 Rama – Dasaratha and Rama
Tataka, Sürpanakhä and Ayomukhi
We were discussing about the correctness or not, and the justification behind the act of killing of Tataka in the light of the fact that the offender in this case happened to be a woman, though a demoness she be. This is a happy target for non-believers who keep pumping the trigger against Rama. Most of the devotees give a sort of affected and offended excuses rather than looking at the plain facts as they are. Devotee or not, being a person of literature, I once again emphasise that we should see events as they are, as the great poets have painted, and not in the way we tend to interpret in defence. Any argument not supported by textual evidence is an excuse, which leaves us not even lame, but immobile altogether.
It so happens that the devotees feel ever so guilty, while the Lord did not feel even an iota of it, in the case of the killing of Tataka. To add to the confusion, some of the believers as well as scholars themselves come to hasty conclusions about Rama’s stance in this issue and pronounce their judgment that Rama must have felt somewhat guilty about having had to kill a woman, that too at the very start of his career. The maiden kill is a real maiden kill in the case of Rama, figuratively as well as literally.
Peculiarly, the maiden kill of Hanuman, the celebrated
‘siriya thiruvadi’ or the divine carrier number two (after the carrier number one, Garuda) also turns out to be a woman, Lankini, the protecting demoness of Lanka, even as he entered the city. This was his first kill, if one thinks of the first combat. If one takes into account challenges instead of combats, two more are the women who were torn apart at the hands of Hanuman, Surasa and Simhika, who were killed during his flight from Mahendra Mountain over the sea, to Lanka. Therefore, if the Lord killed just one woman for a beginning, the chief of His devotees killed three in a row!
Well, we have been laying stress on what the epic has been emphasising that no gender disparity is to be considered in the case of offenders. What is argued against Rama is that while Sürpanakhä and Ayomukhi were left with a minor punishment of severing of limbs, this woman alone was chosen to be killed. And we have quoted the line from Kamban (in our last post) whereby Rama appreciates Lakshmana for his observance of restraint and sparing Ayomukhi with severing the tip of her nose, earlobes etc. We had also pointed out what Prof A S Gnanasambandan, one of the most respected Ramayana scholars, feels about this line, and the conjecture that Rama should have felt a little guilty about having had to kill
Tataka.
I can only say that it is unfortunate that we fail to call a spade a spade. The incidents of Sürpanakhä and Ayomukhi cannot be compared with the killing of Tataka. Sürpanakhä pounced on Sita (in the presence of Rama in Valmiki and in his absence in Kamban) with the intention of killing her. Lakshmana severed her limbs and with that she ran away. It was a matter of duty; protection of his sister-in-law that Lakshmana was discharging and he could stop the offender with the minimum restraining offensive, since that was enough for the offender to give her act up.
As far as Ayomukhi is concerned, she fell in love with Lakshmana, as did Sürpanakhä with Rama, and made overt advances to him. “Approaching the aforesaid heroes and saying to Lakshmana, who was walking ahead of his (eldest half-) brother, ‘Come let us revel!’ caught Lakshmana by the hand,” says Valmiki. (Valmiki Ramayana, Aranya Kanda, Canto 69, Sloka 14). In the very next sloka Valmiki describes the way she embraced Lakshmana, against his will.
“uvaaca ca enam vacanam saumitrim upaguhya saa…” ‘Saying so, she almost completely concealed Lakshmana in her hold.’ That is, Lakshmana was impaled –
upaguhya – in her enormous frame, in an embrace. Kamban’s portrayal differs and we have seen a quick sketch of it earlier (See:
The Ayomukhi incident,
Light of my light and
Lakshmana the
courageous). Lakshmana is practically carried off in the hands of the demoness, in the version of Kamban. It is at this moment that Lakshmana draws his sword and severs her limbs, in self-defence, though the intention of the offender is not to kill, but to violate. Physical violation is as bad and intolerable in the case of woman as it is in the case of a man. When it is against the will. And that minimum show of power, restraining punishment was sufficient in the case of Ayomukhi too, who dropped Lakshmana and ran away.
We saw that Rama played it mild at the beginning with Tataka. His initial intention was to leave her, severing her limbs (See:
He plays it
mild), much earlier, before his celebrated brother could exercise a similar action on offending women, later in their lives. Sürpanakhä gave up her attempt at killing Sita and Ayomukhi ran away with the punitive minimum. Was that the case with
Tataka?
|
