Sita: An Illustrated Retelling of the Ramayana Read online

  But Indra appeared before them and congratulated Lakshman: ‘That tapasvi was a rakshasa, nephew of Ravana. Had he succeeded he would have had the power to overthrow me. I sent the boar along so that you would shoot your arrows at him. You think what you did is bad, but I say what you did is good.’

  That evening Sita and the sons of Dashratha discussed karma. Lakshman said, ‘All events in our lives are reactions to past actions. Today I accidentally killed a man. I think it was bad. Indra says it was good. What impact will it have on the future? Will it generate fortune or misfortune?’

  Ram said, ‘Events are events. Humans qualify them as good or bad.’

  Sita could not help herself and said, ‘These days in the forest, I am sure you think they are bad. But I think they are good. There is so much freedom here in the forest, no rules and rituals and rites that bind us back home.’

  Ram said, ‘All things are good and bad only in hindsight.’

  Did Ram, Sita and Lakshman eat meat during their sojourn in the forest? This question remains best unanswered as there are many who react violently even at the suggestion that consuming meat was not frowned upon in ancient times. Miniature paintings often show Ram and Lakshman hunting and wearing animal hide; a few even show them roasting meat. This is rationalized as consuming meat was permitted to members of the warrior community, the kshatriyas. References to the eating of ‘flesh’ in Sanskrit works are often translated to mean ‘flesh of fruit’. Vegetarian practices became widespread first because of Buddhism and Jainism, and later because of Vaishnavism. Rational arguments aside, to eat vegetarian food continues to be in India a sign of ritual purity that places one higher in the caste hierarchy.

  The episode of Sita’s unhappiness over the sport of hunting comes from the Valmiki Ramayana.

  Viradha’s desire to be buried after death is significant as this goes against the common Vedic practice of cremation. In traditional Hindu society, burial is reserved for sages who have broken free from the cycle of birth and death in their lifetime.

  That Viradha was a gandharva before he became a rakshasa and turns into a gandharva once again draws attention to the role of curses as an instrument of karma.

  The story of the demon accidentally killed by Lakshman comes from Odia, Telugu, Tamil and Malayalam folklore based on the Ramayana.

  Surpanakha’s Husband and Son

  The rakshasa that Lakshman killed was Sunkumar, son of Surpanakha, sister of Ravana, king of Lanka.

  Ravana’s wife, Mandodari, once refused to serve Surpanakha meat and this led to a great household altercation. Their respective husbands tried to pacify the women until, goaded by Surpanakha, her husband, Vidyutjiva, stretched out his enormous tongue and swallowed Ravana. This happened in the heat of the moment and everyone immediately realized the terrible consequences of the household quarrel: Ravana had been consumed and the only way to save him was to cut open the stomach of the man who had swallowed him. This would grant life to Ravana but cause death to Vidyutjiva.

  ‘Do it,’ said Ravana to his sister, ‘and I will make your son my heir and give you any man you choose as your husband.’ Surpanakha then used her claw-like nails to tear open her husband’s stomach and liberate her brother. She became a widow but was given the freedom to take any husband of her choice from the forests. And she waited for Ravana to keep his promise to declare her son his heir. But he did not. When her son grew up, he grew impatient and decided to perform tapasya and obtain a weapon that would enable him to kill Ravana. It was while he was performing tapasya that Lakshman killed him, thus inadvertently saving Ravana.

  Having lost her husband and now her son, Surpanakha was furious. She could not punish the man responsible for her husband’s death, as he was her brother, but she was determined to punish this hunter, her son’s killer.

  So she tracked the footsteps of Lakshman and reached the banks of the Godavari, near Panchavati, and found Ram and Lakshman seated there. They were beautiful. All thoughts of vengeance vanished and were replaced by lust.

  The Valmiki Ramayana refers to a rakshasa sorcerer called Vidyutjiva, which means ‘lightning tongue’. Valmiki refers neither to Surpanakha’s husband nor to her son.

  Surpanakha means one whose nails are as long as the winnow.

  The story of Surpanakha’s husband and son comes from Tamil folklore. In most stories, Ravana kills Vidyutjiva accidentally as he goes about conquering the world. In the Thai version, Ravana mistakes the long tongue of Surpanakha’s husband to be the tower of a fortress or the wall of a castle, and shoots it down. This story adds more passion and domestic energy to the narrative.

  The son of Surpanakha is variously identified as Shambukumar, Darasinha, Japasura, Jambukumar and Sunkumar, in various southern oral Ramayana s, often narrated during shadow theatre performances.

  In some versions, Lakshman finds a sword floating in the air. It has materialized for him to kill Surpanakha’s son who is behind a clump of bamboo grass, meditating. Not realizing this, Lakshman takes the sword, swings it, and ends up accidentally killing the demon-ascetic, much to Indra’s delight.

  The Tamil Ramayana of Kamban humanizes the rakshasas and shows them as creatures of passion. This folklore amplifies this trend. Unlike the lustful woman of Valmiki’s poem, we have here a lonely woman who has lost her husband and her son and seeks pleasure in a handsome man, only to be brutally disappointed.

  The tale also highlights how lives get entangled accidentally. Had Lakshman not accidentally killed the demon-ascetic, would he have attracted Surpanakha’s attention, and hence Ravana’s?

  In Kamban’s Ramayana, it is suggested that Surpanakha draws Ram into a quarrel with Ravana to avenge her husband’s death at Ravana’s hands.

  Disfiguring Surpanakha

  Yes, they looked like sages. They had matted hair and beards. Their bodies were covered with ash. And they wore clothes of bark and animal hide. And they carried weapons, like men from the north. But they were beautiful. Tall and lithe, their bodies gleamed like bronze in the sunlight. The smell of their sweat was intoxicating. Surpanakha felt giddy with desire.

  She first went to Ram, who she felt was taller and had wider shoulders, and said, ‘Come, be my beloved, satisfy my desire.’

  Ram, amused by this unabashed display of desire, said, ‘I am married.’

  ‘What does that mean?’

  ‘It means I have a woman already with me, and will look upon no other. Perhaps you can ask my brother here who is all alone in the forest.’

  When she approached Lakshman, he said, ‘No, go away. I am not interested. I serve my brother and no other.’

  Surpanakha did not understand. Why would they turn her away? Was she not attractive? Were they not lonely? She then saw Sita seated beside Ram and surmised that perhaps with her around they desired no satisfaction elsewhere. She was the rival. She had to be exterminated. So like a beast in heat, she rushed towards Sita, determined to strike her with a rock and smash her skull. ‘Stop her,’ shouted Ram, pulling Sita behind him.

  Lakshman caught Surpanakha by the hair and pulled her back. Surpanakha resisted and shoved him away. She was strong, and determined to have her way.

  ‘Don’t kill her,’ shouted Sita, for she had watched how Ram and Lakshman had mercilessly killed Viradha.

  ‘Then I will punish her,’ said Lakshman. ‘I will teach her a lesson that she will never forget.’ He grabbed a knife and in one swift stroke chopped off her nose.

  Surpanakha yelled out loud in shock. What was this? Could so beautiful a man be so cruel? She ran away crying, her mournful wails filling the air. She ran in search of her brothers Khara and Dushana, who would teach these deceptive monsters a lesson.

  Sita trembled. ‘Don’t be afraid, Sita. We will protect you,’ said Ram.

  And Sita said, ‘I fear for all of us. That was no animal, my husband. That was a human. And in her eyes, you are the villain and I am no victim. This action will have a reaction that will not be pleasant.’