Ravan and Ramayan: A Retake?Part 4

 Ravan and Ramayan: A Retake?

Part 4:

One character that often gets not noticed but one that was the reason for perhaps the most difficult decisions Ram had to make in his entire lifetime was the Pareet परीट! The washerman.

What this character largely sheds light on is an important aspect of Ram’s role. In my opinion, the washerman posed a bigger ethical dilemma for Ram, than what Ravan did.

Ravan’s challenge was from one man to another. They stood on equal footing. 

The washerman’s challenge was from an ordinary subject in the kingdom to his leader, the king. They were not on an equal footing. Particularly when one was fully aware of his responsibilities and the other had no clue about his own. 

For a long time I have come across serious finger pointing from feminists towards Ram for the decision he made in case of Sita. I used to be confused about what to think of this issue. But as I am beginning to discern under new light, I can see how it could be confusing for many who look at Ram as any other man.

Feminists look at Ram as a man, a husband and a father. He was all of that. But he wore an additional hat. He was a king. A ruler. A leader. That role put him directly at odds with his personal roles as son, brother, husband, father etc.. Especially when any of the people in the kingdom objected to his personal decisions. 

In an essay I wrote on the blog recently on the occasion of Guru Poornima, I shared my thoughts about the position of disadvantage that Gurus,leaders or elders are in. While those below the ranks of these elders ( students, children, common citizens )have the liberty to openly criticize their shortcomings, the elders often lack the same freedom to retaliate. I remember so many incidents from my life when I did not hesitate to voice my disapproval of certain things I saw my parents or bosses or elected officials do. The tone in that criticism slowly moved from harsh, pointed and unhinged to more restrained and considerate. And because they didn’t talk back, I took it as a sign that I was right. I had no understanding of the fact that they were simply being compassionate and protective towards me by maintaining silence and not engaging in a public showdown even though I may have tempted them to do just that on several occasions. Even if I was right about some things, it reflected poorly on me than them, to address those issues in a manner that did not safeguard their dignity and honor. These realizations came later in life. 

Sometimes public dialogue to correct the wrongs becomes necessary. But just like the culture and ethical maturity of a single individual is revealed during public spats, culture of a larger society is reflected during public exchanges that voice dissents. Satires, cynicism, dark humor have their role in putting across the messages that call for social justice and reform. Yet cultural and ethical maturity is at its highest level when adults can speak in direct language without insulting others and without feeling insulted.

The washerman’s role in the Ramayan is a crucial one. He is the prototype of one who lacks much social standing. Yet he is an integral member of the community. He is important for his work, the services he provides through his means of earning a livelihood. He entirely lacks insight into his own qualifications and merit. There is no one to judge his moral integrity and life choices. He has the benefit to conduct his personal business away from public view. Therefore any irregularities would not necessarily be visible.

When he lifts a finger to question the morality of his queen or ethical values of his king, the onus now falls upon the shoulders of the queen and the king to answer or ignore. They are damned if they answer the man and they are equally damned if they don’t. Because from the idealists point of view, the washerman has equal standing as a wise scholar or eminent scientist or educated professional to criticize the leader, his criticism cannot be rejected.

People who give importance to moral values hold Ram in high regard. That’s for the choices he made at every step. When the kingdom to which he was a rightful heir was taken away from him through unfair means, he accepted that decision because it came from a mother. He forsake his right, in order to honor his mother’s wishes and guard his father’s word. It wasn’t just a matter of giving up his right to be king. It was also an order to give up palatial comforts and suddenly adapt to a life of great hardships. At no point did he resist the sudden change in his lifestyle. Even when it was unfair. There was something that he prioritized more than his personal comforts and rights. That was obedience to his parents. Mostly to the king. For his detractors who could say that he did that because he lacked courage to speak up, he proved his courage by taking up Ravan. He proved his strength by defeating Ravan. So that theory gets debunked.

After years of hardship ended and finally as man and wife they started seeing better days, out of nowhere this washerman airs his opinion on Ram’s lax ethical standards! Why? Because he accepted his wife who was abducted and in custody of another man for some time. He questions her chastity and Ram’s lowered standards. 

The million dollar question here is did Ram have an obligation to listen to this man? 

I have written an earlier post entirely on this subject of Ram’s decision to disown Sita. I will not go into those details here. 

But to put it in fewer words, the dilemma in this situation was between am I a King first or husband first? Am I answerable to my wife who is dear to me and not been at fault, or to my subjects who I am supposed to represent under any circumstances? This critical question was answered by Ram independently. 

It is a decision that calls for a case study. No leader is obligated to do everything that Ram did. But Ram certainly set some standards with the choices he made and those standards are to this day difficult to meet. It takes a thinking mind into a situation of solving a difficult puzzle. It brings you to crossroads from where you see a cliff at the end of one road and blazing fire at the far end of the other road. Behind you the road is already covered under flood waters. So turning back is no longer an option. There is no right or wrong. The leader must pick one option. 

Feminists bash Ram because he paid heed to the washerman. Ethical scholars would have taken him down from the pedestal if he disregarded the washerman and stood by his wife. I don’t think Ram cared about being on the pedestal. What he cared for was the footprints he would leave behind for those who walked that road after him. 

There is a Marathi proverb. जया अंगी मोठेपण तया यातना कठीण! One who is great, must endure great suffering.

My favorite poet saint Muktabai says the same truth to her brother :

“ थोडे दुखावले मन पुढे उदंड साहाणे”! 

“You are an heir to greatness. Small inconveniences can’t be taken into consideration. You have to be ready for innumerable, immense and endless sufferings .”

The washerman just had to keep washing people’s clothes. He had the privilege to criticize his king harshly, whether that criticism was justified or not and whether he had the qualifications to criticize or not. He had no bigger problems at hand to solve. No one to be answerable to. The comforts in his life, however meager they may be, were not going to be gone the next day. His life would go on without inconvenience. 

But did Ram have the same luxury? 

Luxury is not always to be measured in terms of the palaces we live in, cars we drive or food we eat. It is not even to be estimated by our college degree or job title or bank balance. A good study of the washerman’s life and Ram’s entire life can tell a thing or two about how luxury can be defined in a different way than usually understood. Who lived in luxury for most of his life? Ram or the washerman? Our opinions will be different based on our definition and understanding of luxury.

Not all men who abandon their wives are Ram. Nor can Ram be weighed in the same measuring scale as all men. Not all men who abandon their wives remain loyal to their wife as long as they live. Ram’s loyalty to Sita couldn’t be disputed even though he chose to send her away. The tough choices before Ram aren’t easy to comprehend. Comparing him with other men would be comparing apples and oranges. 

It would be interesting to see how the Ramayan would have unfolded if the washerman became the king and Ram returned to being an ordinary citizen. To some extent we see such scenarios unfold in recent eras in some countries. The consequences are quite telling. 

Every character in the Ramayan is a choice before us to enact in our own lives. Really, we can choose our role. Ram? Ravan? Sita? Dasharath? Kaikeyi? Bharat? Laxman ?Manthara? Sugreev? Mandodari? Vibhishan? Kumbhakarna? The washerman?

Oh, or the one and only Hanuman? That’s my favorite role. He is so much fun.