Confessions of an Epic Indian

1. Cultures & People: This book widened my perspective towards life. It really put to me, in proper context, the philosophy surrounding judgmental attitudes and responsible criticism. This book juggles with a variety of cultures with diametrically opposite viewpoints. It has a very clear way of showing differences across cultures, opinions, people and ways of life. It shows that different cultures might not hold the same opinion on even fundamental things. The same culture will change its morals and opinions on a single issue over time. Quite simply, what we hold as fundamental or common sense is just an opinion that might change over time. And, without being judgmental, it beautifully drives home the point that different opinions on the same subject are valid under their own individual context. While many people verbally assert that there is no one way to live life or that there is no one truth, this book very clearly shows how we could view this information. Saying so is very easy. Showing through a believable example is another job.

2. Upholding Dharma: The second aspect was in showing Rama’s sense and unwavering intent of upholding dharma. The key does not lie in merely telling us Rama held on to dharma under even the most trying of circumstances, the key lies in creating situations, those trying circumstances, where it is tough for the reader to determine what the right path is, forces the reader to guess and guess incorrectly. This is really different from typical Rama stories of ‘do good be good’ – where it was plainly obvious to everyone as to what the right path was. If the common man completely ‘got’ Rama’s sense of dharma there would be no difference between him and Rama. I wouldn’t be interested in that kind of Rama. I don’t want the plainly obvious, I can get that somewhere else. I want the subtly obvious. Like many excellent opinions of any time and age, I would expect the common man’s agreement with Rama’s actions to be inversely proportional to the purity of the said action’s value. Hold my brain to the fire, make me flinch, make me disagree and call the author a fool and then make me realize I was wrong, I’d love you as an author. This book brings all this out wonderfully.

Maryada Purushottama:

There is a segment in Banker’s book, where hanuman meets Rama for the first time, which left me very impressed. They get into a cultural-difference discussion and Hanuman is offended by Rama’s suggestion that Vanars and humans are similar. He argues that humans are barbaric and vanars are better because a Vanar female can choose to procreate with any male without her husband having any say in it. Hanuman is dumbfounded as to how a human male can have so much say in a human woman’s biological behavior. Hanuman is also offended when he is called a monkey. He questions Rama if humans can also be called monkeys just because they share the same ancestors as monkeys. These are delightful discussions and I thoroughly enjoyed them.

Rama gets the highest honor a man can get by being called, not just a yoddha - a supreme warrior, but a Maryada Purushottama, as he is a person who upholds his dharma under all circumstances. Under the direst of circumstances, under the severest of threats and under no practical obligation to follow the rules, Rama is shown to abide by dharma. Usually this concept isn’t presented well in religious discussions. It is wrapped in gooey sentimentality. Valmiki wasn’t maudlin when he wrote this. It is simply a term to suggest fastidious adherence to dharma ( that depends on Manu Vaivastva’s code of life). It might make as much sense today as IPC would make in Aranya Khanda, but it is a dharma based on the kshathriya way of life as Rama knew it. That his contemporaries neither understand the dharma nor expect Rama to follow it make both dharma and Rama more interesting. The contents of the dharma maybe regarded as an anachronism now but it is interesting to see Rama follows it with a rigor and discipline that borders on maniacal obsession to follow rules. This aspect, understandably so, has never been shown in Amar Chitra Katha or TV. That’s why I love this book. Read it and see the way it presents Rama’s profile.
Rama is presented like a rule-following robot, intent on executing the task. But in following the rules he is presented as more ‘deep’ than a typical ‘Rules Ramanujam’. He is not interested in loop holes, exceptions to the rule or an easy way out. He wants to follow the real philosophical intent of the Dharma regardless of whether people consider some terms of the dharma as ‘subject to interpretation’. The real intent is also not very obvious. It has to be found. If the substance of Dasaratha’s promise to Kaikeyi is that he has to go in exile, it does not matter if he can still be king by exploiting a technicality. Similarly, it does not matter if you hold an opinion on him and don’t express it. Not verbalizing an opinion is a minor technicality when your opinion is known to him. He will go for the substance of the rule. The form that the substance is wrapped in is immaterial. He will go after the value of your opinion regardless of whether it is expressed in verbal form or not. This is often frustrating to his contemporaries and the reader. It should be so. Adherence to rules isn’t easy to explain as the violation of it is. This is a hard concept to put one’s hands around but if you do get to understand this and get a sense of the philosophy behind Rama’s actions, it is a wonderful experience. The consistency of his actions is unbelievable.

Banker’s class lies in creating a situation where we can see an apparent contradiction on the surface and a consistency several layers beneath. This was Valmiki’s area of expertise and Banker does well to understand that and recreate this important aspect in his own book.

Banker’s Books and his writing style:

If I was asked to rank the number 1 segment in all of Banker’s books, I would choose the description of Seetha’s kidnapping by Ravana. I think if there was a segment where Banker outdid Valmiki, Kamban and everybody else, it was this segment. It is hard for me to imagine that a reader would not be brought close to tears when reading that segment. There were several segments in Banker’s books that brought a lump to my throat. I was so close to tears that I would look up and find myself in a flight or van or train – and feel all embarrassed that someone might’ve seen me. Every time Hanuman weeps for Rama, I’d get throttled. Banker evokes, in me, a resonation with Rama’s plight better than any other author. I never thought I could be emotionally moved, so easily. I have to shamelessly admit that Banker got me maudlin several times.

Banker writes 6 books in all. They are Prince Of Ayodhya, Seige of Mithila, Demons of Chithrakut, Armies of Hanuman, Bridge of Rama and King of Ayodhya. I somehow thought it mirrored the 6 Khandas of Ramayana (Bala Khanda, Ayodhya Khanda, Aranya Khanda, Kishkindha Khanda, Sundara Khanda and Yuddha Khanda – with Utthara Khanda excluded). Well, it was only partially true. The books aren’t strictly arranged as per the Khandas. Some Khanda’s name is mentioned by its original name, suddenly, in the middle of the book and some Khanda names aren’t mentioned at all. Banker displays a fantastic writing style. He mixes one word sentences and long sentences very well. His writing style is flashy, descriptive and very much like a screenplay for a movie. You don’t have to imagine a lot because the scene is vividly described to you. Initially, I got a feeling the series was like Lord of the Rings look alike and I can see the comparison to Tolkien’s book arises in many people (more on this later). I was terribly wrong about that. Banker’s books are really fast paced. Unlike the steady pace of Tolkien, he explodes into dimensions beyond story narration. The first 50 pages of the first book will be the most difficult. I took a year to cross those first 50 pages. I read the other 5.9 books in 1 month. It was that “unputdownable”. Given all this, when I progressed to the book - Bridge of Rama, I couldn’t help but look forward to Sundara Khanda. Sundara Khanda is really an acid test for any reteller of Ramayana. Its the phase where Hanuman goes in search of Seetha, Rama awaits his return, Seetha suffers in Ashokavana and Ravana debates with Hanuman. Kamban’s Sundara Khandam is simply an extraordinary literary effort. It communicates so many different emotions in such colorful language. It takes you to that pleasant mental spot and carries you to so many different moods. I was somehow expecting Banker to take me through a similar journey. While, he maintains his high standards through Sundara Khanda, he does not make the leap that Kamban makes. I know it is an unfair comparison but I can’t help but make that.

The Force of the Brahman

Banker, overall, weaves a wonderful narration. He sticks to the framework of Valmiki with rigor (credits Arshia Sattar’s translation of Valmiki’s book for helping him Navigate). But while doing that he makes his own leaps into imagination without losing integrity. A key piece of narration, which I think is Banker’s own interpretation, is the imaginative influence of ‘force of the Brahman’ on the key characters of Ramayana. This by far is my most favorite aspect of the book. Brahman is the vedic term that represents the monotheistic ‘god’ of the Vedas. Brahman, as per the Vedas, is a continuum that pervades all the beings of the world (a concept debated fiercely by the proponents of a/vishishta/(d) vaitha). Force of the Brahman, is used similar to the way the ‘force’ is used in the Star Wars (I don’t mean to compare or equate but just trying to give a frame of reference to the modern reader). The use of the Brahman force in narrative segments serves as an excellent tool. In that - through this tool Banker reconciles a lot of ‘cosmic’ things more elegantly than it has ever been done before. What can I say to this piece of imagination – hats off!. Banker does not leave many loose threads hanging. As you read it you will realize that all loops are closed properly, all loose ends are tied and there is a meaning to every character, event and principle. It is done very elegantly. I mention is casually, but I can imagine this is not an easy to end to meet. However, Banker looses steam in the last book. His description of trivial battle situations was so fantastic that the ultimate Ravana-Rama conflict promised to be larger than life. Let us just say that I was disappointed in the end.

In the narration, preface, the prologue and epilogue, one gets the sense of the kind of person that Ashok Banker is. I had this paragraph in rough draft but decided against posting this after Banker made an appearance in the comment section. But dash it. I have to mention this. Authors who discourage readers from buying their book don’t come knocking every day. I was surprised by Amazon’s classification of Ramayana. One can debate this for years together, but I have nothing more to add on the topic beyond what the author has already said. I can see many authors take such a marketing ploy in their stride and count the sales money. But I respect Banker’s letter to buyers in Amazon.com. It is easy to regard him as eccentric, tough or high maintenance, maybe he is. So be it. To me it was a rare purism that is less understood. Whatever term you use to describe that attitude, I like that. It is very impressive (btw - a non-Thamizh who spells the language as ‘Thamizh’ always has my admiration).

Banishment of Seetha and The Ambush of Vali

Ashok Banker does have his failings though. He portrays Ramayana as a love story much the way Kamban did. However, he becomes too attached to his Rama. Banker strongly believes his Rama will never banish Seetha. Banker’s Rama is so much in love with Seetha that he is unable to bring himself to write Utthara Khanda. Kamban also did not write the Utthara Khandam. Maybe Kamban also couldn’t bring himself to write it. Valmiki could. Valmiki wasn’t required to be concerned about acceptability or believability. He could see (in fact saw) the character in the character’s setting. Banker sees Rama through today’s eyes. I am a big fan of Utthara Khanda. To me, the banishment of Seetha was the most logical and obvious aspect of Ramayana. Rama’s obsession towards rules and principle points to it, Banker’s description of the Rakshasa cruelty points to it, they way he factors in Seetha’s pregnancy points to it. So, I was disappointed that Banker did not cross that bridge and bring himself to see why Rama could have done that. I wonder if he read what Mr. Tulsidas had to say about the whole ‘Agni Pariksha’ episode. His handling of the Vali episode also disappointed me. Vali is not ambushed by Rama in Banker’s book, but is killed (albeit nir-ayudha-paani) in reflex. Banker has a dying Vali arguing with Rama, much like Valmiki’s narration had. But the subject of Vali’s argument in Valmiki’s book was the ambush. It was all about the ambush. In Valmiki’s version and Kamban’s version, Vali after an extended argument finally concedes that Rama had not violated dharma by killing him - and then dies. Banker’s book focuses on Vali’s counter offer to help Rama regain Seetha. While Valmiki’s version covers it - this to me was a moot issue. Banker had this wonderful opportunity to weave a thread surrounding the sparing of Ravana’s life the day-before his death, Mareecha’s death, and Vali’s death (all three have a dialog with Rama as they die) and he misses it.

Banker’s Deviations From Valmiki

Banker’s deviations from the original book have been collected in Wikipedia. I’ll mention a few that I deduced myself, some of it is not in wiki and a few is there. People who have seen Crazy Mohan’s drama “Crazy Kishkintha” will recollect that Angada, son of Vali, files a case in Madras high court against Rama for the ambush . In Banker’s book Angada is son of Sugreeva. This to me was perplexing and seemed like a basic error. The killing of Ravana’s sons was (he had several) not handled well. Lakshmana’s role in Yuddha Khanda was minimal. His duel with Indrajit is absent. Kumbakarna, in Valmiki’s book, is actually a very good person, very benevolent and Hanuman is defeated by him many times. Kumbakarna gets fleeting mention in Book 6. It was almost as if Banker had to stop with book 6 and had run out of space. The whole 9-day war, Sanjeeva Mountain has been abridged and changed. Sugreeva’s ability as a warrior in Banker’s book is a pale shadow of the superman he was in Valmiki’s book. These to me were understandable deviations. I also did not mind Surpanaka’s extended (she gets more space than Seetha) role, Manthara and Vali’s cooked-up connection to Ravana etc. However, I was not impressed with the pre-swayamvara courtship period of Rama and Seetha. I am okay with deviations but this one did not appeal to me.

Saptha Rishis and Veda Vyasas

Agasthya, contrary to what A.Banker says in his book, is not one of the seven sages/Saptha Rishi (although I’ve heard that Mahabharatha mentions that he is). Atri, Bharadhvaja, Gauthama, Jamadagni, Kashyapa, Vashishta, and Vishwamithra are the seven rishis as per the upanishads and brahmanas. Sometimes even Vishwamithra isn’t considered to be among the Saptha Rishi (much to the anguish of Kausiga Kothram folks). Vashishta’s role is vital in Ramayana. Velukudi Krishnan, in his upanyasam, informs that Vashishta was the first Veda Vyasa. During Ramayana the vedas were a single unit but geographically fragmented (Banker mentions this in his book). Vasishta began the process of dividing the vedas. ‘Vyasa’ means ‘to divide’. Veda Vyasa means the classifier/divider of Vedas. Vasishta was Veda Vyasa I. Vasishta’s son Shakthya continued the work, later Shakthya’s son Parashara continued to divide and categorize Vedas. The final categorization into 4 vedas was finally completed by Parashara’s son Krishna-dwaipayana (who wrote Mahabharatha). Krishna-dwaipayana’s son was Sukha, who wrote Srimad Bhagavadham.

Ravana