The Valmiki Ramayana

by Amish Tripathi

  Till a certain period of history, all Sanskrit works were in poetry or verse, not in prose. The Vedangas are limbs or auxiliaries and the six Vedangas are shiksha,14 chhanda,15 vyakarana,16 nirukta,17 jyotisha18 and kalpa.19 These are needed to understand not just the Vedas, but also Sanskrit works. Chhanda is one of these. Chhanda can be translated as metre and means something that is pleasing and delightful. Chhanda shastra is the study of metres or prosody. Sanskrit poetry wasn’t about what we tend to identify as poetry today, the act of rhyming. Chhanda begins with the concept of akshara, akin to, but not exactly identical with, the English concept of syllable, that is, part of a word with a single vowel sound. Other than possessing a single vowel sound, an akshara must not begin with a vowel. Aksharas can be hrasva or laghu—light or L—and guru—heavy or G. Simply stated, with a short vowel, the akshara is L and with a long vowel, the akshara is G. There are some additional conditions, but we needn’t get into those. Every verse consists of four padas, the word pada meaning one quarter. Depending on how many aksharas there are in a pada and the distribution of those aksharas into L and G, there were a variety of metres. Depending on the subject and the mood, the poet consciously chose a metre. Analysing in this way, there were more than 1300 different metres. One of the most popular was anushtubh. This figures prominently in the Valmiki Ramayana, the Mahabharata and the Puranas. The anushtubh structure meant eight aksharas in each pada, with a total of thirty-two aksharas. In addition, for anushtubh, in every pada, the fifth akshara would have to be L and the sixth akshara would have to be G. In classical Sanskrit literature, conditions were also applied to the seventh akshara, but such refinements came later. For that first verse, the decomposition runs as follows: (1) L L L G L G L G; (2) L G L G L G L G; (3) L L G G L G G L; (4) G G L L L G G L. (1) ma ni sha da pra tish tham; (2) tva ma ga mah shash vati sa mah; (3) yat kroun cha mi thu na de ka; (4) ma va dhi ka ma mo hi tam. It is not that Valmiki only used anushtubh. There are actually sixteen different metres in the Valmiki Ramayana.

  It is impossible to capture the beauty of chhanda in an English translation. One can attempt to do a translation in verse, but it will fail to convey the beauty. If the original text is poetry, one starts with an initial question. Should one attempt a translation in verse or in prose? This translation is based on the premise that the translation should be as close as possible to the original Sanskrit text. One should not take liberties with the text. This translation is therefore almost a word-to-word rendering. If one sits down with the original Sanskrit, there will be almost a perfect match. In the process, deliberately so, the English is not as smooth as it might have been, had one taken more liberties, and this is a conscious decision. Had one attempted a translation in verse, one would perforce have had to take more liberties. Hence, the choice of prose is also a deliberate decision. As composers, there is quite a contrast between Valmiki and Vedavyasa. Vedavyasa focuses on people and incidents. Rarely does the Mahabharata attempt to describe nature, even if those sections are on geography. In contrast, Valmiki’s descriptions of nature are lyrical and superlative, similar to Kalidasa. A translation can never hope to transmit that flavour. There is no substitute to reading the original Sanskrit, more so for the Valmiki Ramayana than for the Mahabharata.

  Which occurred earlier, the incidents of the Ramayana or the Mahabharata? Which was composed earlier, the Ramayana or the Mahabharata? The Ramayana incidents occurred in treta yuga, the Mahabharata incidents in dvapara yuga. Rama was an earlier avatara, Krishna a later one. Hence, the obvious deduction is that the Ramayana incidents predated those of the Mahabharata—an inference also bolstered by the genealogy and astrological arguments mentioned earlier. However, and not just for the sake of being perverse, consider the following. Geographically, the incidents of the Mahabharata mostly occur along an east–west axis, along either side of what used to be called Uttarapath, the northern road, more familiar as Grand Trunk Road or National Highway (NH) 1 and 2. The incidents of the Ramayana often occur along a north–south axis, along what used to be called Dakshinapath, the southern road. Sanjeev Sanyal20 has made the point that while Uttarapath remained stable over time, the Dakshinapath during Rama’s time was different from the subsequent Dakshinapath, with the latter more like today’s NH 44. To return to the point, the geographical terrain of the Mahabharata was restricted to the northern parts of the country, with the south rarely mentioned. The Aryan invasion theory has been discredited because of a multitude of reasons, but myths and perceptions that have lasted for decades are difficult to dispel. However, regardless of the Aryan invasion theory, the Ramayana reveals a familiarity with the geography of the southern parts of the country that the Mahabharata does not. The fighting in the Mahabharata, in the Kurukshetra War, is cruder and less refined. In the Ramayana, bears and apes may have fought using trees and boulders, but humans did not. A human did not tear apart another human’s chest and drink blood. The urbanization depicted in the Ramayana is rarely found in the Mahabharata. We have cited these counter-arguments to make a simple point. Which incident occurred earlier and which text was composed earlier are distinct questions. They should not be confused. Even if the Ramayana incidents occurred before the incidents of the Mahabharata, that doesn’t automatically mean the Ramayana was composed before the Mahabharata. The Rama story occurs in the Mahabharata, known as the ‘Ramopakhyana’ section. There is no such reference to the Mahabharata incidents in the Ramayana. This is the main reason for arguing that the Ramayana was composed before the Mahabharata.

  The relationship between the ‘Ramopakhyana’ and the Valmiki Ramayana is also of scholarly interest. Which was earlier? Did one borrow from the other, or did both have a common origin? That need not concern us. What should be stressed is the obvious—the Valmiki Ramayana wasn’t composed at a single point in time and there is a difference between the original composition and the present text, as given to us say in the Critical Edition. If bears and apes fought with the help of trees and boulders, and Angada suddenly kills someone with a weapon, that part is probably a later composition, with the composer having deviated from the original template. If a verse is in anushtubh, but deviates from the L–G pattern, this may have been a conscious decision, but in all probability, reflects the inferior skills of a subsequent poet. If we take the Critical text as it stands, while there are no direct references to the incidents of the Mahabharata, there are plenty of indirect allusions. There are shlokas reminiscent of the Bhagavatgita. When Bharata comes to Rama to inform him about Dasharatha’s death, Rama asks him about the welfare of the kingdom, reminiscent of similar questions asked by Narada to Yudhishthira. In the Valmiki Ramayana, there are references to kings of the lunar dynasty (Yayati) and incidents (Ilvala and Vatapi) that are only described in the Mahabharata. The evidence may be circumstantial and speculative, but it is the following. It is as if the later composers knew about the Mahabharata incidents and the text, but consciously avoided any direct references.

  Why is another translation of the Valmiki Ramayana needed? Surely, there are plenty floating around. That’s not quite true. Indeed, there are several translations of the Valmiki Ramayana, including some recent ones, but they are abridged. In any act of abridgement, some sections are omitted or summarized. Abridged translations, no matter how good they are, are not quite a substitute for unabridged translations, which bring in the nuances too. To the best of my knowledge, the list of unabridged translations of the Valmiki Ramayana is the following: (1) Ralph T.H. Griffith;21 (2) Manmatha Nath Dutt;22 (3) Hari Prasad Shastri;23 (4) Desiraju Hanumanta Rao and K.M.K. Murthy;24 and (5) Robert P. Goldman.25 Given the timelines, the Goldman translation is the only one based on the Critical Edition. Having translated the Mahabharata,26 it was natural to translate the Valmiki Ramayana. The intention was to do a translation that was popular in style. That meant a conscious decision to avoid the use of diacritical marks, as would have been the case had one used IAST (International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration). If diacritical marks a
re not going to be used, there may be problems rendering names, proper and geographic. We have sought to make the English renderings as phonetic as is possible. Thus, we use ‘Goutama’ to refer to the sage of that name—although others have often referred to him elsewhere as ‘Gautama’. We have chosen Goutama on the logic that if Gomati is not Gamati, why should Goutama be rendered as Gautama? There remains the question of what one does with vowel sounds. How does one differentiate the short sound from the long? Should Rama be written as Raama and Sita as Seeta? That seemed to be too artificial and contrary to popular usage. On rare occasions, this does cause a problem, with a danger of confusion between the ape Taara and his daughter Taaraa, Vali’s wife. Such occasions are however rare and we have explained them. However, there are also instances where we have deviated from popular usage. Hanumat is a case in point, where Hanuman seemed to be too contrary to grammatical principles. There are some words that defy translation, dharma is an example. Hence, we have not even tried to translate such words. The Goldman translation is academic in style. This translation’s style is more popular. Therefore, there is no attempt to overburden the reader with extensive notes. However, a straight translation may not be self-explanatory. Hence, we have put in footnotes, just enough to explain, without stretching the translation.

  As with the Mahabharata, the Valmiki Ramayana is a text about dharma. Dharma means several different things—the dharma of the four varnas and the four ashramas, the classes and stages of life; the governance template of raja dharma, the duty of kings; principles of good conduct, sadachara; and the pursuit of objectives of human existence, purushartha—dharma, artha and kama. As with the Mahabharata, the Valmiki Ramayana is a smriti text. It has a human origin and composer, it is not a shruti text. Smriti texts are society and context specific. We should not try to judge and evaluate individuals and actions on the basis of today’s value judgements. In addition, if the span of composition was one thousand years, from 500 BCE to 500 CE, those value judgements also change. The later composers and interpreters may have had problems with what the earlier composers authored. A case in point is when Sita is being abducted by Ravana. At a certain point in time, men and women universally wore an upper garment and a lower one. When she is being abducted through the sky, Sita casts aside and throws down not just her ornaments, but her upper garment too. As this translation will illustrate, this caused problems for subsequent composers and interpreters.

  To return to the notion of dharma—transcending all those collective templates of dharma—there is one that is individual in nature. Regardless of those collective templates, an individual has to decide what the right course of action is and there is no universal answer as to what is right and what is wrong. There are always contrary pulls of dharma, with two notions of dharma pulling in different directions. It is not immediately obvious which is superior. Given the trade-offs, an individual makes a choice and suffers the consequences. Why is there an impression that these individual conflicts of dharma are more manifest in the Mahabharata than in the Ramayana?

  The answer probably lies in the nature of these two texts. What is the difference between a novel and a long story, even when both have multiple protagonists? The difference between a novel and a long story is probably not one of length. A novel seeks to present the views of all protagonists. Thus, the Mahabharata is a bit like a novel, in so far as that trait is concerned. A long story does not seek to look at incidents and actions from the point of view of every protagonist. It is concerned with the perspective of one primary character, to the exclusion of others.

  If this distinction is accepted, the Valmiki Ramayana has the characteristics of a long story. It is Ramayana. Therefore, it is primarily from Rama’s point of view. We aren’t told what Bharata or Lakshmana thought, or for that matter, Urmila, Mandavi or Shrutakirti. There is little that is from Sita’s point of view too. That leads to the impression that the Mahabharata contains more about individual conflicts of dharma. For the Valmiki Ramayana, from Rama’s point of view, the conflicts of dharma aren’t innumerable. On that exile to the forest, why did he take Sita and Lakshmana along with him? Was Shurpanakha’s disfigurement warranted? Why did he unfairly kill Vali? Why did he make Sita go through tests of purity, not once, but twice? Why did he unfairly kill Shambuka? Why did he banish Lakshmana? At one level, one can argue these are decisions by a personified divinity and therefore, mere humans cannot comprehend and judge the motives. At another level, the unhappiness with Rama’s decisions led to the composition of alternative versions of the Ramayana. Note that Sita’s questions about dharma remained unanswered. If you are going to the forest as an ascetic, why have you got weapons with you? If the rakshasas27 are causing injuries to hermits, punishing the rakshasas is Bharata’s job, now that he is the king. Why are you dabbling in this? Note also Rama’s justification at the time of Sita’s first test. It wasn’t about what others would think, that justification came later. The initial harsh words reflected his own questions about Sita’s purity. Thus, Rama’s conflicts over dharma also exist. It is just that in the Valmiki Ramayana, it is about one individual alone.

  In conclusion, this translation is an attempt to get readers interested in reading the unabridged Valmiki Ramayana. Having read abridged versions, and there is no competition with those, to appreciate the nuances better, one should read the unabridged. And, to appreciate the beauty of the poetry, one should then be motivated to read the text in Sanskrit. A translation is only a bridge and an unsatisfactory one at that.

  The Valmiki Ramayana Volume 1

  THE VALMIKI RAMAYANA VOLUME 1

  Translated by Bibek Debroy

  PENGUIN BOOKS

  Contents

  Bala Kanda

  Ayodhya Kanda

  Footnotes

  Chapter 1(1)

  Chapter 1(2)

  Chapter 1(3)

  Chapter 1(4)

  Chapter 1(5)

  Chapter 1(6)

  Chapter 1(7)

  Chapter 1(8)

  Chapter 1(9)

  Chapter 1(10)

  Chapter 1(11)

  Chapter 1(12)

  Chapter 1(13)

  Chapter 1(14)

  Chapter 1(15)

  Chapter 1(16)

  Chapter 1(17)

  Chapter 1(18)

  Chapter 1(19)

  Chapter 1(20)

  Chapter 1(21)

  Chapter 1(22)

  Chapter 1(23)

  Chapter 1(24)

  Chapter 1(25)

  Chapter 1(26)

  Chapter 1(27)

  Chapter 1(28)

  Chapter 1(29)

  Chapter 1(30)

  Chapter 1(31)

  Chapter 1(32)

  Chapter 1(33)

  Chapter 1(34)

  Chapter 1(35)

  Chapter 1(36)

  Chapter 1(37)

  Chapter 1(38)

  Chapter 1(39)

  Chapter 1(40)

  Chapter 1(41)

  Chapter 1(42)

  Chapter 1(43)

  Chapter 1(44)

  Chapter 1(45)

  Chapter 1(46)

  Chapter 1(47)

  Chapter 1(48)

  Chapter 1(49)

  Chapter 1(50)

  Chapter 1(51)

  Chapter 1(52)

  Chapter 1(53)

  Chapter 1(54)

  Chapter 1(55)

  Chapter 1(56)

  Chapter 1(57)

  Chapter 1(58)

  Chapter 1(59)

  Chapter 1(60)

  Chapter 1(61)

  Chapter 1(62)

  Chapter 1(63)

  Chapter 1(64)

  Chapter 1(65)

  Chapter 1(66)

  Chapter 1(67)

  Chapter 1(68)

  Chapter 1(69)

  Chapter 1(70)

  Chapter 1(71)

  Chapter 1(72)

  Chapter 1(73)

  Chapter 1(74)

  Chapter 1(75)

  Chapter 1(76) />
  Chapter 2(1)

  Chapter 2(2)

  Chapter 2(3)

  Chapter 2(4)

  Chapter 2(5)

  Chapter 2(6)

  Chapter 2(7)

  Chapter 2(8)

  Chapter 2(9)

  Chapter 2(11)

  Chapter 2(12)

  Chapter 2(13)

  Chapter 2(14)

  Chapter 2(15)

  Chapter 2(16)

  Chapter 2(17)

  Chapter 2(18)

  Chapter 2(19)

  Chapter 2(20)

  Chapter 2(21)

  Chapter 2(22)

  Chapter 2(23)

  Chapter 2(24)

  Chapter 2(26)