Ramayan Studies over the Years
Dr.
Somrita Dey (Mondal)
Assistant Professor of English
Durgapur Government College
Durgapur, West Bengal, India
Abstract: The story of Ram has been adapted,
appropriated and reiterated a countless times in scores of different modes. It
has been repeatedly re scripted each time with new concerns contributing to and
modifying the existing body of discourse. In tandem with creative outputs there is
also a substantial corpus of scholarly materials centering the “Ramkatha” given
to the study of the multiple telling of the story. Whereas early critical
speculations revolved round the evaluation of the historicity of the text and its
transmission through the ages, and considered Valmiki’s Ramayan to be the
source text from which the other tellings have branched off, recent studies
reject the centrality of Valmiki’s narrative. This approach ascribes equal
status to all “Ramayan” narratives, repudiates the concept of any original
source text and engages with the socio-cultural underpinnings of the
narratives. From the closing decades of the twentieth century scholarly
pursuits concerning the “Ramkatha” analyze how immediate contexts influence the
manner of representation of the tale in a narrative.
Keywords: Many Ramayans, Scholarship,
Traditional, Contemporary
The story of Ram has been adapted,
appropriated and reiterated a countless times in scores of different modes. It
has been repeatedly retold, each time with new concerns contributing to and
modifying the existing body of “Ramayan” narratives. Recreation of the story of
Ram is an ever proliferating process persisting through ages. The stance the
existent retellings assume range anywhere between reification and subversion,
recreation and rejection. The modes of expression too, are disparate as the
discourses informing them. It has also been observed that at many instances
certain episodes are singled out, highlighted or expunged to interrogate,
reject or assert certain values, in compliance with the specific demands of an
individual or any political or religious group.
The entire body of “Ramayan”
narratives is a testimony to the politics inherent in the process of
representation that metamorphoses a singular story line into multiple texts and
assigns them with their distinctive discursive textures. The basic story
element is what A.K. Ramanujan calls the “Ramkatha” or the “Rama story” that he
distinguishes from the ‘texts composed by a specific person- Valmiki, Kampan,
or Krttivasa, for example’ (Ramanujan 25). “Ramkatha” denotes the ‘general
narrative that recounts or takes for granted most of the following: Rama’s
birth and youth in Ayodhya, his marriage to Sita and subsequent exile to the
forest, the abduction of his wife by the demon Ravana, Rama’s search for her
with the aid of an army of monkeys and Rama’s defeat of Ravana’ (Richman,
“Questioning and Multiplicity” 3) that get channeled into literary creations
like Iramavataram, Ramcaritamanas, or Ramkein. According to Ramanujan, the difference between the two can
be understood by perceiving the relationship that “story” bears with
“discourse”. The “story”, he suggests, ‘ may be the same in two telling, but
the discourse may be vastly different…the structure and sequence of events may
be the same, but the style, details, tone, and texture-and therefore the
import-may be vastly different’ (Ramanujan 25). The implication is that, in
spite of engaging with the same source material, the creative outputs can
exhibit substantial difference because of the variance in their treatment that
is conditioned by the social environs in which they are produced. To validate
his argument, Ramanujan cites the same episode from two different texts and
elucidates how cultural affiliations of the creator influence the manner of
representation. He elaborates on the Ahalya episode as depicted by Valmiki and
Kamban and demonstrates how motifs from ‘South Indian folklore’, ‘ Southern Rama
stories’, ‘Tamil poems’(Ramanujan 31) and the hold of Bhakti tradition have imparted a discursive
dimension to the creation of Kamban , that is very different from that of
Valmiki’s. Though the basic plot resembles Valmiki’s work, Kamparamayanam, composed in the 12th century ‘under the
influence of Tamil bhakti’ (Ramanujan
32) registers sufficient departures in relation to the tenor of Valmiki’s text.
The aforementioned example is proof of the fact that politics of representation
can generate multiple “Ramayans” from a singular tale of the “Ramkatha”. The cultural context, the social ambience and
the target audience arbitrate the representational paradigms and determine
whether the accepted premise is to be reiterated, modified or contested and
subverted. Accordingly, the tone is set, the episodes framed and the characters
restructured. Often episodes and characters are selectively highlighted or
erased and even new ones formulated if deemed essential for the purpose that
the concerned “Ramayan” narrative is to serve. Since time immemorial the
“Ramkatha” has provided fertile ground to innumerable sections of people to
voice their concerns pertaining to issues as myriad as the number of people
appropriating the story. This phenomenon of repeated adaptation, appropriation
and recreation of the story has generated such a humongous body of “Ramkatha”
centric creative outputs, that neither can their proper estimate be made nor
can a definite narrative premise of the story be chalked out.
There is not only a formidable
corpus of “Ramayan” narratives, but also a substantial range of scholarly
pursuits that explore such texts. Given the compass of “Ramkatha” it is not
unlikely that it would stimulate critical speculations. Making an excursion
into the trajectory of “Ramayan” studies, Mandakranta Bose claims that the
initial phase of critical enquiry that continues ‘up to the middle of the
twentieth century’ was ‘dominated by textual, philological, and philosophical
commentary and by research on its origins, literary parallels, historicity, and
transmission’(Bose 5). Nilmadhab Sen’s linguistic analysis of the Ramayana , Camille Bulcke’s work on the
evolution of the “Ramkatha" falls into this category of “Ramayan” study that investigates the
“Ramkatha’s” origins, its transmission and the historical authenticity of the
events described . Evidently, it is Valmiki’s text, which constituted their
focus as the source and the primary narrative of Ram’s story. With the foundation laid, scholarly scrutiny
became more nuanced from the latter part of the twentieth century. Critical
studies started ‘searching assessments of the cultural and political
instrumentality of the Ramayana’ (Bose 50), and exploring the narratives’
‘ideological meanings and functions’ (Bose 4). Gauri Parimoo Krishnan too,
opines that ‘ using an ancient epic to
validate one’s present circumstance seems to have been a phenomenon which the
20th century researchers have uncovered and interpreted to reveal
completely new ways of engaging with the epic on human level’ (Krishnan 14).
Previously, scholarly research was directed towards the study of the origin and
historical basis of the events of the “Ramkatha”. By the end of the century
critical exploration started engaging with the fact that how the story is employed
to express the concerns immediate to its context of production. Mandakranta
Bose opines that the ‘recharged social appeal of the Ramayana has been responsible in large part for the current
scholarly focus on its ideological meanings and functions’ (Bose 4).
Consequently, whereas previous “Ramayan” studies focused more on the revered
texts like Valmiki, Kampan, Tulsidas and so on and so forth, the latter
approach brought all forms of “Ramayan” centric creative outputs within its
purview. This broadening of the scope of “Ramayan” studies to incorporate
within its critical ambit the entirety of “Ramayan” renditions-textual, visual
or oral, is a significant milestone. The past few decades have witnessed the
emergence of scholarly volumes that not only make vivid excursion into various
forms of “Ramayan” telling but also expatiate on the social, gender, political
and religious sensibilities that have gone into the structuring of the
narratives. Mandakranta Bose makes the following observation:
Much of the
present-day “Ramayana” scholarship aims at…subjecting them [local retellings]
to intense rhetorical, structural, and ideological scrutiny. Studies in the
choice of narrative structures and strategies of representation have revealed a
relationship of subscription and resistance to the ethical and political
formulas authorized by standard versions. (Bose 5)
Contemporary “Ramayan” studies
scrutinise the facets of the act of representation- selection of genre, framing
of the narrative, diction, medium of expression. It is aimed at discerning the
discourse implicit in a text, the sociocultural forces that were operative at
the time of its production and the relationship that a latter telling bears
with the authoritative narratives. This is not to suggest that the awareness of
the existence of multiple “Ramayan” narratives was absent in the past, it is
only that for the first time they are eliciting critical interest. Paula
Richman’s Many Ramayanas: The Diversity
of a Narrative Tradition in South Asia, Questioning Ramayanas: A South Asian
Tradition, Ramayana Sories in Modern South India, Mandakranta Bose’s The Ramayana Revisited, Malashri Lal’s
and Namita Gokhale’s In search of Sita,
V. Raghavan’s The Ramayana Tradition in
Asia, Avdesh Kumar Sing’s Ramayana
Through the Ages are some of the contributions in this direction.
At this juncture the theoretical
framework on which this contemporary “Ramayan” studies is based, requires
elaboration. Paula Richman distinguishes between two sets of approach that
critics adopt while dealing with “Ramayana” narratives. The traditional one is
the ‘genealogical’ or ‘philological’ model that philologists concerned with
transmission of the source text, generally subscribe to. It designates the
status of the “ur” or “original” to Valmiki’s text and conceives of other
narratives as variants and derivatives of the primary source. It envisions the
corpus of the “Ramayan” narratives in the image of a family where Valmiki’s
text is the begetter, the ‘trunk’, from which the succeeding tellings have
‘branch[ed] off in various directions and then bear their own smaller limbs’
(Richman, “Questioning and Multiplicity” 4). According to Richman this model
has its own set of advantages. It accords the legitimate status of ‘the oldest
extant rendition of Rama’s story in a highly ornate literary genre (kavya)’ (Richman, “Questioning and
Multiplicity” 3) to the Ramayan,
‘takes into account the text’s long history of transmission’, and also
‘accurately reflects the extent to which Valmiki’s Ramayana has influenced the many telling of Rama’s story that
developed over the centuries’ (Richman, “Questioning and Multiplicity” 3).
Nevertheless, it is an overtly hierarchical model ‘that tends to induce
comparison of all others to Valmiki’s text’, thereby generating a ‘Valmiki and
Others’ (Richman “Questioning and Multiplicity” 4) binary. Within the
parameters of the genealogical model the ‘other Ramayanas’ are assessed
‘against that standard according to their angle of divergence from Valmiki’s
version’ (Richman, “Questioning and Multiplicity” 9). It ascribes a seal of authenticity and
originality and hence superiority to Valmiki’s composition while reducing the
subsequent narratives to the mere status of ‘its variants’ (Richman “Questioning
and Multiplicity”, 4). This model thus tends to ‘oversimplify the complexity of
The “Ramayan” tradition … [and] perpetuates a narrow view incommensurate with
the amazing popularity of Rama’s story’ (Richman, “Questioning and
Multiplicity” 4). The assumption of a definite origin that envisages a
unidirectional traffic of linear transmission of a story from a source text to
the secondary and tertiary ones undermines the value of all non-Valmiki
“Ramayans”, which renditions are actually instrumental in fostering the
vitality characterising the “Ramayan” tradition. Mandakranta Bose quite rightly
remarks that “Ramayan” tradition’s ‘epic’ (Bose 7) quality owes to its potential to adapt itself to every generic form and its ability to
accommodate contradictory ideological standpoints within its ambit. It is this
attribute of providing discursive space to every narrative that comes its way
that has kept the corpus extant and ever burgeoning. From this perspective, the
genealogical or philological model seems incompatible to the very spirit of the
“Ramayan” tradition as it prioritises a single text over the umpteen other
tellings that are as important a part of the oeuvre as the earliest one. An alternative approach to explore the corpus
of “Ramayan” narratives has been forwarded by A.K. Ramanujan. It can be denoted
as the ‘many Ramayanas’ (Richman, Introduction. Many Ramayanas 9) or ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas’ (Ramanujan 22) model that denies the centrality of
Valmiki Ramayana. It rather proposes
an all- embracing pluralistic structure where ‘Valmiki’s telling is one,
Tulsi’s another, Kampan’s another, the Buddhist Jataka yet another’ (Richman,
Introduction. Many Ramayanas 9). It
is even inclusive of “Ramayan” renditions in other genres, and acknowledges
every current and cross-current within the “Ramayan” tradition. This accounts
for Ramanujan’s preference of the term ‘tellings’ over ‘versions’ or ‘variants’
because the latter expressions tend to posit an idea of an ‘invariant, an
original or Ur-text’ (Ramanujan 24-25). Ramanujan also clarifies as to why he refuses
to assign Ramayana the privileged
position of the source text, the fountainhead that has generated all subsequent
narratives. He opines that ‘it is not always Valmiki’s narrative that is
carried from one language to another’ (Ramanujan 25). There are myriad other
tellings that have created their own sphere of influence. Often, more than one
rendition furnishes textual material for a new composition, which further
generates fresh narrative strands centering round the “Ramkatha”. Evidently the
philological model proves inadequate in embodying this dynamics that inherently
characterise the “Ramayan” tradition, and this lacuna is addressed by the
pluralistic model proposed by Ramanujan and Richman. The ‘Many Ramayanas’
pattern negates the notion of “Ramayan” as
a particular text or a definite set of texts fostering a well- defined,
closed narrative , but evinces an idea of an impalpable nebula of countless
free floating signifiers , a complex matrix of myriad narratives in endless
interaction , perpetually renewing itself from within and without. The essays
in the volumes by Richman, Bose, Sing, Lal and Gokhale, Sing attest to this
complexity and diversity characterising the “Ramayan” tradition. The
aforementioned scholarly articles examine the diverse tellings within the
“Ramayan” oeuvre and also take into account the social, political, religious
and cultural discourse informing the specific mode and tenor of representation.
Thus it can be said in the end that in addition to the creative outputs there is also a
substantial corpus of scholarly materials given to the study of the multiple
tellings of the story. Whereas early critical speculations revolved round the
evaluation of the historicity of the text and its transmission through the
ages, recent studies primarily engage with the sociocultural underpinnings of
the “Ramayan” narratives. From the closing decades of the twentieth century
scholarly pursuits concerning the “Ramkatha” analyse how immediate contexts influence
the manner of representation of the tale in a narrative. In spite of retaining
the basic storyline the characters, episodes, the tone and the import can
vastly vary from text to text owing to the difference in the cultural landscape
in which these are produced. Recent “Ramayan” studies is given to the
exploration of the factors like the
regional, religious, gender, class or racial concerns that underlie the
process of representation of the “Ramkatha”. Characters, episodes ‘resonate
differently in different cultures’ (Krishnan 14) and this difference that they register
becomes an index of the cultural matrix in which they crystallize.
Works Cited
Bose, Mandakranta. Introduction. The Ramayana
Revisited. Ed. Bose, Oxford UP, 2004, pp- 3-18.
Krishnan, Gauri P. Introduction. Ramayana in
Focus: Visual and Performing Arts of Asia. Ed.Krishnan, Asian Civilisation
Museum, 2010, pp. 12-15.
Ramanujan, A.K. "Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on
Translation." Many Rāmāyaṇas: The Diversity of a Narrative
Tradition in South Asia, edited by Paula Richman, U of California
P, 1991, pp. 22-49.
Richman, Paula .Introduction. Ramayana Stories in
Modern South India: An Anthology. Ed. Richman, Indiana UP, 2008, pp.
1-36.
--- .Preface. Questioning Ramayanas: A South
Asian Tradition, edited by Paula Richman, U of California
P, 2001.
---. "Questioning and Multiplicity Within the
Ramayana Tradition." Questioning Ramayanas: A South Indian
Tradition, edited by Paula Richman, Oxford UP, 2008, pp. 1-21.