Did Rama exist?

[Guest guest]

Columns by Nanditha Krishna

 

---

-----------

 

Creations

 

Did Rama exist?

 

Ayodhya is in the headlines every day. One would have to be an

ostrich to avoid the subject. Was there a temple before the mosque?

Archaeologists would have to answer that. Was Rama born there? The

answer is a matter of belief. Did Rama exist? Yes, I am quite sure

he did. Rama's life was a fact. His divinity is a matter of faith.

 

To doubt the existence of Rama is to doubt all literature. There is

no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for either Jesus Christ or

Prophet Mohammed, who are known only from the Bible and Koran

respectively. Does it mean they did not exist? If Rama performs

miracles such as liberating Ahalya, the Biblical story of Jesus

walking on water or the Koranic tale of Mohammed flying to heaven on

a horse are equally miraculous. Such stories reinforce divinity, not

fact.

 

The Ramayana starts with Valmiki asking Narada who was the greatest

man who ever lived. Narada narrates the story of Rama, king of

Ayodhya, in a few terse, factual lines. Valmiki then goes on to

elaborate the story in poetry, creating the Ramayana. Creativity

distinguishes the epic from Narada's news report. Rama is not a god

in the epic. But we have contemporary examples of people deified in

their lifetime, such as the Shirdi and Sathya Sai Babas, who need a

Valmiki or Vyasa to immortalise them.

 

The Ramayana is geographically very correct. Every site on Rama's

route is still identifiable and has continuing traditions or temples

to commemorate Rama's visit. Around 1000 BC, no writer had the means

to travel around the country inventing a story, fitting it into

local folklore and building temples for greater credibility.

 

In 1975 the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) unearthed fourteen

pillar bases of kasauti stone with Hindu motifs near the mosque at

Ayodhya; reports of the excavations are available with the ASI. Rama

was born in Ayodhya and married in Mithila, now in Nepal. Not far

from Mithila is Sitamarhi, where Sita was found in a furrow, still

revered as the Janaki kund constructed by her father Janaka. Rama

and Sita left Mithila for Ayodhya via Lumbini. In 249 BC, Ashoka

erected a pillar in Lumbini with an inscription referring to the

visits by both Rama and Buddha to Lumbini. Ashoka was much nearer in

time to Rama and would be well aware of his facts.

 

Rama, Lakshmana and Sita left Ayodhya and went to Sringaverapura —

modern Sringverpur in Uttar Pradesh — where they crossed the River

Ganga. They lived on Chitrakoot hill where Bharata and Shatrughna

met them and the brothers performed the last rites for their father.

Thereafter, the three wandered through Dandakaranya in Central

India, described as a land of Rakshasas, obviously tribes inimical

to the brothers' habitation of their land. Tribals are still found

in these forests. The trio reached Nasik, on the River Godavari,

which throbs with sites and events of Rama's sojourn, such as

Tapovan where they lived, Ramkund where Rama and Sita used to bathe,

Lakshmankund, Lakshmana's bathing area, and several caves in the

area associated with their lives in the forest.

 

Rama then moved to Panchavati near Bhadrachalam (AP), where Ravana

abducted Sita. The dying Jatayu told them of the abduction, so they

left in search of Sita. Kishkinda, near Hampi, where Rama first met

Sugriva and Hanuman, is a major Ramayana site, where every rock and

river is associated with Rama. Anjanadri, near Hospet, was the

birthplace of Hanuman (Anjaneya); Sugriva lived in Rishyamukha on

the banks of the Pampa (Tungabhadra); Sabari probably also lived a

hermitage there. Rama and the Vanara army left Kishkinda to reach

Rameshwaram, where the Vanaras built a bridge to Lanka from

Dhanushkodi on Rameshwaram Island to Talaimannar in Sri Lanka. While

parts of the bridge — known as Adam's Bridge — are still visible,

NASA's satellite has photographed an underwater man-made bridge of

shoals in the Palk Straits, connecting Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar.

On his return from Sri Lanka, Rama worshiped Shiva at Rameshwaram,

where Sita prepared a Linga out of sand. It is still one of the most

sacred sites of Hinduism.

 

Sri Lanka also has relics of the Ramayana. There are several caves,

such as Ravana Ella Falls, where Ravana is believed to have hidden

Sita to prevent Rama from finding her. The Sitai Amman Temple at

Numara Eliya is situated near the ashokavana where Ravana once kept

her prisoner.

 

The presence of the Vanaras or monkeys, including Hanuman, has made

the authenticity of the epic suspect. But this is the most plausible

part of the story. The Vanaras were obviously tribes with the monkey

totem: after all, the Ramayana belongs to a period when most of

India was jungle with tribal forest-dwellers. India still contains

several tribes with animal totems. An early issue of the Bellary

District (now in Karnataka) Gazetteer gives us the interesting

information that the place was inhabited by the Vanara people. The

Jaina Ramayana mentions that the banner of the Vanaras was the

vanaradhvaja (monkey flag), thereby reinforcing the totemic theory.

Similarly, Jatayu would have been the king of the vulture-totem

tribe and Jambavan of the bear-totem tribe.

 

Was Lanka the modern Sri Lanka? One school of thought places Lanka

on the Godavari in Central India, citing the limited descriptions of

the South in the latter half of the epic. Narada does not mention

Panchavati or Rameshwaram, but refers to Kishkinda and Lanka. Living

in the north, it is unlikely that Valmiki knew the south. But

Valmiki would know the difference between a sea and a river. Lanka,

says the author definitively, was across the sea.

 

All the places visited by Rama still retain memories of his visit,

as if it happened yesterday. Time, in India, is relative. Some

places have commemorative temples; others commemorate the visit in

local folklore. But all agree that Rama was going from or to

Ayodhya. Why doubt connections when literature, archaeology and

local tradition meet? Why doubt the connection between Adam's Bridge

and Rama, when nobody else in Indian history has claimed its

construction? Why doubt that Rama traveled through Dandakaranya or

Kishkinda, where local non-Vedic tribes still narrate tales of Rama?

Why doubt that he was born in and ruled over Ayodhya?

 

Major settlements, including temples, were renovated several times:

restoration is a 20th century development. When the main image was

made of perishable materials, it was replaced by stone. For example,

we know that the wooden image of Varadaraja Perumal of Kanchipuram

was replaced by a stone image, for the earlier image is still

preserved in a water tank. The present architecture belongs to the

sixteenth century Vijayanagara style. Yet the temple was known to

have existed before the Pallava period (seventh century). This is

the story of many sacred sites in India. This happened to several

Rama temples too.

 

Rama's memory lives on because of his extraordinary life and his

reign, which was obviously a period of great peace and prosperity,

making Ramarajya a reference point. People only remember the very

good or the very bad. Leftist historians have chosen to rubbish

archaeology, literature and local tradition. So how do we prove that

Rama did exist?

 

Finally, although there is enough evidence that Rama did exist, it

still does not justify breaking down a mosque. Would Rama have

approved? It makes us as barbaric as Babar and his General Mir Baqi

who, says Hafizullah in his Persian document, built the mosque over

the Ramjanmasthan.

 

The author can be contacted at nankrishna (AT) vsnl (DOT) com

 

http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/colItems.asp?ID=SEC20030705031327