THE UNTOLD STORY OF RAVAN
 |
| RAVAN |
Have you read Valmiki's Ramayan?
Even if you haven't you surely know the story.Lord Ram, along with his wife Sita and younger brother Lakshman, goes into exile in a forest for 14 years.
While in the forest, Sita gets kidnapped by the demon lord Ravan, in response, Ram sent his peace messengers Angad and Hanuman asking Ravan to free Sita. When Ravan declines, a war breaks out, at the end of which, good triumphs over evil, and Ravan was defeated. Every year we celebrate this. The victory of good over evil. Justice over injustice. Doesn't this seem like a simple story? But this story might not be as simple. Especially if you go through the WhatsApp messages circulating nowadays,or the social media posts, that go against the narrative of Hero Ram versus Villain Ravan. In fact, do you know that there are some temples in our country where Ravan is worshipped? Such as this temple in Madhya Pradesh's Ravangaon. Or the Dashanan Ravan temple in Uttar Pradesh's Kanpur. Or this temple in the Greater Noida. In Rajasthan's Jodhpur, and even in Andhra Pradesh, you'd find temples devoted to Ravan, where the worshippers chant Jai Lankesh and Jai Ravan Baba. On YouTube. there are poems with millions of views that read as "Yes, I am arrogant, evil, powerful, I, Dashanan, am unyielding and insane. Let the world emulate Ram, I like being Ravan."
Across the political spectrum, there has been a recent shift in both left-wing and right-wing people, that have developed a soft corner for Ravan. People are coming up with justifications for what Ravan did. Saying that Ravan might not be as bad as we assumed. Many people show sympathy for Ravan and Kumbhkaran. But Ravan's third brother Vibhishan, his case is even more interesting, he receives hate from all quarters. He is the traitor. An anti-national,
You would've heard such proverbs about Vibhishan. [The traitor in the family, cause Lanka's downfall.] There's a song Vibhishan,by singer Gulzar Channiwala. With over 6.1 million views, with the main line, "Others didn't have what it takes, young one, friends like Vibhishan set fire to my Lanka." What are the lessons that people conclude from Ramayan? Does Vibhishan truly deserve so much hate? Does Ravan truly deserve our sympathy? Friends, in today's Diwali special video, come, let's try to understand.
"I'm here to see Ravan." "Ravan is the king of our tribe." "Because he was a scholar. He is the biggest pundit." "People believe him to be wrong, be he wasn't." "Ravan will be remembered forever. Ravan will be immortal." Friends, today's video is a bit different, so let me start by clarifying one thing, I am not against analysing any religious text. Whether it's the Ramayan, Quran, or the Bible. In fact, I believe that if we try to better understand these texts, people will be able to gather new perspectives. People will be able to learn new lessons. And these people spreading hate disguised as religion, can then be countered. Even Dr Ambedkar had written some famous pamphlets. The riddles of Hinduism. Or the Riddle of Rama and Krishna. Such discussions and debates have been an integral part of the Indian culture for a long time. There have been several ideological debates as well. So before we talk about Vibhishan, come let's talk about Ravan. The biggest argument in favour of Ravan, goes something like this. "Yes, we know that Ravan had kidnapped Sita. But look at his positive aspects as well. Don't you know he was a scholar? He was a scholar of the Vedas, holy scriptures, everything. He was a master at playing the Veena, he was devoted to Lord Shiva, and was a Brahmin. And here you are burning his effigies. Why don't you respect the positives?" Ravan was devoted to Lord Shiva. He was a Brahmin, a scholar, Friends, I ask you to look at these paintings.
Aren't these paintings beautiful?
Do you know who painted these beautiful paintings? They were painted by Adolf Hitler. Did you know that he was a skilled painter? Does this mean that since he was a skilled painter, you start respecting him? Or take this person. Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, he is a British Pakistani terrorist. In 1994, he kidnapped 3 British and 1 American tourist in India. In 1999, when an Indian Airlines flight was hijacked,he was one of the 3 terrorists released by the Indian government then.
Later he was involved in the kidnapping of a Wall Street Journal,and is said to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Did you know that he was so intelligent that he got admission to the prestigious London School of Economics? In university, he was a chess champion. And he was fluent in 5 languages. So can this intelligence make him a lesser evil? Obviously not. The same thing is applicable to Ravan. No matter how powerful Ravan was, however talented he was, no matter how many holy scripts he knew, he had committed a crime by kidnapping Sita.
it doesn't make him a lesser evil. Apart from this, Ravan was responsible for Marich's death. He told Marich to either help him kidnap Sita, or he will be killed. Considering his options, Marich decided to die by Ram's hand. And during the kidnapping, Jatayu had gone to help Sita, even he was mercilessly killed by Ravan.
But Ravan was a Shiv devotee. Does being a Shiv devotee mean that his crimes of murder become nullified? Some people claim that Ravan was a Brahmin. That Brahmins are brought up with good values. But what kind of values teach one to dishonour women like so. Why are some people look at the identity of people to judge whether they are good or bad, rather than by their actions? Since a person is from their tribe, from their faith, they worship the same deity, it automatically makes them a good person. They don't care if that person murdered someone or did something wrong. All they see is their identity.
Think about this. Other atrocities committed by Ravan have been written about in Uttarkand, an epilogue to Ramayan. You might think that Ramayan ends when Ram, Sita, and Lakshman return to Ayodhya. But in some books, you'll find another chapter Uttarkand. In this, 2 significant accusations are levied on Ram. First, he banished Sita from the kingdom, when she had to take shelter in a forest, and second, was that he killed Shambuk, a person from the so-called lower caste. Several scholars point out evidence against it. Saying that Uttarkand was a later addition. That it cannot be considered a part of the original Ramayana. But even if Uttarkand is acknowledged here, Ravan's wrongdoings become more significant. Ravan attacked his half-brother Kuber, and stole Lanka and the flying chariot, Pushpak Viman, from him. Then Ravan killed the peace messenger sent by Kuber, and the demons ate the dead body. Ravan went to the place where King Marut was performing holy rites, killed the monks there and drank their blood. Uttarkand These show that not only was Ravan a demonic murderer and robber, he was a cannibal too. The point isn't how Ravan could be a scholar, Shiv devotee, and Brahmin, the point is, even a scholar, Shiv devotee, and Brahmin, can be a Ravan too. "The enmity with Ram was different, but Ravan was a brilliant administrator. He ruled over his kingdom so well. Consider that!
Actually, there is nothing in Valmiki's Ramayan to suggest that Ravan was a good king. Or a good administrator. In fact, when Surpanakha went to her brother Ravan, she criticises him like this.
Aranyakaand, chapter 33, Surpanakha claims that Ravan was addicted to vulgar pleasures. was unguided, lustful, greedy, a king that doesn't pay attention to the masses, that cannot protect his country, a fool surrounded by ordinary ministers Harsh, arrogant, intoxicated, short-tempered, evil-minded, and without any good qualities. How did Ravan react to these accusations? In the last shloka, Valmiki had written, that arrogant Ravan listens to this and thinks about his wrongdoings. The third argument is about Surpanakha. "Ravan kidnapped Sita, but why? To avenge his sister. Lakshman had brutally cut Surpanakha's nose and ears, I'd say, every girl should have a brother like Ravan." Here, let's understand Surpanakha's story.People think that Surpanakha's story is quite simple. Surpanakha proposed marriage to Lakshman, Lakshman rejected the proposal and cut off her nose. But what's written in Valmiki's Ramayan? This is mentioned in Aranyakand's Chapters 17 and 18. Surpanakha approached Ram for marriage. In Shlokas 27 and 28 of Chapter 17, it's written that she insults Sita, calling her ugly, deformed, disfigured, fearful woman with a flat belly. She says all of this. She said that she would eat Sita and Lakshman, and asks Ram to be her husband. Ram redirects the proposal to Lakshman, Surpanakha proposes marriage to Lakshman, Lakshman rejects the proposal and redirects her back to Ram. And then Surpanakha says that she would eat Sita. Then she actually attempted to kill Sita. Then, it's written that, Lakshman cut off Surpanakha's nose and ears with a sword. "This is my wife Sita." "This ugly woman is your wife?
I will kill her! I won't leave her. I will kill her."
"My nose, my nose!" Many people's perspective about this is shaped in a way that a woman was hit by a man. But if we reverse the genders,
if a man comes and tries to kill your wife, and then his nose is cut off, hardly anyone will consider that wrong. But an even more important question is that did Ravan truly kidnap Sita because he was avenging his sister Surpanakha? The answer to this is in Valmiki's Ramayan. When Surpanakha went to Ravan, Surpanakha doesn't ask him to avenge her. Instead, Surpanakha tells Ravan about a beautiful woman who was never seen before. She lies to Ravan that she tried to bring Sita for which Lakshman cut off her nose.that if he wants to have Sita as his wife, he needs to kill Ram. This conversation doesn't show the intention of revenge. The final argument here is that Ravan hadn't forced himself on Sita. Ravan had kidnapped Sita, but treated her with dignity and respect. He didn't force her." I won't go into the details here, if you read chapters 49 to 52 of Aranya Kaand, you will get to know how Ravan treated Sita. These details would be very disturbing for this topic, but you can read it later, Sundarkand 22:8 and 22:9.Ravan threatens Sita, he puts up a deadline of 2 months for Sita, if she doesn't agree to become his wife, she was to be sent to the kitchen to be cooked for him as his breakfast. Does this seem like respectful behaviour to you? Ravan is a symbol of evil, because he committed many evil deeds. Many people around him had tried to put some sense into him. Not only Vibhushan, even Kumbhkaran thought that Ravan was wrong. Yudhkand, chapter 63. Kumbhkaran tells Ravan, those who do evil, are sure to face a downfall. And that Ravan's doom was before him. Even when Ravan's brothers knew about his evil, why is it that even today people make up justifications in favour of Ravan? "Every girl needs a brother like Ravan." "The bikes, cars, everything have Ravan written on them here." "He was an unprecedented scholar." "Ravan didn't do anything evil. If he wanted to, why would he have kept Sita in the Ashok Vatika?" Talking about brothers, we come to Kumbhkaran and Vibhishan. Don't you think it is common sense that if your brother commits a crime, and you support him, you become a partner in crime as well? In the eyes of law, you will be equally criminal. Despite knowing everything, Kumbhkaran participated in this war. "Oh, you are Kumbhkaran? The strongest fighter in Lanka. Now, I, Hanuman, will duel with you." And now, let's get to Vibhishan. Vibhishana’s case is quite interesting, friends. It's interesting because this isn't a unique case. We see such cases in our lives. This is shown a lot in films as well. Some people who changed their alliances, to be on the path of right. Normally, we admire such people. Such as in the film Deewaar, in it, the honest policeman Ravi, tells his gangster brother Vijay to sign a paper, asking him to leave the life of crime and surrender to the police. "Do you recall the wound and betrayal we received? -Each insult that we got? -Brother! Will you sign it or not?" Even the mother doesn't support her gangster son. And at the end of the film, Ravi kills his brother Vijay. Ravi can be seen as the traitor in his family. But he was the hero of the film. Similarly, in the film Vastaav, Raghu becomes a gangster, a drug addict, and later, he is killed by his mother. Such cases are seen in real life as well. In 2019, Nichole Schubert saw her son's diary in which he had written, that he was planning a mass shooting. She called up the police and informed them about it. In 2022, she talked about this in a media interview, she told them how difficult it was to make this decision. To go against her son. But even if it saved one life, it was worth it. "If there's a possibility to save even one person, one child, I think it's worth it." But when Vibhishan changed sides and chooses right over wrong, why do people give more importance to loyalty? And little to no importance to right and wrong? If you are a part of some organisation, and the organisation is involved in shady business, you leave that and switch to another organisation you will be labelled a traitor, But in this case, isn't is right to be disloyal? This can be seen on a greater scale. If your country's government is doing something wrong, what should be more important to you? To remain loyal to your country? Or the path of truth? The path of good? A major example of this is CIA's whistleblower Edward Snowden. He saw that his country's organisation was doing something wrong. He left the organisation and exposed one of the most influential organisations in his country. He will be remembered as a hero. The final accusation on Vibhishan is that he revealed Ravan's secret. The pot of elixir in this stomach. And that Ram had to aim his arrow at that. At Ravan's naval. If you have read Valmiki's Ramayan, friends, there is no mention of a pot of elixir in Ravan's stomach. It was added to the later versions. In Valmiki's Ramayan, Ravan's death is written in Yudhkand 108:16 and 108:17. When Ram shot a special arrow that flew at great speeds, and hit the evil-minded Ravan's heart. To be a Vibhushan is to be a nonconformist. It was a good thing back then and still is. You should not be so loyal to anyone, that you let go of the distinction between good and evil. As Rudyard Kipling had written in his poem, "If you are able to save your head, While everyone else is losing theirs, You will be a man, my son." Vibhushan wasn't the cause of Lanka's destruction it was Ravan and Kumbhkaran's evil deeds that brought Lanka's destruction.
