Playing with our Sacred History - Devdutt Pattanaik on Epic Channel

Devdutt Pattanaik is a well known name among the readers of Indian writing in English. While people like Ashok Banker had been re-interpreting tales from India’s sacred history before Devdutt came into prominence, it is to the latter’s credit that he opened up almost a new genre by retelling religious stories in a simple, lucid manner. While nowhere close to the impact Amar Chitra Katha has had, it won’t be a stretch to say that for many young Indians, Devdutt, through his columns in various newspapers and books, has provided the only glimpse to India’s rich sacred history.

Last week, I happened to watch 2 back to back episodes of a new series ‘Devlok with Devdutt Pattanaik’ on Epic Channel. The format of this show is of Devdutt responding to questions posed by the host.  Mr Pattanaik needs to commended for his articulation, for possessing that rare capacity to hold the viewer's interests, that too on such ‘non-cool’ topic.

Yet, some aspects of Devdutt’s assertions, particularly, looked at in context of the views he has been propagating since long, are worrisome. It is times like these which makes one wonder whether absence of knowledge is preferable to prejudiced, ill-formed opinions which disturb the very foundations of our collective consciousness.

One of the episodes of this show had Devdutt talking about Ramayana. He made some valid points on how the Indians see time as a circular concept and how collective memories are history for our people. He further shared titbits of Ramayana which while believed to be an integral core to the main story, are later additions (e.g.. the Lakshman Rekha). However, he then asserted that there is nothing such as the first teller or original teller of Ramayana and that all compositions are as valid as Valmiki Ramayana. In support of his assertion, he claimed how the story of Ramayana was narrated by Narad Muni to Valmiki and Narad had himself heard from other sources. Or how Garud had heard it from Kakbhushundi or how the tale of Mahabharat was narrated by Vyasa, by Vaishmapayana and so many others. The example about Mahabharata was a little ridiculous as Vaishampayana was Vyasa’s pupil and as per tradition itself, expanded Vyasa’s Mahabharat Jaya to Bharat. Hence, the argument that both of them are as original or non-original can be dismissed altogether.

The fallacious argument that any retelling of Ramayana is as good as the core tale is the same claim that Wendy Donigers of the world make. This approach allows them to project  fringe and obscure tales on a higher pedestal, equivalent or even superior to the mainstream versions of Ramayana as we know it. When they talk of 300 versions of Ramayana, they conveniently omit that a large number of these versions are virtually unknown and stand at absolutely no comparison with Valmiki’s text so far as quality and popularity are concerned. Even more critically, almost all of the better known composers of these renditions recognise Valmiki as the ‘original’.  Unlike Valmiki Ramayana, which portrayed Rama as a mortal but with superior quality, the later day renditions are more driven by Bhakti and Rama is unquestionably God. While Valmiki challenges Rama’s acts and states that the Ramayana is actually Sitayana for it is actually her tale and her immaculate conduct in all circumstances, hardly can any later day Ramayana be seen as questioning any of Rama’s act.

Valmiki, unlike other poets, was not only a witness, but also a participant in the story of Ramayana. That Tulsidas mentions Kakbhushundi or Shiva narrating the tale to Sati in no way impacts the identity and contribution of the 'original' composer.

At another point, Devdutt ‘corrects’ the facilitator when she uses the honorific 'Rishi' for Valmiki, claiming that the latter was a poet and not a Rishi.  Of course Valmiki was a poet but that is not a disqualification for being a Rishi. As per our stories, Ratnakar robber became 'Rishi' Valmiki through austerities, had an ashram and provided shelter to Sita when she was banished by Rama. Just how does being a poet, in fact, Aadikavi make Valmiki any less of a Rishi?

An even more startling claim which Devdutt made was regarding the relative ages of Ramayana and Mahabharata. As per him, while the collective memory of Indians makes Mahabharata a younger tale, on all parameters, it is the Ramayana which is younger. While there have been some who are propagating this view, the only seemingly valid argument (which Devdutt did not forward) was that archaeological artefacts excavated at Mahabharata sites are older compared to what has been found at Ayodhya.

The grounds which Devdutt presented are specious and ill-argued. 

·       Style of Sanskrit of Mahabharata being cruder - had not read or heard of this argument ever before. Yet, given that my knowledge is pretty limited, some scholar might have made this claim.  Even considering it to be true, we are very well aware that almost all works of Sanskrit barring the Vedas were re-composed post Panini's 'finalising' the language. While even Ramayana may not be the work of a single poet, Mahabharata is an outright mosaic and even the best efforts towards the critical edition cannot piece the original Jaya. Hence, to make a judgement on grounds of polish of language does not seem very proper.

·       Knowledge of the country - Devdutt claimed that while the Mahabharata spoke only of Northern India, the Ramayana showed knowledge of geography of the South proving that the Aryan civilisation had already spread across India by this time. This assertion is incorrect. Ramayana is more focused on the region of East UP, Bihar, South Nepal and makes only cursory mentions of other kingdoms. Even more critically, Ramayana's South India was a forested land with little civilisation, the kingdoms being of people who were compared to bears and monkeys. On the other hand, the Mahabharata talks about cities and proper kingdoms from Uttarpatha to Manipur to at least Vidarbha and Kalinga. The lifestyle of people and palaces mentioned in the Mahabharata are more advanced compared to Ramayana, all of which shows an earlier vintage for the latter. 

More pointedly, while the Ramayana abounds with demons, the Mahabharata has demons spoken of sporadically, like Ekchakra and Hidimba. The premise of the Mahabharata was that the demons had taken birth as humans and a big war had to be fought to cleanse Earth of their evil. Anthropologically, presence of the scary, non-human other denotes a more archaic civilisation, something which corresponds to the lives and times of Ramayana. 

·       Drying up of Saraswati – Devdutt claimed that the Mahabharata mentions drying up of Saraswati which roughly corresponds to the time Aryan civilisation began and hence has to be older. But Ramayana does not mention the river simply because the theatre of events happened in very different geographies, i.e., Mahabharata in the Bramhavarta and Ramayana much further east.  And in any case, this will be a disqualification only if we believe that the fantastic time spans mentioned in our epics are factual and not allegorical. The only reason why Devdutt’s logic could be valid is an absolute negation of the Out-of-India theory and continuity between the Indus-Saraswati civilisation and the Vedic people.

·    Archaic social practices – Devdutt states that polyandry is a primitive practice and its prevalence in Mahabharata is a proof of it being older than Ramayana which celebrates monogamy. This assertion is laughable.  The Mahabharata abounds in ridicule of Pandavas for their marriage with Draupadi. Each of their opponents taunted Draupadi as a harlot and Pandavas as lesser men for sharing a wife. The story leaves little in doubt that polyandry was an exception, an act while not considered illegitimate, was very clearly an object of scorn and contempt. Polygamy though, was widespread and even during Ramayana times and Rama had made a vow of being devoted to one wife, again an exception to the general rule. On the other hand, we had widow remarriages happening in Ramayana, something which was totally missing in Mahabharata, which together with a definite increase in polygamous practices indicated that patriarchy had become institutionalised. In any case, the Vedic literature does not mention polyandry as a practice, so Mahabharata cannot be closer to Vedic period compared to Ramayana.

The most duplicitous words, though, were around the lip service paid to collective memories of those very people who hold these epics in high esteem.

Anyone even remotely familiar with the Hindu eons would be aware that the Ramayana is set in a more pristine time, in the Treta yuga while the Mahabharata has been placed in Dwapara, the succeeding age. There is absolute unanimity in Hindu scriptures and Puranas, that the events of Ramayana pre-dated Mahabharata. Within the epics themselves, Ramayana, all the so-called 300 versions of it, are silent on the tale of Krihsna or Mahabharata while the latter epic is dotted with references to the tale of Sita-Rama.

So here we have a peculiar situation that false proxies are being used to determine something which runs diametrically opposite to what the itihaas has to state.

How does it matter to the lay Hindu if the Mahabharata is being projected as being older to Ramayana?

It matters a lot and here is why –

It will be little exaggeration to say that much more than any scripture, the Ramayana has moulded Indian society. For millennia after millennia, this tale of morality has provided us the framework on how each one of us should act and which standards to strive for. Much of it comes from the general belief in Rama’s divinity and that it really had happened.

If one has to battle against Hinduism, what better tool to adopt than to raise doubts among the believers on the very foundation of the text? Can Christianity remain what it is if it were to be proved that there was never a historical Jesus? The same way, if there are enough modern-day Hindus who doubt the authenticity of Ramayana and made to believe that Hindu traditions are so ridiculously primitive that they couldn’t even track their so-called history properly, how can it not decisively weaken their steadily eroding religious convictions?

When the mlecchha invaders started destroying temples and breaking down idols, the astounded Hindu, who was expecting divine wrath to strike the desecrators down, consoled himself that the Gods had left their idols owing to their (the Hindus’) sins. Now, when they start doubting if they at all had any Gods (if the tale is false, the characters in it cannot be true), how long will the native religion sustain?

It will not be a stretch to believe that Devdutt Pattanaik, for all his pretensions of being culturally in sync with the Indian way of interpreting events and beliefs, is just one more adherent to the Wendy Doniger school of Indology where anything which is sacred has to be made profane. Like Wendy and her children, Devdutt too has promoted obscure tales, particularly around sexuality and has given an impression of a religion speaking in multiple, often contradictory voices.

While anyone is entitled to his opinion, the dangers with Devdutt’s tales are that, they will remain the only source of information about Hinduism’s sacred history to many of our youth, particularly the upper middle or the elite class, which will, whether we like it or not, continue to define our narratives.

With so many sepoys, it is little wonder that Breaking India project goes on smoothly.