Uproar over Ravan: Why Bollywood fails to understand Ramayan

When the trailer of the much-awaited film, Adipurush, starring Prabhas, was out early this week, it received a massive backlash for turning the Ramayan into an extension of the Game of Thrones meets the Planet of the Apes. It left many startled on how a filmmaker who did a decent job in Ajay Devgn-starrer Tanhaji, based on the life of a Maratha general who took on the Mughals, could go so horribly wrong in an apparently such a simple story: Of devoted sons and brothers, of a loyal and loving wife, and a larger-than-life villain. Unlike the Mahabharat, the storyline of the Ramayan seems uncomplicatedly linear and straight-forward, with little scope for suspense.

But then what’s generally forgotten is that the Ramayan is the soul of India. For all the simplicity in its basic plotline, it cannot be comprehended without fully understanding the civilisational idea of India. So, among the primary prerequisite for going right on the epics of the scale of the Ramayan and the Mahabharat is the need to have a reverential outlook. SS Rajamouli’s films invariably hit the bulls-eye precisely because he adopts a reverential approach — a basic precondition that Bollywood fails to meet in the very first place.

The Hindi film industry’s distrust for India’s Hindu roots is as old as the country’s tryst with the Western model of democratic governance. It, in fact, was an enthusiastic accomplice to the Nehruvian cause, led by the likes of Khwaja Ahmed Abbas, who was part of the Progressive Writers’ Association and the Indian People’s Theater Association. Over the years, Hindi movies were used quite methodically to dismantle the Sanatan worldview, distorting its timeless ethos and values, and villainising its upholders and defenders. This explains why some of the most lecherous characters in Hindi films have been those with clearly defined tilak marks over their foreheads! Here they seemed to be simply following the instruction of missionary scholar Abbe Dubois who, in Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies, exhorted the annihilation of the Brahmin class if Hindus were to be converted!

Such was Bollywood’s triumphalistic attitude that from the 1970s onwards, it stopped even pretending to be neutral. In Deewar, for instance, Amitabh Bachchan’s character had issues going to a temple, but that didn’t come in the way of conceding the sacredness of “Billa No 786” — a pious number among Muslims. In fact, Amitabh in most films, even when he played the character of a Hindu, would wear or at least keep “Billa No 786” — and there would be scenes where his life would be saved because of this! He would have several “memorable” scenes that showed him ranting against Hindu gods and goddesses, but the same courtesy was never extended to the god of any other religion even when he played a Muslim character.

This trend continues till date, though this one-sided villainisation no longer goes unchallenged. In PK, there are scenes mocking at Hindu gods and goddesses when an extraterrestrial being, played by Aamir Khan, loses his “remote”. Again, the special treatment is reserved for Hindu gods alone. So much so that in one scene a character playing Lord Shiva is shown hiding under a chair to evade Aamir Khan! In Aamir Khan’s 3 Idiots, too, while Hindu characters are shown as stupid and superstitious, with their fingers full of rings and are shown feeding milk to snakes, the Muslim character is rather progressive! Ranbir Kapoor’s Shamshera, released early this year, belongs to this Hinduphobia club.

Today, as India is consciously waking up to its Sanatan roots, if Bollywwod is trying to make amends with films like Brahmashtra and Adipurush, it seems less the case of conviction and more out of box office desperation. When conviction is lacking, one can still escape the critical scrutiny with a Tanhaji-like film, but Ramayan is an altogether different ballgame. This explains why RRR’s Ram act was scintillating and worked well with the masses, but Raut’s Ram looked distant and disoriented.

However, it’s Ravan’s portrayal that has exposed Bollywood. Adipurush’s Ravan is not Valmiki’s Ravan. He appears to be shaped more in the Alauddin Khilji mould — sadistic, cruel, and evil personified. Ravan was everything but that.

The idea of Ravan being an evil incarnate is a relatively modern phenomenon. Traditionally, the worshippers of Ram also venerate Ravan, and vice-versa. In Mandsaur, in Madhya Pradesh, for instance, the locals worship Ravan and his wife, Mandodari. He is a Shiv bhakta par excellence. He is hailed as a king, a scholar, and a maestro of the musical instrument Aveena, known as the Ravanhattha. He is the author of several texts, verses and mantras. Also, his kingdom being called “Sone Ki Lanka” was a testimony to his success as a ruler.

This veneration for Ravan has its roots in the Ramayan itself: When Ravan was badly wounded and awaited his death, Ram asked Lakshman to pay him a visit and request the Lankesh to pass on his wisdom and intellect. When Lakshman went to meet Ravan, the latter even refused to acknowledge his presence. An angry Lakshman came back to Ram, who asked him where he stood while seeking wisdom. “Next to his head,” replied Lakshman. Ram smiled and walked towards Ravan. Placing his bow on the ground, he knelt at Ravan’s feet and requested him to share his wisdom. Ravan opened his eyes to greet Ram, and shared an important lesson.

The Left-inspired, woke-afflicted Bollywood would find it difficult to capture Ravan in all his shades: It would fail to understand and appreciate the Sanatan worldview which desists and detests looking at people and events in black and white. So, Ravan would be projected either as an evil incarnate, as in the case of Adipurush, or an outright victim, as was showcased in an old Mani Ratnam film by the same name.

In fact there has been a mischievous but dominant Dravidian narrative — legitimised by Left historians in the name of subaltern studies — that projects Ravan as the Dravidian defender against Aryan hegemony. Little realising that Ravan was a Brahmin by birth. The late Narendra Kohli, who had done a pioneering work in Hindi literature on the two epics, turned around the Aryan hegemony argument when he said that Ram and Lakshman didn’t either go to the jungle as princes or with an army from Ayodhya. They went as simpletons who worked with the people in the jungle who were deemed as “monkey” and “bear” by outsiders. They organised these “lowly” people, who in today’s scenario would qualify to be the Scheduled Tribes, against a Brahmin kingdom called Lanka.

Civilisational India has been the land of possibilities. It would seem chaotically divided but a unique sense of unity would underline that supposed anarchy. This is the land where Adi Shankara, the proponent of ‘nirguna’ Vedanta, would find no contradiction in writing verses in praise of the ‘saguna’ Devi. This is the land where, as per the Mahabharat, Yudhishthira — when he reached heaven with a dog, after losing his four brothers and wife on the way — saw Duryodhan enjoying the riches up there. In this timeless Sanatan order, Ravan can be venerated for his superhuman achievements and yet his Icarus-like fall will be celebrated as a cautionary tale of what happens when ego gets the better of intellect.

Ravan is not an evil incarnate. He is one of us. Just like Ram. Isn’t that the crux of Vedanta? But then for Bollywood to understand and appreciate this, it has to detoxify itself. Till then it would be a story of missed opportunities and failed endeavours.

The author is Opinion Editor, Firstpost and News18. He tweets from @Utpal_Kumar1. Views expressed are personal.

Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.