Manish Mishra

I finally watched Ramayana to ensure that our criticism is informed by firsthand observation rather than hearsay. Having watched the film, here are our concerns: 1. Ravana and his entire clan are portrayed as a persecuted, helpless people. They are presented almost as a community of poor souls who have been systematically mistreated by the Devtas. This portrayal invites sympathy for Ravana rather than allowing the audience to understand the moral and philosophical dimensions of his character. 2. This is less Ramayana and more Ravanyana. Ravana has undeniably been glorified. One need only look at the number of children who, after watching the film, have begun praising Ravana to understand the impression it leaves. 3. Ravana is portrayed as an Asura, whereas he is traditionally identified as a Rakshasa. There is a distinction between Rakshasas and Asuras in Hindu tradition. Conflating the two is not a trivial detail, particularly in a cinematic adaptation of an epic as culturally significant as the Ramayana. 4. Sita Ji is portrayed more like a contemporary, modern-day woman than the traditional divine and dignified persona associated with her. That said, this is something we can perhaps accommodate under the creative liberties of cinematic interpretation. 5. Sita Ji addresses Shri Ram by his name. Traditionally, Sita Ji is understood to have addressed Shri Ram with reverential expressions such as Swami or Aryaputra. Having her casually address him by his name feels inconsistent with the traditional portrayal of their relationship. Creative liberty is certainly permissible. However, when adapting an epic that carries immense civilisational, spiritual and cultural significance, creative interpretation should not come at the expense of its underlying ethos, characters and traditional narrative. 6. Sita Ji is shown suggesting that Lakshman was wrong in cutting off Shurpanakha’s nose. This is particularly concerning because such a statement is not found in the Valmiki Ramayana. The scene appears to introduce a moral interpretation that casts Shri Ram and Lakshman in an unfavourable light, while portraying Shurpanakha as an innocent woman whose only intention was to marry Shri Ram. This fundamentally changes the audience’s perception of the episode and the characters involved. There is a difference between exercising creative liberty and introducing a narrative that departs from the source text in a way that alters the moral framing of the original epic. - Anyone defending this film on the grounds that at least Bollywood made an attempt to bring our story, the Ramayana, to the big screen is either profoundly ignorant of the epic’s cultural and spiritual significance or, one might suspect, has some vested interest in defending it. Yes, the film deserves credit for its impressive, Hollywood-calibre visual effects, production design and technical execution. There is no denying that. But spectacular VFX and lavish production budgets cannot serve as a licence to distort our Itihasa, misrepresent its revered characters or rewrite its foundational narrative. We are not opposed to creative liberty. We are opposed to creative liberty being used as an excuse to distort our civilisational heritage. The Ramayana deserves far more than spectacular visuals. It deserves authenticity, reverence and a profound understanding of the very tradition it seeks to portray. Now in Hindi : थू है ऐसे अपने आपको हिन्दुवादी और राष्ट्रवादी कहने वाले लोगों पर जो चंद पैसों के लिए बिक गए।