Infiltration of casteist ideas into Ramayana and Mahabharata

In a discussion on the Internet (1, 2), a number of controversial passages in the Ramayana and the Mahabhara were examined. The gist of these references, Manusmritic in nature, seems to be casteist and trying to deny sudras the right to read the Veda.

By a careful analysis of the circumstantial and other evidence, it appears that these controversial sections are of a later origin and transplanted into the Epics probably by questionable sources to mislead people and promote casteism in society.

Sambuka story in the Ramayana

The Ramayana by Valmiki, according to (1), indicates that a sudra, named Sambuka, was killed by Rama for reading the Veda.

This story most likely was never a part of the original Valmiki work. Valmiki himself was a chandala and a sudra to start with, but became a brahmin and a sage by reading and learning the Veda. Moreover, Valmiki, in spite of being a sudra by birth, was a great admirer of Rama and even composed the Ramayana in appreciation of his hero Rama.

Sambuka’s story, first appearing in the Valmiki Ramayana and then used by other authors in their versions of Ramayana, seems to be a pure fiction and of a later origin.

Consider first for example the social situation and tradition at that time - sudras could read and learn the Veda and even become brahmins. If such were not the case, then Valmiki, a sudra by birth, would have never got a chance to read the Veda and become a brahmin. Valmiki’s example confirms that sudras were allowed by the society to read the Veda and even become brahmins and sages. This indicates that there was no basis according to society’s customs and traditions long ago for Sambuka’s story to have actually occurred. Thus it is clear that this incident (Rama killing Sambuka for reading the Veda) never took place, and Valmiki himself did not cite it in the Ramayana.

Secondly, Sambuka’s story in relation to Rama probably did not exist at the time of Valmiki. If it had, then Valmiki would have certainly known about it. In such a case, Valmiki, supposedly aware of the Sambuka incident, would not be an admirer of Rama and see no reason to write the Ramayana in appreciation of Rama. It would be too much for him to accept the fact that Rama killed a sudra (like Valmiki) for reading the Veda. Furthermore, Valmiki would never add this type of gossip (Rama killing a sudra for reading the Veda) to his literary work. This again proves that this story is not true and did not exist during Valmiki’s time.

Thirdly, based on Rama’s life, no justification can be found in his supposed killing of a sudra, Sambuka, for reading the Veda. Rama was not a casteist type and would not put people to death for such a trivial thing. Note that, according to the Ramayana, Rama accepted and ate food and fruit given to him by Sabri, a poor old Sudra woman. She had even tasted the fruit to make sure that it was sweet and fit for Rama, a prince. Thus based on Rama’s decent treatment and behavior towards sudras -- he even willingly was eating the food touched and tasted by the poor and sudra -- he would have no reason to kill a sudra on the basis of caste or for reading the Veda. Needless to say, the Sambuka incident involving Rama never took place because Rama in the Ramayana is clearly shown to not discriminate against sudras.

In conclusion, the story of Sambuka in the Ramayana appears to be a fabrication and probably was added to it later by someone other than Valmiki after the Epic had already been in existence for some time. This story from the original Ramayana was then copied by others while creating their own versions of the Epic. It is even possible that the Sambuka story was cooked up to discredit Rama and the Ramayana. Or, perhaps, it was a deliberate effort by someone -- like the unknown person who used the famous name Manu to create the controversial and spurious Manusmriti -- interested in spreading misinformation and casteism against sudras by using the Ramayana, and trying to cloud and dismiss the fact that society did not interfere with sudras, like Valmiki, if they wished to read and learn the Veda and become brahmins, like Valmiki.

Manusmriti in the Mahabharata

According to (2), the Mahabharata also contains casteist information, related specifically to Manusmriti.

Note that even though Manusmriti’s contents might appear in the Mahabharata, as indicated in (2), there is little evidence of casteism involving the Kuru dynasty.

Thus even when Dronacharya in the Mahabharata rejects Eklavya (a sudra’s son) as a potential student, it is due more to Dronacharya’s desire to serve exclusively the royals and kings and be a teacher and trainer for princes only and no one else. It points to a professional jealousy rather than casteim on the part of Dronacharya. It is evident again as Dronacharya has Eklavya’s archer’s thumb amputated afterwards, hoping that this would eliminate any competition in future from a superb archer Eklavya against his princely pupils.

Furthermore, like the Sambuka story in the Ramayana, the Manusmritic ideas in the Mahabharata also appear to have questionable origin and purpose. Note, whether or not the Manusmriti was there at that time, king Shantanu did choose Satyavati, a sudra girl, as his wife in a monogamous relationship. Moreover, in spite of being a king, he sought beforehand from her the permission to marry her. He even agreed to her pre-nuptial conditions which he continued to honor for the rest of his life.

The above examples prove that, irrespective of Manusmriti’s existence in the Mahabharata (most likely a later addition to that epic), the Manusmritic ideas were of little consequence at the time of Pandavas, Kauravas and the Mahabharata.

References

(1) "Sambuka (killing) and the Valmiki Ramayana", http://www.sulekha.com/groups/postdisplay.aspx?cid=766519&forumid=756919

(2) "Manu Smriti present in Mahabharata (particularly in the Shanti Parva)", http://www.sulekha.com/groups/postdisplay.aspx?cid=766570&forumid=756919

------------------------------------

By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma
Email: [email protected]
Date: Sept. 18, 2007

link to: Related topics by the author