act be ascribed to the

Prince of Ayodhya? The commentator's reply here is again extremely enjoyable.

Sri Nampillai says that whenever one thinks of any prank, mischief or

misdemeanour, it is to Krishna that the mind automatically leaps. Being unable

to associate Sri Raghunandana with wielding a catapult and hitting people with

its ammunition, though it was indeed He who did it, Azhwar ends up ascribing the

act to Govindan, on whose unprotesting shoulders any blame for any act could be

laid without dispute- " teembu sErvadu KrishNanukkE AgayAlE, avan talayilE Erittu

solludal "

 

 

 

Well, coming back to Mantara, the aforesaid episode perhaps kept rankling in her

devious mind and she was awaiting an opportunity to " get her back " . Though it

must have done her a world of good to have her hunchback straightened, perhaps

she didn't like the way it was done, by a mere boy wielding a catapult. Whatever

be the reason, Mantara does not appear to have been favourably disposed towards

Sri Rama.

 

 

 

Coming to the day prior to the infructuous Coronation planned by Dasaratha, Sri

Valmiki appends an exclamatory mark ( " YadricchayA " ), to the sloka about the

festivities coming to the notice of the scheming hunchback Manthara. Her

movements circumscribed by her deformity, Manthara normally stays on level

ground, finding climbing or any other form of exercise painful. However, on the

day prior to Rama becoming the Prince of Ayodhya, Manthara takes it into her

head to climb the steep steps to the palace terrace, from where she has a bird's

eye view of the enthusiastic preparations for the Coronation.

 

 

 

" GyAti dAsI yatOjAtA KaikEyyAstu sahOshitA

 

prAsAdam chandra sankAsam ArurOha yadricchayA "

 

 

 

This, in turn, makes her hatch plans for ensuring KaikEyI's supremacy in

Dasaratha's royal household and to incite the queen to seek the long-forgotten

boons from the Emperor.

 

 

 

Mantara, from her vantage point on the terrace, perceives the entire Ayodhya

draped with flags and festoons, an atmosphere of celebration in the air and

everyone head over heels with joy. She also finds Kousalya giving away riches to

alms-seekers. Puzzled at this carnival atmosphere pervading Ayodhya, the

hunchback investigates and finds out the impending coronation of Sri Rama. She

rushes down immediately, as fast as her deformity would permit, and reaches

Kaikeyi's quarters, boiling with rage- " dahyamAnA kOpEna MantarA pApadarshinI " .

 

 

 

The proximity Mantara must have enjoyed with her mistress is brought out by her

addressing Kaikeyi as " moodE! " (You fool). Sri Valmiki describes the hunchback

as well versed in the art of speech- " vAkya visAradA " . When we read Mantara's

discourse to Kaikeyi, exhorting her to stop Sri Rama's coronation at once, we

are struck by wonder at her persuasiveness, at her forceful, convincing and

logical arguments, at her perseverance in the face of Kaikeyi's disbelief. If

the poor, unlettered hunchback was able, solely by her cogent arguments, to

convince Kaikeyi who doted on Rama, to seek His banishment, one can definitely

imagine her powers of oratory and imparting conviction to a reluctant listener.

 

 

 

We are able to discern the gradual change of heart in Kaikeyi, almost with every

word of Mantara's harangue. The Queen, when told by the hunchback of the

imminent coronation, immediately removes an invaluable chain from her neck and

presents it to Mantara, for having brought the glad tidings of Sri Rama's

ascension. And, even after listening to Mantara's ranting and raving, Kaikeyi

initially remains steadfast in her love for Sri Rama and tells the former that

she doesn't distinguish between Bharata and RAma, as both are equally dear to

her-

 

 

 

" RAmE vA BharatE vAham visEsham na upalakshayE " .

 

 

 

The same Kaikeyi, after having had a prolonged earful of Mantara's venomous

words, veers around to the view that Bharata should become the Prince in waiting

( " YuvaraAjA " ) at all cost and Rama, the rightful contender to the throne, should

be removed from the scene post-haste. If a well-read, scholarly, normally

pure-minded lady like Kaikeyi, with a heart brimming over with love for

Chakravartthi Tirumagan, could be transformed into a virulent opponent of the

Prince, all within the space of an hour, it speaks volumes of Mantara's skills

of persuasion. Her uncanny ability, to sow seeds of hate in the most barren of

soils and to nurture them quickly into giant trees radiating odium, fills us

with wonderment.

 

 

 

It is she again who reminds Kaikeyi of the long-forgotten boons obtained from

Dasaratha during the SamabarAsura vadham and advises her to seek the same from

the Emperor immediately, insisting on Sri Bharata's coronation and the

banishment of Sri Rama for fourteen years. A perusal of the dialogue (almost a

monologue) between Mantara and Kaikeyi, as recounted by Valmiki, would make us

look at the hunchback with new respect (albeit laced with distaste) for her

persuasiveness and indomitable courage-yes, courage, for, had her machinations

been rejected by Kaikeyi out of hand, Mantara faced the most cruel of

punishments for her campaign against the Prince of the land. Kamban attributes

another reason for Kaikeyi's change of heart-viz., the good fortune of the

celestials and the misfortune of the rAkshasAs. Had not the Queen undergone a

change in attitude, Ravana would never have been confronted or killed.

 

 

 

People say that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. How else can you explain

Kaikeyi's statement, after listening to the " enlightening " words of Mantara,

that the latter looked beautiful? Kaikeyi launches into a detailed and highly

complimentary portrayal of the hunchback's physical attributes, describing her

face as resembling the blemishless full moon, her form gracefully bent like a

lotus waving in the wind and so on. The Empress goes to the extent of likening

Mantara to an elegant swan in form and gait. The scheming maid is praised as the

Queen of Hunchbacks ( " KubjAnAm uttamA " ) and as an honourable exception to the

rule that hunchbacks are mostly wicked, cruel and evil-minded. Not only the

maid, but the huge lump on her back also comes in for praise, as being the

repository of wisdom and diplomacy-

 

 

 

" Tava idam yat deergham ratha ghONam iva Ayatam

 

mataya: kshatra vidyAscha mAyAyAscha vasanti tE "

 

 

 

When we love a person overly, even their negative features appear to us to be

admirable-this is the case with Kaikeyi too, who wants to adorn the hump of

Mantara with priceless jewels, fragrant sandal paste and the best of flowers.

 

 

 

Well, " enough about the hunchback " , I hear readers remark. However, detestable

as she may sound, all of us have to be extremely thankful to Mantara for her

intervention, for, had she not done so, several of the glorious Lord's

magnificent attributes, especially that of providing succour to those who

surrender ( " abhaya pradAnam " ), would not have come to light. But for the pitiful

hunchback, the Lord's promise to the deities, to rid them of Ravana's

oppression, could not have come to pass. And but for her, we would have had no

occasion get acquainted with Sri Hanuman and his glory.

 

 

 

Srimate Sri LakshmINrisimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana

Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

dasan, sadagopan