sangom
0
Shri Vignesh,
You are completely free to hold any kind of opinion on points such as the above. This forum is neither a school, nor a Paatashaalaa and so no one needs to change his/her views on any matter. But this is a forum for exchange of views and ideas; if some line of thought appears plausible and if it makes someone more ready to accept views which are contradictory to their own, then that is a good purpose served by this Forum. For example if someone tells you that there are flowers in this world which are many times the height of a man, you may not believe it if you had not seen such flowers or their pictures (photos). But once you are a little more open in your views, perhaps it will be easier to allow for things, logically possible, but of which we have no idea.
Coming to brass tacks here, you feel Ramayana, written by one Valmiki - a Nishaada or hunter -, Viswamitra - once a king who became a Rishi later on, were not brahmins and so Ramayana could not be a creation of brahmins. The story of Rama was a common lore among the people in the vedic times and we do not have any provable date of origin. But it (Ramayana) or at least the core story thereof existed in people's minds even before or during the lifetime of Gautama, the Buddha, seems accurate because we have a Dasaratha Jathaka, a story reportedly told by the Buddha in Jetavana for consoling a land owner who was greatly grieving his father's death. In this Buddhist version Rama Pandita, Sita and Lakkhana (Lakshmana) Pandita were siblings, children of King Dasaratha of Varanasi (and not Ayodhya). So, it appears that either the Valmiki Ramayana as we have it today, was composed after the Buddha's time, or, there were more than one version of the Rama story even during Buddha's lifetime. Hence there is no known historicity to the whole Rama episode; it could be folklore even based on memories of the very, very ancient past of humans in this sub-continent.
From all the available literary and epigraphic evidences there is no indication of an untouchable person (like a Nishaada) becoming a scholar, let alone a Rishi in those times till Buddha. If such a thing had really happened in those times, it would have been a great event and should have found a mention in at least some other literary piece, or some royal epigraphs. Since no such evidence is found, and since all the smriti texts, which are found to have been composed before or during Buddha's times, very strongly advocate the rigid caste system and untouchability, it is highly possible that there was no real hunter-turned Valmiki, but someone assumed the pen-name Valmiki, created the hunter-turned Rishi origin for the pen-name and composed the already prevalent Rama story into a long poem. We may argue, for the sake of argument, that a Nishada or hunter back in those old days could very well have composed (writing had most probably not been invented in those times) and taught some people, of whom the brahmins preserved the whole of the 23,000 slokas in memory, passed it on by rote until ultimately the whole thing could be written down on Palmyra leaves (palm-leaf writing started in India after the Christian Era). Why I say brahmins did the preservation and passing on, is because we have absolutely no shred of evidence about any other caste people having the knowledge, fluency in Sanskrit, and a line of successors who were occupied with the learning, recital, etc., of the Ramayana except the brahmins. If you say, "Valmiki is Rishi not Brahmin, Vishamitra also. Rama is also. Therefore there is no question brahmins creating these.", then the question that arises is, "If so, how do you think this long poem got transmitted till the time it could be committed to writing by someone?". I hope you will have a satisfactory answer.
You write "british and muslims". Historically it was the muslims who started invading India first (Al Muhallab ibn Abi Suffrah was the first Muslim invader of the peninsula; it was around 664 C.E. in Multan, Punjab); after Muhallab,, the incursions by the Umayyad Caliphate continued for a century or so, till A.D.715 the date of death of Muhammad bin Qasim. Later the Ghaznavis came and conquered various parts. Then the Afghan conqueror Muhammad Ghori came and plundered and so on. But all these invaders, as far as historical evidence suggests, had no idea about the sub-continental population or its rigid caste system.
The later Muslim conquerors like the Delhi Sultanate, and then the Mughals also were invincible for any hindu king; they followed the route of compulsory conversion to Islam or death as their uniform policy. Conversions to Islam did take place from all strata of the society, but more from the lower castes converted to Islam because they stood to gain, not only their lives but many other benefits. Since they had no role in hinduism and were living as the exploited class, they had nothing to lose by becoming Muslims. In such a scenario, trying to sell the idea that the Muslim invaders wanted to "divide us" in order to "rule us" can only be a figment of the hindutva group's imagination.
. . . . . to be continued
