Were Gandhi and Marie Curie avatars too?

Joseph Campbell is a hugely popular name among the students of mythology, for whom his model on the hero’s journey is nothing short of holy verses to be learnt by rote.

To the uninitiated, the Hero’s Journey is a seminal piece of work by the famed mythologist Joseph Campbell that is actually a template of the adventurous journey charted by the mythical/fictional heroes of the world from the point they leave their homestead in pursuit of the elusive elixir/boon till they return again to their natural domain. <Click link to know more about the Hero’s journey>

Conceptually, the Hindu mythological idea of Avatar runs parallel to Campbell’s hero’s journey. The avatar is also a hero who arrives in the world, for the sole purpose of accomplishing a predestined goal, which is often the elimination of evil. To borrow Nehru’s words, the avatar comes like ‘a breath of fresh air’ to pull the world out of the utter crisis he finds it in. And finally, like Campbell’s hero, the avatar returns to the pavilion after his mission is accomplished.

In Hindu mythology, avatars refer to reincarnations of Lord Vishnu, who descends on the earth, time and again, taking different forms each time, to decimate evil and to protect and save the good.

All the avatars are thus aspects of the divine that descend on the earth (the Sanskrit word ‘avatar’ means to descend/cross) with the sole resolve to rid it off its evil forces.  Towards this end, the incarnations thus redefine the world around them, leaving it a better place. We also observe that once the purpose of the incarnation is fulfilled, the avatars, either explicitly or symbolically, exit the world. (For example, in the Ramayana, although Rama does not die after killing Ravana, the prominence of his role diminishes significantly after the death of Ravana. What happens thereafter in the Uttara Kanda is mostly the story of Sita and her sons.)

Interestingly, the above common motifs associated with the mythological avatars, are also found to repeat in the lives of certain historical figures we know.

But first, to summarise the set of criteria that mark out a personality as an avatar.

Markers of an Avatar

Now, think of historical figures who fit into this template, meeting most if not all criteria.

Gandhi, Ramanujan (mathematician), Vivekananda, Adi Shankara, Martin Luther King Jr., Marie Curie are some names that come to my mind.

Most of these personalities, save for Ramanujan and Marie Curie were religious/social reformers who were extremely successful in bringing about a big social change in the world around them. The achievements of Curie and Ramanujan are no less wonderful. Even as Marie Curie’s contribution to medicine continues to save millions of lives today, the world is still struggling to fully comprehend the overwhelming implications of Ramanujan’s gift of 3,900 theorems in the field of number theory.

Whatever be the nature of their contribution, it cannot be denied that each of them relentlessly strived to pursue his/her ordained goals, leaving behind an unparalleled legacy for humanity.

Further, the above personalities had some kind of tryst with divinity. Gandhi was expressly devout, while Ramanujan (in his own words) credited his mathematical acumen to his family Goddess, and Martin Luther King was a Minister in the Baptist order. Only Marie Curie was an exception; she remained a catholic till some personal tragedies turned her into an agnostic.

Needless to add, Adi Shankara and Vivekananda (whose mothers begot them after praying to Lord Shiva) transformed the religious discourse of their times.  If the lives of these two Sanyasis were extra-ordinary, their exit from the world, albeit at a very young age, was equally dramatic. Adi Shankaracharya is believed to have disappeared into a cave in Kedarnath, never to return, and Vivekananda passed away while meditating. Though both these men of God left behind institutions (the Ramakrishna Math and the Sharadha Peetam) to carry on their legacy they never identified or anointed a protégé.  

On the other hand, Marie Curie, Martin Luther King and Gandhi proved to be true ‘karmaveers’ who lived and died fighting for their respective causes. And of course, the episode of the Hardy-Ramanujan number (1729) that Ramanujan uncovered for the world, while he was undergoing treatment for his illness in a London hospital, speaks volumes of his unwavering quest to unravel the mysteries of his mathematical universe.

Above all, what makes a person an avatar is that his/her life is inseparable from his/her message or contribution to the world.

So, friends, here’s my list of avatars:

Avatar	Message/Contribution
Adi Shankaracharya	Advaitha: We are all part of the same divinity
Mahatma Gandhi	Ahimsa and Satyagraha
Marie Curie	Use of radium in cancer treatment; x-rays
Martin Luther King	Equal rights for all mankind
Ramanujan	Using numbers to better understand our universe
Vivekanada	Service to Humanity is service to Divinity

Who is on your list...?

Did somebody just say James Bond…?! J

On Sita's chastity and Tara's....

I'd never been a big fan of Sita, nor have I really appreciated the idea of her being upheld as the epitome of chastity among Indian women. Disregarding her avatar status, to me, she had always come across as a somewhat timid woman, who chose to be known as Rama's wife, all her life. Her martyrdom on the altar of royalty-politics only annoyed me. In other words, I perceived her as a woman who did not stand up for herself.

And I was surely not alone in thinking so. Modern women are still unwilling to take Sita as their role model for obvious reasons. Fans of Nirbhaya would rather identify themselves with the fiery Draupadi.

This was until I came to know more about two other women characters from the Ramayana, namely Tara and Mandodari.

Both Tara, the wife of Vali, and Mandodari, the wife of Ravana are counted among the five panchakanyas - the eternal virgins - whose names when invoked is believed to cleanse one of all sins.

The curious thing common to these two beautiful and wise women (and to the other panchakanyas including Kunti, Draupadi and Ahalya as well) is that they have 'known' other men besides their own husbands.

Tara, who was married to Vali, became Sugriva’s consort after the death of her husband at the hands of Rama. According to some versions of the Ramayana, she was actually Sugriva’s wife who was appropriated by Vali over a matter of misunderstanding between the two brothers <<click link for the story>. She lived peacefully with Vali and even had a son through him, Angad, who was crowned the heir apparent of Kishkinda. After Vali’s death, Tara returned once again to live with Sugriva. Similarly, Mandodari married Vibhishana after the death of her husband, Ravana, on the advice of Rama and retained her status as the queen of Lanka.

Scholars believe that the marriage of these women to the newly crowned kings of Kishkinda and Lanka was one of convenience aimed at ensuring the stability of these kingdoms. Thus Tara and Mandodari, it appears, allowed themselves to be used as pawns in a larger political game.

Now, contrast these two women to Sita. While, Tara and Mandodari (and for that matter the other 'panchakanyas' as well) had more than one man forced upon them, Sita refused to take any man other than her own wedded partner. Her refusal to comply with the misplaced desires of a lusty man and her heightened sense of dignity and self-respect point to Sita's independent spirit – a rare privilege for women to have in those days when they were merely treated as property to be usurped and enjoyed as the spoils of war.

It may be argued that the accepted moralities of that era were different for different people and that among the vanaras, the multiple partners that Tara took may have been perfectly acceptable. In the case of Mandodari’s marriage to Vibhishana, scholars argue that Ravana’s line may have been matrilineal and only through his marriage to Mandodari could Vibhishana claim rights to the throne of Lanka.  Whatever the case may be, it appears that neither Tara nor Mandodari expressed their dissent or showed resentment to being played around with by the men. On the contrary, it appears that they simply reconciled themselves to the life choices others made for them.

And that’s where Sita differs from them. She had a mind of her own. She chose dignity over damnation by rejecting Ravana.

During the few months she spent at Ashokavana, she was repeatedly tortured by Ravana into submitting to his will. But she remained unmoved to his repeated cajoling and threats. Even in the direst of circumstances (when she is shown the beheaded head of Rama, created by Ravana’s magic) and in the absence of any information on her husband's whereabouts, she chose to put up a fight, refusing to budge to Ravana’s coercion. (Sarga 56 of the Aranya Kanda in the Valmiki Ramayana is dedicated to the arguments that Sita had with Ravana, while fending off his advances, which throws light on her character.)

Of course, it helped that Ravana had a curse on his head that would not let him touch any woman without her consent. But, nowhere does it appear that Sita was aware of Ravana’s curse. Thus, Sita could have easily gone the way of Tara, reconciling herself to a destiny with her abductor. Even if she had, she'd not have belied the expectations her society had of her.

But the fact remains that she did not.

By rejecting the powerful Ravana's advances, Sita proved that a woman was not all body but had a mind of her own too.

In this context, I also wonder if the Agnipariksha episode that is held against Ram by the feminists of today was actually meant to prove Sita’s superior character to the world where women were considered nothing but wealth to be garnered and enjoyed as 'bhogha'. By taking the fire ritual and coming out unscathed, Sita proved to the world that she was a cut above the rest...one who travelled her own path.

Viewed from this angle, Sita stands tall among the mythological figures, not for her chastity, but rather as a woman who fought to uphold her right to dignity, the right to choose her partner and the right to consensual sex.