Jules Michelet’s Rama And Jules Michelet’s Ramayana: Inverting The Racist Discourse  

By no stretch of imagination can Jules Michelet (1798-1874), the famous French historian, can be called a racist. He was one year old when the French Revolution was slowly coming to an end. Later, he would go on to become one of the most influential historians of the event. He coined the term ‘Renaissance’ and as his Wikipedia page will tell you such was his influence that Vincent Van Gogh in his drawing ‘Sorrow’ (1882), inscribed the lines from Jules Michelet's book La Femme.

Nevertheless, the atmosphere in which Michelet grew up had internalised prejudices as fundamental truths which, when viewed from our century, would definitely be seen as racist.

He himself had them in him.

Yet, here, we are going to see how despite his unconsciously internalised prejudices, the reading of the Ramayana rejuvenated in him a sense of common humanity and even expanded the boundaries of his love to embrace all living beings. The book in question is Bible of Humanity (Bible de l'humanité, 1864), an ambitious attempt to provide a historical sketch of religions.

In his depiction of India, what we see are two forces at work: one, the vision of common humanity that is very much Hindu and in the second, the idea of races with their essences stereotyped. And through the Ramayana, the author arrives at a liberating vision. No wonder, this book was not much appreciated in the West.

Michelet begins with a romantic view of ancient India which was then very common among the European scholars and is critical of British attempts to reduce the antiquity of India. But what is more important in his approach is that while most European Indophiles tend to see India as an ancient ‘Aryan’ glory land now reduced to a sickening inferior mass of humanity, Michelet is critical of such a conception. To him the British ‘make it appear that the Indian Bible is more modern than the Jewish’. In truth, however, ‘primeval India was the original cradle, the matrix of the world, the principal and dominant source of races, of ideas, and of languages’.

He then points out that while the British wanted to limit India’s antiquity, they picturised India as being ‘buried forever in her Elephantina grottos, her Vedas and her Ramayana, like Egypt in her pyramids.’

Then in the succeeding pages he describes the economic exploitation and cultural humiliation heaped upon India in such a moving manner that one cannot but admire the way this great French historian sounds the conch declaring the start of the Indian freedom movement itself. He speaks of how 'Haughty England', considered India 'a land fit to be cultivated only for the purpose of enriching her rapacious rulers, together with the indignities heaped upon her people by both protestants and catholics'.

After having pointed out all the misdeeds that the British have done to India, he comes to the Ramayana. But then he makes a comparison between the Indian weaver and Valmiki. The historical insight that fills this comparison makes one shudder at its depth. The Indian weaver was competing against the British mill, which, through unfair trade policies, colonial exploitation, and equally cruel Christian prejudice was killing Indian native schools of art.

He points out, that, in the report of the Juries of Art exhibition held in Britian (1858) it was acknowledged that 'the charm and beauty of the invention, and the distinctness, variety, commingling and happy blending of colors' (of) Indian creations were incomparable to those of the British products. Yet the Indian creators were denied prizes and were given only 'barren words' of appreciation.

And then the work thus started would be completed by his hereditary descendants and relatives. In describing the 'Aryan' religion of the Hindus, he astonishingly arrives at an important distinguishing part of Hindu religion: "In this benign religion of love without terror, the gods mingle freely in the actions of human life, elevating them and making them divine."

Now our historian succumbs to the typical racial interpretation of ancient events that European colonial historiography creates. He imagines the Aryans encountering 'a yellow race'. This encounter resulted in the yellow race admiring the white race and the latter would have got readily absorbed into it. The racial admixture thus resulted in 'the most remarkable moral events which has ever occurred on earth, and was only maintained behind the barrier of castes, which in that climate were readily formed on the very rational basis of psychology and of natural history.'

So here we see that the narration is not based on the study of Hindu literature itself but is entirely based on colonial speculations. Then he makes another observation. This, based on his own reading of Indian texts. He states that in Hindu religion at least at the conceptual level woman is free and he sees in Manu 'the true formula of marriage, which no society can ever surpass, is found and established'. And yet the reality of the society and climate did not allow this high idealism to materialize.

So he says that 'the Brahmanic law,' which initially provided the woman safety, 'became, little by little, her scourge'.

But this was not peculiar to Indian religion, he hastens to add, 'but is the common history of all religions'. All these make Jules Michelet one of the unique social historians of his period. He was not completely blind to the social problems of India. But he did not essentialise India through her social problems. At the same time he was very well receptive to the spiritual splendour of ancient India and the continued vital presence of the same in Indian society - something wanting even today in the studies of Indian society, culture and Hindu Dharma.

Clearly, our historian has read the translation and hence uses the term ‘caste’ in the place of ‘varna’, an error that we find even today in some very learned Indians.

So such errors can be ignored and contextualised. As he moves to Ramayana, he notices the power struggle between the Brahmins and Kshatriyas as seen in both Viswamitra and Parashurama.

In Viswamitra he finds 'the most profound and intimate embodiment of the Indian soul' which 'makes and can destroy, creates and can annihilate.' He says that while the author of Ramayana shows his great respect to Brahmins, through the song he subverts the power structure. So, just by hearing Ramayana 'a slave or outcaste' could be ennobled: '... if this outcast may be ennobled and share in the benediction of the Ramayana, no one is beyond the reach of divine mercy.'

What is to be noted here is that unlike the colonial Indologists of his time, both Indo-phobes and Indophiles, and even modern scholars, Michelet goes beyond reading in Ramayana the tension between Brahmins and Kshatriyas. He can look at the eternal message which he gathers from reading it:

Michelet always returns to the metaphor of the artistic Indian carpet woven by the common Indian weaver to explain the grandeur of Ramayana. So he says:

For Michelet Rama breaks all social barriers, and remember, for Michelet, the social barriers of caste emanate because of the encounter of races. And so Rama becomes naturally the demolisher of the racial barriers. Consider the following passage:

His characterisation of ‘Dasyas, captives and yellow women’ comes from typical Western notions of race. But embracing ‘in his immense heart all castes and all conditions’ is the spirit in which Rama has been seen by Hindu eyes through millennia. That this embrace of all races is seen approvingly by Michelet then comes more from the influence of Ramayana one can say.

Pointing out the 'pious beginning of Ramayana' in the 'exquisite outburst of Valmiki upon the death of a poor heron', he makes a comparison:

In the association of Rama with Hanuman, Michelet finds the message of Ramayana in all glory. In this concluding passage he writes:

Note his mention of ‘the narrow heaven of the Brahmanic religion’. For Michelet, these words represent not a cunning Brahminical conspiracy or a power structure as has become part of Indian political discourse today through the colonial legacy. But, they mean a specific Indian version of what religious power structures devolve into.

To him, the embrace of Rama breaks even the species barriers. Notably, Michelet does not impose racial interpretations on Ramayana. Thus worshiping Hanuman is not ‘debasing humanity before a monkey god’ as Marx and missionaries alleged and nor are the great-apes Dravidians as colonial Indologists alleged. Instead, the embrace of Rama and Hanuman liberates humanity form all prejudices.

The question today before us is have we, the educated Hindus, captured the spirit of Ramayana as this French historian captured?

Whenever one goes to ancient temples accompanied by scholars, one sees an important aspect in their explanation of the divine sculpted form - particularly of Rama and other avatars of Vishnu. They invariable say that these forms somehow were sculpted to reinforce the divine right of that particular king. It never fails to amuse me how celebrating a prince who at the hour of his coronation accepts exile could have reinforced the authority of any particular king. Actually, it makes the king compelled to do sacrifices of his power.

But, such interpretations are in a way continuation of the colonial legacy that Hindu temples are more instruments of temporal power and social control, and not manifestations of the spiritual values. The approach of Michelet reverses this. It subsumes the assumed social strains of the period of composition of Ramayana to the inner spiritual strength that can be derived from it.

We see Michelet start his chapter on Ramayana with the then prevailing racial notions of European Christendom. However, as he progresses, we see that all the racial prejudices melt and he speaks in the voice that unites all humanity, nay, all living beings.

In the beginning of his chapter on Ramayana Michelet writes:

Today, this Sri Rama Navami of 2019, 155 years after Michelet wrote these words, one can only say, ‘If only humanity listens to the spirit and values of Ramayana ...’