Ram Manohar Lohia's Devotion for Ramayana: The Forgotten Bond Beyond Politics
Total Views |
The website of the Samajwadi Party (SP) describes Dr Ram Manohar Lohia as the 'guiding spirit’ of the party. SP founder Mulayam Singh Yadav used to feel proud to call himself a 'staunch disciple’ of Lohia. He used to describe himself as a 'Lohiaite’ to prove his so-called secular credentials. Currently, Mulayam’s son – Akhilesh - is heading the party and he continues to follow his father when it comes to Lohia.
For Lohia, the question of whether Rama exists or not is irrelevant. For him, Ramayana might be a myth but he did deny the truth. The truth is that Ramayana is an inseparable part of India’s cultural history. He goes beyond his ideology and admits with great courage and open mind that the names of Rama, Krishna, and Shiva have been engraved on the minds of the succeeding generation. He writes in the same book,
“The story of their lives must not be tested by ordinary standards of plausibility. What can be more plausible than the fact that this story has been engraved on the minds of succeeding generations in India for fifty centuries and probably a hundred? The story was continually retold, and in the retelling, great bards and poets used their genius to refine and to deepen, and, more so, the irresistible pressures if numberless millions brought it their own transmuted joy and grief.”
Lohia has extensively written on bondage between Rama and Sita. He imagined what contemporary social conditions at the time of Ramayana. He has suggested that Rama never thought of any other woman other than Sita, which reflected the then social conditions. Lohia’s love and affection for Ramayana can be seen from his statement which reads, “Ram, Krishna and Shiva are India’s three great dreams and there is no question of one being less or more perfect than other”. Lohia has written on Rama’s heart-rending situation after Ravana kidnapped Sita. He has poetically written the entire episode. This could never happen unless he had a deep sense of belongingness for ancient Indian culture.
Lohia writes, “Ram was a limited individual. He was so out of deliberate design and conscious purpose. Rules and the constitution were no doubt there to act as a measuring standard to enforce obedience. But this compulsion from outside would have been valueless if unaccompanied by a corresponding impulsion from within. External controls of the constitution and inward limits of the conscience reinforce each other”.
One may be tempted to draw parallels between Lohia’s interpretation and the then-existing political situation, which was dominated by the Nehru cult. But nobody can deny that he had discussed a major democratic value. At one place, Lohia has said that Rama was a big and good listener, suggesting that he was a big democrat, who used to understand all the aspects of an issue and respect another view. By using modern terms like democracy, diplomacy, and the psychological part of human beings, he argues that Ramayana can still inspire human beings. Lohia speaks of the geographical and cultural integrity of India through Ramayana. He categorically states that Rama tried to bring India under one strong rule. This is in sharp contrast to the leftists, who argue that India was born in 1947. Lohia’s theory brushes aside leftist philosophy, which denies the existence of India since ancient days.
Lohia has his interpretation of Ramayana. For him, Rama was an imaginary person. Lohia has his own beliefs and ideas and his perception of Ramayana. However, the most important aspect is that at no stage he is found hurting, ridiculing, humiliating, demeaning, and insulting Hindu sentiments. He carries a great amount of respect for Ramayana and its impact on the Indian psyche.
Many people know that Dr Lohia originally proposed an idea to conduct `Rashtriya Ramayana Mela’ at Chitrakoot in 1960. It was started 13 years after he mooted the proposal. But we ought to find out why Dr Lohia proposed this idea. Why did he choose Chitrakoot, which has immense importance in Ramayana?
Another incident is to examine Lohia’s sentiments for Ramayana. It was Lohia, who had asked M F Husain to draw some paintings of Ramayana and Husain dutifully did it. Lohia and Husain met in Hyderabad. Lohia was greatly impressed with Husain’s paintings and he asked Husain to meet him in Delhi. A few days later, the two met in Delhi when Lohia asked him to come out of the drawing rooms of Tatas and Birlas and work for Ramayana, which is closely attached to the people. Husain later watched several shows of Ramleela and drew almost 150 paintings of Ramayana. Why did Lohia ask Husain to draw paintings on Ramayana? It was absolutely out of warm love for Ramayana. But, Lohia's followers neither understood Rama nor Lohia.
However, neither Mulayam nor Akhilesh seems to have read or understood what Lohia was. They have merely used Lohia for political gains. Mulayam would not have opened fire on Kar Sevaks in 1990, had he understood Lohia. Akhilesh would not have ridiculed `Deepotsav’ in Ayodhya, had he understood Lohia.
One can understand if leftists or socialists had projected their ideological opponents in a particular manner. However, how can they explain if their ideological icon is misrepresented? How can they explain if they had hidden an important aspect of Lohia for years? Unfortunately, like Mahatma Gandhi, Lohia was the victim of his followers. If one reads Lohia's book – Ram, Krishna, and Shiva, he would certainly feel that
-Lohia would never forgive Mulayam for opening fire on Kar Sevaks.
-Lohia would never forgive Mulayam for putting all the obstructions in the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
-Lohia would never forgive Mulayam and other leftists for hurting Hindu sentiments for years. Lohia would never forgive them for interpreting secularism as a ‘policy of appeasement’.
Lohia As A Politician
Lohia is known as a leader, who vehemently opposed the partition of India. Lohia was also described as a strong Nehru critic. He was also instrumental in building the anti-Congress alliance in the sixties. Lohia never believed in political or ideological untouchability. He had no apprehensions to invite Bhartiya Jan Sangh in the grand alliance against Congress. This could happen since Lohia was an honest politician. He was not a politician, who was hungry for power. He was an honest politician, who always stood for ideology, unlike his disciples. His stand always stood for national interests and not for petty political benefits.
Lohia on Rama and Ramayana
Against this backdrop, it would be interesting to know what Lohia felt about Rama and Ramayana -
“The Life of Ram is an essay in expansion without absorption. His exile was an occasion for unifying the country under the hegemony of one center of power, where before it two rival centers were contending for mastery. Ayodhya and Lanka were these two centers and the wanderings of Ram took him away from Ayodhya in the direction of Lanka.”
These are a few lines from Lohia’s book - Ram. Krishna and Shiva. Lohia was a socialist and had little faith in religion. He was well aware and sensitive about the Indian psyche. He writes,
“Whether the heroes of the great Indian myths ever lived or not is a comparatively irrelevant detail to the cultural history of the country, to the history of the Indian spirit definitely and, to date, also to the spirit of Indian history. Ram and Krishna were probably figures of history and Siva may also have been an engineer who cut a channel for the great Ganga, but he might have been, on the same reasoning, a great vet, a lover or an unexampled philanthropist”.
For Lohia, the question of whether Rama exists or not is irrelevant. For him, Ramayana might be a myth but he did deny the truth. The truth is that Ramayana is an inseparable part of India’s cultural history. He goes beyond his ideology and admits with great courage and open mind that the names of Rama, Krishna, and Shiva have been engraved on the minds of the succeeding generation. He writes in the same book,
“The story of their lives must not be tested by ordinary standards of plausibility. What can be more plausible than the fact that this story has been engraved on the minds of succeeding generations in India for fifty centuries and probably a hundred? The story was continually retold, and in the retelling, great bards and poets used their genius to refine and to deepen, and, more so, the irresistible pressures if numberless millions brought it their own transmuted joy and grief.”
Lohia has extensively written on bondage between Rama and Sita. He imagined what contemporary social conditions at the time of Ramayana. He has suggested that Rama never thought of any other woman other than Sita, which reflected the then social conditions. Lohia’s love and affection for Ramayana can be seen from his statement which reads, “Ram, Krishna and Shiva are India’s three great dreams and there is no question of one being less or more perfect than other”. Lohia has written on Rama’s heart-rending situation after Ravana kidnapped Sita. He has poetically written the entire episode. This could never happen unless he had a deep sense of belongingness for ancient Indian culture.
Lohia also interprets the significance of 'Laxmanrekha'. For Lohia, two incidents in Ramayana - the kidnapping of Sita and return of Rama in Ayodhya are of utmost importance. He writes,
“These two great stories. “Sita’s kidnapping is in itself one of the greatest events of the story of mankind; its record has been noted in every detail. This is a story of limited, controlled, and constitutional existence. During the wanderings of their exile, when Sita was on one occasion left alone, Lakshaman, the younger brother of Ram, had drawn a circle which she was not to over-step. Ravan, the great foe of Ram, came as a mendicant and was powerless until, with the guile of humble beggary, he was able to persuade Sita out of the limits of the circle. The limited personality stays within the circle of rules. The exuberant personality recognizes rules and constitution only as long as it wishes to do so and violates them the moment that its administration begins to prove irksome. Another rich story is told of the limited personality of Ram, of the circle of rules and constitution drawn around his authority which he never overstepped, and to whose unquestioned submission he owes the three or four blemishes of his life. Ram and Sita had come back to Ayodhya and were living as king and queen. A washerman complained of Sita’s conduct in captivity. The complainant was a lone person and the complaint was as frivolous as it was dirty. But the rules laid down that every single complaint was expressive of a malady, which must receive its proper remedy or punishment. In this case, the banishment of Sita was the only proper remedy. The rule was stupid, the punishment was cruel and the whole incident was an infamous incident that saddened Ram for the rest of the life. But he obeyed the rule. He did not change it. He was the perfection of a limited personality, bound by rules and constitution, and he has brought this out in his life through an incident that otherwise blemishes his record. As a limited personality, another way was perhaps open to him. He should have abdicated and again gone into exile with Sita. He probably made that suggestion but his people were unwilling. He should have insisted. They would probably have wanted to waive or abolish the rule. No limited personality can accept such an abolition of rules, which is done under duress and is meant to tide over a difficulty with which his person is at least partly concerned. In myth as in history, conjectures or might-have-beens are an unattractive pastime. What Ram might or might not have done is a minor conjecture compared to this ghastly submission to rules which is so characteristic of a limited personality. A contemporary debate on the cult of individual leadership as against the creed of collective leadership has aroused much interest. The debate is surficial. Individual or collective leadership may both belong basically to the category of the exuberant personality, insubordinate to rules and the constitution. The sole difference lies in whether one person or a combination of nine or fifteen persons is to overstep the circle of rules drawn around their authority. The overstepping indeed becomes more difficult if it is to be done by nine persons instead of one. But life is a continual flux and a twilight of various degrees between contending forces”.
Lohia, thus, is extremely sensitive and responsible while analyzing the decision by Rama on Sita. He has categorically explained the constraints of Rama while deciding on the issue. This lone incident in Ramayana has enough stuff or potential to have unforgettable drama, which has a huge emotional struggle. However, we have always been taught to praise Shakespearean dramas and neglect our own. Lohia writes, “Ram was a limited individual. He was so out of deliberate design and conscious purpose. Rules and the constitution were no doubt there to act as a measuring standard to enforce obedience. But this compulsion from outside would have been valueless if unaccompanied by a corresponding impulsion from within. External controls of the constitution and inward limits of the conscience reinforce each other”.
One may be tempted to draw parallels between Lohia’s interpretation and the then-existing political situation, which was dominated by the Nehru cult. But nobody can deny that he had discussed a major democratic value. At one place, Lohia has said that Rama was a big and good listener, suggesting that he was a big democrat, who used to understand all the aspects of an issue and respect another view. By using modern terms like democracy, diplomacy, and the psychological part of human beings, he argues that Ramayana can still inspire human beings. Lohia speaks of the geographical and cultural integrity of India through Ramayana. He categorically states that Rama tried to bring India under one strong rule. This is in sharp contrast to the leftists, who argue that India was born in 1947. Lohia’s theory brushes aside leftist philosophy, which denies the existence of India since ancient days.
Lohia has his interpretation of Ramayana. For him, Rama was an imaginary person. Lohia has his own beliefs and ideas and his perception of Ramayana. However, the most important aspect is that at no stage he is found hurting, ridiculing, humiliating, demeaning, and insulting Hindu sentiments. He carries a great amount of respect for Ramayana and its impact on the Indian psyche.
Many people know that Dr Lohia originally proposed an idea to conduct `Rashtriya Ramayana Mela’ at Chitrakoot in 1960. It was started 13 years after he mooted the proposal. But we ought to find out why Dr Lohia proposed this idea. Why did he choose Chitrakoot, which has immense importance in Ramayana?
Another incident is to examine Lohia’s sentiments for Ramayana. It was Lohia, who had asked M F Husain to draw some paintings of Ramayana and Husain dutifully did it. Lohia and Husain met in Hyderabad. Lohia was greatly impressed with Husain’s paintings and he asked Husain to meet him in Delhi. A few days later, the two met in Delhi when Lohia asked him to come out of the drawing rooms of Tatas and Birlas and work for Ramayana, which is closely attached to the people. Husain later watched several shows of Ramleela and drew almost 150 paintings of Ramayana. Why did Lohia ask Husain to draw paintings on Ramayana? It was absolutely out of warm love for Ramayana. But, Lohia's followers neither understood Rama nor Lohia.