119. Religious Discourse

No agreement on wage revision was reached in the talks held between the management and the employees' union of the firm. Both the parties decided to settle the issue through an arbitrator.

Both the sides requested the Labour Commissioner to appoint an Arbitrator. The Labour Commissioner suggested Umapathy, a retired government official, as the Arbitrator. 

As per the rules of Arbitration, the Arbitrator proposed by the Labour Commissioner should be acceptable to both the parties. If not, the Labour Commissioner would suggest another name.

The management of the firm immediately gave their consent to have Umapathy as the Arbitrator.

The leaders of the Labour Union met to discuss the proposal of the Labour Commissioner.

"They say Umapathy was known for his integrity, when he was in service. Integrity is a virtue, no doubt. But the question is whether he will have the objectivity to understand the issues under dispute and give a fair solution. In general, white collar employees have no empathy towards the blue collar workers. They seldom understand our problems!" said Jagadeesan, the Secretary of the Union.

"We can't generalize about people. Labourers are a class of their own, with unique problems. Only one labourer can understand the situation of another. But we need to accept an arbitrator, who is not a labourer. What we have to see is whether the person chosen as the Arbitrator will be fair. Let us try to find out what kind of a person Umapathy is" said Selvaraj, the President of the Union.

"What is there to find out? He is a traditionalist. Traditionalists will always tend to be on the side of the business owners" said Mukundan, the Vice President, with disgust.

"How did you conclude that Umapathy is a traditionalist?" asked Selvaraj.

"After his retirement from government service, he has been giving religious discourses!"

"Oh! Let us find out whether he is scheduled to give any discourse in the next few days."

Mukundan opened the day's newspaper and browsed through 'Today's Programmes.' He said, "Yes. He has ben giving a series of discourses on the Ramayana*. He has a discourse today at Nanganallur."

"Let the three of us attend the discourse and listen to what he says" said Selvaraj, laughing.

The trio assembled at Selvaraj's house after attending the discourse of Umapathy.

Kalpagam, Selvaraj's wife, who served coffee to the three of them, asked in a lighter vein, "How did you atheists enjoy the religious discourse?"

"Generally, religious speakers will justify the events described in mythological stories, even if they are against the accepted code of morality. But, Umapathy said that he found some of the actions of Rama, the protagonist of Ramayana unacceptable" said Selvaraj

"What are those actions?" asked Kalpagam, with interest.

"Sit down and listen to us. After all, you have an abiding interest in mythology" said Selvaraj.

"Tell me, what wrongs did he say that Rama had committed" asked Kalpagam, after sitting down.

"Umapathy has been telling the story of Ramayana in series since the past few days. It seems that yesterday he had covered the incident of Rama killing the monkey king Vali from a hideout and called Rama's action indefensible. Today, a person from the audience angrily reacted to Umapathy's describing Rama's action as indefensible, saying that Umapathy's statement amounted to a contempt of mythology and an insult to the sentiments of the believers. Umapathy shocked him by saying that Rama had committed other wrongs too."

"Religious scholars won't accept Rama's killing Vali from a hide-out as wrong. It was strange for this speaker to have called it wrong. To add insult to injury, he has said that Rama had committed other wrongs too. What are they?" asked Kalpagam.

"You say religious scholars won't accept that Rama's killing Vali from a hideout was wrong. But, Umapathy said that Rajaji, the scholar who wrote Ramayana in a simple languge in Tamil, had said that Rama's killing Vali from a hideout could not be justified!"

"Is it so? I had not known this" said Kalpagam.

"Umapathy said that, in his view, Rama had committed two more wrongs. One was asking Sita to prove her chastity by jumping into the fire."

"What was wrong with that? It was only to show to the world that Sita was chaste, despite having been held in captivity by Ravana for about ten months that Rama asked her to undergo the fire test" said Kalpagam.

"In that case, should Rama also have not undergone the fire test to prove that he was pure? How can there be one rule for a man and one for the woman, Umapathy asked" said Selvaraj.

"I don't know. Posing such questions about mythological characters, considered to be divine, does not seem appropriate to me. What, according to the speaker, was the other wrong committed by Rama?"

"Banishing Sita to the forest, when she was pregnant."

"My God! Rama did his duty as a monarch. When a citizen raised the question about Rama having as his queen a woman who was in the captivity of another king for nearly a year, Rama as a king wanted to be freed of this stigma. So, he banished Sita" said Kalpagam, defending Rama.

"If someone spoke ill of a King's wife, should the King punish his wife? This is not my question. This was the question asked by Umapathy. After all, Sita had already been subjected to the fire test. Was it not cruel to punish her again, provoked by someone's scandalous remarks, he asked."

"But a king cannot ignore the opinions of his citizens!"

"The answer Umapathy gave to this question takes the cake. What should Rama have done? Rama should have said, 'My wife is blemishless. But after your raising a doubt about her chastity, I can't continue to have her as my queen. But I can't abandon her, either. You will raise this question, only if I remain the monarch. I am not going to be the monarch any more. I will leave this country with my wife and take my residence somewhere. You can choose another person to be your monarch' and left the country, along with Sita. This was Umapathy's opinion."

"Wow! What an exemplary a moral stand!" exclaimed Kalpagam.

"The person who asked the question was taken aback by these unexpected answers. 'A person who talks so blasphemously should not be giving religious discourses' he yelled, in desperation. Even to this retort, Umapathy responded calmly, 'I am a believer. I worship Rama as God. I only mentioned the wrongs committed by the character Rama in the epic Ramayana. If something strikes me as wrong, I should say it is wrong. That is what ethics and morality require. We cannot justify a wrong, just because it was committed by a person whom we like, love, admire, respect or worship.' I was impressed by his explanation" said Selvaraj.

"So, what are we going to decide?" asked Jagadeesan.

"I believe that the words coming from a person's mouth reflect his thinking. I get the impression that Umapathy is a person who looks at things objectively, without being influenced by any bias. That is why, even in a religious discourse, he expressed opinions, which he knew would be unpalatable to his audience. I think a person with such an outlook will be able to understand and appreciate the fairness of our demands. But, you also listened to his discourse. What do you think?"

"Your judement will always be correct" said Mukundan. Jagadeesan nodded his head in agreement.

*Ramayana - a Hindu epic.

Thirukkural

Section 1
The Path of Virtue

Chapter 12
Neutrality

Verse 119 (In Tamil)

soRkOttam illadhu seppam oru thalaiyA
utkOttam inmai peRin.

Meaning:

It is righteous to speak words that are not deviant; such words

are a result of unbiased thoughts that are not deviant.

(This is the English version of the Tamil story 'AnMigach choRpozhivu' by the same author)

Verse 112 (Soon)
Verse 110