MANTHARA
Dr. V. RANGAN
Manthara in The Ramayana and Sakuni in The Mahabharata have become by-words for
scheming, cunning and destructive minds. These two much-maligned and
much-misunderstood characters in the respective epics have brought about the
fall of those whom they have favoured, acting as it
were, as their nemesis and indirectly helped in the resuscitation of dharma.
Without Manthara’s timely intervention, Rama
would not have been exiled, which alone has enabled him to overcome the forces
of darkness in Dandaka and Lanka and establish
himself as the embodiment of dharma (Ramo vigrahavan dharmah), the main
objective of Valmiki in the composition of the epic. Sakuni,
by rendering any reconciliation between the cousins, Pandavas
and Kauravas, impossible by his machinations, and
sabotaging all peace efforts drives the parties to the inevitable end of
internecine fratricidal war. Thus from the viewpoint of the plot both Manthara and Sakunl play a
crucial role so much so that the epics themselves would have been non-existent
without them.
King Dasaralha
makes elaborate arrangements for the coronation of Rama. The people of Ayodhya
who have been eagerly looking forward to witnessing “the big-shouldered, and
almighty Rama, the scion of Raghu’s family, ride the caprisoned elephant under the umbrella to the coronation
hall”,1 are ecstatic over their dream
coming true. The hunchback, Manthara, climbs accidentally (yathrcchaya)
– a very significant term in The Ramayana, in that at every
turning point, Valmiki used the word as though a casual happening has
significantly turned the action, even Surpanakha’s
coming into Rama’s presence is yathrcchaya
– the hunchback climbs Kaikeyi’s
prasada and watches of the hectic
preparations for and festive activities of the coronation. She learns that Rama
will be crowned as the heir-apparent of the Ayodhya kingdom. Valmiki describes
the scene thus:
Manthara, sinful and crooked, aflame with anger,
Ran down the Kailasa-like-palace
A physically handicapped person 2 whose movement could only be clumsy and slow, 3 runs down the steps when she is
overwhelmed with anger at the injustice to her mistress. She rushes to Kaikeyi, addresses her as “fool” (moodhe)
and impresses upon her the need to stop Rama’s
coronation immediately.
Rama, the darling of the people, is exiled on
account of Manthara’s advice and so we think of her
as a deformed woman, 4 not only in the physical sense but in her mind as well. Her hunchback is the externalization of
her twisted mind and hence the traditional view of her as a crooked person in
contrast to another hunchback In The Bhagavata, who, having done good to
Manthara is endowed with an ability to look at people
from an oblique angle which gives her a perception of people’s character that
cannot be laughed off. Her physical crookedness may be an exteriorisation
of this obliquity of vision rendering her a good psychologist with a
shrewd insight into human motives and actions.
The gods supplicate Mahavishnu
that He should be born as King Dasaratha’s son and
eradicate the evil of Ravana and other demons. Balakanda
contains this dialogue between the gods and Mahavishnu.
Again in the Ayodhya Kanda it is reiterated:
The Primeval Mahavishnu
having been prayed to by the gods to destroy Ravana was born in the human
world; 5
As the gods pray to Him, Mahavishnu granting
fearlessness (abhaya), says:
Well, gods, abandon fear. I shall kill the wicked
Ravana who has been a source of fear to gods and, sages, with all his
children, brothers, friends and ministers in war. Then I shall live on earth,
ruling over it for 16,000 years.
(Balakanda xv, 27-29)
This promise
postulates the destruction of the forces of darkness as his primary duty and
ruling over the earth comes only next in his scale of imperatives. Though he
has lived for 16,000 years on earth, events in the epic confirm that Rama has
discharged his principal obligation even before he is forty-two years old.
Therefore since his birth he has been anxious to fulfil
his first vow as soon as he can. Before he is sixteen, he has exhibited his
prowess; then he marries Sita and lives with her for twelve years in Ayodhya to
the delight of all.
Rama has been impatient to go to the forest
to meet the sages (ramante yoginah
paramanandani chldatmani tena Ramah) and carry out the primary duty of his avatar.
At this stage Dasaratha plans for Rams’s coronation so that he himself could enter vanaprastha. These preparations are delaying Rama’s foremost duty.
When Dasaratha
married Kaikeyi out of infatuation, he had promised
her parents that her son would be the king after him. 6 His promise to Kaikeyi
has been nagging Dasaratha’s mind. But he plans rather hurriedly for Rama’s coronation during Bharata’s
absence from Ayodhya. As he broaches the subject to Rama privately, Dasaratha says that a fear lurks in his mind that he may
change his intentions which might result in Rama’s
coronation not taking place at all. Hence his hurry.
Further, Bharata is away in a far off country and so
this is the proper time for Rama’s coronation. Rama
does not want to discourage the old man, and so he just keeps smiling at the
suggestion. But he has been
thinking to stop it. We have a clue to it not in Valmiki but from Saint Tyagaraja:
What can our abilities avail, O Mind.
Listen, mind. When the Saketa
King himself
mounts the chariot and rides it with his own skill,
What can our abilities avail?
Did he not ensnare in his net of illusion (maya)
Kaikeyi who gifted her precious jewels, overjoyed
on hearing about Vasishta’s
preparations
for Rama’s coronation
and
go his own way?
In Viswanatha Satyanarayana’s
Ramayana Kalpavriksham, Rama goes to Kaikeyi, announces the happy news and expresses the fear
that the gods do not favour the idea of his
coronation.
While Dasaratha is
complacently making the preparations Manthara
intervenes to convince Kaikeyi that she should stop
it forthwith. The initial reaction of Kalkeyi on
hearing the news of coronation is one of exuberant joy. But Manthara
cleverly combining logic and rhetoric, makes her see that her’s
and her son’s future is in jeopardy and advises her to seek the two fatal boons
from Dasaratha.
Rama obeys his father’s command very willingly
and happily that he should live in the forest for fourteen years. His filial duty (pitruvakya paripalana) facilitates
his fulfilment of the first duty of his Avatar. How
happy he is, we learn from himself when he speaks
about it to the Dandaka sages. They appeal to him to save them from the demons; they
enumerate their sufferings and show him their wounds. Then Rama assures them:
You need not tell me all this:
I have come here into the forest
as though it was my personal work.
I have come here to fulfil
your purpose
through my own wish.
My father’s command is just an excuse for me.
You will see my prowess in annihilating the
demons.
(Aranya Kanda, vi,
23-26)
Sita even admonishes Rama for trying to
destroy the demons without any provocation:
Sita : Why anger without enmity?
(Aranya
Kanda, ix, 25)
Rama: I would rather abandon you along with Lakshmana
than break my promise to grant abhaya to
the Rishis.
(Aranya Kanda, x, 19)
This assurance amply
proves that his filial duty is merely an aid to his primary objective.
Therefore, instead of finding fault with Manthara
that she has been responsible for stopping the coronation and causing Rama’s exile, she may be said to have been employed as an
instrument for carrying out his purpose.
We know very little about Manthara,
because no poet talks about her nativity and parentage. Valmiki has devoted
just half a verse for it:
A servant of Kalkeyi’s
kinsmen,
a woman born somewhere
(who was sent with Kaikeyi
as her bride-price
at the time of marriage)
and lives with Kaikeyi.
8
“Born somewhere” (yatojata)
is interpreted by the commentators that she could not have been born in
Ayodhya, because the Ayodhyites are incapable of
bearing any ill-feeling towards Rama. Some commentators say that her birth is a
divine secret (devarahasya) because she was
born to fulfil the purpose of protection of the gods
by Rama. Kamban without saying anything about her
birth and parentage merely remarks:
The hunchback was born like the evil of
Ravana.
Kamban almost always refers to her as the hunchback
(kooni) and rarely by her name. Tulasidas gives some more details about her, though he is
also silent about her nativity. He describes her as dull-witted (mandabuddhih.) 9 He
has an answer to the question as to why she gets the coronation stopped.
Though the Ayodhyites are immensely happy over the coming coronation,
the gods feel sad. They pray to Saraswati Devi:
Mother, you know our
plight.
By some ruse, cause the coronation to be
stopped.
Let Rama be dispatched to the forest so that
the god’s purpose might be served.
Saraswati Devi
frowns at their meanness; nevertheless, she realises
the good in getting the coronation suspended and Rama exiled to the forest,
which would promote the punishment of the wicked and the protection of the
virtuous. She uses Manthara’s mind as the medium to
manipulate and causes her to work against Rama. This is Tulasidas’s version of Manthara’s
act, and Pandarinatha
Ramayana (1810) gives much the same details. Ranganatha
Ramayana points out that Manthara has some
personal scores to settle in that when Rama as a boy was learning archery, he
broke her legs, and so now she has an opportunity to wreak vengeance. Kamban also talks about Rama as having tormented her by
pelting mud-pellets at her. Viswanatha Satyanarayana uses two epithets to explain her motives – devilish (daityagunam) and naturally wrathful (sahajakrudhamati). So all the poets have delineated her
in the most lurid light and concluded that she has poisoned Kaikeyi’s
mind by her viciousness.
Let us now see what Manthara
says to Kaikeyi:
i)
Dasaratha has
embarked upon Rama’s coronation during Bharata’s absence from the capital, which is a clear proof
of the old man’s prejudice and mischief against Bharata.
ii)
Bharata is next
to Rama in hierarchy, but Lakshmana always follows
Rama as Shatrughna does Bharata.
So Rama may take Bharata as his rival and think of doing
ill to him.
iii)
When
Rama becomes the king, Kausalya’s status would rise
as Queen Mother (Rajamata). Then Kaikeyi and her daughter-in-law would be at the mercy of
Kausalya. Already Kausalya is envious of Kaikeyi
being the favourite queen of Dasaratha.
Therefore it is certain that Kausalya as the Rajamata
would humiliate and harass Kaikeyi.
iv)
In
view of these conditions, let not Bharata return to Ayodhya
and instead go somewhere else. Why should he be exposed to insults and
ill-treatment in Ayodhya as a persona non grata?
The first charge is substantiated by Dasaratha who stands condemned by his own statement to Rama
in private. Not only that: Dasaratha has invited all
the kings except the Kekaya King, Bharata’s
uncle, to the council to discuss the nomination of the heir-apparent. Valmiki points out that even Janaka has
been left out because both Mithila and Kekaya are far off. This argument is untenable because
after Dasaratha’s death, Vasishta despatches
messengers on fleet-footed horses at short notice to Kekaya
to bring Bharata to Ayodhya. Coronation is not so
urgent an affair as obsequies and Dasaratha could
have waited till Kekaya King comes. Further, Janaka has nothing to lose by his absence. Therefore Dasaratha’s undue haste and failure to invite Kekaya King to the council make his intentions suspect.
Though it might be rather far-fetched to
attribute to Rama the meanness to think of Bharata as
his rival and as a result, humiliate him, two incidents betray Rama’s partiality for Lakshmana
in preference to Bharata. These two incidents sustain
Manthara’s accusation against Rama. First: after Dasaratha has confided in him his desire. Rama goes to Kausalya’s chamber where he meets Lakshmana
to whom he says thus with a smile:
Lakshmana, my second self (me dvitiyam
antaratrnanam), you must rule over the earth
along with me. You must share the prosperity and happiness with me. It is
really for you alone I desire my life and kingdom.
(Italics mine. Ayodhya Kanda. iv, 43-44)
Mind you: Rama never speaks twice (Ramo dvirnabhibhashate). When Rama says that he lives only
for Lakshmana, is he not excluding Bharata and Shatrughna from his
system of affections, though they should have naturally equal claim over his
love? Is not Manthara’s second argument proved right
by Rama’s own words that Bharata
may be discriminated against?
Now the second incident: at the end of the
book, after Rama ascends the throne, the heir-apparent has to be nominated. If
Rama follows the principle of hierarchy, Bharata
should be the automatic choice. But Rama pleads with Lakshmana
(an order would have sufficed) in several ways to be the second in command. Lakshmana bluntly refuses. Only then Rama turns to Bharata who says that he is only a (paratantra)
dependant and that Rama’s word must be obeyed. So
he agrees. Even after the official proclamation of Bharata
as the Crown Prince, in all the long years (l6,000 years) of Rama’s reign, Rama has been consulting only Lakshmana in official matters and they have been carrying
on the administration together, reducing Bharata to a
mere figurehead. This has confirmed Manthara’s fears.
Yet another incident shows Rama in an unfavourable light vis a vis Bharata.
Rama sends Anjaneya
to Nandigrama from Bharadwaja
Ashram on his return from exile to inform Bharata
about his arrival. Rama asks Anjaneya to find out
from the reaction and gestures of Bharata if he is in
a mood to part with the kingdom and if Anjaneya finds
even least reluctance to renounce power on Bharata’s
part, let him come away without reporting about him (Rama). Anyone who has
watched Bharata’s character would be shocked at this
“most unkindest cut of all.” When has Bharata shown any inclination to appropriate the kingdom
for himself?
That Kausalya’s
attitude towards Kaikeyi has been none-too-cordial is
borne out by Kausalya’s own confession to Rama when
she learns that the coronation has fallen through:
Son, I have not known prosperity and happiness ever since the king was infatuated with Kaikeyi. But your proximity to me has given me some joy, and your coronation would have made up for my hitherto loss. Now that you say that you are going to Dandaka where is even that little happiness for me?
(Ayodhya Kanda, xx)
At the root of all her arguments against Rama’s coronation is Manthara’s
devotion and loyalty to Kaikeyi, her mistress (yajamana dharma). The Ramayana is an aesthetic charter
on different kinds of dharma. Manthars has come
to live with Kaikeyi as her special maid. She enjoys
a higher status than the other maids because no maid would dare address her
mistress as stupid (moodhe), evil (arishte), etc. The tone in which she talks to Kaikeyi shows an intimacy that is superior to that of any
ordinary servant. She is a mother figure to Kaikeyi
who almost acknowledges it. She may be considered as the voice of Kaikeyi’s own parents to whom Dasaratha
had made the promise. Maybe, she has been sent with Kaikeyi
as bride-price only to safeguard her interests and champion her cause in case a
need arises. (Manthara also means a spy or informer.)
Rama’s coronation is one such instance where Kaikeyi has to be spurred to action, because it involves
her son’s future which she has no right to ruin even if she is not interested
in her own. Manthara (meaning churning rod) only
stirs Kaikeyi’s consciousness so that what has gone
under may come up, like butter floating after churning.
In Uma Samhita, Parvati asks Shankara whether Dasaratha has not
broken his promise by arranging for Rama’s yauvarajya pattabhisheka.
Shankara explains it away by saying that what Dasaratha had promised Kaikeyi’s
parents was that he should be reminded at the proper time. Is not Manthara doing the same, and then
where is the question of her poisoning Kaikeyi’s
mind?
So if Manthara had
not acted in the way she has, she would not be true to her salt: she is a
secular agent.
Manthara may be considered as a divine agent in yet
another sense. She has rescued a scion of Raghu’s
family, Dasaratha, from the ignominy of lying and
violating his promise. Truthfulness of word (satyavak)
and steadfastness in vow (drdhavrta) are
the cardinal virtues of Raghu’s dynasty. Dasaratha’s promise to Kaikeyi is
fulfilled, at least symbolically. Bharata does rule,
as a proxy though, for fourteen years. Dasaratha had
faltered in his promise once and then he was rescued by his Guru, Vasishta. Dasaratha gave a blank cheque to Visvamitra. The fiery sage demanded Rama, and Dasaralha backed out. The angry sage was about to depart
with a severe word in his mouth: Live long as a liar. Then Vasishta
stepped in and saved the situation. Now Manthara has
come to his help.
Thus when we take an overall critical view of
all the events, we find that Manthara is more “sinned
against than sinning.” Her understanding of Dasaratha,
Kausalya and Rama has been proved to be right. At the primary human level, she
is the “watchdog” of Kaikeyi’s rights, and at the
mythological plane, she is a divine machine to fulfil
the objectives of Ramavatar. At the artistic level,
she is the cornerstone on which the entire edifice of the epic stands in that
all the subsequent happenings would not have been possible without her crucial
counter-move against Dasaratha’s plan.
1 Icchaamohi
mahaabaahum Raghuviram mahaabalam
Gajena mahataayaantam
Raamam cchatravrtaananam. (Ayodhya Kanda, ii, 22)
2 Mathnati charanau iti (stiffening
of legs)
3 mandagamitu mantharah. (amara)
4 Manthara also means ugly, deformed.
5 Sahidevaih udirnasya Raavanasya vadhaarthibih
Arihito manushe
lake jagye Vishnussanatanah.
(Ayodhya Kanda, i,
7.)
6 We see a parallel here between the two great
epics. In The Mahabharata Shantanu infatuated
with Satyavati’s beauty is in a fix when her father demands
that should Satyavati have children by Shantanu, they should have the right to the throne. It is
resolved by Shantanu’s son by
7 “Manasa,
manasamarthyamemi.” Vardhani, Roopakam.
8 Gyatidasi yatojata Kaikeyyastu sa
hoshita. Ayodhya Kanda vii, i.
9 Manthara
also means stupid.