India is the first country in the whole world to initiate the concept of recording past happenings and appropriately named the record as itihasa (bfr g vkl), which literally meant ?it was like this?. Ramayana and Mahabharata are the two great works named as itihasa in which the glorious history of the two great dynasties viz. the solar dynasty (in Ramayana) and the lunar dynasty (in Mahabharata) have been recorded along with the detailed picture of the contemporary Indian socio-political milieu. Thus Ramayana owns the honour of the first recorded history in the wide world.
As Mahabharata is posterior to Ramayana, it comes second in the sequence. That Ramayana is a narration of the past happenings is clearly mentioned in the Ramayana itself?,oesrr~ Ikqjko`?kek[;kue~ (Ramayana, Uttara Kanda 111.25) (It is a narration of the past happenings). Not only the Ramayana but the whole literary gamut of India has accepted Ramayana and Mahabharata as historical works and not as mere literary fictions.
India did not learn recording history from the Britishers after their arrival in India. Those who ventilate such views are yet to be acquainted with India and Indian traditions because India possessed elaborate ?written history? much before the Britishers knew what ?writing? meant.
The art of recording history in India was rich, laudable and unique in nature. Mere chronicling of facts was not considered history in this land.
Writing history had a greater and higher aim than just keeping a record of facts. It was aimed at teaching practical lessons to the masses by narrating the past good or bad deeds of famous and infamous characters of the society. It was written in a manner, which would be beneficial for the society and be a torchbearer of the same. Therefore, the definition of history was?
/kekZFkZdkeeks{kk.kkeqins?klefUore~A
iwoZo`?ka dFkk;qDrfefrgkla Ikzp{krsAA
(Vishnudharmottarapuranam 3.15.1) That book which is a narration of past happenings written in story form and is associated with advices for attaining the four aims of life viz. dharma, artha, kama and moksha is called itihasa.
Therefore, history in Indian tradition was always composed in a poetic style to make it a piece of readable literary marvel and it was never an insipid and boring presentation of lack-lusture facts.
Those who are ignorant of this Indian tradition of writing history measure the great historical works of India with the twentieth century rod of measurement and adjudge that India had no written history. Besides Ramayana and Mahabharata there are other historical literatures like Rajatarangini of Kalhana, etc., which also certify that India had a rich tradition of history writing.
As stated earlier, Ramayana is the narration of the glorious deeds of the kings of solar dynasty. But the main story is based on the extraordinary character of Rama, one of the most famous descendants of the dynasty. His saga is sung by Valmiki in Ramayana and subsequently the same is sung by hundreds of literary works in the country and abroad. In Ramayana every happening of Rama'slife has been described with minute details. The specific geographical points which are associated with his valourous deeds have also been mentioned with exactitude in the book.
Rama was a paragon of virtue and valour. His life was a saga of goodness and of grand adventures. He did things, which normal people fail to even imagine. His heroic deeds and supreme sacrifices surpass all heights of comparison. One of his unthinkable adventurous deeds, as Valmiki mentions, is the construction of the bridge which connected two countries viz. India and Sri Lanka. The bridge was designed and constructed by Nala, one of his army officers who was also an architect and an engineer. Nala was the son or Vishwakarma, the celestial architect.
With the help of thousands of highly competent workers the project was completed in merely five days. The chief materials used for the bridge were stones, boulders and huge logs of wood. In the first stage huge trunks of trees like Sal, mango, Karnikara, Arjuna, Saptaparna, Nim, etc. were put to prepare the base for the bridge. Large boulders were then spread on the wooden bed and the bridge was made. Logs and boulders, Valmiki mentions, were carried to the spot by the help of machines (ioZrka?p leqRikV; ;U=S% ifjogfUr p?Ramayana Yuddha Kanda 22.59)
The total length of the bridge, as described by Valmiki was one hundred yojana which was built in five phases. In the first day a length of fourteen yojana was built ? (d`rkfu ?Fkesuk?k ;kstukfu prqnZ?k?Yuddha Kanda 22.68). On the second day another twenty yojana was constructed (f}rh;su rFkSok?k ;kstukfu rq foa?kfr% & Yuddha Kanda 22. 69). Twenty one yojana was constructed on the third consecutive day.
?v?k r`rh;su rFkk ;kstukfu rq lkxjsA Rojek.kSeZgkdk;Sjsdfoa?kfrjso p AA ? Yuddha Kanda 22.70). On the fourth day the workers constructed another twenty two yojana ? ?prqFksZu rFkk pk?k }kfoa?kfrjFkkfi okA ;kstukfu egkosxS% d`rkfu RofjrSLrr%AA ? Yuddha Kanda 22.71). On the fifth day the last twenty three yojana was constructed ? ?i?pesu rFkk pk?k IyoxS% f{k?zdkfjfHk%A ;kstukfu =;ksfoa?kr~ lqosyef/kd`R; oSAA ? Yuddha Kanda 22. 71).
There was a gradual increase in the speed of work with every passing day which is a very natural practice with workers in any field. Whereas the length was one hundred yojana the breadth was ten yojana ? ?n?k ;kstufoLrh.kZa ?kr;kstuek;re~A nn`?kqnsZoxU/kokZ uylsrqa Lqknq”dje~AA ? Yuddha Kanda 22.76). The breadth of the bridge, thus, was one tenth of the length of the same. The available breadth-length ratio of the bridge present between India and Sri Lanka is roughly the same.
Even after mention of facts in such details in the ?undisputed recorded history? Ramayana, some Indians who lack minimum regards for their own tradition and culture have the unthinkable audacity to say that Rama is an imaginary character and so is the story of his constructing the bridge.
In fact such irresponsible and dishonouring statement deserves no discussion at all. Because, even refuting such statement attaches some importance on it. Only in order to acquaint them with their depth of ignorance a few points are discussed here.
Firstly, if both Rama and construction of the bridge were mere imaginations of Valmiki, is there any other literature available in India which certifies the existence of the bridge from time immemorial? Secondly, is there any mention in any ancient literature about the existence of a natural bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka? Thirdly, if the bridge was natural and was there when Valmiki wrote the Ramayana and therefore he ascribed its construction to his imaginary hero, Rama, why the same was not done by any other poet for his imaginary hero? In other words if it was a fiction of Valmiki'smind then why any other writer did not claim the credit of construction of the bridge for his own hero? For example, the writer of Mahabharata could have claimed that the bridge was constructed by his hero i.e. Krishna? Why did Vyasa, the writer of Mahabharata, also wrote that it was built by Rama? Why did every author of every literary work who mentioned about the bridge unhesitatingly say that it was built by Rama only! Lastly, if it was a natural bridge and was never constructed by any human, why this truth was never mentioned by any other writer in any other work? Why did every writer, every poet imagine one thing uniformally and ascribed the credit of construction of the bridge to the hero of Valmiki only?
Seeking an evidence of Rama'sexistence in India is like seeking an evidence of light'sexistence in the Sun.
Because of the Maculaean education policy and many other unpatriotic reasons on the part of the policy makers of India, Indians are deliberately kept ignorant about their own traditions and culture. As a result, most Indians are not aware of the fact that Ramayana is not a fiction but a recorded history of the land although ornamented with decorative poetic beauties. Had we understood Indian traditions we would not have thought of doubting the existence of Lord Rama.
(The writer can be contacted at indulatadas@yahoo.co.in)
Comments