What matters, character or caste?

Last night in my sleepless craving for a good academic reading, I turned my screen on and began browsing the endless inventory of Routledge for recent publications. As I scrolled with a sigh to see the same bits of textual criticism— one novel, one writer, one argument— my eyes glided over a rather challenging title, “Kaala, a counter-narrative to Hindutva from an Ambedkarite perspective” by Dr. Sree Govind Bharatvaraj.

I opened the full text and began reading a 18 pages long discourse seeking to describe how Hindutva as a rampant political ideology is detrimental to the naturalness of Dalits. Dr. Bharatvaraj laid out a series of arguments, based on the Ambedkarite philosophy as the author stated, against the appropriation of Dalits by the BJP-RSS ideologues, their alteration of the great Indian epic Ramayana, to lure the Dalit populace, and a strict societal code of ethics built on the arguably divisive commandments of Manusmriti.

I commend Dr. Bharatvaraj’s discursive and stylistic abilities and I respect the time and effort it must have taken him to write, revise, edit, and publish. Those who partake in research writing know exactly well how it fares and at what cost generally. So my congratulations to Dr. Bharatvaraj for his achievement.

However, I’d certainly like to shed light on one (not more) problematic corollary of such narrative-analyses.

A reference to Shambuka Vadh in Uttara Kanda is generally used, as is also used in this article, to underscore a rather sanctimonious connotation to Ramayana and the character of Lord Ram for being described as the slayer of Shambuka, a shudra ascetic for attempting tapas in violation of Dharma, resulting in bad Karma and thereby causing the death of a young Brahmin son.

Although there is a plentitude of criticism questioning its origin, context, and relation to the original text or the author(s), it is still a controversial topic often used as an accusation against the, commonly called, Upper Caste of India.

But what if Shambuka was not slain for subverting class distinction? What if the reason for his vadh was actually moral and just?

The answer lies in many authentic texts and epilogues to this story which touch upon the context, and if required I’d gladly cite them below, but the paraphrasing is simply this:

Shambuka wanted to perform tapas to obtain a boon which would allow him to enter Heaven along with his physical body. His intentions were not to subvert Dharma but Natural Laws and his ill-intentions were only furthered by his desire to dethrone Indra and rule over Heaven.

Now the question is, why is Shambuka’s Dalit identity so crucial to this story? Academics who drag Lord Ram into court for slaying Shambuka so conveniently forget the story of Ram and Shabri, another Shudra.

Should our sentiments and lived-experiences allow us to misinterpret stories and paint a terrible picture to suit the contemporary agendas?

I feel no hesitation saying that many Dalits are also criminals, just like many Brahmins or Jats. It makes little sense to gloss over the particulars of a person, his virtues and vices, and to celebrate or mourn him only as a figure born in a particularly privileged or depraved caste. Shambuka could have very well been a Brahmin and still slain for his audacity. I don’t see that as a reason for Brahmins to torch the world against the character of Lord Ram (although it is no more merely imagined now).

All sensible and civic responses are welcome. Special thanks to Dr. Sree Govind Bharatvaraj. Kindly read his article via link.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14746689.2024.2330184