Home > 2007 Issues > November 18, 2007

Open Forum On the historicity of Ram By Biman Bihari Roy ARCHAEOLOGICAL evidence cannot be the only proof for any historical person or event. Reasonable supposition too is considered as a proof in history. Above all, there are four leading criteria of judgement. These are: (a) traditional rumours or hearsay (b) literary evidence (c) genealogy (d) adjustment of particular place and point of time and person. The terminological concept of Sanskrit ?itihasa? and English ?history? are not akin. Itihasa is a science of seeing past events and eventful careers to have guideline for the present and future life. So itihasa is social literature with wars as parenthesis. On the contrary, history is merely a methodically collected records of past politics and politics in present day history. So history is war literature with the remarks on society as parenthesis. Though now it has been extended to the study of social, economic and cultural fields. Secondly, shortcomings are found in the so-called scientific history too. Therefore, it is quite natural to have some limitations in itihasa. In the Ramayana, an abridged family tree of Sri Ramchandra is found. His detailed genealogical table is also available in the Puranas etc. Reference of Ram is seen in various ways. There are so many books in Sanskrit literature containing the name of Ram. Besides numerous human habitations, parks, lakes, temples, etc. have been engraved with the name ?Ram?. Also the name ?Ram? is found to be used as name, middle name and surname of innumerable persons. Undoubtedly, it indicates careful love and respect of the people regarding some ?Ram?. Sri Ramchandra is a God of the second form, upon whom godhead has been attributed for his execellence and nobility. Thus i.e. in accordance with the study of itihasa (as it was then) Ram has been elevated to godhead and thereby related to religion. It is just like what Sri Krishna, Buddha, Mahavir, Guru Nanak, Sri Chaitanya, Vivekananda, Pranavananda and such others have been. Naturally question comes: Is it deserving to deny one?s historical existence if he/she has been eulogised as God or Goddess and thus be related to a religion? The term ?Ramayana? itself means the ?itihasa of Ram? by its formation. Besides, it is itihasa as the story began to be composed by Valmiki according to Adi Kanda. Moreover, Valmiki himself characterised Ramayana as itihasa in canto 129 of Lanka Kanda. Another such reference is seen in canto 111 of Uttar Kanda also. The story of Ram has been characterised as itihasa in the Mahabharata also (in the story of Markandeya). Poet Bhavabhuti of the Gupta era also concurred that Ramayana is history. The history of Ram has been narrated in almost all the Puranas and Upapuranas. Ram was referred to in the Rig Veda itself (10.93.14) as a mighty warrior along with other Khsatriya kings. Except this Ram, there are some other Rams in the Vedic literature. e.g. in Shatapatha Brahmana (4.6.1.7) Ram a teacher, in Jaiminiyal Upanishad (3.30.1, 4.16.1) and in Aitareya Brahmana (7.2.73), Ram a man of priestly family. Therefore Ram of Rig Veda is the mighty Khsatriya king of the Ramayana. Are all these references bogus? Sir William Jones admitted the historicity of Ram. Jacobi considered Ramayana to have been the result of the blending of history and allegory. Finding out of a historical truth needs logically critical analysis. The question of theism-atheism which are being raised by the motivated politicians is irrelevant in this context. According to the descriptions in the Yuddha Kanda, it appears that a long narrow hilltop had been in the sea between India and Sri Lanka. That was adjoined by Nala with the help of vanara sena. Vanara does not mean monkey at all. ?Monkey? was the ?cult? of the then people of Kiskindha. (The writer can be contacted at 514/A/4, Ashoknagar, PO-Ashoknagar. Dist: North 24-Pargana-743 222, West Bengal.)

Previous Page (13/27) - Next Page (15/27)