Shambuka - Criticism and Apologetics

Criticism and Apologetics

Some critics interpret this event, as injustice met on Shambuka, and are of the opinion that Rama had slayed Shambuka because of his birth as a Shudra. Dravidian movements hold the position that Lord Rama murdered shambuka to reinstate the apartheid varna system, which is an important feature of Hindu Dharma. E.V. Ramasami used this episode to argue that Rama as depicted in the Ramayana was clearly not the benevolent king devotees claimed him to be. Ambedkar, in contrast, said that to condemn Rama based on this incident was to miss the point. The true point of the story of Shambuka was that it demonstrated the unsustainability of the varna system, and the extent to which its existence depended on the harsh punishment of those who sought to transgress it.

The critics are of the opinion that the story of Shambuka was problematic for early Hindu authors. Bhavabhuti (c. 7th century) is clearly uncomfortable with the story in his Uttara Rama Charita, while Kalidasa (c. 4th century) mentions the incident of Shambuka without any comment in his Raghuvamsa.

Later Hindu authors adopt other means to explain the reason behind Rama's killing of Shambuka. The Pushtimarg Vaishnavite tradition of Gujarat points out that the Ramayana refers to other Shudras, such as Shabari, who lived in the forest. Shambuka therefore deliberately violated dharma in order to get Rama's attention, and attained salvation when he was beheaded. The celebrated Kannada poet Kuvempu, in his play Shudra Tapasvi shows Rama as having to both carry out his duty by punishing Shambuka, and simultaneously protect Shambuka, as a pious and devout sage, from persecution, and thereby turns the story into a critique of Brahminical attitudes and a defence of Rama.

The apologetics firstly argue that not all tapas is done for a pious purpose. Ravana, a Brahmin killed by Rama, had also performed penance but not for pious reasons. They argue that Shambuka was killed for conducting penance with a motive of attaining a celestial power with his material body, which is not an unselfish motive for which penance is meant to be performed. It is particularly forbidden (e.g. story of Trishanku) in Hindu mythology to aspire for entering heaven with a material body. The belief is that the material body, i.e. Annamaya Kosha, is mortal and is meant only for performing ones Karma in earth.