Indian Judiciary: Courting Mythology

If The Times of India on May 22 is to be believed, a judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court has quietly re-written India’s millennia-old history. And, but for a solitary piece in the TOI, India is yet to take note of it.

Justice Rajive Bhalla, according to TOI On May 22, “recently” observed that “Maharishi Valmiki was not a dacoit before turning into a sage and writing the Ramayana”. The learned judge had no concrete proof – either a birth certificate or an ancient police FIR – so he based his observation on a research by a Punjab University scholar. Why was no proof submitted before him? The judge reportedly said that “actual facts appear to be lost in the mists of antiquity”.

The TOI correspondent also says about the nature of research by the scholar which became the judge’s basis for his observation: “The judge stated the salient features of the research, saying that “from Vedic literature up to 9th century AD, there is no reference as such that Maharishi Valmiki led a life of a dacoit or highwayman.” It was also stated that in his own work ‘Ramayana’, Valmiki is called Bhagwan, Muni, Rishi and Maharishi and no reference of his highwaymanship is available there.”

How did Valmiki’s past become the current topic for judicial discourse? The TOI tells us: “Justice Bhalla was hearing an appeal by a national television channel, asking the court to quash an FIR filed against it in Jalandhar for airing a serial that raised a question about Valmiki being a dacoit before he turned into a sage.” Understandably, I think, the protest was filed a member of the Valmiki community.

Here are two interesting reactions posted at the end of the TOI report:

Phadnis, Mumbai: “Courts have no business to pass Judgments on such issues. This is not a matter of Law. Whether the belief about Valmiki is correct or not is another matter. Many parts of the Ramayana or Mahabharata are controversial. Are the Courts going to Rule on such matters?”

M. Pankaj, New Delhi: “A mythology mixes facts, fiction, reality and divinity all to express the author's ideals and views. It cannot be ascertained or adjudged one way or another. Indeed media should be responsible, but religious believers should also not be over sensitive or angry since it shows the lack of their inner-confidence in their own belief. Focus on the substance…not on the superficial or what others say ...”

Since when has mythology come to be questioned in courts? Anything can happen in India. Remember, how the proposed Sethusamudram Project – envisaging a navigable sea route around the Indian peninsula passing through the Sri Lankan strait – was mired in controversy with the rightist Bharatiya Janata Party and dumb Hindu fanatics moving the courts saying the project would destroy a bridge – Rama Setu – apparently built by monkeys to help Rama – the protagonist of the Hindu epic Ramayana – to cross over into Sri Lanka to free his wife, Sita, from the clutches of the villain-king, Ravana.

That was in 2007. The then Congress government had submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India, with reports of the Archaeological Survey of India as appendices, that the existence of Rama was questionable and therefore not germane to the Sethusamudram Project. But imagine the power of the faithful! The government of India, foreseeing political oblivion if it did not bow before the protestors, subsequently withdrew that affidavit.

There are similarties in both cases:

1. In the Valmiki case, the defendants say they went by mythology while portraying Valmiki’s dacoit past. Justice Bhalla, despite his curt observation, leaves himself an escape valve by saying that “actual facts appear to be lost in the mists of antiquity”.
2. In the Sethusamudram case, the government says there is no “scientific” evidence of the fabled Ram Setu and yet withdraws its report. The Supreme Court order curtly asks for continuation of the Project in the interim, but orders that “the Ram Setu should not be touched”.

The similarity is that both the courts, despite their clear observations, seem hesitant to actually and directly challenge mythology and popular belief. What if?...the doubt lingers in their honourable minds.

These cases suggest that the mosaic of sanity covering the Indian judiciary, however thinly, is beginning to crack. This can only spell disaster for the country’s future for the following reasons:

1. The Indian judiciary’s sense of justice deems that heresay is no evidence. Now it becomes the judiciary’s responsibility whether mythology and belief fall under the category of heresay or not. If not, the above observations by the two courts are unjustified.
2. A judicial case is fought on the basis of facts. Facts, as I know them, are supposed to be tangible evidences which can be physically examined for verification. In the Valmiki case, the court ruling is based on a researcher’s evidence which contains no tangible proof other than claiming that there are no references of Valmiki’s dacoit past found in ancient Hindu/Indian literature. I do not know if the researcher has added a disclaimer that the literature she has gone through is all that exists and there is no possibility of other, yet unknown, literature existing. In short, there is no way of claiming that mere absence of the said reference in literature is clear, unequivocal proof that the reference never existed at all. There is a question of reasonable doubt here. So, is the researcher’s evidence an incontrovertible ‘fact’ in judicial terms? I think not. Similarly, in the Sethusamudram case, the court only asks the government not to disturb the Ram Setu, without giving any reasons. Does this mean that the court, as the case continues, thinks it will come across evidence that will prove the Hindus right and the Archaeological Survey of India wrong? The doubt lingers.

However, with the Indian courts not shying away from pronouncing on things mythological, I want ruling on the following:

It is generally believed – mind the word, ‘believed’ – that Valmiki belonged for the Kirata Bhil Adivasi, a tribal caste. It is this belief that brings together members of the caste and similar castes under the umbrella of the entire Valmiki community in India (and in Pakistan!)Now, there is another ‘belief’ that, as stated in Wikipedia, Valmiki re-incarnated himself as a Brahmin in the 15th century. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsidas)

The Wikipedia says: “Tulsidas is regarded as an incarnation of the great sage Valmiki. In Bhavishyottar Purana, Lord Shiva tells Parvati how Valmiki got a boon from Hanuman to sing the glories of Lord Rama in vernacular language in the Kali Yuga. This prophecy of Lord Shiva materialised on the Shraavan Shukla Saptami, Vikrami Samvat 1554 when Valmiki reincarnated as Tulsidas.

“Valmikistulasidasaha Kalou Devi Bhavishayati; Ramachanadrakathaametaam Bhashabhadhdhaan Karishyatihi. (Bhavishyottar Purana, Pratisarga Parva, 4.20).

“Nabhadas, a contemporary of Tulsidas and a great devotee, also describes Tulsidas as incarnation of Valmiki in his work Bhaktmaal. Even the Ramanandi sect (Tulsidas belonged to this sect) firmly believes that it was Valmiki himself who incarnated as Tulsidas in the Kali Yuga.”

If I believe all this to be true, then I will come to certain conclusions:

1. Valmiki should no longer be considered a tribal, but a Brahmin.
2. This means the Valmiki caste grouping falls under the Brahmin category.
3. This means the community now has all rights to all Brahmin rites.
4. This means the community can no longer avail of benefits the government offers to tribal communities in terms of reservation and other social benefits.

Now, suppose I move the courts to certify these conclusions on the basis of evidence available in Wikipedia, will I win my case? Going by the precedents, I should.

If not, do I have the right to move the courts, again, to nullify every social, cultural and political custom that exists in the geographical region called India and which is based on the tenets of Hinduism on the ground that Hinduism is not a religion, is a collection of beliefs and there is no evidence, especially written, of its history?

Won’t I be taken for a fool?

I rest my case.

Note: No disrespect to the Valmikis