Criticism of (non) Historicity of Rama content in Harvard Religion Prof. Diana Eck's 2012 book, India: A Sacred Geography

Last updated on 11th January 2015

This post refers to the following book: India: A Sacred Geography, by Harvard Prof. of Comparative Religion and Indian Studies, Diana Eck, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_L._Eck.
[Citation: Eck DL. India: A Sacred Geography. New York: Harmony, Random House; 2012., http://scholar.harvard.edu/dianaeck/publications/india-sacred-geography]

The extracts given below (in italics) from Eck's above book are from near the end of chapter 9, Following Rama: The Ramayana on the landscape of India.

R. K. Dasgupta, a historian from Calcutta University, writes "Researchers in ancient Indian history, in India and abroad, have established that the Rama legend is a part of Indian mythology, the character in Valmiki's great epic having no historical basis."

--- end Eck book extract ---

Ravi: On browsing the Internet I came across this link having the article by R.K. Dasgupta with the above quote, Ram as political tool, http://www.geocities.ws/khalid2277/aftab/rampolitical.html (also available at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FRIENDS_of_UP/conversations/messages/13). The bottom of the web page states, "The author, an eminent scholar is former Director, the National Library of India.  Collected from the editorial column of The Sunday Statesman dated 1st July 2001 ..." I also looked up wikipedia for R.K.Dasgputa historian and came up with this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabindra_Kumar_Das_Gupta, which states, "Rabindra Kumar Das Gupta (2 July 1915 – 3 February 2009) was a Bengali Indian scholar of Bengali and English literature and a social and cultural commentator." So, it seems that Prof. Diana Eck has mistakenly thought R.K.Dasgupta to have been a historian. The wiki page states that he was an academic in (the field of) English and that he had a stint with University of Calcutta in that capacity.

In the R.K.Dasgupta article, the paragraphs after the 'no historical basis' sentence given above, try to provide justification for the conclusion arrived at. Here's the first paragraph after the sentence:

The standard history of India, which is now valued both by the academic and the general readers, is Vincent A Smith’s The Oxford History of India (1920) revised by Sir Mortimer Wheeler, AL Basham, JB Harrison and Percival Spear (1958). In this work Ramayana is presented as “neither historical nor allegorical, but a poetic creation based on mythology”(p57) Hermann Jacobi (1850-1937), the German Indologist, who visited India twice is the first European to write one whole book on Ramayana – The Ramayana: History, Contents with a concordance of the printed recensions. (1893; Eng tr, SN Ghoshal, 1960). The work presents the Ramayana as a work based on mythology. In his History of Sanskrit Literature (1900) Arthur A. MacDonnell too affirms that the Ramayana “is based on Indian mythology”. EW Hopkins wrote his epic mythology (1915) to show that our two ancient epics draw their story from ours traditional legends.

--- end first paragraph after 'no historical basis' sentence ---

I think the historians mentioned above, with one historian's acquaintance with India highlighted by him having made two visits to India, have to be viewed as colonial-era historians with a bookish and Euro-centric view of history. Two visits to India by one of these historians is not really a credential for proper study of an ancient land like India, in my view. BTW some of the Britain and other parts of Europe based historians of the colonial era did not even visit India but were viewed as experts on India based on their study of Indian literature! Max Muller, whose portrayal of India seems to have been quite positive in that colonial age, is one of them - yes, he never visited India though he claims to have had many Indian (native) friends! From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_M%C3%BCller, "Though I have never been in India, I have many friends there, both among the civilians and among the natives, ..."

Now for the second and third paragraphs after the 'no historical basis' sentence

 We may now turn to our own scholars’ view of the Ramayana. In December 1975 the government of India and our Sahitya Academy organized an international seminar on the Ramayana, which was inaugurated on 08 /12/1975 and ended on 12/12/1975.The consensus on the nature of the material of the epic was that it was mythological .On 15/01/1976 Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee (1890-1977) who had already spoken at the international seminar gave an address on the subject again. Dr. Chatterjee third address on the Ramayana was given at the National Library, Kolkata, on 13/02/1976. His opinion on the historicity of the Ramayana is quoted by Anil Kumar Kanjilal in his introduction to Dr. Chatterjee’s unfinished work on The Ramayana: Its Character, Genesis, History, Expansion and Exodus (1978). Dr Chatterjee says about Ramayana “there is evidently no historical core below the surface – no scholar of India now thinks that Rama, the hero of Ramayana, was a historical person, who can be relegated to a particular period of time”. The motto of Dr. Chatterjee’s book on the Ramayana is a quotation from Rabindranath`s poem “Bhasa O Chhanda first published in Bharti in 1898.(Included in the third volume of “Rabindra Rachanavali” (1983,pp 1285-1288)
                        Toward the end of this poem Narada   tells Valmiki, “Sei satya ja rachibe tumi, / ghate ja ta sab satya nahe. / Kavi tava manobhumi/ Ramer janamsthan, Ayodhyar chey satya jena (whatever you compose will be true; that which actually happens is not all true. O poet your mind is the birth place of Rama and you must know that to be truer than Ayodhya) here the Bengali poet raises Rama beyond history if only to affirm that he is a  divine being. Valmiki’s poem of twenty-four thousand anushtuv verses and forty-eight thousand lines is not a historical tale; it is a revelation of a (c)elestial being .The poet indeed frees the Ramayana from the taint of historicity and for this alone he deserves the adoration of all worshipper of Rama.

--- end second and third paragraph after 'no historical basis' sentence ---

Ravi: The 1975 (Indian) Sahitya academy gave a consensus view that Rama was mythological. Well, that was a Sahitya (literary) academy view - not a history academy view. The person quoted, Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, was not a historian but a man of literature! From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suniti_Kumar_Chatterji: "Suniti Kumar Chatterji (Bengali: ...) (26 November 1890 – 29 May 1977) was an Indian linguist, educationist and litterateur." The poem of Rabindranath Tagore having Narada say something to Valmiki is not history but a poet's imagination. I am outraged by the sentence in R.K.Dasgupta's article extract above, "The poet indeed frees the Ramayana from the taint of historicity and for this alone he deserves the adoration of all worshipper(s) of Rama." Rabindranath Tagore was one of India's great poets and I too have enjoyed and been inspired by some of his poetry. As a poet, Tagore had the literary license to put some words in Narada's mouth, and he was entitled to his view that Rama is not historical. But taking that (Tagore's poem) as evidence/proof of Rama not being historical, and that Ramayana was supposedly freed from the taint of history, is completely unacceptable from a scientific or rational point of view, in my opinion.

That Prof. Diana Eck, one of the eminent (academic) scholars of Hinduism in the world today, from Harvard university, USA, thought R.K.Dasgupta was a historian, and further used only the above mentioned article of his, to inform her readers including, I am quite sure, academic students & scholars of Hinduism, about the historicity of Rama, is a sad state of affairs. I think it indicates that the view that Rama is established to be a non-historical/fictional figure has got deeply rooted in many top academics in the world, including India. [Please note that her book was published in 2012 and so is quite recent.]

What could be the basis for this view? Unfortunately, Prof. Diana Eck does not quote any meaningful basis for such a view. But then she is not a historian. I need to read some recent books by reputed historians that cover this topic to know the basis for such a view. I have read that historians mention some hundreds of versions of Ramayana across many parts of Asia. Fine, but that does not mean all versions are false and that all are simply the imagination of various poets! There could be a common kernel of real incidents and real characters including Rama which over centuries and millennia got distorted into hundreds of differing versions.

Another point could be lack of archaeological evidence about Rama. But that may simply be due to the large time gap of many millennia between Rama's period and today. Anyway, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Based on my current limited knowledge on this topic, I think a rational/logical stand would be that due to lack of strong evidence it cannot be established historically/scientifically that Rama was a real figure nor can it be established historically/scientifically that Rama was a non-historical/fictional figure.

A later extract from same chapter of Eck's book:

To say one thinks of Rama in mythic rather than historical terms does not diminish his importance, but amplifies it. It is to speak of a story that is profoundly important in Hindu culture, not because it factually happened in this place or that, but because it goes on taking place in the lives of people for whom it is meaningful and in the tales and travels of Hindu pilgrims. 

--- end Eck book extract ---

While I appreciate the effort of Prof. Eck to highlight the value of Ramayana to Hindus, I strongly disagree with the view that thinking of Rama in mythic terms amplifies his importance. Based on belief in my spiritual master's words about Rama, today I have deep faith that Rama was a real person and that the key events of Ramayana like Rama being exiled just before his scheduled coronation, Sita being kidnapped by Ravana, Rama killing Ravana and returning to Ayodhya with Sita and Lakshmana etc. are real events. Very importantly, the sterling character of Rama including his superhuman adherance to Dharma (righteous conduct) are real, making him a real ideal of Dharma and good character (Maryada Purushottama). This reality of Rama (for me) makes Rama a very powerful role model who I can deeply admire and even try to emulate to some small extent when it comes to adherence to Dharma. If instead, I viewed Rama as simply a poet or drama writer's imaginary/fictional character then I may not be so inspired by it. I think most countless devotees of Rama in India and other parts of the world, like me, view Rama as a real historical character which is what makes Rama a powerful icon/god to them.

For more about my spiritual master's words about Rama please see my blog post, Sathya Sai Baba on historicity of Rama and Krishna, https://ravisiyer.blogspot.com/2015/01/sathya-sai-on-historicity-of-rama-and.html. BTW some readers may not have belief in these words, and scientific historians cannot accept it as truth without supporting evidence - that's fine by me.

Eck continues to argue in a religiously enlightened way about the power of Ramayana even if it is a myth. [Please note that her arguments about Ramayana are mixed up with the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi (birthplace of Rama) controversy. I prefer to stay away from the Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi controversy and focus only on the historicity of Rama aspect.] I thought I could give a small extract which comes a few sentences after the above extract in Eck's book, to give readers an idea of this excellent writing of hers:

The legend of Rama, told in Valmiki's Ramayana and in many regional Ramayanas, is far too deeply and widely embedded in Indian consciousness to be either affirmed or destabilized by a bricks-and-mortar controversy in late-twentieth-century Ayodhya.

The issues raised here are critical and have to do with the very nature of religious and historical consciousness, and the relation of the power of myth to the so-called facts of history. How does one search for the "historical" figure of Rama, whose story is deeply embedded in the Indian imagination? This is the story of the prince who lost his kingdom on the eve of his coronation, who was sent into exile in the forest, who lost his beloved wife Sita, carried off by a rakshasa. Indeed, he lost everything but his fervent adherence to dharma, to righteousness. This myth has moved through many centuries and many communities. It has extended its influence throughout India and beyond India into wider Southeast Asia....Its power has never needed to be bolstered by the DNA of the archaeological or historical record.

--- end Eck book extract ---

Ravi: I think Eck should have added in her one-sentence capsule of Ramayana above, the killing of Ravana by Rama, rescuing Sita and going back triumphantly to Ayodhya. That is very important as it shows that eventually Rama, the great example of Dharma, won, thereby giving hope to countless devotees of Rama, over centuries and millennia, that they too may/will eventually win in the difficult and crisis periods of their lives, if they stick to Dharma like Rama did (and pray for dharmic success).

I tend to agree with Eck that Ramayana's "power has never needed to be bolstered by the DNA of the archaeological or historical record". But that was and is the case when Ramayana is not taught in schools as historically established to be a poet's imagination. [I believe that is the case in India, as of today.] The effort of some historians to establish that Rama is a non-historical/fictional figure through history scholarship articles may lead to school children being taught the same, which will surely have a negative impact on the power of the Ramayana over these school children. This negative impact may hold sway for the whole life of at least some of these school children.

Therefore I think it is essential that Hindus who believe that Rama was a real figure (as well as non-Hindus who subscribe to such a view) and who are interested in how history views Rama, should subject history scholarship which states that Rama has been established to be a non-historical/fictional figure to intense scientific/rational scrutiny (or contribute to such scrutiny in some way). This scrutiny, I am very sure, will expose scientific/rational flaws in such history scholarship. That, in turn, will change the way leading academics of fields that deal with Ramayana like Prof. Diana Eck (Prof. of Religion) view this matter.