 Rama – Dasaratha and Rama
A penchant for truth
The popular version of the story is that during the battle with Sambara, the axle of the chariot-wheel of Dasaratha broke and Kaikeyi inserted her finger in the place of the axle and endured until Dasaratha killed Sambara, and thus saved the situation. We have seen in our studies of Kaikeyi that this version does not agree with Valmiki’s own narrative. (See:
Boon or
bane?) She removed Dasaratha who was ‘lacerated with weapons and missiles,’ and in an ‘unconscious state.’ He was saved thus twice and therefore offered two boons to Kaikeyi.
The Emperor, had he at all preferred to do so, could have easily told Kaikeyi that it was not possible to grant those boons and could have firmly told her to ‘ask something else.’ It was that easy for him to come out of the situation. And it is not right to conclude that he was not able to do so, out of his excessive love for Kaikeyi. He repudiates her the moment he finds her to be so very cruel, unyielding, adamant and persisting in her demands against all established norms, and the precarious situation of the emperor, who would not be able to face the people, if he is going to reverse his decision at the last moment.
‘sonnEn indrE, ivaL en thAram allaaL; thurandhEn,’ he declares the moment he comes to know that Rama has already left the city at the behest of Kaikeyi. ‘Let it be known here and now. She is not my wife any more. I have given her up.’ The Emperor does not stop there. His anger does not appease with that. He repudiates Bharata as well.
‘mannE aavan varum ap bharathan thanayum unnEn munivA! avanum aagaan urimaikku.’ O my master, Vasistha, I do not consider that Bharata, who would come back to assume the throne, as my son, from now on! Let him not perform my last rites!’ The Emperor precludes Bharata from performing his obsequies, foreseeing his impending death and that Bharata would be the person who has to act in the absence of Rama. It is Satrughna who performs the last rites of the emperor in Kamban, though Bharata is spared to perform the last rites in Valmiki. Dasaratha repudiates not Kaikeyi alone; but Bharata as well. That takes the element of ‘love’ away in his – unwillingly though – allowing Kaikeyi in twisting his arm against himself.
We would go into the reasons later. What I wanted to emphasise here is that if Dasaratha acceded to what Kaikeyi pressed for, it was not due to his love for her; but due to his unswerving penchant for the honour of his words. Contrary to the popular opinion, the Emperor was pulled in opposite directions not because of his supposed vulnerability to love – or if I may use the word that almost everyone uses, lust. On the other hand, what he was caught by, and held by was with the noose of his own words. For him, the words once given are irreversible. Cannot be changed in the least. For he considered one thing above his own self. Sathya. This was in his blood. He is coming in a line in which Harischandra was born.
Rama was a replica of Dasaratha in almost every way, save for a trait or two. Valmiki says of Rama, “He was indeed possessed of physical charm, full of valour and free from censoriousness. He was incomparable on earth as a son and
was a replica of Dasaratha in point of
virtues.” (Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Canto 1, Sloka 9) He resembled his father in every way, especially in his penchant for Truth. If it was Sathya that turned the father a helpless witness to the exile of Rama, it was the same predilection for Truth that made Rama to accept that exile with a smile.
That leads us to a question. If Rama accepted the exile on him, if what he considered
as the most important thing in life was
‘pithru vakya paripalana’ or honouring the words of his father, what exactly was this
‘pithru vakya’? Dasaratha never told Rama to go on exile and allow Bharata to be installed in his place! It was Kaikeyi who ‘conveyed’ the ‘order’ of the king. On the contrary, we see throughout the text in the exchanges between Rama and Dasaratha, the latter trying desperately to stop him from accepting the so-called order to go on exile. We have seen that Dasaratha goes to the extent of suggesting Rama to wage a war against him and wrench the kingdom from his hands! (See:
Did he mean
it?)
If going on exile was the
‘pithru vakya’ that Rama was firm in carrying out, not venturing on exile was also a
‘pithru vakya’! The earlier one was something conveyed through Kaikeyi, and was not an order given to Rama directly by the emperor. The direct order – or to put it more appropriately, request, or what Dasaratha virtually begged of Rama – was not to go on exile. If Rama chose the first order, conveyed to him indirectly and not the subsequent order – or pleads – of the father himself, what was the reason, or justification? Which one of the two was actually supposed to be the
‘pithru vakya’?
It is here we see Kamban beautifully circumventing the difficult situation. It is
‘mAthru vAkya,’ in Kamban, throughout. Excepting in the eyes of Rama, that is to say, for once.
‘thAy varam koLLa, thndhayE Eva,’ he would tell Vasistha. ‘By the boons of the mother and at the behest of the king.’ But for this one and only instance, it is
‘thaai urai,’ or, ‘mother’s order’ throughout the epic, be it in the words of Rama, or in the words of any other character.
‘dhayaradhan than pudhalvan yaam; thaai sol thaangi virai aLittha kaan pugundhOm,’ he would tell Sürpanakhä. ‘We are the sons of Dasaratha. We are on exile
at the behest of our mother.’
And, therefore, we are faced with two questions now. The right interpretation of the phrase
‘pithru vakya’ and this conceptual change – shift in the very basic idea on which the epic is constructed – in Kamban.
Let’s go into these. But before that Viswamitra calls our attention.
|
