The Times of India
21 September 2007
Don't Mix Myth And History
by Harbans Mukhia
In some ways the controversy about whether Ram actually existed or is a character imagined in a work of fiction takes us back to debates on history in the 19th and a major part of the 20th century. Then the positivist school saw history as an exact science, or at least as having pretensions of being an exact science. It was based on the assumption that the facts of history were as precise and objective as those of the natural sciences and were capable of yielding as unambiguous a meaning. In so doing history was set apart, even set in opposition, to mythology which had no basis as an objective reality.
If the question is posed to a historian or an archaeologist whether Ram actually existed as a historical figure and whether events narrated in the epic Ramayana are to be treated on a par with objective facts, the answer would be a resounding no. The Archaeological Survey of India’s famous paragraph submitted in its report to the Supreme Court cannot be faulted on this count.
Historians and archaeologists look for a certain kind of evidence such as historical chronicles, epigraphs, coins and monuments and have a close look at the chronological proximity of the evidence to the events to which they bear witness. The further a piece of evidence from the event is located, the less its value. No evidence of this nature would testify to the historical existence of the figures and events described in epics, just as names, persons, events described in a novel, however realistic, are still imaginary.
However, does it imply that mythology, epics and novels are to be dismissed as unreflective of any kind of reality because the nature of historical evidence does not bear out their existence? Under positivist assumptions, yes. But then positivism itself is far from being the ultimate truth and has suffered severe questioning in recent decades. Mythology, fiction, poetry and paintings relate to a different genre of reality, that could for convenience be grouped under culture, of which religion also becomes an important segment, even as the two are far from being synonymous.
In that sense culture and mythology too acquire the characteristics of an objective social reality, which governs our attitudes and behaviour. The cultural presence of Ram in India is quite beyond measure in terms of objective history.
Even those of us who are devout atheists do not forget to light the lamps on the night of Diwali when the mythological Ram returned from his imaginary exile of 14 years, however we might explain it. The stories from the Ramayana, Mahabharata and various other mythological sources imbibed in our childhood remain part of our cultural subconscious, even when we turn away from them in defence of our atheism.
It is also true that there is not one story of Ram and his exile, but several. We only have to see Paula Richman's marvellous book, The Many Ramayanas, to appreciate the diversities in the tale. However, the treatment of Ram as a mythological, rather than a historical figure, does not in any way undermine his cultural presence in people's lives.
We just have to look around and see the variations of Ram attached to the names of persons, mostly of men, but often also of women, to make a quick assessment of the enormity of his cultural presence. If he were indeed a historical figure, ruling over a minor regional kingdom in Ayodhya, Ram would probably have been relegated to a footnote in a history of the region and forgotten.
Should then this enormous cultural presence of Ram be treated as evidence that the so-called Ram Setu across the sea was actually built by his vanar sena? That would hardly be a tenable inference. For, mythology by its very nature is not evidence of historical artefacts, just as the notion of a pushpak vimana in the
Ramayana is hardly evidence of a flourishing aircraft industry in the time of Ram. How does the secular Indian state handle issues of this nature? Here it becomes entirely a political question, completely independent of the issues of Ram’s historicity or otherwise. One political party, when in power, sanctions the canal project with great fanfare; out of power it smells an opportunity to get rid of its present doldrums, rattle the government and create a popular wave in its favour. All it needs to do is to stage a few demonstrations and TV channels and newspapers lap them up.
The Indian electorate has shown on several occasions that it is not willing to be swayed by issues of this nature. Remember the defeat of the BJP in the Hindi belt in the wake of the demolition of the Babri masjid? If the UPA government has the will to call the sangh parivar's bluff on Ram Setu, it could still go ahead with the project after satisfying the Supreme Court. But the government went down on its knees even as the first few pictures of a few score protestors appeared on the TV screens. It was Indian democracy at its worst.
(The writer was a professor of history at JNU.)
|
