Religious versioning and role of printing

Very few among general public question a printed work believing it as some gospel truth. The way printing (including web printing and modern electronic media) transformed religions had never happened in olden times. This continues to transform even today more vigorously with tools like whatsApp, wikipedia and facebook becoming vehicles of propagation of new ideas and interpretations. This is true for most faiths which all transformed to newer versions based on newer interpretations by people having significant following of their own. With advantage of mass distributable media, they made their versions significantly popular representative of some supposedly ancient and sacred books.

Biggest advantage for Ramchritramanas or for various versions of other religious texts which we find popular in our times, has been that these received advantage of bulk reproduction and distribution leading to achieve immense popularity as we observe today. The ancient books never received advantage of mechanical printing and particularly offset printing at the time these were conceived originally, and being loosely conserved and propagated through chiefly oral means got subjected to additions and revisions by many sects and commoners alike. 

Printing technology which emerged some 300 years back in India made these texts like Ramcharitamanas easily distributable universally. Whole cult of reading printed religious books together in groups also emerged because of easy availability of books everywhere, organisations and people distributing them. Plays started being enacted in streets and in village fairs based on printed books and booklets available widely making these story versions not just popular but giving them sort of status of guiding reference defining a religion. 

Can we call Tulsidas misogynist

ढोर, गँवार, शूद्र, पशु नारी

सकल ताड़न के अधिकारी

Rationalising ताड़ना here as section of neopurists started to explain to bail out Tulsidas is itself irrational. He indeed meant treating women not just worthy of reprimand (only meaning of ताड़ना in context of this couplet) but he also grouped women along with animals and other human whom people of those times treated like animals and that’s fact from our culture followed even today to some extent. This malice of dogmatism is so entrenched today in class of people that even women come forward to defend the indefensible.

Given this, Tulsidas was one of the finest poets humanity has seen. Ramcharitramanas is epical poem with no parallel. But somewhere we forget such great literature should be treated as work of art and respected accordingly whether of Kalidas or of Homer or of Shakespeare. In india we tend to merge literary work with religious beliefs and treat that as testimony of mythology. People may have different view on this and like to disagree which I respect as their right.

When Tulsidas wrote his version of story of Ram in language spoken by people during his time, he was very naturally penning to include sentiments of society during his time. Those were medieval times when Indian society was fragmented more strongly into castes and women were treated little with respect barring very few examples primarily from royals. Which erroneously is sometimes used to project women as free emancipated part of society of those times. They were not free. Tulsidas’s work was reflection of society during his time. He can’t be held responsible for those words as this was normal during his upbringing period. Standards of morality keep changing with time. 

Tulsidas can’t be blamed for what he wrote. Also it is no point defending that with irrational logical explanations as is being done with word ताड़ना. When we were growing up certain crass words we used as abuses are now used in common parlance and in family too. That’s example how society changes and adapts to new standards of morality. The book written by Tulsidas still needs to be respected as great literary work.