Hindu festival of Ram Navami commemorates the birth of Lord Rama, Ayodhya’s legendary King and an avatar of Lord Vishnu according to Brahmanical scriptures.
Every year, on this occasion, politicians from major political spectrums of India pay tribute to Lord Rama who is termed as an ideal amongst men.
Interestingly however, the architect of India’s constitution, Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar completely rejected any belief in Lord Rama in his 22 vows against Hinduism.
Further, in his acclaimed book “Riddles of Hinduism“, he even called Lord Rama an unjust & oppressive ruler who subjugated Bahujan Indians (i.e. OBCs, STs and SCs who make over 85% of India’s population).
This article succinctly discusses Ambedkar’s views on Lord Rama as is reflected in his 22 vows against Hinduism and his noted book Riddles in Hinduism. Read this on till the end to learn more.
Ambedkar rejected the worship of Lord Rama
It may be noted at the outset that that Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar completely rejected any kind of faith or belief in the Hindu-Brahmanical religion, social order or way of life.
Additionally, he also asked his followers not to have any faith or belief in any of the Hindu-Brahmanical gods.
In his famous 22 vows against Hindu-Brahmanism, Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar unequivocally declared that he would have no faith in any Hindu gods like Ram or Krishna.
“I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu, and Maheshwara, nor shall I worship them. Similarly, I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna, who are believed to be incarnations of God, nor shall I worship them,” he vowed as he publicly renounced Hinduism on October 14th, 1956, and asked Dalits and Bahujan-backwards to do the same.
Also Read| What are the 22 Vows of Ambedkar against Hinduism?
Rama’s birth
In his acclaimed book “Riddles in Hinduism“, Dr. Ambedkar wrote that though Brahmanical scriptures claim that Ram was the son of King Dashrath of Ayodhya, he was not a naturally begotten son of Dashrath.
“King Dasharatha had three wives, Kausalya, Kaikeyi, and Sumitra, besides several hundred concubines, and yet he was childless for a long time and ardently desired a son as an heir to his throne.”
“Seeing that there was no hope of his begetting a son by any of his three wives, he decided to perform a Putreshti Yajna and called the sage Shrung at the sacrifice, who prepared pindas and gave the three wives of Dasharatha to eat them. After they ate the pindas three wives became pregnant and gave birth to sons.” writes Ambedkar.
Ambedkar says that “the suggestion that Ram was born from a pinda prepared by the sage Shrung is only an allegorical glass to cover the naked truth that he was begotten upon Kausalya by the sage Shrung although the two did not stand in the relationship of husband and wife“.
Thus, according to Dr. Ambedkar, Lord Ram was the “unnatural son of that Brahmin sage Shrung. As King Dashrath was impotent and urgently needed an heir for his throne, he got his wives impregnated by the Brahmin sage under the cover of some Putreshti Yajna ritual“.
Dr. Ambedkar says that “there are other incidents connected with the birth of Rama the unsavory character of which it will be difficult to deny“.
Ambedkar saw immorality around Ram
According to Dr. Ambedkar, “Rama’s Companions were also begotten through wholesale Fornication and Sexual Debauchery”.
Given below are the relevant excerpts from the book “Riddles in Hinduism”.
“Valmiki starts his Ramayana by emphasizing the fact that Rama is an Avatar of Vishnu and it is Vishnu who agreed to take birth as Rama and be the son of Dasharatha”.
“The God Brahma came to know of this and felt that in order that this Rama Avatar of Vishnu to be a complete success arrangement shall be made that Rama shall have powerful associates to help him and cooperate with him”.
“There were none such existing then. The Gods agreed to carry out the command of Brahma and engaged themselves in wholesale acts of fornication not only against the Apsaras, who were prostitutes and unmarried daughters of Yakshas and Nagas, but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Gandharvas, Kinnars and Vanaras, and produced the Vanaras, who became the associates of Rama.”
Dr. Ambedkar even claims that Goddess Sita who is generally considered the wife of Lord Rama was actually her sister.
Given below are some more relevant excerpts from his book-
“His marriage to Sita is not above comment. According to Buddha Ramayana, Sita was the sister of Rama, both were the children of Dasharatha. The Ramayana of Valmiki does not agree with the relationship mentioned in Buddha Ramayana.”
“According to Valmiki Sita was the daughter of the king Janaka of Videha and therefore not a sister of Rama.“
“This is not convincing for even according to Valmiki she is not the natural-born daughter of Janaka but a child found by a farmer in his field while plowing it and presented by him to king Janaka and brought up by Janaka.”
“It was therefore in a superficial sense that Sita could be said to be the daughter of Janaka.” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Incestuous Marriages
Dr. Ambedkar also gave references from Buddhist scriptures to substantiate his claim that Sita was the sister of Rama.
“The story in the Buddha Ramayana is natural and not inconsistent with the Aryan rules marriages between brothers and sisters were allowed] of marriage. If the story is true, then Rama’s marriage to Sita is not the ideal to be copied.”
“In another sense, Rama’s marriage was not an ideal marriage that could be copied. One of the virtues ascribed to Rama is that he was monogamous. It is difficult to understand how such a notion could have become common.“
“For it has no foundation in fact. Even Valmiki refers [Ayodhyakanda Sarga VIII sloka 12] to the many wives of Rama.“
“These were of course in addition to his many concubines. In this sense, he was the true son of his nominal father Dasharatha who had not only the three wives referred to above but many others.” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Murder of Bali
Dr. Ambedkar had been quite critical of the Brahmanical idealization of Ram’s character.
In this regard, Babasaheb has specifically pointed out the unjust and unfair manner in which Ram treated his wife Sita and the monkey king Bali of Kishkindha.
Speaking about the Bali incident, Ambedkar says that the “murder of Bali is the greatest blot on the character of Rama.”
“It was a crime that was thoroughly unprovoked, for Vali had no quarrel with Rama. It was a most cowardly act for Vali was unarmed. It was a planned and premeditated murder.”
“This occurred just after Ravana had kidnapped Sita. Rama and Laxman were wandering in search of her. Sugriva and Hanuman were wandering in search of friends who could help them to regain the throne from Vali.”
“The two parties met quite accidentally. After informing each other of their difficulties a compact was arrived upon between the two. It was agreed that Rama should help Sugriva to kill Vali and to establish him on the throne of Kishkindha.”
“On the part of Sugriva and Hanuman, it was agreed that they should help Rama to regain Sita.”
“To enable Rama to fulfill his part of the compact it was planned that Sugriva should wear a garland on his neck as to be easily distinguishable to Rama from Vali and that while the dual was going on Rama should conceal himself behind a tree and then shoot an arrow at Vali and kill him.”
“Accordingly a dual was arranged, Sugriva with a garland on his neck and while the dual was on, Rama standing behind a tree shot Vali with his arrow and opened the way for Sugriva to be the king of Kishkindha” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Cruelty toward Sita
Next, Dr. Ambedkar vehemently criticizes the way Ram treated his wife Sita after he deceitfully defeated King Ravan of Lanka by conspiring with Vibhishan, Ravan’s treacherous brother.
“The first thing he should have done after disposing of Ravana was to have gone to Sita. He does not do so. He finds more interest in the coronation than in Sita. Even when the coronation is over he does not go himself but sends Hanuman.“
“And what is the message he sends? He does not ask Hanuman to bring her. He asks him to inform her that he is hale and hearty. It is Sita who expresses to Hanuman her desire to see Rama. Rama does not go to Sita his own wife who was kidnapped and confined by Ravana for more than 10 months.“
“Sita is brought to him and what does Rama say to Sita when he sees her? It would be difficult to believe any man with ordinary human kindness could address his wife in such dire distress as Rama did to Sita when he met her in Lanka if there was not the direct authority of Valmiki”
Dr. Ambedkar specially mentions the way Ram addressed his wife Sita.
“This is how Rama addressed her [Yudhakanda Sarga 115 slokas 1-23.]: “I have got you as a prize in war after conquering my enemy your captor. I have recovered my honor and punished my enemy. People have witnessed my military prowess and I am glad my labors have been rewarded. I came here to kill Ravana and wash off the dishonor. I did not take this trouble for your sake.”
Talking about this, Dr. Ambedkar asks if there could be anything crueler than this conduct of Rama towards Sita.
“Ram does not stop there. He proceeded to tell Sita: “I suspect your conduct. You must have been spoiled by Ravana. Your very sight is revolting to me. On you daughter of Janaka, I allow you to go anywhere you like. I have nothing to do with you. I conquered you back and I am content for that was my object. I cannot think that Ravana would have failed to enjoy a woman as beautiful as you are.“
Ambedkar also recalled the mistreatment of Sita on her arrival in Ayodhya even after she proved her purity by jumping into the fire.
“And what does he do with her when he brings her back to Ayodhya. Of course, he became king and she became queen. But while Rama remained king, Sita ceased to be a queen very soon. This incident reflects great infamy upon Rama.
“It is recorded by Valmiki in his Ramayana that some days after the coronation of Rama and Sita as king and queen Sita conceived. Seeing that [she was pregnant some residents began to circulate] that she must have conceived from Ravana while she was in Lanka and [blamed] Rama for taking such a woman back as his wife.”
Ambedkar says that “on hearing this malicious gossip Ram was overwhelmed with a sense of disgrace but what is quite unnatural is the means he adopts of getting rid of this disgrace.”
“To get rid of this disgrace he takes the shortest cut and the swiftest means – namely to abandon her, a woman in a somewhat advanced state of pregnancy in a jungle, without friends, without provision, without even notice in a most treacherous manner.”
“There is no doubt that the idea of abandoning Sita was not sudden and had not occurred to Rama on the spur of the moment. He had made up his mind to abandon Sita as the easiest way of saving himself from public calumny without waiting to consider whether the way was fair or foul. The life of Sita simply did not count. What counted was his own personal name and fame” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
A weak and cowardly monarch
Talking about the abandonment of Sita by Rama on the basis of public gossip about her character, Ambedkar says that “some upper caste Hindus use this as a ground to prove that Rama was a democratic king, but others could equally well say that he was a weak and cowardly monarch.”
“Be that as it may that diabolical plan of saving his name and his fame he discloses to his brothers but not to Sita the only person who was affected by it and the only person who was entitled to have notice of it. But she is kept entirely in the dark. Rama keeps it away from Sita as a closely guarded secret and was waiting for an opportunity to put his plan into action.”
“Eventually, the cruel fate of Sita gives him the opportunity he was waiting for. Sita was abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle. Sita treats this as an honest promise by a loving husband. But what does Rama do? He thinks it is a good opportunity for carrying through with his plan of abandoning Sita.”
“Accordingly, he called his brothers to a secret conference and disclosed to them his determination to use his desire for Sita as an opportunity to carry out his plan of abandonment of Sita.” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
An unworthy father
Ambedkar says that “Sita was abandoned by Rama and left to die in a jungle and went for shelter in the Ashrama of Valmiki which was near about.”
“Valmiki gave her protection and kept her in his Ashram. There in course of time, Sita gave birth to twin sons, called Kusa and Lava.”
“The three lived with Valmiki. Valmiki brought up the boys and taught them to sing the Ramayana which he had composed. For 12 years the boys lived in the forest in the Ashrama of Valmiki not far from Ayodhya where Rama continued to rule.
“Never once in those 12 years, did this model husband and loving father care to inquire about what had happened to Sita whether she was living or whether she was dead. Sita later preferred to die rather than return to Rama who had behaved no better than a brute.”
“Such is the tragedy of Sita and the crime of Rama the God. Let me throw some searchlight on Rama the King. Rama is held out as an ideal King. But can that conclusion be said to be founded in fact?” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Unjust Administration
Dr. Ambedkar writes that “as a matter of fact Rama never functions, as a King. He was a nominal King. The administration as Valmiki states were entrusted to Bharata his brother.“
“He had freed himself from the cares and worries about his kingdom and his subjects. Valmiki has very minutely described [ Uttara Kanda Sarga 42 sloka 27] the daily life of Rama after he became King.”
“According to that account, the day was divided into two parts. Up to forenoon and afternoon. From morning to forenoon he was engaged in performing religious rites and ceremonies and offering devotion.”
“The afternoon he spent alternately in the company of Court jesters and in the Zenana. When he got tired of the Zenana he joined the company of jesters and when he got tired of jesters he went back to the Zenana [Uttara Kanda Sarga 43 sloka I].“
“Valmiki also gives a detailed description of how Rama spent his life in the Zenana. This Zenana was housed in a park called Ashoka Vana”. writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Ram’s Food, Drinks, and Pleasures
According to Dr. Ambedkar, the food according to Valmiki consisted of all kinds of delicious viands. They included flesh and fruits and liquor.
“Rama was not a teetotaller. He drank liquor copiously and Valmiki records that Rama saw to it that Sita joined with him in his drinking bouts (‘ibid. Sarga 42 Shloka 8).
From the description of the Zenana of Rama as given by Valmiki it was by no means a mean thing. There were Apsaras, Uraga and Kinnari accomplished in dancing and singing. There were other beautiful women brought from different parts.
Rama sat in the midst of these women drinking and dancing. They pleased Rama and Rama garlanded them. Valmiki calls Rama a ‘Prince among women’s men ‘. This was not a day’s affair. It was a regular course of his life.” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Murder of Sambuka, the Shudra
Dr. Ambedkar writes that “Rama never attended to public business. He never observed the ancient rule of Indian kings of hearing the wrongs of his subjects and attempting to redress them.”
“Only one occasion has been recorded by Valmiki when he personally heard the grievance of his subjects. But unfortunately, the occasion turned out to be a tragic one.”
“He took it upon himself to redress the wrong but in doing so committed the worst crime that history has ever recorded. The incident is known as the murder of Sambuka the Shudra.
It is said by Valmiki that in Rama’s reign there were no premature deaths in his kingdom. It happened, however, that a certain Brahman’s son died in premature death.”
“The bereaved father carried his body to the gate of the king’s palace, and placing it there, cried aloud and bitterly reproached Rama for the death of his son, saying that it must be the consequence of some sin committed within his realm and that the king himself was guilty if he did not punish it.”
“The wicked Brahmin finally threatened to end his life thereby sitting on dharna (hunger strike) against Rama unless his son was restored to life.”
“Rama thereupon consulted his council of eight learned Rishis and Narada amongst them told Rama that some Shudra among his subjects must have been performing Tapasya (ascetic exercises), and thereby going against Dharma (sacred law); for according to it the practice of Tapasya was proper to the twice-born alone, while the duty of the Shudras consisted only in the service of the twice-born.”
“Rama was thus convinced that it was the sin committed by a Shudra in transgressing Dharma in that manner, which was responsible for the death of the Brahmin boy. So, Rama mounted his aerial car and scoured the countryside for the culprit.”
“At last, in a wild region far away to the south, he espied a man practicing rigorous austerities of a certain kind.”
“He approached the man, and with no more ado than to enquire of him and inform himself that he was a Shudra, by the name Sambuka who was practicing Tapasya with a view to going to heaven in his own earthly person and without so much as a warning, expostulation or the like addressed to him, cut off his head.”
“And to and behold! that very moment the dead Brahman boy in distant Ayodhya began to breathe again.”
“Here in the wilds, the Gods rained flowers on the king from their joy at his having prevented a Shudra from gaining admission to their celestial abode through the power of the Tapasya which he had no right to perform.”
“They also appeared before Rama and congratulated him on his deed. In answer to his prayer to them to revive the dead Brahman boy lying at the palace gate in Ayodhya, they informed him that he had already come to life. They then departed.”
“Thence, Rama proceeded to the Ashrama, which was nearby to the sage Agastya, who commended the step he had taken with Sambuka and presented him with a divine bracelet. Rama then returned to his capital. Such is Rama.” writes Ambedkar in Riddles of Hinduism.
Lord Rama in 21st century India
According to Indian Express, notwithstading the glory or infmay or Lord Rama, India has also witnessed significant political upheavals in the name of Lord Rama over the last few decades.
In the last few decades, India has witnessed some of the worst anti-Muslim communal riots, killings, and massacres in the name of Lord Rama.
This communal frenzy reached a watershed moment in December 1992 when a medieval Mosque in Ayodhya was demolished by the upper-caste Brahmanical groups who claimed it to be located on the birthplace Lord Rama.
According to Ambedkarite and subaltern scholars, the masterminds, leaders & facilitators of this systematic and large scale communal violence in the name of Lord Rama were mostly Brahmanical and upper-caste Hindus and entities like RSS founded in 1925 by Keshav Baliram Hedgewar (a Brahmin); Vishwa Hindu Parishad founded in 1964 by MS Golwalkar, SS Apte and Swami Chinmayananda (all Brahmins); BJP with roots in Bharatiya Jana Sangh founded in 1951 by Syama Prasad Mukherjee (also a Brahmin).
“In terms of their overall population, these upper-caste Hindus are only a fringe minority but powerful enough to dominate the socio-political, economic and religious discourses in India“, says Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd, noted Bahujan Scholar.
Some social observers even claim that the current Brahmanical tactic of Muslim subjugation quite mirrors their past tactic of lower and backward class suppression and marginalization in ancient times.
जगतगुरु रामभद्राचार्य कह रहे है कि "गोस्वामी ने कहा है कि जो राम को नहीं भजता वो चमार है" वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल है #viral #castism pic.twitter.com/9xLztKNMSu
— Dalit Times | दलित टाइम्स (@DalitTime) January 8, 2024
As noted constitutional law scholar Rajeev Bhargava excellently puts it, “It [Brahmanism] is a sociopolitical ideology that encodes a memory of an ideal past and a vision of society in the future, one in which Brahmins occupy the highest place not only as exclusive guardians of a higher, spiritual realm but also as sole providers of wisdom on virtually every practical issue of this world. They possess superior knowledge of what a well-ordered society is and how a good state must be run. More importantly, their superior position in society and their superior knowledge stems from birth. This makes them naturally, intrinsically superior to all other humans, so superior that they form a separate species ( jati ) altogether. Nothing can challenge or alter this fact. No one becomes a Brahmin, but is born so. This sociopolitical ideology makes hierarchy necessary, rigid and irreversible. Brahmanism then is the most perfect form of conservatism, a status-quoist ideology par excellence, entirely suitable to elites who wish to perpetuate their social status, power and privilege. Paradoxically, this is the also the reason why it spread everywhere in India and beyond and why it endures: regardless of your religio-philosphical world view, if you are a privileged elite, you would find this ideology irresistible.”
Also Read| Bahujan, Mandal, and Kamandal Politics in India: Here is all you need to Know
Conclusion
In conclusion, Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar did not consider Lord Rama an ideal personality, just king, or deity.
He called Rama a criminal, weak, and cowardly monarch who suppressed Shudras to maintain the hegemony of the Brahminical classes.
According to his book “Riddles in Hinduism” Rama was neither a God nor the most ideal man as is often claimed by Brahmanical groups.
According to Ambedkar, Lord Rama if at all he existed, he was just one of the many unjust upper-caste Aryan kings of ancient India who suppressed and subjugated the native Bahujan communities, referred to as low and inferior by Hindu-Brahmanical scriptures.
Per Ambedkar, as Brahmins have an age-old habit of bestowing divinity on upper-caste Kshatriya kings, they did the same with Lord Rama and forced Bahujan-backward classes to worship him as their God. And with the passage of time this false deification of Lord Rama by elite Brahmanical classes became a part of larger Indian culture, ritual and tradition.
Following in the footsteps of Ambedkar, many Bahujan leaders, scholars, and intellectuals have also vociferously rejected Lord Rama and his deification.
Read more Subaltern Articles–
