Is there any specific rationale behind
the differing number of years of exile undertaken by Rama and Pandavas is a
question I have often heard right from my childhood. The most common answer was
the stipulation of 7 years beyond which if a person doesn’t return he/ she can
be assumed to be lost forever or kind of ex-communicated. A woman whose husband
did not show up for 7 years can treat his absence as lost forever and seek remarriage.
Perhaps the former Justice Katju can throw more
light on this feature that is part of Indian penal code for divorce cases.
If the person makes appearance after 7 years,
certain rites were to be performed for taking the person back into the fold.
Based on this rationale the first meeting with the bridegroom
–a stranger until then – is done in a temple where the families make friendship
with each other in the presence of God. This
was done for the first time acquaintance and also for renewed acquaintances that
were away for more than 7 years. Based on this the elders used to say that twice
that duration was suggested by Kaikeyi to
completely keep Rama ex-communicated.
This explanation doesn’t fit with the reunion
with Rama after 14 years in Nandigrama in the
outskirts of the city with no report of rituals of taking him back into the
community. This also doesn’t fit with the exile period of the Pandavas. And there is a third instance too – of 35
years in the curse of Gandhari to Krishna. This makes
me go through the contexts of the texts where the time period is stipulated. Needless
to say it turns out to be rewarding.
Rama’s exile of 14 years.
The idea of 14 year exile is planted by Manthara with the justification that within that
period Bharata can get intimate association in the
hearts of the people and get stabilized in his kingdom.(VR: 2-9-21) Having laid his roots
within the 14 year period, Bharata can stay in power
for the remaining period also- even after Rama comes back. (VR: 2-9-31). By the time Rama returns,
Bharata would have established his roots firmly by making many friends and drawing
people to his side (VR: 2-9-34) All
these imply that a 14 year period is needed to cause an influence to endear oneself to people and
to erase the memory of the one who was away. It would be difficult for one
to make an impact after being away from sight for 14 long years.
In the course of this sermon Manthara
doesn’t fail to remind Kaikeyi of an old tussle Kaikeyi
had with Kausalya that is likely to be paid back by Kausalya if her son
ascends the throne. (VR: 2-8-37)
This would cause Kaikeyi and Bharata servile to
Kausalya and Rama (VR: 2-8-10 &11)
It must be mentioned here that Rama
recounted similar kind of ill-treatment to siblings and their families by the
king and his family as a prevailing norm in those days, in the context of accepting
Vibhishana in his fold. (VR: 6-18-10 & 14) It was perhaps for reasons that younger
siblings cannot thrive under the crowned elder brother, Janaka’s younger
brother, Kushadvaja too made his home very far
away in the west in a moat in the river Ikshumati (Swat)
(VR:1-70-2)
Having said all these, why 14 years is a
question that becomes decipherable from Bharat’s first reaction on
knowing that Rama had left for the forest.
When Kaikeyi informed Bharata that Rama
wearing long narrow pieces of bark went to the forest followed by Lakshmana and
Sita (VR: 2-72-42) Bharata feared
whether Rama was sent on exile for any unrighteous act. (VR: 2-72-44) This prompted him to ask,
“Has not Rama indeed
stolen the wealth of some Brahmana?” (VR: 2-72-45)
This is in line with what Manu Smruti says for stealing
the gold of a Brahman that,
“He who desires to remove by austerities the guilt of
stealing the gold (of a Brahmana), shall perform the penance (prescribed) for
the slayer of a Brahmana, (living) in a forest
and dressed in (garments) made of bark.” (11- 102)
The punishment for slayer of a Brahma is
exile to forest as ascetic for 12 years, says Manu Smruti in the same chapter.
“For his purification the slayer of a Brahmana shall make
a hut in the forest and dwell (in it) during twelve
years, subsisting on alms and making the skull of a dead man his flag.”
(11-73)
Rama was asked by Kaikeyi to lead the
life of an ascetic with matted hair, covered with a hide, and living beyond
pleasure and pain in the forest. This is same as what Manu Smruti has
prescribed for one who either killed a Brahmana or stole his gold. Bharata wondered the whether Rama
had stolen the wealth of a Brahma thereby indicating that the nature of exile
and duration was in consonance with this clause of Manu. It is 12 years
in Manu Smruti, but 14 years for Rama, perhaps adding
one year each as sandhi before and after the 12 year rigorous exiled life of an
ascetic.
The stipulation of living like an
ascetic is repeated at several places in Valmiki Ramayana. While breaking the
news of his exile to his mother Kausalya, Rama says that he is going to “live in a solitary (vijane) forest like
a sage for fourteen years, leaving off meat and living with roots, fruits and
honey”.(VR:2-20-29 & 31)
At the time of taking leave of all, Rama
asks for “shovel and a basket” (VR: 2-37-5) the two things needed by
him in his life as an ascetic to subsist on roots and fruits.
Kaikeyi had no qualms in sending Sita
along with him dressed in wooden bark, so that ensures that Sita cannot play a
spoilsport to her plans, by drawing people’s sympathy and affection towards her
that can work to Rama’s favour when he comes back.
Another probable thought in her mind
could be that by the time Rama returns he would have completed 25 years of married life, with the ascetic life in
exile ensuring that he would remain childless for that
long. By the time he comes back, Bharat’s progeny would be in place and old
enough to ensure continuity of Bharata’s lineage.
The solitary life deprives Rama of
developing any coterie that could be of help to him on his return to claim the
throne. The 14 year long ascetic life as a couple would make them conditioned
to such life even after returning to Ayodhya. They may not be able to get back
to the city and royal life. This is not possible in 7 year exile. Therefore Kaikeyi
(Manthara) had chosen 14 year period.
So we can say that the first issue
raised by Bharata on the cause of exile (stealing the wealth of a Brahman)
offers a clarity on why
the insistence on the life of an ascetic for 14 long years.
But Bharata doesn’t stop with that; he
continues to mention 2 more offences that invite the kind of exile that Rama
was made to undertake.
They are (1) harm done to either rich or
poor virtuous (apaapa / अपाप) person
(2) Desiring the wife of another.
It seems these three (including killing
a Brahman or stealing the wealth of a Brahman) invited exile of the kind Rama
was made to undertake. Valmiki
Ramayana itself becomes the pramana for the 14 year exile – originally derived
from 12 year exile of the same kind given by Manu Smruti. This
revelation helps in deciphering the 12+1 year exile of the Pandavas.
Pandavas’ exile of 13 years.
The Pandavas were ordained to undergo a straight 12 year exile of the same kind that Rama underwent (ascetic life with barks and hides in the solitude of
the forest) with the 13th year (incognito) acting as a buffer to enable the
Kauravas pick them out and push them back to another round of exile. The 12
year exile has one relevance as far as Manu Smruti is concerned and two other relevances
as per Bharata’s version in Valmiki Ramayana.
With no scope of harm to a Brahmin in
the events that unfolded, we can deduce that the other
two causes cited by Bharata must be examined to understand the stipulation
of 12 year period of exile.
In the first instance of losing the dice
game, Draupadi raises the legality of her status as the
wife of the five Pandavas. Her status as wife of five brothers was
against the norm of the day as known from frequent derisions thrown at her. Notwithstanding
that her status was approved by her mother in law, it remains questionable if it was approved by the ethics of the then society. Since the tenets of Dharma
are very subtle for us to understand, I am left with pointing out what could be her status as
wives of other four if she is accepted as won in the dice game as a property of
the eldest Pandava. This attracts the third
point in Bharata’s narration for causes for the exile. I am leaving this to the reader to ponder over and not want to elaborate it here.
After Draupadi and the Pandavas were let
off, they were once again called back to play the dice game. It was then the
12+1 year exile condition was made. The winner could take up all the wealth of
the other which will be returned if the loser successfully completed 13 year
exile. The 12 year exile being the core component here, I am led to link the
other cause given by the Bharata, that of harm done to rich or poor virtuous
person.
It begins from the time before the
Pandavas were born. Pandu relinquished the throne in favour
of his elder brother Dhritarashtra and left to the forest where the five
sons were born. On their return to the country troubles had started. What would be the stance of the Kauravas who had legally inherited the
kingdom from their father that was legally given by the father of the Pandavas?
When they were not willing to and not
bound to part with any part of the kingdom, the ceding away of the territory to
the Pandavas however barren it may be, under coercion and persuasion by the elders
would be seen by them as injustice meted out to them. From this angle, the Kaurava-side
contention will be that of losing their wealth for no fault of theirs. This is
the other cause given by Bharata for exile which must have been an accepted
norm of the day.
When the Kauravas could not subdue the
Pandavas by other means, they must have felt justified in 12 year exile demand
in the dice game, by virtue of legal heirs to the kingdom. The way the elders had kept quiet through all these goes
to show that the elders were not able to take contrary stance with reference to
this clause on exile.
The bottom-line for the topic of this
blog is that the 12 year exile was prompted by any of the last two causes
mentioned by Bharata in Valmiki Ramayana. Much like Kaikeyi, the Kauravas had intended to isolate the Pandavas while enabling themsleves strengthen friendship with as many kingdoms as possible in their absence. They penetrated the friends of Pandavas and got the brother of Krishna (Balarama) speak for their side. They even maintained friendly relations with the maternal uncle (Shalya) of Nakula and Sahadeva.
Unfortunately for them, the Pandavas too had a huge network or friends and relatives by the time they left on exile. They managed all the networking and contacts in their absence - something expected to be non-existent in favour of Rama when Kaikeyi devised her plan.
Gandhari’s curse of destruction on the 36th
year.
The
following is produced from my upcoming book on the Date of Mahabharata war (wherein
I have defended the traditional date 35 years before Kali Yuga started /
Krishna left the world)
(Should
not be reproduced without my consent)
“On seeing the death of her children and
all relatives in the war Gandhari vented out her frustration at Krishna that he
(Krishna) after causing the slaughter of his kinsmen would perish in the
wilderness on the 36th year. On the 36th
year a huge carnage did take place wiping out the Krishna-clan.
The number 36 has a special relevance
for the welfare of one’s progeny. A 36-year sacrifice (sattra) was in vogue
during Mahabharata times. It is known from Pancavimsa Brahmana that the descendants of Sakti had conducted 36 year
sattra. By the mention of Gauriviti as one who did the satttra , Sakti is identified as the father of Parasara whose son was Vyasa.
It is further said in the Brahmana text that the one who performs this sattra gets rulership and also ten strong
sons. Without doubt this sattra
must have been popular with the Kauravas, the Pandavas and the Vrishinis.
As biological descendants of Vyasa, the Kuru kings could have performed the sattra. Perhaps
the Kauravas could not complete the 36 year long sattra or else they could have
won the war, retained rulership and children. It is doubtful the Pandavas had
completed the sattra in view of the exile they had to undertake. Only the
Vrishinis had survived the war and were expected to prosper more in the years
after the war. The Vrishnis headed by Krishna were very
clever in having chosen to support both the warring sides. Whichever side wins the war, the
Vrishnis would bring home the advantages of the winner.
Gandhari’s anger naturally turned
towards Krishna who she accused as not having worked enough to avert the
slaughter of the Kuru-s. The Kauravas lost their progeny, so did the Pandavas
by the time the war ended, but only the Vrishnis survived! The Vrishnis were
already known for wealth creation and didn’t mind relocating to newer terrains
(Dvaraka) to safeguard their wealth, works and resources. Their clan continued to be intact after the
war, unlike the Kuru clan which suffered heavy losses. Gandhari’s
anger was such that the new 36 year sattra that was likely to be initiated by
the Vrishnis after the war was over should collapse at the penultimate hour,
thereby wiping out their progeny and rulership.
This gives rise to the presumption that
the Kauravas failed to complete the 36 year sattra and lost in the last year of
the Sattra. This caused Gandhari to cast a similar doom on Vrishnis whom she
thought would initiate the Sattra for their welfare. It is not known if the
sattra was done by the Vrishnis, but their end came in the 36th year just
before the Sun entered Aries with all the planets gathered around it.”
