‘Indian epics have to be seen in Indian terms, not Western terms’

"The left wing and the feminists attack you if you say good things about Ram. The right wing attacks if you say bad things about Ram. There is no escape." How do you express an opinion about the Ramayana without offending someone? Amid all the noise and bluster, it takes a Devdutt Pattanaik to remind us why the Ramayana is one of the greatest stories ever told. Pattanaik’s Sita: An Illustrated Re-Telling of the Ramayana is a delightful read that takes you back to the core of the epic and celebrates the spirit of its varied folk and regional versions. In an exclusive interview with, the doctor-turned-mythologist explains why Sita shouldn’t be portrayed as weak and helpless, and why no narrative captures the Indian mind like the Ramayana does. Excerpts: How many versions of the Ramayana have you read? Which is your personal favourite? I have read around 10 in detail and around 30 in abridged form, all English translations though, besides around 100 essays and commentaries. Each one is a favorite as they bring something new to the table. I approach it through a mythologist’s lens and not as a reader of literature.

What inspired you to attempt a re-telling of Sita's story? It is not Sita’s story. It is a retelling of the Ramayana, which is the story of Sita and Ram. I saw right-wing versions focussing on Ram. I saw feminist versions focussing on Sita. I did not see any version that drew attention to both Sita and Ram. I presented the story by placing Sita in the forefront, hence the title. But is not just her story. It is everyone's story. It's no longer easy to re-tell or even mention the names of characters in the Ramayana without someone somewhere getting offended. Just last month, filmmaker Sanjay Leela Bhansali was forced to change the name of his film. While writing this story, were you forced to self-censor your thoughts and ideas? The left wing and the feminists attack you if you say good things about Ram. The right wing attacks if you say bad things about Ram. There is no escape. But the Ramayana needs to be told – it is the narrative that captures the Indian mind in a way no other narrative does. And the Ramayana gives you the strength to stand up to people who try to gag you, claiming they stand for fairness and justice or tradition.

In your view, how did a tale that's gone through centuries of reinterpretation and fluidity become the subject of such rigidity? All tales are essentially interpretations. As we read a text, our mind interprets it. When we retell it, the audience interprets it again. To assume there is a ‘real’ text is a delusion. Rigidity comes when we value objectivity over subjectivity – it is the price we pay for being ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’. It strips us of empathy as we seek ‘the’ truth and reject ‘their’ truth. Do you think Ramanand Sagar's televised version of the Ramayana changed people's perception of the epic? It reaffirmed many commonly held beliefs of the people. And in a way bound India with a single narrative.

You speak disparagingly of feminist interpretations of the Ramayana that ignore Ram's fidelity and love for Sita. What would you tell young women confused by the bad press that this particular epic gets for its treatment of Sita? I don’t speak disparagingly of anyone. I simply point out to all narratives - feminist or traditional or political - that strategically choose to tell incomplete stories for a particular agenda. The epic speaks of men who never find happiness after they physically abuse a woman: After cutting Surpanakha’s nose, the sons of Dashratha face nothing but crisis and tragedy. This is also what the Ramayana is about. But no one tells the tale this way, not even feminists. Why? When Ram is asked to leave the palace by his father, he does so stoically. But when Sita suddenly finds herself abandoned, she is always shown as breaking down. Why? Why do writers, feminists included, insist in portraying Sita as weak and helpless? Why can’t a woman be stoic? Why can she not take agency from within, rather than seek agency from without? She is a Goddess, is she not? And why do we not stop to wonder why the man who banished her not remarry, despite social pressure? Clearly something is being communicated, something that defies conventional and quick and convenient logic. Yes, it is easy to create a victim of Sita and a villain of Ram. But then why did the ancients worship Ram, and why is Ram always said to be incomplete without Sita, the woman he himself abandoned? Why women, men too need to ponder on the nuances of this epic, discover the dark side of rules and the triumph of love and faith against all odds.

In your book, however, Sita is less of a victim and more of a sage who prefers the freedom that the forest offers her to the rules and traditions of the palace. "A jungle is preferable to such an intolerant society." Why do you think this view is rarely heard?

Honestly because most of us take cues from Western academicians and we force fit our epics using Greek and biblical narrative templates.

There was a time when The Ramayana was seen in racial and colonial terms because that was the discourse of Orientalists.

Now, The Ramayana is seen in terms of oppression/oppressed because of the victim/saviour complex that is the dominant discourse in American academia and funding agencies.

We want to see Ram and Krishna as heroes, or saviors, but they are Gods who walk on earth, avatars functioning as per context, an idea that makes no sense in European or American literature.

Remember, we still translate the word yagna as ‘sacrifice’ because European scholars in the 19th century translated it so, without ever having seen or conducted the ritual.

Indian epics have to be seen in Indian terms, not Western terms. If I read Shakespeare or The Bible or The Koran or even Marx or Hegel using the lens of Vedanta, it will emerge rather warped.

Poets like Kerala's Kumaran Asan have also highlighted the caste bias in the Ramayana with reference to Shambuka's killing. You've written that every society has its rules and hierarchy, and that revolution comes slow in India: But do you think such an explanation would work with the very impatient, young Indian who's still fighting for an egalitarian society? Wouldn't it be seen as an apologist's view? If you look hard enough, every epic and every literature has one kind of bias or another. To assume there is a literature out there without bias is a delusion. We have romanticised revolution without realizing that revolutions simply create new hierarchies. The agricultural revolution destroyed the tribal communities and the industrial revolution destroyed farming communities. The Protestant Revolution of Europe did not create an egalitarian society: it created a new world order of bankers and slave-owners in America. The French Revolution did not stop the French from colonizing Africa. And there are many feminists out there who are very homophobic. The very concept of ‘revolution’ comes from cultures that believe in permanence. India is not such a culture – we have always believed the world keeps changing. Nothing is static or permanent, not even the caste system or gender relations. But this is not good enough for the ‘impatient revolutionary’ who wants change in his/her terms in his/her own pace. Revolutionaries tend to have no patience with patience, no faith in faith. They are eager to dismiss those who do not think like them as apologists. Thus the champion of the oppressed becomes the oppressor.

There's a line in your book attributed to Ram: "(Unlike plants and animals) Humans need to judge, for we need to feel good about ourselves. That is why we create stories full of heroes and villains, victims and martyrs". And so it has been with the Ramayana. To many people, Ravana and Soorpanaka are the wronged ones. You write that rakshasas are made frightening so that we dehumanise them - just like civilised nations do even today to justify warfare. What is your take on Ravana and his motives? Ravana is described as a scholar of the Vedas, not Ram. Does that make him wise or simply knowledgeable? Ram is the son of a king who renounces his kingdom when asked to do and shows no desire to reclaim it by force. Ravana is the son of a sage who wants to be king and he does so by kicking out Kubera from Lanka. In other words, Ram gives his brothers his kingdom while Ravana takes his kingdom from his brother. Ravana locates his honour in his sister and so when she is mutilated, he feels HE has been insulted. Rather than punishing the men who did it, he decides to abduct ‘their’ woman, in other words, the symbol of their honor. He does not touch her while she is held captive we are told because either he fears the curse of women he raped before, or the powers of the chaste Sita. He lets his brothers die, his subjects die, his sons die, and his city burn, but refuses to let Sita go. These are the data points we have. I don’t think it demands too much complex interpretation as to what kind of a man the poets imagined Ravana to be. To make Ravana the victim rather than the villain is I feel a case of what is called in psychology ‘Stockholm syndrome’ where abductees start sympathizing with the abductors. And remember, my views on Ravana must not be used to stereotype all rakshasas. Just as Hanuman’s character must not be used to stereotype all vanaras.

How would you react to criticism that there is very little space for Sita and her thoughts in your book? A large chunk of the book is devoted to other characters. Smile. Clearly the critics are not as generous as my Sita would be. You're a trained medical doctor. What drove you to the world of mythology and literature? Hobby. How long did it take for you to research and complete this book? Six months extended over 17 years.