After Rama's banishment Kaushalya exclaims to Dasaratha:
If only Rama could have lived at home though it meant begging in the city streets! You had the freedom to grant such a boon, which at the worst had made my son a slave. (38.4)
The verse directs our attention to an important aspect of Rama's status: his absolute heteronomy. The status of junior members of the Indian household was, historically, not very dissimilar to that of slaves (as was the case in ancient Rome), both with respect to the father and, again, hierarchically among themselves. The image of Rama's bondage is enhanced by the fact that he is obliged to pay a debt that devolves upon him with the death of his father. More generally, like the slave, Rama is "not his own master, he is subordinate to others and go where he wishes," as an early Buddhist text defines the condition of slavery.
On this level of signification, where Rama's position is one of unqualified subservience to the will of his master, the relations that has come to characterize the social formation can be understood. As Lakshmana and Bharata submit to Rama ("I am your servant," says Lakshmana to Rama 20.35; "I am your slave," says Bharata 97.12), and as Rama himself submits and suffers ("the King [my] master is exercising his authority ... over me," 21.17), so all the orders of society are to recognize and observe the strict boundaries of hierarchical existence. This is not something that the poet is content merely to suggest. It is explicitly enunciated: "as I myself have shown you,"Rama tells the people of Ayodhya, explaining the example he is setting, "you must obey your master's order" (40.9). Rama's behavior is a paradigm to which all subordinates must conform.
It is for us Bharateeyas to think whether we want brothers like Ram-Bharat, Ram-Lakshman or brothers like Aurangjeb, who in order to get kingdom, kills his own brother Dara. Only then we will be able to answer whether we want Padmashris of Pollock type.
No comments:
Post a Comment