Recently, there are some controversies about whether Hanuman and Valimiki were dalits, forest dwellers, slaves? May be for electoral purposes. May be for political reasons. I do not belong to any political party. Though I am born a Hindu, though I have studied the scriptures of my religion with seriousness and sincerity, I do not support chauvinistic ideas. U.P. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath said that Hanuman was a dalit. Now, one BJP Lucknow Councillor/MLC is saying that Hanuma was a Muslim. Another BJP MLA said that Hanuman was the First Tribal Leader of the World.
Whatever, I am trying to write here below, is in a fact finding mode, rather than praising or denigrating anybody or any philosophy or anything.
na an RigvEda vinŸtasya
na yajurvEda dhriOa | na sAma vEda viduya:
vAkyam Evam vibhyitum || Book 4 (Book of kishkindha). Forest Exile of Rama Lakshmanas.
Verse 28. Verse No. 4-3-28.
Shri Rama was speaking to Lakshmana, about Hanuman, on their first encounter in Kishkindha.
Gist of the verse: A person who does not know Vedas, and who did not got them by heart,--- the Rig vEda, Yajur veda, sAma vEda, cannot speak in this manner. (That means Hanuman is a scholar of all the three vEdas).
According to some preachers, A Brahmin can learn four vEdas. A kshatriya (warrior caste) can learn three vEdas. A vySya can learn two vEdas. A Sudra cannot study vEdas. Now, Shri Rama himself opined that Hanuman must have been well-versed in three vEdas. (ybrao-a-donkey: At least as far as vEdic knowledge is concerned, Hanuman must have been equal to Shri Rama who was a kshatriya, and who might have studied three vEdAs).
We know by slaying SUDra born Shambuka who was performing penance, Shri Rama has proved that he was a conformist of customs inherited from past, irrespective of whether those Customs were justifiable or not. In fact, while killing Shambuka, Shri Rama did not examine the justifi-ability of his act. He blindly believed whatever Brahmins and his Courtiers said.
Lord Shri Rama knows pretty well that Lord Hanuman knew three vEdas, and that he was a scholar of Grammar. Yet Shri Rama did not hesitate to mount on Hanuman, and Lakshmana did not hesitate to mount on Prince Angada for 1500 kms (100 yojanas). Here Valmiki compared Rama to Chief of Demy Gods Indra, and Hanuman to Elephant AirAvata.
Yaasyaami bala madhye aham
bala ogham abhiharshayan
Airaavatam iva Iishvaraha.
*Rama and Lakshmana were well-versed in Vedas.
*Hanuman was also well-versed in Vedas.
*How should two Veda knowing men treat another Veda knowing person, who also happens to be a Minister?
*Rama and Lakshmana were 'Rishabhams (bulls)'. Couldn't they walk to Sugriva's place? Should they mount on a Veda knowing scholar?
One Reader asked me: Further, what about palanquins then? the rickshaw pullers of calcutta?
Ans: We can also add 'Dolis' used in some Mountainous Pilgrimages. Palanquins, Kolkata rickshaws, Kashmir-HP-Uttarakhand Dolis, they are all remnants of our Feudal past, and our Capitalist present. While some exceptions can be made for severely sick/extremely aged persons, we sometimes, find that obese persons also mount humans directly, or on palanquins/rickshaws/dolis.
ybrao-a-donkey's logic: These Feudalist, Capitalist behaviors exist even in 21st Century Modern India. For example, in these days of severe unemployment conditions, a B.Tech Graduate joins in U.P. as a Police Constable / Home Guards / Drivers. In Police Department, we have a custom of Superiors asking Constables / Homeguards /Drivers (sometimes these persons may be called beautifully "Orderlies" to wash clothes, wash dishes, bring vegetables, take care of babies, drop and bring children from schools etc. etc. Depending on his dire and desperate need for a job, the B.Tech person may hesitatingly or unhesitatingly do chores or not? Same might have been the compulsions of Forest Dwellers whether they knew vEdas/grammar or not, before the self-claimed Ikshwaku Emperors. My readers can recall the sufferings of 'Sairandhri' in the Court of SudhEshNa !!!
|What is reported to have been said||comments of ybrao a donkey, not intended to be imposed on others|
|Hanuman belonged to the entire world. He was loved by people of every religion, every sect, every community. But, as far as my beliefs go, he was a Muslim. (Bukkal Nawab, a BJP Councillor, Lucknow).||Proof :Link: Click here to go to https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/now-uttar-pradesh-bjp-leader-claims-lord-hanuman-was-a-muslim-1965694.
Difficult to accept this idea, unless, more corroborative proof is discovered later.
|I say Hanuman was a Muslim because the names of people in our religion, such as Rehman, Ramzan, Farman, Zishan and Qurban, rhyme with the god's. ... ...Imran, Furqan, Sultan and Sulaimaan(contd. Shri Bukkal Nawab).||Just because names rhyme, we cannot come to a conclusion. This idea, Mr. Bukkal Nawab, if he is really serious about researching about Lord Hanuman, rather than using his name for Electoral purposes, can use to search for stronger evidence.|
|`...I shall donate Rs. 15 crore for constructing the Ram temple in Ayodhya. ...` (Shri Bukkal Nawab, in 2017, while in Samajvadi Party).||Better he donates to a Public Hospital, with instructions to provide free medicare to the Poorest.|
|Lord Hanuman was a Dalit and a slave of the manuwadi people. He was a Dalit and a human. When he gave his all for Lord Ram, then why he was given a tail and his face blackened? Why was he made a monkey? (Ms. Savitri Bai Phule, 2018 November).||First of all there is no Nationally acceptable definition of who is dalit, and who is not a dalit. However, we have to accept that forest dwellers received shoddy treatment in the hands of Ramayana Singers and Scripture-maintainers (manuscript writers of Ramayana), who twisted many things, to the disadvantage/adversity of forest dwellers. Glorifying Lord Shri Rama is one thing, and may be acceptable. But, there should be no need to `fix` tails to, and make `monkeys` of forest dwellers.
I am unable to trace any verse in Valmiki Ramayana, where Hanuman or any other Forest Dweller's (vAnara) face was painted as 'black'. On the other hand, it was Ravana's face which was described as black, to tarnish his image, although he was apparently an Aryan. Ravana, Kumbhakarna, MEghanAtha were to be taken as Aryans because they performed penance and sacrifices (yagnas). Had they been non-Aryans, Shri Rama or any other Aryan might have killed them, just as (Shudra) Shambuka was killed by Shri Rama, because Shambuka was found to be performing penance.
|`... Lord Hanuman was a Dalit . ...` (Yogi Adityanath, Chief Minister of UP, while campaigning for MP Assembly Elections.)||Click here to go to Click here to go to https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/rajasthan-election-yogi-adityanath-claims-lord-hanuman-was-dalit-tribal-says-only-ravana-bhakts-would-vote-for-congress/1396721/|
|Hanuman was a dalit, and a slave of the manuwadi people.||Better to say `Slave of Feudal Oppressive Kings`, rather than `manuwadis`. Manuwadis is a vague term. There is also no definition of a 'slave'. People may behave in different ways, on their own volition, or owing to some compulsion. For example, Late Mr. T. Anjaiah, when he was Chief Minister of United Andhra Pradesh, was reported to have carried the chappals of Late Rajiv Gandhi. It is not 'Sweet are the uses of Adversity'. But it is 'Necessity is the Mother of Invention'.|
|`Lord Hanuman was world’s first tribal leader.` (Gyan Dev Ahuja, BJP MLA from Ramgarh, in May 2018)||There is no Universally acceptable definition of who is a 'tribal' and who is not a 'tribal'. Words used by Govts. in India are only for the purpose of Reservations.|
|`...Lord Hanuman was the world’s first tribal leader and was the first saint among the Adivasis. When Lord Ram going from Chitrakoot to the southern part of the country during the exile, Lord Hanuman made his army of tribals and received training from Lord Ram. ...`||Hanuman need not be the FIRST in everything. Ancient India abounded in Saints who incidentally were also First Native Residents of India (=meaning of Adi=First, vAsi=dweller).
My intention is not to belittle Hanuman, whom I regard as the 'Greatest' of Ramayana characters. My idea is to highlight to possibilities. 1. As Lord Hanuman was permitted to study three Vedas, he was an Aryan. 2. There were non-Aryan Native Indian Sages even before the Advent of Aryans into India from Latvia-Lithuania-Old_Prussia-Estonia-Baltics-Balkans-Iran-Bactria.
If Hanuman was the World's First Tribal Leader, then why did Mr. Narendra Modi install the World's Tallest statue for Patel, instead of for Hanuman? This MLA can go and ask our Hon. Prime Minister.
|...Lord Hanuman was the world’s first tribal leader and was the first saint among the Adivasis. When Lord Ram going from Chitrakoot to the southern part of the country during the exile, Lord Hanuman made his army of tribals and received training from Lord Ram. ...`||There are no formal definitions for 'dalit' and 'tribal', except those which are used by Govts. for the purpose of Reservations. Ramayana itself is 'mythology' which need not be history. We are trying to find out whether there is history in Ramayana. Hence, it will be better to use the word 'forest-dwellers' for Valmiki and Hanuman. While prima facie, Valmiki seems to be a forest dweller, in Uttara KanDa, for reasons known only to preachers and priests, they have tried to project Valmiki as a Brahmin boy who lost his way in forest path, got separated from his parents, and was picked up by a hunter (nishAda).
We can view even vAlmiki as an Aryan. Otherwise, Aryan Shri Rama would not have allowed him to teach his story and spread it through balladeers. Though Valmiki Ramayana has sufficiently been cleansed not to mention about beef eating during Ramayana-happening days, in Uttara Rama Charitra of Bhavabhuti, a 7-8th Century play depicting post-coronation-Ramayana, 3rd Vishkambha, there was an instance of 'kalyAni-kapila' a calf's cooking to give a feast to Sage Vasishta, 3 Queens of Dasaratha, who visited Valmiki's hermitage to see Sita, her twin children Lava and Kusa. Vyasa Mahabharata mentions about King Ranti Deva feeding Brahmins in their 4th months rest period (called cAturmAsyam) by slaying 2000 cattle per day. In RajasUya Sacrifice, there is a verse of king Yudhishthira fed about 32,000 Brahmins with ham (varAha meat). Hence beef eating was not a taboo in those days for Aryans-- whether Brahmins or others. From this we can infer that Valmiki was an Aryan. All these inferences will have some meaning ONLY IF Valmiki Ramayana was 'HISTORY' and not 'MYTHOLOGY'.
Should we view Valmiki Ramayan as Mythology or History?
Evidence available as on date is inadequate, to make Valmiki Ramayana, a History. But it is likely that VR contains mirrors and reflections of the environment prevailing during the period through which VR evolved as a Book (Mauryan period, Gupta Period, KushaN period, Satavahana period, Harsha period etc.). Beside, if we view Ramayana as history, more people will start questioning events and conversations which took place in Valmiki Ramayana. That means, a defence of 'traditional beliefs, matter of faith, beyond the scope of purview of Courts' etc. etc. will not be available.
Incomplete. Subject to further editing. A lot more is to be added.