Manthara

Dr. V. RANGAN
Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar

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 hunch, 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 hunchclimbs Kaikeyi’s prasadaand 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 hunchis the externalization of her twisted mind and hence the traditional view of her as a crooked person in contrast to another hunchIn The Bhagavata, who, having done good to Krishna receives the reward of being made the most beautiful woman by His Grace.

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 ofvision 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 offear 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 toit 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 abhayato 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 hunchwas born like the evil of Ravana.

Kamban almost always refers to her as the hunch(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 Rajamatawould 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 ed 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.

References

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              Mantharaalso 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 Ganga, Deva­vrata, later known as Bhishma for his severe vow. Here Kaikeyi’s son, Bharata settles it by giving up his claim because he thinks that a promise extorted at a moment of weakness militates against dharma, and he bears the cross of his mother’s sin, true to his name, Bharata. In both the epics, the sons atone for their father’s or mother’s sins through their sacrifice.
⁷           “Manasa, manasamarthyamemi.”Vardhani, Roopakam.
⁸              Gyatidasi yatojata Kaikeyyastu sa hoshita. Ayodhya Kanda vii, i.
⁹           Mantharaalso means stupid.