Skip to main content

Loyalty: The Silent Strength of the Ramayana

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:

Ayodhya: Kingdom of Sorrows

Bharata: The Ascetic King

Chitrakoot: The Antithesis of Ayodhya

Dharma and Destiny

Exile and the Kingdom

Friendship in Kishkindha

Golden Deer: Illusions

Hanuman: Zenith of Devotion

Ikshvaku: Mythos versus Logos

Jatayu: The Winged Warrior

Karma versus Fatalism

  

Comments

  1. I appreciate the level of effort you did to talk on such a serious topic in such a beautiful and interesting way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'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.

      Delete
  2. 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?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hari Om
    Your '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

    ReplyDelete
  4. How 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 !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 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.

      Delete
  5. you mentioned many great examples for loyalty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ah, 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.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Going against someone, dissent, is something I'd opt for too where the choice is between good and bad, welfare and harm...

      Delete
  7. Gods 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!

    All the best Sir.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Adventures of Toto as a comic strip

  'The Adventures of Toto' is an amusing story by Ruskin Bond. It is prescribed as a lesson in CBSE's English course for class 9. Maggie asked her students to do a project on some of the lessons and Femi George's work is what I would like to present here. Femi converted the story into a beautiful comic strip. Her work will speak for itself and let me present it below.  Femi George Student of Carmel Public School, Vazhakulam, Kerala Similar post: The Little Girl

The Little Girl

The Little Girl is a short story by Katherine Mansfield given in the class 9 English course of NCERT. Maggie gave an assignment to her students based on the story and one of her students, Athena Baby Sabu, presented a brilliant job. She converted the story into a delightful comic strip. Mansfield tells the story of Kezia who is the eponymous little girl. Kezia is scared of her father who wields a lot of control on the entire family. She is punished severely for an unwitting mistake which makes her even more scared of her father. Her grandmother is fond of her and is her emotional succour. The grandmother is away from home one day with Kezia's mother who is hospitalised. Kezia gets her usual nightmare and is terrified. There is no one at home to console her except her father from whom she does not expect any consolation. But the father rises to the occasion and lets the little girl sleep beside him that night. She rests her head on her father's chest and can feel his heart...

India in Modi-Trap

That’s like harnessing a telescope to a Vedic chant and expecting the stars to spin closer. Illustration by Gemini AI A friend forwarded a WhatsApp message written by K Sahadevan, Malayalam writer and social activist. The central theme is a concern for science education and research in India. The writer bemoans the fact that in India science is in a prison conjured up by Narendra Modi. The message shocked me. I hadn’t been aware of many things mentioned therein. Modi is making use of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan’s Centre for Study and Research in Indology for his nefarious purposes projected as efforts to “preserve and promote classical Indian knowledge systems [IKS]” which include Sanskrit, Ayurveda, Jyotisha (astrology), literature, philosophy, and ancient sciences and technology. The objective is to integrate science with spirituality and cultural values. That’s like harnessing a telescope to a Vedic chant and expecting the stars to spin closer. The IKS curricula have made umpteen r...

Two Women and Their Frustrations

Illustration by Gemini AI Nora and Millie are two unforgettable women in literature. Both are frustrated with their married life, though Nora’s frustration is a late experience. How they deal with their personal situations is worth a deep study. One redeems herself while the other destroys herself as well as her husband. Nora is the protagonist of Henrik Ibsen’s play, A Doll’s House , and Millie is her counterpart in Terence Rattigan’s play, The Browning Version . [The links take you to the respective text.] Personal frustration leads one to growth into an enlightened selfhood while it embitters the other. Nora’s story is emancipatory and Millie’s is destructive. Nora questions patriarchal oppression and liberates herself from it with equanimity, while Millie is trapped in a meaningless relationship. Since I have summarised these plays in earlier posts, now I’m moving on to a discussion on the enlightening contrasts between these two characters. If you’re interested in the plot ...

The Real Enemies of India

People in general are inclined to pass the blame on to others whatever the fault.  For example, we Indians love to blame the British for their alleged ‘divide-and-rule’ policy.  Did the British really divide India into Hindus and Muslims or did the Indians do it themselves?  Was there any unified entity called India in the first place before the British unified it? Having raised those questions, I’m going to commit a further sacrilege of quoting a British journalist-cum-historian.  In his magnum opus, India: a History , John Keay says that the “stock accusations of a wider Machiavellian intent to ‘divide and rule’ and to ‘stir up Hindu-Muslim animosity’” levelled against the British Raj made little sense when the freedom struggle was going on in India because there really was no unified India until the British unified it politically.  Communal divisions existed in India despite the political unification.  In fact, they existed even before the Briti...