Redefining Notions of Good and Evil

Alternate Perspectives in Anand Neelakantan's

Retellings of Ramayana and Mahabharata

“There’s no black and no white; only shades of grey”

          Epics are filled with the tales about winners. The heroes are always portrayed as righteous and ethical people. The villains on the other hand are often shown as cruel characters devoid of humanity and soft feelings. There is a clear divide among the characters as good or bad. There is no middle ground. But when we relate these epics to real life, we realize that it is quite different. In reality everyone has a good and bad side just like the two sides of a coin. Nothing is completely black or fully white. Its different shades of grey. Maybe in these epics, if we care enough to read between the lines, we would be able to see how the so called ‘villains’ had reasons for each of their actions just like the heroes.

This is exactly what Anand Neelakantan tries to do in his retellings of Ramayana and Mahabharata – ‘Asura’ and ‘Ajaya’ respectively. In Asura he tells the story from the point of view of Ravana the asura king. In Ajaya he narrates the incidents from Duryodhana’s (or rather Suyodhana) perspective. These narratives go against the usual representation from the victors’ side. Here we will analyze both these works and try to understand how the characters are presented in a different light, not going along with stereotypes.

About the Author

Anand Neelakantan is an Indian author and screenwriter. He has written 5 fiction books in English and one in Malayalam. He is an expert in Indian mythology on which all of his books are based. He has written screenplays for devotional TV serials. His first book ‘Asura: Tale of the Vanquished’ was a surprise bestseller. He is noted for his simple language and different perspectives which tends to side along with the suppressed and downtrodden characters.

‘Asura: Tale of the Vanquished’ follows the same story of the original epic. The most significant difference is that in this book Ravana is the hero and the author present the incidents from his viewpoint. He narrates how the Asuras are treated unfairly just because they belong to an unprivileged class. His retelling of Mahabharata on the other hand is in the form of two books. ‘Ajaya; The Roll of the Dice’ and ‘Ajaya: The Rise of Kali’. Here he justifies the Kauravas’ actions, establishing that they were the actual heroes. He takes apart each incident in the story and shows us how Pandavas caused the war through their devious actions. Thus, both these works differ from the usual mythological adaptations that reiterates the morality and righteousness of some characters while vilifying and demonizing others.

Ramayana vs ‘Asura’

Ramayana the word means ‘Rama’s journey’. From the title itself it is clear that it follows the story through Rama’s view. He is glorified throughout the text as he is the incarnation of Lord Vishnu. Ravana is at the same time shown as a demon without any virtues but only vices. As is normal even in today’s society, any kind of physical deformity is used to categorize that person as an inferior being. Ravana is said to have ten heads and twenty hands. He is also framed as a womanizer and abuser. This demonization must have been included in order to highlight the hero more. But it is gravely unfair to Ravana and his men.

Anand Neelakantan tries to resolve this issue by thinking from the Asura king’s shoes. He starts from the roots. The author begins from Ravana’s childhood spend in a dilapidated hut with his mother and siblings. His father was a brahmin who cared only about worshipping God. They had to fend for themselves. He along with Kumbhakaran would go to the palace belonging to their cousin Vaishravana. They were chased away mercilessly without even allowing them to collect fallen fruits from the garden. It is to escape from this poverty that they decide to perform tapas in order to please Lord Brahma and get their wishes granted. By revealing this story the author is trying to establish how a poverty ridden childhood could have shaped the adult Ravana into an overly ambitious person. There are many such instances along the story where the actual reasons behind Ravana’s flaws and shortcomings are explored.

Neelakantan also comes up with an explanation for the ten headed image. He says that the ten heads represent ten different human qualities. According to this theory Rama might be god but Ravana is the more perfect human. He is the incarnation of all the human qualities combined. Nine of the heads represent emotions like anger, pride, jealousy, happiness, sadness, fear, selfishness, passion and ambition. The tenth is the quality of intellect. His twenty hands represent extreme strength and power. Kumbhakaran, who is often portrayed as a good for nothing sleeping giant is actually a great warrior and loyal brother. The writer points out how even the goddess of knowledge tricks him into eternal passivity. These immoral tricks played by the heroes, the ‘devas’ are passed off as witty scenes in the original epic.

Neelakantan’s Ravana is not an ignorant fool who challenges Rama to fight him. He is an epitome of wisdom who knows that Rama’s purpose of life on Earth is to defeat him. He waits for that moment when he gains moksha with the Lord’s hands. Everything else he does is just following the course of action that fate has charted out for him. Even his kidnapping of Sita is such an action. He treats Sita like a sister in this version. The story about a lustful Ravana is an example of truth bent to suit the hero’s narrative. Ravana is presented in the original form where he is an unbeatable warrior, a true leader and a just ruler. His Lanka is the ideal world where everyone is equal and prosperous. He is also an ardent devotee of Lord Siva and a gifted musician. How such a tremendous character became a plain demonic Asura in folklore and popular culture is beyond imagination. That is what happens when only the victor’s tale is popularized.

Mahabharata vs ‘Ajaya’

If Ramayana was unfair towards one character and people associated with him, Mahabharata goes on to demonize a whole group of people. The majority is shown to be wicked and malicious to justify the actions of a small group of ‘heroes’. The discrimination starts with the names of the Kauravas. They are named Duryodhana, Dusshasana etc. The prefix ‘dur’ signifies a deep-rooted wickedness. Neelakantan calls them Suyodhana, Susshasana etc. as is right. He begins the correction of biased narrative by revealing their true names and identity.

During childhood the Kaurava brothers were weak and docile. But their cousins, the Pandavas were arrogant and strong. They would often chide and beat up Duryodhana and his brothers. The only support they had was their uncle Vidura. But he couldn’t do much to stop the Pandavas from their wicked actions. So this childhood enmity is what gave way to ruthless revenge in the cousins’ adulthood. The original epic in an attempt to portray Pandavas as the most moral and righteous people around, hides the cruelties the Kauravas had to face.

The character Karna is often criticized for standing with the evil side. His death is explained as an aftermath of choosing evil over good. But no one seems to care about the numerous occasions in which he was insulted by the Pandavas and Draupadi. His abilities as a warrior and an expert archer as good as Arjuna himself, was questioned because he did not belong to the Kshatriya lineage. It was Suyodhana who gifted him a kingdom and coronated him as king, to save him from these insults in the future. The same people who point out Draupadi’s 'Vastrakshepa' scene as the gravest mistake from the Kaurava side, conveniently forgets how the Pandavas and Draupadi laughed at and mocked Suyodhana, wet and clad in his loincloth after he was tricked to fall into a pool inside the palace.

We must also consider how Karna who was equal in his abilities to Arjuna was tricked into giving up his armor given to him by the Sun god at his birth. Everything the Pandavas did to attain the throne is justified as the path to greater good while Kauravas actions are constantly criticized and considered as grave sins.

In the original text Shakuni is depicted as the blood thirsty epitome of wickedness. As is the tradition, he is also a handicapped person. But Neelakantan sees him as an extremely intelligent and cunning master of the dice. He single-handedly saves the Kauravas from further humiliation at the hands of Pandavas. He provides them with the opportunity to get back at their oppressors.

The demonization is much easily achieved in Mahabharata because here they are the majority. But the author explores the ways in which the story has omitted relevant details and brings it to the forefront. Once again, he stands up for the losing side and makes the readers empathize with them. He is not suggesting that the Kauravas are perfect. He is merely reminding us the fact that both the sides are equally responsible for the catastrophe that happened. Blaming a certain group of people to save the face of others and portray them as victims is unfair both to those characters and the readers.

Other Retellings

Numerous writers have retold and adapted these Indian epics. Many of them have explored different perspectives from the original. Even though they are not like Anand’s works where the villain becomes the narrator, they have definitely contributed towards understanding the nuances of an array of characters. All these help us to realize that different truths could exist parallelly. One’s truth might be a blatant lie to someone looking from an entirely different angle. One thing that we know for sure is that all these alternative realities also deserve representation.

From R.K Narayan to Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni and Devdutt Pattanaik to Kavita Kane and Amish Tripathi many writers have retold the epics. Draupadi, Sita, Hanuman etc. become the central characters of these works. They enable the readers to empathize with characters other than the traditional heroes. The teach us the idea of doubting and questioning stereotypes and prejudices.

For example, in Amish Tripathi’s Siva trilogy Lord Siva is portrayed as a tribesman with certain special abilities. He reaches the country where the Suryavanshis live. They are depicted as law abiding, disciplined citizens who are energetic and productive. On the other hand their neighboring country is occupied by Chandravanshis who are described as proponents of chaos and all things evil. They are a loose and uncivilized society who needs to be rescued and civilized by the Suryavanshis. Just like the British wanted to civilize us. So Neelkanth who is the incarnation of Siva stands alongside them to go to war with the Chandravanshis. He helps them win the war. Later when he visits the country, he is shocked to realize that he was mistaken. The people there were equally good hearted and innocent. They were living life at their own pace and finding happiness in their lifestyle. They would never be able to adapt to the Suryavanshi lifestyle and be happy. Neelkanth has a moment of realization that both the countries were good but incomparable. There was no need to compare or convert one into the other. He regrets not trying to see their side of the story earlier. Sometimes we are convinced so much that someone is right that we believe the other side has to be wrong. We don’t leave the possibility of them being right as well open.

Another adaptation that is worth a mention here is the movie ‘Raavan’ by Mani Ratnam. In this movie the character that represents Ravana is a bandit. He kidnaps the character who is apparently Sita. Rama is a police officer who has to rescue Sita as well as capture Ravana. By the end of the movie the viewers start to empathize with the bandit.

This again proves how there are no ‘ultimate’ evil or good. Every character or person has their good qualities as well as flaws. The only thing that matters is from whose perspective we look at them.

Conclusion

The most important message that Anand Neelakantan gives through his works is that alternative perspectives exist. We as individuals should be able accept this fact and respect perceptions that exist parallelly to our own. Our truth might be entirely different from someone else’s. it doesn’t mean that we have to destroy one and protect the other. We live at a time when even history is being reconstructed according to interest. Therefore, it becomes extremely important to question the popular narratives and recognize the ignored and omitted angles.

The evil characters in these epics might be evil after all. But we should remember that the heroes too have faults and flaws. This is not a trend confined to Indian epics. It is a universal concept. Even in movies we see that there are some stereotypes associated with villains. But in reality, villains and heroes look the same. There is no clear divide between them. We all become villains and heroes at some point in our lives. we might be villains to some and heroes to others. Only the percentage of goodness and evilness in us varies. Very often than not we get confused whether someone is good or bad. This is because the difference mentioned earlier is so subtle.

Rama might be as close to perfect as a person could be. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that Ravana has to be the evilest person on just because he fought Rama. He might have had reasons that we can’t possibly understand. Same goes with Mahabharata where the Kauravas might be a cruel lot. But it doesn’t make the Pandavas perfect humans. They have their own flaws. This doesn’t limit itself to fiction. It is entirely true in real life too. Sometimes we tend to think that a certain someone is solely responsibly for our situation. But we don’t try to think that maybe our own past actions provoked them to do something to us. An open mind to accept such facts is the ultimate aim of these tales with alternative perspectives.

Therefore, we have seen that Anand Neelakantan’s books provide the villains perspective in Ramayana and Mahabharata, enabling us to realize that parallel truths exist. Mythology, Novels or literature in general should not be the sole property of winners. There should be ample space for the losers too. That’s how we learn to keep an open mind and accept and respect the opinions and perceptions of our fellow beings. Good and Evil are not binary concepts. Rather it is an array or scale upon which different characters fall at different points. Black is the darkest shade of grey and white the lightest. There is no black and no white. Only different shades of grey.