 |
| Image by Google Gemini |
"Wherever you dwell, O Rama, that alone is my heaven. I do not desire Ayodhya, or even the bliss of Swarga, if I am not with you."
Many characters in the Ramayana could have said that.
Sita, Lakshmana, Hanuman… I have quoted Lakshmana’s speech to Rama when he
heard of the exile ordered by Dasharatha.
Loyalty is a central moral and
emotional pillar in the Ramayana. It appears in different dimensions – between
brothers, spouses, subjects and rulers, even between humans and animals. Loyalty
to a person does not mean blind following; it’s about love, trust, and
shared destiny. Lakshmana’s loyalty to Rama is perhaps the most shining
example. He could have lived in the comfort of the palace; but he chose to be
by Rama’s side in the travails of the forest. His loyalty is more than a duty;
it is love. Sita’s loyalty is tested in fire – literally as well as
symbolically. But she never sways. Hanuman’s loyalty is devotion (which was discussed earlier).
Rama is loyal to the principles
of truth and dharma. When Bharata comes to call him back to the palace after
Dasharatha’s death and Kaikeyi’s repentance, Rama refuses to return precisely
because of his loyalty to his vow. Bharata too is loyal to the principle of
raja dharma; he refuses the throne and rules the country as Rama’s regent. Rama
is the ideal king for Bharata and he is loyal to that ideal.
Can loyalty and dissent
walk hand in hand? The Ramayana has exemplary characters who were loyal though
they did dissent. Vibhishana is a complex example. A rakshasa by birth and
Ravana’s beloved brother, Vibhishana is in total disagreement with what Ravana
was doing to Sita. Eventually, he chooses to relinquish his loyalty to Ravana
in order to be loyal to truth and righteousness. Loyalty has its limits too: it
may not go hand in hand with dissent.
What makes Bharata disown the throne
that is offered to him is his loyalty to Rama. That loyalty makes him question and
resist his mother too. Later, after Dasharatha’s death, Bharata disagrees with
Rama’s decision to continue with the exile. Yet he remains loyal to Rama.
Loyalty and dissent go hand in hand.
Sita’s loyalty to Rama is highly
vocal. Unlike other Indian wives of the time (and for centuries and centuries),
she protests Rama’s intention to leave her behind when he goes into exile. She
convinces Rama that her duty as a wife is to accompany her husband even if that
means facing dangers. Her loyalty is unwavering in spite of occasional
dissents. Sita proves that loyalty can be dignified, questioning, and
self-aware.
Loyalty is not servitude, but
sincerity. Dissent is not betrayal, but bravery. Sometimes we may have to be
disloyal because righteousness is more important than loyalty to an individual.
I’m tempted to draw a lesson for our
own time. Is loyalty to your country the same as loyalty to the dominant
political party? Is dissent equal to treason? Are critics of the leaders
antinational people?
Characters such as Vibhishana,
Bharata, and Sita show us that true loyalty is not blind. True loyalty is
morally aware, critical, and brave. The Ramayana teaches us that loyalty to a
person or a party must never override loyalty to dharma, to truth, and to the
larger good of the country.
Loyalty is sacred, but only when it serves the greater good, not the greater power. Loyalty that takes one away from truth, justice, and compassion has no worth except in Ravana’s court.
PS. I’m
participating in #BlogchatterA2Z. This
series looks at the Ramayana from various angles.
Tomorrow: Mandodari: An Unsung Heroine
Previous Posts in this
series:
Chitrakoot: The Antithesis of Ayodhya
I have been reading the three blogs before this one. Each one of them deals with the subject taken with great clarity like this one. Jatayu's and Hanuman's loyalty, I believe, is superior to Lakshman's and Sita's to Rama and Rama's to Dharma.
ReplyDeleteThe former two are selfless and they repose complete faith in a stranger who is known for his righteousness.
I totalay agree with the dissent and loyalty going hand in hand. Especially, in today's scenario. People in general lack such wisdom. They are blindly worshipping the characters of Ramayana, not its true essence. In the first place, they should read the epic.
Jatayu's loyalty ended up in absolute self-sacrifice and Hanuman's was total self-surrender. So, yes, their loyalty rises above that of the others. Speaking about today's scenario, I wish people understood their religion, culture, epics, scriptures, etc better. As you imply, most of them don't even read any of these and pretend to know everything about them. Can one who really understood Rama go around converting Jai Sri Ram chant into a murderous call?
DeleteI appreciate the level of effort you did to talk on such a serious topic in such a beautiful and interesting way.
ReplyDeleteI'm a learner of this as I've said many times. That's why I put in much effort. It's more of a quest than labour.
DeleteHari Om
ReplyDeleteYour 'quest' is serving you well, dear blogpal! This is a beautiful collation of thought on the matter - and the current times comparison proving the worth of such epics: that they hold eternal message. Those who read and take example from the puranas only as a soap opera/melodrama are destined to live a soap opera/melodrama. Those who think loyalty means obeisance can only ever engender the dissent they would castigate. YAM xx
I'm happy that you say this.
DeleteHow rightfully you said that loyalty is not servitude. But with time I guess this notion has depreciated and now loyalty means bootlickers. Just reading scriptures or epics will not eradicate the foolishness happening everywhere in the name of religion. In my opinion, only when one reads it ( without being biased ) with the motif of self awareness and understanding, can a change happen. But is the current society ready for it ? I highly doubt !
ReplyDeleteThe society is never interested in reading, let alone reading scriptures and all. Religion is politics for them, identity, power, belonging... That's why things never change for the better.
Deleteyou mentioned many great examples for loyalty.
ReplyDeleteAh, loyalty. I think the problem is blind loyalty. Those who go along with someone without parsing the consequences. And, of course, it would depend on what the loyalty would entail. Sometimes it's more loyal to go against someone who is harming themselves to help protect them. Of course, they wouldn't see it that way.
ReplyDeleteGoing against someone, dissent, is something I'd opt for too where the choice is between good and bad, welfare and harm...
DeleteGods demand absolute loyalty and complete surrender. Over time, our culture began extending similar reverence to leaders, owners, relatives, countries, and political parties. In other words, leaders parties behave themselves as Gods. However, there’s a key difference: the loyalty we offer to gods or leaders is often unconditional, while the loyalty given to political parties is usually conditional. But the loyalty of Hanuman, Guha are beyond these! purely unconditional!
ReplyDeleteAll the best Sir.