And the role of
Hanuman in it……
What if I told you that there was a time when many a person believed
Englishmen were the descendants of Hanuman and his ape friends? And If I
continued to state that this was serious stuff, not words of sarcasm, ridicule
or any kind of contempt for the white man? Well, it was so and as I got deeper
and deeper into the story, I saw that it stretched into the performing arts of
Kerala, the Kathakali, where its effect remains to this day. But to get to the
origins, you have to go to the days when the Ramayana epic was embedded deep in
the psyche of the common man.
Before we do that, we have to visit Malabar in the 15th
through 17th century. Those days were turbulent alright with the Portuguese
sometimes embedded in the wars between the Zamorin and Cochin, as well as a few
fought in the seas involving the Portuguese and the marakkars. But the man on
the street was not really affected and Malabar went on with its merry ways as a
feudal society with the Nambuthiris, the educated lot at the apex, then the
Nairs and following them all the other classes, castes and tribes. Sanskrit was
the language of the learned, and Malayalam was just starting to evolve from
Tamil and Sanskrit. The white men from the West was making his presence felt,
and of course, the local populace observed them and their habits keenly. The
foreigners - both men and women dressed differently, covering much of their
body, compared to the barely clad locals, they ate food which the locals never
ate, such as the meat of the cow and they drank liquor in the evenings. They
were strong and courageous in the battle field and well, people asked
questions.
If they were doing things which were against the prescribed norm,
how was it that they were strong and victorious? The Nambudiri’s came up with a
theory and the scribes recorded it faithfully. But naturally, it had to fit
with the epics and holy books for popular acceptance. As time went by, more
white men appeared, the Dutch and later the French and the English. The last of
the lot manifested themselves even more closely with the locals and soon
displaced the local chiefs and titular heads. I must also hasten to add that
while I am focusing on the Malabar side of the story, similar accounts popped
up from other parts of the land around the same time and we will get into a
couple of those later on. The brief conclusion was that these foreigners had
something to do with a strong and warlike lot such as the monkeys who fought for
Rama against Ravana, in Lanka and that the Englishmen, could be their progeny,
naturally complete with a tail in the rear.
The thought that Englishmen have tails existed even before
that and is ascribed to a Scottish belief from the 16th century. A
version reported in BBC went thus - In
his chronicle, 'The Scotichronicon' (c. 1440), Walter Bower relates the story
of how some of the English acquired their tails. Apparently, in 597, when St
Augustine came to preach the word of God to the West Saxons in Dorset, he came
to the village of Muglington where the people distorted and contradicted what
he said, or simply wouldn’t listen to him. They even had the audacity to hang
fish tails from his clothing. The story goes that God decided to punish these
Saxons, along with their descendants and the rest of their country, for this
insult to one of his anointed messengers. As Bower relates: ‘For God smote them
in their hinder parts, giving them everlasting shame so that in the private
parts both of themselves and their descendants all alike were born with a tail.’
The Scots said it of the English, the English said it of the French, and it
seemed to be a common insult to hurl at one's opponents.
Medieval Frenchmen had a tradition, which survived even to
the nineteenth century, implying that Englishmen had tails, which they
cunningly concealed. Other nations were also sure of it, the Greeks of Sicily, as it appears - when forced to entertain British crusaders in 1190 termed them as ‘tailed
Englishmen’. At the end of the 13th century, the besieged Scots at
Dunbar castle shouted ‘ye English dogs with long tails! We will kill you and
cut off your tails’ (Peter Ackroyd). A few shouted after a battle that they
would make ropes for themselves from the Englishmen's tails to tie them up on
the following day. Some academics mention that the inference was due to the
long hair English men sported, worn down like a tail. But all that were for
different reasons and did not involve the monkey brigade which went to Lanka.
But let us return to the Namboodiri in Malabar, and he chose
to do exactly that, which was to pin a tail on the Englishman. The epic they
chose to associate the Englishman was the Ramayana. It is difficult to point out
exactly when and how this was done, but what we do know is that Englishmen of
repute heard of it from their associates in Malabar. One JF Logan had to prove
he did not have one and others wrote their opinions about it. The version
reported in The Academy-July 1893 was the version provided by a Namboothiri to Edward
Nicholson. Edward incidentally was an Army doctor who authored one of the first
works on tropical snakes and spent a while in Malabar.
He recounts: I have just come across the same charge (English
have tails) in a Malyalam legend grafted on to the Ramayanam. It was in an old
notebook, which I had forgotten at the time of the correspondence. I give the
story as it was told me in Malabar, many years ago; I spell the proper names as
they are pronounced in Malyalam.
The legend of Belal
Kitia: When Ramen's army of monkeys
were building the bridge from Rameshwaram to Lanka, they were hindered by
Värunen (the sea-god), and the monkeys came to Ramen complaining of the rough
sea produced by Varunen. So Ramen prayed to the sea to let him build the
bridge, but Varunen paid no attention. Then Ramen became angry, and took his
bow and arrows to destroy the sea. But as soon as his arrow was fixed, Varunen
got frightened and came out of the sea; and he came to Ramen, bringing a
present of a bright gold colored cucumber, and begged Ramen's pardon. But Ramen
said, having fixed his arrow he must discharge it - at what? Then Varunen said
there is a country over there where Rakshashas live; destroy that country. So
Ramen shot the arrow, and it killed everyone in the country, and then came back
after washing itself in the sea. And then Ramen, having finished the bridge,
went over to Lanka and destroyed Ravanen and his Rakshasha army. And after he
had made Ravanen's brother king, the Rakshashis came and complained that they
were all pregnant by Ramen's monkeys. What to do? So Ramen bid them all get
into a ship and go to the country, Belal-kitia, the inhabitants of which he had
destroyed with his arrow. But they said, how shall we live there? And he gave
them a palm-leaf (writing-leaf) and a broom-twig (for a pen) and told them they
should live by that. So they went into the boat and rowed to that country, and
had children who became very clever. The English people are descendants of
them, and being of monkey ancestry they have tails. And being descended from
Dévas [monkey-gods] and Rákshashis [female demons] they partake of both
natures, the men being like Dévas and the women like Rákshashis. And they
breakfast in the morning like Dévas, on proper simple food, but they dine like
Rákshashas on meat and strong drink.” This explanation of the “valakaren’’
nature by simple Hindu country folk is singular. And the general Indian dislike
of Englishwomen, a feeling not unreciprocated, shows itself in a very
uncomplimentary form.
The origin of this story however dates back to the
Portuguese times when as it appears the Alvancheri Thrampakkal narrated this to
the Zamorin of Calicut (Keralodaya – KN Ezhuthachan) and suggested that the
Zamorin carry out a number of yaga’s and rites to counter the white man’s
strength. Now all that was certainly interesting, and believe it or not, this
story has many other corollaries and localized versions, as we shall soon see.
But one question to be asked was did they men Vaal Karen – man with a tail or Vella
Karen - white man when the term was coined? Could it have been the former? And
did the term belal kitia mean bilayet? I think valkaren was hardly used and the
connection to Bilati shows a potential link to the Bhavishya Purana about which
we will talk later.
Another account in the Indian review (Vol 57, 1956) is even
more amazing and I quote - A Nambudripad
of Malabar declared that all Europeans are descendants of Hanuman and are
furnished with a tail. Mr. J. F. Logan, I. C. S., undressed himself before a
Parishad and demonstrated that he had no tail. The Parishad duly passed a
resolution "This Englishman apparently is an exception and has no
tail." I am at a loss as to who this JF Logan is, for we did have
William Logan (Malabar Collector) and he does not mention this anywhere, but it
is stated so in the above publication.
All this was debated for some time in various English meetings,
which sometimes involved learned Indians too. The Journal of the Royal society
of arts provides examples of how common spread this belief was. RA Leslie Moore
mentions: The Hindu belief in Bombay is
that the English are descended from Hanuman, the Monkey King. After all,
Hanuman was a good fighter, and apparently a cheery soul, to judge from the
red-leaded images of him adorning every Deccan village.
One Mr KG Gupta C.S.I
replied that this was not prevalent in Bengal but he agreed on its possibility
and stated ‘Having regard to the extreme energy, of the average Englishman, his
agility in the tennis- court, or cricket-field, or in the ball-room, it was
possible that in some parts of India he might be considered as being descended
from the ape. He also thought that the Hindus actually gave the Englishman very
great credit, because he did not regard him as a descendant from an ordinary
ape (like the rest of us), but from Hanuman, the Lord of Monkeys.
The discussion became serious and Gupta added his thoughts -
Hanuman was the ally and friend of Rama,
one of the great Indian deities; he assisted Rama in civilizing and Aryanising
Ceylon, and he was a loyal, thoroughly good and kind ape. He was so loyal that
when his loyalty was once questioned he tore open his breast for everybody to
see that on his heart was written the name of his friend and patron Rama. If
they (English) had to admit that they were descended from apes, surely the best
thing that could possibly happen was to be descended from the best of the apes,
so that there was nothing discreditable about it at all. Coming to the question
of superstitions, what were superstitions? Did not they represent the exercise
of that faculty which had brought all human knowledge, i.e., the inductive
faculty? All the highest achievements of science were due to that process.
Superstition was an inference drawn from one or two coincidences. It was faulty
in that sense, but was the result of the same process.
Sir George Birdwood charmingly opined thus in reply - whether it was to be regarded as implying
compliment or contempt would depend on the feeling and thought of the person at
the time of giving expression to it: for the Hindus, like all the quick-witted
people of Southern Eurasia, from Greece to India, have a wonderful way of
conveying praise and blame, blessing and cursing, in the same words. So, he
concluded, ‘spoken by a Hindu, in the plain sense of the words, the tradition
referred to by Mr. Leslie Moore could have been repeated to him only in the
spirit of the sincerest praise’. A common Hindu saying in Bombay is: -
"Even the High Gods themselves delight in flattery."
But the story does not end there, for this tale can possibly
be seen to be part of a work called the Bhavishya Purana (Pratisarga Parva) and
perceived to have been written or modified sometime after the English settled
in Calcutta, narrates the origin of Harikhanda (Europe) and the Gurundas (white
bodied). The Gurundas are connected to the monkeys of Ramayana. Those which
died were brought to life by Ravana and consorted with the women in Ravanas’s harem.
The Gurundas came for trade and started it at the city of Kalikata by the order
of their queen Vikatavati (Queen Victoria). This myth also, as the myth from
Malabar, connects the origin of the Gurundas who are evidently the British, to
the monkeys of the Ramayana.
I could not get a hold of the original verses, but I got to the Kanchi kamakoti translations, and this is what
it states - Shri Rama of Ramayana after
vanquishing Ravana made possible many of dead vanara soldiers who fought
valiantly to get back to life, the important ones being Vikata, Vrujil, Jaal,
Burleen, Simhal, Jawa (Jaawa), Sumaatra (Sumatra), etc. He gave the boon to
these Vanaras that quite a few Dwipas (Islands) far and near Lanka be occupied
and that they would be Kings of these Islands and that Architect Jaalandhara
would help construct and even their wives would be procured from among those
Devakanyas liberated after Ravana’s death. The Vanaras were
delighted at the happening and in course of time, the habitants of the Islands
developed trade contacts with Garunds (British) of the Western World,
especially with Isha Putras (Khishtha, Ishu or Isamasiha). The inhabitants were
Surya Deva worshippers and virtuous and honest people worthy of promoting
overseas business and the King of the Western Dwipa of England called Vikata
and later on by his wife Vikatavatior Victoria ruled over there by Ashta
Koushala Marg (under the Counsel of Parliament). The British Raj witnessed high
prosperity by executing overseas business generation after generation with
democracy (Rule of Citizens) with the hereditary Queen or King elected by a
Prime Minister; the ninth Chief Representative of Gurunds was Mekal (Lord
Macaulay) who administered the Raj with honesty for twelve years; he was
followed by Laurdel (Lord Wavel) who ruled for thirty two years.
In the above, you will find that the islanders conducted
trade with the gurundas. Nevertheless, the monkey connection may have been
deduced by the Nambudiri from the Bhavishya Purana and these special divine powers
of the monkey brigade also seem to account for the capacity of Europeans for
sea voyage and oceanic adventures, all which were taboo for the common man in
Malabar.
Later, and funnily enough, some lent flight to their
imagination and connected the tail of Hanuman to the tail coat worn by the
Englishman, maybe that was the image which got them the Hanuman link. On the other
hand, some opine that the concept of a tail went from Hanuman Ram Leela stage
shows to the dressing of gentry in England, during formal occasions!
Then there is the associated account as related to Trijata,
the daughter of Vibhishana and one who was friendly to Sita during her period
of confinement in Lanka. She (in other versions it is Mandodari) is considered
to be Queen Victoria, in a rebirth, according to Upasni Baba (Meher baba’s guru
and Shirdi Saibaba’s pupil). The Baba narrates (early 20th century)
- Trijata was a Brahmana, and loved the
Kshatriya Rama. The duty of the Kshatriyas is to rule. Being a Brahmana and
being intensely devoted to Rama, Trijata should have attained the real state of
Rama. But she was devoted to the ruler Rama and hence her progeny, though
Brahmana by class, came forth as the rulers on this earth. Once the progeny was
brought into being the atma of Trijata joined the real state of Rama. The punya
accumulated by Trijata in serving Sita forced her Jiva to have a body to enjoy
and expend that punya, and she came forth as Queen Victoria. Since the state of
Sita was ever existent in her heart (due to which she had desired to have Rama
as her husband) the Kingdom of the Queen Victoria was virtually the Kingdom of
Sita. Just as the Ramarupa that satisfied the desire of Trijata returned to its
original state on satiating her desire, in the same way, the husband of Queen
Victoria after the birth of their progeny returned to the state of Sat. All
this explains why Queen Victoria loved this country.
Now this was all interesting, perhaps still accepted by some
and scoffed by others, but what is important is that the many of the learned
accepted all these hypotheses gladly during a three to four hundred year period
as a possibility, and allowed it to direct their actions!
But what connection does this have with our revered art form
Kathakali? Ah! My father would have gone on and on about that art itself for he
was very fond of the art. I understood very little of it and have never had the
patience to savor the lengthy performances, being the dimwitted fool I was, and
slept off as it went on into the wee hours of the morning in our temples.
If you observe the headgear of Hanuman in Kathakali
carefully, you will find that it is very different from that of other
characters. You will find that it is styled somewhat after a pike helmet oft used
by the British, but one with a wider than normal brim and a majestic brass spike.
The origin of this white and silver trimmed ‘vattamuti’ is ascribed to the Kadathanad
Raja (d 1727)in North Malabar during the 18th century, and the story
is that he styled it after French military hats from Mahe (some others say
Christian priest style hats modified to have double domes and a spike). I am
more inclined to connect it with the Pike helmet since the French wore flat
topped hats in Malabar, but maybe I am wrong, perhaps the French did wear such
a hat. The white man was sometimes termed the ‘red monkey’ and you will also
note that Hanuman’s Kathakali facial getup is made up with a black top half and
a red bottom half, replete with a white sideburns / beard or vellathaadi. He
wears a woolen hairy coat, completing the European monkey connection.
That brings us to an end and well, now you know how it all came
about, right? But then again, all these are myths or events bound by myths, and
the question is, should one spend time trying to figure it all out? Romila
Thaper answers the question interestingly - Myth
is at one level a straight forward story, a narrative: at another level it
reflects the integrating values around which the societies are organized. It
codifies belief, safeguards morality, vouches for efficiency of the ritual and
provides social norms. In a historical tradition therefore the themes of myths
act as factors of continuity…….
You can perhaps recount this story to a friendly Brit over a
pint of bitter (maybe better after two or three), but I would not guarantee
that the results would always be accompanied with much bonhomie!
References
The Academy – Vol 43, 1103, June 24, 1893
Journal of the Royal Society of arts – Vol. 59, No. 3040 Indian
Superstitions E. A. Leslie Moore
Essence of Bhavishya Purana VDN Rao
The Talks of Sadguru Upasni-Baba Maharaja Volume II Part B
South Indian History Congress Jan 1999, The Myth of the
origin of White People and its Role in Resistance to Europeans in Malabar - Dr.
T. Vasudevan
Ancient Indian Social History: Some Interpretations - Romila
Thapar
BBC article – Englishmen and tails
Pics Hanuman – Courtesy Hindu and photographer named.
