The Credibility of Ramayana

           There has been a lot of fuss about this argument since long. But then a couple of years ago Sri Lanka was seen making tourism advertisements where they showcased some places which according to them were where some incidences from Ramayana took place. This outrageous exploit immediately instigated a thought in me... Do people really think it happened?

            I do not wish to deliberately invade the popular belief of all those orthodox Hindus, but what sane mind would believe that a man can have ten heads. Now they would say, he was not a man... he was a Rakshasa. What are Rakshasas really? They looked like men in all sense as per the tales. They satisfy all the criteria to be classified as men. The most possible explanation would be that they were a dark skinned race of humans. They must have been looked upon as lowly by the famous Aryan attitude of ancient North Indians. Or they must be imaginary.

            Again, it has always been told that the epic was written by Valmiki, himself a character in the tale. Now, why should one believe that this information is true when there are doubts on the credibility of the story itself? Do we even know whether any such person existed at all? Just because a book mentions that it was written by some John Smith doesn't prove that it was, especially when it is thousands of years old and possibly has undergone many modifications across generations. Some evidences suggest that the poem was composed through centuries.

            There are several other "flavors" of Ramayana... where the story is modified as per the community's own interests. For example, there is a Jain version of Ramayana that says Laxman was the one who killed Ravana and then Ram became a follower of Jainism. If such modifications are possible within centuries or possibly millennia, the credibility is obviously lost that the epic was composed by one person and it is an account of history. Above all, the epic never mentioned that it indeed is an account of what happened. It never gave an illusion of Ram being a God. He is mentioned everywhere in the story as a normal human being who always tried to be an ideal person, committed his fair share of mistakes in his life, did all humanly things possible. But now you would see around that big temples are devoted to him. People spend months tracing his journey across India just to gain his favor and to wash their sins away. Don't they understand that tracing a route in a story is not going to bring them any good? And don't they know that this time can be utilized for something productive which would indeed prove beneficial? Are they cleared of sins once they get their ablutions from Rama's sacred ponds?

            I don't prove a point here, nor am I trying to. It is just that somewhere down in my heart I feel uneasy looking at people who would not contemplate, but thoughtlessly believe that some story happened just because their parents told them so. There is no search for evidence before devoting to a God. There is no thought given before deciding to worship a God to verify that he is really a God and he was meant to be. Absolutely, the epic showcases a great diversity of characters, their thoughts, their meaning of life and their journey of life. And surely, Ram is a character with devotion, love and trust that no human can possibly be like. But still, the sad and ironic part is that a story is not being interpreted as it should be by the oldest culture known for its sensibility and sensuality.