Politics over Ravana

Lord Ravana

Like any other Indian kid I used to revel the sight of burning effigy of Ravana, a gigantic structure made of firecrackers disseminating into nothingness.  There was a sadistic pleasure in this sight of violence, of creation and destruction, of celebration of this violence year after year. I used to watch the structure disappearing into thin air each year in movies; but the first time when I came full face to reality of Politics over Ravana was when I asked my parents in fifth standard a very innocent question.  "Why don't we go out to see the effigy in the town?", knowing my age my parents did not had any justifiable explanation at that time but; when I grew up a little I was told "Ravana was a Brahmin and we cannot see him burning to death"

This was a very strange predicament for me, I was always told that Ravana was this villain from a story, who like in an other Indian tale dies for good in the end. Not watching him die to me was like showing him some respect for who he was instead of denouncing his evil spirit for what he was. Years after reading the various tales that surround the character I have come to a very simple conclusion, Ravana in this philosophical war of interpretation and reinterpretations has become a political tool.

Ramayana is a tradition and not a single interpretation can be called the only interpretation. In south India Ramayana has been written from the perspective of most other characters including Ravana. Last summer I had an opportunity to go through this book and it can be very nicely summed up by this quote "Only those who hang the heroes are the ones who write the history". Lately due to rise of intolerance and lack of fluidity in thoughts and acceptance of new and conflicting ideas this room for interpretation is narrowing down.

The fight of identity and roles of Ravana becomes grave when there are only few narrative. When we start considering a lot of other narratives probably we will able to disassociate him with our own identity and understand the real message. In the present scenario we have two major narratives, Ravana, the king from the south and Ravana, the evil Brahmin.

Ravana, the evil Brahmin is the tale which most people in India like to remember Ravana as, someone who did not accept the authority of the God himself and did wrongful acts which necessitated his death. This is a story of victory of good over evil, however there are some pockets within India who feel uncomfortable in associating him with evil given his identity and I became victim of one such thought.

Ravana, the king from the south is what is running most of the politics in Tamil Nadu. People who support the Aryan theory of invasion like to claim that Ram was this evil king; an Aryan who fought a war with a Dravida from the south. The caste politics therein likes to associate the upper caste as Aryans who ruled and played foul with the original inhabitants, Dravidas but in their quest to prove a theory right they sometimes forget who Ravana himself was, a Brahmin and by that analogy an Aryan himself.

The battle of narratives can only be stopped when more alternative narratives to the given translation come up; which was how the whole thing was meant to be. The voice of divisive politics over Ravana can be buried under the noises of all these new narratives. While the debate between his identity and his deeds will continue what modern Indians will have to do is to separate these characters of the stories from there own selves.

When The Puritans and The Pragmatists Came Together

Mahatama Gandhi, the face on the currency note of India, father of the nation, the uplifter of the poor and the downtrodden, the very image of self control and discipline, the lawyer turned reformer and the most humble of all writers. There are many ways to remember the man but I want to remember him as someone who brought the divergent ideas of truth and moral conduct, rituals and reality, believers and nonbelievers, together.

Indian philosophy (Hindu philosophy if you take it in geographical sense) is a very fluid idea. There has been a constant urge to understand the subtle reality of life. This has fairly divided the study of philosophy under two major groups, the Aastika (आस्तिक ) and the Nastika (नास्तिक). The Nastika school of thought consists of Charvaka ( चार्वाक), the Buddhist and the Jain Philosophy. While the Aastika school of thoughts consists Yoga-Samkhya, Mimansa-Vaisheshika, Nyaya-Vedanta.


Aastika and Nastika concepts do not question the existence of eternal power, the ultimate consciousness, Brahman but they have a difference in the approach. Aastikas believe in the Vedas, which focus primarily on the rites and rituals, the ultimate aim being realisation of the the "Truth". Great amount of stress is given on following the customs correctly as things are considered right only when the tone, words and rhythm are all put together in a perfect composition of a mantra. Brahmins, who knew the right kind of Mantras and who could recite them in the right manner for every specific occasion became the agents of God on the earth. If you want to connect to the God, Brahmins were the way to reach them. The ideal image of a Brahmin was someone who doesn't lie, one who understands the value of truth. However these rituals were not bound by their righteousness, the rituals often involved sacrifices of animals, the only thing that was made sure was that the rituals were performed by the book and truth remained the ultimate goal. Nastikas believed in living a moral life, great stress was put on understanding the sensitivity of the surrounding, Non violence being one of the greatest pillar.


Great reforms have taken birth in India have shaped the Indian Philosophy according to the contemporary need. From Buddha to Shakardev to Ramanuja to Chaitanya to Vivekananda  each one of them have taken up the one of these sides, the Aastikas and the Nastikas. All of them were able to understand the contemporary reality and were able to mould ideas accordingly, but the dichotomy between the truth and the moral life always remained.

When Mahatama Gandhi came into picture, it was for the first time in India that someone was able to dissolve this dichotomy between truth and non violence. He extended the definition of Non Violence from physical to emotional domain. With the example of his own life, the freedom struggle on the path of Non Violence and his experiments with the truth he was able to solve the biggest mystery that was keeping the two Indias away, The Puritans and The Pragmatists.

I think when we remember Gandhi each year we should acknowledge his contribution to this fluid hindu philosophy. India in the globalised world of 21st century is also in a social crises, where we do not know what to preserve and what to reject, Perhaps Gandhi was able to foresee the future when he said the following words which can greatly help India in answering these questions. 

"I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any"