The Many Sitas

Abhay Mehta

TYBA, 2022-23

(Pattanaik, n.d.) (BCCL, 2022)

Everyone has heard of the Ramayana, but not everyone has heard of the same story. It is a story that I have grown up listening to and consuming in various forms. The influence of this epic in South and Southeast Asia for more than two thousand years is unmatched. It has been told in a variety of languages including Balinese, Bengali, Chinese, Gujarati, Kannada, Tamil, Sanskrit, and many others. The differences in the various narrations of the Ramayana are not solely limited to the language but vary drastically in terms of characters, plot, protagonists, and several other details. “The story may be the same in two tellings, but the discourse may be vastly different. Even the structure and sequence of events may be the same, but the style, details, tone, and texture-and, therefore, the import-may be vastly different.”, (Ramanujan, 1987, p. 134), says A.K. Ramanujan about the plethora of Ramayana retellings. Since there is much ground to cover, in the context of this essay, I will be analysing the rendition of the Ramayana by Valmiki and its subsequent politicisation as well as the subversive feminist retellings that can be seen as a response to this. I will attempt to analyse the aforementioned retellings of the epic through the lens of the theories on myths proposed by Levi Strauss, Barthes, and Saussure. 

A major part of Levi Strauss’ work concerns the structural study of myth. At surface level myths appear to be simple stories. However, one gains a new perspective if they were to redistribute the events in the stories according to the various patterns of binary oppositions they are made up of. In his view, this would reveal the structures of intellectual thought that they embody. Contradictions arising from life in society in conjunction with the fact that social relations cannot always be organised in a rational manner cause logical problems for the mind. Strauss believed that myths confronted these contradictions and created the illusion that they can be reconciled, thereby making them easier to live with. ‘The death of the author’ and the ‘decentering of the subject’ are other important arguments made by Strauss about myths. According to him, the specific authors of myths are irrelevant since the true authors are the structures and patterns of thought that underlie the individual myths. “The true meaning of the myth is, then, something created not, by the individual teller, but, instead, by the system which shapes the teller’s behaviour” (Cuff, 2005, p. 214). The individual author is not the centre from which the meaning arises, rather than deriving from a centre or an individual, the meaning originates from the system.

Barthes, like Levi-Strauss, was inspired by Saussure’s work on linguistics and semiology. He strongly believed that myths were ideological tools that were used to obscure reality. He saw them as patterns of cultural activities and thought processes that essentially normalised social behaviour and activities that were integral to one’s cultural configuration. Barthes aimed to reveal the misrepresentation of cultural phenomena as purely natural by myths. The role of myths, according to him, is “to naturalise, to make things which are contingent and historical seem necessary and eternal, to make things, which could have been different and which may have their roots in dubious circumstances, seem as though they could not be otherwise, as though they are entirely innocent, i.e. entirely beneficent and harmless in their nature.” (Cuff, 2005, p. 218). The role of myths in modern societies, according to Barthes, is to depoliticise; to make sure that things are simply accepted and taken for granted even though if they would be seen in their historical context and proper character, these things would be recognised as more complex and contested than they are made to be. 

Valmiki’s Ramayan is often assumed to be the earliest or the most prestigious version of the epic, it is looked at as canon. Its narrative has constantly been reproduced in the media and popular culture in the form of T.V. shows and animated movies. Rama and his mythology have unfortunately become the face of a radical and militant form of Hinduism. The controversial ceremony of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya as well as acts of violence against minorities who were forced to say “Jai Shree Ram '', showcase instances of how the myth is utilised as a violent political tool. Many scholars have questioned the motive and ideological thought process behind the dominant version of the story that is widely prevalent throughout the country. Historian Romila Tharpar has argued, “ that such representations were part of the state's nationalistic project to create a homogenised, uniform culture which was easy to control and identify with.” (Shejale, 2021, p. 4). The politicisation of the Ramayana can be understood through a breakdown of its narrative and characters. Rama, in the dominant narrative of the epic, has been depicted as the ‘purushottam’ or an ‘ideal man’. He is portrayed as ideal not only as a king or a man but also in terms of class, caste and gender hierarchies. Sita on the other hand, is portrayed as the ‘pativrata’ or ‘ideal wife’, however, her character has a passive role to play in the narrative. The nationalistic, hindutva narrative of the epic sees nearly a complete erasure of the figure of Sita. 

Understanding the socio-cultural and historical context of the Ramayana canons is essential. The epic has its foundations in the Rigvedic and post-Vedic periods when the Brahmanical patriarchal society that was deeply embedded with caste hierarchies required the effective sexual control of women for patrilineal succession as well as caste purity. “A fundamental principle of Hindu social organisation is to construct a closed structure to preserve land, women and 'ritual quality' within it.” (Shejale, 2021, p. 4). A man’s honour was protected and preserved through ‘his woman’. In the case of this Ramayana, the women are portrayed as weak and sinful. The character of Ravana’s sister Surpanakha is an example of the propagation of such notions. Surpanakha falls in love with Rama and expresses her desires to him freely. In response to this, Lakshamana punishes her by severing her nose and ears. One can see how this version of the Ramayana justifies violence against women and propagates the notion that women must be punished for freely exhibiting their sexuality and desire. Additionally, Surpanakha’s character, who openly expresses her desire is pitted against that of Sita, the docile and dutiful ‘pativrata’. This binary reflects the good/evil binary in terms of women’s chastity and sexuality.

Levi Strauss’ study of myths deriving their meaning from the binary oppositions that they are embedded with, resonates with the example of Valmiki’s Ramayana. Binaries of good and evil, purity and impurity, wealth and poverty, morality and immorality and various others are scattered throughout the epic tale. The ‘death of the author'’ theme that is present in Strauss’ work can be applied to Valmiki’s Ramayana as well. Although the author’s identity is known, his work can be seen as a reflection of the socio-cultural and historical context it was written in. The notions it propagates in regards to the control of women’s sexuality and the upper caste Rama who is the ‘ideal man’ reflect the prevalent ideology of the Brahmanical patriarchal society present at the time. Barthes’s arguments on the normalising effect of myths are also relevant to this narrative. The Brahmanical ideas propagated by the story are imbibed by the masses and taken for granted. This allows political parties to use this narrative to their advantage and further their interests that align with those of the ideologies propagated by the myth. 

The idea of myths as narratives that are embedded with ideologies in the form of oppositional binaries has also allowed people to subvert these narratives as a means of empowerment and critique of exploitative societal structures. This can be seen in the many feminist retellings of the Ramayana that comment on the themes and teachings of the canon. Ambai’s ‘Forest’, and Volga’s ‘The Liberation of Sita’ are examples of such feminist retellings. Shifting the focus from Rama to Sita, her story as a commentary on the gendered aspect of power, the portrayal of marriage as oppressive and the unabashed critique of the Brahmanical patriarchy are some ways in which these stories subvert the dominant narrative. Ambai’s Forest, along with depicting Sita as a powerful female protagonist, “it very clearly places itself in the non-canon subversive folk tribal narratives, which inverts the civilisation/wilderness binary.” (Shejale, 2021, p. 6). Ambai has written this story, not for it to be associated with the classical texts but rather, to appeal to a tribal/ folk audience. She portrays the forest not as dangerous and uncomfortable as the place of exile and punishment that it is depicted as in the canonical text but instead, showcases it as a place of refuge for Sita. A similar subversion is seen in Volga’s ‘The Liberation of Sita’ where Rama is depicted as a man who is systematically and ideologically bound by his dharma. Unlike the canonical text that glorifies Rama’s dharma, this story showcases him as a puppet of the oppressive structures of the Brahmanical patriarchy. It is a burden for him that has stripped his life of all its joy. In contrast, Sita is depicted as free; in this retelling, she is liberated and Rama is trapped and in need of rescue. 

Thus, the ideological power of myths is evident in their ability to use the binaries in its narrative to propagate ideas and themes. Applying the perspectives of Levi Strauss and Barthes, we see how this ability of myths that were used to promote and normalise Brahmanical patriarchal ideologies can also be turned on its head to empower marginalised communities. By subverting the binaries of the canonical narratives, these authors have embedded their versions with feminist themes and commentary while telling the same story. 

References

Cuff, E. C., Sharrock, W. W., & Francis, D. W. (2005). Structuralism. In Perspectives in Sociology (4th ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Ramanujan, A. K. (1987). Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation.

Shejale, S. (2021). The Ramayana and its Retellings: Deconstructing the Myth. Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific, (45).

Pattanaik, D. (n.d.). Fake news: Was Sita the first victim? The Economic Times.