Lord Ram is back in the courts. Some-one tried to sue him for domestic violence in the Treta Yug, and in return his followers have sued the complainant for defamation this week. Some of his other followers are readying to sue elderly Indian politicians for demolishing his home in Ayodhya while razing the Babri Masjid in 1992. Of course we know how busy our courts are, so we may have to wait a millennium or two to get the verdicts on all these, but that would pass in just a blink of the Lord’s eye.
Pardon? You think trying to sue Lord Ram is absurd? Well, yes, it would have been absurd earlier, but not any more. You see, times have changed. We have now dragged Lord Ram from his celestial plane down to our own rather mundane level, and given him a clear identity as a resident of Uttar Pradesh. The Allahabad High Court verdict of 2010 made him a historical figure — when Ram Lalla, the infant god, won the court battle for property at Ayodhya.
As a historical figure he was no longer the Ram of the pluralistic Hindu cultural tradition who could be imagined and re-imagined differently by his many devotees — a god who was born in countless ways, as Tulsidas put it. He was now confined to being Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajaman, born in Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya, a long-term litigant in the property battle that he won in 2010.
In Indian law, a Hindu deity can be recognised as a legal person with their own rights and duties, their own worldly possessions and their right to sue or be sued. Given this, it is not absurd that Sri Ram is sued for domestic violence.
Last week, advocate Thakur Chandan Singh, a proud Hindu from Sitamarhi, the birthplace of Sita in Bihar, filed a case against Lord Ram and Lakshman for cruelty towards Sita. How could Ram, he asked, send his pregnant queen off to a forest full of wild beasts? It was a grave injustice towards Sita Devi, the perfect, devoted wife who had voluntarily taken on many hardships for 14 years simply to be with Ram when he had been exiled.
How could Ram banish her — knowing she was innocent — simply because some spies said a washerman cast aspersions on her character? “I am in court,” he said, “begging for justice for Sita.” He believes that if Sita gets justice, it will set an example that could change the attitude of Indian men and help in significantly lessening gender injustice.
Sadly, though, the court couldn’t figure out how to deal with this case. Who, asked the court, should be punished for such an ancient incident? And who were the petitioner’s witnesses? Also, on which exact date did Ram banish Sita? Since the lawyer seemed unsure of his replies to these queries, the case was quickly dismissed.
Which is prudent. Who wants to open the Pandora’s box of the many flagrant injustices that our gods have carried out against other gods or lesser beings? It’s best to let bygones be bygones.
Take Ram himself. Can one really rectify the wrong he did to Sita? No. But “justice for Sita” could simply mean making it socially and culturally acceptable to admit that Ram the Maryada Purushottam was morally wrong in exiling Sita to the forest. Apart from being completely heartless — especially since she was also pregnant at the time and particularly vulnerable alone in the wilderness.
Merely accepting that this was not what a good king would do — that the demands of morality should be prioritised over the pragmatic demands of managing the masses and their vicious tongues — would go a long way in changing unacceptable social attitudes, especially towards women.
But if Ram is used to further the cause of gender justice, could the cause of dalits be far behind?
Have we forgotten how King Ram went in search of the low caste ascetic who was so deep in his austere penance that the gods were worried? Well Ram found Shambuka and as soon as the ascetic, in his upside down yogic posture, had exclaimed happiness at seeing Ram and told him that he was doing all this to get a place in heaven though he was born a shudra, Ram swiftly cut Shambuka’s head off. The gods were delighted that the heavens were safe from this low-caste man.
And Ram was happy that his subjects would not suffer terrible misfortunes due to this atrocious arrogance of a shudra. So soon we may have someone file a case for justice for Shambuka under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Then there may be justice for Bali, and so on. No, allowing this case seeking justice for Sita would be a problem.
Instead, it is best to nip such thoughts in the bud. So there have been three cases slapped against advocate Thakur Chandan Singh for defamation and for offending Hindus.
These have been carefully sorted out and sent off to other courts. If the court dismisses a case against Lord Ram for lack of evidence, can it genuinely take up a case of Lord Ram’s defamation? Would depend on the politics of the day, I guess.
Which brings us to the case that is about to be filed also involving Ram. Twenty-three years after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha is readying to file a case against L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others who were present when the Masjid was demolished in 1992. Ram Lalla lived right there, they say, under the domes of the mosque destroyed. And so in razing the mosque the karsevaks and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders had also in effect razed a temple.
This was not in the interest of Hindus and the Hindu Mahasabha was set on getting justice for Ram and his followers. They would also push for a Ram temple, they said, and a mosque to make up for both the destroyed temple and the mosque. And would include Muslims in their planning. This had nothing to do with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Ram temple.
As you know, once you get embroiled in court cases in India, you cannot get out quick and clean. And our dear Ram, praise the Lord, is no exception. Not anymore. Not after the Allahabad high court made him a UPite.
