In my
childhood dadaji always used to tell me
that Ravana was a very learned man, a Brahmin, and THE greatest administrator
India has ever seen. ‘Sone ki Lanka’ he
used to say, where everyone lived an affluent and contented life. It was an
isopolitical society where everybody had the same privileges. Ravana waged a
war with Rama in order to achieve salvation. He knew that Ram was an
incarnation of Vishnu and by dying at his hands he would achieve moksha. As I grew up I realized that
there are always two sides (or more) to a story; however, I could never find Ravana’s. I had
also developed a liking for the ‘fringes of the society’ and was very
interested in the psyche of such people. However, every literary genius had
written about the bravados of Rama and Lakshman and how virtuous they were and
vilified Ravana at the same time. I felt that Ravana did not get a fair trial
at the hands of our great historians. I always cringed for someone who would go
against the tide and put up a good account of Ravana and the fundamentals he stood for.
It was a sheer
coincidence when I was browsing through the plethora of books at CROSSWORD that
I came across 'ASURA – Tale of the vanquished' and lo my wish was granted! “For thousands of years, I have been
vilified and my death is celebrated year after year in every corner of India.
Why? Was it because I challenged the gods for the sake of my daughter? Was it
because I freed a race from the yoke of caste-based Deva rule? You have heard
the victor’s tale, the Ramayana. Now hear the Ravayana, for I am Ravana, the Asura, and my story
is the tale of the vanquished. As soon I as I read this text on the back
page of the book I knew this was what I had always wanted. I
started reading it in the store itself and breezed through the first 40 pages
in no time. The premise looked promising and I purchased the book without any
second thoughts.
I finished the
book in 4 sittings. Blazing through the pages in the first, carefully absorbing
every word in the second, browsing through the chapters in the third and dozing
off in the fourth. When I finished it the only thought I had was ‘what it could have been’. The
experience was more disappointing rather than enriching and it seems like the
author Anand Neelkanthan was either not willing to paint Ram in a grey shade or
was not sure of how to justify Ravana’s actions which led to the epic war. It
did not feel like Ravayana, rather Ramayana through the eyes of Ravana. It did not have the perspective of Ravana, it just
had his narration.
To begin with,
the character build-up of Ravana was exceptional. His struggles, his learning
process, his unconcealed love for Vibhishana, his rant about the ten basic
human emotions in front of Mahabali (the first great Asura king and Ravana's mentor), to sum it all, his human nature was what
was fascinating. His outright contempt for the Deva ways, the inherent and
rigid caste-structure in their society, the way they treat their women led him
to believe in the exactly opposite principles of secularism and
egalitarianism. He strived hard to put together an army of Asuras who would
finally begin their all-conquering march. The character of Bhadra, a lowly
Asura who would do anything for Ravana and who strongly believed in the principles of his tribe was also enchanting. However, as soon as the Asura march began, the
novel started losing its hold on me. Ravana blatantly started defying the principles
he stood for. His armies looted, raped and plundered the conquered empires. He displayed
no attempt on his part to stem the lechery of his army and showed no remorse in
the destruction of Vishnu/ Deva temples. Some might justify this over the
pretext that he has been portrayed as a human and he might have wanted his
revenge (a form of anger, a base human emotion which Ravana did not give up as was asked by Mahabali) over
Devas for all the years of oppression. But as soon as he deplored Rama for his
killing Bali while hiding behind a tree, my head spun out of control. Here is a
man who got his first major break coz one of his soldiers (Bhadra) poisoned the
dinner of Kubera (the then Lanka supremo) and his men, while his own army was
hiding in the mountains saving themselves from Kubera’s wrath. What right does
he have to pass a judgement over the righteousness of another person’s means of
achieving success? His being human argument does not hold here as he does not even
contemplate his opinion in this matter. Later on the novel, he rapes Mala, a
lowly servant and sires a son, Athikaya, whom he promptly disowns
for all practical purposes. Did he not rant about women’s right to equality and
all? He himself is shown to be secretly proud of his half-brahmin lineage and the color of his
skin and considers himself to be superior to other Asuras. I agree that he is being portrayed as a human but is standing up to your
principles, even remotely, superhuman? Although he rejects his son sired
from a maid, he unflinchingly accepts his wife after she was
violated by the vanaras. This behaviour might seem as magnanimous to some but
was utterly baffling and contradictory to me. Even his empire which he promised
to build on the Asura principles of equal rights to all was not even close to
perfect. In fact, it was closer to the modern day India, where the elite and
their families enjoy all the benefits of the bureaucracy while the poor
continue to live in super-shoddy conditions. The driving force of this economy
was the raging and ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor rather
than inclusive growth. Ravana or rather the author on Ravana’s behalf defends
his economy in certain illegible and inapprehensible ways. He employs
extremely violent ways to curb the insurgencies in his territory. How can such
a person be described as a model king and an able administrator is beyond my
grasp.
Let’s move on
to the perception of Rama which the author tries to create in the mind of the
reader. Actually other than carping about the Deva ways, he presents no logical argument to
justify the somewhat negative image of Rama he’s trying to create. He himself does
not seem sure about his line of thinking. The only reason Ravana seems to hate
Rama for is that Rama is the husband of her daughter Seeta AND a Deva. Factors
such as Agni-pariksha of Seeta and
the slaying of Shambuka, a Shudra who was killed by Rama for defying the deva
rule that the ‘lowermost’ caste are not supposed to learn Vedas, do not hold
much ground as the former happened after the demise of Ravana and the latter is
one of the many versions of this story that the author used for his
convenience. I could not gather why Ravana hated him so much. The only points which worked for me towards the end of the story
were how Bhadra was revealed as the washer-man who incepted the idea of Seeta’s
Agni-Pariksha in Rama’s mind and a
small little passage where he empathizes with his king for having his own share
of problems. Other than that, the narration of the entire warfare was drab and
bland and could have been dealt with in a manner befitting a war of such epic
proportions.
Maybe I
expected too much out of the novel. Maybe Ravana was not a rebel I supposed he
was. Maybe the author is not much of a rebel himself. Whatever be the reasons,
this novel simply did not do enough justice to the persona of the enigma we
know as Ravana
No comments:
Post a Comment